Quantum666~enwiki

Re:

You can try this: [1]. Parishan (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Parishan (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Karabakh section of AAF

I disagree with your first point; I believe the photo, though low quality, does add value. I spent some considerable time trying to find a photo that better represented the NK War than the photo of an Azeri woman journalist with her child that was there before. However your second point may have value. What is the status of the photo's origins as per commons? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Quantum666. Do you know of a good NK War photo we can use, that has some reference to the Azeri Armed Forces? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you find the correct license. I had a look at Google Images and Commons but can't find anything really good. Please go ahead and inform me when you find a photo that looks suitable. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They're good, but you need to tell me the copyright status of the photos and locate some captions, so we can properly document the images. What does the website's copyright status say? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your edit

I made these changes in order to give Wikipedia a more balanced perspective. The word "occupants" clearly represents Azeri POV because the Armenians are indigenous to Nagorno-Karabakh. Likewise, the word "liberators" would have represented Armenian POV. Moreover, the article used as source for the term "Armenian forces" calls the forces in the area the Karabakh military and not Armenian forces...--Davo88 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you say that the fact of occupation is recognized by everyone. The truth is that the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh got their independence by themselves and created a republic although this is what's not recognized by anyone. The territory around the traditional borders of Nagorno-Karabakh is simply meant to be a buffer zone... The website, when it says "Armenian forces" is most likely referring to the ethnic origin of the Karabakh forces and not to the Armed Forces of Armenia. Anyway, I will try to look for more sources and whatnot...--Davo88 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi - you should really stop mischaracterizing other users' edits as vandalism when the issue is clearly not about vandalism (for instance). Please be also aware about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement; you're very closed to being reported for your edit wars. Sardur (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your message on my talk page: I did comment in both cases. If you need more details:

• Armenian Genocide recognition ("extremely controversial edits, please discuss first"): most of your modifications were not neutral and should have first been discussed on the article talk page.
• Shushi (province) ("does not belong here"): this article is about an administrative division of the NKR and uses the Armenian name of this division. It is more than logical to use the Armenian name of the center of this division.

Sardur (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and you're not allowed to do what you want here. Controversial edits are to be discussed first.

As for Shushi / Shusha, both are used in English, so I don't understand your answer.

Sardur (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No explanation? Be serious please. But if you want examples, this or this are your PoV. On the other hand, several of your edits are not explained.

Shushi/Shusha: this is all about context.

Sardur (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I say that these are examples, the logical conclusion is that they are not the only ones.

Let's take an example: in Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan, I find it logical to have "Khankendi city (Xankəndi) (de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic named Stepanakert)". You see?

Sardur (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Armenian Genocide recognition: see the talk page of the article
• Shushi/Shusha: I hardly see what your last answer has to do with the issue you first raised.

Sardur (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With what proposal? Sardur (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the link with your primary concern, so I don't see why I should answer. Sardur (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

re Shusha

First of all, you need to always use an edit summary on the Azeri/Armenian articles. But the reason I reverted was, you took this sentence:

The capital is Stepanakert (known in Azerbaijan as Xankəndi, Khankendi). Its other major city, today lying partially in ruins, is Shushi (known in Azerbaijan as Shusha).

and changed it to:

The capital is Stepanakert (known in Azerbaijan as Xankəndi, Khankendi). Its other major city, today lying partially in ruins, is Shusha (known in Armenia as Shushi).

