User talk:Verman1: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from History of Adjara. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. –BruTe ^Talk 09:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The information that I deleted contains racist arguments about forcibly converting to Islam. If you don't let me to delete it, I would kindly ask you to delete it yourself. If not, I will complain about it to the main admins. Thank you. User:Verman1

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Tsitsernavank Monastery, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Serouj (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsitsernavank, for your information, is an Armenian monastery. Caucasian Albania has been EAST of the Kur River, and was an extinct nation by 7th century; Tsitsernavank is in the Armenian Highland, and is WEST of the Kur River by more than 100 km. The references cited in the Tsitsernavank article are from reliable sources: the University of Chicago Press and the California State University, among others. Your source from an obscure Azeri website does not cut it for Wikipedia. Your edits have been reverted. Serouj (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable sources that verify your claims. When you do, only then edit the article and specify your sources. Again, your obscure Azeri website cannot be used as a source.Serouj (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really, really need to visit talk pages to present your arguments rather than simply reverting. This is advice. Please take it. To that end, I am officially advising you of the provisions of [2007 Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbitration], which states that an editor can be sanctioned for continuing tendentious editing despite being warned. This is your warning. Please read that link, and bring yourself to the talk page of an article next time instead of reverting. You have never edited an article talk page. I am not an uninvolved administrator, so that is why I am giving you a civil warning and placing you under its provisions, rather than threatening a block myself. --Golbez (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, at this moment I don't care about your politics, and neither does the above-linked arbitration. All it says is that, when editing Wikipedia, you must adhere by our rules of civility and discourse. That means no repeat reverting, and no reverting without bringing the issue up on the talk page, and bringing the issue up with the community rather than edit-warring. If you cannot do that, then yes, you should leave, but realize you're leaving because you can't get along with others, not because of politics. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again - if you think it's prejudicial to want you to act in a civil manner and actually discuss your changes, then you really should leave now. Everyone - everyone - has to follow the rules on civility and not edit warring. I have made no statement in this conversation whatsoever on the politics, as they are fundamentally irrelevant to the core issues of civility and discourse. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been asked on my talk page to give an opinion about your comment] at Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery. It is not acceptable to criticise sources on the basis of the alleged (see WP:BLP!) ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. I am warning you that more comments in this vein may result in sanctions per WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. Thank you for paying attention to this.  Sandstein  20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Verman1. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting or deleting information from Kosalar, Lachin, Daşkəsən, Tsitsernavank Monastery, and Gandzasar Monastery articles. You need to provide unbiased evidence in the talk page and discuss with other editors before making radical changes to any article. You have not done so, and yet you want others to follow the rules. I am not looking for an edit or revert war and it is against wikipedia policy to engage in such activities. Please use the talk page and discuss what changes you'd like to make a why. We can work to come to a consensus but no one is going to benefit from a revert war, and the quality of the article will only suffer.--Moosh88 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through trouble when editing these articles, as they have had enough one-sided and false information. I didn't delete any third-party and neutral sources, I just made these articles more referenced and wide-scaled. I understand the Wikipedia rules, I am doing my best to follow them. It would be nice if opposite side would follow them too. So that we can have constructive negotiations and reach consensus good for both sides. I am not willing to start edit war, on the contrary I am strongly against it. I had published all my requests and referances on all of these articles' talk pages, but unfortunately I couldn't get corresponding response from any user (including you). Please discuss any changes in talk page, don't delete well-referenced content from any page. I believe that we can reach consensus without sanctions and edit-wars. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain where is the more referenced and wide scalled in fabrications such as this: (until Caucasian Albanian Church was annexed to Armenian Church by Russian authorities) tks. Vidovler (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you remove the passages that contain information about Armenians yet you ask for your edits to stay as they are because you use sources? Both sides can bring up sources. The difference is between valid sources and non valid, this is further complicated by the fact that you have erased the Armenian passages. That's called whitewashing. I'm all for constructive editing and making the articles better, but deleting whole sections is the not the way.--Moosh88 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete whole passages. It is wrong POV towards my actions. I preserved whole passages, book and other sources, information about armenians in these articles. Yet you delete whole information which have strong basis and references (thus leading way to edit-war). Though I had brought up many reference and sources, I didn't see any post or reference from your side in discussion pages (you just chronically deleted all information that you think is wrong). If you think something is wrong, you gotta discuss it and bring your counter-arguments before deleting. Unfortunately, I didn't detect such actions nor from you neither from other editors who also chronically deleting every useful info. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is because you did not use the talk page. Also, the sources you have used are not acceptable. You did delete sections that dealt with Armenians. You are now involved in an edit war and have violated the 3RR. I suggest you use the talk page on the four articles which you think should be edited and this way we all can work toward a consensus and make the articles better.--Moosh88 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the names of cities in NKR. If you want to use the Azeri name place it in parentheses, and use the talk page. You are now involved in borderline vandalism!--Moosh88 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the photo you just added to the Lachin article? We have so few photos of Nagorno-Karabakh by Wikipedians, so it was surprising to see one claiming to be such. --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, it is my own work. I have several other photos of Nagorno-Karabakh and I am going to publish them too. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the latest Armenian-Azeri arbitration, any form of edit warring or repeatedly reverting without immediately bringing the subject up on a talk page, regardless of the quality of the edit being made, is a bad thing. The Azeri-Armenian fight on Wikipedia has not exactly been civil, and remedies are accordingly harsh. And, without even looking at the edits in play, I can tell you right now, and you should well know this, that the "internationally accepted geographic name" is not sacrosanct here. For example, we have an article located at Stepanakert, rather than Khankendi. For that matter, we have an article at Burma rather than Myanmar (a decision I disagree with but that's a different discussion). So, and again this is without looking at the specifics, but I strongly suggest you discuss further changes before making them. Just because if someone is "right" doesn't necessarily mean their edit gets made, as it's subject to a consensus of editors.

