Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 17

POV/NPOV
There has been an unilateral POV rewriting of the text, which, while being tolerated by WP:BOLD, was subsequently restored and this is unacceptable. The wordings like "the original and historical name for Nagorno-Karabakh is Artsakh" or "Nagorno Karabakh and other east Armenian territories" are dubious and debatable contributions, just like removal of NK's international status from the lead or alterations of references, like the addition of "it is speculated that". Also there is no "fake conclusion" from the Penny cyclopaedia as everyone can verify the reference. Except some good-faith input, all are subjects to reversion. --Ehud (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The latest contributions are not unilateral - see input. nk does not have any international status as of yet that is why there are negotiations managed by the minsk group. the peace talks are not held on the assumption that nk is part of some other territory. hewsen he was speculating (see his text), and academic speculation is a normal legitimate process but i may remove it per suggestion. i cast another look at penny cyclopedia and penny does not mention anything about 1822, it mentions 1832, and says nothing about who migrated from where. read it again, and cite quotes in case i am missing it all. everyone indeed can verify the reference. i will work on consensus and preserve some edits by ehud. yes - and you completely and without explanation deleted the "Antiquity and the Middle Ages" section with references in the demography. please avoid doing this - it can be viewed as vandalism. Bars77 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, why do you remove the fact that the area of Nagorno (Mountanous) Karabakh is 4,400 km2 and move it a few paragraphs below that and attaching something about "country's" constitution? Which country? Have you checked any sources? Anyone recognizing separatist authorities as a "country"? I don't think so! Then, you go on to remove the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, although it has not exercised power over most of the region since 1991 and you add that its international status is undetermined by adding and is violation of WP:OR which does not say anything like that you entered. I am sorry but your obvious POV can't be a part of this article. You also without explanation removed House of Aranshahik, which descended of the earliest kings of the Caucasian Albania as reference to Caucasian Albania. Unacceptable! I will also change the POV language which you inserted although the previous editor unpoved it. All your edits try to picture the territory as if it was all time Armenian, which you know is not true. I am sorry but you will have to come to consensus on every edit for this article because it's controversial article. If you don't wanna be to taken to arbitration. Dighapet (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bars77 should be commended for restoring parts of the article as asked here on talk pages. I wish there were more editors like Bars77 who would try to accommodate the opposite side's point of view irrespective of the latter's emotional outbursts and threats (like I see here with Dighapet). I worked on the text a bit, and replaced "east Armenian lands" with a different phrase. Gorzaim (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

i am not sure i can agree with the latest revision by ehud at least because it comes from a biased source, an azerbaijani diplomat. makes no sense to me. negotiations on status would not take place if there was a strong case of such recognition. this is not a balanced view. a balanced view should signal that this recognition is soft not hard, tentative and does not reflect the position of the leaders of international community which manage the talks. Bars77 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He reports the UN stance, not his personal or something, and the source is verifiable. The negotiations are esentially about the perspectives of local Armenian population in light of Azerbaijan's integrity, not about NK's recognition. Ehud (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont understand this phrase "perspectives of local Armenian population in light of Azerbaijan's integrity, not about NK's recognition." Not true. Negotiations are about an international status for NK, meaning that the international community views the status of the province as not being settled. This concerns both the interim status and final status. Both are subject of negotiations by the Minsk Group. Hence the Madrid Principles. Therefore, the previous definition is more balanced. It says that there are organizations and politicians saying that NK as part of Azerbaijan but on a practical level the region's interim status and final status remains subject to negotiations. Gorzaim (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a UN General Assembly Resolution 62/243, which expresses international stance on behalf of that (and probably this is not the sole relevant document). Please do not make further unilateral reverts. There is also some text which belongs to Artsakh, not here, however I did not remove that now. --Ehud (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the previous version said very well that there are organizations and state agencies that recognize nk as part of azerbaijan. this is a non-binding resolution, and most un nations and all of security council's members abstained or voted against the resolution - so, the vote showed that nk, in fact, is NOT universally recognized as part of azerbaijan. i am adding "states" to the mix. Bars77 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "international organizations, states, NGOs and politicians"? This is unreferenced. The resolution text meanwhile states on a number of occasions, on behalf of the UN General Assembly: "the armed conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan". Also in preceding UNSCR for instance: "the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". Ehud (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the absolute majority of countries (over 100) did not support the resolution, and security council's members voted against it. it was a fiasco for azerbaijan's claims on nk. thank you bringing up the un resolution by the way. un is just an organization, one of many. moreover, un secretary general always said that un is not the venue to deal with the conflict and it is the prerogative of the minsk group and osce. Bars77 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * i.e. the international community as a whole does not recognize nk as part of azerbajian but some states do. Bars77 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What? When Armenian parlament discussed something and then when law is accepted by majority of votes, do you go question laws when they are enforced? No! Because in jurispridence, there is laws and understanding on majority election. That's how everything works. Your discussion here is so unbased on anything. All countries support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and many have it on their websites or legal documents, many express their positions in meetings with Azerbaijan's government and in international events, but here you come with unbased argument that it's contested. It's not contested. It's occupied. And learn something from politics. UN is a gathering where member countries join to rule the world together. It's not "just" organization. Dighapet (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * no. un is not the parliament of the world. and the un resolution in question was not adopted by the majority of votes but by minority of votes. it showed that the majority does not recognize nk as part of azerbaijan. hence, the world is very very far from having a consensus on this issue. Bars77 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * to be precise according to the vote only 20% of countries recognize nk as part of azerbaijan Bars77 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do the other 80% recognize it as? See my treatment of terra nullius in the section above this one. