User talk:Abrvagl/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi Abrvagl! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Jr8825 •  Talk  17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello!
I really need to communicate with you from e mail, could you send your gmail? 78.190.1.110 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sorry, I do not want to share my personal details on Wikipedia, especially with anonyms IP user, whom I do not know. Please use talk page or WP:EMAIL Abrvagl (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has now concluded. You are formally warned that further instances of edit warring, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me and sorry for late reply (I had an emergency surgery and was not able to reply). I respect the judgment of the administrators and will accept the warning. However, I never intended to edit a war. I just having difficult time while being ignored, like here.
 * Another example is 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling, where I made an good faith edit[], which was reverted saying that if Saadats nationality is Azerbaijani, then her response is related to official Azerbaijan. Although I proved that edit was justified and agreed helping to raise RfC for other proposals, other user did not self-revert, saying that stable version of article shall be keep until RfC. This does not make sense to me, how the valid edit linked to the RfC?
 * If there such Wikipedia policy, that article shall not be edited at all until there is RfC, then why other used added two low quality sources to the article? One of which is Russian search engine result, which refers to non-existing online publication Kdpconsulting.ru (when you click it it opens some unknown https://runews.biz/). The second one is also unknown news paper agency(or personal blog), which wrongly calls Saadat as male and focus on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, where in reality she is working for TASS and holds Russia citizenship In the same vein, Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV audience that the church bombing was justified. He compared the residents to terrorists.
 * I will also ping, gents can you please advice what is the best way to act in such situations? Thanks in advance! Abrvagl (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The best way to resolve situations like this is to request additional input but uninvolved editors, whether through an RfC, 3O, or DRN. The rule is not that thearticle shall not be edited at all until there is RfC but rather that specific changes should not be reintroduced once objected to until a consensus in favor of them has been reached, whether through RfC/DRN/3O or simple talk page discussion. Changes distinct from those that have been objected to yet are fair game for continued editing. Meanwhile, your own belief that you have conclusively proven something is not sufficient: you need to explicitly win over other editors to your suggested edits. signed,Rosguill talk 14:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You right, thinking back, now I see that if it is obvious that consensus is not reachable, then it is always better to involve other editors, rather than trying to convince editor which disagree with you. I also note that I shall be more BOLD. Thanks for advice. Abrvagl (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"MOS:INTRO"
What part of MOS:INTRO says these, , and many others shouldn't be in the lead? The whole Karabakh war started because majority Armenian population of the former NKAO wanted independence, that's a pretty substantial info to have in the lead, especially for the former NKAO villages. And for some reason, 95% of your edits reorder the Armenian majority info from the lead, you don't show the same enthusiasm for Azeri majority villages outside NKAO that have the same info in the lead. Revert yourself and gain consensus first before reordering stable and consensus versions of the articles with vague "MOS:INTRO" as reasoning. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Zani, as per MOS:INTRO the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, rather than at startling facts without describing them. The information which I relocated to the body of the articles does not belong to the lead, because it is not even mentioned in the article body and there is nothing to describe about.
 * And for some reason, 95% of your edits reorder the Armenian majority info from the lead, you don't show the same enthusiasm for Azeri majority villages outside NKAO that have the same info in the lead. - I started with Martuni Province, and planning to cover all villages. I do not distinct whether it Azerbaijani or Armenian majority village., . Abrvagl (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:INTRO isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and the current consensus regarding Artsakh villages is to have the info in the lead. My rationale makes perfect sense for these being examples where we can WP:IGNORE the guideline of MOS:INTRO because; This is substantial information that should be in the lead as it directly relates to the Karabakh war which was started because the majority Armenian population wanted independence.
 * So just citing a guideline here doesn't grant you a carte blanche to relocate long time consensus info from the lead to the body. You should gain consensus first and instead of citing a single guideline which can be ignored in this context in the first place, make sure to address my valid point for keeping the stable edits. I'm going to revert to the stable edits until a consensus is reached and if you want to continue this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. current consensus regarding Artsakh villages is to have the info in the lead - this I did not know about, can you show me where this consensus reflected?
 * 2. What NKAO wanted does not matter for this case. I'm not certain why we should put inappropriate material in the lead of an article instead of moving it to the appropriate section and following the Wikipedia guidelines. How does this have anything to do with the Karabakh war? The village's history does not end with the Karabakh war, therefore population data should be included in the demographics or history sections. This is very weak justification for not following the guideline. Abrvagl (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It's been like this for all Artsakh villages that are sufficiently sourced, I presume it was before I registered here. Certainly it had long time consensus at the very least per WP:SILENCE.
 * 2) As I said, MOS:INTRO is a guideline which can be ignored, even in the page it says; "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.".
