User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveCaucasus

Edit-war?

Just a friendly suggestion that you might want to be careful you don't accidentally break the WP:3RR rule - if you see a serial edit warrior, it's probably better to report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring rather than get involved in the edit war yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, how'd you find me out? It's a new user, not a serial edit warrior. I've placed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Georgia .28country.29 location, and don't intend to revert again. I assume that was the correct course of action? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that looks like a better approach than the edit-war noticeboard, as it will hopefully address the bigger issue - I only noticed it because I happened to be checking recent changes at the time. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious POV editing? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I had a closer look and thought it would benefit from wider attention -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My love, the only "bigger issue" here is that Georgia is being excluded unfairly from where it should be included, even with overwhelming evidence. If you go through the archives you will realize that this outrage with the established status did not begin with me, and will not end with me. This makes me think that your understanding of "the bigger issue" is not well-placed. How many users are going to be chastised or blocked for the duration of years for doing this, 10, 100, 200? As long as Georgians from respectable families and origins know their history and sacrifice and see this disgraceful page, the edit warring will be never-ending. That is the bigger issue. --Ludovica91 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue here isn't about Georgia - I have no opinion either way on that. The issue is how we go about making changes here at Wikipedia. We discuss them on the appropriate Talk page, and if we can gain a consensus then we can make our changes - and if the consensus is against us, then we either accept that or pursue dispute resolution (see WP:DR). We do not engage in edit war to force our changes into articles against consensus - even if we are right. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian Passportization

The source for the claim that Russia forced some residents in South Ossetia to take passports was provided. For some reason you have reverted it. You must have overlooked the link to OSCE report.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I did in fact, miss that, apologies. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Also, please note that there was no reason for you to remove word "invasion" from the text. The legal recognition of those regions by Russia did not occur until after the war. At the time of the conflict, Russia knew it was crossing into the Georgian lands.(per UN Security Council resolutions as recent as 2007) Even if the recognition came before the war, Russian "intervention" was an invasion as it went outside of the disputed zones and occupied a port city of Poti, which is in the Georgia proper. I understand your intentions but on many edits it feels as if you were glossing over facts that do not portray Russia in a favourable light.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 04:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a word choice. I just rewrote the section based on sources. I'm fine with invasion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I just wanted to make sure you were in agreement as some people would take offense, whether rightfully or not.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic tone is always the best way to go. Anyway, I've clarified that recognition came post-invasion in the article text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgia

You be damned for putting Georgia alongside its butchers in the middle east. You know nothing about the country, or its people, only your what your ignorant, perverted imagination will tell you. --141.161.133.117 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha! This guy again... Nightw 11:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice

You appear to be editing warring over a footnote from Europe, copied over to Asia. The footnote in Europe has been in place for years and was very carefully worked out. Please could you stop editing in this way, without any sensible discussion? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted per WP:BRD. I'm engaging in discussion. The point of this message is? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop littering my page

Stop littering my page with your meaningless warnings. You use this law-abiding, discussion-willing image just to cover what your true goal is - use discussions to indefinitely drag on the process of changing what is written according to your beliefs. And the end result? The pages get magically locked on your "uncontroversial" versions so that "disruptive" editors such as I make no further changes.The sources I am providing make everything clear but you have a personal predisposition against any implication that Georgia may be considered European more often than not. Guess what my love? that truly is the case and that is how it should be said. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 08:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

S. Caucasus maps (again)

Again, thanks for all your useful geography editing. BTW, love your "Majority does not equal right" icon on your user page. Nice reply above on Australia vs. Oceania! And congrats on perhaps being the only editor to have the phrase "Guess what, my love" placed here (above, by old "friend"--ComtesseDeMingrélie!)

Any help or suggestion on the locator map in Azerbaijan?? As in Feb. and also four days back, User: Proger is back to his old tricks, just doing drive-by rv's with no discussion, since he feels that a map of Europe(!) with Azer. falling off the extreme edge is somehow WP:NPOV for Azer. Other than Cyprus, most locator maps have the country in question at least somewhere near the center, a point made by at least 3 other editors in recent weeks who have attempted to change this map for the better, only to be hit with a rv with no discussion by Proger. In my lowly geographer role (with no agenda or connection to the Caucasus at all), I suggested that when consensus is reached to start the article with "Azer. is in Europe" (unlikely), then, and only then, can a map of Europe be legitimately used as a locator. Result: another drive-by rv by Proger. (Neftchi tends to help him.) Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated as I'm not well versed or experienced in WP practices-policies. (As you know, the Georgia and Armenia maps at least aren't this bad at the moment, and there are several Azer maps in Commons where Azer is more in the center....and of course, they are not maps of Europe!) (I also left a message with User:Dbachmann who, like all of us geographers, will not agree on everything but has been most helpful on S. Caucasus, Boundaries between continents, etc.) Thanks. DLinth (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help with getting common-sense locator maps....key ingredients: the country-in-question is somewhere near the middle, and, for South Caucasus, it's not a map of Europe ...i.e., not a barely-disguised attempt (WP:DUCK) to say that Azer. is exclusively "in Europe". The new map for Azer. by Night w is ok on those grounds.

Regarding your discovery that the nice, previous (8 April) Georgia locator map has disappeared, I just wrote to MosMusy who, on this topic, seems quite helpful and I believe uploaded that map (as Mov25 whose user page says it's his sock.) I could live with the orthographic map that you went with since it meets the same two key ingredients (above.) I'll keep an eye on these three S. Caucasus locator maps, and thanks for your useful help.DLinth (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Map

Hey, given your suggestion on having Georgia map show the unrecognised territories, we should make the same change to Azerbaijan's map. I noticed that Serbia, Moldova which have similar situations, show the territory in question when showing their map. People should know, when looking at the map on the country's page which part of the country is not under control of that country's government. MosMusy (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I don't know how to change the image myself at the moment, so I can't edit the map myself. We may be able to ask the graphics lab workshop, but it's very inactive at the moment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Georgia map change

I noticed you changed the map to have Georgia with the de-facto independent territories. That's fine, but this change should be made in the Azerbaijan article as well. Just warning you, there will be nationalistic opposition, that will be faced. MosMusy (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I will watch the conversation on Azerbaijan. It may also be worth noting that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic map File:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (orthographic projection) v1.png also shows areas it claims but does not control in light green. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a new map to Azerbaijan. I basically re-coloured the NKR map. Watch out for reverts though. MosMusy (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh

all sources that were mention show all 3 countries of the caucasus in the same region, though Abkhazia and South Ossetia could be considered as part of the region where Russia is (if the Caucasus and Russia are in the different regions), Nagorno-karabakh is clearly in the same region as Armenia/Azerbaijan, even if you complain about it i'll add that most of the sources have map which shows Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and part of its region. Still its ridiculus that a country page on wikipedia lacks general location information. Captain armenia (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes they all border each other, but the divide between Europe and Asia is the peaks of the Caucasus Mountains, which is far to the north of the NKR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no accepted border between Europe and Asia, recently socio-political criteria is used more often than geographical, however two major sources - UN and the CIA use the old-styled geographical version, however EU, BBC, worldatlas, FIFA, FIBA, FIVB (and in practice every sport governing body) consider whole Caucasus being part of Europe. Captain armenia (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an accepted border, reliable sources all use exactly the same one. Whether bodies classify the caucasian countries as European or Asian is entirely up to them, but it doesn't change geography. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not actually like you mentioned, but you're right on the geography part. However there isn't an accepted border between subregions, so there are two possible outcomes

1. Armenia is located in Asia
2. Armenia is located in Asia and is socio-politically part of Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, Western Asia or Central Asia I think the second version is better Captain armenia (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Subregions must be by definition part of the broader region, but even so, they are completely arbitrary and based on the opinion of whoever is defining them. Here's how it is: Armenia is fully within the borders of Asia. However, culturally it is very similar to many European states and it has politically aligned itself towards Europe. Does this justify a giant obtuse footnote? No. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting some footnotes and using your template on all inter/trans-continental countries would be just great and suitable for both sides, you have really found right words to explain the situation, great job! Captain armenia (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Good change in NKR by the way removing the region. That was confusing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

