As you appear to know the Syriac language, per your recent edit in the Rojava article, could you add the Syriac names to more of the towns in the "population centers" table in that article? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to be the only editor of the Rojava article who has a first hand knowledge of Syriac language issues, I would like to thank you here as well for your respective edits. One curious question: Concerning the spoken Neo-Aramaic languages, is the information true that Assyrians in Rojava (Gozarto) almost exclusively speak "Turoyo" (and not "Assyrian" or "Chaldean")? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to help :) Yeah the majority of Assyrians/Syriacs in Gozarto speak Turoyo/Surayt, a lot of them are descendants from refugees from Tur Abdin (Turkey), especially in Qamishlo, Ras al Ayn, Hasakah, Derik, Amuda, Qabre Hewore and the smaller Syriac villages near the Turkish border. Though skills vary and many have switched over partially or fully to Arabic. In Tell Tamer and in the Khabour Valley though, the predominant Neo-Aramaic language is various dialects of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, since most descend from refugees from the Hakkari areas in Turkey and from around Simele in Iraq. This Syriac population is smaller compared to the Turoyo-speaking population though. Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is pretty rare in Syria I believe, there are followers of the Chaldean Church in Gozarto but Chaldean speakers are not necessary members of the Chaldean church. The Syriacs that lived in Tabqa were a mixture of both people from Northeastern Gozarto and the Khabour Valley so both varieties existed there. If you're interested in learning more about the Assyrians-Syriacs of Northern Syria I recommend these articles; https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-assyrians-of-syria-history-and-prospets-by-mardean-isaac/, http://www.aina.org/releases/20130802050632.htm AntonSamuel (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pictures of bas reliefs with Hebrew.jpg

for someone to translate what I believe to be Hebrew on a frame around a bas relief (actually two) and I think your user page suggest to you do. Are you interested? Can I send you the pictures? Do you need the background story? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: Sure, I can give it a go! Can't promise anything though since Hebrew isn't my native language. And yeah, the background story might help. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background. These two reliefs, that I take to be David & Ruth, were done on the Jewish Community Center building in Detroit Michigan USA in the 1950s. Since then an awning has been add that for some reason had to be in the reliefs. I am wondering what the Hebrew (?) text says. Thanks for taking a look. Oh yes, basically this is being done for a project outside wikipedia. about the life and works of Corrado Parducci. Carptrash (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: The first one is from Psalm 133, I've heard it many times in many renditions. "Hine ma tov uma nayim shevet achim gam yachad" -
הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד - "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers (also) to dwell together!" Here is a link to it, it's the first verse on the page: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16354/jewish/Chapter-133.htm

Seems like the second one consists of snippets from Proverbs 31:25; עוז והדר לבושה - "Oz Ve'Hadar Lebusha" - "Strength and beauty/splendor is her clothing" and 31:26; ותורת חסד על לשונה - "Ve'Torat Chesed Al Leshona" - "And the instruction of kindness is on her tongue" - You can find translations here if you scroll down to 25 and 26: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16402/jewish/Chapter-31.htm, also more detailed description of the individual meaning of the words here: http://biblehub.com/lexicon/proverbs/31-25.htm, http://biblehub.com/lexicon/proverbs/31-26.htm AntonSamuel (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As much, or more, than I was hoping for. Thank you very much, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by an IP user(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) to this and several other pages consistently make Chaldean Christians their own ethnic group rather than being Assyrian. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if this is correct. However, similar past edits were reverted, and the current edits also make claims beyond what is in the cited sources. Thus the placement of the flags int he hopes they'll attract someone more knowledgeable. 2601:401:502:320A:44E6:16AF:15FF:6799 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've reverted his changes now. In some places he has only changed the name from Assyrian -> Syriac and changed it to Chaldean if there is a Chaldean Catholic or Chaldean Neo-Aramaic speaking majority in the town/area. It's clear he has a biased purpose for this and in some cases he has removed any historical mention of Assyrians and removed entire sections. Assyrian is still the catch-all name for Christian Northeastern Neo-Aramaic speakers, the Chaldean identity represents a minority and is not totally parallell to linguistic and religious lines. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This type of editing seems to be a recurring problem with IP users. Would it be worth trying to get all pages relating to modern-day Assyrians semi-protected so that only auto-confirmed users could edit them? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that might be warranted, I just reverted another bunch of biased edits. I'm not an administrator though but raise the issue with one of them and I'm sure they'll agree! AntonSamuel (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntonSamuel you seem obsessed with Chaldeans who are our own ethnic group. You keep filling up our Wikipedia pages with false information and propaganda labeling us as Assyrians. Seems like until we file hate charges against you, you will refuse to stop. You are mentally sick, Anton, and need help. Chaldeans are not ethnic Assyrians, this is propaganda being pushed by Assyrian nationalists such as User:AntonSamuel and User:LacrimosaDiesilla. Chaldeans are the majority of Iraqi Christians. Assyrians are a very small minority in Iraq and overall, the Assyrian population is no more than 350,000. While Chaldeans are 1.5 million. Users such as User:AntonSamuel are the ones causing problems by falsely filling and changing all Chaldean pages to refer to us as Assyrians, which is false propaganda. The "ethnic Assyrian" identity was created by the British Anglican Church in the late 19th century in Urmia, Iran and Hakkari, Turkey and does not correlate to the true history of Neo-Aramaic speakers.

