User talk:Monte Melkonian

Extended content

March 2011 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wine, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Please explain what was not constructive. Thank you. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Monte Melkonian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Message added 00:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Welcome Hello Monte Melkonian. My name is Danger and I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I wanted to welcome you to our community of editors. I know that you're new here, so there are a few things that I hope you'll take into account as you continue editing. Wikipedia is a community of editors here to build an encyclopedia. We have a somewhat higher standard of conduct than you may be used to in wilder regions of the internet because we are all here for a common purpose, even when we disagree. It is important to keep this in mind when you communicate with other editors. Assume good faith of them and they will generally return the favor. To make your posts easier to read, especially for the many editors whose first language is not English, please refrain from using bold letters, typing in all capitals, or increasing font size. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. Decisions are made jointly through discussion. To learn more about Wikipedia, I strongly suggest that you read the five pillars on which we are based. If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Danger (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Please don't sign your article edits Do sign your Talk page comments, but please don't insert the four tildes when you're editing the text of articles. It inserts your signature into the body of articles, which has to be taken out by hand. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Also please use the preview button to make sure your edits have the desired effect. For instance when you changed the name of the image file in Edwin North McClellan by adding Manookian's full name, you broke the link to the image file, and the image no longer displayed. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Similarly this series of edits to Honolulu (magazine) - [1]. Again, please use the preview button so that other editors aren't forced to repair damage that your edits are causing to articles. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Your username I didn't know until recently that Monte Melkonian was a famous Armenian war commander. He's not alive, so there would seem to be little risk of someone's taking you for him (presuming they know enough about the real Monte to know that he's no longer alive) but still there is a risk of confusion - particularly if you are going to be editing the Talk page of his article with intermperate statements like this one. I don't know that your name violates Wikipedia:Username policy on its face but it seems pretty close to the edge to me - would you like to take a look at that policy page and comment? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I've taken a close analytical look and found no reason to be confused. Nobody knows about him. He is presumed dead. It may have some frightening affects on Azeris and some Americans may whimper like frightened school girls, but, who cares about them?Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Moreover, could you assist me in removing the Azeri flag from view on the place of death for Monte Melkonian? It is inaccurate as his place of death was in Artsagh and requires their flag to be placed there. Thank you kindly in advance for your assistance. Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) You don't need my assistance in fixing an error in an article; if you can reliably source the place of his death, and if the flag is properly another, then you should fix it yourself. Meanwhile I'm not altogether convinced that your username is proper and may seek the opinions of other editors. Thanks for responding, though. JohnInDC (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I don't know how to remove the flag. Can you provide assistance on that issue? I am sorry you feel that somehow my username violates some conjured up policy. I can assure you, no one knows about him. However, his identity was stolen in the movie "Borne Identity." Please show me how to remove the Azeri flag. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Monte Melkonian (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Do you have a source that establishes the point you're trying to make? JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Not yet. However, I didn't see a source for the Azeri claim either. I did discover how to remove the flag though. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Monte Melkonian (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, Monte_Melkonian. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC) No thank you. I am very comfortable with my name. If you like, I can change it to Commander Monte. Would you prefer Commander Monte? Thank you in advance for your courteous and generous concerns. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "Commander Monte" would seem to be fine to me. You would be honoring him without assuming his actual name. JohnInDC (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the constructive response, by the way! JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I have instructions from him to use his name. My intentions are for honoring his name and accomplishments, and, standing guard to his legacy. I am Armenian. My grandfather escaped the Genocide because he was born Aposthic. I believe Wikpedia has a page dedicated to Aposthia. If someone has a higher gene pool than Aposthia, then I am willing to listen. Monte Melkonian (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, you were being facetious about changing it then. Ah, well, never mind about the thanks! Perhaps the name is okay - I do think it's a dicey, particularly when accompanied by a claim that Monte Melkonian himself instructed you to assume it. (I have to say that that seems implausible, given that he died in 1993 and Wikipedia was founded in what, 2002?) Perhaps too I'm wrong, and it's fine. We'll see how the request for comment shakes out. (By the way - I took the liberty of moving your remark down the page to follow the comment you were responding to, and making the page easier to follow. I hope that's okay.