| Revision as of 04:34, 31 January 2012 editWinterbliss (talk | contribs)779 edits →Protected← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:50, 31 January 2012 edit undoGolbez (talk | contribs)Administrators66,915 edits →ProtectedNext edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| ::Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "] has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally ''identical''. (link: ) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --] (]) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | ::Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "] has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally ''identical''. (link: ) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --] (]) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by ] or ]. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as ], ] and ] did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. ] (]) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | :::I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by ] or ]. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as ], ] and ] did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. ] (]) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Simply put, when someone is banned, Whether they are good or bad. If they are valid edits, then someone who wasn't banned has to make them and claim them as their own, rather than simply saying "I think your reversion was incorrect." It is now them who is making the edit and must defend it, rather than leave it on the original, banned, editor to defend it. That's what I mean by take ownership. If they are to be preserved, someone must take responsibility for them. I would love to assume good faith but with these articles, that will never exist, so I gave up on it long ago. Every time I've tried I've been bitten, and it's extremely difficult for me to look at Oliveriki's edit in good faith. (Zimmarod's defense of it, however, does appear genuine and in good faith) And, again: It is an edit that requires justification, not the reversion thereof, as per ]. Finally: To call the reverted version the "vandalized" version is really displaying a bias, whether you intended it or not. I would say someone editwarring over a long period of time and with multiple socks to insert his preferred version is vandalizing. At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules. --] (]) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:50, 31 January 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagorno-Karabakh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Nagorno-Karabakh received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
New cherry picked information
What value does this cherry picked information add to the article? Are we seriously going to mention every killed soldier? Perhaps we should start with the killing of a 9-year-old Azerbaijani kid by Armenian snipers, which was condemned by PACE . Or should we mention the countless of political representaties nations and organisations who have confirmed Karabakh to be within the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? This new information added by Ali55te also doesnt go along with the other information from the headline. The text talks about resolutions and condemnations not rumours. For this reason I removed the information added. Neftchi (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a notable event. Your explanation does not seem sufficient to me. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Killed soldier ??? How come a drone is a soldier ? Drone is a UAV "unmanned air vehicle" and the importance of that is the possible violation of weapon sales. Apart from that that section is fully biased. Do you think only Azerbaijani soldiers or civillians are dead ? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenian-civilian-shot-dead-in-karabakh-say-separatists-2011-05-13 You can find more examples on the Armenian side. I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end. Ali55te (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- "I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end" - Your statement can be viewed as a threat for a new edit war. This kind of demands and threats are grossly against Misplaced Pages regulations. If you dont know how the article will turn out then you should not continue to work on it. Aside this you havent given asnwer to my real argument. This new added information adds no value to the article. The contemporary situation headline is based on real resolutions, your added information is cherry picked information. Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia was not mentioned. The statement by Almagro was of personal nature not official. No declaration was adopted regarding his statement so this cannot be included in this article. Are we going to seriously add every personal statement by politicians regarding Karabakh? What about the dozens of politicians which have stated the withdrawel of Armenian troops or to respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Given your recent edits, this kind of information should also be added. For this reason I would want to ask for an review of your recent edits. Mursel (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before these edits some authors removed thousands lines of information related to the Armenian heritage in the area. I did not revert that edits to not engage in edit war. The section is so biased that it can not bi biased more then this. There are may 3 declarations from organization of Islamic countries which is not a respected organization in the world and known as anti-semitic statements during the openning sessions etc.. Do not imagine virtual threats etc.. You add a pace declaration like the organization took the decision in fact it is not a official declaration and it is mostly signed by representatives from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. I am not removing anything from the section, the problem was that, there was no information from the other side. 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)