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * terra nullius is not a relevant concept since it is to "describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty" (see defintion in the article). terra nullius is "designated wilderness" with no sovereignty at all and is usually referred to places which are unpopulated or cannot be populated in principle. terra nullius is not the same as places with disputed sovereignty. palestinian territories, or an even better example - city of jerusalem - are not terra nullius simply because their sovereign status is contested. there are countries which do recognize jerusalem as capital of israel and keep their embassies in the city, and there are those countries which do not recognize israel's sovereign rights to jerusalem. most states in the worlds avoids expressing opinions about political status of jerusalem. nk is a politically disputed land whose sovereign status is unclear and is subject to negotiations. most un countries, 107 out of 192, did not wish to express any opinion on the matter. Bars77 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if Bars77 interpreted Golvez's argument on terra nullius correctly but his view on Jerusalem is relevant. Russia, US and France which mediate the talks do not believe that NK has any international status. To make things simple, I prefer to state simply: "Nagorno Karabakh is a disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I was saying, no country regards it as terra nullius, therefore all countries must regard it as belonging to someone. Seeing as how no country has recognized the NKR, it is not a baseless assumption to believe they all - if implicitly - recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. Even Armenia does. --Golbez (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Golbez - yours is a somewhat extreme, very formalistic and I believe wrong or at least impractical view of state sovereignty. It does not apply to the reality of international relations, especially to many cases of partially-recognized states such as Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, to phenomena like Jerusalem, Western Sahara or Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone or to cases of intentional international agnosticism/relativism like Nagorno Karabakh, where as many as 154 countries out of 192 do not have a clear position on the subject of NK's belonging. Gorzaim (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Western Sahara is one of the few zones in the world that is actually recognized by some parties as terra nullius, so that doesn't quite fit. The Saudi neutral zone has been defunct for years. Jerusalem, I believe, is recognized either to be Israeli or Palestinian, I'm not sure if anyone formally waffles on the matter. (And anyway, Israel-Palestine is a far, far more complex issue than NKR-Azerbaijan. The NKR isn't an observer at the UN, for example.) Kosovo is just like NKR, there are three possibilities: You recognize it as Serb, you recognize it as independent, or you don't care - but lack of caring is an implicit acceptance of Serb ownership, just as, in this case, lack of caring is implicit acceptance of Azeri ownership, the 'default position'. No country becomes de jure independent by default, it requires explicit recognition from others. That I see things smoothly and formally is a clarity of vision rarely found in these discussions. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is how Kosovo status is defined in the article on Kosovo: Kosovo's "political status in the community of nations has been highly contentious since 1999." Definition of Western Sahara: "disputed territory in North Africa." Abkhazia: "is a disputed political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus." Gorzaim (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And rightly this should mention its disputed nature, I absolutely never said it shouldn't. My only reason for getting into this thread was to respond to Bars77 appearing to say that 80% of the world doesn't recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, when there really is only one other option, not two - if they do not recognize it as independent, then they recognize it as Azeri, implicitly. He seems to think that 80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's independence. It doesn't, in fact it grants less, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Golbez: I disagree about Kosovo that lack of caring is necessarily an "implicit acceptance of Serb ownership." Lack of caring regarding Kosovo in many countries is due to implicit willingness to recognize it as independent. And remember that there are no known international peace talks on Kosovo status anymore, unlike in case of NK. "Israel-Palestine is a far, far more complex issue than NKR-Azerbaijan" - there are people who would dispute that. "If they do not recognize it as independent, then they recognize it as Azeri" - I totally disagree because the default situation is of unclear nature. It is unclear/undetermined if Azerbaijan SSR, which was just another Soviet autonomy (albeit of highest order), could secede from the USSR and automatically "grab" NK with it. At least that would contradict USSR's law on secession adopted in 1991, under which NK would go free if Azerbaijan seceded. Anyway, see how disputed regions were defined in cases of Kosovo, West Sahara, Abkhazia etc. NK should be treated with similar sensitivity and ambiguity. It is just that - disputed. Gorzaim (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About Bars77's position: " He seems to think that 80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's independence." I think "80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's de-facto independence but not to its de jure independence (here I agree with you)." Gorzaim (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can assume it's only the de jure independence that's being discussed; the NKR's de facto independence has remained unchallenged for twenty years. --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any mention that "NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan" signals that there is a strong, definitive and universally shared opinion about NK's international status, which obviously isn't the case. We may do it this way: "there is a lack of consensus regarding Nagorno Karabakh's international status" instead of mentioning states, organizations etc., which recognize NK as Azerbaijan. I think it is best is to keep it as "disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But there isn't. Of every country who has cared to speak on it, 100% say it is part of Azerbaijan. That there exist many who haven't cared to doesn't really dilute that. The consensus among those who have stated an opinion is total. --Golbez (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "but there isn't?" what??? i don't understand golbez's english. the minsk group countries manage a process to formulate the status for nk, both interim and