History of Georgia (country)

Hi. I just left a note at the talk page of the IP address 92.4.130.108, suggesting that he/she/they might want to consider taking their concerns about the content at History of Georgia (country) to the article's talk page, rather than engage in what might possibly be seen as an edit war. Richwales (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it was just a misunderstanding over part of the page. Their last edit was good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Georgia

Hey, why do you change Georgia (country) edits? Don't do that again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgianJorjadze (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons given in the edit summary. You placed some random map including the EU, added a couple of WP:UNDUE and WP:PEACOCKy statements, and shifted pictures above a main, which they shouldn't be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to keep deleting me edits all the time? I demand explanations from you. In case of Georgia, why did you delete my edits? I've put the anthem of Georgia and you edited it. I've put the map of Georgia, but you still put the map of Georgia with separatist regions highlighted. There are all the sources of Russian occupation of Georgian territories linked with every source and still you kept deleting my edits. Cannot you just stop already? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given some explanations. The anthem was an incidental removal, you should propose that separately. You put a map which implied Georgia was part of the EU, the one with the separatist regions is far more neutral and informative. We already say it's occupied. I suggest you discuss on Talk:Georgia (country) as multiple users have reverted you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what I am saying? Where is the anthem? Where is the normal map without highlighting separatist regions? Where is the 'Russian occupation of Georgian territories' written? You're not letting me to edit and keep deleting everything I write. I am NOT biased. PUT THE ANTHEM! PUT THE UNITED MAP OF GEORGIA INTO INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS WITHOUT SEPARATIST REGIONS! PUT THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION! AND THEN YOU CAN LOCK THE THREAD! Do you get it or not? Stop this editorial war for god's sake! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. The simple solution is to discuss, not through all caps around. The current map is useful, showing all claims, and far better than an EU map. The Russian occupation is mentioned in the history section, although I'm sure it could be included in the lead somehow. What thread am I locking? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So DO it! Where is the anthem? Put some other map of UNITED GEORGIA! and put in the HEAD the RUSSIAS OCCUPATION. It's not the fairy tale called just like that. Russia still has occupied Georgia's 20%. SO PUT THAT IN THE HEAD of the topic. And LOCK the TOPIC with this little lock in the right side --> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Padlock-silver.svg/20px-Padlock-silver.svg.png --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The anthem was reverted as a copyvio, so I don't feel comfortable adding myself. What fairy tale? Why would I lock the article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

History of Georgia template

I already cut down the infobox and they block it. That is why I remove them from pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, see contributions of this user, please. This is typical vandal! In this resume, he (or she) outrage georgian user (shegeci jaba menas in georgian fuck you jaba). I request to you block this user! --MIKHEIL (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the most amicable of users, but let's see if they get the message and go to talk shall we? If they cause more trouble and you think they should be blocked, I suggest recontacting User:Wifione. I'll drop a warning though, they shouldn't be using profanity. CMD (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just notice that the Georgia template was just fine before it was inflated unnecesrly to its present size by a blocked User:Tanllocittis. Do you think theyr the same person and that explains the attacks on me by so many Georgia editors at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's Satt 2, in case you didn't notice. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, you might want to read up on s:Bible (King James)/Proverbs#26:11 too. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to assume any editor of Georgian articles that swears at others is Satt 2... sigh. What we'd do without CU, I don't know. CMD (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Hello Chipmunkdavis, u reedited my edits which were sources from EU, BBC, and etc. And u have written that abkhazia is actually a State what is large Misinformation and Because of that i have contacted to Wiki administrator, if such edits will appear again i will make a complaint about it. i told same to Administrator. We are wikipedia users and this must not happen to wikipedia because it has already problems with law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Victor Schnirelmann in Georgian alphabet

Hello CMD,

In the Georgian alphabet topic there's quote of Russian historian:

Victor Schnirelmann has noted that the Georgian historians' somewhat painful attitude towards Mesrop Mashtots is conditioned by the "myth of some pure original indigenous culture".

That sounds offensive and insulting don't you think? Don't you think that this quote should be removed? What do you suggest? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read as offensive and insulting, and explains the rest of the paragraph it's in. There could be better wording for "somewhat painful attitude", but I'd have to read the source to know that, and I can't find an online copy. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you would suggest that the quote should stay? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. While we should usually write in our own words, when attributing something to a single source a quote can be useful. Here, the quote means I haven't questioned that phrase like I questioned "somewhat painful attitude". CMD (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But is the source correct and should Russian (along with Armenians) be considered a trusted and credible as a source. I don't know if you know about it but it's mainly Russians and Armenians in the historical circles who were and still are always fighting against Georgian heritage and having ridiculous claims about anything what is of Georgian origin. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the source is correct, but I see no reviews online which make me think it is. While it's always prudent to watch out for nationalistic sources, this author seems to hold some respectability, and it's the only explanation for the different dating presented on the page. Also note that the credibility argument goes both ones, if one intrinsically distruts Russians and Armenians due to a default position, one should be equally wary of Georgian sources for the same reasons. CMD (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia karabakh

Ur resent edites in "Caucasus" is vandalism, nothing more. Abkhazia and Karabakh are official territories of Georgia and Azerbaijan recognized by 99% of World governments. I sent a letter to Administrator about ur vandal actions, i hope u will get a permanent BAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.208.159 (talk • contribs)

sortkeys

Hi. The keys you added in Abkhazia are only a substring of the one found in DEFAULTSORT. So, they don't really make difference. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see that, was working through hotcat on a few articles. Thanks for pointing it out though, I'll double-check in future. CMD (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

NK, France and Estonia

Regarding this; it could be because of France–North Korea relations page. It states, "France is one of the only two European Union members not to recognise North Korea, the other being Estonia." Source I believe only talks about d-relations, but have you heard anything that this could be the case? Outback the koala (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a claim I've heard somewhere before, but I haven't seen any sources supporting it. They don't have diplomatic relations, but France didn't object to the North entering the UN, if that means anything. The relations page should probably be changed. CMD (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

STOP your pro-abkhazian edits ! Folow NPOV !!!--Balakhadze ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 10:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same, replacing abkhazian with Georgian. Note that one aspect of NPOV is to "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". A government in exile does not hold the same prominence as a government in control. CMD (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You could say, but you would lie, I'm not removing separatist Abkhazia's signs meanwhile as you are removing Georgian signs.--Balakhadze ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 10:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Displaying them both with equal prominence is not neutrality, as it doesn't reflect reality. CMD (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Read these articles and then you'll understand what is or not reality: Battle of Gagra, Kamani massacre, Siege of Tkvarcheli, Sukhumi massacre.--Balakhadze ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the 1992 war, its individual events aren't important for determining which CoA is currently in use on those territories. CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

CMD, maybe it's better to be balanced.Recent info (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

...yes? CMD (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

. . .

User Chipmunkdavis my disfavour to you! You like "paranoid" reverting all my edits. -_-. --Balakhadze 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't nearly reverted "all [your] edits". Perhaps you should try editing through discussion and consensus, rather than your current technique of edit warring changes in. CMD (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Democratic Republic of Georgia (en).svg

User Chipmunkdavis do you realy can't see neighbour countries on this map? This map actually gives same information as this file:Democratic Republic of Georgia map.jpg, the only difference is in borders. Also this map is more correct.--Balakhadze 21:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No-one could see the neighbouring countries on the map. There's an amorphous white mass with a few names scattered around. The former one is nowhere near perfect, but at least there's a couple of dates and a difference between Russia and the southern countries. The legend in yours is also strange in that it uses present tense for a past entity. As for accuracy, neither presents a source, but the former doesn't claim as a source an international body that never accepted it as a member. CMD (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Georgian–Armenian War

Hi Chipmunk, just a note to say that the reverting at these articles has reached inappropriate levels. If someone makes an edit against consensus and continues to revert, the best thing is to get others involved, including through article RfCs, or to request admin assistance. In any event you should be careful not to violate 3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I haven't touched the article in 6 days though, and in the time I did edit it I don't think I violated 3RR. Do your dates show differently? Also, since Alæxis went as far as to file a 3RR report on a user whose standard approach is to edit war in their edits, and it was ignored, what am I supposed to ask admins? CMD (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your dates are correct, but you did violate 3RR: the four reverts were 18:43, 18:48, 19:05 on 18 June and 17:02 on 19 June; then another one at 20:36 on 19 June. Also bear in mind that the spirit of 3RR matters too: reverting for a fourth time just outside the 24 hours would count toward it. I understand that this can happen, but it's not only at this article, and any uninvolved admin is likely to see only the reverts, rather than delving into why. So you would be safer to get others involved rather than reverting yourself. Article RfCs (for example) are slow, but they can be very effective.