All I'm doing is reversing biased POV edits that aren't based on facts but historical revisionism and nationalist sentiment. No reliable statistics show that there are currently 1.5 million Chaldean Christians in Iraq. I harbor no hate towards those that identify as Chaldeans or any ethnic group and I regret to inform you that there are no charges that can be filed for disagreements on Wikipedia. The scientific and historical consensus is that Chaldeans are part of the Assyrian continuity. While "Assyrian" is a modern national identity just as "Swedish", "Russian", "Iraqi" or "Israeli", it is the majority identification among Syriac Christians as I understand it, while some identify as Syriacs, Chaldeans and Arameans or a combination of them. Because of this naming dispute the consensus on Wikipedia is that the name "Assyrians" should be used both for simplification and consistency purposes, unless it's an article related to a country/entity that officially uses an inclusive name such as "Syriac-Assyrians" or "Syriacs/Assyrian/Chaldeans" and so on. If you wish to dispute this, you are welcome to join a constructive debate on Wikipedia, but as long as you keep making unilateral biased edits and remove any mention of the word "Assyrian" on articles, I and others will keep on reverting these edits. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton. I have some concerns regarding such removals [1]. Of course, the term "Assyrian" is an umbrella term for all Eastern Neo-Aramaic speakers, there is nothing wrong with that. However, censoring "Syriac" and using simply "Assyrian" is not constructive. I am partly Syro-Aramean living in Turkey (now using VPN, because Erdogan blocked Wikipedia). Syro-Arameans have different culture, clothes, etc. For example, Iraqi Assyrians celebrate Akitu, we do not. Things like that. Language and ethnogenesis are also not the same at all. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic has Akkadian substratum, Turoyo and other Syro-Aramean dialects do not. They are purely Aramean. I am against removing "Assyrian" and using only "Syriac". HOWEVER, I am also against censoring "Syriac"!! It is aggressive and not constructive. Syriac is commonly used for describing Syro-Arameans living in Tur Abdin. Even in Turkey, where the Tur Abdin is located, we are known as "Süryani" which means "Syriac". It is common name for those from Tur Abdin. "Assyrian" is also shared identity as well. So, to compromise, can we use both, instead of pushing only one term? "Syriac/Assyrian" is a good term and reflects both Assyrian and Syro-Aramean identities. (The term "Assyrian" includes many sub-groups, e.g. Chaldeans. The readers must know that those from Tur Abdin and North Syria are not Chaldeans, etc.) 107.190.38.35 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I agree, I expanded the name to Syriac-Assyrian in the Rojava article since most Syriac-Assyrians in Syria are Surayt speakers and many of these identify as Syriac/Aramean. The naming and historical controversy is pretty complex and I can't say I know of any solution/consensus that has been found that most agree to. Here in Sweden where I live the official politically correct term is "Assyrier/Syrianer" - Assyrians/Syriacs and in the US it's "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs". Since the name "Syriac" mostly also represents those who identify as Aramean, and because (from what I've gathered) most of Chaldean Catholics and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic speakers identify as Assyrian or Chaldo-Assyrians since the division is mostly religious and (more or less) dialectal rather than historical, ethnic or linguistic I think Syriac-Assyrian is appropriate to include. I suppose there is a point that it's cumbersome because of the length of the term to use it everytime you refer to the Syriac-Assyrian people so I'll change back to Syriac-Assyrian in the demographic section and in the introduction while leaving most references in the text as "Assyrian" since it is still the catch-all name, it might turn into a debate on the talk page though, so we'll see what happens. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay friend, thank you. I have made some minor corrections for consistency. Regards. 107.190.38.35 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Syro-Aramean? Just wondering. 107.190.38.35 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just really interested in the region and its languages and history :) Do you live in Tur Abdin? From what I understand most Syriacs in Turkey have moved to Istanbul, and there's only about 3000 left in Midyat, Mardin and the surrounding villages? AntonSamuel (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am living in Antioch (Hatay). Father is Arab Christian from Antioch, mother is Aramean from Mardin. Many Syriacs/Arameans moved to Istanbul as well as Europe. Some moved to Syria, Lebanon, etc. Fayrouz's family was from Mardin. 107.190.38.35 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really sigh [2]. Can you find sources that mention "Syriac/Assyrians" "Aramean", "Syro-Aramean", etc. Because it is his only excuse to remove the content. Also there is no consensus on the talk page. Also I think the article should be moved to "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria". Because according to their constitution, they OFFICALLY define themselves as such. Also, the area has been expanded and many of the places are not considered within the pre-Syrian War definition of Rojava. For example Manbij, Raqqa,... They are not considered as Rojava. So it is misleading to mention them under the Rojava. Even PYD/YPG/SDF does not define the area as Rojava anymore. So can you please move the page? 107.190.38.35 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the page and replied to him on the Rojava Talk page. I would also like to see the article renamed, however there has been a discussion about that earlier and while many editors sympathize with a change, "Rojava" is used far more in the media and on the web than "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria", so per Wikipedias common name policy keeping the name "Rojava" is appropriate. However this is of course up for debate since the name may be used less and less in the future or may be argued to be non-neutral. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you friend. Because some of the sources the user cited are also confusing. For example Encylopedia of the World's minorities by Carl Skutsch states “The modern group known as the Assyrians traditionally incorporated those affiliated with the Assyrian Chruch of the East (or simply church of the East). At the dawn of Christianity, these people lived in Mesopotamia (an area modern-day Iraq)...Among a portion of Assyians there has also developed a nationalistic type sentiment, one that includes other Syriac-speaking peoples (Jacobites/Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholics, Chaldeans and Maronites) under the definition of Assyrian”. It is confusing and using "Syriac/Assyrian" is better for NPOV. 70.26.205.84 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add, or re-add, external links in the bodytext of articles, as you did at Western Neo-Aramaic.
Please read Wikipedia:External links, which states this on the very first line - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that policy, thanks for informing me! I've added the links as references instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Jazira Canton‎, Talk:Kobanî Canton‎, Talk:Afrin Canton‎, Talk:Cantons of Rojava‎ - Requesting a multiple page moves might save effort down the line. Batternut (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that you let you lead by the 2017 summer announcements for the DFNS subdivision system. They indeed 'delayed' mentioning the newly liberated area's to ease possible Turkisch outrage. But in all new more recent and ohter sources Manbij area ruling members of the DFNS call Manbij part of Shabha Canton/region and the de facto representation is also present in this way. Newer sources overrule olders ones saying 'not yet'. I'll hope you'll understand. We need to report the most recent and de facto reality, not an outdated communication prudence of the DFNS.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niele~enwiki: Hi! I'm a bit unsure about this, the sources you mentioned about the DFNS leaders and Rudaw claiming Manbij being part of Shabha canton and Afrin Region might be accurate in the sense that the region was originally created as a fourth autonomous region alongside Jazira, Kobani and Afrin, but was later reorganized into a subordinate canton to Afrin region, while Manbij is under the rule of "Manbij Legislative Council" and "Manbij Military Council". Since Manbij wasn't included in the elections or mentioned in the announcements about the new administrative regions that casts further doubt upon the situation. If there are official DFNS sources that show that the Manbij Legislative Council is subordinate to Shabha Canton and/or Afrin Region, or that it is planned in the future to be so, then I don't mind that it states as such. But I think further debate on the talk pages is warranted so that the issue is cleared up. I believe the wiki pages about the regions and the maps should represent official DFNS policy and if it conflicts with the de facto situation, then that should be explained. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. But please only add Assyrian villages or towns that have substantial Assyrian inhabitants in the list of Assyrian settlements page. Do not add ancient Assyrian tribes that have little or Assyrians in present day. You added a number of Western Assyrian settlements in Turkey that had no links. If they are ancient tribes associated with Suroyos, please feel free to relocate them in the List of Assyrian tribes page where they would belong. No, it's not controversial. It's just that there should be a clear distinction between the two articles as they convey a different subject matter, but people have conflated them by adding tribes and cities in both articles, confusing a lot of readers. But I don't blame them, because the titles are similar. I'd suggest a change in their titles for this to be resolved. ~ Meganesia (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it could be prudent to seperate currently inhabited and uninhabited/historical villages into two articles. The villages you recently removed from Mardin province however are still inhabited according to their wiki pages, which are all sourced properly, so I undid that edit. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and thanks for cooperating (glad to see people making a distinction between the two articles). But one thing, you added a list of uninhabited villages in the list of Assyrian tribes. I doubt that they're ancient Assyrian tribes (at least, those noted as being inhabited from the 1950s, though the others listed below may be). They are probably a modern, uninhabited resettlement of (mostly) Sirnak/Hakkari Assyrians who immigrated there in the 1950s to escape discrimination and torment under Ottoman Turks. But, I'm not too certain anyway as Amediya had ancient Assyrian settlement. I'm guessing it's safe to keep them anyway. We'll have to see. Meganesia (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to mention the recent court ruling favouring the Orthodox faction, mention it as a different section. Don't change all the references in the page while the administration is still with the Jacobite faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.76.43 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, I have temporarily removed your contribution to the history section until you provide full citations. The footnotes are unclear. What is "Clifford 2013", "Cummins 2011", "Asbridge 2010"? These are not in the bibliography. Your "population estimates" have also been removed - the CIA does not say that there are 400,000 Egyptian Turks - and Joshua Project is also unreliable. Kind regards, O.celebi (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were mostly meant to restore content that was removed earlier, so I used the same sources that were provided then. Asbridge and Clifford are included in the bibliography if you check. The article had a number of issues which you partially adressed through your latest edits. An issue that remains is that the higher estimates of 1.5 million and 25 million Turks in Egypt are treated as the most plausible estimates, which if looking closer at the sources provided and other claims made by the same authors for Turkish populations in other Middle Eastern countries (for example Syria) cannot be considered to be neutral or plausible. I have no intention of doing original research or tilting the article in the other way, I only want the article at its core based on objective facts. I believe that some of the content you removed about estimates from the 1800's illuminates what the probable estimates could be now and since it is properly sourced it would be proper that it remains on the page. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for further addressing the issues. O.celebi (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian vs. Syrian naming controversy First of all the medievals and other people when calling the assyrians syriacs, didnt mean aramean. Sure, the assyrians were both called by and outside the ethnic group aramean and assyrian, maybe you should state that the syriac word mean assyrian? We now know the word syrian means assyrian, cineköy stone, were ashur meant sur, in the cineköy stone, with two different languages with the same meaning. By the way, the source he gives you said the exact same thing, that assur meant sur, assyrians meant syrians. Check the source he gave you from aina. Please change aramean to assyrian.

It isnt linguistically, historically true that we are "arameans", we are assyrians, we come from northern mesopotamia (assyria) and we speak east aramaic, the official language of the assyrian empire! While the melkites, the real arameans, speak western aramaic, the closets language to what jesus spoke and the closets language to the aramean language. West aramaic was developed in syria, the heartland of aram, while the east aramaic was developed in mesopotamia. We must also not forget that the chaldeans and persians spoke aramaic, does it make them arameans then? Also we are not genetically related to syrians (arameans), we are more related to marsh arabs in southern iraq, which is considered to be descendants of the sumerians, all is written in genetics of assyrians in wikipedia. Please change aramean to assyrian.

Early Christian period We should put that osrhoene, adiabene, hatra and assur had assyrian identity, s. 20, National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times by Simo Parpola comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs)

Hi AntonSamuel, I hope you're keeping well. Unfortunately, my efforts on the talk page are still being met with confrontational (and inconsistent) replies. I have written a third proposal, if you have time, can you please read it through and let me know if you would support it to replace the current population section. Or, if you have any additional points (such as combining bits from proposal 2 and 3). Kind regards, O.celebi (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AntonSamuel. I see that you have taken down a number of the edits I made the the YPJ page. I read the justifications you made for taking down my material and am hoping that you can elaborate on them. While you're concerns with the material I posted are valid, I also think that I had included valuable information. Could you please expand more on why you removed the material so that I may edit it to include the information on the page?˜˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ec13grah (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ec13grah: Hi! I've looked through the content again, and there were two passages relevant to the YPJ that I've re-added in modified form. Much of the content you added however was mainly related to Öcalans ideological ideas and the general YPG/J-Turkey conflict which are covered on other pages such as Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Democratic Union Party (Syria), Abdullah Öcalan, Rojava conflict, Syrian Civil War, Foreign relations of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and so on. If there is something that you've added that you see missing on these pages, feel free to make contributions on them, however the information should relate mainly to the page in question, which I would argue it does not for the YPJ page. Also consider that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and neutral language and neutral sources should be utilized as much as possible. AntonSamuel (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First source are from Adam H Becker theologian not historian, however when I read link, he didnt even mention to chaldean or assyrian. the second source there is no link, when I search him in google, I discovered that Hannibal Travis is an lawyer (also not historian), when I read his link, he talk about genocide on Armenian, Greeks, and Assyrian (Nestorians) he didnt mention that chaldean are assyrian as you claim in article. The third source is from assyrian political propaganda journal, which is not neutral. all article is bias on Assyrian political parties propaganda and need to redit one by one --FPP (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Hannibal Travis is an lawyer not historian, history isnt his proffession, The other source is from Assyrian journal which not neutral, how about If I past links from quran said christians beleive in 3 gods? did wikipedia accept this source?. at this case I can tons of sources from proffession histrians confirm that modern hve nothing to do with ancient assyrian, begun from Henry Layard, John Joseph and Behnam Abu alsoof and this are more accurable than this sources that you mentioned --FPP (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want debate to real identity you should undo my edits at Chaldean Catholics as good intention, and stop fell it with political propaganda words. your standard contradict with many International legislation, like Iraqi constitiution article 125 which recognize Chaldean as ethnic, and also from United Nations, European Union, and from few months ago form your Australian government. --FPP (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have responded sufficiently regarding the Assyrian naming issue at the Talk:Chaldean Catholics page at this point. Please refrain from making unwarranted accusations. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, i do respect Wikipedia's guidelines and i just have something to say. Though some editors have a different point of view on things, may i ask how this dispute can be resolved? Is there a link i can use to settle the problem, i don't want to edit a page without consulting with someone who knows what they're doing and prevent damage on article pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IntercontinentalEmpire: It's quite simple - you need to check if there is a clear consensus already established that contradicts controversial changes you wish to make on the talk page of that page first, it's useful to ping previous authors of the page for their input. You also seem to change population figures a lot in quite a dubious way - seemingly randomly without providing any (new) sources substantiating the changes. You can find a useful list of rules for Wikipedia here: WP:POLICYLIST. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the basic rules, especially WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, i hope to get this cleared away soon, i just don't want to make a mistake on something i'm not familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you have worked actively on the Yazidis page and that you have greatly improved it. I think a vandal is intentionally inserting incorrect or problematic information into the article. You may be able to remove the information "Armenian Apostolic Church, Evangelicalism and Islam" from the Infobox and paste it into the "Religion" section instead. A small sentence such as "A minority of Yazidis converted to Armenian Apostolic Church, Evangelicalism and Islam." is quite sufficient in the section "Religion". I would be very grateful if you could do this. Friendly greetings 89.135.141.23 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurdish Red Crescent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Afrin and Al-Qahtaniyah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of active separatist movements in Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit which restored the stable version in Ras al-Ayn. Have you even looked at the reference before reverting my edit? I doubt it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I've looked into the edit history and sources further now and I see that you guys had a real edit war on the page. I also see that you added the original statement. I would not called it properly sourced or neutral in its language however - the sources that are used are largely unavailable online it seems. I would also ask how it can be considered correct to claim from these two sources that the city was "always" historically refered to by its Arabic name? The addition "and no accounts of using a Kurdish name are documented" was also not sourced but shows a clear intent to marginalize any Kurdish "claims" while claiming an exclusivity to Arabic claims with regards to the historical mentions of the city. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a misunderstanding regarding my edit of the article Pahonia. I meant no offence in using the word “defaced”. In vexillology, the study of flags, the word “defaced” is the correct term to use when a coat of arms or similar device is placed onto an existing flag. Therefore I did not breach any NPOV policies as I did not use the word “defaced” in a derogatory manner, I was just using the correct technical term. See this article for more information Defacement (flag). Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordyceps-Zombie: Oh I understand! I didn't know that, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Because of the sensitive nature of the situation in Belarus it might be prudent to either omit the word or link the word to the Wikipedia page for the sake of clarity. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikilinked the word to the article to avoid a misunderstanding like that happening again. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look I researched my sources and I punch in accurate information and I still get punished for it? This is unacceptable, I try to contribute and all I get for doing the right thing is either harassment or denied anything to promote the page's logic, what did I do wrong? Why did you delete it and why are you denying the Zoroastrians in Kurdistan? Please tell me, why?