It seemed like an odd construction to go from "The capital is X (known in Azerbaijan as Y) and its other city is Y (known in Armenia as X)". It struck me as potentially confusing to the reader. Furthermore, it's not known in Armenia as Shushi; it's perhaps known in Armenian, but it's certainly known in NK as Shushi, and that was what article we were on. --Golbez (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was a logical conclusion. :) And yes, we name articles after their 'common' names (so far as I know, the 'use the common name' guideline applies solely to article titles, though the guideline is usually vastly misinterpreted), but that doesn't require every single reference to that place use the common name. If Khankendi were the more 'common' name of Stepanakert, I would still strongly support calling it Stepanakert in the article on the country it's the capital of, as to do otherwise would be pretty insulting. Also, thanks for telling me I have an Armenian POV, I'll slide that next to all the other accusations of Armenian or Azeri POV. For someone who claims to know the rules, you should have known not to make a controversial edit (and you know changing a name from one to the other would be controversial if you were familiar at all with the history of these articles here) without an edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you really should know to use edit summaries when making such a change. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use it as the edit din't seem to me to be contraversial. Next time I will comment each of my edit to avoid such problems. But what about the article? Do you still think that we should write Shushi instead of Shusha? --Quantum666 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When speaking in the article on a country about a city in that country where the people of that city and country have a clear preference for their own name over the country they violently declared independence from, I see no problem with listing the local/official name first. I can't think of any modern parallels at the moment to give a comparison, Nicosia isn't really an accurate comparison. It's not like there's a common exonym; well over 99.99% of English speakers have never heard of the town, let alone have a preference for what name. We aren't talking Germany vs. Deutschland here. --Golbez (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Touche, I actually had missed that aspect. Still, it seems like an odd construction (and yes, there are odd constructions) to alternate back and forth. I still think it could be confusing to readers. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep speaking of consensus as this sacrosanct law that can be 'violated', I very much suspect you would not be defending it so strongly were you to disagree with it. I don't recall it carved in stone that Shusha shall always and forever be Shusha, in every placement on the pedia. --Golbez (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, do not try to vandalize the article of Garegin Njdeh Kevorkmail (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? By the way you haven't explained your edits in the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

"Please do not change old version until the discussion is finished. See WP:Consensus" The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Claim WP:Consensus Allows Us To Keep My New Version Until We Discuss. If there is a dispute, things are usually reset to the original, not the new, version. And I'm not sure I'm even seeing any discussion, edit summaries aren't a great place to do it. --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint as it should have been addressed to the other party. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see the discussion here. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I appear to have misunderstood. You were saying, don't 'change the original version'. So for that, comment withdrawn and I apologize. However, we are allowed to edit other things in an article while one part is under discussion. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Garegin Njdeh

I know that you are going forward with Azerbaijani propaganda. My sources are reliable and once you find a source which contradicts with my sources just go with it and post it in the article, and do not threaten me with your Azerbaijani way. Kevorkmail (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Garegin Njdeh. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  18:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The other editor has been blocked for 72 hours. In addition, I will reply to your question on my talk page.  Sandstein  18:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision.  Sandstein  18:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC) !:: I see your block unjust as I've been trying to discuss the article with Kevorkmail for many times. Unfortunately the only things I got were "vandalism" and "Azerbaijani propaganda" and there was no reaction from the user until I returned my edits. It's impossible to discuss with a user if he doesn't want to. What should have I done in that case? How to make him discuss the article? --Quantum666 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You tried discussion, which is good, but this does not allow you to engage in edit warring, which is prohibited under all circumstances. In reply to your question, please see WP:DR. In such conflicts, involving only two editors, WP:3O is often a good idea.  Sandstein  19:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understood. I will try not to engage in edit wars. Maybe the problem was in my emotional perception of Kevorkmail's unwillingness to discuss. Next time I will edit according to WP:DR. I have no problem to discuss articles with other Armenian users but Kevorkmail's behavior was some kind provocative. I will try not to lose patience anymore. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Auto-block should be cleared now - if it isn't, contact me, or replace the auto-unblock request and I'll have another look. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

re Lionking

Unfortunate that he is no longer with us, though I agree his stubbornness was becoming nonsensical. It seems a bit like dancing on his grave but I see no objection now to moving forward with removing the name. The population is a more complex matter, and perhaps should be taken to a RFC. But personally, I think a good idea is simply report exactly what the authorities say, and explain any caveats if needed. (for example, half of Agdam has never been under independent Azeri control, so how could they reliably count it?) If there is a caveat then the population should be omitted from the infobox and dealt with entirely in the text. And always include the last 'neutral' Soviet census, but at we get further and further away from that - 21 years, now - it becomes less and less relevant. Then again, the last Azeri census was 17 years ago, which is approaching the same level of relevance (in combination with its disputed nature). As for the Soviet census having a different area than the Azeri census, all the more reason to deal with this issue exclusively in the text and not in the infobox. I think that if we just give all the information, then readers have the best we can offer.