It's unfortunate that the 3RR report went stale, but consider posting on an admin's talk page in future if you can't get help from the noticeboards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't usually insert myself into other people's business like this, but I do feel I should make some comment here. CMD, in the course of the very valuable work he does, often finds himself pretty much alone defending good articles against POV warriors and/or vandals. Many of our "Country" and Geography articles owe a significant part of their quality and stability to his efforts. It's a very tricky position to be in. I know, because I find myself in it from time to time, as I know you have too, SlimVirgin. Whilst it is true that the policies and guidelines need to be enforced evenly, sometimes it's also important to consider the effect on the morale of good editors.

I, for instance, have just spent nearly 3 weeks trying to get a steaming pile of POV, copy/pasted unintelligible nonsense masquerading as an article deleted, necessitating long discussions with ARS type editors, and other well meaning, but basically poorly-informed !voters who would seem to default to keep just about anything without really considering the situation and understanding it. It's very draining, and takes up an enormous amount of time which could otherwise be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. Now I just await the next round when the POV editor returns from his block, or creates a new sock. Rinse and repeat.

We need to avoid biting newbies, sure - but we also need to avoid making our good editors feel like they are banging their heads on a very hard wall. This is in no way a criticism of any actions taken here - it's just an observation from someone who has often himself been very tempted to say "stuff it", in the face of the sheer Herculean effort involved in doing the right thing. Perhaps this is a big part of the problem: any uninvolved admin is likely to see only the reverts, rather than delving into why. My 2 cents. Begoon ^talk 02:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Begoon, I agree completely. Another editor has explained that Chipmunkdavis does great work at these articles. But that last sentence that you highlighted is unfortunately what most admins will see – the behaviour rather than the reason for it. I agree that it's a major problem when good editors are left isolated, trying to maintain standards and being judged according to "blind" policy application. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, one day we'll change the world, eh? For now I guess we have to live with it and share our little 'rants' occasionally. There are so many people doing good work, unappreciated, and this medium can be very impersonal at times. I'm as guilty as anyone else on occasion. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted information on Abkhazia

why did you delete the information about Laz presence in Abkhazia ? This information was already there, and i just added new information. This represents a violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I deleted no information. If you actually look at the edit, I merely shifted the location of the source, and reworded it, in the process actually adding information. What you added was a WP:Copyright violation. WP:Copy-pasteing text is explicitly prohibited by wikipedia policy, due to possible real-life legal issues. CMD (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazia

i already re-wrote that information, thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hello. It would be greatly appreciated if you approach other editors' improvements in a respectful way. At least provide a helpful summery for your reverts. Indicate what makes you unhappy and open a discussion rather than stalling the evolution of the article by reverting to worse state. For example, the version that you seem to be happy with has a lengthy paragraph about the NKR. Why would an article about Azerbaijan contain so much info about NKR? I insist on my improvement and welcome any constructive discussion. But please don't just go around and null my labor in such an inconsiderate way. Thank you. Gulmammad | ^talk 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not disrespectful to revert an edit, it's actually quite common practice. In my edit summary I noted 3 things, 1) the lack of discussion, which isn't an issue by itself but becomes so when you start reverting your edit in, 2) puffery, of which there seemed to be a bit in your lead, although there is some in the previous one and this wasn't major, and 3) expansion, your lead was 6 paragraphs, when a lead should be around 4. The process to follow here is WP:BRD, where you, having been reverted, note what changes you'd like to make in the talkpage. Regards, CMD (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have a concern about this statement: "'The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic emerged in Nagorno-Karabakh after the ceasefire of 1994 and is not diplomatically recognized by any nation. As such, the region, de facto independent since the end of the war, is a de jure part of Azerbaijan.'" I find it odd that you think this statement is fine while I feel it is completely irrelevant for this article although the fact by itself is correct. I'd not be so puzzled had you manually reverted the parts that you felt werent okay. Instead you simply reverted the entire improvement. This move of yours is completely inconsiderate with a potential to provoke edit-war. Thus I request from you in a most respectful way to go back and improve the article with removing or changing what you feel is not okay. As for the second thing you noted above, can you please be more specific? What you tell is quite vague and if I understand you correct, I will make appropriate changes. Lastly, I wasn't aware of the 4 paragraphs rule although I knew the lead should be short and concise and induce interest in the reader to read the relevant parts... Gulmammad | ^talk 06:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Every edit has the potential to provoke edit war, and nothing inconsiderate has happened. Whether or not it will happen relies on the editors involved. Will you, as the bold editor, decide to engage in discussion or try and edit war your changes in? If you're decided on discussion, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Changes would be better proposed at Talk:Azerbaijan than here. With regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh statement, it's two sentences that seem very relevant to the article, given a bit of Azerbaijan hasn't been controlled by Azerbaijan since independence. There may be more concise ways to write it, but removing all mention of NKR is not an improvement. Something that read as quite puffery was the UN paragraph. It's not remotely unusual for a country to be part of the UN, and it's not particularly special to be elected to the UNSC. The four paragraphs 'rule' is a guide to try and create a concise lead. Again, I recommend you open on the talkpage a discussion along the lines of "The current text X should be changed to Z because of Y." Regards, CMD (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am going to open the discussion as you suggested and I am determined to take into account all your concerns in a version that I am going to propose. I'll make sure to include NKR part in a more relevant way as well. What's your suggestion for UN and UNSC parts? Should I remove that entirely? I spent hours of my time trying to improve the prose while keeping the facts intact and this was one of the most annoying parts. If it was for me, I'd remove it but feared objections. So I need an input from editors like you. Please let me know how we can improve the lead. Its original version was in a terrible shape, composed of loosely connect collection of fact containing sentences! Gulmammad | ^talk 06:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in the lead. A sentence or two in foreign relations, if anything, but definitely not the lead. The reader doesn't learn anything about Azerbaijan from this. If it was a permanent member, that'd be different, as that shows a prominent position in international politics. However, just being a temporary member by itself is quite inconsequential. I look forward to your discussion. CMD (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your suggestion. I've come up with a proposal at the talk page of the article[1]. Your further suggestions and help to make it more concise will be appreciated. Warmly, Gulmammad | ^talk 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthem

See Talk:Georgia (country)#Anthem. GeorgianJorjadze 08:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait if I revert your edits this is edit war and when you revert my changes back this is normal? Yes, as I promised I don't edit war but you seem to not care at all my arguments given in the talk page. All countries have anthems and you still remove it and then blame me in edit war? I am not doing anything wrong here. georgianJORJADZE 14:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Talkpage discussions should reach WP:CONSENSUS, it's not enough to just state your point and then ignore the subsequent conversation. CMD (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What discussion? You are not telling me the answer. Why did you remove the anthem from the article? Simple question. All countries have it and why would you remove it from the Georgian one? georgianJORJADZE 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I did answer. If you didn't understand the answer, you should ask for clarification. CMD (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jaqeli

Hi. I got a talk page message from Jaqeli a couple of hours ago, asking me to intervene in a dispute between you and him involving the articles Georgia (country) and History of Georgia (country). I haven't looked at the recent histories of these articles in detail, and I probably won't be able to do so until at least 6 - 12 hours from now. I understand Jaqeli feels he's in the right and you're in the wrong — but what, in your view, is going on here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Richwales, they posted an identical post on User talk:Elockid. Basically Jaqeli made some bold edits, I thought some of them to be not an improvement, and reverted them. See article history for Georgia (country) and article history for History of Georgia (country). A couple of back and forths both ways, then I posted on User talk:Elockid about it (due to their previous administrative involvement with Jaqeli), they posted a separate message in response (the one identical to your talkpage), I referred them to WP:BRD ([2]), they referred me to WP:EW ([3]), which in my opinion is somewhat WP:POT. That's all that's happened.

