| Revision as of 14:09, 6 June 2012 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →Project Eurovision RFC discussion reminder: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:44, 10 June 2012 edit undoGazifikator (talk | contribs)2,060 edits →Your behaviour at talk pages: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
| ''']''': This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing ] discussion taking place at the <u>'']''</u>. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future ] and article layout in regards to ] and ] articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! ] (]) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | ''']''': This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing ] discussion taking place at the <u>'']''</u>. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future ] and article layout in regards to ] and ] articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! ] (]) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0282 --> | <!-- EdwardsBot 0282 --> | ||
| == Your behaviour at talk pages == | |||
| Grandmaster, you know that talk pages are for serious discussions and everyone is trying to waste lesser time at talk and reach a common understanding according to the reliable sources provided. I'll assume good faith, but some things seems to be problematic to me: | |||
| *1) we had many talks about several articles, in several accasions I suggested consensus (for example, ), but until now I don't remember even one consensus I made with you. | |||
| *2) while explaining yourself at talks, you prefer not to explain the whole problems you believe article has, but just asking some questions related to minor detals, which, if answered, will be added by other questions, and so on. We lost a lot of time discussing things which are not important, and when I'm answering a last question and the problem seems to be resolved, you (or Brandmeister, who mostly reverts in place of you) are again asking your first question, and this beacame a useless circle of discussions with no finish (a classical example is ). I don't remember a discussion where you concentrated your attitude and explained all the problems you see at once. Mind ]. | |||
| *3) it is the most important to me: only during the last time in several occasions at different talks you accused things which are '''not true''', or misinterpreted and I need to waste some time to check that what you're writing is not true. Just some examples from the last few days: | |||
| ** Here you write: ''"This source is about events in Guba: "''. While, if you check the source, it is called "General Information on Azerbaijani Jewish Organizations" and among the hundreds of sentences only one is partially about Guba. So what you write is not true. | |||
| ** Here you write: ''"Again, there was no settlement called Armenikend in Soviet times. The area was called Mamedyarov settlement. Google books is full with sources attesting to that."'' Google books has 0 books on "Mamedyarov settlement" . | |||
| ** Here you're claiming ''"The Soviet development in the area was not called Armenikend, it was called Mamedyarov settlement. See: "'' by a selective search (searching the name you prefer in Russian, as no source in English supports you) of sources (you selected 4 sources of 414). But even the first result you have doesn't support you, it uses the name you reject, as dominant. | |||
| I'm sure if you waste a little more time to check what you're writing, you will not add so much baseless and disruptive information into the talks. ] (]) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:44, 10 June 2012
| This is Grandmaster's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!
|
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles. |
| If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist. | |
| I hope you accept! - Wesley☀Mouse 01:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2012
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the blue bar.
| The WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
This Newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.