I'll make the name change. And this whole thing reminds me that I should probably make a new map of Azerbaijan with the true borders of the NKR, rather than simply the NKAO. --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Хо

Could you translate this article into sections of this spiral of tension and First Blood. or to create in enviki this, this or this article. You write an article about refugees in Azerbaijan. You forgot to mention the Chechen and Kurdish refugees. Kurdish Muslims were expelled from Armenia and the Lachin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.145.121 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't finished the article yet. As soon as I finish it I will try to find some time to translate the articles. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources deletion

hi! For the next time please be civil and dont delete sourced info without explanations at the talk if you just believe it is not true! Read WP:WEIGHT and WP:Idontlikeit. Next time your actions will be noticed! Andranikpasha (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• and please do not use editsums like this [2]. Better if you explain your deletions in the talk page and cite the source you (not me) have. What means UNHCR reports?? Which ones of 10 thousand reports by UNHCR [3], where, what they say? Andranikpasha (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean my edits in 1977 Moscow bombings article then you are wrong. I did not delete any information. I removed from the beginning of the article what is already written later. And the reason is explained. Of course I am going to write it once again at the talk page as my edit summaries don't seem to you enough. I hope you will do the same about your edit which contained removal of the referenced unformation and removal of the category.

About the settlements for the IDPs you can see here. And Eurasianet is not Azeri source of course.--Quantum666 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks! I'll answer there. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 5

Hi ! Can you give me an E-mail address to post page 5 ? Thank you , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I do not publish my email for privacy reasons. You can upload the page in Internet (e.g. rapidshare.com or any other website) and give me the link here or you can send me it by "E-mail this user" function.--Quantum666 (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK ! Here it is : http://www.4shared.com/photo/F9mjnIrD/Russian_Azerbaijan_P5.html . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. I will answer at the article discussion page later. Have you seen the reference 14 (after "albeit in the past tense". Where does it refer? This could be important I think. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon for delay . Here is the reference 14 . http://www.4shared.com/photo/Fk6u1Hsx/Ref_14.html --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh protected

I have protected the article from editing for 7 days. It was a difficult choice between doing that and placing a block on your account. If the edit-warring resumes after the protection expires, the choice will not be difficult next time. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no edit war there. Could you explain please? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666, it's better if you are patient and discuss the changes first and then revert. To administrators the article seemed untouched and stable, therefore correct. Although the main problem is that it had been overlooked by many editors and contains POV.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But as you know I discussed enough not to hear these strange allegations. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you should present your case in Edit Warring. Administrators will have a chance to review the improper inputs.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Where should I do it? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know, I have never done it but there should be some section in Wikipedia.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, here> I found it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There are the instructions there too.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I note that you have previously been advised about these sanctions, however you do not appear to have been formally warned, nor has the warning been recorded here. I am doing so now, in response to the discussion immediately above and your recent edits at Dadivank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery. TFOWR 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New section

If you're referring to the first section: it's simply a matter of WP:UNDUE. Don't get me wrong, Thomas de Waal is pretty reliable when it comes to most stuff on the Caucasus but this section is hinged solely on his say so, something which does not necessarily permit us to include it as if it's undisputed fact. Almost all sources are unanimous in stating that the conflict began in 1988 - it was something that caught the majority of all Azeris off guard and reading statements that boxcars of people were suddenly deported and that there was a government cover up reads too much like a conspiracy theory, and that's saying much given the nature of how information was suppressed in the USSR.

The other sections are just plain POV, badly written, rely on obscure Russian-language sources and are almost difficult to substantiate with other sources; this is not only something I've objected to but something administrator Buckshot08 reverted, as well as Neftchi (twice, in fact) I hope you understand.

p.s., I think your tweaking of the Stepanakert caption was not done in good faith; if it's not too much to ask, can you yourself please revert to the original wording and not try to present to the reader a more explanatory caption? Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that each and every word in WP relies at least on two sources? Funny how you are interpreting the rules. If you have any other sources contradicting De Waal then show them. De Wall is RS and you know that refugees from Armenia played very important role in Sumgait events. So your removals of sourced information look very strange. I hope they were done in good faith.