In my view (besides the POT issue), with regards to History of Georgia, the replacement of a photo with a painting is not an improvement, as a photo depicts the world more clearly (if you get my meaning), and the other picture they inserted was of a poorer quality than the original. With regards to Georgia (country), I thought their edits (such as adding "the great" and "the builder" to monarch names) were puffery in nature, and their replacement with the name of the kingdom of "Kartli and Kakheti" with "Georgia" to be unhelpful and confusing to the average reader at best, but reinforcing a nationalist POV (standard European nationalism with regards to connecting modern states to ancient ones) being more likely. (As a PS, 6-12 hours is quite fast, in my opinion.) CMD (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As best I can tell right now, I'm inclined to agree with your (Chipmunkdavis's) versions of these two articles, with one exception. The point where I disagree with you (and agree with Jaqeli) is that David IV of Georgia definitely ought to be referred to as "David the Builder" — this title is historically very well established and is (AFAIK) how he is most commonly known. Read the "Sobriquet and regnal ordinal" section in the article.

There may also be valid grounds for calling Tamar of Georgia "Tamar the Great" — though I don't believe the case is as strong here, since (AFAIK) there was only one Georgian queen named Tamar, hence no need for disambiguation. Note, FWIW, that Tamar is also widely known as "King Tamar" (თამარ მეფე), in recognition of her position as the first queen regnant of the united Kingdom of Georgia.

In any case, the edit warring on these two articles has absolutely got to stop now. This is an especially crucial matter for Jaqeli, given his history of lengthy bans for edit warring, but I'll say it to you as well. I would strongly advise both of you to voluntarily adopt a 1RR policy, and if you cannot agree on some point, take it to the article's talk page (and/or to other dispute resolution fora) and get a consensus of editors to agree on a given version. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced referring to a King as "David the Builder" as opposed to "David IV" is useful for the average reader, as David IV seems to place the chronological context better, but the point here is not the content. You make a reasoned point for "the Builder", but I've not seen any reasoning because despite Jaqeli's history of so much edit warring that they were indeffed and came back on the standard offer, they still seem to fail to understand 1) what an edit war is 2) how to use the talkpage and 3) how to try and garner a consensus. I've never liked 1RR and 3RR, they're easily gamed, I've always preferred some version of BRD (although in my experience reverting an intial revert with a more explanatory edit summary seems accepted and often works if an initial revert is due to a misunderstanding), as it promotes proper consensus building, rather than a situation where editors are counting down till when they can revert next. Perhaps some of Jaqeli's edits have very good reasoning behind them. Perhaps there's a good reason the photo Jaqeli uploaded with the white spots everywhere is actually better than the former one. The problem is, there's no way to tell if Jaqeli doesn't bother to explain their edits on talkpages. I'm sure if they just did this, that would go a long way to solving the problems here (and on the other pages Jaqeli has gotten into disputes with others). CMD (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Hi there- I see you reverted my edit on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article. I saw and understand your reasoning but I urge you to take a look at all other countries articles and you will see that they have a file of their national anthem. So , with your permission, could I put the file back in? Tomh903 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Tomh903, thanks for the message. Many articles do have such anthems, and this is because of the common reasoning that other articles have something, therefore this must have it. Anthems in the infobox have been a self-perpetuating item for awhile, but there has not been a community agreement for them. This issue was raised quite awhile ago now at Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 8#Can we add a small button to play the anthem.3F. What are your thoughts on that conversation? CMD (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the people in the conversation who support putting a file on the main article. It's a lot more convenient for someone wanting to research the country to be able to come onto the article and access the national anthem without having to click on links and move to a whole new article just to listen to a song that can so easily be put on the countries article. Tomh903 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How does hearing a soundtrack help with research for a topic? What understanding does it add? It perhaps gives a qualitative taste of the language, and if the anthem is English may potentially allow for a little glimpse at patriotic spin, but besides that there's not much. We have absolutely massive layers of information under all of our country articles, through the various main articles that must be ever-summarised for ever-more general articles. The anthem sound without lyrics, and if applicable a translation, doesn't assist understanding. If readers are on the anthem article's, they'll actually understand what they're listening to. CMD (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A countries anthem is part of its culture and heritage. If I go on to Frances or the UK's article then I will be able to listen to the anthem and recognize it in future. People who are not experienced on Wikipedia might not know how or want to open a new article to listen to the anthem that we can so easily put on the countries article. It makes the anthem more accessible and the article more interactive. Tomh903 (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple to open an article. They would've had to have done so to access the country page, which is just as accessible. As for culture and heritage, there are many things which make up the culture and heritage of various countries, but we don't include them all on the country page. That's because we have links to each topic. I disagree having an audio file (which doesn't seem to even work on the mobile app) makes the anthem more accessible, anthems are accessible when you have access to the lyrics and access to the translation, so you know what on earth it's about. CMD (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Aside from that you could have easily searched for it yourself, here you go.

Iberia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberia "Iberia became a tributary of the Sasanian state during the reign of Shapur I (241-272)." "However, after the emperor Julian was slain during his failed campaign in Persia in 363, Rome ceded control of Iberia to Persia, and King Varaz-Bakur I (Asphagur) (363-365) became a Persian vassal, an outcome confirmed by the Peace of Acilisene in 387" "Thereafter, the king of Iberia had only nominal power, while the country was effectively ruled by the Persians. In 580, Hormizd IV (578-590) abolished the monarchy after the death of King Bakur III, and Iberia became a Persian province ruled by a marzpan (governor)." "but in 591 Byzantium and Persia agreed to divide Iberia between them, with Tbilisi to be in Persian hands "

Lazica. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazica "Throughout much of its existence, it was mainly a Byzantine strategic vassal kingdom occasionally coming under Sassanid Persian rule"

Now perhaps you can tell me why it's not a fallacy to write that the "Georgian kingdoms had been under Byzantine/Roman rule for nearly 400 years?

Also I don't see why you reverted the change from Sassanid Persia back to Persia, as it was under Sassanjd Persia when these wars took place in those regions of the Caucasus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_empire

So, I will undo your reversion.

LouisAragon (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Furthermore, statements such as "it was mainly a Byzantine strategic vassal kingdom" seem to support the idea it had Roman connotations. If you have wp:reliable sources, please bring them up on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

This armenian oriented nagorno karabakh page continuously asserts that the land was always filled with armenians. I wonder why are my fucking edits being undone unreasonably when I have a solid proof of the facts that I have added. It is a fact that over 800,000 people have left the region as a result of united armenian-russian atrocities. Seeing the fucking sentences about the region consisting of always predominatly of armenians makes me mad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War. Here is ur fucking evidence. It is not fabricated we have tons of refugees living in Azerbaijan as a result of this Western-russia fuckery. An estimated 800,000 Azeris were displaced from the fighting including those from both Armenia and Karabakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodPrison (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Specific edits should be backed up by WP:Reliable Sources. If you feel the NKR page is missing information, add it with a source, or discuss the matter on that article's talkpage and perhaps the editor who reverted you and others will participate in discussion there. CMD (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

deleted update

Why the updates are deleted. Why do you think that it is not appropriate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferid Heziyev (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

disputed territory

Hello, Chip! I jjst wanted to ask you to explain your logic to me. Disputed territory is not the same as self declared state. I will tell it in the easiest way. It is by far more neutral to say: "Something is disputed between that and that, while one think its this, and other think its that." Your proposition is like this: "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is". As you can see, without this two words, we do not have NPOV, but POV with other opinions. All those "countries" are disputed between two entities, while both entities think is something else. Thats why i would revert your edits. --Axiomus (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Describing something as a "self-declared state" inherently notes a statement of dispute. Otherwise we'd describe them without the adjective "self-declared". Your assertion assumes that we use one view in the opening sentence, but we do not. All these entities consider themselves legitimate and proper states, and we do not say that they are for the reasons of balance you bring up. We are not saying "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is", we are saying "Something is this", and then going on to describe what "this" is. CMD (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sukhumi

