User talk:Bosphore9

June 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to İnköy, Hozat, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello/Goodnight.

Why does my edit(s) not appear to be constructive ? Bosphore9 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bedros Kapamajian

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bedros Kapamajian, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Extended confirmed restrictions

Please be aware that all articles related to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are subject to an extended confirmed restriction. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this a menace ? You deleted many sourced content without any valable justification, is this because the content do not please you ? As long as you’re not able to give a counter argument/source I’ll undo your pro-censure/vandalism acts. Bosphore9 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh's notice above is standard procedure for new editors foraying into Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. As noted above, and as others have pointed out to you at ANI, you are expected to steer clear of topics related to Armenia or Azerbaijan on English Wikipedia until you have at least 500 edits and 30 days of experience on your account (you've passed the latter, but not the former). As per WP:GS/AA, other editors are entitled to revert any edits in violation of the 500/30 restriction, and failure to comply will result in a loss of editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the subject has nothing to do with Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. I stayed clear by giving sourced contents avoiding using Turkish one (I used Armenians and Frenchs one but Mr. Is unhappy). I know that I don’t have enough edits to reach 500 but I’m a member of this website for years and I can assume that I’m not a newbie at all. I’ll say it, the user above used as an advantage the fact that I don’t have enough edits for make me stop editing because theses edits don’t please him. Honestly, even if I reach the 500 I’m almost sure he will find a way to make me stop editing which is against NPOV principe of Wikipedia. Am I a fraud ? Isn’t Wikipedia a neutral website ? Bosphore9 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read the notices more carefully. The standard interpretation of Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide is that anything relating to Armenian politics, history or cultural patrimony is off limits, and anything relating to Azerbaijani politics, history or cultural patrimony is off limits as well. It is not the intersection of the two topics but the union of the topics that is covered by the sanctions.

Contentious topics procedures aside, I would suggest that with fewer than 20 edits to your name thus far, you are still quite new and are going to be learning your way around the site for quite some time to come. Anecdotally, editors don't stop making newbie mistakes until they hit 2,000+ edits. Mistakes are normal and expected, and outside of contentious topics the community is quite lenient and understanding to new editors learning the ropes. Heading straight for a contentious topic (unwittingly, presumably) is a bit like jumping straight into the deep end of the pool before you know how to swim. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Fewer than 20 edits ? Well that’s must be only for the English version (I am on 3 different languages with the same account). With being member for over 6 years I can assume I’m not a newbie at all. And by the way I got « blocked » by the above user I can guess that even if one day I’ll reach the « 500 stage » he will surely find a way to block me. My sources were academic one. I’m not a usurpator nor a liar but the above user consider me as a denialist even though I used as a source someone from « his side ». You can easily tell the fact that he added the protection not because I was a “newbie” but because he was irritated for what I’ve done. Also If the category is about everything that is about Armenia and Azerbaijan, why does the members are Armenians ? Is this an example of neutrality too ? If you tell me that the website isn’t as neutral as it’s seems, I’ll give up but otherwise I’ll not. Bosphore9 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you mean by Also If the category is about everything that is about Armenia and Azerbaijan, why does the members are Armenians. But on some level it doesn’t matter: just avoid writing about Armenian topics until you hit 500

edits and have made sure you understand the policies and practices specified by WP:CTOP and you’ll be fine. Learn how to edit English Wikipedia while focusing on a different topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So you mean there’s no neutrality until I hit 500 edits ? I honestly edit rarely because I do not get the need to. If it’s really the way things are working I can justify spam multiple tiny edits for reach quickly the 500 but I don’t want to and this is not what’s going to make me a experimented user. I’m already enoughly experienced. About your first sentence, we both know what I meant by that but never mind. Adding a protection is effective in a case where there’s a ongoing editing war but for my case it was a poor and incomplete page that I improved. The actual look of the page has missing details. This is against logic. The user above is literally abusing of his status but it look like that everyone are closing their eyes. Ah also, “just avoid writing about Armenian topics until you get 500 edits” is a bit strange, make me feel like a whole nation is a taboo which is against the liberty of expression and npov. Bosphore9 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You can read more about how and why this regime was implemented by reviewing the discussions that led to it: [1], [2]. Also related are the ARBCOM cases on Palestine-Israel and Antisemitism in Poland, where the ECR measure was first considered and adopted, as well as the arbitration case that led to Armenia and Azerbaijan being designated contentious topics.

As far as we both know what I meant by that, no I genuinely don't. Also If the category is about everything that is about Armenia and Azerbaijan, why does the members are Armenians is not intelligible English. Setting aside the minor grammatical errors, I don't know what you mean by category, or member--neither of those things make any sense in context. Sen Türkçe'de daha iyi yazapbilir mısın?