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for doing that. For some reason I have a problem of keeping it on the same page. BTW, I wasn't kidding about the facts I mentioned.Monte Melkonian (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) John, (BTW my last name means "From St. John"), could you assist me in editing with Ernest H. Dervishian's Wikpedia page? I haven't figured out how to link up his other medals he was awarded like the Bronze Star and Silver Cross? Thank you in advance for your consideration. Monte Melkonian (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aram-van for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Your edits to Monte Melkonian I have reverted several of your edits to the subject page, for several reasons. First, your use of the term Artsakh to describe the place of his death may or may not be supported by the source, already in the article, that identifies where he died. Second, the term Artsakh appears - judging by the very Wikipedia page to which you linked - to be an ancient designation for the area, and not its present day name (except perhaps to local inhabitants). Third, your surmises about The Bourne Identity are just that. If Monte was the model for Jason Bourne, please find a reliable source who says so - then perhaps it can be woven into the article. In short the edits seem to violate a variety of Wikipedia policies and I ask that you not insert them again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I would add that, if you feel strongly about these issues (and I gather that you do), you should raise them on the article's Talk page, where other editors can discuss them and reach a consensus about how to go forward. Just making them again without discussing them will in all likelihood eventually get you blocked. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC No problem. As I mentioned before, please don't inflame passions by putting contentious names of the location of his death. Moreover, don't inflame passions by deleting the current Armenian tricolors on the place of his death. Please revert the changes. And then we can discuss calmly on the discussion pages. Melkonian was a hero to Armenians of Artsakh and not to Azeris. If you get my drift. Thanks in advance. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) It is not a matter of adding or removing inflammatory language. It's a matter of putting in properly sourced material. As best I can tell - and I am no expert - the region today is called Nagorno-Karabakh. Artsakh is its ancient name, used by Armenians. The original text of the article - before you changed it - described his place of death as "in the abandoned Azeri village of Merzuli", within Azerbaijan. The article seems to be correct, using today's description of the area. Again I am not well-versed in any of this, but I don't think your edits are consistent with Wikipedia policies, and perhaps you should take it up at WP:EAR or somewhere else where other editors can weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps we should both take up with WP:EAR? However, I believe inflaming passions and engaging in bating also violates policy. Therefore, please revert back my edits so as not to insult and inflame passions as the region has always been called Artsakh since the dawn of time. You seem to be biased on having the Azeri flag and improper name of the region. My sources were within Wikpedia. To call it improper is bind boggling. Please discuss. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I'm going to move this discussion to the bottom of the Talk page for Monte Melkonian. I agree that you cited to Wikipedia, but first, Wikipedia articles can't serve as "reliable sources" in other articles, and second, the articles to which you linked plainly indicated that Artsakh is an historical name for the region (or one used by, perhaps exclusively by, Armenians) and that the region is today known as Nagorno-Karabakh. Finally, please be careful with accusations of bias. They are often poorly informed, and often corrupt rational discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Okay. The discussion is now at this link. Let's continue there. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) That is true about WIkpedia. Therefore, I should go to Wikpedia and pull up the sources and call it by what the people of the region call it. However, you should be very careful with Armenian passions in placing their enemy's flag at the place of his death. What were you thinking? Do you see how that might be interpreted as bias? I am not the one who put the Azeri flag there. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I'm moving your comment to the article's Talk page and will respond there. JohnInDC (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I thought discussed there as well. Did I miss something? Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) No, you did it right. I just hadn't seen it when I wrote the above. I responded there. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Civility Warning Comments like this [2] are completely unacceptable. Your conduct in general is becoming disruptive. Your behavior so far indicates that you may not be able to contribute to articles regarding Armenia neutrally and that a topic ban may be necessary. I strongly recommend taking a step back from the situation and looking carefully at what you are saying. --Daniel 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I will step back. Please have your editors refrain from inflammatory conduct in changing the location of death as Azerbadeljan when it has always has been known as Nagorno-Karabagh. This type of bating will not go unnoticed and violates the NPOV. Please explain your editor's conduct. Thx so much for your concerns. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) They are not my editors. What you see as "bating" (I assume you mean baiting) is a legitimate editorial dispute and is perfectly fine. Your comments however have been highly inflammatory and need to change You must be able to discuss these issues without accusing other editors of bias. If you can't do this then you will have to find another topic to edit. --Daniel 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The baiting occurred in the following manner: there was no dispute as to Nagorno-Karabagh as his place of death; however, there was the Azeri flag at his place of death which violated your own policies and the NPOV standards (which, by the way, was extremely troubling and inflammatory) . Once the Azeri flag was taken off as the place of death, one of your so-called neutral editors replaced the notion of the flag and on his own initiative placed Azerbadeljan as the place of death. This is classic baiting which I don't think any person in the public would tolerate. Please have your conduct explained. I patiently await your answer to this kind of disruptive behavior. Thank you for your concerns and anticipated prompt response. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The area is disputed. I'm not going to discuss whether the flag belongs there or not, but this is a legitimate editorial discussion which you must handle civilly and calmly. I see no evidence of any baiting. You have to be able to disagree without accusing others of baiting you. --Daniel 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way. I have guests over my house who witnessed everything. We saw it as baiting. Please read the conversation between myself and a person who calls himself John DC. We were having a civil discussion until uncivil comments appeared. There is no dispute as his place of death being Nagorno-Karabagh. Please have a succinct explanation why the Azeri flag was placed at his place of death. According to John DC, it violated Wikpedia policy. Are you aware of this policy? Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Why is taking so long to get an explanation?Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I am can't give an explanation as I'm not involved and I'm not taking sides. However if you are too sensitive to these kinds of disputes and respond with insults and comments about "angels of death," you wont be able to edit this topic. Please take the advice I am giving you rather than arguing with me, I have seen this kind of behavior before and a block is always a result if the behavior doesn't change. --Daniel 23:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Monte was a trained killer. That was his job as a soldier. I am not sensitive about that topic. It seems to me other people are. However, you do appear to be taking sides without clear explanations to my inquiry. Please respond why the Azeri flag was placed at the place of death? That was inflammatory to the Armenian viewers and appears to have been done to bait. Do you understand the significance of that type of conduct without arguing with me? Monte Melkonian (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Without argument, I thank you in advance and patiently await your response. Monte Melkonian (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I can't tell you why someone replaced the flag, I didn't do it you will have to ask the person that did and in any case the flag isn't there anymore. What is a problem is your reaction to its replacement, comments like the one I linked to are simply unacceptable and you have now been warned about it. The only person whose behavior you are responsible for is your own. Even if you think you are being baited, you must control yourself. --Daniel 01:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Please follow your own advice. You really appear biased. We are on a topic about a trained killer who did his job very professionally and heroically. I don't pay attention to labels. They are for gullible people. Next time read all of the discussion before jumping to conclusions. Your conduct will also be very well noted. Good luck. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I haven't been in the least bit uncivil or biased in anyway, but you can think whatever you want. I do suggest you heed my warning about civility as the next time you make a comment like that you will likely find yourself blocked. --Daniel 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) My suggestions to you still stand as well. Good luck. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC) This edit accusing FieldMarine of being "inflammatory" [3] in a context where he made no inflammatory comments whatsoever is not going to fly, consider this your last warning. --Daniel 02:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Please be more specific as to what is "not going to fly." Is the part that Azerbajan hired Taliban fighters to kill Christian Armenians and now the Taliban is killing Marines? Is that the part you are having problems with. Be more specific. Be fair so I can adequately and fairly respond. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC) You stated "Your comments are highly inflammatory to the United States Marine Corps'. FieldMarine made no inflammatory comments whatsoever. --Daniel 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Upon a closer reading, I see that he considered Melkonian a terrorist even though Melkonian fought Azeri hired Taliban and Mudjahadeen (Al Queda) fighters. Please explain how this so-called FieldMarine categorizing Melkonian as a terrorist was not inflammatory to the United States Marine Corps. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Upon an actual reading of the page in question you will see that it was not FieldMarine who made those comments. --Daniel 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Are you thinking out loud at this time? If so, then please answer the previous question so I may have a fair opportunity to respond. I thought I read your comments regarding FieldMarine. