User talk:Ibrahim4048

Welcome!

Hello, Ibrahim4048, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Page posting formats

As you asked, here is how posting indent formatting works.

I make a comment. (1)

I wish to respond to that comment.(2)

I wish to respond to the second comment.(3)

I respond to the third comment.(4)

I wish to respond to the first comment also, after the other comments were posted. (5)

Does that explain it? Let me know if you have more questions. Tealwisp (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. Do not use Wikipedia for pushing a point of view. Edit warring and POV pushing is unacceptable under any circumstances, and if you continue to do so, you will quickly find yourself banned from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the the contributions/arguments I made are original thought. They are all from academics, published by established publishing houses and universities. I am not the one who is pushing POV here. Kansas Bear and the others are by not allowing even the expression of doubt about the genocide and their desire to represent it as an established fact. Since you deny me the right to discuss my contributions about the armenian genocide and appear to agree with pro-recognition views, I can assume wikipedia has taken a stand in the dispute on the side of armenian genocide recognizers? At least that way we can establish wikipedia's position on the genocide and perhaps something could be done against it. Or is it just your POV and abusing your administrator rights to push your POV? How can you deny me the right to defend my contributions when they are all properly referenced by legitimate sources? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing my administrator rights, nor am I pushing a POV. I warned you solely because you were about to violate the three-revert-rule, and I wanted to make you aware of the rule so that you would not be blocked. I have, to the best of my knowledge, never edited any articles even remotely related to Turkey and Armenia, or if I did, the edits were either removing vandalism or correcting obvious typos or formatting errors. So you cannot even tell what POV I have in this situation, much less provide evidence that I am abusing my administrator rights to push a POV. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page ettiquette

I know you're new to Wikipedia, so I just want to give you a tip: be as concise as possible when you post to a talk page. You can read an essay on it at WP:TLDR. I know you have a lot to say, but there are some editors who don't bother to read long comments, and that can result in an array of problems. If you have to post a long comment, I recommend spreading it across a few paragraphs so that it is easier to follow. Just remember to put the colons at the start of each new paragraph so that they are all equally indented. Tealwisp (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Mehmed Talat. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. Cheers Kyle1278 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not correct comments can be removed if they are an attack or a threat which your seems to be "how dare you" is an example Wikipedia is not a battle ground it is for nice calm talk which you did not contribute to. Cheers Kyle1278 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts made to the Mehmet Talat article

Your recent edits are being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Disruptive_edits_to_the_Mehmet_Talat_article, you may wish to respond. Meowy 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed Talat

I don't think you can bring about a "win" here for your side. The other editors are unwilling to compromise on this case. You may have some better luck discussing the idea of trying to avoid using the word "genocide" on a talk page, but I doubt it. You may want to start an RfC reharding the POV fork that you believe you found. I think you may have a good point with that, and I will try to help you start it if I can. Tealwisp (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I'll be watching. I have had long-term aspirations to improve both the Armenian Genocide entry and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide entry. So, Ibrahim4048, if you do continue, I might have to bring those aspirations forward. I've given this advice before: "let sleeping dogs lie". The end result of your editing of "sleeping" articles may be that they become so improved that your POV-warring will have the opposite effect that you desire. That, ironically, has already happened in the Mehmet Talat article - the additional materials on the courts martial would not have been there if it were not for you, and the silly Andonian quote would probably still be there! Meowy 01:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am no POV warroir as you repeatedly claimed, I would welcome any improvement as long as it is referenced and verified. Let me remind you again that I am not a genocide denier. I recognized the genocide for a time in my life but after reading some books, I started having doubts about it and the way it is used and portrayed in the media. The young turks were not nazi's and the armenians were certainly not so innocent and do not compare with the patriotic people the jews were in germany. I can understand the hardships the armenians went trough and see why they call it a genocide. The only problem for me is the double standards that are being used in the use of the term genocide. Why not call what turks went trough in the balkan and the crimea genocide? Why not call the attempt by the european powers to destroy the ottoman empire and all the victims that fell as a result genocide? Why not call palestina genocide? The palestinians are also in an armed nationalistic struggle just like the armenian dashnaks and hunchaks were and just like armenians civilians were the victims of the struggle so are the palestinian civilians the victims of the struggle between israel and hamas.

The term genocide is used as a political weapon and not as a justified term. Either loosen the criteria for genocide so that it means something like large amount of civilian victims and apply it to all cases or realize that the current criteria for genocide are not met in the armenian genocide allegation. You have to prove that the ottoman government had the intention to exterminate the armenian people. I don't believe they had such intentions and only reacted to the dangerous situation of the approaching russians and armenian separatist groups aiding them by taking a measure (relocation) that was intended to save their own lives. I do not deny this measure had disastrous effects on the armenians nor that beside the relocation there were massacres committed by the kurdish, arab, circassian and turkish militia's and civilians. All this was a result of the war and they are simply things that happen in war. If you want to call it a genocide go ahead but call all the other massacres where civilians fell genocide too. If you don't and only call the holocaust and the armenian genocide, genocide then you are saying the armenian genocide was the same thing as the holocaust and this simply is not true. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact and fantasy

Dear Ibrahim4048,

Hang on in there in your dispute with Meeow. He just had a go at me on the same page for asserting that there was a Russian invasion of Turkey in November 1914. See my response. You can't tell these Assyrians anything, I'm afraid. They're just too brainwashed to accept anybody else's version of events, whether backed up by sources or not. Keep presenting him with the inconvenient truth, and you might get somewhere in the end.

