Talk:Melik Haykaz Palace

Sources, concerns

Before this gets out of hand, I'll ping editors who have been involved in this page Abrvagl, Kevo327, A455bcd9, LouisAragon.

Abrvagl my question to you is, why did you revert [1] [2] Kevo327 when cited 2 sources aren't reliable? I just looked at your contributions and you didn't edit for almost a week. It seems like whenever Kevo edits (which also happened to be today), you follow him around, still. Did you forget recent ANI and the hounding you were advised against? This is just a testament that you aren't planning to stop it anytime soon. You had literally had 0 edits in this article prior to today, and bam, you're edit-warring now with Kevo (again) out of nowhere. A. C. Santacruz I'm sure you remember this since you advised Abrvagl against hounding. There is clearly a pattern here and Abrvagl doesn't seem show any change.

• Did not find RNS where source "deemed unusable". second source also OK for the referenced part.

Also, Abrvagl, you're well aware of the RSN discussion since you asked about it literally below my thread in Morbidthoughts talk page and received an answer. I would definitely Support a one way IBAN or topic ban at this point. You're just being disruptive, edit-warring and restoring poorly sourced content, and still hounding said user. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I was assuming good faith and was going to link the RSN discussion to them, but now this clearly seems to be deliberate disruptive editing, and continuing this hounding pattern seems worrisome. I'm interested at what A. C. Santacruz think about this. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni no need to ping me here. I'm not going to get involved in this discussion or any other that does not come to me at DRN or at my talk page. I have no interest in the AA2 topic area as a content editor nor will I gain that interest. It is also not my place to police editors' conduct; that can be done by competent admins at ANI or (better) AE. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure A. C. Santacruz. The user usually asks comments from you so I thought to ping you, but I get your point. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I know nothing about this subject and I only reverted what User talk:198.44.220.5 did after they got banned, thinking it was vandalism (as they did elsewhere on the same day). If I made a mistake, I apologize. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this isn't vandalism, unreliable sources were removed and reinstated back A455bcd9. No worries, I thought to ping you as one of the recent editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that! A455bcd9 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment:

1. *Did not find RNS where source "deemed unusable". second source also OK for the referenced part.

Sourced content was removed. I find them reliable for the statement they referred for. You might be not. The way to go is a discussion on the talk page.

2. I just looked at your contributions and you didn't edit for almost a week. It seems like whenever Kevo edits (which also happened to be today), you follow him

a. You interested in how I find out this article? No, I don't follow anyone, but I regularly monitor WikiProject Azerbaijan articles.

b. Interesting how did you reach here? 17:21 I asked Kevo327 to start the discussion on the talk page so that we can reach a consensus. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 you started a topic on the talk page with +1,879 bytes of text. Surely it took you at least 5-10 minutes to write it down, which means that you started writing it as soon as I reverted Kevo327's edit. Do you follow me, or are you guys closely cooperating? I did not do the research, but it is not the first time you jump out of nowhere to support Kevo327...may be someone should check this all out for suspicious patterns of WP:CANVASS-ing?

3. you're well aware of the RSN discussion

I am aware of RNS (Reliable Sources Discussion) discussion, what I am also aware that the RNS discussion did not finish with a decision on whether the source is reliable or not reliable. Can one refer to the not addressed RNS to claim that source unreliable?

4. Did you forget recent ANI and the hounding you were advised against? I never was advised against hounding because I never was hounding. By the way, I remember just like in this talk page, you jumped into the ANI discussions from nowhere. Other editors even advised you to stop, as you were "unnecessarily involved and opinionated in this thread" and "pouring gasoline near the fire". So how you find out yourself in the middle of the ANI, which was not related to you. was you poinding me or you guys closely cooperating?

5. Also very interesting fact that from the number of editors, who were involved in this page, you pinged LouisAragon, who last time edited this article 2 years ago. Why did you choose him? Is it WP:CANVASS, or do you have different reasoning?

P.S. Let's keep discussions of the talk page related to the talk page. If anyone wants to have healthy discussions on the topic related to the article - I am always happy to join you, other discussions you can take to my talk page or elsewhere.