@IntercontinentalEmpire: I have left an explanation for my revert of your edits on your talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that it was non neutral websites, that makes no sense, if it's accurate it should be sourced and you threaten to block me, this is injustice.

@IntercontinentalEmpire: I have given you the two previous levels of warning for disruptive editing to this page, but you keep repeating the same type of edit. The Rudaw source you've added talks about the claims of the community itself, the other is basically a private blog and not a credible source for this type of information. Again, please, familiarise yourself with the basic tenets of Wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Core content policies. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wasn't trying to ruin the page, I wanted to contribute sources and all I have here is you threatening me by potentially blocking me. Even if I made errors before, I do not wish to vandalize the pages. Please, I beg of you, stop thinking of me as a vandal.

@IntercontinentalEmpire: I'm not here to assume bad intentions or demonize you or anybody, but if a user makes blatantly disruptive edits such as changing population estimates without credible sources or without any source at all, I won't shy away from reverting them and giving the user a clear explanation as to why it is unacceptable. I hope you'll be an active and contributing member of Wikipedia in the future, but you need to know that this is an encyclopedia, and if you want to contribute constructively - you will have to justify your edits using neutral and reliable sources. Your edits so far does not reflect such an attitude unfortunately, I've explained this to you before on my talk page when you've asked [3]. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: OK look, I need information regarding neutral websites or other sources. You stated this to me but I don't quite understand, I will try my best to contribute better, however I really need guidance here, looking through all the policies gave me a lot of trouble, but that doesn't mean I don't completely get them. I need your help with this cause I really hate to be blocked. Also if the warning on my talk page is removed, I vow to improve my editing in the future but again, I need help.

@IntercontinentalEmpire: This page has some useful examples regarding WP:NPOV, you can read about reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please, thoroughly read through these pages and the ones I've linked before. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: OK I will take a long look at this and try to ensure my policy check is in order, I apologize again.

So I double checked it and it makes sense now but I still don't have a full answer of neutral or non neutral sources. Is there a way to better explain this so I don't get into trouble?

Cabayi (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to standardise place names. I realise place names are sensitive. As such, I have done a meta-search of Shusha/Shushi and found The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (5 ed.), which I think should be followed. What do you think? Johncdraper (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johncdraper: Hi, I appreciate that you're working to improve the Nagorno-Karabakh articles! Currently, the wiki pages of most NK towns and villages use the Azerbaijani names, with some exceptions such as Stepanakert and Martakert. A lot of the articles need general improvements and updates and I've been trying to contribute a bit in that regard lately. Regarding naming conventions such as WP:COMMONNAME, I would argue that it's quite a problematic situation, there is the de jure - de facto aspect as well as the fact that the towns have been under Armenian/Artsakh de facto control for about 30 years and that the Armenian names by now are used far more outside of Azerbaijani and Turkish media. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we default to reliable sources. Personally, I consider The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (5 ed.) a reliable source. Is that something we can agree on, or do we need to check more reliable sources to establish consensus? Johncdraper (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johncdraper: The guidelines for naming conventions states that names should primarily be those "that are most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" so to establish a consensus for each name, then the usage of each name would ideally have to be looked at. However, in the mean time, to increase the quality of articles, using reliable sources as a basis for settlement names sounds reasonable to me. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anton, this type of edits are just awful. Could you help giving Solivarium a warning.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: Hi! The removed segment seems to be back on the page in the "Civilian casualties" section. I'm keeping an eye on the page for clear disruptive edits that are problematic for the neutrality and readability of the page, but in the end, I hope that editors from all sides of the divide will be able to contribute constructively as much as possible. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: I've added a shorter mention of the alleged deaths on the timeline now, as other casualities have been featured. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: Hi again, now it seems like most mentions of civilian deaths have been restricted to the "Civilian casualties" section apart from mass-casualty incidents. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey..

I updated map for Hadrut,Fuzuli and Murovdag.. I painted dark color. We can add as "Areas officially declared captured by Azerbaijan but rejected by Artsakh".. If u want we can chance the color. (Please kindly look Turkish version and u can write on Twitter) ---Emreculha (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emreculha: I've softened the color and modified the text a bit to increase neutrality. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback regarding the Khojaly page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_(village)). Could you please provide more specifics about why the changes were not constructive. More detailed feedback will be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandreason (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsandreason: Your edit removed any mention of the Armenian name of the village and de facto control by the Republic of Artsakh and its Askeran Province. I would advise you to familiarise yourself with the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (WP:PILLARS) and the Wikipedia:Core content policies, WP:NPOV especially. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: While I agree about the Armenian name of the village, the Republic of Artsakh is not officially recognized by the international community and that was the reason for its removal from the page. Factsandreason (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsandreason: Wikipedia features the situation on the ground/de facto status of areas as well as a standard. However, if you have an issue with a specific way it's being displayed, I would recommend you to start a discussion on the talk page regarding this to seek the input of other editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of putting Armenian name of Fuzuli on the template? The city had been Azerbaijani majority and it is outside of former NKAO. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Having both the Azerbaijani and Armenian names in general serves to inform readers about what the localities are being referred to in Armenia and the de facto independent Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh. However, that is not uniform on the template map currently as it is still in its development. Another point I also think should be addressed is the general removal of content connected to Armenia or Armenians on the NK pages, which has increased and which I see as quite problematic with regards to neutrality. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you call the stadium in Milano "San Siro Stadium", you are a Milan fan, if you say "Giuseppe Meazza Stadium", you will be an Inter fan. I think the situation in the Karabakh region is just like that. I think we should either use two names or not use names.-- Emreculha (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emreculha: Using both names sounds reasonable to me. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolanlar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artsakh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my Artsakh edits were unsupported by facts? The recent change of hands of a village in an evolving war situation perhaps? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Hi! It was mainly your removal of the Azerbaijani name for the village among your edits to Qubadlı/Kashunik that I found to be problematic [4]. Including the names of disputed villages in multiple languages is prudent per WP:NPOV. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK then. I thought that I was just giving prominence to the de facto name. It should of course have both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Askeran Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artsakh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very grateful, if you would kindly indicate some of the best sources for the statement " "Assyrians" remain the catch-all term for Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans/Arameans". I don't doubt it, and being able to prove it would be very useful. Please. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bealtainemí: Hi - regarding that Assyrians has been utilized as the catch-all phrase for Syriac Christians on Wikipedia, that is the outcome of a debate that has been held many years ago, and a naming convention page was created for guidance on how to use the various phrases regarding Syriac Christians: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac). If you wish to dispute the outcome of this debate, there are instructions on the page [5] on how to do so (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)). There has also been a RFC recently on the talk page for the Arameans article [6] which relates to this matter. This article is useful regarding finding sources: Terms for Syriac Christians. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. No, I have no wish to dispute the outcome, quite the contrary. I was hoping for something fuller and not limited to Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, please don't let Azeri people distort the reality by editing the articles about Artsakh villages, most of them are not under Azerbaijani control, don't let that Aliyev or Azerbaijani sources mislead you. For example.. Hadrut is not under Azerbaijan control by today. Villages like Mataghis aren't either, the Armenian sources are totally ignored and whole Wikipedia articles rely only in Azeri sources which is laughable, due to the high risk of propaganda and falsification (this is not me who say it, also you can check press freedom index of Azerbaijan) Please mind the Armenian sources aswell which is usually more partial than Azeri. Also i found villages of Artsakh whose articles are edited and found interpretations such as "Armenian invaders". I undo already one of them. The war is not over! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahe312 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahe312: Hi! As far as I've seen, there have been a couple of relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian sources such as this Iranian source: [7] as well as R&U/War Diary [8] and Southfront (Close to a Kremlin mouthpiece) that have displayed maps with Azeri control of Hadrut, Fuzuli, Kovsakan, Jabrayil and Kashunik. The maps released by the Armenian MoD has been relatively transparent in that they've shown Azeri advances along the Artsakh-Iranian border [9] but there is still a need for third-party sources to confirm any claims. However, the area around Hadrut, Kovsakan and Kashunik may very well be contested as there have been conflicting reports regarding the extent of Azeri advances with regard to control and the Armenian MoD reports have shown Azeri "sabotage"/infiltration units enter Armenian-controlled territories in Artsakh/Karabakh [10]. So in order to "confirm" that Hadrut would be contested or under Armenian control, at the very least a relatively neutral and reliable source would have to be provided that substantiates this for the map to reflect this. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the latest revision. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: I've responded to your talk page regarding why I reverted your edit on Lachin. [11] That you've simply blanked the warnings I've given you instead of arguing your case is quite problematic. If someone gives you a warning and you think it's unfair, show good faith and meet it head on instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giving warnings to people for edits you don't like is surely not the way to go. If you don't agree with someone's edit, take it to the article or user's talk page rather than trying to scare them by putting a warning on their talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: I've responded to you your talk page again. Regarding the warnings that I've given you on your talk page for disruptive editing, I've followed standard Wikipedia procedure per WP:DISRUPT. I can assure you that I give out warnings for disruptive editing when I observe what I deem to be disruptive editing, not when I simply "don't like" an edit. If you think my warning to you was unfair, then I welcome your input. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in my own talk page. Don't really want to repeat same things on 2 different talk pages. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted my edits, why? The Dadivank monastery is in the international borders of Azerbaijan and its important to mention that too. Not just Artsakh because thats a illegal non-recognized de-facto state — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkMilliyetci (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TurkMilliyetci: Hi! The article already specifies that Dadivank is in territory de jure part of Azerbaijan and de facto controlled by Artsakh/NK. However, I'll add an additional mention in the lede for clarification. The article already specifies that per the cease-fire agreement, the area is scheduled to be handed over to Azerbaijan. I reverted your edits as I found them to be unconstructive in that you repeated information already present on the page and confused some information regarding the Artsakh "Shahumian Region" so it was unfortunately not an improvement to the article in my view. I would advise you to look up the information here regarding learning to edit Wikipedia [12]. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it also already mentioned that it was a part of Artsakh. If u want extra information u should add both names. And if you don't just add none of em. Just like Shahaumian region — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkMilliyetci (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand I make mistake with rules. Sorry, I work more in Russian version and there is a difference a little bit. I've discussed this subject in Talk of this article in advance. There is consensus reg edit and delete information without the sources. I see the guide links. Can I try to edit now? or could you do it with following: Azokh Cave is renamed now, so it should be edited. as regards to information without the sources, it should be deleted. what do you think? --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydin mirza: Hey, it was the unexplained removal of the content that I found to be problematic, if there is reasonable doubt about the validity of the statement - then that should be presented on the talk page, not merely that there are sources lacking. The information provides useful historical context, however, I've added a "citation needed"-tag to the statement now and I'll look into the historical background a bit further. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see. Pls, check as soon as you are able, and in the same time I'll present it in Talk page. As regards to Azykh Cave, can I changed because it's changed already(the article is crenamed already)? --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you used this map as source for Armenian/Azeri-majority villages. Do you, by any chance, have a higher quality version of that? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: Hey, another user made this map [13] based on the Russian map. The file also includes a reference to the book that the map came from. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was more hoping to find version with names of the villages. Thanks regardless. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you appear to have expertise in Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There was a bit of a kerfuffle on Shusha fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) whether it should be spelled Shusha or Shushi. On 14 Nov, I reverted an anon for changing the name to the ladder w/o source nor explanation. Another SPA new editor was then reverted twice for making a similar change w/o comment nor source. Likely the same person. Would you please take a look and make your magic fix? ;o) Thanks Adakiko (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: Yeah, it's a controversial issue because of competing national narratives which tend to obscure objective facts about the history of the town/region. I intend to delve deeper into the specifics of the historical background with regard to that and hopefully clear up some inconsistensies on the articles in the future and increase their neutrality and inclusiveness. Regarding the Shusha fortress article, if I understand you correctly, did you want me to take a general look at the article and clear up any misunderstandings about the historical name(s) for the fortress? AntonSamuel (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering if it should be "Shusha fortress", "Shushi fortress", "Shusha fortress AKA Shushi fortress", or something like that. Mention the alternative spelling. If you think so, please advise or edit? Much appreciated. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manashid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have recently noticed that a user has added the Azerbaijani translations of Armenian cities (within the territory of Armenia) to several articles including Goris, Sisian, Pambak, Gegharkunik, Shatvan, and Kapan (possibly others as well). To me, this makes no sense since these cities are within Armenia proper, the Azerbaijani names are not official names of the cities, they are not used by the current populations of these cities, nor are they used by government officials. I was hoping you can provide some advice/feedback on what would be an appropriate course of action (if any?). @Laurel Lodged: This may be of interest to you as well. Any advice is appreciated! Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable. Someone has to call a halt to this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the double standards and nationalistic editing is becoming overwhelming. Not sure what can be done? Archives908 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: @Laurel Lodged: I've explained a bit of what I interpret Wikipedia guidelines to recommend regarding including alternative names, in the debate regarding including the Armenian place name Shushi in the lede of the Shusha article: [14]

