Oatitonimly

Oatitonimly, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Oatitonimly!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

Your recent editing history at Turkish–Armenian War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cahk (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing at "Requested move 2 May 2016"

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Darwinian Ape ^talk 18:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Renaming wikilinks and other things

Until the issue of the article name is settled, I don't think you should be making a large number of edits altering Turkish–Armenian War to Turkish Invasion of Armenia. You should definitely not be doing it for Wikilinks because there is no Turkish Invasion of Armenia article or a redirect with that title. The only current redirect is Turkish Invasion of Armenia (1920). This you definitely should not have done - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_23&diff=prev&oldid=718195722 - you are altering the posts made by other editors and this is not allowed. I have reverted your edit for that reason. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gyumri. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Treaty of Alexandropol

Hi, I haven't realized that it was my fourth revert at Treaty of Alexandropol but your revert was also your fourth revert in the same article. I self reverted though I appreciate if you do the same and take it to the talk page of the article. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oatitonimly. You have new messages at Darwinian Ape's talk page.
Message added 04:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Georgian-Armenian War "First Republic of Armenia"

Hey, you've been recently trying to revert my edits on the section Georgian-Armenian war of the article "First Republic of Armenia" stating it is "no academic research" which is not really a valid reason to do when you have a very detailed article of 75 pages with research quoting and referencing several other sources and authors including Hovnanian. Hovanian himself does only give a comparibly more brief overview on the conflict itself while Andersen provides the conflict itself in a lot of detail with practicaly the same base only additional information - that he didn't simply pull out of his bottom but mostly quotes and references. So please avoid doing that as it doesn't seem very reasonable, especialy since I'm not deleting or changing anything but simply inserting a major event that needs to be mentioned. Peace out. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)#

Oatitonimly, you keep deleting informations on an article without any valid reason. You requested a talk eg descussion. However you've been ignoring any opporunity to provide explenation to your edits on any talk page, including your own despite me opening a talk section. Either explain why you're deleting sourced information with academic background ( as you like to insist on ) or avoid that behaviour altogheter. Trying to revert valid edits won't help anyone. I am still ready to discuss and work this out if you show the desire to act more reanably. For instance by replying. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Those are not numbers I invented but the exact numbers that are stated in Andersen's article, maybe you should read it, btw Hovannian even gives greater casualty figures for the Armenians. Hold on to your own principles please. Deleting the talk page is no solution .... TheMightyGeneral (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this from my talk page since you blatantly keep ignoring it and resorted to keep deleting content without discussion at this point.

Sources

Where are you really getting these sources from? There is no mention of: Georgian National Guard, Sioni, Cholokashvili, Katharinenfeld, Makashvili, Sadakhlo, Ayrum, Tsulukidze, Privolnoye, Korolkov, Troitskoe, Lamballo, and the numbers 100, 200, 560, 600, 4,000, 6,000, 6,500 on the Andersen or Lang sources. It seems you are either making this up or getting your information from some Georgian language cite and claiming it's from academics. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I take those exact numbers from Andersen, read his article. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't couldn't find this info anywhere. Cite the page numbers or it gets removed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't "quick research" on that article so you have to actualy read it, preferably download to make it easier for oneself as I did.

To the figures found in the section "Escalation of the Conflict: Uprising in Lori and Armenian Offensive "

Pages 26 - 45

Page 27

"....Thus the Georgian forces in Sanain-Alaverdi area found themselves in a very difficult situation. The first group consisting of the Sanain detachment of the Provincial Battalion (60 infantrymen) and an armoured train with the team – blocked in the village of Sanain. The second group - three companies of the 5th Infantry Regiment, one company of the 6th Infantry Regiment, an artillery battery, two mortar platoons and the second armoured train (about 600 men, in total) took defensive positions in Alaverdi, at the bottom of the Debed (Borchala) River gorge surrounded by overwhelming numbers of Armenian troops that included the 4th and the 6th regiments of the 2nd Armenian Rifle Division, battalions of the 1st Regiment of the 1st Armenian Rifle Division, three squadrons of the Mounted Brigade and unites of local Armenian militia (at least 4.000 men altogether plus 20 artillery pieces)46. On December 14 facing the above situation Tsulukidze ordered evacuation of both Sanain and Alaverdi and break through enemy lines towards Sadakhlo station. ...." with ref

Pages 27 - 28

"...In the county of Akhalkalaki the situation was radically different from Lori, largely because the local Armenian population did not seem to object to being under Georgian jurisdiction, and refrained from rebelling against Georgian troops. Also ethnic Russian Dukhobors who inhabited the southern part of the disputed county, were not only loyal to the Georgian government, but preferred Georgian adminstration to the Armenian one49. One could also assume that the county enjoyed relative stability due to the presence of quite significant Georgian forces (more than 6 000 men) under command of General Ilia Makashvili (Makaev)..."

