User talk:Andranikpasha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello, Andranikpasha! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! VartanM 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Welcome!

Hi everyone! Please post below if a help is needed! The Archive page you can find here!

I like writing on nice clean talkpages :) Today reminded me of an old USSR cartoon about a duck who learned how to count and was counting everybody. one of the lines was " I tebya poshchitali" (They counted you as well). What I'm trying to say is that remember the policies to make sure that you don't get counted as well :) --VartanM 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the situation is really like that so the cartoon you marked is also my favorite one:) Sure Ill try to keep policies! And hope Ill be successful:) Thank you! Andranikpasha 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Alexey Ekimyan

On 25 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexey Ekimyan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artaxiad 9 CheckUser

Hi Andranikpasha, I finally got your email in September about this. I don't check that email address often since it is only for my Wikipedia email and I don't edit as much as I used to, so I don't get much email there at all (I've had 9 emails there since May 2006). In the future, please contact me at my talk page since I check that every couple of days.

It's good to see that you got removed from the list though. I didn't get to look at your edit history very much, but it looks like you weren't doing anything to warrant being called a sockpuppet. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Andranikpasha 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia mediation

Hello Andranikpasha, I asked dab about his preference, and he prefers open discussion. So, as far as I'm concerned you're free to open a MedCab case. If you decide to take that path, please, in addition to the normal procedure, change the Medcabstatus to "status = open" and "mediators = SebastianHelm" to make it clear to other potential mediators that they don't need to take on this case. In the edit summary, please link to this message to make it clear that I authorized you to put my name there. You may also find it helpful to take a look at my own mediation page, User:SebastianHelm/Mediation. — Sebastian 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I opened the case here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases. Andranikpasha 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I've removed your name from the list of users placed under supervised editing in the above arbitration case because although I see edit warring from your account, I fail to see any incivility with the edit warring. Sorry for any inconvenience from you being placed there in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian-Tartar massacres 1905-1907

I have deleted this page as a duplicate (copy & paste), and replaced it with a redirect. Please do not try to move pages around unless you have 100% consensus, and only rename a page with the WP:MOVE button. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry John but I have to disagree. Andranik was exercising his right to be WP:BOLD and you are not assuming good faith. The page was indeed moved without a consensus and its current title is OR. Even people living at that time didn't call themselvs Azerbeijanis. Every self respecting scholar refers to the event as Armenian-Tartar(Tatar) ... Wikipedia isn't the place to re-write the history because its confusing. I'm sure as an administrator and a neutral user you would agree. You were right about the using the move button. Andranik the move button is next to the history tab, if used, it automatically transfers the history and the talkpage to the new location. VartanM (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, being constantly BOLD is not the wiki way. So far, Andranik has been too bold, too often, so I felt it was necessary to advise him that he should not be making these decisions on his own. I do not want Andranik to become another fallen hero - about a week ago (?) I quickly went through the users contribs and found a number of new articles (I tidied a few up and added redlinks because I want to know more), so I honestly want to see a good broad involvement from Andranik. To last the distance, all new users must learn that this encyclopedia does not need to be "fixed" today. Rushing around trying to fix everything that is broken is outright disrespectful of the people who like to discuss complex issues. There are way too many content disputes that Andranik has generated or re-invigorated in the last few days - this has to stop. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition of the "too bold" for me, is if he started moving articles left and right, edit warring and unwilling to talk or compromise. None of which describe Andraniks behavior. He didn't just woke up in the morning and decided to move the article. He voiced his opinion in the talkpage and received no response, He waited 24 hours prior to making the page move. Also if a user has the time and energy to fix things, I don't think its appropriate to tell them not to. The only thing you and I can do is to show him the right direction. Those content disputes were there long before Andranik joined wikipedia and I don't think its right to single out users and point fingers as to who started them. VartanM (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, in this case "too bold" is making a change that is likely to further conflict. WP:BOLD is intended to encourage new editors to get in and help. It is not a justification for being reckless.

In isolation, Andranik move would have been OK, but I am regularly seeing the user making changes that are too bold in an area that is already being hotly disputed, and he is by now well aware that it is hotly disputed and that the Wikipedia community has twice warned everyone in this region to clean up their act, move slowly and carefully, and always use excellent sources.

The users energy need to be directed into expanding Wikipedia, and constructively concluding existing disputes. Otherwise excessive energy is akin to a POV warrior that is moving too fast for others to keep up with, and you know how the community feels about that. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

John, lets use a little more friendly style of writing and to not forecast who (what user/hero) and when will fall! I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue(s). Andranikpasha 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, the reality is that most of the topics in this region are started by people who are later banned as being too disruptive. The result is that then the rest of us need to go through and figure out what content they created is correct and neutral, and what needs to be removed. Often we find that it is easier to ban these disruptive users because the create too much mess. So far, I am finding you prone to be disruptive, and I dont want to suffer the same fate, because you are writing good new articles, so you are also valuable.