To summarize: Wikipedia guidelines recommend per MOS:LEADALT that "...Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Per WP:OTHERNAMES/WP:NCPLACE that "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

I interpret these as inclusive guidelines - that historical and significant alternative place names may be placed in the lede of an article, or in its etymology section if the amount of names become too numerous for readability, if either 10% of English language sources use the name or if it's used by a people that used to live in the locality - the existence of a large diaspora community from the specific place for example. Historical context should also be taken into consideration - what significance/connection a city has for a people historically, culturally/religiously, while recognizing the various national narratives that exist and staying inclusive. The matter of including material that is controversial should be raised and discussed individually on the talk pages of the articles. Sometimes a Request for Comment (RfC) may be advisable.

AntonSamuel (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, Archives908 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: @AntonSamuel: 100% agree. What can be done in a practical way though that does not involve total war? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note- the user who added the Azerbaijani names, to the above articles, claims that these towns and cities all had Azerbaijani majorities- yet the user failed to provide a single source in any of their edits. And I can't seem to find any information about these towns having Azeri majorities in the respective articles. Not sure if that changes things or not? Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dəmirçilər, Khojali

added a link pointing to Nagorno-Karabakh war

Historical negationism

added a link pointing to Nakhchivan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, I searched Tovmasar in Google and found as Armenian name of Çullu village of Jabrayil District^[1]. Please redo my edits. Cemsentin1 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cemsentin1: As you can see on that map - that represents another location where Tovmasar is located ([15]) and not Çullu, Jabrayil ([16]). There is another location point on the map named Chullu ([17]) which I assume is the reason for the confusion. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I appreciate your works for the middle east conflicts, could you make a map for the Iraqi Civil War (2006–2009) in any period of the conflict? Thanks Ridax2020 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In Khojaly, Shusha, Lachin 90-100% Azerbaijanis lived befor First Nagorno-Karabakh. Why these cities' names are Armenian name? I changed these cities and villages names to USSR periods names. I didn't change Khankendi/Stepanakert's name. Now Azerbaijani forces liberated a part of Nagorno-Karabakh. In these cities, towns and villages will Azerbaijanis live. I think these cities name should be Azerbaijani names. Thanks for your understanding.

EljanM (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware - those three towns can use the Azerbaijani names, however just as Azerbaijani history and heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh needs to be taken into consideration, so does the Armenian history and heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh. Your edit changed all historically Armenian villages that were captured in 2020 to the Azerbaijani names. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change names of villages and towns names in USSR period. If we talk about the majority of the population, we should change the name of Vardenis to Basarkecher. EljanM (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is another context regarding towns in Azerbaijan and Armenia outside of Nagorno-Karabakh - an example being the large former Armenian population in Baku and the Azerbaijani in Yerevan. Nagorno-Karabakh has been a disputed area for a long time and there has been Armenian autonomy/independence in the region since the Middle Ages to the 1800s when it was part of the Russian Empire. This has been discussed on many talk pages regarding place names in the region such as Shusha/Shushi. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change names in map to pages titles. For example, Dashalty. The name of this village has always been Dashalty. EljanM (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karintak/Dashalty had an Armenian majority before 1989. Regarding page names - this is a larger issue that needs to be discussed elsewhere in an open fashion so that other readers can chime in, right now NK page names are generally set to the names set by the Azerbaijani government and have not been set to conform with WP:COMMONNAME - which would be ideal, except for larger towns such as Martakert, Stepanakert, Martuni and so on that have been investigated with regard to WP:COMMONNAME. So using the current page names would not be prudent for readability and neutrality. Using pre-1989 demographics [18] in NK as a basis is the current consensus. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1828, very few Armenians lived in Karabakh. According to the Turkmenchay agreement, Armenians from Iran and Turkey were resettled in Karabakh. If we talk about history and population, Azerbaijan is right. I'm just trying to be neutral here. I do not try to violate the rights of Armenians, nor do I allow the rights of Azerbaijanis to be violated. We should change villages, towns and cities names to USSR periods name. Thanks for your understanding.EljanM (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Armenians have inhabited and have been autonomous in Nagorno-Karabakh for a long time as I mentioned earlier, is overwhelmingly attested in historical accounts, similarly to there being an academic consensus regarding the Armenian Genocide. There have been numerous population shifts, ethnic cleaning, genocide and war over the last couple of centuries in the region so the demographic picture has shifted for many places, and majority/minority statuses along with it. I know that the Azerbaijani government has another version of history that it propagates, regarding the Treaty of Turkmenchay and that Armenians came to Karabakh in the 1800s - However, the Azerbaijani state narrative is known for its historical negationism and should be taken into account when editing an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which should provide facts based on neutral and reliable sources. However, the historical debate is a large and long one with regard to who has the better claims for the region and so on. That's why the majority population for towns before the First Nagorno-Karabakh War has been used as a useful neutral point of departure, which is a bit more anchored in modernity with regard to WP:COMMONNAME, while still taking the historical context of the region's towns and villages into account and I see no arguments that have been presented for another approach that would improve the neutrality of the place names. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan is also known for defeating its enemy in 44 days and liberating Shusha, which is said to be irrevocable. Only Azerbaijanis will live in the places liberated by Azerbaijan,the laws of Azerbaijan will remain in force and there will be only Azerbaijani names. Those places are the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan and no claim of the Armenians can be accepted. The rest of Nagorno-Karabakh may have Armenian names because Armenians can live there. Except for Khojaly. Khojaly is our wounded place. Thanks again for your understanding. I am programmer in Governate of Azerbaijan. Nice to meet you! EljanM (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've explained enough at this point. What you've argued for here is very troubling if it will serve as a starting point for your edits as a Wikipedia editor - in that it promotes a language based on extremist nationalism - calling for the ethnic cleansing of the area - and I won't engage further in a conversation where such language is used. I removed the color you added to your text - it made it hard to read the conversation. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying again. Azerbaijanis will live in the places liberated by Azerbaijan, and the names of those villages and cities must be in the Azerbaijani language. I will only change the names of the places liberated by Azerbaijan on the map. EljanM (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate your recent contributions, adding the Armenian-majority. Though, can the wording be changed since the current one is a bit unclear for the users to understand? Perhaps it can be changed from The village has an ethnic Armenian population, and had an Armenian majority in 1989 to simply The village has an Armenian-majority since none of the villages that were Armenian-majority in 1989, that are now controlled by Armenians has changed its majority, they're all still Armenian-majority. Or you can change it to something else, that's clearer and easier flowing than what it is now. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, about the new additions regarding the Armenian ethnic population and majority in 1989 - I wanted to be precise with regard to the source and also clear about which towns are historically majority Armenian in the area and still are, so I hope the mention of 1989 will inform readers about the historical background of the villages. I've modified it differently for Armenian-majority villages captured by Azerbaijan in 2020 - since many historically Armenian towns in NK (especially in Hadrut Province) have now been emptied of their population. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I was mostly talking about Armenian-majority villages that are still under Armenian control. I think the sentence itself for these kinds of villages is little confusing as it implies that it's not Armenian-majority now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw one of your latest edits. The village has an ethnic Armenian-majority population, and also had an Armenian majority in 1989. This one looks good, thanks. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate here [[19]] --Addictedtohistory (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You changed names of Çaykənd and Aşağı Ağcakənd to Getashen and Shahumyan. But these villages weren't in Nagorno-Karabakh. I think, you must change Getashen and Shahumyan to Çaykənd and Aşağı Ağcakənd in Nagorno-Karabakh map. EljanM (TALK) — Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: I'm waiting your answer.

