User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions
Answer |
|||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
::It's exasperating to have to deal with an editor whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClabl%C4%B1&action=history first] and only reaction is to revert you on a flimsy basis and then not to discuss his edits in a meaningful manner. Honestly AGK, could you please advise on my options here other than me filing an Arbitration complaint? because I see that discussions lead me nowhere because the opposite side treats it as an exercise to run around in circles, 3rd party opinions are not respected, and mediation is rejected.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
::It's exasperating to have to deal with an editor whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClabl%C4%B1&action=history first] and only reaction is to revert you on a flimsy basis and then not to discuss his edits in a meaningful manner. Honestly AGK, could you please advise on my options here other than me filing an Arbitration complaint? because I see that discussions lead me nowhere because the opposite side treats it as an exercise to run around in circles, 3rd party opinions are not respected, and mediation is rejected.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
@MB, awwww poor Marshallbagramyan, playing victim of bad editor. Awww. Why not behave like a man and stand up with your actions. You know well Gulabli is an occupied village in Agdam region of Azerbaijan. Even Armenian president said Agdam is occupied. Thus, if you were so "good faith", why did you not add the information that Gulabli was occupied by Armenian forces? I can give many sources saying it is an occupied territory. Even this [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 853]]. I recommend to you to stop playing victim and contribute good faith to Wikipedia. [[User:Dighapet|Dighapet]] ([[User talk:Dighapet|talk]]) 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:26, 15 September 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
Request for advice/comment
Hi, as an admin who expressed this opinion regarding the discussion taken place at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and who was mentioned there, could you please comment and advise what should be done next in this dispute (These circular discussions with a number of editors who don't want to hear are so tiring)? Thanks. -- Ashot (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Who was the sockpuppet as neither the filer or subject are currently blocked? 65.122.75.14 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Proven sockpuppet
Dear admin, on Enforcement page for Vandorenfm you closed the case and say "Proven sock-puppet. Blocked indefinitely, so no need for enforcement action", but you have not blocked Vandorenfm yet. Here is one more proof Vandorenfm is sockpuppet: [1]. Dighapet (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
A question
Since you are "involved" in the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article, perhaps you can clarify something for me.
I expressed my concern over said article's non-neutral, unpublished sources which most were ".gov.az" or simply ".az".[2] Which was summarily. Yet, in the Barda, Azerbaijan article, Dighapet has removed a published source 3 times![3][4][5]. Apparently the only reasoning for its removal is the ethnicity of the author.[6]
Therefore, should not the non-neutral unpublished "sources" with ".gov.az" or ".az" be removed from the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I too would like to draw your attention to the fact that Dighapet's sole excuse for edit warring and removing a verifiable source three times (in a single day) from the Barda, Azerbaijan article has been that the author is Armenian. And because she is Armenian and because she is writing about a city in Azerbaijan she cannot be trusted. I would have accepted some other argument, such as her not having proper scholar credentials or her making some embarrassing mistakes which might impair her reliability. But instead, I was sucked into a pointless debate that wasted my time, if nothing else. I asked him outright two or three times to give me a different reason to explain his edits - anything beside the author's ethnic identity - but just received hostile, nonsensical responses...:| --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
@KB, why .az sources have to be removed? They only say what neutral sources confirm, which means together they say the same thing. The .az sources rely on neutral sources and that's why both sources are used. If we delete any .az sources then we have to delet all .am sources as consensus. @MB, I did not say anything just because the writer you included as a source is Armenian. I say that she's Armenian and can be non-neutral in her writing and the only way to know that she's neutral or not if other NEUTRAL authors say the same thing, ie say that the name of Barda comes from Armenian language. Because no neutral authors confirm what she says and that information can't be found anywhere, we can't use it. Read the whole discussion first and stop gaming. You know well I said and didn't say, MB. Dighapet (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've already discussed this with you - if a field is so specialized, then it might be next to impossible to find a non-Armenian/non-Azeri expert who might weigh in his opinion on the issue. Since I am not aware of any non-Armenian scholars who have bothered to study the etymological roots of this town, then the next best thing you can do is question her credibility on grounds other than nationality. I have given you ample opportunity to do this, but you have not produced anything and have only reinforced my belief that the best argument you can come up with is "Armenian = unreliable", which just doesn't cut the cake.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's exasperating to have to deal with an editor whose first and only reaction is to revert you on a flimsy basis and then not to discuss his edits in a meaningful manner. Honestly AGK, could you please advise on my options here other than me filing an Arbitration complaint? because I see that discussions lead me nowhere because the opposite side treats it as an exercise to run around in circles, 3rd party opinions are not respected, and mediation is rejected.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, awwww poor Marshallbagramyan, playing victim of bad editor. Awww. Why not behave like a man and stand up with your actions. You know well Gulabli is an occupied village in Agdam region of Azerbaijan. Even Armenian president said Agdam is occupied. Thus, if you were so "good faith", why did you not add the information that Gulabli was occupied by Armenian forces? I can give many sources saying it is an occupied territory. Even this United Nations Security Council Resolution 853. I recommend to you to stop playing victim and contribute good faith to Wikipedia. Dighapet (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)