So, long story short: Reverting to a particular name is usually a bad thing, unless it's the first revert (and it rarely is), in which case that's cool, but further reverting is not, as per the Bold, Revert, Discuss principle. However, because of the touchy issue of Armenian-Azeri articles, I strongly recommend against reverting before discussing, except in the case of obvious vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the recent history on Lachin. You edited, Moosh88 edited, you reverted him. I disagree, but one revert is usually okay. Then you edited more, and Fedayee reverted you. At this point, you should have ceased editing - it is time to discuss. You, instead, reverted him and, at the same time, labeled it vandalism. It was not vandalism. Admins hate it when you do that. You are not a neutral party in this, so you shouldn't be labeling anything vandalism anyway unless it involves words usually pertaining to genitalia. You seem to have taken my advice above as a license to revert people you disagree with, which couldn't be further from the truth. Often, the onus is on you to justify your edits, not on others to justify their reverts. (Especially when you repeatedly say "take it to the talk page" then don't do the same yourself) Read the arbitration linked at the top of this section, and understand its remedies and why it exists, then look at the extremely long list of editors who have been blocked or topic-banned for belligerent editing. If you do not calm your editing, you will end up on that list very quickly. --Golbez (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have justified my edits enough. Just look at talk page of articles Gandzasar Monastery and Tsitsernavank Monastery. But what action did other editors take, when they just began to revert pages, without bringing any single counter-argument? And what about reverting with sock puppets and without logging in? --Verman1 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think I understand why you are intimidating me with blocking" I did nothing of the sort; in fact, I specifically avoided saying I would sanction you at all because I am involved, as a referee but still. But, the mere fact that you're resorting to some kind of persecution complex furthers my view that you have no interest in discussing things, just throwing what you want up then crying foul when someone dares to disagree. And, frankly, saying "they got to act bad!" is not an excuse for acting poorly. If you want a "more fair administrator", you're welcome to find one, but in the meantime you really need to abide by Wikipedia rules and not get into pointless nationalist fights. As for 'reverting with sockpuppets', WP:SSP is that way. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted your request and logged notification of the other involved party. I've just undone your edit, because you linked the notification of the case (which I had already logged) in the area reserved for links to dispute resolution. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I'm currently occupied with various projects outside of wikipedia and am not able to devote much time to the website. Good luck with resolving your issue, · Andonic ^contact 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ganja Auto Plant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reversion. Apart from being very poorly written, I don't see why it's in this overview article on the region. Want it in the article on the war, or a battle? That might work. But focusing on two rapes, when there were people being killed? Unless you have a source saying those rapes were directly responsible for the war that began two days later - as responsible as the declaration of transfer to the Armenian SSR - then they might have a place, but as it is that seems to be completely out of place and adds nothing to the article. I strongly suggest you don't get into an edit war over this sentence, this is not the hill you want to die on. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cycle on Wikipedia is generally, person 1 makes an edit, person 2 reverts, and person 1 discusses. Person 1 doesn't then get to revert the reversion and complain about an edit war. The time is to discuss, not to get others to attack him for having an opinion that doesn't match yours. --Golbez (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain at Talk:Cyrillic what is wrong with the map at Cyrillic#Cyrillic alphabets. —Coroboy (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have explained my reason in here. Map is wrong. It should be corrected or deleted. --Verman1 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I have also responded at Talk:Cyrillic#Azerbaijan. —Coroboy (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could other users check User:MarshallBagramyan expropriation of the entire Kars article. This user constantly erases the other versions of the name of the city Kars in other languages (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars, Azerbaijani: Qars, Georgian: ყარსი Kars, Kurdish: Qers, Russian: Карс Kars) , and only lets the Armenian version of the name to stay (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars). Unfortunately this user's ethnocentric POV pushing by ignoring the history of the city, after the Armenian era, is still allowed to stay. He even defends it in the city article talk page.

User:MarshallBagramyan has started again erasing the city of Kars's name in other languages apart from its Armenian name. Could all users check and revert this user's ethnocentric POV pushing by ignoring the history of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.28.56 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Amaras Monastery, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Khojavend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to discuss obvious things, because most of your edits are anti-Armenian, such as deleting "Armenian" before the Targmanchats Monastery, or deleting NKR from the location, even when Azerbaijan is still in there.--Yerevanci (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I do NOT need any suggestion from you. You better take care of yourself.--Yerevanci (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this page – again?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verman1, I kindly ask you not to remove sources in the Agdam Mosque article. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verman1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been previously warned and topic banned but, once more:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

This, and your edits on a host of other articles I haven't the time to lay out in diffs at the moment are the types of things that will find you topic banned again. Aggressively editing articles from a particular point of view, and calling the edits of others vandalism when they are clearly not are hallmarks of tendentious editing. If you continue along this path you will be sanctioned again. --WGFinley (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring on Gandzasar and Tzitzernavank articles. This is your answer regarding your comment in Gandzasar talk. Gandzasar is not an urban center like Ganja but a major Christian shrine built and maintained by Armenians in the last 800 years. Its purported Muslim name is way too controversial an allegation to take at face value. Hence the request to include a neutral source. This is a serious warning. Winterbliss (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could all Azeri users check User:Yerevanci's relentless POV additions, lately in the Azerbaijan article.

This user constantly puts an inaccurate map about ethnic groups in Azerbaijan. Other users correctly remove it, but he puts it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.134.52 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after trying so many times to come to an understanding with you, I had no other choice than to apply to the Arbcom. Please see here. Regards. --vacio 09:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]