Regarding these villages - they were historically Armenian-majority villages, had Armenian majorities in 1989, the Shahumyan and Getashen districts took part in the Artsakh declaration of independence and while being emptied of their Armenian populations during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Operation Ring, they are claimed by Artsakh. Their Armenian names are their likely common names - that is why they are used on the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. These villages names may be armenian names. But if these villages names should be armenian names, Vardenis and Sotk villages names should be Azerbaijani name. Because these villages had Azerbaijani majority before First Nagorno-Karabakh war. EljanM (TALK) 14:23, 20 December 2020

There have been many towns and villages in both Azerbaijan and Armenia which have been ethnically cleansed during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and in previous conflicts, however the localities concerning Nagorno-Karabakh and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict's immediate battleground is a separate issue because of the long-disputed nature of the region. However, you can always voice your concerns regarding native/common names on talk pages of the articles as well as start move requests on the talk pages if you think they should be moved - and present evidence that their common names are the Azerbaijani names, as well as taking other aspects of Wikipedia:Article titles that may be of relevance into consideration as well. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aşağı-Ağcakənd and Çaykənd weren't in Nagorno-Karabakh. Please change these armenian names to Azerbaijani names. Not Shaumyan and Getashen. Aşağı-Ağcakənd and Çaykənd. EljanM (TALK) 14:36, 20 December 2020

I've already explained my position regarding that. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have symphatys to armenians. There are Azerbaijani troops and Azerbaijani population in these vilages. I have already shown you the facts EljanM (TALK) 14:41, 20 December 2020

Are you changing these villages names or not? EljanM (TALK) 14:49, 20 December 2020

At this point I believe that I've explained quite thoroughly why its prudent to use the Armenian names - with regard to WP:COMMONNAME and the historical background and context. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These villages weren't in Nagorno-Karabakh. So these villages aren't conflict zone. It's not matter unrecognized country claimed these. EljanM (TALK) 15:02, 20 December 2020

Oh really. I didn't see. These villages page titles are Azerbaijani names. It's not matter armenian names in map. EljanM (TALK) 16:09, 20 December 2020

Hi there, since you seem to be about the only other person especially interested in this article, I am seeking your input on this disagreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Köhnə_Tağlar if you're able. Thanks, --RaffiKojian (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaffiKojian: Hey! Regarding the de facto/de jure descriptions on articles - currently the state of the of the Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh articles for localities that have been captured by Azerbaijan, is to mention the control of the Republic of Artsakh in the History sections - all in all the articles have to keep a balance both for neutrality purposes and to maintain readability. One option, if it could be said that vital information is missing regarding claims - could be in line with the Pristina article in Kosovo for example - which uses a tag on the country which is listed in the infobox which more thoroughly explains the situation with regard to international law/claims/disputes. That Artsakh claims villages in the former NKAO+Shahumyan+Getashen can also be mentioned in the article text if not already present. The majority of the articles for historically Armenian-majority villages/towns in Nagorno-Karabakh currently aren't set to their common names (which are their Armenian names in the majority of the cases). I've opened up a move request about that recently [20] which I've tried to make as open as possible. I've also tried to balance out the articles for the towns and villages by expanding them, and informing about the history of Nagorno-Karabakh and its Armenian heritage and context - since Karabakh Armenians have had some form of autonomy/independence in the region since the Middle Ages until the 1800s, and that a majority of the villages in the former NKAO historically had Armenian majorities, as well as in Russian/Soviet times and until the 2020 war. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: - thanks for the reply. I'm okay with including this in the infobox, but personally I still think it makes sense to have it somewhere in the top section, rather than the history section, since the claim itself is current/ongoing, since some people will no doubt miss the infobox. I also just responded to the proposal you made with regards to naming of articles, which is the most sensible/fair approach I can imagine for both sides. Why should either side impose their name on a place whose population wouldn't want it or are not there to have a say? --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaffiKojian: You may find something useful regarding infoboxes and manual of style guidelines in general here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes - Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The Shusha article has some info about control/past control in the top part, something similar can probably be used in a good way in other articles - however, sometimes the articles are very short and the History section is visible without scrolling the page, so it might be a bit repetitive to mention it in two places for shorter articles - In that case, it would be better to only mention it in the top and not in the History section as well if it's not visible enough as it is. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: What's written in the Shushi article would definitely not bear repeating twice, and the way it's written honestly does sound like it belongs in the history section. In that article, I would say Shushi is a town in Azerbaijan, claimed by NK at the top, and put that other existing text in the history section, plus put both names in the infobox. I just think it makes the most sense... --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have question to you. Are google results important for page titles? Thanks! EljanM (TALK) 11:41, 21 December 2020

You can read more about the policies on article titles on Wikipedia, including how search results are used, here: Wikipedia:Article titles/WP:COMMONNAME. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh map, I will change the color of Chaylaggala to green. Because this village is controlled by Azerbaijani forces. EljanM (TALK) 13:26, 21 December 2020

I've already fixed it - however, Russian peacekeepers may still be in control of the village, so it is marked as lime/blue in order to be precise and clear. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friends are soldiers in Nagorno-Karabakh. They sent photos of Chaylaggala. They also controlled Hin-Shen. However, on 18.12.2020, the Russian peacekeepers controlled this village. EljanM (TALK) 13:33, 21 December 2020

There were some tensions reported around Hin Shen - I read news reports about it, however I haven't seen many reports about Khtsaberd lately. Wikipedia needs to use reliable sources and not original research, if you can find reliable sources (you can find a list here) stating that Azerbaijani troops are in full control of Khtsaberd and not Russian peacekeepers, I'll have a look. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anton :) My opinion is Azerbaijani army is fully captured Çaylaggala, because there are facts of this situation in internet. I wanna know, what is your opinion. Thanks! EljanM (TALK) 17:35, 23 December 2020

There are some gray zones with regard to control in Nagorno-Karabakh, such as in Khtsaberd/Çaylaqqala, Shosh/Şuşakənd and Mkhitarishen/Muxtar, where there is incomplete information, conflicting reports - whether they're under full Russian, full Armenian, joint Armenian/Russian, joint Azerbaijani/Russian or full Azerbaijani control. Some new visual reports would probably clear things up. However, I don't keep constant watch on the region/conflict right now, so there may be new reports that I'm not aware of. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know all situations in Karabakh. Mukhtar is controlled by Azerbaijani forces, Shushakend is controlled by Russian peacekeepers, Chaylaggala is controlled by Azerbaijani forces 100% . I think we should add green dot to Chaylaggala in Nagorno-Karabakh map. EljanM (TALK) 17:50, 23 December 2020

As I stated earlier, if you can find reports about this from reliable sources (you can find a list here) I'll have a look. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[21]], [[22]], Most of news in social media and my friends sent of videos of Çaylaqqala and Köhnə Tağlar. Believe me ;) I'm changing in blue dot to green dot. EljanM (TALK) 17:59, 23 December 2020

Liveuamap and the Russian MoD map can be useful, however, they are not reliable sources with regard to removing the fog of war totally that exists right now in some areas as far as I have heard to the degree that we can say that the situation isn't unclear. For that we would at least need some clear visual report or a reliable source reporting from the ground in some other manner. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friends are soldier in Hadrut, Chaylaggala and Shusha. They sent videos me from these cities. I can't send you these videos, because these videos should be anonym. EljanM (TALK) 18:16, 23 December 2020

No thanks - no WP:OR. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed dot of Chaylaggala. If your opinion is different, you can change dot of Chaylaggala. EljanM (TALK) 18:21, 23 December 2020

Yeah, I reverted it. Please provide a proper source first. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[23] This video is recorded by armenian forces in Hin Shen. They were leaving from Chaylaggala EljanM (TALK) 18:30, 23 December 2020

Yeah I've seen that video, it was of Armenians retreating from Khtsaberd/Hin Tagher, so Armenian control in the area is unlikely. However, the last report I've seen was that there were Russian peacekeepers in control of Khtsaberd, and I haven't seen any of them having left - however, if there are some new sources I've missed, you're welcome to provide them. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Taghavard, Nagorno-Karabakh.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq Hey! So I've understood it correctly - is the fair use rationale I've used not sufficient if it could be argued that it would be possible to find an equivalent free image in the future, or just that there is doubt that there isn't one already available? I've searched quite extensively for an image to use for a skyline image of Taghavard, on Commons and elsewhere. The settlement is on the frontlines after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, and access to the entire village isn't currently available for the inhabitants so I considered it to be fair use with regard to the "historical image" description. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no expectation in the reasonable future that somebody can access the town, then you could make the argument that the image cannot be replaced. But the usages of non-free content needs to meet all of the non-free content criteria., and so you will also need to show how WP:NFCC#8 is met. I don't believe just wanting to show an image of the town is sufficient. If you believe that all the non-=free content criteria are met, then I am amenable to putting this through FFD instead. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hin Tagher, Nagorno-Karabakh.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Khtsaberd, Nagorno-Karabakh.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anton. The Azerbaijani flag was raised in Lachin. Why is there the name of Artsakh on Lachin page? Yesterday, the Azerbaijani army blocked 3 Armenian army buses in the Lachin corridor. In my opinion, we should remove the name Artsakh from the Lachin page. EljanM (TALK) 16:39, 24 December 2020