Do you really think that "The New Yorker" is an "obscure Russian-language source"? Do you have any sources contradicting the presented third-party sources? If not then return the text please.

I described the photo according to the source. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't understand your complaint. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. There's something amiss when you only have one side claiming something, and then have the mayor of town denying that any such thing took place. Information like that, even if it was suppressed by the Soviet government, would still be archived and the fact that De Waal elsewhere makes good use of the archives but fails to cite anything beyond interviews in that section shows, unfortunately, that those claims remain unconfirmed. Virtually all sources state in unison that the conflict began in February 1988. That there may have been violence and ethnic tension between Armenians and Azeris prior to 1988 is even more incentive to not turn back the clock further than is needed.

I'll give the New Yorker article a read next week and try to understand the context but the section in and of itself is far too one sided and written in such a biased manner that no one could concede to its inclusion (at least not in that wording). Even the events themselves seem to be micro in the grander scheme of the war itself.

As for the photo: it was taken from a website which explicitly described it as damage sustained from an Azeri artillery barrage. Just because the uploader did not explictly mention that information in that summary does not permit you to omit information and deprive the reader of the context of the image. Who are these children? Why are there gaping holes in the apartments? Readers might as well assume that the damage was caused by an earthquake or by nature.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary. The only thing the sources differ in is the exact date when the refugees were expelled from Armenia. But they all say that refugees came to Azerbaijan before the Sumgait events and that their arrival was one of the reasons of the subsequent events. So I don't understand your tries to remove this information.

What seems to you micro may seem to others very important. At least the described events took more lives than Askeran events. And I see nothing biased there. What do you mean?

Two points about the photo: 1. I couldn't find any description of the photo in the article 2. The article itself is not an RS because it is not third-party. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite an extraordinary thing to claim. The Karabakh movement didn't get on its feet until the early part of February 1988. To claim that boxcars of refugees were arriving (of all places) from Zangezur and claiming that they were subjected to persecution by their neighbors, without any corroboration by local or central authorities, is not only far-fetched, but unimaginable in a place like the USSR. Investigations would have to been carried out. Some sort of public commentary would have been made (it was the Glasnost period after all).

The material is written in a biased manner. I just browsed through the article and it mentioned that the Armenians were also retaliating against Azeris shooting at cars passing on a road near the border. That information was suppressed and thus the section was presented out of context. Furthermore, the reporter himself stated that this was the Azeri version of the events and that he would speak with an Armenian to hear his side. In such a case, what is one to do? Play a game of he said/she said? We're better off just saying that intercommunal violence took place rather than place credence over someone else when reliable, third-party witnesses are lacking.

The photo was originally taken from an article posted on Cilicia.com. It has since become a deprecated link but at the time, this is how the photo caption was written. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources say what they say: Azeri refugees came to Azerbaijan before Sumgait events. I don't understand your tries to ignore the information provided by the third-party sources.

You can add what seems to you necessary to the section. I just don't understand removing the section instead of improving it.

When you get the third-party description of the photo we can add it there. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, same story, different talk page. Again, "Karabakh movement" in Khankendi and Yerevan started in form of demonstrations in early February of 1988, but the Miatsum movement per se calling for annexation of NKAO to Armenian SSR started way earlier. It was officially announced by Abel Agabekyan in Paris before the Armenian community of France in November 1987, which was followed by violence against Azerbaijanis in Masis and Gugark, Armenia. This was in part done to trigger Sumgayit events because the very events started and were called for before the Azeri crowds in Sumgayit by ethnic Armenians posing as Azerbaijanis, such as Eduard Grigoryan. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666, apologies for getting into the discussion on yout talk page. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The presented sources are fringe, i.e., they are on the very margins of what every other source says. More substantial documentation, archival would be most preferred, is needed to corroborate and present such information.

Abel Aganbekyan was a close adviser of Gorbachev on economic, not political or even nationalities, policies. Whatever views he expressed to a journalist in France were personally his own - are you seriously willing to include Aganbekyan as an organizer or even one of initiators of the Miatsum movement?