Regards,

--Abrvagl (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you're definitely not showing signs of improvement. I did in fact edit in this page and I have it watchlisted, that's when I saw the reverts and opened a talk discussion to avoid further disruption. I didn't just pop up after a week and unreasonably reverted someone that I was advised to stop hounding against (like you did today). I pinged 5 editors some weren't even familiar with the subject, and I'm not going to address your other rants, kindly keep it to yourself. Btw you didn't show how the sources are reliable which should've been your main point of concern, since you're hounding and edit-warring with WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern.

And FYI, when you hound someone, it's better you own up to it and stop saying "I patrol WikiProject Azerbaijan". You can't find this article in WikiProject Azerbaijan unless it gets nominated for something, which it didn't. Nice try tho, again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well. I will answer you with your own words: I'm not going to address your rants, kindly keep it to yourself. Good luck. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijani sources refer

Dear brother Kevo,

Regarding your revert of the material as "sources are not reliable". I found new sources, can you check them out can provide your comments? I believe there are enough sources to keep the statement you just removed.

1. Həmzə Sultan sarayı 2. http://medeniyyet.az 3. http://mct.gov.az 4. azertag.az

Thanks in advance, Regards, --Abrvagl (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Kevo, first, the fact that you do not like the sources does not make them "propaganda" sources. Second, all of the provided sources are suitable for the purpose of supporting the statement, that as per Azerbaijan sources this palace's name is Həmzə Sultan sarayı. 1 Source is

I invited you to talk, but you openly ignored me here, and instead of joining in the discussion, you engaged yourself in edit wars.

You already have a number of records, where you were warned for Anti-Azerbaijani bias edits, as you were seeking Azerbaijani related articles where you can delete material, or nominate for speedy deletion, even if the article existed for a long time and nominate for AfD. Your records also show that you actively participate in the voting process for AfD of Azerbaijan related articles, and at all times you always voted "DELETE". Please stop it here.

I again invite you to share your view here. I restore the material, this time also adding additional sources, and removing not sourced parts. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

those source were, and still are, filled with propaganda, any source that claims Armenian churches are Caucasian Albanian are inherently unreliable. No one would ever consider that to be remotely true, we have articles and sections about how that is government sponsored historic revisionism, claiming that is factually wrong, by extension any source that does claim that to be true would also be factually unreliable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

it is not about churches, and non of the sources I provided claiming any information about the churches. It is about palace which is as as stated “as per Azerbaijan sources this palace’s name is Hamza Sultan palace. This palace is located in the Azerbaijan and official name of it is Hamza Sultan palace. This information has due weigh to be reflected in the article. Abrvagl (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

non of the sources I provided claiming any information about the churches that's outright wrong, anyone can easily check the sources and find that. You should read the sources you insert before inserting them. You are WP:BURDENed to provide reliable sources, and to hear and consider the feedback when shown that those sources aren't reliable. Acting blind and claiming otherwise is disruptive. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Take for example this one http://mct.gov.az/az/umumi-xeberler/13268. It states that palace was built in 18 century, name is Hamza Soltan and after occupation of Lachin the village was renamed and the palace was used as hotel after repair. Where is propaganda ? it is just pure facts. Anyways, if you happy to keep citation with 1 source - let it be like that. Abrvagl (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, those are just random sites, not academic published sources, which we use when it comes to the history of something. Unfortunately I couldn't find a single good source about the palace, probably due to the long-lasting conflicts in the area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that’s right. However, although there no good academic sources, existing government ones are enough to claim that as per Azerbaijan it is name is Hamza Sultan palace. Cuz it is indeed the fact. Abrvagl (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

According to whom? --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

According to ministry of culture of Azerbaijan for example, also according to the State Committee on Religious Associations of the Republic of Azerbaijan, also, not sure who is Rouben Galichian, but in his propaganda book named "The Invention of History. Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Showcasing of Imagination (Russian) ", he also refers to the palace as Hamza Soltan palace for Azerbaijani version. Abrvagl (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Government related stuff aren't academic published sources, and should often be looked carefully at. When it comes to history at least, stuff to do with the Azeri government is not WP:RS, please see Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan. As for Galichian, I don't know. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)