final. how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd. and golbez says that countries who are not taking a stance do not matter. states who refuse to be biased may have strong opinions: they strongly oppose to taking a definitive stance. they care. their neutrality is a stronger factor than the the bias of those who chose not to be impartial. also read cafrefully again what gorzaim was saying above - |||It is unclear/undetermined if Azerbaijan SSR, which was just another Soviet autonomy (albeit of highest order), could secede from the USSR and automatically "grab" NK with it||| Bars77 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I wrote that I had a feeling I was being too vague. I meant, there isn't a lack of consensus. The consensus is total among those who have stated an opinion. If you're going to include the ones that didn't, does that mean Barack Obama isn't really the president of the United States, since more than 50% of eligible citizens didn't vote? :) (As for the legal particulars of if the NKR seceded from the AzSSR, or from the USSR, or from an independent Azerbaijan, and whether or not it was legal to one or any of these things... most countries, I think, don't care, because they're probably just as confused about it as we are. It seems mostly a matter between the NKR and the rest of the former Soviet Union.) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. I don't think the international recognition of NK within Azerbaijan could still be discussed somehow. In addition to UN resolutions you wouldn't find NK as a separate entity on geographical maps. This is not really an issue worth of editwarring. Ehud (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * someone here is drawing wrong conclusions from a discussion on such a complicated issue. i encourage you go through all the arguments again and again. or you may go and try to change formulation of status on articles on jerusalem, abkhazia, kosovo, west sahara and a half a dozen other places first. definition of nk's status now is way too generously skewed in favor of the azeri position in the dispute. i will need to repeat "how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd." presently, the international community has a consensus that it is the minsk pro cess that should deal with the issue, and the minsk process leaves the question of interim and final status of the province an open issue. there are no governments or organizations (including un) that question the supremacy of the minsk process. Bars77 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Minsk Group co-chairs do recognize NK within Azerbaijan. And no one questioned the UN stance on that: all UN resolutions on the NK conflict explicitly say "the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". It's UN job in particular to determine what is or is not internationally recognized. Ehud (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * thank u for bringing up documents that keep refuting your own arguments. the document in fact is about criticizing and opposing the un resolution of 2008: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution selectively propagates only certain of these principles to the exclusion of others, without considering the Co-Chairs' proposal in its balanced entirety. Because of this selective approach, the three OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries must oppose this unilateral draft resolution." they also say: "they reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and do not recognize the independence of NK." well, armenia also supports the territorial integrity of azerbaijan, and non-recognition of nkr is beyond the scope of the argument (i.e. no one argues here that nkr is a recognized state. Bars77 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not OSCE criticizes UN resolution, this doesn't affect NK's international unrecognition. Roma locuta, causa finita. Ehud (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * discussants on this page myself including do not try to refute that nkr is an unrecognized state. mr. ehud painstakingly fails to make arguments relevant to the logic of discussion, and i question the usefulness of his continued participation in this forum. Bars77 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery
I think the image gallery is not only becoming way too large, but it's unnecessary. A simple boilerplate link to commons handles all this. Per WP:IG, image galleries should supplement the text if needed, not just be pictures of the subject. I suggest pruning or (better) removing it altoether. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think image gallery is becoming large. It is in full compliance with WP:IG. Thanks. Gorzaim (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes up nearly two entire pages on my large monitor; do you see many other Wikipedia articles that have image galleries doing that?
 * Furthermore, "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" There is nothing in this gallery that is so relevant to the subject yet cannot be put into the text. "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. " I would definitely say the gallery, as it is, is indiscriminate, with items ranging from a constitution, to clothes, to art, to a royal standard, to an airport. There is nothing linking these except "Nagorno-Karabakh", making it indiscriminate. If they cannot fit into the text, then we have a link to commons where people can find all the photos and images about NK that they want. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * :):):):) i think gorzaim was carried away a bit :) was it five rows of pics?! LOL. Bars77 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * i removed unrelated, repetitive or poor-quality pics e.g. soviet buildings. i also read in WP:IG - "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." this is totally ok for this gallery. i would not say that, per golbez, "the gallery, as it is, is indiscriminate." this gallery had its logic. i think my edits are a compromise but i still beleive that 3 rows are ok. Bars77 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Three photos of Stepanakert, three of Soviet-era soldiers, three of pre-Soviet soldiers... this is indiscriminate. This is, we have them, let's throw them up. At most one of each, and in many cases they aren't necessary, because the subjects have articles of their own. --Golbez (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A smaller gallery works for me. I rearranged some images by moving them into the text. Gorzaim (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rv Sockpuppet
According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hetoum_I/Archive#28_July_2011 sockpuppet report] Bars77 is a big sockpuppetting abuser Xebulon. Reverting him and Gorzaim/Vandorenfm who are ducking like him as per WP:DUCK Wikipedia policy. If they revert, I will report SPI. These account users made this article pov place with everything as it belongs to Armenia. They know they will be catched and they insert as much information as possible before somebody finds out they Sockpuppet. Dighapet (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For all the crap some Azeri users once caught for coordinating edits offline, I would have thought repeatedly-banned Armenian editors would have caught on that their efforts aren't appreciated. Looks like we're back to from June 26. --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Karabakh participation in international talks
I'd like to propose the following insert, after the section about talks in June 2011 sponsored by Russia, France and the U.S.