FWIW, editors who spam edits to try to abuse the system get their privileges revoked (WP:GAME). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I thinks that I understood why you did not understand my sentence. This is mainly because I’m writing from my smartphone, it is not really easy to write and sometimes the result is a bit weird, and this even though I am not a native english speaker. Do you know Turkish ? I asked it because you wrote me in this language but with a tiny error even though It actually doesn’t really matter. But let’s get back to the subject. My sentence was “Also, If the category concern everything that is about Armenia and Azerbaijan, why does the members of this category are only Armenians ?” Now you may understand what I meant by that. I just noticed that I have nearly 300 edits on my main account (the french one) which surprised me a lot since I am not editing that much. But I personally think that it’s unfair to judge the stage of a user by only looking at his edit numbers instead of account background. So I have almost 300 edits If i mix my English and French account, does this still make me a newbie even though I created my account years ago ? But you still didn’t answered to my main questions. Does Wikipedia guaranty NPOV only after 500 edits ? Is Wikipedia a neutral website ? I’m not joking at all, these are all serious questions. Bosphore9 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason to require that many edits is to ensure that the user is able to understand and follow rules and guidelines.

Your insistence that WP:GS/AA does not apply to the article in question, when multiple other users have pointed out the clear language, plus the fact that you are not editing in your native language, suggests that you may not be able to do so here.

“Also, If the category concern everything that is about Armenia and Azerbaijan, why does the members of this category are only Armenians ?”

You just repeated the same sentence again. It still does not mean anything in English. Whatever you are using to translate is not working properly. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This sentence is way more clean than the first one. How it does mean nothing ? I guess that you are trying to find some excuses, another way of closing the eyes and act like nothing happened… I am not using anything to write nor read when it’s about the English language simply because I don’t need to. I take your remark as an disrespectful insult.. is it forbidden to edit on the English page even though we’re not native English ? Bosphore9 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing clear about that sentence. What category? What members? If you are trying to ask "why are all the extended-confirmed editors Armenian", your premise is false because extended-confirmed editors are not, in fact, all Armenian, nor even particularly Armenian, nor should you be judging other editors by presuming ethnicity from their usernames to begin with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can choose to pretend that you are the victim of a shadowy conspiracy that is out to get you, personally, for some strange reason, or you can reword your statement into intelligible English. And clearly you do need assistance, that's why you weren't able to understand the WP:GS/AA and are not able to express whatever point you're trying to make here.

is it forbidden to edit on the English page even though we’re not native English ? Please do not claim that people are saying things that they are not. The words I used are in my post, and they do not mean this. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

“What category ?” Isn’t WP:GS/AA a category (or something that is similar to it) ? Because the website said me that I had to be a member of this “thing” to be able to edit the page again. “And clearly you do need assistance, that's why you weren't able to understand the WP:GS/AA and are not able to express whatever point you're trying to make here.” The first comment made by the user was saying “Please be aware that all articles related to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are subject to an extended confirmed restriction.” Which I answered by saying that a mayor of Armenian origin has nothing to do with the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict nor 1915 events, that’s all. Rosguill explained to me that Armenian/Azerbaijan is not only about the conflict but also everything that’s linked to theses two words. So I may have misinterpreted the subject of the category but it was honestly leading to confusion. What was your claim them ? Please explain to me then because you insist on saying that I need assistance (which is also another insult toward me but never mind…). So yes the user I had an altercation with is likely of Armenian origin which is not a good sign of neutrality. Oh also, I still don’t get answered in my main questions ? Are they even visible ? (because I start to doubt…) If the WP:GS/AA is really a community then it must at least have moderators from both countries or just moderators that are neither Armenians nor Azerbaijanis but maybe we do not see the neutrality concept by the same way ? Bosphore9 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA is not a category and has nothing at all to do with one. It is the page for the editing restrictions placed on this topic. That's why people kept telling you to read it when you kept insisting that it didn't apply. It does not say anything about you needing to be a member of anything. It says that you would need to avoid editing on this topic until you're extended-confirmed editor, and even then, you are cautioned to remember that it is considered a contentious topic.

My 'claim'? Is just the words I've been saying in my posts, if there's something specific you did not follow, you'll have to say what it is.

So yes the user I had an altercation with is likely of Armenian origin which is not a good sign of neutrality. Yes, you are right to admit that, remember that you always need to assume good faith and keep to WP:a neutral point of view

WP:GS/AA is also not a community of any sort, under any definition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at in your final question. Are you trying to imply that we have to let you break the rules for some reason, otherwise we aren't being neutral? That's not how it works. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to break the rule, I am just trying to understand all the logic behind this but surprisingly you are suddenly way more silent when it come to answer to my mains questions… so the rules are avoiding people to express freely until a certain date ? Now I know that A-word is a taboo one. I consider myself as a neutral user, at least I am not of those that are using theirs rights to put other into silence…

So WP:GS/AA is not a category ? Then I misinterpreted, sorry. But at the first place I thought that I wasn’t able to edit the page not because of the above user but because I was on mobile. Then I tried to edit by an other way (which I don’t remember anymore or I just can’t find how I managed because Rosguill added a reinforcement) and the website told me that only members of WP:GS/AA can edit this page. That’s why I thought this was a category, the website make me think that. But I may have misinterpreted this one too, and If this is the case I apologise on this point too. But my main point is still unanswered. Officially, Wikipedia allows the NPOV but you are explaining me that for contentious pages this right is only reachable until I get 500 edits, is that right ? If yes, the NPOV is partial then ? Bosphore9 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are trying to break the rule, you keep saying that if mods don't let you ignore the requirement to be extended-confirmed, that's evidence of some kind of conspiracy that you aren't able to describe.