Please see the debate on the Lachin talk page. If you want to voice your opinion about the matter, please do it there. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Hope (Israel) § "Right-wing". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello AntonSamuel, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello. It is time to stop the discussions in Chaylagqala and Hasanriz. Because 7 days are over. EljanM (TALK) 14:59, 27 December 2020

An admin will hopefully look at the discussions soon enough and close them. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the Kohne Taghlar to Hin Tagher. He should also stop discussions of Çaylaqqala, Hasanriz, and Qirmizi Bazar. EljanM (TALK) 15:07, 27 December 2020

How can I stop these discussions? EljanM (TALK) 15:07, 28 December 2020

It's best if someone that hasn't been involved in discussing the moves closes the discussions. And because of the controversial nature of the issue, it would also be best if it's an admin or at least a very experienced editor that closes them. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not matter, because these were discussed by users. EljanM (TALK) 15:10, 28 December 2020

Per WP:RMCI: "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request". You can read more here about move discussions here as well: WP:RM AntonSamuel (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who will stop these discussions? Somone changed Kohne Taghlar to Hin Tagher. He must also stop discussions of Çaylaqqala, Qırmızı Bazar and Şuşakənd EljanM (TALK) 15:18, 28 December 2020

As far as I know, discussions don't have to be closed after 7 days, they may be closed when 7 days have passed. All requested moves are automatically listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, admins and experienced editors close the move discussions when they're able to. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 opposition and 5 support on Kohne Taghlar. There are 7 opposition and 2 support in Çaylaqqala. And Kohne Taghlar moved to Hin Tagher, but the Çaylaqqala discussion did not stop. Is that normal? EljanM (TALK) 15:37, 28 December 2020

To be clear: consensus on Wikipedia does not mainly rely on vote counting per WP:VOTE, but takes into consideration how well how the arguments that have been made correspond to Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines. As you can see on the previous link I posted, there are currently many unresolved move requests. I would advise you to have a bit of patience if you're bothered by the move discussions not being closed yet. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am curious why you want to move de jure Azerbaijani places to their Armenian exonyms. If Germany occupies Scania and calls it by its German exonym Schonen, will you also move it? --Geysirhead (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geysirhead: Wikipedia guidelines for article titles for geographical places do not recommend determining place names by basing them on the official names of the places (determined by the Azerbaijani government), but mainly by their common names. The majority of the villages of the former NKAO are Armenian-majority and were also historically so, so their Armenian names are in most cases their common names. While some Azerbaijani names are more historic, many have been created more recently to replace the Armenian-language names, and so the usage of the Azerbaijani official names are also problematic in my view with regard to WP:NPOV, considering Azerbaijan's historical negationism of Armenian heritage and history in the country. However, besides "correcting" the names by investigating the prominence of the different names that are used per WP:NCGN in order to determine the common names, the current move requests are also intended to serve as samples to see if these discussions will be based on policy-based arguments so that a consensus can be built and not partisanship, or if an RfC for a Nagorno-Karabakh naming convention is needed as has been discussed previously. You can read more about Wikipedia article titles in general here: WP:AT. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, we move Myanmar back to Burma...(joking)--Geysirhead (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've removed the sentence about Armenian-majority of several villages in Nagorno-Karabakh that you added, as they were not present in the source you provided. If it's somewhere else in the given source and I somehow missed it, then feel free to correct me and I'll self-revert my edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map [24] doesn't detail the demographics of some of the smaller villages, no - so while another source would be best in order to confirm the 1989 demographics for these localities, the part about their present Armenian majorities which was removed (The village has an ethnic Armenian-majority population.) isn't controversial for these villages however. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AntonSamuel. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Although, I've completed your move requests at the RMT, you should note that you can do it on your own. Please see WP:SWAP for more details. You may also install page swapping script. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: Hey! Yeah, I thought it required an admin to delete a page with a non-trivial editing history first but I see now that I can do it as well, thanks for the pointer! AntonSamuel (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you very much for editing my article about Aygavan, I'm a new in this sphere:D Marine Hovhannisyan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marine Hovhannisyan: Thanks for the barnstar! I've been trying to improve the articles for the cities, towns and villages of Armenia and Artsakh lately, so I thought I'd lend a hand with this one! Feel free to expand the article, you may want to read up about Wikipedia editing and Wikitext in order to improve your additions in the future: [25] [26] AntonSamuel (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m from Aygavan and I wanted to improve the article because I like when everything in its right place and in the right way :)) I will add some historical information. Thanks for suggestion and help! I didn’t expect helping hand right away :D Marine (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anton, Thank you for helping me ! 💜 Marine (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s so sad that you don’t know russian, you could also help me there , because I can’t fight with false information alone :’( Marine (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marine Hovhannisyan: Sure thing! Yeah, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to contribute on Russian Wikipedia as I'm not a Russian-speaker. I checked the Aygavan article's history on the Russian Wikipedia, it seems that there were some problematic changes to the Wikitext/code that were "fixed" through the reverting of the page, which however also removed some of the added material. Some sourced content also seem to have been replaced by unsourced content - even if the newer figures turn out to be correct, this can be viewed as problematic as it may be said that the quality of the article would then be "lowered" a bit by its content not being properly sourced. I would advise you to open a discussion with the other user and explain everything, sometimes the issue is just a misunderstanding and all the relevant information can be included without a problem in the end. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anton! Thank you very much for your advise! 💜 Marine (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! AntonSamuel (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yeghegis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Hi! Regarding Yeghegis, I tried to rewrite the material from the source in my own words as much as possible - if you believe that it wasn't sufficiently well done, could you give me some pointers as to what specifically was done wrong, if I in general just didn't rewrite it enough and how I could do it better? I believe the information is very useful for the historical context of the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have time to re-write the content for you today, as there are 72 copyright reports to assess. Please have a look at Earwig's comparison and you will see what the issue is.— Diannaa (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I see! Is it all right if I rewrite it on my own then if I significantly reword the passage on the Zorats Church? I don't intend to break any policies - I'll make sure to be more careful in the future not to keep the text too similar to the source. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please— Diannaa (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thanks! AntonSamuel (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I hope the passage on Yeghegis is sufficiently rewritten now [27], by the way - do you have a cutoff percentage when looking at Earwig's Copyvio Detector for considering material to be in violation of copyright? Or do you look more closely at the text for each case? The previous version was marked "Violation Unlikely" with a 39.0% percentage [28] while the rewritten version stands at 6.5% [29] AntonSamuel (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set percentage cutoff. In general prose should be completely re-written in your own words and contain nothing at all copied from the source. There may still be some overlap from job titles, names of schools, things like that, so the percentage overlap is not a meaningful measure of whether or not an edit is problematic.

That said, it's also problematic to lightly paraphrase the prose until a set percentage is reached. Your new version presents the same ideas as the source document in the same order, using almost identical wording. That's called close paraphrasing and is a form of copyright violation. General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. Leave out less important or off-topic details. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you for your input and for fixing my edit! Then the policy is a bit stricter than I thought when it comes to the text needing to be completely rewritten, I would then say that a lot of material on a lot of Wikipedia articles would also be considered to be close paraphrasing. I'll make sure to take it all into consideration in my future additions, thanks again! AntonSamuel (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the problem is pretty pervasive, but the number of people working in the area is quite small, so many violations have to date not been cleaned up. Please feel free to report to me any egregious violations you might spot. Thanks for your cheerful attitude during this process. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found out according to this source, 200 Zoroastrians reside in Afghanistan, it could be something to add if factual to the case. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aabdcc.html#:~:text=Information%20on%20the%20treatment%20of%20the%20Zoroastrian%20community%20in%20Afghanistan,1994).

@SCPdude629: Thanks! Seems legit - be aware the source is from 1994 though - so a large part of the remaining Zoroastrian population may have fled due to the war(s) in Afghanistan. I'll post a mention of there being an estimate of 100-200 Zoroastrians in Afghanistan in 1994 on the List of countries by Zoroastrian population article! AntonSamuel (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me investigate this, maybe I can find a new record for today's day in age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anton, sorry to mention but something doesn't seem right with the new page setup. Is there a way to make it more simpler and straight forward instead of having a larger chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCPdude629: Hey again! I wanted the figures to be clearly attributed with regard to the years and the sources, but perhaps I got a bit overzealous - when checking similar lists on other articles the information is typically limited to the references, I'll look into making the list a bit less clunky. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anton, in the meantime, I'll find a way to gather better sources, Afghanistan has indeed changed over the last 30 years so there's a chance those numbers are no longer relevant, just keep them there for now till I can hopefully find accurate numbers.