Hi Chip, to my amazement (I just had a proper read) the lede of the Sukhumi article contained some huge POV, and, of course, when I had a look at the revision history, thats mainly thanks to our buddy, who's doing his very best to keep that revision there at whatever cost. I just tweaked the lede to make it fit more conform the WP:NPOV standards and to actually reflect the verifiable facts, but I think, nevertheless, we have to keep an eye on this. If you already have the article on your watch, then consider this message to be not sent. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I do have Sukhumi on my watchlist and have edited it before, but it's not an article I've keep a continuous eye on. It is unsurprising to me to find POV in articles related to the Caucasus, and Sukhumi isn't an exception, although it's a more interesting one as I've seen users and IPs that seem to espouse various POVs editing there, instead of just one slant. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep a keener eye out. CMD (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to privatize article about Georgia

Your decisions are worthless unless you won't provide proper arguments for every revert of other users edits! This article is not your property to do not let other users make changes in text. If you have something to say, write every argument in the talk page and then act if it will be consensus on that. "imbalanced pointy edits" is not an argument!--g. balaxaZe★ 11:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Of the last 50 edits to the article, you made 36 of them, so clearly my attempts to privatise the article aren't going well. Have you not learnt that ramming through your changes without discussion then complaining others won't discuss is poor editing procedure? Especially combined with the lack of participation you sometimes put into discussions others start. We've discussed this before. CMD (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your answer once more shows how weak is your "argument", count not lines of edits but changes in bytes(!) while step by step I try to improve the article also finding and uploading photos for it, you simply only revert other users contribution just because you want like that (If you say imbalanced then I say it is balanced, and what?). I suggest you read WP:OWN more carefully. I am demanding your argument for every sentence to explain for each of them what you see there "imbalanced". Enough your wilful reverts of others contribution. If you don't provide I'll involve in this discussion wider audience.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The note on edit numbers was referring to your privatisation argument. I understand WP:OWN. Have you considered it in relation to WP:POT? While I'm not making the changes, I will provide the short summary of my wilful revert. In regard to the lead edits, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article and concise but informative introduction to Georgia, not a place to navel-gaze particular interpretations of geography. This has been discussed numerous times in the archives, I am not striking a particularly original position on this. As for the history, it should be concise, and also should try to present helpful information rather than spin narratives by doing things such as anachronistically using "Eastern Georgia" as a pipe for Kartli-Kakheti. Additionally, the clear parameter gymnastics added into the last paragraph are a particularly obvious form of puffery, and demean rather than impress. As a final point on conduct, you really need to stop using wider discussions as threats. Firstly, you never seem to actually follow up on these threats, and secondly, it's not a threat, it's what's meant to happen. Your repeated insistence on such threats is baffling. CMD (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You answer your own wrong interpretations yes it is not a threat "it's what's meant to happen". When you revert such big edit with 3 words it is not enough and needs more explanations something similar what I read above, but still, not enough because you reverted other things as well that are not mentioned above. So what do you think to restore those ones that you didn't mention and explaine?--g. balaxaZe★ 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also I'll repeat edit numbers are not relevant you should count qualitative change, not quantity, I remember how you reverted huge portions of the article to very poor material just because it was Damian's contribution (it was not obligatory but you still did). Unlike you, I am not reverting other users good sourced edits, by this, you violate WP:AGF you think that others do not want to improve the article. You act similar to WP:Wikilawyering to halt further development of the article and that's why many users that edit other articles about Georgia avoid editing this one.--g. balaxaZe★ 08:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well if it's not a threat I recommend rewording the way you say it in future, but that's good to know. I want to point you again to WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, if you want to put through changes you need to explain them, as you ask me to do but for some reason have been reluctant to do so yourself. It is disappointing to see that you still fail to understand en.Wiki's policies regarding sockpuppets, but I do not want to repeat the same points all over again. You remain welcome to contact others regarding this. Your statements regarding AGF and Wikilawyering lead me to believe you do not fully understand these guidelines as well. I recommend again asking others about those, as my explanations do not seem to help. CMD (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Same issue

Hey Chip, some time no see :-) hope you're doing well man. I just wanted to say a few things...
Its interesting to note, that in the Satt2/Damianmx "appreciation" spree of Giorgi Balakhadze, which we could briefly see a few days ago on the Georgia (country) page, he's now also opting to move the page "Transcaucasia" to "South Caucasus" (see here). Its no surprise to take into account that the very same move was in fact made by Damianmx/Satt2 on 29 May 2016. Interestingly, furthermore, the article in question was never touched by Giorgi Balakhadze in the span of all these years prior to the move.

Now to make the story complete; just a few hours after Giorgi Balakhadze opened the request, an IP that geolocates to the exact same city, country, and state as earlier CU blocked IP's of Satt2/Damianmx,[4][5][6][7] hopped in to support Giorgi Balakhadze's concerns, having the same proficiency in English as the sockmaster in question. In fact, he signed the comment the very same way as well ("--"). Call it weird coincidence, but its a bit fishy if you ask me. Elockid, the admin who knows the most about the sockmaster/IPs, hasn't been active for some months, so I thought of just giving you a heads up at least. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OH, Before I forget; unfortunately, he still hasnt even slightly lowered his clear agenda-loaded sabre throughout all these months, regarding the issue of Abkhazia/S. Ossetia, despite complaints regarding his editorial conduct numbering well within the double digits. Some of the most recent diffs which continue to strike me as really worrisome about these topics in particular.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. He clearly still wants to "war-in" his personal opinion/grief about this political matter way too much, in my opinion. Clearly, the crucial aspect of the territories simply not being under Georgian rule/administration for many years (which has nothing to do with the entire world (figurly) recognizing it as part of Georgia on paper), is something that he will never accept and which is, in my opinion, also the core of this problem on this place. Sorry for it being a tad too WP:TL;DR-ish this time. Looking forward to your response. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, nice of you to pop in. I didn't notice there has been an appreciation spree. (Yet I'm very appreciative that you somehow have the patience and energy to keep track of these things.) If there is a spree, this is disappointing considering our sock guidelines, but I suppose its utility otherwise would depend on the individual edits in question.

As it happens I have seen the Transcaucasia move request, as the article is on my Watchlist. It seems clear that the title change is motivated by some sort of nationalistic dislike of the term, and some of the arguments on both sides have reflected this in their poor quality. However, strictly on the merits of the move itself I remain undecided. Ajax's initial oppose notes a book n-gram that demonstrates a clear historical preponderance for Transcaucasia. This n-gram shows that even recently it remained more common, yet it shows a clear and obvious decreasing trend corresponding with an increase for South Caucasus. Dealing with changing terminology is always tricky, as there will inevitably be times where different standards for primary names recommend different results, and it is hard to objectively say when you've got over that hump. Regarding this I tend to be cautious, preferring to retain the status quo when uncertain as an encyclopaedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. That said, on a personal level, I prefer South Caucasus because it has less implicit geographical bias and provides a nice pairing with the term North Caucasus. Of course, neither of these lines of reasoning has any validity in Wikipedia titling policy, so they're not that relevant! Hence my remaining indecision on this issue.

Regarding the sockpuppeting, the IPs signing in that way is not by itself unusual. Having two hyphens is the default format if you click on the sign button on the top of the edit boxes. IP geolocation and style however, they are more conclusive benchmarks. Given the individuals inability to leave, it is not a stretch to accept the IPs new socks. If a particular IP or a very small range becomes disruptive, that can be CUed. Dynamically changing IPs are harder to pin down. That said, in the meantime, the quality of their arguments hopefully limits their credence in these discussions. (On an aside, if Elockid has left the project, that is a loss for Wikipedia as a whole.)