- First of all learn the difference between PACE a declaration and resolution. And why do you explicitly mention Azerbaijan and Turkey? Is there any discriminatory chosing factor behind this? If you want to mention who voted for the declaration then ALL members need to be mention not just the two countries you dont like. Second, what Uruguay will and will not do it not open for our personal interpretation. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. This shows your original research, for you have no sources at all to confirm this except for your personal opinion. I would find it ironic to see Uruguay recognize NK while Armenia doesnt. Also YouTube is not and cannot be used as a source or reference. The fact that you added YouTube for the second time , even after I warned you, is a clear breach of regulations. The information in the Contemporary situation headline is not about what you want or what I want. Its about the international law and its regulations and resolutions. That cannot be changed and that subject should not be turned into gossip, personal interpretation and original research as your text presents. Another important fact is you added all this information without any consensus. That is what we're trying to achieve with this, for this reason I removed your text untill we can get consensus to keep it. Mursel (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- In show of good faith I also removed my own added text until a consensus is reached . Mursel (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before these edits some authors removed thousands lines of information related to the Armenian heritage in the area. I did not revert that edits to not engage in edit war. The section is so biased that it can not bi biased more then this. There are may 3 declarations from organization of Islamic countries which is not a respected organization in the world and known as anti-semitic statements during the openning sessions etc.. Do not imagine virtual threats etc.. You add a pace declaration like the organization took the decision in fact it is not a official declaration and it is mostly signed by representatives from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. I am not removing anything from the section, the problem was that, there was no information from the other side. 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)
- "I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end" - Your statement can be viewed as a threat for a new edit war. This kind of demands and threats are grossly against Misplaced Pages regulations. If you dont know how the article will turn out then you should not continue to work on it. Aside this you havent given asnwer to my real argument. This new added information adds no value to the article. The contemporary situation headline is based on real resolutions, your added information is cherry picked information. Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia was not mentioned. The statement by Almagro was of personal nature not official. No declaration was adopted regarding his statement so this cannot be included in this article. Are we going to seriously add every personal statement by politicians regarding Karabakh? What about the dozens of politicians which have stated the withdrawel of Armenian troops or to respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Given your recent edits, this kind of information should also be added. For this reason I would want to ask for an review of your recent edits. Mursel (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Killed soldier ??? How come a drone is a soldier ? Drone is a UAV "unmanned air vehicle" and the importance of that is the possible violation of weapon sales. Apart from that that section is fully biased. Do you think only Azerbaijani soldiers or civillians are dead ? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenian-civilian-shot-dead-in-karabakh-say-separatists-2011-05-13 You can find more examples on the Armenian side. I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end. Ali55te (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Mursel, you say that Youtube is not and cannot be used as a source (at least that's what I think you said through all the broken English) but I can't seem to find the policy that says so. I found Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources where it says audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived may qualify as source material, which led me to WP:YOUTUBE which says There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. It seems then that the reason i couldn't find the policy banning Youtube is that there isn't one and you were quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Whether the video in question abide(s) by the guidelines on this page or not is a different question, but not one that is answered by inventing policy, so I have undone your edit.
- In looking for material regarding the 9 year old boy I came across several non-Azeri reliable sources commenting on the story - here is one - and I am inclined to believe that the question of weight has not yet been reliable answered on this talkpage. Perhaps a look at WP:CONSENSUS wouldn't go amiss. Weakopedia (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please read this, it clearly says that YouTube is not a reliable source unless the video authenticity can be confirmed. For example you can use a BBC video from their official YouTube channel. Anything other than that is a breach of copyright and thus cannot be used:
- "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation."
- The video in question is not the owner of the video and thus its not in his copyright. We dont wanna breach copyright policy of Misplaced Pages now do we?
- You also failed to answer my argument that this content doesnt add any value to the article in fact it disrupts it. The contemporary situation section is mainly about official resolution, declarations by UN, EU, PACE, etc. I believe it should not be about miniscule events, like he killed him and in return he shot them nor should it be about personal opinions of politicians. It should remain about official resolution and declarations from states and international organisations. If the contemporary situation headline is to include every cease-fire breach then this article will become pointless and add no value. Just one sentence as "the ceasefire agreement is breached by both sides" is enough to sum it up. Mursel (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- In looking for material regarding the 9 year old boy I came across several non-Azeri reliable sources commenting on the story - here is one - and I am inclined to believe that the question of weight has not yet been reliable answered on this talkpage. Perhaps a look at WP:CONSENSUS wouldn't go amiss. Weakopedia (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment here, I apologize if it seems like I'm intruding. Reiterating what Mursel stated, we don't usually use YouTube as a source. The only times I've seen YouTube being used is an external link. If memory serves me, we even have a filter that prevents YouTube links from being added by users with certain amount of edits/X days, months, etc. old. It's not an encouraged source to use. I'm not an expert with this current topic. Please bare with me. If it's a notable event as Kurdo777, then it should probably be included. But at glance, coming from an editor with limited information from this topic, it seems significant enough to be included. I have a question for you guys. How often are events like this occurring? Are there more significant events?