Armenians in Azerbaijan
Please also be aware of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 before making further reverts. You're an active part of an editwarring while you even doesn't explain your actions on article's talk. Your edit is too much dubious and not consensused. Gazifikator (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It is impossible to know if citizens who are assumed to exist (because the page implies they are in hiding to avoid discrimination) are married to a certain group or not or if they are "elderly and sick, and probably have no other family members."; The "probably" part being mere speculation. I think you're biased because you are an azeri. As Gazifikator pointed out, you're also a hypocrite. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are even fighting over this. You can find the same info on US State Department website: Approximately 10,000-30,000 Armenians (almost exclusively persons of mixed descent or mixed marriages) remain in Azerbaijan (in addition to Armenians residing in Nagorno-Karabakh). Approximately 20,700 Armenians, almost exclusively persons of mixed descent or mixed marriages, remained in the country (in addition to Armenians residing in occupied territories). Also, mind WP:NPA, this is your only warning. Gazifikator is not a good example to follow, he has recently been blocked for sockpuppetry, and is on indefinite 1RR. Grandmaster 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- US State Department website is weird place to get good information. This shitty site is edited by interns. Some country info is simply weird. See for yourself: "Separatist activities undertaken by Farsi-speaking Talysh in the south and Caucasian Lezghins in the north in the early 1990s engendered some suspicions in other citizens and fostered occasional discrimination." Talysh so not speak Farsi, they speak their own language which belongs to the Iranic group, like Kurdish or Ossetian. See also how this stupid sentence is composed: it creates the wrong impression that the cause of the controversy is in the fact that there are Farsi soeaking Talysh and some other Talysh. These writers are just nutheads. US State Department website should be mostly ignored. Sprutt (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Sprutt. Also, discrediting someone only discredits yourself.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- What you think of US State Department is your personal opinion. I see that it is not connected to Azerbaijani or Armenian government, and is neutral in this issue. It is used throughout Misplaced Pages. We can attribute the info to the US State Department, and that pretty much closes the issue. Grandmaster 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Department isn't perfect, they have made errors.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- What you think of US State Department is your personal opinion. I see that it is not connected to Azerbaijani or Armenian government, and is neutral in this issue. It is used throughout Misplaced Pages. We can attribute the info to the US State Department, and that pretty much closes the issue. Grandmaster 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Sprutt. Also, discrediting someone only discredits yourself.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- US State Department website is weird place to get good information. This shitty site is edited by interns. Some country info is simply weird. See for yourself: "Separatist activities undertaken by Farsi-speaking Talysh in the south and Caucasian Lezghins in the north in the early 1990s engendered some suspicions in other citizens and fostered occasional discrimination." Talysh so not speak Farsi, they speak their own language which belongs to the Iranic group, like Kurdish or Ossetian. See also how this stupid sentence is composed: it creates the wrong impression that the cause of the controversy is in the fact that there are Farsi soeaking Talysh and some other Talysh. These writers are just nutheads. US State Department website should be mostly ignored. Sprutt (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 14:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Grandmaster 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Project Eurovision RFC discussion reminder
WikiProject Eurovision: This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing RfC discussion taking place at the project talk page. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future manual of style and article layout in regards to Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Your behaviour at talk pages
Grandmaster, you know that talk pages are for serious discussions and everyone is trying to waste lesser time at talk and reach a common understanding according to the reliable sources provided. I'll assume good faith, but some things seems to be problematic to me:
- 1) we had many talks about several articles, in several accasions I suggested consensus (for example, ), but until now I don't remember even one consensus I made with you.
- 2) while explaining yourself at talks, you prefer not to explain the whole problems you believe article has, but just asking some questions related to minor detals, which, if answered, will be added by other questions, and so on. We lost a lot of time discussing things which are not important, and when I'm answering a last question and the problem seems to be resolved, you (or Brandmeister, who mostly reverts in place of you) are again asking your first question, and this beacame a useless circle of discussions with no finish (a classical example is ). I don't remember a discussion where you concentrated your attitude and explained all the problems you see at once. Mind WP:Disrupt.
- 3) it is the most important to me: only during the last time in several occasions at different talks you accused things which are not true, or misinterpreted and I need to waste some time to check that what you're writing is not true. Just some examples from the last few days:
- Here you write: "This source is about events in Guba: ". While, if you check the source, it is called "General Information on Azerbaijani Jewish Organizations" and among the hundreds of sentences only one is partially about Guba. So what you write is not true.
- Here you write: "Again, there was no settlement called Armenikend in Soviet times. The area was called Mamedyarov settlement. Google books is full with sources attesting to that." Google books has 0 books on "Mamedyarov settlement" .
- Here you're claiming "The Soviet development in the area was not called Armenikend, it was called Mamedyarov settlement. See: " by a selective search (searching the name you prefer in Russian, as no source in English supports you) of sources (you selected 4 sources of 414). But even the first result you have doesn't support you, it uses the name you reject, as dominant.
I'm sure if you waste a little more time to check what you're writing, you will not add so much baseless and disruptive information into the talks. Gazifikator (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)