Regarding the cross-wiki agenda, the pushing of a particular POV has been obvious for years. The core problem isn't the specific belief you identify per se (there are other tricky beliefs by the way, that is just an easy one to express), but the conduct which surrounds it. Dealing with that problem is much harder. (If one encounters a tendentious editor, does one follow them from page to page, wiki to wiki? If so, how should (and how do) others distinguish between their actions and yours? Despite my return to more regular editing, I remain somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia's processes in these regards.) On specific problems relating to nationalism issues in Georgia, however, there may be a couple more tools. I don't know if the issue has been tested, but such editing may fall under discretionary sanctions relating to WP:ARBAA2 or WP:ARBEE (and sharing in principle many of the issues around WP:ARBMAC).

Finally, no need to apologise, you're welcome to come to this talkpage to discuss things (as well, is anyone really, I've never considered my talkpage a controlled space), even if it's long (at any rate you seem to write reasonably concisely even when you write at great length). This is especially true for these topics of which I may be of assistance due to my long (sigh) involvement with the issues and the area, and which may require some length due to their complexity. Nothing would make me happier than having all these issues sorted out so that editor time would be spent more productively! So if I can help, I will try to. Best, CMD (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I think I can pretty much safely conclude that we agree on every single thing/matter. ;-) Thanks much for the elaborate response btw, appreciate it. Just a few things in response; I find myself indecisive regarding the move as well, indeed based on the very same reasons you mentioned. "Tricky" would perhaps be a good word to describe it. Regarding Arb, I think that the issue is covered under ARBAA2/ARBEE/ARBMAC, but as I'm not sure myself as well, I will consult an admin whose active in these topics to be sure. I might be wrong, but I believe that we've (not just me and you; other users as well) have tried, throughout the span of years/months, to adress the concerns appropriately, cooperatively, and politely, but none of them were to any avail. In any case, really unfortunate, in my opinion. Its nevertheless important for ARB I noticed to bear in mind, as they demand from the parties in question that they have thoroughly discussed the matter with the accused user in question. The edit-warring/protecting of long-term sock abusers has to be dealt with on ANI (sigh) as its unfortunately not a merit covered by Arbcom.
Consider yourself always welcome as well to visit my talk page, about whatever it might be. Pleasure talking with you again man, all the best. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

...I just had to say something about this line -- "Nothing would make me happier than having all these issues sorted out so that editor time would be spent more productively!". Really, truer words were not spoken! - LouisAragon (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a? I am renaming it now because before I didn't search for it and when I searched I saw Transcaucasia which was very strange for me because in modern life I never seen that in magazines and etc. Then I decided to check which one is popular and what I found is clear there. So be more careful before you will make decisions. Now about Georgian article if someone wants I can provide that discussion where it was said it is ok to re-add those materials if user thinks that it was worthwhile. I've already done it with military section there in cooperation with CMD so please have more dignity and stop childish intrigues since I hate people who blame on me something that I am not, personally -_- --g. balaxaZe★ 13:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon If you are talking about my views and behave like WP:WIKIHOUND I remember our talk where you wrote your political views which are against of mine and since that you try to block me. you are not objective and try to block other users who have different view.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Unlike users like you I am a member of Georgian Wikimedia user group and I know rules, I am writing with my name and do fair edits not hiding anything. I do not need fake IPs to rename something because rename should be done according to wikipedia rules. --g. balaxaZe★ 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Abhkazia and South Ossetia being a part of Georgia which they are currently not" your words about conflict regions which shows that you act according to your POV--g. balaxaZe★ 14:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I want to answer about diffs that he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies because here [16] I removed it because it had another category Orthodox cathedrals in Abkhazia and this category is under the category Cathedrals in Abkhazia (I corrected it -_-). Here [17] it was changed because there is no Abkhazian Cathedrals and in article clearly said Georgian Orthodox Cathedral, what is wrong here [18]? some will want to know how is it looks in Georgian and I know many articles like this. This note template [19] was made specially for such cases what problems here? Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to calm down your appetite in attempts to block me.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze:, I won't comment on the personal attacks/battleground-like commentary and the sheer disregard of the multiple attempts we had to discuss these matters, but that doesn't mean we should cease talking and to solve the content-based issue, so to speak. As long as there's no more edit warring, obviously. So, could you perhaps tell us who is currently administrating the territory of Abhkazia and South Ossetia? I think clearing that up would be a good thing. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I live in that country and I personally see who administrates them, border forces, military forces, governmental apparatus, budget and many other things all are controlled by Russians I am not so good in English to write large portions of articles but many other external sources prove that. Also, international community clearly said who administrates them I will remind you they call it Russian Military Occupation. Apart from all of that de facto control does not mean that they are not part of Georgia they are (frozen) conflict regions of Georgia.--g. balaxaZe★ 09:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze what discussion regarding the military are you talking about above? The one I can think of now, the military image one, was one you abandoned after a short unsubstantiated response. That is not firm ground on which to state "if someone wants I can provide that discussion". CMD (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course the whole de facto independence of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, not being under Georgian rule that is, is due to Russian interference. There's no question about that. However, the fact that the international community considers it to be part of Georgia/administrated by Georgia, has not much value in "reality", as Georgia hasn't exercised any power/control/administration over it for years. The only value such thing has, is mentioning it extensively to make it clear that its considered to be illegally occupied, and/or illegally de facto independent by the majority of the world. Btw, a similar example would be the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as you know; same as with the political dispute regarding Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, the international community considers the formers territory to be part of the Azerbaijan Republic, even though the latter has exercised no control over it for quite a few years as well. Yet, every map that shows the Nagorno-Karabakh region on Wiki (such as here), has the territory of the NKR shaded, as the region is not under Azerbaijani rule, and thats whats going on in reality, regardless of it being rightfully/legally considered part of Azerbaijan. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

CMD you tend to don't like me (that's why intrigues-maker Aragon wrote to you and not to anyone else) and that is why you forgot how I re-added (and enlarged) military material (text) and then you even edited my contribution. My edits [20], your edits after that [21] and a notice about this on the talk page Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_7#Re-adding_of_materials.--g. balaxaZe★ 01:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Intrigue-maker Aragon's going to the talkpage of a specific user is not unusual, and you have done similar things yourself. Either way, the linkage of purported dislike to forgetfulness is incongruous. The conversation you link to is also not a great example of willingness to participate in discussion, being a notice of intent rather than a discussion. Better examples include this conversation, really! CMD (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Going to the talkpage is not unusual but making intrigues against another one it is. I will say what he tries to say "CMD it seems that we both dislike that guy, let's act together against him, I want to block him (that's why he mentioned sockpuppet) and will be good if you help me" that is all what he tries to say. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also that discussion what I linked was not discussion for discussion but as notice that I am going to restore some of sockpuppet's edits and since you were engaged part in that story I let you know about that to prevent future misunderstandings or reverts. This was recommended by admins.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Thanks for WP:WIKIHOUNDING and your care, but if you are not aware of tourism topics, please stop your willful reverts. Wiki has talk page and in case you want to help me, you can go there and discuss. --g. balaxaZe★ 15:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As per usual, I refer you to WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. CMD (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what is this ►[22]? This is the main annual report for those who work with tourism. If one wants to understand where is that country by tourism they always use and search in this report and it is very important to give people information where is Georgia by UN WTO classification and how strong or weak it is in its sub-region. Is is so hard to understand? --g. balaxaZe★ 17:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiepdia articles are not only for those who have no idea about tourism organizations or indusdtry and are looking only for beautiful images or descriptions. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, in WP:BRD cleary said Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. Only thing that you like to do is reverting other user contribution even when it is not necessary! --g. balaxaZe★ 17:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot of assertions, but I do indeed fail to see the importance of specifying rankings within the way the UNWTO classifies its work. National bodies don't coordinate activities or advertise as by subregion or anything like that. Regarding BRD, your response does seem to miss the point. It also appears to beg the question of whether a reversion is necessary, a question of which I would be interested in your answer. I will also again ask you to desist in yet another instance of using admins as a threat, it's a tiring pattern. CMD (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I really do not like to talk about other people and that is why I rarely use admins help. I know that you are checking my edits (even archiving at the same time :)) and etc. but there should be another solution than confrontation. Maybe you do no know but I am studying tourism in my university and we use that report almost in every presentation or statistics. I see that majority of tourism articles in Wikipedia has low quality and we do not have the best example of tourism article, but since UN WTO is really the most (maybe only) important organization in tourism, it works with national governments it shares what standards they must have and in general does a lot of staff, their classification is important from the tourism studies view. It is like a biological classification of creatures. You may think that I want to use it just because it says Georgia is in Europe but I don't care about that, I am not crazy about Georgias European or not European status because if you want my opinion we are only Caucasians. I really want to find a solution with you, please try to convince yourself that what I am saying has nothing with promotion but only with an academic view.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I opened admins noticeboard and almost started writing about the case, but in the end, I decided to try luck and find a solution without them, I hope for mutual understanding. Don't think that my words are only words without acting.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to use admins, don't throw around admins as threats. This is not the first time you've done it. For the record, I am not checking your edits, and if you don't want confrontation, I would recommend being less confrontational. Following the guidelines I've repeatedly pointed you towards would help towards this. If you don't want your words to be disassociated with your actions, than line them up. For example, if you aren't crazy about European "status", don't remove categories saying otherwise.

