User talk:Amamedli

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Amamedli, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Qaei ☎ 20:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Amamedli's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft appears to assume that its readers understand what it is about. If this is an encyclopedic draft, is its subject a song, a singer, or what? In any case, if this is an encyclopedic draft, independent references to reliable sources are required. A proper lede sentence should define the subject of the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Amamedli/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Amamedli, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re[edit]

For fun, I'll respond.

"Do you have a method for define the true facts, because the article is full of opinion, commentary and judgements etc." [citation needed]
"because a 10 word mention of the lack of international recognition of NKR with a backdrop of a unified economic and military policy with Armenia constitutes an annexation by Armenia, not an independent state." You realize the articles are full of mentions of the fact that the NKR is not recognized, right? You're acting as if you're revealing some censored truth.
"Does it occur to your that not all of us are here to back Azeri government's positions?" I didn't say you did?
"Listen, I don't know whom you have encountered and how many people you have dismissed," No, indeed you don't. I have dealt with trolls and vandals from all over the damn Caucasus and learned long ago that very few of them have anything relevant to add to these articles. What you see in these articles is the result of over a decade of meticulous discussion and compromise, and you rush in here thinking you know better than us?
"but this is not going to fly." five points to hufflepuff
"Your method acceptance or dismissal of submissions with a deep underlying bias is fundamentally in conflict with the vision of Wikipedia." And here's the reason I'm responding to you. You don't get to come into our house and say that how we've been doing it for a decade and a half is wrong, without reading up on the history, the restrictions, and the strife involved in editing this suite of articles. You think you know anything about me and my editing? You don't. If you want to make these edits, justify them on the talk page first. It doesn't go the other way around - you have to justify your change to the status quo. You have to engage with the people who have put their previous time and effort into managing these articles and protecting them from exactly this kind of excessive rhetoric. YOU have to engage with US. You don't get to dictate the terms.
"your keystrokes might be putting lives in danger" please tell me how removing yet another redundant mention of UN resolutions is killing people --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to HM Golbez[edit]

You might have forgotten some of the Wikipedia core principles... they do not condone tyrannical tendencies :)

Firstly, I am in full compliance with Wikipedia core principles, it still is free content that anyone can use, edit. I was not aware of Her Majesty the Status Quo which selectively bestows her graces upon idiotic revanchist subjects (she is mean too). You seem to think that you (or "US" insinuation?) own the content and your tenure supersedes Wikipedia principles. I think not (five-pointer?). Besides I am engaging with you. You're the one who can't get over your condescension. I am trying to have a discussion and understand why context which directly explains lack of recognition of NKR doesn't appear prominently in the article and is seen as biased. These resolutions are fact. They are also relevant because they reflect the views of the world community and international law, as such explain why Armenia itself hasn't afforded NKR official recognition. But you have seen it all and there is nothing new for you to learn, is there? You have appointed yourself the 'keeper' of the truth from knuckleheads like me. How arrogant of you.

Secondly, you might have spend 15 years editing this page and I am sure many partial individuals have come and gone. Be that as it may, this is still Wikipedia and "doors" remains open. For Britannica neutrality might have been established as an editorial event .... At Wikipedia, neutrality is a processes, content and interpretations evolve overtime. Your dismissal of my edit without any type of engagement is not consistent with this idea.

Thirdly, I find your tone and position disrespectful. My addition of the UN resolutions is important context to the article and deserves more prominent for full context. Your first statement in response to my edit was that my edit 'betrays bias'. Your second comment was "and copy/pasting is not going to fly". How can you so blatantly disrespect me? Call Azeris "revanchist idiots", you believe to be the "the only one here with a good faith interest", "I am biased only in favor of the truth", "one side chooses to espouse a view that is not backed up by truth". Aren't you ashamed of your self-righteous proclamations? Wikipedia requires editors to treat each other with respect and civility, but this is beyond that.