Djwilms (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The assyrian genocide was committed on several aramaic speaking peoples not only on those who called themselves assyrians (which was not used widely among them anyway but more by foreigners). The name assyrian has been used incorrectly throughout the history of the aramaeans. They called them syrians first because they lived in that region and were the first christians there and later started to call them assyrians which is incorrect because they were aramaeans, not the ancient assyrians [3]"

Abject nonsense!

Actually, the term Assyrian has been in constant use since the fall of the Assyrian empire, its well documented and proven, i myself have a family tree going back over 500 years with names such as Sharrukin, Sinharib, Tiglath etc mentioned in the 1700's AD! The area was known as Assyria and its inhabitants Assyrians by the Achamaenid Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Romans and Sassanids, as well as in medeival Armenian and Georgian records.

The term syrian, is a Greek bastardisation of the term Assyrian anyway, and the application of the name to the modern Arab nation of Syria is innacurate. And in classical and medeival times the terms Syrian = Assyrian, they were synonemous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 hour block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing on Mehmed Talat. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ibrahim4048 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was I blocked? I did nothing wrong? They deleted my sourced and referenced edit with explanation on the talk page. It's not my problem that they don't accept my explanation and the academic sources such as those of Guenter Lewy's. You are blocking the wrong person.

Decline reason:

Declaring your intentions on the article's talk page does not exempt you from the WP:EDITWAR policy. You were clearly trying to force others to accept your version of the article, a direct violation of WP:EDITWAR. You may not repeatedly revert an article to force others to accept it, even if you believe you are right. When this block expires, instead of trying to repeatedly readd the same information, seek to build a consensus on the article's talk page or seek dispute resolution in order to bring in outside editors to comment and help establish consensus. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|1=I have already sought dispute resolution, trough intermediation/cabal. The dispute was also brought forward to the arbitration enforcement [1]. I have asked for a clear answer whether wikipedia recognized the Armenian genocide as fact and the denial/skepticism of it as fringe theory but got no clear answer. They said that references should be made and due weight given. I have proven on the talk page that this is not a small minority view and is backed up by several academics and European countries (United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark etc) who dispute the premeditated nature of the massacres. Clearly this is a legitimate dispute in contrast to the holocaust denial. There are circumstances (attacks by Armenian terrorist/separatist groups) in which you could justify the relocation. Besides that the genocide is not an established fact there is also wrong information given by stating that the tehcir/relocation initiated the massacres. The massacres were committed by local militias, gangs and individuals not by ottoman troops. The tehcir and massacres are unrelated, thus stating that the tehcir initiated the massacres is wrong unless there are documents that prove that along with the orders for the tehcir/relocation an order was also given to commit the massacres. No such documents exist. So basically you are condoning the falsification of historical fact. Why are you singling me out for edit warring by the way? Don't they try to push their view too? I am merely defending my right to give legitimate information, that is not trying to push my view. Me saying that something allegedly happened and giving references for my view does not delete their view that it happened. It co-exists with their view and leaves them room to represent their view. They are deleting the skepticism view and suppress legitimate information. Why am I the one who is blocked then? Either openly recognize the Armenian genocide and say that you see denial/skepticism of the Armenian genocide as fringe theory or be impartial and defend my right to give legitimate referenced information too.}}

Hi Ibrahim4048, to clarify the reason for blocking you, the problem isn't so much the view you're expressing, more the manner in which you are expressing this view. In particular, you have repeatedly made the same edit to Mehmed Talat, and been reverted by multiple editors. Your response was describe these editors as vandals, and to argue they had to present proof that your edit was wrong. In my honest opinion, this approach is disruptive. I suggest you have a look at WP:ARBAA2, which explains that edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:

Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

--Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for deleting the Category:Anti-Armenianism

Will you support my arguement for the deletion of the Category:Anti-Armenianism that I put forward on May 1, 2009?

It is very subjective and even racist as it puts every person who questions the Armenian genocide, such as prominent academicians, who are not racist or personally against Armenian people or Armenia as an entity, along with assasins and militants.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.154 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

In this edit you directly pasted in more text from the study, without putting it in quotes. The fact thatother chunks of that study were already plagiarized doesn't mean it's ok to plagiarize even more of it; to be honest, if you know it was plagiarized you should have removed it. (I've now looked through the history and it looks like at least part of that study was plagiarized within this article for at least a year before I noticed it today and removed it.) Please familiarize yourself with WP:Plagiarism so that this doesn't happen again. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Ibrahim4048. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ← George^[talk] 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ibrahim4048

A tag has been placed on User:Ibrahim4048 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]