And Tuscumbia, your last sentence is so preposterous that it does not even need addressing. It's unfortunate to see that such conspiracy theories have yet to be laid the rest and are still used to justify the massacre that took place there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, within the enforcement of Armenian agenda, Abel Agambekyan was another Anastas Mikoyan, regardless what official posts they held in the leadership. Both successfully started movements resulting in deportations of Azerbaijanis from Armenia and exodus of Azerbaijanis from Masis and Gugark in late 1987 is a fact, not theory.

As far as the "conspiracy theories" go, I think you're rather misinformed and are turning a blind eye to the Sumgayit events. Eduard Grigoryan of Groong as well as two of his Armenian associates, all three with previous criminal records and all fluent in Azerbaijani language, were apprehended, interrogated and recognized by Armenian victims who were either raped, lost a family member or were bitten by Eduard Grigoryan. He along the other two were then transferred from Baku jail to Moscow from where he completely vanished without a trace. You should watch the documentary called "Ekho Sumgaita" to see the live pictures of Grigoryan in custody, admissions and witness accounts of Armenian victims and only then talk about "conspiracy theories". Tuscumbia (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, why do you call Thomas De Waal "fringe source"? He is a well known specialist in Caucasus issues and is used in Wikipedia widely. His book was well accepted by other specialists, although some Armenians and Azerbaijanis didn't like it. His opinion about refugees doesn't contradict other sources. It seems to mee that you just don't like the information. It's not the reason to delete it. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

When he's the only one reporting it (outside Azerbaijan), that poses a problem and presenting his opinion, when there are those who challenge it, is undue weight. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources talking about the refugees from Armenia who arrived to Azerbaijan and whose arrival played important role in Sumgait events. So saying "he's the only one reporting it" is your mistake. (Even if he was the only one he is reliable enough to mention his opinion) P.S. Please, don't mess two discussions. I will answer about Erevan khanate at your talk page. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New section

How can I "check" the source? It's so obscure, I have no idea where to even look since you haven't even specified a page number. If the source uses the word "surely" then at least put it in quotations and attribute it properly to the authors. But that still is the borderline use of weasel wording.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion page please. I put the quotation there 20 minutes ago. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And in such cases we do not remove information but put templates to specify the source, the page etc. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's still no page number. Please transcribe the names of the authors into Latin characters and give us the exact publication date as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion page for more information. --Quantum666 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Zar

I don't know why you placed two "unreliable source" tags on the Zar page, however I do know that you cannot just place tags like that within an article without also giving a proper explanation and justification for their use on the article's talk page. That explanation and justification can then be discussed and a decision eventually made on whether the tag's claim is valid or not. If it is not valid, the tag is removed. If it is, the source is removed. I've removed the tags because you gave no justification for their use. Do you disagree with what I have just written? 93.97.143.19 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The explanation is given in the comment. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moves

Please don't move any more NKR articles; large, unnecessary (were there conflicts? why do we need the country name in parentheses? We don't do that with any other country) moves like that need discussion. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But we must separate somehow NKAO rayons, NKR provinces and towns themselves. What is your proposal?

Hm, I see where you're going with this, but you still shouldn't have "(NKR)" in the title, since that's the extant entity, and the (NKAO) one is the obsolete, so that's what needs the disambiguation. In my opinion. However, so far as I saw, none of the (NKAO) articles are sourced. You need to source them or someone will come along very quickly and tag it for deletion, because even I don't know those rayons existed. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will not write (NKR) but province is necessary I think. Do you agree? --Quantum666 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If that form is commonly used for the NKR's divisions, I've no problem with that, though it should be capitalized. (By that, I mean, do they often refer to it as "Hadrut Province", or just "Hadrut"? 'Province' is the term in Canada but no one ever says "Ontario Province".) --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know using the name without any addition refers to the town but not to the territory. --Quantum666 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Quantum666. Could you also comment here: Naming conventions? Tuscumbia (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, please stop edit warring with Aram-van and other editors concerning Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or I will have to place you back on restriction. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to be more patient. Thanks. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Duduk

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Duduk, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Quantum666. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Quantum666~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)