We can get to your specific points, but please come down from the Ivory Tower and afford me the tone of respect as required by this site. Thank you Amamedli (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the royal Us. You will notice you were reverted by more than just me. You will notice that the discussions have involved many people, Armenians, Azeris, and others. In fact, I've been spending less and less time on them, because it's too stressful dealing with uncivil people wandering in thinking they have the answers and don't need to discuss with those who have come before.

"I am trying to have a discussion" No, you were trying to get your edit in without discussion. A discussion would have been if you made a post on the talk page first. Or even after. As it is, you have not initiated a proper discussion.

"lack of recognition of NKR doesn't appear prominently" what? The first sentence says it's only recognized by non-UN countries. The second sentence says it's part of Azerbaijan. There is a large section titled "Current Status," with a link to the more in-depth article of political status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is very prominent; no one visiting this page randomly will be confused as to the country's existence or recognition.

"The resolutions are fact" And they are described in detail in the appropriate place, which is not the very first section. You say the status is identical to Donetsk and Luhansk. Ignoring the falsehood of that (NKR has existed for 22 years behind a codified line of control, for example) the first section of the LPR's page isn't listing off UN resolutions. Nor is South Ossetia. So why should NKR be treated differently, in the same breath you're saying they're the same?

"But you have seen it all and there is nothing new for you to learn, is there? You have appointed yourself the 'keeper' of the truth from knuckleheads like me. How arrogant of you." I'm going to say you're the more arrogant one, seeing as how you think you know everything such that you don't need to go to the talk page.

"Your dismissal of my edit without any type of engagement is not consistent with this idea." Wait, let me get this straight. You make the edit without engagement; that's fine. We (me and others) revert it, telling you to engage, and we're the ones doing it wrong? Please read about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

Still waiting for you to explain how I'm risking lives. You call me uncivil, and you accuse me of that?

I await your discussion on the relevant talk pages, which no longer includes this one. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bro, lots of resentment and anger issues. last thing I expected is a grumpy admin.

look i get it, you're tired of the ish. but you cant administer karabakh wikipage and claim shoveling fatique. show respect, welcome new users, show them around. "i was here first" is a fifth grade argument. i was there in 1993, where were you? so sorry if i am not showing your achievements any deferance. it is irrelevant how many aremnians, azeris have opined here... surely that is no reason to generalize and stereotype. if i have an issue with objectivity, we will be discissing it. and if you think your position is invinsible here, we can challenge that notion to find out. or you can assume some people are in fact objective and work with them, though i worry that you have reached the point of no return... you have proclaimed yourself the seenit all, know it all and right... yet you have your personal opinions slant the plate. your lack of self-doubt is the first sign that you can no longer be objective. thats gonna have to change bro. start by removing you user page banter, that would be a sign of good will. Amamedli (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That you think I'm saying 'i was here first' betrays you still don't understand my argument at all. It's not that we were here first; it's that there is a status quo that didn't emerge out of nothing, it emerged from years of discussion and compromise, so for you to come in and declare those years of discussion and compromise insufficient without even beginning to engage is insulting. I still want to know how my words have endangered lives. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if by editing the site, i have broken rules and insulted you, then i apologize. that was not my intent. the site states "discuss before editing" rule for the intro section and i honored it. i was not aware it applied to the rest of the site(s). meanwhile, your userpage essay contiues to insult me and many others. i ask you again to remove it.

the only vision for karabakh is "joint custody"... this will buy time and give armenian and azeris time in peace, which will inevitably lead to economic integration and prosperity.... in 10-20 years the three transcaucasian states can be fully integrated economically openning unimaginable opportunity for growth, tourism alone would feed the countires. if we are at peace, Armenia and by extension karabakh will be a part of the "game". the result is economic prosperity on both sides (and georgia) which will eliminate a need to fight for the land. georgia and azerbaijan are already doing this and have moved passed bickering (plenty of that in the past)

joint custody is not possible now. why? hope! lesser hope by the azeris that we will regain full control, and greater hope by the armenians that de facto can become de jure without Azerbaijan agreeing. when they have hope, the people that annoy you here are likey to put on uniforms and pick up a weapon when the call comes in. if they realize that neither of these scenarios is possible, the people will be ready to compromise and so will the governements.