As for the content, most of our tourism articles are low quality. This does not mean a map which tells the reader nothing about Tourism in Georgia helps the article, and our articles are not intended as academic guides or as textbooks. Grouping countries is not remotely equatable to cladistics, but even if it was, that would not mean every species article would need to discuss its place within its family. (Those which have a special reason to be supported by regular secondary sources doing so would of course have an argument for.) CMD (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, your attitude is clear, as I said above now I'll use another option. At least it is clear that I tried to convince you and find solution.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is another example of you quickly abandoning a talkpage discussion instead of discussing (albeit not on an article talkpage). CMD (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over removed material

Here is a link about the discussion on the AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute_over_removed_material--g. balaxaZe★ 12:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dispute over removed material. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN, I have responded there. CMD (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN, diffs were provided, do they demonstrate a problem? CMD (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs and they indicate a bit of a battleground attitude and inappropriate accusations of wikihounding. No one has proposed sanctions so it's unlikely it will get that far. If no one else chimes in soon I will close with appropriate warnings/advice to Giorgi Balakhadze. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you feel is appropriate to stop the disruption is fine with me. Best, CMD (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Muppet show

Just noticed some more evasion by Satt 2. Same geo-location, same edits, same edit summaries, same concerns. Clear cut. Should I make another section at AN? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon, AN doesn't deal with single sockpuppets. Notify the previous blocking admin, or just put up a new WP:SPI. It seems Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2/Archive has room to grow. CMD (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Added a LTA-page to it as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested

[23] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks LouisAragon, I haven't been active lately but glad you are looking into this. CMD (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Abhkazia

Since you disagree with my edit, what do you think of the SO intro?

South Ossetia (/ɒˈsɛtjə/, less commonly /ɒˈsiːʃə/), officially the Republic of South Ossetia – the State of Alania, or the Tskhinvali Region, is a de facto sovereign state and disputed territory in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia.

Nyttend backup (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As with Abkhazia, including disputed territory in the South Ossetia intro is redundant. It is incorrect to write that it is a de facto sovereign state and a disputed territory, as all de facto sovereign states are disputed territories. A separate issue with that intro is the "or the Tskhinvali Region". I suspect it's meant to try and put forward the Georgian POV, but it's misleading as it ambiguously reads like another official name of the de facto state, and under Georgian law the area doesn't exist anymore as they officially split it between different regions. CMD (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Protectorate

Dear @Chipmunkdavis: You left the rv comment: Rv, this is a random collection of sources that doesn't have a cohesive point. Unless the sources explain what they mean by protectorate, it's not a helpful designation. The situation doesn't match the article Protectorate. Your rv comment actually does not oppose the reverted text. Your revert comment actually mirrors the text you reverted. The reverted text was The Multiple international scientific papers as well as international news outlets term NKR as a de facto Armenian protectorate.Multiple international scientific papers as well as international news outlets term NKR as a de facto Armenian protectorate. Among the scientific sources using the term protectorate, there is a paper by an Armenian scholar Yulia Antonyan as well as there is a paper by an Aserbaijani scholar Shahla Sultanova. Among the scientific sources using the term protectorate, there is a paper by an Armenian scholar Yulia Antonyan as well as there is a paper by an Aserbaijani scholar Shahla Sultanova. The text, you have reverted does not say that the sources have a cohesive point. It only says that they are multiple and they exist. Unless the sources explain what they mean by protectorate - No, the reverted text does not state that the sources explain the term protectorate. Instead of reverting you could add these sources use but do not explain the term protectorate! The situation doesn't match the article Protectorate. - well, there is a little adjective de facto added to protectorate, which makes it possible to some sources to just call the situation to be a protectorate even without a legal base.Geysirhead (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At least half of these sources aren't even about the topic at hand. If there's no point to the addition, it shouldn't be added. CMD (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. The topic in the subsection is literally Political ties with Armenia. Please, tell me, which sources do not match this title! One of the sources says for example The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. [24] Geysirhead (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You're using the Independent as a source of scholarly analysis? CMD (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does neither only cite scientific sources nor is the subsection named Scholarly analysis of political ties with Armenia. For a scholarly analysis (whatever you mean?), which is a common (sub)section in multiple Wikipedia articles, a duck test would totally suffice in the case of a de facto protectorate. There is no deficit at scholarly papers calling it this term. Example: President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to ... [25] So, please, revert your revert! Geysirhead (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A useful source would be one that explains why a particular term is used. There's no value to the reader in throwing a grab-bag of whatever adjectives and nouns are found. As you may remember this was previously discussed and rejected. Please refer back to that discussion for further reasoning from multiple users on the matter. CMD (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will not copy the all text passages from the sources into this talk to order to compensate your missing endeavour to read and research them. The reasoning you mention comes from a heated debate of non-neutral Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Even if a scholarly source uses a certain term without explanation, it does not mean that it is unjustified. Nobody needs to explain all obvious "adjectives and nouns" in a text. Your actual "why" could be answered by "The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..." [26] Because the public movement wanted it that way. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning Will you just keep asking why?? Enough of that futile dialogue, I am transferring it to the talk page of the subject.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, not me again. Please, be nice, do you me a favour, and transfer it there yourself. Since 2020 war international media started to call it a Russian protectorate anyway.[27] As you know it is too early to scholarly articles for answering "why?" in that case of a duck test.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That Atlantic Council source calls Armenia a protectorate. I hope that is a useful example as to why simply repeating words found on a certain source is a bad idea for encyclopaedia articles.(As for an OR duck test, per protectorate, the area is not a dependent territory, has no formal suzerainty arrangement, has mixed local autonomy, and did have immigration from Armenia.) CMD (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

RV

Hello. Shusha is controlled and has been recognized as an integral part of Azerbaijan. Until 8 November 2020, i would agree that it was controversial, but putting an Armenian source to claim the city is a POV push. [28] Toghrul R (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing what exactly? Are you suggesting that there is no claim? CMD (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Thanks for reverting these WP:JDLI edits. Btw, it's not just a random 'Armenian source' like Toghrul R says (trying to Illegitimize it somehow), it's Artsakh MFA [29] reported by Armenpress, the oldest news agency in Armenia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately that source remains as ambiguous as all others I've seen as to the exact extent of NKR's claims. The former oblast and the original Shahumyan presumably remain claimed, but I would appreciate any sources on considerations regarding the territories around the oblast. CMD (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think your concerncs are over the title (if you translated with Google translate). "ԱՀ" short for "Արցախի հանրապետություն" (meaning Republic of Artsakh) for some reason translates to "Republic of Azerbaijan" (on google translate only). The correct translation of the title in source is: "The territories of Artsakh are considered occupied by Azerbaijan. The statement of the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh".