 * Artsakh/NKAO villages are good examples of these exceptions and why we should ignore the hardest definition of MOS:INTRO; The information directly relates to the start of Karabakh war as the majority population of those areas (Armenians) choose independence, which was one of the main reasons of the war. This info should stay in the lead of NKAO areas at the very least; it's contextually appropriate/notable for these villages. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your one breaking edit to List of states with limited recognition
Hello, I'm Liuxinyu970226. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to List of states with limited recognition have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your revert. My intention was to move States recognized only by other non-UN member states to separate sub-category. Apparently while moving I inadvertently deleted some information. Do you have any objections for separating States recognized only by other non-UN member states into separate subcategory? Regards Abrvagl (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC
This is your RfC: Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks. This is the text discussed from the lead: "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert."

Don't add stuff to your edit, you're supposed to remove or keep what was discussed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed what was discussed. The "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert." and "On 27 September 2020, Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against civilian areas in the bombardment of Stepanakert." (followed with material about the strikes) are exactly the same nonsense supported by the same sources and carrying the same war crime justification logic. And, in the same way does not have weight (is UNDUE) because of cherry picking of information in order to justify a war crime that resulted in injury & death of 157 civilians. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not expect me to raise different RfCs for the same material from the lead and body, but slightly differently worded because lead summarized.   A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stepanakert was not the only palace which was hit and Amnesty report clearly states Regional capital Stepanakert contains military and dual-purpose infrastructure in the midst of densely populated civilian residential buildings, civilian infrastructure and businesses. 7 The placement of such potential military targets in the city placed civilians unnecessarily at risk of getting caught in attacks., which means Azerbaijan was not targeting civilians, but unfortunately civilians were affected due to military and dual-purpose infrastructure in the Stepanakert. What happened on 27th of September 2020 is that war broke out and this is properly included into the article. Cherry-picking material about what happened and wording it in the way to imply that Azerbaijan was targeting civilians and Ganja civilians were bombed in revenge is UNDUE.  A b r v a g l (PingMe) 05:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll say this once. What was discussed is the sentence from lead; "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert."
 * If you aren't capable of understanding this and remove stuff randomly within "per RfC" reasoning, then that's your issue. This statement doesn't suggest anything other than Azeri bombardment of civilian areas of Stepanakert, which is factual and vastly sourced information that literally requires no debate, see 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. I'm not going to revert you (see more as to why at the end) because you shouldn't have been removing that statement which is factual, vastly sourced and wasn't part of the RfC to begin with. Please self-revert out of courtesy.
 * I have also noticed that you did POV edits in Svante Cornell as well. If you had bothered to check the very first citation in the article before removing it entirely, you would've noticed the Dagens Nyheter (newspaper of record in Sweden) source reported: [translated from Swedish] "The president's position is by no means dictatorial." This is how the researcher Svante Cornell, head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs-funded institute ISDP, had described Azerbaijan's leader - and has been criticized for painting a beautiful picture of the dictatorship. Now DN can reveal that his institute is sponsored by an Azerbaijani lobby organization and that he sits on a council financed by the Azerbaijani regime." This is not original research like you suggested on the talk, but research of the most credible newspaper in Sweden (covered by other sources such as Blankspot) reporting the actions of the Swedish government and the corruption of a Swedish scholar.
 * I have no intention of potentially kick-starting an edit-war because of this, you didn't even wait for my reply and already reinstated your POV edit. Please consider self-reverting in both articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Abrvagl reached out to me on my talk page, as I'm the one who closed the RFC, for my input on this. I'm uninvolved and uninformed in regards to this topic area, but my outsider view is that the onus would be on you at this point to demonstrate there is consensus for inclusion of that material in the Ganja missile attacks article body. The consensus from that RFC is clear that most editors disagree with framing the incident in that way, and although it wasn't the specific text in question, they are related closely enough that it's fair to assume there is currently consensus against that as well. To be clear, this is just my view as an uninvolved editor and holds no special authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Offensive and training
The Brzezinski source says that the Grey Wolves members had been dispatched for "a new Azeri offensive" in addition to "train units". It also highlights that they are armed. It would be original research to assume they were only there for training, so it is best not to add commentary to the infobox. --Dallavid (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijanis in Armenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian Tatars. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--176.219.153.254 (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

AE referral to the Arbitration Committee
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Olympian</b> <b style="color:#a3a0a0">loquere</b> 09:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your revert
You should read some English [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/allegation#:~:text=allegation%20(rather%20formal)%20a%20public,that%20is%20wrong%20or%20illegal. Dictionary definitions] before doing unhelpful reverts like this. Allegation is synonymous claim, and we paraphrase on Wikipedia, not copy sources word for word (WP:COPYVIO). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * we paraphrase on Wikipedia, not copy sources word for word - Paraphrase does not necessitate us to alter each and every word. “Claim” and “allegation” do not have the same precise meaning. You should know that, as it was you who was arguing that these words aren't synonyms a month ago, and it was you who was concerned that the word “allegations” doesn't represent the sources.
