Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 20 September 2010

Re:

You can try this: . Parishan (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Parishan (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Karabakh section of AAF

I disagree with your first point; I believe the photo, though low quality, does add value. I spent some considerable time trying to find a photo that better represented the NK War than the photo of an Azeri woman journalist with her child that was there before. However your second point may have value. What is the status of the photo's origins as per commons? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Quantum666. Do you know of a good NK War photo we can use, that has some reference to the Azeri Armed Forces? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you find the correct license. I had a look at Google Images and Commons but can't find anything really good. Please go ahead and inform me when you find a photo that looks suitable. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They're good, but you need to tell me the copyright status of the photos and locate some captions, so we can properly document the images. What does the website's copyright status say? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your edit

I made these changes in order to give Misplaced Pages a more balanced perspective. The word "occupants" clearly represents Azeri POV because the Armenians are indigenous to Nagorno-Karabakh. Likewise, the word "liberators" would have represented Armenian POV. Moreover, the article used as source for the term "Armenian forces" calls the forces in the area the Karabakh military and not Armenian forces...--Davo88 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you say that the fact of occupation is recognized by everyone. The truth is that the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh got their independence by themselves and created a republic although this is what's not recognized by anyone. The territory around the traditional borders of Nagorno-Karabakh is simply meant to be a buffer zone... The website, when it says "Armenian forces" is most likely referring to the ethnic origin of the Karabakh forces and not to the Armed Forces of Armenia. Anyway, I will try to look for more sources and whatnot...--Davo88 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi - you should really stop mischaracterizing other users' edits as vandalism when the issue is clearly not about vandalism (for instance). Please be also aware about Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement; you're very closed to being reported for your edit wars. Sardur (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your message on my talk page: I did comment in both cases. If you need more details:

• Armenian Genocide recognition ("extremely controversial edits, please discuss first"): most of your modifications were not neutral and should have first been discussed on the article talk page.
• Shushi (province) ("does not belong here"): this article is about an administrative division of the NKR and uses the Armenian name of this division. It is more than logical to use the Armenian name of the center of this division.

Sardur (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and you're not allowed to do what you want here. Controversial edits are to be discussed first.

As for Shushi / Shusha, both are used in English, so I don't understand your answer.

Sardur (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No explanation? Be serious please. But if you want examples, this or this are your PoV. On the other hand, several of your edits are not explained.

Shushi/Shusha: this is all about context.

Sardur (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I say that these are examples, the logical conclusion is that they are not the only ones.

Let's take an example: in Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan, I find it logical to have "Khankendi city (Xankəndi) (de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic named Stepanakert)". You see?

Sardur (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Armenian Genocide recognition: see the talk page of the article
• Shushi/Shusha: I hardly see what your last answer has to do with the issue you first raised.

Sardur (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With what proposal? Sardur (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the link with your primary concern, so I don't see why I should answer. Sardur (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

re Shusha

First of all, you need to always use an edit summary on the Azeri/Armenian articles. But the reason I reverted was, you took this sentence:

The capital is Stepanakert (known in Azerbaijan as Xankəndi, Khankendi). Its other major city, today lying partially in ruins, is Shushi (known in Azerbaijan as Shusha).

and changed it to:

The capital is Stepanakert (known in Azerbaijan as Xankəndi, Khankendi). Its other major city, today lying partially in ruins, is Shusha (known in Armenia as Shushi).

It seemed like an odd construction to go from "The capital is X (known in Azerbaijan as Y) and its other city is Y (known in Armenia as X)". It struck me as potentially confusing to the reader. Furthermore, it's not known in Armenia as Shushi; it's perhaps known in Armenian, but it's certainly known in NK as Shushi, and that was what article we were on. --Golbez (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was a logical conclusion. :) And yes, we name articles after their 'common' names (so far as I know, the 'use the common name' guideline applies solely to article titles, though the guideline is usually vastly misinterpreted), but that doesn't require every single reference to that place use the common name. If Khankendi were the more 'common' name of Stepanakert, I would still strongly support calling it Stepanakert in the article on the country it's the capital of, as to do otherwise would be pretty insulting. Also, thanks for telling me I have an Armenian POV, I'll slide that next to all the other accusations of Armenian or Azeri POV. For someone who claims to know the rules, you should have known not to make a controversial edit (and you know changing a name from one to the other would be controversial if you were familiar at all with the history of these articles here) without an edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you really should know to use edit summaries when making such a change. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use it as the edit din't seem to me to be contraversial. Next time I will comment each of my edit to avoid such problems. But what about the article? Do you still think that we should write Shushi instead of Shusha? --Quantum666 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When speaking in the article on a country about a city in that country where the people of that city and country have a clear preference for their own name over the country they violently declared independence from, I see no problem with listing the local/official name first. I can't think of any modern parallels at the moment to give a comparison, Nicosia isn't really an accurate comparison. It's not like there's a common exonym; well over 99.99% of English speakers have never heard of the town, let alone have a preference for what name. We aren't talking Germany vs. Deutschland here. --Golbez (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Touche, I actually had missed that aspect. Still, it seems like an odd construction (and yes, there are odd constructions) to alternate back and forth. I still think it could be confusing to readers. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep speaking of consensus as this sacrosanct law that can be 'violated', I very much suspect you would not be defending it so strongly were you to disagree with it. I don't recall it carved in stone that Shusha shall always and forever be Shusha, in every placement on the pedia. --Golbez (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, do not try to vandalize the article of Garegin Njdeh Kevorkmail (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? By the way you haven't explained your edits in the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

"Please do not change old version until the discussion is finished. See WP:Consensus" The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Claim WP:Consensus Allows Us To Keep My New Version Until We Discuss. If there is a dispute, things are usually reset to the original, not the new, version. And I'm not sure I'm even seeing any discussion, edit summaries aren't a great place to do it. --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint as it should have been addressed to the other party. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see the discussion here. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I appear to have misunderstood. You were saying, don't 'change the original version'. So for that, comment withdrawn and I apologize. However, we are allowed to edit other things in an article while one part is under discussion. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Garegin Njdeh

I know that you are going forward with Azerbaijani propaganda. My sources are reliable and once you find a source which contradicts with my sources just go with it and post it in the article, and do not threaten me with your Azerbaijani way. Kevorkmail (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Template:Z9