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC) ":::Please explain how any of my comments are inflamatory. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I suggest you never put smily faces on professional soldiers and killers. They might come back to haunt you in Lebanon or other far off lands. Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Another thing I forgot to mention is that the Azeri forces hired the Taliban to fight Mekonian and the Armenian forces. Your comments are highly inflammatory to the United States Marine Corps. I suggest you do some further reading to understand this topic really well. Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC) " Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monte_Melkonian" Here are the relevant quotes. Don't accuse other editors of bad faith especially when they are behaving civilly, see WP:AGF, end of story. --Daniel 02:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I know what I typed. Apparently, you didn't read carefully. Again, I suggest you follow your advice. My previous suggestions and inquiry still stand. Best wishes. Monte Melkonian (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I don't see what I'm missing, but I've given you a clear explanation of how your behavior is problematic. You can take my advice or not, it is up to you. --Daniel 03:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Please do not respond out of order. It makes things confusing and gives the appearance that you appropriately responded to my inquiries which you indeed did not. Please explain how putting smily faces on a dead hero is not inflammatory. Best wishes. Monte Melkonian (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Moreover, please keep your tone civil. Nobody has accused you thus far of being biased. However, what you are being accused of is giving the appearance of bias with several of my guests as witnesses. Monte Melkonian (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Manookian and McClellan Monte, please stop removing the McClellan references from the Manookian article. The relationship is important to Manookian's life story; McClellan's travels as a Marine explain Manookian's; and it was McClellan's "history" that Manookian illustrated. It doesn't make sense to say that Manookian illustrated "the history of the Marine Corps" without saying more about what that book was - that is a very sweeping and general phrase, "the history" is, and the reader is left in the dark about what it could possibly mean, whether Manookian wrote this "history", or not. In short the article makes more sense with the McClellan references in it, Manookian's importance in his own article is not diminished by his relationship to the Major, and the text should be left as is. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Also, as a general matter, if you return to find that one or another of your edits has been undone or changed, take the issue up on the article's Talk page rather than simply making the same edit again, with the same explanation in the edit summary. That may help others understand your point of view better, and is a better way of reaching consensus. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions. However, I strongly disagree with putting McClellan on Manookian's page. Putting McClellan on the page makes it appear as though the article is more about McClellan than Manookian. McClellan can simply be put on the List of Historically Notable Marines. That is where he belongs. These comments regarding McClellan detract from Manookian's accomplishments. I am willing to discuss it on the discussion page if someone is willing to post a discussion. Thus, the only person who has complained about it is you. Which for some reason I find unusual. Who complained? Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Another solution to this problem would be to put both McClellan and Manookian on the List of Historically Notable Marines. Do you agree? Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Manookian was an clerk to McClellan. Manookian illustrated McClellan's book. These are facts about Manookian's life and they're properly included in the article and in fact are necessary to supply proper context. The facts are true and are woven into Manookian's life and I don't understand why you think that as such, they "detract" from Manookian. So please leave it. As for your suggestion to add Manookian to the other list - I don't see how making a problem on another page (that issue has been discussed ad nauseum) fixes a problem on this one! Now please stop making that edit. You can be blocked for edit warring. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Ah well, let me explain the detraction again for your benefit. Moreover, I am just a volunteer making editing contributions. Is there something wrong with that conduct? I didn't get your last discussion. It was unintelligible. Apparently we have a disagreement. And, I think the next best course of action should be to go to final arbitration. My edits will stand. And, I will note that you offered no constructive solutions. Indeed, your outright dismissive attitude is not helpful as well. Please refrain from such conduct. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3RR warning You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arman Manookian. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Monte, I've reported your edit warring at this link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Monte_Melkonian_reported_by_User:JohnInDC_.28Result:_.29 JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC) April 2011 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Arman Manookian with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Please explain who you are and why you felt that it was unconstructive. Please do not include groundless opines and provide a succinct answer. Please indicate was exactly was not constructive. If you fail to provide an answer you will be reported. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Arman Manookian. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Warning of sanctions The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 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). Monte Melkonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have tried to informally resolve the editing issues on Arman Manookian to no avail. As a matter of fact, I requested mediation with no response. Moreover, a consensus of Assisting Editors informed me, when I tried to include Arman Manookian on the List of Historically Notable Marines, that Arman Manookian was merely a clerk and nothing more and did not warrant such inclusion and was not part of Marine Corps History. Based on that guidance, I deleted references to McClellan [a Marine Corps Historian] on Manookain's page. Now, I note, the very same editors who opined that Manookian did not warrant inclusion on the List of Historically Notable Marines, insist on including McClellan's name on Manookian's page. I have repeatedly pointed out that this type of inclusion detracts from Manookian's accomplishments independent of the United States Marine Corps History. It appears as though a double and convoluted standard applies. Moreover, references to McClellan confuse the readers as to who really the article is about. Is it about Manookian or Mclellan or the United States Marine Corps? Although I am assuming Good Faith, several witnesses are absolutely dismayed at this type of conduct and it should be noted that it gives the appearance of Bias. Therefore, I request to be unblocked as my conduct of offering Mediation is not consistent with an Editing War. I would also like to point out that there are some editors who consistently point to irrelevant matters or provide evasive answers. For example, when an editor uses distracting conversation and ignores the question posed on the Editor Assistance Request without providing an answer to the question posed and then claims that it has been answered, indeed, to the casual observer, it seems as though the individual asking the question is targeted for tag teaming efforts. Moreover, as I stated before in assuming Good Faith, it appears as though Manookian's page is being set up to sell art and also recruit for the Marine Corps. Yet when simple solutions are offered, such as including Manookian and McClellan on the List of Historically Notable Marines, it is ignored because his last name ends in IAN and the fact that he committed suicide as a self imposed martyr. Despite the fact that on the Editor Assistance page the question posed was not answered and then listed as answered, I followed the guidance of those editors who in essence stated that the reason Manookian was taken off the List of Historically Notable Marines was because he was a clerk and McClellan only said nice things about [his name and fame are intertwined with it [Marine Corps History]] him because he felt sorry that Manookian committed suicide and not because he had anything to do with him being the first Marine Corps historical artist/illustrator. I followed their guidance and now I am being blocked by some of the very same editors who removed or opined Manookian from the List of Historically Notable Marines. Indeed, this is troubling. This type of conduct cannot stand and it will be noted or publicized. Moreover, there seems to be a concerted effort by so-called volunteer editors who have a keen eye on Marine Corps History that have a problem with historically notable Marines whose last names end in IAN or who volunteered for suicide missions. Apparently, it has something to do with recruitment of Armenians for Martyrdom during WWII and the Marine Corps' subsequent treacherous conduct of ignoring those very same Armenian American Marines for political and financial reasons. At this point I ask that I be unblocked. That the parties requesting blocks be blocked or submit to Mediation. The choice should be entirely theirs to make. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  06:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 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. Then why impose a sanction on grounds of Armenia Azerbajan Arbitration? I removed inaccurate information on Ortiz. I am just a volunteer and it helps Wikpedia to remove incorrect information. I am starting to connect the dots and rather easily. Now, it is quiet clear as to who is more interested on the history of Arman Manookian (a Christian Martyr) and portrayal of Monte Melkonian as a terrorist. Its the art reporter for the Huffington Post and the United States Marine Corps Historical Dept. I've got your names and I've got your numbers. I have a long file on your profiles. Why don't you and I have a calm discussion about it? Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC) April 2011 Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Peter J. Ortiz, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The information you deleted could be found in at least two of the refs in the article. Please be more careful in your substantive editing. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Please remove the references of the Marine Corps in Arman Manookian's article. To Armenians, any references to the Marine Corps or their officers is offensive to Armenian American Marines and those who volunteered for Christian Martyrdom in WWII island hoping campaigns. Those Armenian American Marines have been betrayed by the Marine Corps's by their contributions being ignored in the annals of Marine Corps History. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC) To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Why was I blocked for one week? Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Please explain yourself. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I would like to ask this question as well. I don't see anything quite so terrible at first glance, although I admit I'm not glancing that carefully. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you. The only edit I made was on J. Ortiz where I found hyperbolee and assumptions without proper sources. I scoured through the sources for the claims of fluency on Mr. Ortiz and could not find anything other than he was fluent in Arabic. Moreover, I didn't see anything about Historically notable conduct and on that basis, I made edits. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 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). Monte Melkonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am not aware of any reason for the arbitrary block. No one has been able to give me answer. This type of block seems to be extremely arbitrary and capricious and indeed without clear explanation. Why haven't I received a response by the individual who imposed the block? Monte Melkonian (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: An explanation has now been provided below. An individual administrator may not overturn this block, but you can appeal it as described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  16:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 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. As reviewing administrator, the reason for this block is also not clear to me, because the blocking administrator did not provide one and I see no obvious misconduct in Monte Melkonian's recent history. I am therefore contacting SarekOfVulcan in the hope that they may explain the reason for the block, which would enable Monte Melkonian to formulate a proper appeal (see WP:AEBLOCK) if they still desire to be unblocked.  Sandstein  05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Just a an extra note, particularly as Monte is a new editor. Monte, some of the jargon here maybe a little difficult to get around. Arbcom is the Arbitration Committee which are a group of very senior and highly trusted members of the community to whom the final recourse of dispute resolution are referred. In cases that they take, they will issue a an ArbCom sanction or restriction. The Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute is one such area. For some background and the restrictions please see this link Azerbaijan arbitration request. Administrators are authorised to enforce sanctions on editors who edit in any of the arbcom sanctioned fields. it seems that one of those discretionary sanctions has been applied to a new editor who is not familiar with wiki policies and the arbitration restrictions. --Blackmane (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) It is not clear as to which Edit created the sanction. Was it on the insistence of having the United States Marine Corps and Maj. Edwin Mclellan mentioned and hyperlinked more than on the actual page for Arman Manookian? If so, it has nothing to do with Armenia Azerbajan and thus the sanction unwarranted. Or, is it related to Monte Melkonian's page where the insistence is for a particular view by Marine Corps recruiters and historical departments to potray him as a terrorist in which case a discussion on body count and his accomplishments were proposed? Again, although I am assuming Good Faith, it is hard to get around the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a coordinated effort to prevent Edits so to probogate a POV. I am trying very hard to escape that notion.Monte Melkonian (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I blocked Melkonian because he repeatedly removed Ortiz from a list of notable Marines, in apparent response to having two Armenian Marines' names repeatedly removed, and then posted a long screed claiming, among other material, that one of the names was removed "because his last name ends in IAN". In my view, this was clearly "repeatedly or seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process", as the case to which he was earlier referred stated. Since I am completely uninvolved in this topic area, and since he had been previously warned on this page, I saw no problem with imposing a longer block than the edit warring block he had previously received.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Then why impose a sanction on grounds of Armenia Azerbajan Arbitration? I removed inaccurate information on Ortiz. I am just a volunteer and it helps Wikpedia to remove incorrect information. I am starting to connect the dots and rather easily. Now, it is quiet clear as to who is more interested on the history of Arman Manookian (a Christian Martyr) and portrayal of Monte Melkonian as a terrorist. Its the art reporter for the Huffington Post and the United States Marine Corps Historical Dept. I've got your names and I've got your numbers. I have a long file on your profiles. Why don't you and I have a calm discussion about it? Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Monte, I think you should drop what you're doing and go read Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Agreed. By threatening us, you are only digging your hole deeper (see WP:GAB). I do not care a bit if you disagree with your reason for being blocked, but this is the second time I've seen you threaten someone, and given that you removed someone in retaliation for your figure being removed, there are probably more. If you release that information, you will likely find yourself blocked indefinitely and the information oversighted anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Monte Melkonian, your threats above ("I've got your names and I've got your numbers. I have a long file on your profiles.") are unacceptable. I have blocked you indefinitely for them and have also removed your talk page access to prevent on-wiki outing of personal information. You can request unblock per e-mail (unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org), but the remainder of your previous one week block remains an arbitration enforcement block that cannot be undone except as described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Request for mediation rejected The request for mediation concerning Arman Manookian, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)