I don't know what part of the logic behind 'you have to follow the rules' you're finding confusing, can you explain?

Many of your questions do not make any sense in English, so we can't answer them. Nobody said anything about dates, you just made that up.

No, you misinterpreted that as well. Because you refused to obey the rules, the page has now been locked down to prevent editing against policy. If you have changes you want to suggest, you can use the talk page, as explained on the policy page that you refuse to read.

That question has been answered for you many times now. You just don't like the answer. And of course, no. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No, nobody ever yet answered me something like “Yes Wikipedia allows NPOV”, no need to lie about it right ? I’m not trying to break the rules, are you really thinking that I might achieve the problem with this “strategy” ? Honestly if you still don’t understand what I meant by my precedent sentences this can only mean the fact that your English level is not sufficient, I think that even a person that have a B1-level in English is able to understand what I’m saying. Maybe you just don’t want to understand at all but that’s not my problem. I thought about letting a comment in the talk section of the page but honestly in a case where the page is not famous at all it’s nearly useless, that’s why I put a comment. I ignored the EC because I misinterpreted the motif of it, now I know that I was wrong with that and I even apologised for that but if it were for you I’m rather a rulebreaker. I already gived up (for now) the edit part. I am now just trying to made you admit that the NPOV concept is not a 100% effective but obviously I’m not getting clear answers on this. Bosphore9 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Asking you to follow the rules has nothing to do with NPOV.

If what you wanted to add was NPOV, you still have to follow the rules.

Your determination to pretend that asking you to follow the rules is evidence of some vast conspiracy against you is unfortunate, but if that's what you need to believe, you are welcome to do so.

In future, I'd recommend editing on wikis where you are more familiar with the language, so that you'll be able to understand rules and policies without demanding that other editors explain them to you over and over. This would be a much more useful use of your time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point of view but actually the misinterpretation is not from the fact that English is not my native language but from the website itself. As I said it was confusing. Maybe it is because I’m on mobile but it still confusing. But I stay on the point that promising the NPOV and restricting at the same time the edition for contentious pages is a form of contradiction even though I understand that the reason is to avoid some disturbing cases. It’s my opinion but I still think that the number of edits is not a reliable argument to define what is a confirmed user but rules are the rules (and I’ll obey them, I never said that I’ll break them though…). I did get answers to most of my questions so we maybe shall put an end to this discussion which as you said will give us more time for more useful things. Have a nice day/night. Bosphore9 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help but GSAA, as with all general sanctions or contentious topics, requires editors to use their good judgment as to whether it applies. Whether you are using mobile, desktop, app or anything else the simple fact is that it's not possible to protect or categorise or tag or anything else all places it will apply since it applies throughout Wikipedia in any case where the what you are editing falls within the topic. So for example, an article might be about a Kiwi actor with nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan. However if this actor ever said anything about Armenia or Azerbaijan politics (or anything else covered by GSAA) then anything about their statement would be covered by GSAA. It does not matter how innocuous or uncontroversial what they said is. To be clear, there is no need for any tagging or anything more, any editor aware of GSAA needs to ensure their edits are in compliance when editing anything related to their statement. However the rest of the article is unlikely to be affected and GSAA will not apply to it. The restrictions apply to all editors. The EC (500/30) restriction requires editors to have a certain level of experience here but it's something that affects all editors. In other words, you could say it's selective of experience but it's not experience of the editors background etc. NPOV does not come in to it. Article are still required to comply with NPOV but from experienced we've found that we can better achieve that by certain things including limiting how editors without much experience can participate. When editors do edit in areas they're not supposed to, it's fairly common they'd be reverted even if the reverter feels their edits were a net positive since it's the best and easiest way to ensure the restrictions are complied with, enforce it without giving much regard to how good or bad the edits were. If you want to contribute to the English wikipedia you're welcome to edit wherever GSAA (and other ECR areas) does not apply (and there's no protections stopping you) which is most of the encyclopaedia and gain experience etc which will mean you're much more likely to be able contribute productively to such controversial areas. If you're only interested in editing areas like GSAA, then sorry but you can't and I don't think you'd find much sympathy since again long experience tells us if you have such a view you're unlikely to contribute productively. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

When you said “sorry but you can’t” did you meant it that just for now or forever ? What did you meant by “you're unlikely to contribute productively.” ? Bosphore9 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

They said you'd need to edit other areas of the encyclopedia until you have 500 edits and if there's nothing else you're interested in working on to get to that point, it is unlikely that you'd be able to be helpful in editing a contentious topic. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)