 * Now you've changed “Azerbaijan’s claims” to “Azerbaijan’s allegations”, while source was precisely stating “Azerbaijan’s claims”. See MOS:ALLEGED to understand why using "allegations" can make it seem like Wikipedia, in its own voice, is expressing doubts when the linked source isn't. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They're synonymous words per dictionary, and you again seem to bring up a snippet from random discussion that is irrelevant here since we're completely past that point with additional sources that don't use neither alleged nor claimed.
 * What's MOS:ALLEGED has to do here when the source itself uses "claims", are you even reading the things you cite? Since the source uses claims, it's completely normal to paraphrase it with synonymous allegations as unlike the other irrelevant discussion you brought up (with 3 third party sources that use neither terms), the only source here is TASS with "claims".
 * Also it makes sense to paraphrase here with synonymous allegations since it's also a WP:FRINGE claim/allegation that isn't confirmed by any WP:RS, and even the single source talking about it says "claims" directly. If you don't comprehend this, consider reading WP:CIR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you now argue that there is no difference between "claim" and "allegation", then why are you hellbent on changing "claim" to "allegations" to the level that you undid my good faith edit with a comment like "Rv disruptive edit"?
 * Anyhow. I have no desire to engage with you further on this topic when you're calling me incompetent in the middle of a dispute. I have no more tolerance for your personal attacks. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 13:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverting a clear paraphrasing of a total fringe claim/allegation with completely appropriate for the instance synonymous word is disruptive (when even the only source present says "claims", and no WP:RS confirms the fringe claims/allegations), and then bringing up (again) a random snippet from a different article/context isn't an argument either – my exact word were: if you don't comprehend the following, consider reading CIR. I don't have desire to engage with you here any further either. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZaniGiovanni - It has come to my attention that the entire subsection about Ruben Vardanyan can potentially be regarded as "libel" and should be removed entirely on that basis. I haven't seen a good argument from @Abrvagl in response to the libel claim; his only response so far has been to launch a personal attack against me at my user talk page. So, I suppose that he has no argument? Because, if he did, he probably would have directly addressed the "libel" claim rather than resorting to a personal attack (ironically, one in which he accused me myself of launching a personal attack against Grandmaster simply because I accused Grandmaster of composing libel). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack
I don't know how you see it as appropriate to completely dismiss the fact that @Grandmaster has written an entire subsection over at the article 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh that can be described as pure libel, and yet at the same time believe that you have the right to launch personal attacks against me at my talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suppose it makes a lot of sense that you are engaging in personal attacks yourself, considering that you have no qualms about another user writing a whole subsection of personal attacks in an article. The leap in logic from one point to the other makes total sense. You do not care about libel at all, so you don't care about personal attacks either. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I never made a personal attack, but please accept my apologies if you interpreted my good faith advice as such. Have a nice day. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it a personal attack to accuse Grandmaster of writing libel? That's not even an attack but an observation. Objectively speaking, the subsection actually does/did look like libel. From a legal standpoint, that puts Wikipedia and us editors at odds with the law. Wikipedia has strict policies against libel, especially with regards to living people. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it a personal attack to accuse Grandmaster of writing libel? - since you asked: as per Wikipedia policies accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is considered to be a personal attack. However, I did not say that you are making personal attack, rather I suggested that it may be considered as a personal attack and that such kind of remarks are not appropriate for the article talk-page. I hope I've answered your question. Now, if you'll excuse me, I don't feel like continuing this conversation; have a nice day! A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 19:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you say that I didn't provide evidence when I provided plenty of evidence in my series of comments? E.g. the accusations that Ruben Vardanyan is a "Russian puppet" can be considered slanderous, especially since they are not backed up by solid evidence. Instead, the sources used as citations are actually only rumours/speculation in and of themselves. A handful of academics giving their opinion, but without necessarily having any evidence to support their opinions. And some of the academics were merely saying things like "some people think Vardanyan is a Russian puppet", and they did not actually claim that he was a puppet themself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing other editors' contributions to discussion pages
Re this: I strongly suggest you restore the text you deleted. See WP:TPO -- you have no grounds to remove the text in that edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for advice. Does not WP:NOTAFORUM / WP:TALKOFFTOPIC provide sufficient grounds to remove irrelevant wall of text ? A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 09:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened
Hello ,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Message from LikesBanana
He also mentions Vladimir Stankevich's 1921 book titled The Fate of the Peoples of Russia'' (Судьба народов России) whereby Stankevich wrote that the "angry and defeated" Russian army was "robbing and pillaging the Muslim population" and that as a result, 200 Muslim villages had been destroyed. Hasanli also wrote of a 1922 memoir by Boris Baykov who wrote that Muslim villages were exclusively targeted during these events.''

Hi, why was this reinstated? I quoted from Hasanli books previously (in the talk page), there is no indication that it concerns the Erivan Governorate and Kars Oblast or is even related to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)