Pages 28 - 29

"...Meanwhile, the new Armenian offensive began in the eastern zone of the conflict. In the early morning of December 14, the units of the 4th, 5th and 6th Armenian Regiments under the command of Colonels Levon Ter-Nikogosov, Nesterovsky and Korolkov, advanced in three columns towards the line Vorontsovka – Privolnoye – Opreti - Ayrum. The total strength of attacking force, including reserves, was about
6000 infantry and 640 cavalry with 26 machine-guns and 7 mountain guns, not including several thousand armed rebels..."

Note:I actualy gave a slightly lower figure there.

Page 29

"...By that time Armenian left flank under the command of Ter-Nikogosov advanced in the direction of BolnisKhachen and Ekaterinenfeld (Ekaterinovka), and on the right flank the troops of Korolkov by a surprise maneuver took over the Ayrum station. As a result of the two-day long Ayrum operation, Georgian units of the 5th and 6th Regiments almost miraculously managed to escape from the encirclement, losing more than 500 men killed, wounded and taken prisoner and leaving behind 25 machine guns and 2 cannons54...."

Note I took that number initialy, but then replaced it with Hovannian's figure of 560 killed, wounded and taken prisoner.

The other numbers 100, 200 I don't know on which you are exactly referring to because there are several such figures in both Andersen's and Hovannian's material. Troop numbers and casualties. For troop numbers for instance, there is:

Page 29

"...On December 18, the forces of Tsulukidze (about 200 men strong, not including sick and wounded) entrenched in the foothills around the village and station of Sadakhlo..."

Hovannian in his book for instance states that the Armenian's lost about 200 men when the Georgians repulsed the Armenian army from Shulaveri for instance and 100 men in an earlier engagement.

Btw, you reverted the edit allready anyway without waiting for anyone to reply which is not appreciated, not that your edit is valid anyway. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said cite Lang's book, not an article that anyone could write. Also I checked those pages, and Andersen himself does not cite any books for most of this information. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope you didn't. Nice try. You asked exactly for the figures I stated to have taken from Andersen and I cited the figures from Andersen. Regarding Lang, read the excert from his book. I used that one mainly to support both Hovannian's and Andersen's work which both state exactly when and where the conflict ended. So again, no valid arguiments and excuses to what I now consider vandalism from your side. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said cite Lang's book, not an article that anyone could write. Also I checked those pages, and Andersen himself does not cite any books for most of this information. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope you didn't. Nice try. You asked exactly for the figures I stated to have taken from Andersen and I cited the figures from Andersen. Regarding Lang, read the excert from his book. I used that one mainly to support both Hovannian's and Andersen's work which both state exactly when and where the conflict ended. So again, no valid arguiments and excuses to what I now consider vandalism from your side. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said "on the Andersen or Lang sources". You cannot cite an entire book, you need to provide the page numbers. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are kidding right .... ? this is from just a few lines above:

..... "I take those exact numbers from Andersen, read his article. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't couldn't find this info anywhere. Cite the page numbers or it gets removed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying what you wrote yourself ?

I just both cited and gave page numbers ....

Nobody cited an entire book. Those are core information about the conflict events from both an article written by Andersen and a book written by Hovannian although I used Andersen as base because it's a more neutral source. You are not helping yourself. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You have not given a single page number or reliable source. Oatitonimly (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting " Georgian National Guard, Sioni, Cholokashvili, Katharinenfeld, Makashvili, Sadakhlo, Ayrum, Tsulukidze, Privolnoye, Korolkov, Troitskoe, Lamballo" from? These are in neither the Andersen nor Lang sources. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You can read right .... ? I just cited all the numbers from Andresen's article a few lines above with the exact page numbers. Those are information from Andersen's article. Again, read the article or stop bothering. I have allready written on which pages you find the numbers. In the exact pages 26 - 45 you find the information on those locations and persons. The only thing you need is to read the article. I suspect you're either blatantly lying or tried to use the search function ( strg+F - which doesn't work on that site - hence you should download it maybe as I did .... ) You are really not helping your cause right now, especialy when not providing a single valid argument to why you are reverting and deleting sourced material. You also completly ignore the argument to why I edited that section. The sources I provide besides Andersen are Lang and Hovannian. I'd say more than reliable. Now please refrain from further deleting sourced content.

Btw why would you give "was indecicive" as reason to revert my edit ? nobody argues the fact that it was indecicive. In fact the reason I edited is exactly to point that out. Because otehrwise it seemed like a full fledged Armenian victory which it a ) wasn't and b ) also didn't stop 30km away from Tbilisi, but in Sadakhlo near the nowdays Armenian border, when the Gerogians pushed the Armenians out of Shulaveri wich itself was as far as 60km away from the capital allready.

