-- 12:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Your unlock requestEdit
English is likely not an easy language for you. Under those conditions, you may have difficulty handling dispute resolution on en.Wikipedia, so you should be extremely careful.
Please take your time to read this, and ask questions if anything is not clear. If you don't understand certain things, what happened, and don't adjust your behavior, the chances are very good that if Bennylin unlocks your account, you will be blocked and locked quickly, and it will not be possible to recover.
You claim, in your reply to Bennylin, that you did not "vandalize" the page in question. However,  removed the Armenian name for the province, and the rest of your editing session did not restore it. First mistake. Another user restored what you had removed, but did not revert your addition of the Kurdish name. The matter settled, then, for a while.
Another user, more than a month later, removed the Kurdish name.. That account is an w:WP:SPA, and should be watched. Be very careful, this is not a job for you to handle directly. You are likely involved, i.e., you have some special interest yourself. You reverted without explanation. Second mistake.
And then came this, with edit summary: (Undid revision 603463596 by EmrahÖ (talk) systematic crosswiki vandalism) I understand that this was likely upsetting. This was essentially a personal attack on you. Your edit, he reverted, was clearly not vandalism, and "cross-wiki" should not be important. Article decisions are local.
However, you have missed something. The issue of the province name was already discussed on w:Talk:Muş Province, and the reason for leaving out other names was explained there. You and this user then proceeded to revert war over the article (slowly, you never reached 3RR, but 3RR is only a "bright line," i.e, grounds for immediate block, no questions asked.)
Were I a Wikipedia admin, seeing this, and if you had been warned and kept on, I'd have blocked you both. You did make an attempt to discuss this, on the user's talk page. Third mistake. That is okay when it is reasonably likely that you can cooperate. At this point you already know that this user is looking at global contributions and is accusing you of being a "cross-wiki vandal."
The user talk page would be a place to work out personal disagreements, as an attempt to cooperate. It is not the place to work out disagreements over article content, and you were reverted by more than one user on the province page.
You did not use the article Talk page, which is where article content is to be discussed. If you object to the reason for not including other names, you could have raised that on the Talk page, non-disruptively.
Instead, what I see looking at your Wikipedia contributions today: . I'd warn you in a flash, and, as an admin (which I am not), block if it continued. Looking at user contributions for the user who accused you of cross-wiki vandalism, for the same period of time: . This user apparently came to en.wikipedia to attack you, but is likely more experienced, and knew to do lots of editing out of the apparent area of conflict. Still, with what I see there, I'd certainly have warned that user.
You are very likely correct that there are political issues involved. But the question is how to address them. Very often political issues show up as naming disagreements. The names of things have political meanings. However, back up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Using a name for a thing is not supportable unless that name is used in reliable sources. That a name is used in some places for something, in common language and popularly, is not enough to allow usage on Wikipedia. If a name is in use, you might well be able to set up a redirect. For example, Boston is often called "Beantown." You will not find that name in the article, but there is a redirect. If you have reliable source for the name, you may assert that name in the article. However, what may be the case is that there is reliable source for the Kurdish town name, not for that as the name of the province.
If I'm incorrect, if there is reliable source, then you would assert that on the Talk page of the article, and wait for response. If there is agreement, then you can make the edit, and your edit reason will have "See talk." If there is disagreement, then you go through dispute resolution (unless they convince you! You are going to be reasonable, right?) If there is no response, you could go ahead and make the edit, but not revert war if reverted, return to the Talk page.
So, fourth mistake, not discussing on the Talk page.
Fifth mistake, extended revert warring on many pages.
I have not reviewed your global contributions; however, if you make similar mistakes on multiple wikis, you can be locked, and I'm guessing that is what happened.
So, I'm recommending that you understand and agree to the following:
1. You will not revert war. That includes any repeated reversion of others, not just w:WP:3RR violation. If you do make a single revert, you will explain it on the attached Talk page.
2. You will discuss and explain any possibly controversial changes. You will seek agreement, patiently and consistently.
3. You will not accuse others of being politically motivated (even if they are, and even if they accuse you of this.) You will focus on the content and on content policies, not persons and their motivations.
4. If you don't know what to do about a problem, you will get help from more experienced users.
5. When communicating with a hostile user on en.wikipedia, you will use only English.
Communicating in a common language other than English, even on enwiki, is fine for friendly communication. If there is conflict, it will be important for Wikipedia administrators to be able to understand the communication. That user wrote back to you in Turkish. In google translation, he was coherent and polite. I could not understand your response, it did not address the point as far as I could tell.
And then a suggestion: learn a trick from the other user in that revert war. Make helpful changes elsewhere. Don't just focus on a particular article. And be patient.
If you believe that the Kurdish name for the province is in actual use, first thing, create the redirect. You do not need reliable source for that, at all. I.e., you would put this wikitext on w:Parêzgeha Mûş
- #REDIRECT [[Muş Province]]
- Or it might be from w:Mûş Province. I'm not sure about Wikipedia guidelines over redirects that are not in English.