Hi Anton me again, I just took a moment to try and start investigating the Uzbekistani Population of Zoroastrians that were deemed unverified. If this count is true than we need the best source to back it up. May I suggest examining this link to see i it works? https://zoroastrians.net/2013/08/21/uzbekistan-zoroastrian-association-registered/

@SCPdude629: Hey, the English used by the source is of higher quality than the previous source if nothing else, so I have posted it on the article as a reference and cleaned up the last couple of edits a bit. Zoroastrians.net seems a bit like a blog-style page though, and the post about Uzbekistan Zoroastrians seems to be a straight forward re-posting of the text by the Zoroastrian advocacy group, so a more reliable and neutral source would still be ideal. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I will try to do research on this in hopes of uncovering clues to a more precise count but I personally believe there's something there, a community of the remnant faith. It may take time but I should find something soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for double messages but I found an odd claim, this page for Uzbekistan claims to have 7400 but it still is strange, is there any source that's more reliable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Uzbekistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AntonSamuel. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To which Artsakh province did this community originally belong? Did it change province after 2020? I'm seeing confusing records. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Hey! As far as I know, both Aknaberd (Umudlu) and Charektar belong to the Shahumyan Province of Artsakh, with the former being an enclave in the Martakert Province - there was some confusion regarding this as the borders of the Artsakh provinces didn't exactly match those of the NKAO, so they were both mistakenly listed for evacuation after the ceasefire. I haven't seen any information about a reshuffling of the provinces after the war, but that may be the case or it may very well happen in the near future if it hasn't already happened. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I feel like the list made a mistake since there's no way Umudlu is in the Shahumyan Province. And there hasn't been any time when it was shown as part of Shahumyan except on that one list, so I feel like it's probably part of Martakert. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: They're both listed as a part of the Shahumyan Province in the 2005 Artsakh census [30], but for all I know there may be further information out there that I'm not aware of that contradicts that. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AntonSamuel, perhaps there is a different Aknaberd in the uncontrolled Shahumyan or Kalbajar area? I can't really understand how Umudlu can be part of Shahumyan province when all its surrounding villages are in Martakert, since then it'd either be an exclave or a very awkward triangle to include Umudlu (but I haven't seen both of these in any maps of Artsakh, including official, so I'm doubtful). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Hello again. So I found some information regarding this that you may be interested in. According to Russian Wikipedia page for Umudlu: "despite its actual location in the Martakert region of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, it was included in the Shahumyan region and from 1995 to 1998 it was its administrative centre, which was later moved to the city of Kelbajar." So, it seems Umudlu is indeed somewhat of an exclave and has even been the capital of Shahumyan Province until 1998. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: Yeah, Aknaberd/Umudlu seems to be a part of the Shahumyan Province, I checked out the Russian Wikipedia page before too, might very well change in the future though if Artsakh considers it more efficient to merge the remaining villages of the province with the Martakert Province. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For the great work you've done so far, thanks a lot! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Thanks! I appreciate it and thanks for the barnstar! AntonSamuel (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting the page. You shall not publish biased info. For such issues, there is a Talk Page. Use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fmelikov: I've explained quite clearly why I reverted your addition of ASALA using non-neutral and unreliable sources, and your removal of the mention of Syrian mercenaries on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article, in the edit summaries of the reverts and in the warnings I left on your talk page [31] - the matter of the combatants has been the subject of an RfC [32]. Telling other users to "take it to the talk page" is not a blanket response you can use to shift responsibility for your edits, for any user wishing to include potentially controversial information or remove information that has been codified through an RfC, the WP:ONUS lies on them to defend these edits through open and civil discussion. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this topic, so I ask you, since you have been on wiki for much longer than I. Villages and other territories controlled by Armenian/Russian forces seem to have an Azerbaijani name for some reason. For example the village Kherkhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C9%99rxan,_Khojavend should be titled Kherkhan, Martuni instead of Xərxan, Khojavend since Armenian/Russian forces control it. Here's proof: A short documentary set in the village. There are other examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quzumk%C9%99nd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C9%99miyy%C9%99t https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muxtar. Shushi has been renamed Shusha since Azerbaijani forces now control it, but Stepanakert and Martuni haven't been since Azerbaijani forces don't control it. Do you know why in this case these villages have Azerbaijani names? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KhndzorUtogh: Hey! The reason for the Azerbaijani names for many of the villages in Artsakh/Karabakh that are under Armenian/Russian control is mainly that the articles were created years ago, based mostly on Azerbaijani de jure/official names, taken from GEOnet Names Server as the only source - without regard for the complex history of the region and what the likely common names for the villages are (which Wikipedia guidelines point to as a principal factor when determining article names - not official names). Many of the Azerbaijani official names are replacement names created by the Azerbaijani government with the intent to remove Armenian-language names from the region after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, while some Azerbaijani names are more historic. The Artsakh village articles weren't updated, improved or expanded much during many years. I've tried to contribute in clearing up this situation a bit, however Wikipedia guidelines recommend having move discussions if the topic is potentially controversial and if there isn't a pretty clear precedent/norm already established. I've initiated a couple of discussions that resulted in moves such as for Martuni, Haterk, Ashan, Kochoghot, Verin Horatagh and Nerkin Horatagh for example, however with many others I faced a lot of opposition and stonewalling, so I've taken a break from initiating them. An RfC for a naming convention has been suggested by an admin when I asked how to move forward to make the process easier and less vunerable to disruption, which I've worked a bit on, now and again - though even though I've read a lot about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Artsakh/Karabakh, I still have much to learn about the historical context of the region since it's so complex and vast - with so many villages having their own unique historical context, so in the meantime I've tried to expand the Karabakh articles to clear up the historical context a bit - which matters with regard to article names, and which also serves as a way for myself to learn more. I'm open to opening some more move discussions, though it's a good idea that they're well researched and prepared before they're opened since it may be advisable to wait a while before initiating a second one if the first one fails, which it can do sometimes for procedural reasons, stonewalling or optics. You can find more about Wikipedia guidelines for article titles in general at WP:AT and at WP:NCGN for information about geographic names. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for your help. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AntonSamuel. I find it very strange that you, being the author of so many proposals to rename articles concerning Karabakh villages and clearly aware of the practice given your message above, would go on and rename them without consulting anyone to potentially POV names (like you recently did to Kirov, Shusha,) and that you would actually endorse a new user, KhndzorUtogh, as he is renaming such articles en masse on his own will and believes that this was the way to go. Am I the only one who sees a consensus violation issue here? Parishan (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Parishan: Hey, regarding my recent moves - they've mostly been concerning the ", Nagorno-Karabakh" disambiguation tag, a neutral and pretty well-established disambiguation tag by now, and one which I have seen you yourself have moved pages to in the past. I consider this to be a pretty uncontroversial move at this point. Regarding the move from Kirov to Hin Shen, I believe I motivated the move rationale pretty clearly in the move summary, after checking, I've found that the Russian name is not really in use that much and "Hin Shen" is the name utilized by the native population of the village and the de facto administration - being the likely common name, and considering the problematic nature of the format of the names on the page - I considered a move justified. However, I do see that move discussions would be proper in most other cases for the Nagorno-Karabakh villages, even though I consider the present situation quite problematic with the majority utilizing Azerbaijani de jure names, and with move discussions in the past being easily disrupted by arguments that aren't policy compliant and with status quo stonewalling and other forms of disruption such as canvassing. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, given the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that it belongs to AA2, it would be a better idea to present those same comments on the talkpage prior to renaming rather than in the edit summary (in any event, those who engaged in canvassing have been blocked a while ago). I for one do not instantly see how a "name used by the de facto administration" should absolutely be given priority, especially if the name is neither historical, nor Soviet-time, like "Hin Shen". You also do not seem to mind that a user who has only been on Wikipedia for 10 days and believes "Shushi has been renamed Shusha since Azerbaijani forces control it" is having a field day renaming other such articles under dubious pretexts. Parishan (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Parishan: I'm not an admin, and frankly I prefer to avoid disputes on Wikipedia, so I mostly like to let other users and the admins deal with issues that can be seen as problematic on a more procedural basis when I don't find them that egregious and I think I explained pretty clearly above what I think is appropriate regarding article names. Between "Hin Shen" and "Kichik Galadarasi", Hin Shen is clearly the most common in use and neither the Azerbaijani or the Armenian Wikipedia pages mentions the name "Kirov" as far as I can see, which I found to be an indication of a lack of modern-day use - which matters for article titles. Most of the NK controversy with regard to place names concerns the issue of Azerbaijani vs Armenian names - English Wikipedia hasn't employed a general use of Russian names for neutrality purposes such as the Russian Wikipedia has. However, if you have a longer argument brewing regarding the historicity of the names - you're welcome to present it. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry but "I have already explained" does not constitute an argument. Wikipedia articles are a community effort. If I had found your explanation convincing and your move uncontroversial, I would probably not have left a message here. I disagree that "English Wikipedia hasn't employed a general use of Russian names for neutrality purposes" as the article in question has featured the Soviet name "Kirov" since the day it was created, and this may perhaps be just the way to avoid sliding into POV. Again, excuse me for being blunt but you cannot come in and change titles in articles that are covered by two ArbComs that lasted for months and months just because you believe "you have explained it", especially when you admit that you have "much to learn about the historical context of the region". Nor can you claim that you "let admins deal with problemantic issues" and then do this, when an admin clearly stated that there was no consensus to rename the article. I suggest you revert the articles back to their consensus versions, and we can start working towards establishing a common practice to reflect the toponymy of the region. Parishan (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Parishan: Personally, I don't consider the Soviet names to be ideal since they're not current and therefore not appropriate with regard to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MODERNPLACENAME and I think there are better ways of clearing up controversy regarding the names, ideally common name investigations on a case to case basis. If you think I've made a mistake with this move, you're welcome to ping an admin for input, if you think a move discussion would be more appropriate, I think I've argued my case regarding why I believe my move was justified pretty clearly now. Regarding my edits to Kert that was recently moved - I found the format that was used a bit problematic and messy so I wanted to improve on it, while I didn't want to get involved in the matter of the move, as I had already explained my position with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Please be aware of this notice. Parishan (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AntonSamuel, I just wanted to say thank you for your daily contribution to the development of projects related to Armenia and Artsakh :) Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Thanks a lot! I appreciate it :) AntonSamuel (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Armenian articles created by Carlossuarez46

Please weigh in on the Marz documents. I found them via the Persian Wikipedia at fa:باردیدزور. Are they comprehensive? Is there a machine-readable list of their names for cities, towns, and villages? Uncle G (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I want to thank you sincerely for making me aware of the biased nature of the term "unrecognized". I personally have always felt that terms like "breakaway" or "separatist" were more objective than "self-proclaimed" (which has always evoked imaginations of Napoleon Bonaparte illegitimately coronating himself as emperor), which is why I naturally went for "unrecognized" as a compromise. As I mentioned on my user page, I am dedicated to ending edit wars by other users over mundane things like the aforementioned terms, and I will naturally change all my edits containing the word "unrecognized". Thank you once again for making me cognizant of this. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BaxçeyêReş: For sure! Thanks for remaining open-minded, I appreciate your efforts to improve and expand the articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, hope you're doing well. I had suspicions of Sockpuppetry from the user Creffel done by banned Sockmaster CuriousGolden. My initial thoughts regarding this came when CuriousGolden was banned, and I saw sudden activity in all the pages Curious edited, done by Creffel. If you look at Creffel's talk page, him and the Socmaster already knew each other even before the ban, and most likely off wiki too according to their talks [[33]]. The reasons I'm alarmed is that after CuriousGolden's ban on April 3rd, Creffel had suddenly started to edit again the day after, and all of his edit comments and arguments very similar to CuriousGolden [[34]] (see his edits before April and starting from April, it's like two different people). And all those edits done to CuriousGolden's edited pages, restoring his edits with very similar more advanced comments including rules/etc. (which he mostly didn't do in his previous comments of edits), and very alike to how Curious would talk/reason. My suspicions are that he is lending his account to banned editor CuriousGolden, or at the very least contacting/advising with him off wiki, as the similarities of his edits/comments, timings and pages edited are just too matching to be otherwise. Can you kindly take a look and let me know what you think? The reason I'm asking you is that you are a lot more experienced than myself, and would have better understanding of this situation. Waiting for your reply, thanks in advance! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I should be chipping in here but investigate me if you deem it necessary. I have never interacted with Golden outside of Wikipedia. I continued editing his pages after he was banned because there was a rush of users seeking to undo his edits. There was a post on Reddit on r/armenia about Golden being banned, which led to several users raiding on his former edited pages, which was not nice, so I acted. Now some of the stuff Golden did was perhaps too confrontational and so I try to be more flexible, but nevertheless, so far there have been multiple people attempting to make one-sided edits on his former pages, which of course I confront and debate.