Nagorno-Karabakh itself has not been a party to those talks, but is represented by Armenia. Karabakh's president, Bako Sahakyan, said after the failure of the June 2011 meeting that no settlement is possible without the eventual direct participation of the de facto republic. The framework international settlement envisions that Karabakh would cede some territory back to Azerbaijan, in return for recognition and security guarantees. But Sahakyan said Karabakh would not pull back to indefensible borders. (Will Englund, "Nagorno-Karabakh wants a seat at the table," http://pulitzercenter.org/articles/karabakh-republic-armenia-azerbaijan-president-bako-sahakyan-minsk-group-negotiations-independence-russia-europe, published 8 July 2011) Takabeg (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willenglund (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits by sock puppet(s)
About edits by sock puppet, similar discussion is continuing at Talk:Istanbul Pogrom. Thank you for your interest. Takabeg (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:00508007N28.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Hi, The 00508007N28.jpg image will be removed (illustration of the soviet era chapter) Please thanks to use the following image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apartments_in_NKR.JPG Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroboy 126 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New cherry picked information
What value does this cherry picked information add to the article? Are we seriously going to mention every killed soldier? Perhaps we should start with the killing of a 9-year-old Azerbaijani kid by Armenian snipers, which was condemned by PACE. Or should we mention the countless of political representaties nations and organisations who have confirmed Karabakh to be within the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? This new information added by Ali55te also doesnt go along with the other information from the headline. The text talks about resolutions and condemnations not rumours. For this reason I removed the information added. Neftchi (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a notable event. Your explanation does not seem sufficient to me. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Killed soldier ??? How come a drone is a soldier ? Drone is a UAV "unmanned air vehicle" and the importance of that is the possible violation of weapon sales. Apart from that that section is fully biased. Do you think only Azerbaijani soldiers or civillians are dead ? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenian-civilian-shot-dead-in-karabakh-say-separatists-2011-05-13  You can find more examples on the Armenian side. I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end. Ali55te (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end" - Your statement can be viewed as a threat for a new edit war. This kind of demands and threats are grossly against Wikipedia regulations. If you dont know how the article will turn out then you should not continue to work on it. Aside this you havent given asnwer to my real argument. This new added information adds no value to the article. The contemporary situation headline is based on real resolutions, your added information is cherry picked information. Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia was not mentioned. The statement by Almagro was of personal nature not official. No declaration was adopted regarding his statement so this cannot be included in this article. Are we going to seriously add every personal statement by politicians regarding Karabakh? What about the dozens of politicians which have stated the withdrawel of Armenian troops or to respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Given your recent edits, this kind of information should also be added. For this reason I would want to ask for an review of your recent edits. Mursel (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Before these edits some authors removed thousands lines of information related to the Armenian heritage in the area. I did not revert that edits to not engage in edit war. The section is so biased that it can not bi biased more then this. There are may 3 declarations from organization of Islamic countries which is not a respected organization in the world and known as anti-semitic statements during the openning sessions etc.. Do not imagine virtual threats etc.. You add a pace declaration like the organization took the decision in fact it is not a official declaration and it is mostly signed by representatives from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. I am not removing anything from the section, the problem was that, there was no information from the other side.  01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)
 * First of all learn the difference between PACE a declaration and resolution. And why do you explicitly mention Azerbaijan and Turkey? Is there any discriminatory chosing factor behind this? If you want to mention who voted for the declaration then ALL members need to be mention not just the two countries you dont like. Second, what Uruguay will and will not do it not open for our personal interpretation. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. This shows your original research, for you have no sources at all to confirm this except for your personal opinion. I would find it ironic to see Uruguay recognize NK while Armenia doesnt. Also YouTube is not and cannot be used as a source or reference. The fact that you added YouTube for the second time, even after I warned you, is a clear breach of regulations. The information in the Contemporary situation headline is not about what you want or what I want. Its about the international law and its regulations and resolutions. That cannot be changed and that subject should not be turned into gossip, personal interpretation and original research as your text presents. Another important fact is you added all this information without any consensus. That is what we're trying to achieve with this, for this reason I removed your text untill we can get consensus to keep it. Mursel (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In show of good faith I also removed my own added text until a consensus is reached . Mursel (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mursel, you say that Youtube is not and cannot be used as a source (at least that's what I think you said through all the broken English) but I can't seem to find the policy that says so. I found Identifying reliable sources where it says audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived may qualify as source material, which led me to WP:YOUTUBE which says There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. It seems then that the reason i couldn't find the policy banning Youtube is that there isn't one and you were quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Whether the video in question abide(s) by the guidelines on this page or not is a different question, but not one that is answered by inventing policy, so I have undone your edit.