so long story short, when you suggest that somehow 22 years of de facto independence is a path to international recognition and sets nkr apart from dnr or lnr, you are giving false hope to those that have been conditioned to love this idea more than true prosperity and security for the armenian people. there is no legal precedent for this. Without Azerbaijan signing on the dotted line it will remain forever an illegally occupied territory. hence my suggestion to make UN resolutions a key segment, so abundantly clear to the reader and to the armenians most of all, that de facto control is not a slide-path to de jure independence and that compromises should be made before economic exclusion of Armenia is permanent. Armenia is already experiencing highest level of emigration in the world. reason is economics, but the result could be catastrophic to Armenian statehood which they have fought for for centuries. Obviously this is an opinion, not fact. does that answer your question? Amamedli (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. not pushing for UN segment. letting this go, but please remove the insults.[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I disagree that the article can give false hope to people, it's not at all hidden that NKR is very unrecognized. But you're more than welcome to bring this up on the article's talk page and attempt to convince others. And yes, its status is different from the DNR and LNR in many ways. As for the essay, it's remained unedited in place for five years, and has served me well. I'm not insulting you unless you're saying you're edit warring on behalf of revanchism and Baku. I haven't called Azeris idiots or Armenians useless, I've called the move for revanchism idiotic and irredentism useless. (funnily enough, I've stopped being a libertarian since I wrote that, but my sentiments remain true) --Golbez (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Azerbaijan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Atlas''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001: map 19 (Orontid Armenia, p. 33), map 20 (Empire of [[Tigranes the Great]], p. 34, map 21 (Artaxiad Armenia, p. 35), map 27 (Arsakid Armenia, p. 45</ref><ref>A. E. Redgate. The Armenians. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford. Maps 2.
{{Cite web|url=http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus5/Kalank/frametext11.htm|title=МОВСЕС КАЛАНКАТУАЦИ->ИСТОРИЯ СТРАНЫ АЛУАНК->КНИГА 1 ГЛ. 1-18|website=www.vostlit.info|access-date=2016-05-24}}</ref> as well as [[Talysh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll address tonight! Amamedli (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Palace of the Shirvanshahs. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palace of the Shirvanshahs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: ). Thank you. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 20:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Palace of the Shirvanshahs[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked). I'm also alerting you to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2 (see below) since you've edited our article on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amamedli (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am in full compliance with policy and in fact have gone out of my way to get users to engage in a sustantive discussion on talk page as asked by users. My page long quotes links and explanations are countered with arbitrary one liners such as "your sources are unreliable" and offensive comments such as "go get a dictionary". I have a very strong suspicion that these folks are motivated by excluding new users and controlling the content. How else do you explain lack of any debate and instant report of "edit war". This last bit is my error, and won't happen again, but can someone intervene to make sure that folks are not violating wikipedias greater objective of balanced, neutral facts, debated and established through a polite dialogue. I feel like every article has a grumpy watchdog who yells at you for the most minuscule edits, demands that you run your edits through "us" and then instantly reflects them. So far I have made minor edits to 3 articles and my experience has been identical. Lastly, would like to share a structural concern: ethnically sensitive articles attract users with strong opinions which often are the cause of original conflict in the first place. These folks naturally frequent these articles and end up dominating the sub-community. They are the opposite of cold eyes editors and as such inherently incapable of consensus building and as a result appear to be engaging in bullying tactics. As an example my attempts to expand Azerbaijan history which desperately needs work has received dismissive comments and removed without debate by the same user who reported me in this article (LouiseAragon) which incidentally is not the same user that I was edit warring with (HistoryofIran). So wherever I go, I seem to be blocked and tackled by the same users, rule-trapped, reported, blocked, which they brag about. This is hardly fair. Thank you Amamedli (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim you are not in violation of 1RR but appear to have reverted FOUR TIMES on 2016-06-01. You are welcome to request another unblock request, but you need to explain what seems to be a clear and straight-forward case of breaching the revert restrictions, discussion or no. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your draft article, User:Amamedli/sandbox[edit]

Hello, Amamedli. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]