Golden was sort of my guide when I first joined Wikipedia, he introduced me to the rules and stuff, which you would notice if you had just checked my talk page ZaniGiovanni. Also, perhaps you can imagine that my reasoning and wording have some resemblance to his because my first Wikipedia learning experiences were from him.

If you look at my edit history, I have done many edits on pages which Golden had not touched. As for the "advanced comments including rules/etc", well yes, I have become more familiar with the rules since I began editing, and so now I cite these rules when editing, whoa what a shocker ZaniGiovanni?

Finally, for the record, although he did help me navigate through Wikipedia when I started, I don't personally know the guy, and I don't condone his actions in regard to sockpuppetry – people should be banned for these kinds of things. I considered deleting his messages on my talk page when he was banned since I figured it could impact my credibility as an editor, but I kept them there nevertheless in the open because I wanted to remain as transparent as possible as a user. If you have any questions to me personally I am here. - Creffel (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm assuming Golden is a male here, so forgive me if I am wrong.

You shouldn't be "chipping in" here, as if it was necessary, I would've already opened an investigation on you. My claims are suspicions for now, I'll see what more experienced editors think to not rush the situation. Your excuses provided weren't sufficient for me, your activity still seems very similar to the banned editor, and your recent "learnings" don't excuse your writing style, which in many instances was almost identical to him. You will be notified if an investigation is opened on you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: @Creffel: Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to look into this matter in-depth myself, in the mean time - please stop edit warring, that won't help anybody with anything. I thought I'd ping @Jerm: that opened the sockpuppet investigation against CuriousGolden and @Cabayi: that closed it, and ask you what your thoughts are regarding the matter? If it's not ok to raise the matter here I understand, and I see that it would have been better if a proper sockpuppet investigation was opened. From a cursory view, Creffel and CuriousGolden do seem to have a similar style and editing patterns [35] and Creffel does not seem like an inexperienced/new editor - this may be because of a mentorship of sorts as was mentioned earlier, or it may not. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Thanks a lot for pinging the correct people, I didn't want to rush the situation and wanted to ask the guidance of more experienced editors before doing anything. Cabayi and Jerm, please kindly look into the manner and tell me what should be done. The editor in question also started to edit-war right after I created this post 1, 2, 3, 4. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already opened a sockpuppet investigation as I was told by other users [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a new article on a cemetery near Boston, can you help me clarify if it works with standards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SCPdude629/sandbox

@SCPdude629: Hey! I'm a little short on time at the moment so unfortunately I don't have the time to look at the article proposal in-depth. From a quick glance I would say you would probably need to find additional sources and to expand the article. I would advise you to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to get some feedback from experienced editors on your draft. You can also go to Wikipedia:Requested articles to request the creation of an article. AntonSamuel (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll take a look, I just hope that I can find stuff for it and maybe refine the description.--SCPdude629 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)SCPdude629[reply]

Hi there, it's been a while since our talk and trying to update information in regards to Demographics of the religion. I have done all I can with scoping sources so far and the information adds up. The only thing is that, is there by chance a way to further find and categorize countries with Zoroastrian populous and maybe make our own independent source with said accurate info to help educate the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, may I ask what happened on the page? SCPdude629 (talk

@SCPdude629: I've summarized an explanation in the edit summary [36], We've talked about these issues before of randomly changing statistics without sources [37] which I can see that you clearly did in the article's editing history - I believe I and other editors have explained enough at this point at your talk page. If you cannot take this in and continue these types of edits, I would unfortunately say that there may be a competence problem here when it comes to editing Wikipedia and I think it's then best to pass on the issue to the Wikipedia administrators so they can chime in on what is appropriate to do. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thasnks for all your recent work on those villages still in Artsakh. Do you intend to Anglicise the spelling of those remaining villages? A few like Aşağı Yemişcan still have turkic characters. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: For sure! I'm trying to look a bit more in-depth at the toponymic history of each village, the ones I've anglicized had those names in the Soviet era. Though the modern/contemporary Armenian/Artsakh de facto names might be more relevant eventually - but for that move discussions are probably the best way to go as the issue can be controversial. However Aşağı Yemişcan was called Nerkin Sznek during the period of the Soviet Union and is known as such by the local population, which is the case for dozens of articles - though anglicizing the name may be an improvement for readability purposes in the short/medium-term. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. In many cases, the best thing to do is to use the names from the Soviet era rather than attempting to transliterate turkic characters. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year Anton! Wish you the best this year. Kind regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Thanks! Happy new year to you too! AntonSamuel (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, You'll recall the editor Curious Golden. He was banned for using socks. He was not banned on Commons. He still operates there as Golden. He has been up to his old tricks there, renaming the category pages of villages using Azeri names and Azeri font. In the case of Drmbon, Nagorno-Karabakh, he has renamed it to Heyvali. Could you advise how to deal with this? Thanks, Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Commons has its own policies and guidelines [38] when it comes to categories and naming [39][40] as well as its own mechanisms for conflicts and user problems that should be used [41] while the Wikipedia administrator noticeboards may be relevant if an issue relates to coordination on Commons to evade a ban on Wikipedia. I haven't been too involved in editing and renaming Commons categories, when I have been, I've mainly done it for practical reasons, as the situation on Commons as well as on Wikidata is pretty messy and chaotic in many instances. From what I understand from the Commons policy though, English-language or anglicized versions of names are generally preferable for categories. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Very helpful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that disambiguation pages like Vardadzor (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
• Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Armenia Barnstar of National Merit
		For your prolific, well sourced work on small towns and villages, Anton!

--Armatura (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: Thanks a lot for the barnstar! I appreciate it :) AntonSamuel (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Anton, hope you're doing well. Wanted to ask a question, maybe Laurel Lodged can answer as well as I've seen them edit in AA area. Where does the "de jure / de facto" come from in articles like Farukh, Khramort, etc? Basically the towns that have always been part of NKAO and were not connected to the 7 regions that UN declared for Armenian troops to leave. I also don't see any reliable third-party sources for the "de jure" part in all of these articles, am I missing something? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Azeri de jure claim stems from their abolition of the NKAO and their decision to re-organise the regions of Az so that the new regions straddled both AZ proper and the former NKAO. In this worldview, they disregard for Armenian referendum and claim that the UN also does not recognise the legitimacy of that referendum. De facto refers to the facts on the ground of whose troops have effective control over what territory. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel_Lodged Thanks for your input. I would also like to add the Soviet secession law of 1991 states that autonomous oblasts vote separately from Soviet Republics, and do not automatically secede with their republics unless they hold a separate vote to do so.[42] I think this means “de jure” can be removed from former NKAO articles unless there is a reliable source saying otherwise. What do you think guys? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways to present the statuses of disputed regions with regard to international law, one relevant example on Wikipedia that might be useful when looking at a new way of presenting the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh on Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh articles is the template Template:Kosovo-note that has been created as a marker of neutrality for use in Kosovo articles such as Pristina, with a summary of the disputed nature of the region and its status with regard to international law that is presented through explanatory footnotes for practicality and readability reasons as well as for reasons of neutrality – so as not to bring the conflict directly into the lead and infobox of every geographic article of the disputed region as much. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know that there are no "hard feelings" in regard to your bold page move, Farux → Farukh. Wasn't really invested in any of the titles discussed in the RM, and I moved the article to "Farux" strictly in line with the article titling policy. While I don't totally agree with the MRV closer's comments, particularly his use of NOGOODOPTIONS, which did not apply at all, the outcome does make good sense. So this situation has become what I think is a valid use of the WP:IAR policy. Have to commend you for "sticking to your values" and for your obvious expertise in these areas. Thank you for your instruction, as I learned some new things during our exchanges. Best of Everything to You and Yours, and... Stay Healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for keeping an open mind and for the kind and generous words! Your know-how is impressive as well. All the best to you too! AntonSamuel (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've seen that you've notified several editors of GS/AA by means of using general Twinkle warnings with a message about GS/AA added at the end. Because of the rather long and rote text prior to the added information about GS/AA, which in some cases may not even obviously apply to the edit (e.g. "unconstructive"), I imagine that most editors aren't getting to the part where you explain what GS/AA is. I would recommend using the standard {{subst:alert/first|aa}} CTOPS notification and add a GS/AA explanation to the bottom of that, as the CTOPS alert notification more immediately clarifies the stakes of editing in the area and establishes that failure to follow all rules carefully will result in sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Hey, thank you for your advice and for your tip, I was thinking of that myself and was looking over the standard message templates and had difficulty in finding an appropriate one – I will use the template you suggested from now on. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm writing this message because I want to move the page Ghaibalishen, Nagorno-Karabakh to "Qaybali" or "Gaybali" and I want to know if I can do it. The reason of the movement is because the village had an Azeri majority from the Khaibalikend massacre until the First Nagorno-Karabakh war

Sincerely yours J0RJ12 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J0RJ12: As I wrote on your talk page it's prudent to open move discussions (see WP:RM) for geographical articles in Karabakh, especially after the recent ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, and seek the input of other editors as the history of the region is complex in general. Ghaibalishen also has an Armenian history and a massacre of Armenians took place in the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raqqacivilcouncil.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tabqacivilcouncil.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manbijcivilcouncil.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Deirezzorcivilcouncil.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]