 * In looking for material regarding the 9 year old boy I came across several non-Azeri reliable sources commenting on the story - here is one - and I am inclined to believe that the question of weight has not yet been reliable answered on this talkpage. Perhaps a look at WP:CONSENSUS wouldn't go amiss. Weakopedia (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read this, it clearly says that YouTube is not a reliable source unless the video authenticity can be confirmed. For example you can use a BBC video from their official YouTube channel. Anything other than that is a breach of copyright and thus cannot be used:
 * "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation."
 * The video in question is not the owner of the video and thus its not in his copyright. We dont wanna breach copyright policy of Wikipedia now do we?
 * You also failed to answer my argument that this content doesnt add any value to the article in fact it disrupts it. The contemporary situation section is mainly about official resolution, declarations by UN, EU, PACE, etc. I believe it should not be about miniscule events, like he killed him and in return he shot them nor should it be about personal opinions of politicians. It should remain about official resolution and declarations from states and international organisations. If the contemporary situation headline is to include every cease-fire breach then this article will become pointless and add no value. Just one sentence as "the ceasefire agreement is breached by both sides" is enough to sum it up. Mursel (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here, I apologize if it seems like I'm intruding. Reiterating what Mursel stated, we don't usually use YouTube as a source. The only times I've seen YouTube being used is an external link. If memory serves me, we even have a filter that prevents YouTube links from being added by users with certain amount of edits/X days, months, etc. old. It's not an encouraged source to use. I'm not an expert with this current topic. Please bare with me. If it's a notable event as Kurdo777, then it should probably be included. But at glance, coming from an editor with limited information from this topic, it seems significant enough to be included. I have a question for you guys. How often are events like this occurring? Are there more significant events?


 * Also, for the sake of NPOV, we should include information such as quote, Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia, end quote if it's available. If there's multiple situations, then the most important ones such be listed here or perhaps create a separate article to further show violations (this article is starting to become too big). I hope that helps.


 * As a side note, the date formats should probably be consistent. Just in that section Month/Date/Year and Date/Month/Year were being used. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sniper fire from either side is a daily occurrence. But this was the first time a UAV was shot down or fell down, depending who you want to believe. Either way it doesn't look good for Azeris. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The cease-fire agreement is breached on daily bases by both sides. So I think its best to mention one line about this. The ceasefire agreement is breached regular by both sides. As for the UAV, Israeli sources argue that the UAV was show by Russian officers . Mursel (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics
The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Trans. George A. Bournoutian. Costa Mesa, CA, 2011.is used in the article on Karabakh in regards to census information, but is left out in this article. This academic work states that in 1822/3 Armenians made up 97% of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. This article uses ^ Description of the Karabakh province prepared in 1823 according to the order of the governor in Georgia Yermolov by state advisor Mogilevsky and colonel Yermolov 2nd (Russian: Opisaniye Karabakhskoy provincii sostavlennoye v 1823 g po rasporyazheniyu glavnoupravlyayushego v Gruzii Yermolova deystvitelnim statskim sovetnikom Mogilevskim i polkovnikom Yermolovim 2-m), Tbilisi, 1866. A translation from Russian, compared to the 2011 work by Bournoutian. Although the article is understandably delicate I believe that the modern academic work is more clear then the the translated work from 1866. RNajdek (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)RNajdek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.126.27 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In the text on demographics two paragraphs speak about the same census of 1823 but make drastically different interpretations of its results. Clarification is needed. Winterbliss (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Removed controversial paragraph until consensus is reached on page on Karabakh. Winterbliss (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki
The Swedish article is about the republic, not the region, and could thus be removed from this article. --78.82.250.63 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (user:flinga on svwp)

Protected
A 28k shift from one version to the other is way too much to be reverting back and forth over over. Discuss each piece individually, please, and do try to work together? And if anyone is violating the provisions of the arbitration on this topic, please remind them that they are beholden to it and further edit warring will result in blocking. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you'll throw 1/4 of the article back and forth like it's nothing, but not one of you is ready to defend the edits? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not notice this message. User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research. The text is big and it would be hard to discuss every entry by Oliveriki in details but his additions feature objective sources from first class Western academics. Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse. The favorite method of Azerbaijani objections to truth is finding Armenian grandmothers in the bloodline of Western academics (!!!!!). User:Tuscumbia was banned for six months for entertaining such ideas. Golbez I think u should restore the text and if some people disagree they should state why they do point by point. Zimmarod (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it. I don't really know or care which side is right, just figure it out before this gets unprotected. If Tuscumbia was banned for six months, that just makes them one of a long line of editors on both sides who have been banned over this petty fight so that's not going to sway me one way or another. All I care about is stopping the edit war without having to actually read the material, because I burned out on picking through the contributions to these articles years ago. It's just that this behavior annoys me enough that, instead of un-watchlisting the article, I make the children sit down and tell them to play nice. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And to be clear: I don't know if one side is right or not. I don't care. I just don't like edit wars, and I don't like having to enforce them by blocking people when there's been zero discussion on the topic. So, the article gets locked until there's discussion. Maybe in a week I'll switch it to the version with your edit, and then swap it back and forth forever until discussion takes place. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Golbez, please see the futility of building a consensus with User:Tuscumbia here on talk pages in Murovdag . I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher. Zimmarod (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Golbez, do you find any similarities in the following statements: by Zimmarod and by Gorzaim? Same person. No doubt. Here is more of the same rhetoric: and  (along with the current ) Ironically, Winterbliss, Zimmarod and many others appeared at nearly the same time (meaning their active period coincides) and they speak the "same language". Look at their joint activity. After monthly intervals, Oliveriki is called to make that special sockpuppet edit such as this one, which was undone by one of editors for being the product of major sockpuppet master Hetoum I's socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm, which in turn, was reverted by another new suspicious account Szeget, who was, needless to say, found to be a sock of Hetoum I/Xebulon, as well. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Zimmarod; it seems it wasn't Oliveriki who wrote this all up. She just restored older entries. This section is supposed to be about building consensus on subject matter issues. Instead Tuscumbia prefers cheap manipulations in hope to persuade administrators that everyone is a sock of each other. Tuscumbia and his friends have nothing to say, they are just gaming the system. And it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here and Tuscumbia here  and here . Both make identically worded threats "["One more blind revert" -  "You do that one more time" - "If you keep doing it"] and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Same language same threats. He does not say "I will report you if you do this/that" but "If - blah, blah - you will be reported." Identical structure of the phrase.  Do not forget that both Tuscumbia and Mursel help one another on AA2 pages like they just did on Nagorno-Karabakh page here  and here.


 * Now see what uninvolved third party editors say about Tuscumbia:


 * Lothar von Richthofen commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs:


 * "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→


 * Administrator User:Wgfinley getting tired of Tuscumbia unwillingness to cooperate with several editors:


 * Tuscumbia - you are on the cusp of some action on my part. I don't see anything from you that legitimately refutes either Walker or Hewsen as reliable sources for this article. You want to accuse the sources of bias but have no evidence that proves them as such and seem instead to make up bias for them (such as Hewsen somehow making his own electronic maps). There have been established texts supplied that support that use of that name, why can't it be added as an alternate name?


 * Winterbliss (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I see two posts trying to get me to care about who is or is not a sock of someone else, or who can or can not be reasoned with. I don't care. I'm here to protect the article, not spend hours diving into the minutiae. If you can't come to a consensus then you move on up the dispute resolution ladder. If you think someone is a sock then you go to the suspected sockpuppets page. What you do not do is continue to revert back and forth. Period. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Golbez - "Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it." I dont understand what that means. There were several authors who wrote the 1/4 of the text that was deleted, and several other editors who endorse these new edits. If someone does not like the new edits, she might have explained her position right after her revert. None of the editors who were reverting the new edits explained what they disagreed with. The were just posting "this is a POV" when reverting, meaning that they were not interesting in improving the article in principle. Let's restore the text and if the reverting/deleting Azerbaijani editors finally bother to explain why they revert, we may consider their arguments and accordingly modify the text. The onus is in this particular case on those who did not bother to explain their reverts on talk pages and engaged instead in edit war. Zimmarod (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally identical. (link: ) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by User:Oliveriki or User:Zimmarod. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as User:Mursel, User:Tuscumbia and User:Ehud Lazar did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. Winterbliss (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply put, when someone is banned, their edits can be reverted on sight. Whether they are good or bad. If they are valid edits, then someone who wasn't banned has to make them and claim them as their own, rather than simply saying "I think your reversion was incorrect." It is now them who is making the edit and must defend it, rather than leave it on the original, banned, editor to defend it. That's what I mean by take ownership. If they are to be preserved, someone must take responsibility for them. I would love to assume good faith but with these articles, that will never exist, so I gave up on it long ago. Every time I've tried I've been bitten, and it's extremely difficult for me to look at Oliveriki's edit in good faith. (Zimmarod's defense of it, however, does appear genuine and in good faith) And, again: It is an edit that requires justification, not the reversion thereof, as per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Finally: To call the reverted version the "vandalized" version is really displaying a bias, whether you intended it or not. I would say someone editwarring over a long period of time and with multiple socks to insert his preferred