Fullscaledx

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Saying stuff like this isn't acceptable. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary:

"(‎Misinterpretation of Source Material: There is a difference between the Holocaust and the so-called Armenian "genocide". And, the ECtHR made that difference.)".

My edit:

I did not state that the ECtHR supported Perincek's statements on the so-called genocide. There is a decision that respects the freedom of speech for both acceptance/denial of the so-called "genocide". There is no such thing for the Holocaust. The denial of the Holocaust is punished. There is a difference between the Holocaust and the so-called Armenian "genocide". And, the ECtHR made that difference. So, I did not misinterpret the ECtHR's decision.

Later, I gave the link of the ECtHR's decision:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:%5B%22perincek%22%5D,%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-158235%22%5D} .

Also, I did NOT make an edit in the Article. I made an edit in the Talk Page of the Article to get consensus from the others, and to get the ideas of the others.
The others (Eelworm, Flalf^Talk) gave their ideas.
Eelworm, Flalf^Talk did not like my draft paragraph.
I was thinking how to change the draft. This is communication that seeks a consensus with the others.
What is wrong with that? This is not disruptive editing.

I did not edit the article by overriding Eelworm's and Flalf's opinion.
You (Moneytrees) could have specified your thought in that talk page as well, instead of directly blocking me without any warning. Fullscaledx (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Since we're strictly talking about opinions here, it is my opinion that you are pushing state-sponsored propaganda, and if this is the case, which I very, very strongly believe to be so, then indeed you should not have the privilege to edit here again. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not bound by the interests of any state. I am here Wiki editor that sought a consensus on how to include the European Court of Human Rights related with this issue. So, if I was pushing state-sponsored propaganda, I would not seek any type of consensus. Notice, I edited in the Talk Page. And, whoever blocked me blocked me 1) based on my edit on the Talk Page (that seeks a consensus for an edit) 2) without any warnings before directly blocking. So, my opinion is that:

1. the ones who are pushing state-sponsored propaganda are those who defend no matter what happens ECtHR's decision must NOT take place in "Armenian G." article.
2. All the major court cases related with Wiki articles must be given in the related articles. Especially those of International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of Arbitration, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) etc. Trying to conceal them is bad intention, and hiding the truth whatever the truth is.
3. If there is really a situation that tends to be blocked of any Wiki users, Wiki admins should notice/alert that situation to the related user in advance.
So, I don't find the blocking of mine as ethical.Fullscaledx (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The court case definitely isn't notable or relevant enough to be included the Armenian genocide article, neither I or anyone else who participated in that discussion were pushing state-sponsored propaganda. As I said above the case is not very notable or relevant, it does not warrant its own article. We are not trying 'to conceal' what happened, in fact it is covered in the article on Doğu Perinçek. Also on the third point, yes, policy indicates that usually users are warned before a block, but warnings are not a prerequisite for a block so an administrator may block you if they see it fit, as was done in this case. TL;DR All three of these arguments are poor but if you think this block shouldn't have happened you can appeal. Flalf^Talk 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2018-now Cyprus negotiations

Hello, Fullscaledx. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2018-now Cyprus negotiations".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)