- Also, for the sake of NPOV, we should include information such as quote, Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia, end quote if it's available. If there's multiple situations, then the most important ones such be listed here or perhaps create a separate article to further show violations (this article is starting to become too big). I hope that helps.
- As a side note, the date formats should probably be consistent. Just in that section Month/Date/Year and Date/Month/Year were being used. Elockid 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sniper fire from either side is a daily occurrence. But this was the first time a UAV was shot down or fell down, depending who you want to believe. Either way it doesn't look good for Azeris. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The cease-fire agreement is breached on daily bases by both sides. So I think its best to mention one line about this. The ceasefire agreement is breached regular by both sides. As for the UAV, Israeli sources argue that the UAV was show by Russian officers . Mursel (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sniper fire from either side is a daily occurrence. But this was the first time a UAV was shot down or fell down, depending who you want to believe. Either way it doesn't look good for Azeris. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Demographics
The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Trans. George A. Bournoutian. Costa Mesa, CA, 2011.is used in the article on Karabakh in regards to census information, but is left out in this article. This academic work states that in 1822/3 Armenians made up 97% of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. This article uses ^ Description of the Karabakh province prepared in 1823 according to the order of the governor in Georgia Yermolov by state advisor Mogilevsky and colonel Yermolov 2nd (Russian: Opisaniye Karabakhskoy provincii sostavlennoye v 1823 g po rasporyazheniyu glavnoupravlyayushego v Gruzii Yermolova deystvitelnim statskim sovetnikom Mogilevskim i polkovnikom Yermolovim 2-m), Tbilisi, 1866. A translation from Russian, compared to the 2011 work by Bournoutian. Although the article is understandably delicate I believe that the modern academic work is more clear then the the translated work from 1866. RNajdek (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)RNajdek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.126.27 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In the text on demographics two paragraphs speak about the same census of 1823 but make drastically different interpretations of its results. Clarification is needed. Winterbliss (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Removed controversial paragraph until consensus is reached on page on Karabakh. Winterbliss (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Interwiki
The Swedish article is about the republic, not the region, and could thus be removed from this article. --78.82.250.63 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (user:flinga on svwp)
Protected
A 28k shift from one version to the other is way too much to be reverting back and forth over over. Discuss each piece individually, please, and do try to work together? And if anyone is violating the provisions of the arbitration on this topic, please remind them that they are beholden to it and further edit warring will result in blocking. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, you'll throw 1/4 of the article back and forth like it's nothing, but not one of you is ready to defend the edits? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I did not notice this message. User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research. The text is big and it would be hard to discuss every entry by Oliveriki in details but his additions feature objective sources from first class Western academics. Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse. The favorite method of Azerbaijani objections to truth is finding Armenian grandmothers in the bloodline of Western academics (!!!!!). User:Tuscumbia was banned for six months for entertaining such ideas. Golbez I think u should restore the text and if some people disagree they should state why they do point by point. Zimmarod (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it. I don't really know or care which side is right, just figure it out before this gets unprotected. If Tuscumbia was banned for six months, that just makes them one of a long line of editors on both sides who have been banned over this petty fight so that's not going to sway me one way or another. All I care about is stopping the edit war without having to actually read the material, because I burned out on picking through the contributions to these articles years ago. It's just that this behavior annoys me enough that, instead of un-watchlisting the article, I make the children sit down and tell them to play nice. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- And to be clear: I don't know if one side is right or not. I don't care. I just don't like edit wars, and I don't like having to enforce them by blocking people when there's been zero discussion on the topic. So, the article gets locked until there's discussion. Maybe in a week I'll switch it to the version with your edit, and then swap it back and forth forever until discussion takes place. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it. I don't really know or care which side is right, just figure it out before this gets unprotected. If Tuscumbia was banned for six months, that just makes them one of a long line of editors on both sides who have been banned over this petty fight so that's not going to sway me one way or another. All I care about is stopping the edit war without having to actually read the material, because I burned out on picking through the contributions to these articles years ago. It's just that this behavior annoys me enough that, instead of un-watchlisting the article, I make the children sit down and tell them to play nice. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I did not notice this message. User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research. The text is big and it would be hard to discuss every entry by Oliveriki in details but his additions feature objective sources from first class Western academics. Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse. The favorite method of Azerbaijani objections to truth is finding Armenian grandmothers in the bloodline of Western academics (!!!!!). User:Tuscumbia was banned for six months for entertaining such ideas. Golbez I think u should restore the text and if some people disagree they should state why they do point by point. Zimmarod (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Golbez, please see the futility of building a consensus with User:Tuscumbia here on talk pages in Murovdag . I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher. Zimmarod (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Golbez, do you find any similarities in the following statements: by Zimmarod and by Gorzaim? Same person. No doubt. Here is more of the same rhetoric: and (along with the current ) Ironically, Winterbliss, Zimmarod and many others appeared at nearly the same time (meaning their active period coincides) and they speak the "same language". Look at their joint activity. After monthly intervals, Oliveriki is called to make that special sockpuppet edit such as this one, which was undone by one of editors for being the product of major sockpuppet master Hetoum I's socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm, which in turn, was reverted by another new suspicious account Szeget, who was, needless to say, found to be a sock of Hetoum I/Xebulon, as well. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zimmarod; it seems it wasn't Oliveriki who wrote this all up. She just restored older entries. This section is supposed to be about building consensus on subject matter issues. Instead Tuscumbia prefers cheap manipulations in hope to persuade administrators that everyone is a sock of each other. Tuscumbia and his friends have nothing to say, they are just gaming the system. And it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here and Tuscumbia here and here . Both make identically worded threats " and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Same language same threats. He does not say "I will report you if you do this/that" but "If - blah, blah - you will be reported." Identical structure of the phrase. Do not forget that both Tuscumbia and Mursel help one another on AA2 pages like they just did on Nagorno-Karabakh page here and here .
- Now see what uninvolved third party editors say about Tuscumbia:
- Lothar von Richthofen commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs:
- "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→
- Administrator User:Wgfinley getting tired of Tuscumbia unwillingness to cooperate with several editors:
- Tuscumbia - you are on the cusp of some action on my part. I don't see anything from you that legitimately refutes either Walker or Hewsen as reliable sources for this article. You want to accuse the sources of bias but have no evidence that proves them as such and seem instead to make up bias for them (such as Hewsen somehow making his own electronic maps). There have been established texts supplied that support that use of that name, why can't it be added as an alternate name?
I see two posts trying to get me to care about who is or is not a sock of someone else, or who can or can not be reasoned with. I don't care. I'm here to protect the article, not spend hours diving into the minutiae. If you can't come to a consensus then you move on up the dispute resolution ladder. If you think someone is a sock then you go to the suspected sockpuppets page. What you do not do is continue to revert back and forth. Period. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Golbez - "Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it." I dont understand what that means. There were several authors who wrote the 1/4 of the text that was deleted, and several other editors who endorse these new edits. If someone does not like the new edits, she might have explained her position right after her revert. None of the editors who were reverting the new edits explained what they disagreed with. The were just posting "this is a POV" when reverting, meaning that they were not interesting in improving the article in principle. Let's restore the text and if the reverting/deleting Azerbaijani editors finally bother to explain why they revert, we may consider their arguments and accordingly modify the text. The onus is in this particular case on those who did not bother to explain their reverts on talk pages and engaged instead in edit war. Zimmarod (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally identical. (link: ) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by User:Oliveriki or User:Zimmarod. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as User:Mursel, User:Tuscumbia and User:Ehud Lazar did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. Winterbliss (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Simply put, when someone is banned, their edits can be reverted on sight. Whether they are good or bad. If they are valid edits, then someone who wasn't banned has to make them and claim them as their own, rather than simply saying "I think your reversion was incorrect." It is now them who is making the edit and must defend it, rather than leave it on the original, banned, editor to defend it. That's what I mean by take ownership. If they are to be preserved, someone must take responsibility for them. I would love to assume good faith but with these articles, that will never exist, so I gave up on it long ago. Every time I've tried I've been bitten, and it's extremely difficult for me to look at Oliveriki's edit in good faith. (Zimmarod's defense of it, however, does appear genuine and in good faith) And, again: It is an edit that requires justification, not the reversion thereof, as per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Finally: To call the reverted version the "vandalized" version is really displaying a bias, whether you intended it or not. I would say someone editwarring over a long period of time and with multiple socks to insert his preferred version is vandalizing. At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by User:Oliveriki or User:Zimmarod. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as User:Mursel, User:Tuscumbia and User:Ehud Lazar did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. Winterbliss (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally identical. (link: ) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)