version is vandalizing. At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that these mass edits are done not by established users, but by sock accounts that had appeared and messed everything up before they were disclosed and blocked indefinitely. To retain the same text, a new wave of accounts appeared virtually at the same time. At the very same time, activity of established users decreased. Whether these new accounts operate from the same geograhical area or not, is now irrelevant; what's relevant is that one puppeteer is operating them. Hence,the similarities between statements "Bars77 should be commended for restoring parts of the article as asked here on talk pages. I wish there were more editors like Bars77 who would try to accommodate the opposite side's point of view irrespective of the latter's emotional outbursts and threats" and "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research" from two seemingly different people, who speak the same language, of praising suspicious accounts (first two were blocked for socking). Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tuscumbia is being consistently disruptive in his futile effort to expose his opponents as socks even post-SPIs, which points in the same direction - Tuscumbia et al aren't here to improve this article but to sabotage its content by making bizarre claims against other editors. Golbez's support of Tuscumbia where he says "At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules" I find suspicious and disquieting. Winterbliss (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked twice. We're talking about edits from someone banned for sockpuppetry. So, comparatively, yes, Tuscumbia follows the rules. If you think he's being "consistently disruptive" then move up the dispute resolution ladder, but otherwise that has no bearing here. As for it being "suspicious and disquieting," again, formally accuse me of whatever bias you think you're seeing (and, by the way, all of the long-time civil editors of these articles, on both sides, will laugh at you - I don't think you realize just how well I know these people) or stop bringing it up here. There's no use to repeated, passive-aggressive complaining about someone's conduct on an article's talk page; if you think they're acting in bad faith, there are more appropriate venues. This is about this article, and this edit, of which I think Tuscumbia is generally right on, in terms of where it came from, though not on its factual merits, which I have deliberately avoided examining. And which, I note, not one person has discussed. So much for trying to foster discussion. Do any of you actually care WHAT is in the article, or just who puts it there? --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod
•	My discussion below is about my revert to an earlier version of the text that was developed by several users in 2011 and destroyed early last fall due to an edit war outbreak and POV-pushing spree by User:Tuscumbia who was banned yesterday, by the way. •	Formula in the Introduction about that “The region's future international status remains so far unsettled” fits better than the present language because the Minsk Group does not place bias in favor of any future outcome for status of NK. Population by ethnic Armenians is a fact and a major factor in the talks and should be in the Introduction. •	Opening sentence in the Etymology on Artsakh makes sense and is based on 5 references, including the Caucasian Knot, a book written by French authors whose historical part was endorsed by Tom de Waal in his new book “The Caucasus: an Introduction” (page 102). Tom de Waal is recognized as an authority on the region by Wikipedia and included in official sources on NK. The other author widely cited in the added new text is George Bournoutian, an American historian and a global authority on the history of the region. His two volume study called “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record” includes correspondence of Armenian princes of Karabakh in the late Middle Ages and is a key source of academic insight for this article. Robert Hewsen is a historian from the US who was endorsed by Tom de Waal and is one of the most prominent authorities on medieval Karabakh. His “Armenia: a Historical Atlas” was highly acclaimed as a source of excellent graphically enhanced information on Armenia through history. All references were checked by me page by page. Christopher Walker is yet another third party source, an English author who comes with his article “The Armenian presence in Mountainous Karabakh” in the volume by John F. R. Wright called “Transcaucasian Boundaries.” Walker explains the use of the term Khachen. The Etymology section also points to a number of other terms applied to Nagorno Karabakh in the Middle Ages, such as Lesser Armenia, Lesser Syunik, and Armenia Interior. Medieval Armenian authors Movses Khorenatsi, Matheos Urhaetsi, the Greek author Plutarch are mentioned as sources of these names. I checked Movses Khorenatsi and Matheos Urhaetsi’s writings (he calls Artsakh Խորին Հայք, which can be translated as Armeia Interior or Deep Armenia) and they do truly provide valid basis for such claims. Plutarch and Khorenatsi are supported by Robert Hewsen’s Atlas and ‘The Caucasian Knot.” The photo image of the city of Tigranakert is ok in my opinion since it is supported by Robert Hewsen as an early mention of the term Artsakh. •	The Early History section in the reformatted text is good but incomplete. A key point is the reference to the medieval Armenian geographer Anania of Shirak who is discussed by Robert Hewsen. Anania of Shirak makes an important point about Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh being a land that was taken from Armenia in 428 AD and yet which was understood, perceived and codified by medieval Armenians as part of their homeland despite the detachment. The French-American volume “The Caucasian Knot” point to that notion as well, making a key secondary reference. Another key reference is Hewsen’s article called “The Kingdom of Artsakh” which explored high medieval Nagorno Karabakh during the reign of Hasan Jalal, Prince of Khachen. Ethno-demographic claims in the text are supported by the ancient Greek author Strabo and indirectly by Svante Cornell, a Swedish US-based author. I checked all these references are they are ok. Primary sources of Movses Khorenatsi and Movses Kaghankatvatsi which are fortified by the secondary source discussions by Robert Hewsen and the American authors Agop Jack Hacikyan, Gabriel Basmajian, and Edward S. Franchuk in the “The Heritage of Armenian Literature” are there to show how “Armenian culture and