I can only suggest that instead of trying to tell me how to write my warnings, you actually listen to the message and adjust your behaviour.

This talk section started with me notifying you that I had undone your technically incorrect page move, and a recommendation that you seek consensus before doing more page moves. Your response has been argumentative, full of accusations, and justifications of why the page move was correct. I don't particularly care whether the page move was correct -- I am telling you that the way you are approaching these conflicts is disruptive. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you VartanM! It was the best help! Andranikpasha 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and double standards

Dear John! Sorry again you're not right! The page's origianl name was Armenian-Tatar massacres and it was moved without any discussion by User:Folantin [1] so it must be changed to the original version to continue discussions! I prefer if you be included to this case and do it yourself or let me know if before self-rv I need to ask to "Incidents" page to clear up if Folantin is free to move what and when he want without even discussions (100% consensus...)? hope for a little neutrality, Andranikpasha (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So far, the consensus is that the current name is more appropriate language in an encyclopedia for readers in 2007.

You are getting yourself involved in every possible dispute that you can, related to one very narrow topic, and even creating new disputes. I am trying to advise you that performing actions without 100% consensus is not the way to learn to be a good Wikipedian. Claiming that there is a "double standard" every time someone disagrees with you is not the right attitude. If you feel you need more input into a discussion, you should calmly notify the wikiprojects involved (without suggesting which way they should vote), and wait.

As an example, I strongly disagree with what has happened to the Aisha's age at marriage redirect, but I have left a note and I am patiently waiting for some input from others. If nobody responds in another week, I will start looking for additional input. There is no rush. I would not dare to change it back, because that would only cause "drama", and my original message would be lost in silly edit wars and hot discussion.

There are plenty of other topics you can work on while you wait, such as the red links I added onto "Askanaz Mravyan". I am interested to learn more. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Its all right, John! The words are really so beautiful! I just dont know if there was at least one addition/npov-ing/consensus by you which was welcomed not only by Azeri discussing groups but also by Armenians! I think in that case such edits/movings can not be called neutral and surely are not a "100% consensus"! Thank you. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

100% consensus is possible (even between Azer & Arm), and should be your aim for when you are working on contentious topics. If you cant obtain 100% consensus for a proposal, there are only two reasons:

1. The proposal is right, but people contributing to the discussion are purposely being difficult
2. The proposal is wrong, and it shouldn't be done. The proposal may need to be improved.

Often the problem is that the proposer doesnt know which reason it is, and starts assuming the proposal is right, when it isnt. We all make many proposals that are wrong. We all need to trust the comments of others - even people we dont like.

Think about it this way ... if you are do something which does not have 100% consensus, how do you know that you are doing the right thing? If you make a change without 100% consensus, how long will your change last ? If it is rolled back in a few days, then you have wasted your own time! You should always be trying to contribute in ways that are not causing "drama". John Vandenberg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I marked previously. As no any user by Armenian side (included me) even achieved a consensus with you and Grandmaster its directly shows that we're always (at 100% of discussions) not right but only you! Can I (we) be interested in such a traditionally one-side consensuses with your participation? Sorry, but the simple statistics says no! Anyways thank you for the interest and reply! Andranikpasha 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 19 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ara Gevorgyan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In fact

You're so good at it that you deserve a Barnstar

		Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
		I, hereby award you this Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for all the new articles you created, as well as maintaining the NPOV in many controversial articles. Keep up the great work! VartanM (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

[edit] DYK: Sergey Merkurov

On 31 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Merkurov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are welcome

My pleasure Andranikpasha. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so it was wrong for certain people to be unwelcoming by removing the WikiProject Karabakh template from the talk page of the articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T:DYK.

On 2 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norair Sisakian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Talk 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

hi andranik, you send me a message and i am just replying; it would be interesting to talk to you about wiki as you seem to be a veteran user. Yerkatagear (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yerkatagear jan! Ill be glad to be useful! Feel free to contact me here! Hajoghutyun! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re

"touched philosophical questions of life's meaning, pain and mercy, joy and pride" or "Soviet monopolist recording studio", OK I admit that it's not a complete appraisal but it definitely has its flaws.--The Dominator (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dominator, but what must we write if he really sings about the life's meaning etc? And Melodiya was really the monopolist studio of USSR, it is well-known fact. Be sure you cant find one else Soviet studio:) The USSR of 1970's was a totalitar country with no private enterpreneurship. Anyways I suggest you to do a NPOV-checking and then delete the tag. Thank you! Andranikpasha (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs better wording "touched philosophical questions" seems unencyclopedic and I don't really like the term monopolistic even if it is true, it just seems so biased.--The Dominator (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Meschian

On 18 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Meschian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian collage

Barev, can you please cast your vote for the design and content on Armenians collage here?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenians Thanks! -- Aivazovsky (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I replied there. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out the "final descision" topic below and cast your votes. I added your suggestions. Thanks again! -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You also should pick at least 10 people. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK! Ill try:) Andranikpasha (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban at Shusha pogrom

Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the following sanctions are enacted.

1. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source, Andranikpasha is banned from editing Shusha pogrom for two weeks. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
2. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source and for failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments about the duplicated paragraphs, Atabek and Grandmaster are banned from editing Shusha pogrom for 3 weeks and banned from commenting on the talk page for one week. (Since they won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, their own privilege to comment is temporarily suspended.
3. Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and Atabek are reminded that during their bans they are not to instruct other editors to edit on their behalf, called proxy editing. Evidence of proxy editing will result in blocking for both the editor directing the edits and the proxy making them.

For more information see [2]. Thatcher 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Azerbaijani"

Do you know if there has been any extensive discussion on Wikipedia about the use/misuse of this phrase. It is my opinion that an "Azerbaijani" is a citizen of Azerbaijan. The republic of Azerbaijan did not exist before May 1918, so nobody prior to that date could be called an "Azerbaijani" (they would either be ethnic Tartars (or ethnic Azeri Tartars) or ethnic Armenians, and so on). And, furthermore, anbody who was a citizen of Azerbaijan after that date, even if they were Armenian or Georgian, could also legitimately be called an "Azerbaijani".

BTW, thank you for your support of me in the AE discussion about the Susha Pogrom reverts. Meowy 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your constructive position at Shushi Pogrom! According to the sources, the republic under the name of Azerbaijan was firstly founded in 1918. Untill that there wasnt any usage of Azerbaijani term except of some Russian sources who call the Turkic inhabitants of the "Azerbaijan/Aderbadagan" region Tartars, Caucasian Tatars and rarely Azerbaijani (Azerbaijanian; of Azerbaijan) Tartars. And surely the usage of Azeri is more correct when we're describing a conflict between inhabitants of Azerbaijan, for example, between the Azerbaijani Armenians and Azerbaijani Tatars (Azeris) in Baku. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that is more or less what I believe. "Azerbaijan" has a legitimate use, pre-1918, as a geographical or regional descriptor - but "Azerbaijani" can't be used as an ethnic term then or now (unless it is used to describe every citizen of Azerbaijan regardless of their ethnicity or religion). But has this been discussed anywhere on Wikipedia? Meowy 17:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if this has been discussed earlier. We can search at related article's talks. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anbayman

My pleasure! --RaffiKojian (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 7 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petros Adamian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Varujan

Barev! Isn't there a wiki-page abt Daniel Varujan (in English wikipedia, I created it in the Italian one)...? Is it possible? Bye! Amiens984 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barev! Yes, its strange! We need to expand it! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hayasa

I'll reword my comment. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this new variant seems even more radical OR, than the previous one. So lets make an agreement: Ill remove it right now, and if you can find even one reliable source saying "However, most scholars remain unconvinced here since the arrival of the Armenians can only be securely dated to the 6th century BC with the Orontid kings and because very little is known specifically about the people of Azzi-Hayasa per se. Most of what is documented about Azzi-Hayasa concerns its activities against Hatti only.", readd the text, no problem! Otherwise its an turkish propagandist Original research. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Andranikpasha. The topic about the origins of Hayasa is NOT Turkish propaganda. I reworded my comment on Hayasa: [3] and removed the statement that non-Armenian scholars don't believe that Hayasa an ancestor of Hayasa. I have read books by O.R. Gurney and Trevor Bryce on the Hittites and they never once say that Hayasa-Azzi was an ancestor of modern day Armenia. These people are Western scholars, not Turkish. There is NO evidence; we know almost nothing about the people of 13th century BC Hayasa--and that is the point of my edit. All we know is what the Hittites record about Hayasa--that Hayasa was an aggressive foreign power that threatened Hatti's security. To claim that Hayasa-Azzi were ancestors of the Armenians is POV pushing as Dbachman notes. I respect the fact that you love your country Armenia after all the tragedy it has endured in the 20th century. But this is an article about the kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi. Not Armenia. If Wikipedia had only one position on the supposed origins of Hayasa with no room for caveats or counter-arguments--something which you seem to be doing, then its credibility would fall into tatters. Why are are you edit warring on Hayasa now? Act less like Ararat Arev and be more neutral here. Can you do this please? Artene50 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Im in these cases during years so pls do not explain who and what propagands. Armenian (tragic, non tragic) history is irrelevant here as well as citations by Dbachmann (he's not a source) and historians who wrote nothing (?!) about the topic. Pls read the Wiki rules: we're adding any info when we have reliable sourced that prove it. If many scolars dont write Hayas's were the ancestors of Armenians, it never means they're not agree with the sources saying they are. How many historians criticize this theory, how many historians say "we know nothing about Hayasa's relations", how many historians condemn represented view as an pro-Armenian POV? Pls lets be more serious while discussing something. Your, my, Dbachmanns views are not important here, this is an Encyclopedia, which cites serious historical sources. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)