User talk:John Vandenberg/AA involvement

Request

Jayvdb, I appreciate your putting this page together, but to be honest, it makes my brain hurt just looking at it. Would it be possible to make a one-paragraph "executive summary", which then links out to other sections for more detail? --El on ka 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indead very interesting..., for anyone who know what is being discussed here, this page is junk. Take for instance this nomination: Khachkar destruction (second nomination) which he is referring, it is of interest that he is merely pointing to his comments which have actually no validity without the context.

The first nomination was basically Armenian editors supporting keeping it while Azeri editors deleting it (the same editos who have voted to keep a near exact copy of an already existing article, which was one of the reasons I've got nasty during AAI). But what Adil Baguirov did was ingenious, he created a claim in Khachkar destruction article that Armenians were actually destroying their own Khachkars. What was worst is that the two sources he was using were even not about Khachkars. See my comments on that second nomination and read my reason to oppose and then retract myself to vote. What was more interesting is that Grandmaster, after Adil ban, will try reinserting it. Check how Marshal was victimized over this on AA2 evidence he provides AA2. You may as well read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ehud_Lesar/Proposed_decision#Coincidences on that particular information that the allegation, and the exact way the source was used was Adil creation build off-wiki. Take the time to read all and see the context. The problem is that from the way John acted, and his knowledge of the subjects (more than any administrators), because of the way he was implicated he could not have known the source was misused. This was one example among many others. This now concerns ChrisO who is fighting for accuracy, go see what that group is doing on Wikipedia. Here an example which concerns Parishan, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lingua_franca&diff=prev&oldid=255199080 Turkish Armenia was in the Ottoman empire, the language was obviously Ottoman Turkish. I will not bother explanning with what amount of sherry picking he found two source, one political (which calls Armenians parasits) and the second, which he distorted the message, and of course with the help of adding three dots. This sorts of things have been deliberatly done here by an organized lobbying group. Will this be addressed, or you prefer placing in the community someone who specifically know what is done but ignored it while reverting socks from the other side. Will you agree that someone really caring for content will be offended. Does John really want me to deal with the evidence he provides to fool ignorants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inductionheating (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pulling it apart. It is not complete yet, and your assistance is appreciated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]