civilization flourished in the early medieval Nagorno-Karabakh.” •	The High Middle Ages section starts with the discussion of the House of Khachen and relies on the medical author Kirakos Gandzaketsi, as primary source, and Robert Hewsen supporting him as a secondary source. An important primary source on the House of Arranshahik, predecessors of the House of Khachen, is Tovma Artsruni with his “History of the House of Artruni.” Tovma describes Nagorno Karabakh during the times of anti-Caliphate resistance and eviction of Arabs from the region. Sirarpie Der Nersessian, a well-known American historian, provides information about connections of medieval Nagorno Karabakh and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Discussions on architectural monuments and other cultural aspects relies on “The Caucasian Knot.” •	Discussions on Late Middle Ages are based on archival materials and on commentary in the two volume series “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record,” as well as on the travelogue “Life and Adventures of Emin Joseph Emin 1726-1809,” and on Persian-writing authors A.G.Bakikhanov, Adigezal Bek Qarabaghi and Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi. In my opinion it insufficiently discusses Armenian national independence and self-defense movements in Nagorno Karabakh and Synik in 1720s-1730s while mentioning Bagramian and Karabakh prince Israel Ori (whose rendering is also added). •	The section on Language is good as it relies both on primary and secondary sources and on philological studies, e.g. Bert Vaux’s “The Phonology of Armenian.” •	The Demographics and ethnic composition section is decent. The advantage of the new text is that it includes the ancient times subsection, including the exotic but informative sources such as the medieval military register of Armenia. “The Bondage And Travels Of Johann Schiltberger, A Native Of Bavaria, In Europe, Asia And Africa” was also used appropriately as a primary source. The “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record” volumes provide key data on demographic balance in the region in 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Another important document is the survey prepared by the Russian imperial authorities in 1823. In the Soviet era section there is an interesting reference to Heydar Aliyev’s direct speech on the policy of demographic makeup in NKAO.

other please chip in. Zimmarod (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with changes to the early history section. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nocturnal781. Zimmarod (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of User:Grandmaster's coordinated editing in English wiki
Of course we are here to discuss the topics in friendly and relaxed atmosphere. However, new evidence of Grandmaster's canvassing and off-wiki coordination of edits in English wiki are coming to light. It is known that Gransmaster was coordinating editing of a large group of Azerbaijani user in Russian wiki from here information on meta-wiki and here by being the head of 26 Baku Commissars. But take a look at this curious exchange -, , which are requests of off-wiki communication between Grandmaster and Mursel (who misquoted several references in this article). Mursel replying to Grandmaster, and Grandmaster confirming that he e-mailed Mursel back: "Salam kardas necesen? Senin e-mail ne dir kardas, bir suzum var sene?? Sağ ol. Bu səhifənin sağ tərəfində E-mail this user linkını basıb mənə yaza bilərsən. Grandmaster 14:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC). Bro your e-mail doest work, it says you havent confirmed it yet. If you cant get it fixed mail me at farhad87@hotmail.com. I'll mail you my question to you there. Leave a message here if you have sended the mail. Hi. I forgot to enable it, it is OK now. I've already e-mailed you. Grandmaster 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)." Now it becomes clear why User:Neftchi suddenly bothered to change his user name to User:Mursel: in such case signatures are removed in old correspondences, and it becomes unclear at first blush who communicated with whom. But every communication is stored in caches and can be invoked if necessary. That's so much for calling other accounts "suspicious." Winterbliss (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's funny. Thanks for the good laugh. For your information, emailing each other is not against the rules, that is why the wiki accounts have email feature in the first place. And it was not against the rules 6 (!) years ago, when the communication you refer to happened. Also, if you scroll further down, you can see that Armenian editors also emailed me. Does it prove anything? At least I'm not rolling new accounts time after time once the old ones got blocked for sockery, like some do. You can trace the entire history of my contributions back to 2005. Grand  master  12:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was obliged to remove User:Tuscumbia's edits since good or bad edits of BANNED users are to be canceled. Mursell's edits were removed earlier since they were not made in good faith. Please continue your discussion and do not engage in edit war. This is not the final version. Zimmarod (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not ruin an established version of the article until consensus. The recent revert has numerous problematic issues, most notably, the removal of the NKR's unrecognized status and a POV statement of "original, historical and most enduring name for Nagorno-Karabakh". Other than that, there are WP:PRIMARY issue of The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc'i, replacement of the neutral landscape with the Gandzasar Monastery picture and insertion of other POV pictures, etc. Brand meister  t   00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous version had many more problematic issues and they were discussed above. Please do not restore the edits of banned users. Come to consensus and please do not engage in an edit war. Hablabar (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What I see is that User:Brandmeister was banned from AA area for a year, and now when his ban is lifted he is piping hot with WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I don't see why Hablabar is an SPA and why that matters. "Replacement of the neutral landscape with the Gandzasar Monastery picture" - I found nothing like that in the article. There's a pic of the village of Vank it seems and the Gandzasar mon's pic was there from the start. And what is "neutral landscape" to begin with? Winterbliss (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)