You prefer only Hovannian instead ? than please actualy read his book .... TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you are both missing a more important point. The "By December 25 they had reached positions 30 miles from Tbilisi before being defeated by the Georgian army at Shulaveri" wording of the content falsely suggests that there was an actual campaign plan by Armenia to capture Tbilisi, and that Armenian forces were advancing to do this until they were halted by a defeat at Shulaveri. The sources do not say such a thing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It was not the primary goal of the Armenians at least but the source states that it was considered as an option by them, if certain demands were not met ( like the transfer of Akhalkalaki to Armenia ). It was also regarded an immediate threat by the Georgians, especialy since there were issues mobilising a force outside of Akhalkalaki strong enough to at least prevent any further advance and eventualy counteract, which consequently did happen. I am definitly open to a more neutral and less misleading text/edit here but I do not see an issue with my edit regarding that though. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: so I made what I think is a more clarifying and less misleading edit that both sides can agree on. I'd welcome a reply from Oatitonimly as well and hope it settles this dispute here. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I don't care what you do to the war article for now because it's a stub anyway, but would you please remove your edits on the republic? You clutter too much confusing information into what is just supposed to be a short description. Shulaveri wasn't even the last major confrontation nor did it define the current borders. Also Tiflis was the correct spelling until 1930. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not the only one editing that article and fine I've replaced the "decicive ( despite the fact it actualy was one - but arguable not the - and despite the fact it clearly states that the fighting went on near the nowdays Armenian border ) with "a major" battle. I won't revert it because it is a short description truer to the events. Reverting it leads us back to the initial version which is misleading and doesn't give you a brief picture about how things actualy went down, rather implying that the war only stopped when the Armenian Army was 30km away from Tbilisi, which is not true. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgian–Armenian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shulaveri. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warning and content blanking

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WW 1 casualties

I checked the cited source David Fromkin , A Peace to End All Peace, p.213 on Google books. [1] The edit @ WW1 casualties is correct and the source reliable--Woogie10w (talk19:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Woogie10w, your point does not support the text in the article. The footnote text alleges that the Armenian Genocide and its 1.5 million victims is a "distorted work of wartime propaganda". It is not. The historical truth of the AG and the 1.5 million figure is accepted in all books about the Armenian Genocide except those that seek to deny it; these books were published in the 2010s, 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, etc. Such books cannot be called "wartime propaganda". The footnote above it states unequivocally "The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been 1.5 million". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sevres treaty

Regarding your edits here [2], while I think you have gone too far with renaming the Wikilinks, there is a general problem with these articles being riddled with Turkish propaganda lies - I've already removed the lies regarding the Sevres Treaty and Armenia - and work is needed to eliminate this. The claim that the terms were "far more severe than those imposed on the German Empire" is obviously a pov opinion and seems out of place in the lede, and one that also seems to have little basis in fact (the German Empire was required to relinquish all of its possessions, unlike the Ottoman Empire, was effectively abolished as an empire, unlike the Ottoman Empire, and its leader required to abdicate and be prosecuted for war crimes, unlike the Ottoman Sultan). The lede linked Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire is similarly full of lies and distortions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

I have initiated a discussion of the source A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire at Talk:World War I casualties. If you get a chance please add your thoughts on this source. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Erlikman

If you can read Russian, I will gladly send jpgs from his book. berndd11222@gmail.com Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I recommend "The Armenian Genocide" by Raymond Kevorkian. It was a bit tedious but well worth reading. I try to stay off Wikipedia and keep up on my reading.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

stop vandalism in all the pages!!! if you can justify all the terrorist acts against Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijan then prove it please, by using strong evidences (sure except Armenian sources), if you don't have then please, have respect to the others.−−Freedom Wolfs (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oatitonimly, I see you have been attempting to remove the worst of a toothless old wolf's propaganda. I've pov tagged some of his recent creations, if you want to do more pov tagging it would be a better way of getting the articles fixed. If you explain on the talk page what is wrong with the content and then pov tag the article, that opens the way for offending content to be removed so that the pov tag can be removed. If Freedom Wolfs reinserts the offending content, a good case for getting him blocked could be made. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield Shouldn't a POV tag be used for content that can be disputed, not content that is a huge violation of the guidelines? --Oatitonimly (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Depending on the issue, it could be the same thing. The huge violation here seems to be the unashamed pov wording, so I think the tag is legitimate. Of course the pov wording could just be removed without first tagging the article. However, tagging the article puts down a marker that there are pov problems and (because the pov tag has to be justifiable and be accompanied by an explanation about why it is necessary) this makes it difficult for Freedom Wolfs to re-insert the pov wording. It shouldn't be the task of other editors to have to clean up Freedom Wolfs' messes - if this editor continues in this way, repeatedly using pov wording, maybe he needs a formal warning that he is writing unacceptable content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why I dropped a warning and explanation on his talk, to open up the possibility of a ban if he keeps doing this. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi Oatitonimly. Please refrain from edit warring in pages like you're doing in Turkish War of Independence and Armenian Language. Please use the talk page and reliable sources. See WP:3RR, WP:TP and WP:RS. Thank you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC))

Please refrain from edit-warring. I am more than willing to talk about the subject in hand. You said you took it to the talk page, you did discuss there but never about the topic you keep deleting. I opened a discussion here. And please refrain from reverting until reaching consensus thus not risking violating the Three-Revert Rule. (N0n3up (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC))

You are also edit warring on Caucasian race. Stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discretionary Sanctions for Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oatitonimly. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)