Btw, it's only with "Ահ" that the translation is wrong, the long version if correct [30]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns are more what is meant by "territories of Artsakh", specifically whether it is the original 1991 territories, or the 2006 constitution territories. CMD (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, ZaniGiovanni is Armenian, so his defence on the issue is quite understandable. In general, Armenia tries to calm their citizens down by referring to the lost areas as claimed or occupied by Azerbaijan. In reality, it's controlled (both de-facto and de-jure) by Azerbaijan, so the country should be Azerbaijan only, no matter the Armenian media says. And i don't know why you reverted lots of my claim removals. They were not even sourced. Toghrul R (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And please, take a look at one of his biased reverts, even though my edits were absolutely correct: [31] [32] Toghrul R (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My defense? Armenian? What the hell are you talking about lol? What ethnicity has to do here? That's a weird one. You also didn't read my message, apparently. The statement is from Artsakh MFA and no matter how much you dislike it, it has a place to stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits. Wikipedia is based on neutral sources (if the local ones are not necessary). The so-called Artsakh MFA can say anything, they can even call the lands not lost, but the reality and 3rd party sources say otherwise. Toghrul R (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what your opinion is. I undid you per WP:BRD as many of your other edits were not constructive and you straight up removed offical statments from Artsakh MFA, reported by Armenpress, diffs: [33], [34]. And please, don't make another user's talkp page your battleground. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The claim can be put in the text, not template. The template is used for confirmed information, not put the flag and play patriotic. By the way, Great quote thanks! I don't care what your opinion is — Toghrul R (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Artsakh in and of itself is not official, how its claims can make their way to the template? Toghrul R (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to reduce JDLI and vandalism claims outside of behavioural noticeboards, if possible. On claims, a claim requires only one party, they are not at all contingent on control. In fact, the lack of control is usually a large part of why a territory would be discussed in the terms of a claim. As for disputes regarding birth locations, birth location fields are a longstanding cause of dispute throughout all the world on Wikipedia (doesn't even require historical changes, as might be seen in many UK infoboxes), and my talk page is definitely not a useful place to get into those. I suggest discussing them in a centralised location, rather than article by article. CMD (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Chipmunkdavis i don't know if you're informed about the topic, but Azerbaijan won the war and claimed back its internationally recognized lands, so owns the control as well. Maybe offtopic, but i have been to the recent liberated lands including Shusha, so this kind of edits spoils the image of the Wikipedia. You reverted my edits without a reason, that makes me sad, while everything is crystal clear — control (de-jure and de-facto). Toghrul R (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, the text in question regards claims, not control. CMD (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis sorry for extending the discussion on your talk page. The reference ([35]) doesn't have anything related to Shusha or other articles you just bulk-reverted. The sources should indicate the precise information we're looking for, right? This reference leads to original research. Toghrul R (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a reference for every specific town if those towns are clearly within a claimed area, but as I noted above a better source would be helpful. There's a few aspects to balance. The primary benefit of the source in question is that it is from this year, ie. beyond the end of the most recent war. The main drawbacks are that it is ambiguous, saying just "territories of Artsakh" per ZaniGiovanni, and that it close to a primary source. There are many secondary sources from before the war which translated the previously sometimes ambiguous claims, but sources post-war are so far greatly lacking on Wikipedia. Another factor to consider is that given the pre-war sources, we don't have any sources saying that the claims have been dropped, which one would expect if they had been. CMD (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Shusha

Thank you. Please let me know when the status of the mediation changes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to generate much progress here, I believe the discussion would benefit from the structure of mediation as opposed to the free flow of the talk page. CMD (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will reopen it for dispute resolution, and will add you as a party, so that you may offer advice. I will reopen it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, my apologies for the additional workload. CMD (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts at mediating this dispute. (Many contentious topics in Wikipedia are that way because of real-world battles that are not being or cannot be mediated.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Names of cities

If you know the names are foreign, then why insist on keeping them ? Do you add Russian translation for Italy cities ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeviwer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

misleading edit summary and unnecessarily pointy language

Really? Where exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentence. CMD (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please give explicit example. I see no issue with my edits. Expand on how the edit misleads. Expand on how it is pointy vs what was there before the edit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For a start, deliberately changing "independent" to "independent sovereign", which reads as redundancy to make a point. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy is a very different thing to misleading. I submit that there is nothing misleading about "independent sovereign" as opposed to "independent". And if it was making a point, what was that point? I fail to see the point that you seem to see. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading was the edit summary which asserted the edit was about date formatting. If you fail to see a point to the change, why make the change? CMD (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So the edit to the article itself was not misleading; it was just the edit summary that was misleading. Is that your position? Why would you revert an edit if it was not inherently misleading or otherwise erroneous? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it adjusted the wording to a much pointier form, while also not adding any information or clarity for a reader. CMD (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So if I change it to read as follows, you will have no objection? "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course I object, that is exactly the same sort of uninformative jargony change. You have so far not answered the question of why you want to make such a change. CMD (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have so far not answered the question of why I want to make such a change because so far it has not been asked. Since you now ask, I think that it's best to avoid WP:EasterEgg surprizes. Such as clicking on "independent" and landing on "Sovereignty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It was asked above, but if that is the case then the easiest solution is to remove the wikilink. Readers understand what independence is. CMD (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What's your beef with bluelinks? Readers understand better when a term is linked. No extra cost involved in bluelinks. If you know what it means, don't click it. It you don't know, click it. That's how Wiki works. What's your beef with this bluelink: "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" / Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No beef outside of standard guidelines. CMD (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection re Armenia

No objection: [36]. Largoplazo (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?

[37] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw that addition before, but didn't feel the desire to look into it. Personally, I find the topic quite interesting, but for the purposes of the lead we should really just stop at "in the Caucasus". What you added to the talkpage is quite fascinating, and I don't have anything that would add value to it right now. CMD (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Im not sure whether this is satisfactory.[38] Seems as if the user wants to portray it as an "inevitable, natural" process, even though the very same opinion piece as well as Stephen H. Rapp clearly portray it differently. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Though I guess I can't say I'm surprised when looking at this comment that was attached to that edit.[39] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that is not a great presentation of the source. The old concept of Europe as Christendom is something I would suspect may have remained in the culture there, but the Carnegie piece doesn't go into that. I haven't looked at the sources outside of your quotes, but the Carnegie piece also question the inevitability, given the differing conceptions of "Europe". CMD (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you be willing to adjust the content per WP:BOLD and WP:VER? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I am very busy at the moment, so I don't think I would be able to until next week, apologies. CMD (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all Chip. IRL affairs are always more important than non-IRL ones. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Notification

If you keep pushing disruptive edits like these diff1 and diff2. Third parties will be involved. "text changes suggest other occupied areas" is pure nonsense. With Russian-occupied territories in Georgia is as clear as it can be in accordance with wiki rules. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring in unexplained changes. CMD (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested

I found this excerpt to be quite interesting. Thought you might be interested as well. Almost seems as if the "Europeanization" of Georgia was a 19th-century colonial byproduct through the Russian occupation? During the 19th century, as we know, many non-European polities accepted/introduced Europeanization, but I think the root of the modern-day "we are Yurop.exe" in Georgian society originated during Russian overlordship (?). An interesting topic for sure.

"But the appointment in 1845 of Mikhail Vorontsov (1782-1856) as viceroy of the Caucasus led to reforms. Among these was recognition of the aristocratic status of around 30,000 Georgians, who then became dependents of the tsarist court and acquired European culture and habits."

-- Pourjavady, R. (2023). "Introduction: Iran, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the 19th century". In Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History Volume 20. Iran, Afghanistan and the Caucasus (1800-1914). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. p. 18[40]

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thank you for sharing! (And for the very accessible url!) A disappointingly brisk article I must say, jumping from point to point without much in the way of depth. I presume for example that "European culture and habits" means the Russian version of "European", but there is no elaboration as to what this meant in practice. Lots of other tidbits too: the annexation of the Georgian Church into the Russian one, the increased urbanisation, the rise of the printing press, the migration and conversion of Muslims, and general sharpening of inter-community tension. All a potent mixing pot for establishing identity. Or, we could go simple, and just blame Peter the Great? CMD (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your revert on Artsakh

Why did you revert my edit? It was supposed to demonstrate how big it was before 2020 and after. Please tell me why you did that. Thank you. 2601:280:4F81:4490:F413:8A17:63EE:2C52 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It was out of place within the lead, and especially where it was at the end, given it was unrelated to the rest of that paragraph. There is information on size in the article body. It is also best to maintain an encyclopaedic tone, which the addition did not. CMD (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)