User talk:Golden/Archive 4

Your GA nomination of History of the Jews in Hong Kong
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of the Jews in Hong Kong you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Jews in Hong Kong
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dangling modifier
You seem to miss the point of a dangling modifier (a.k.a. dangling participle), as in History of the Jews in Hong Kong. The text read: "As a major financial centre, much of Hong Kong's Jewish community is temporary in nature, largely consisting of expatriates from countries with much larger Jewish populations, such as Israel, United States, France, and other countries." The modifier, "As a major financial center", modifies the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "Hong Kong's Jewish community". However, HK's Jewish community is NOT "a major financial center"—HK itself is. So the modifier of this sentence doesn't modify the subject, which is an error. Changing the modifier so that it does modify the subject corrects the error. That's what I did. It's not about clarification; it's about grammar. I'd be happy to explain further if you like. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Piledhigheranddeeper - Thanks, it makes sense. However I'm still not too sure about starting a sentence with "As the city is a.." when the sentence before ends with "..on the city". The word "city" would be repeated too much. — Golden  call me maybe? 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * One could also revise the sentence to read "As Hong Kong is a major financial centre, much of the territory's [or another term] Jewish community is temporary in nature, largely consisting of expatriates from countries with much larger Jewish populations, such as Israel, United States, France, and other countries." There are several ways to do this, the example is only an example. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of the Jews in Hong Kong
The article History of the Jews in Hong Kong you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of the Jews in Hong Kong for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @An anonymous username, not my real name - I don't see any updates on the GA review, could this possibly be an error created as a result of the move? — Golden  call me maybe? 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy. It's there now. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jews in Hong Kong
The article Jews in Hong Kong you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jews in Hong Kong for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of They Did Not Expect Him
Hello! Your submission of They Did Not Expect Him at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bruxton (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You're back?
I thought that you were banned? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you mean my TBAN covering WP:ARBAA, then yes, it was lifted. — Golden  call me maybe? 20:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Category
Regarding this edit, I think writers may also be categorized by a non-majority language of their country (in this case the Russian Empire). Azerbaijani is anachronistic, since Azerbaijan did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Azerbaijani poets" refers to the ethnic group of Azerbaijanis, not the nationality, which existed before the country did. So, I think it's not a problem to include the category in pre-1991 Azerbaijani poet articles. — Golden  call me maybe? 18:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

AA2 advisory
- LouisAragon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of In the Ploughed Field. Spring
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article In the Ploughed Field. Spring you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Wind. Volga
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fresh Wind. Volga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Wind. Volga
The article Fresh Wind. Volga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fresh Wind. Volga for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Strength
Hey man, Being vandalised isnt cool, and Im proud of you for reporting it properly and getting the situation resolved. People can be jerks sometimes, but dont let that get to ya. :) PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Working on ADR article
Hey Golden, I saw that you rewrote the Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan article which was quite well done, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in rewriting the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and possibly the First Republic of Armenia articles as well? Cheers -𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 10:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd love that. — Golden  call me maybe? 13:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We can do it on my sandbox and discuss it on its talk page. Cheers - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of In the Ploughed Field. Spring
The article In the Ploughed Field. Spring you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:In the Ploughed Field. Spring for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not a sock account.
Hello. I do not really understand these "rv" things. And may i know why was I banned? Are you Azerbaijani btw? Blaxoul (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone implied you were a sockpuppet. believe you're referring to this edit with the edit summary "Restored revision 1088136192 by Blaxoul (talk): Rv banned sock". That was simply a restoration of your edit, not a revert of your edit. The "banned sock" part refers to the edits that came after yours, which were made by a now-banned sockpuppet account, not to you. —  Golden  call me maybe? 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh,okay.Thanks for clarification.🙂 Blaxoul (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for They Did Not Expect Him
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Fresh Wind. Volga
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Habibi (poet)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In the ploughed field. Spring
Hello! Your submission of In the ploughed field. Spring at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flag of Azerbaijan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flag of Azerbaijan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan
The article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evening Bells (painting)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Evening Bells (painting) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evening Bells (painting)
The article Evening Bells (painting) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Evening Bells (painting) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evening Bells (painting)
The article Evening Bells (painting) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Evening Bells (painting) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Evening Bells (painting)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination
I have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Golden  call me maybe? 17:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What BRD is not
Good evening, Golden. After you reverted my edit in Azerbaijan article, shall I remind you what BRD is not?


 * BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
 * BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

My edit was neither vandalism, nore against common sense or policy and was in good faith, to reflect the terminology used in Artsakh article itself, so why did you revert it (even if you disagreed with it), instead of discussing? In view of your previous history of disregarding Wikipedia policies, I will have a low threshold for reporting this, unless sensible explanation is provided and an apology is offered. See further discussion about the content itself here: Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3

Kind regards, --Armatura (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. Golden posted on my talk page requesting advice on how to handle this situation, but my only conclusion is Golden is not doing anything wrong here. Therefore, the only response I can give is one addressed to you. (1) Policies, by their very nature, are meant to be broad. To ask someone for a policy, is to request the general rule. The general rule found in WP:EDITCONSENSUS is that articles, as they exist, are reflective of consensus. You are looking to change the consensus, so the burden is on you to try and achieve that consensus. That's the essence of WP:BRD (which, for the record, isn't a policy despite being widely accepted as a practice). Also, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning behind BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. If you follow the link, it leads to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (a policy page) where you will see the actual "examples of ownership behaviour". Golden in this situation has exemplified none of them. (2) Now, as I mentioned earlier, policies represent fundamental principles and general rules. One of those that I am sure you may appreciate is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Golden is under no obligation to participate in any talk page discussion if that is desire. Golden explained objection to your edit in the edit summary of the revert. You may not agree with Golden, but if you understood the intention behind the revert then that should be good enough for you. In fact, you were able to successfully start the talk page discussion by making constructive points in response to said edit summary. If Golden wants to further respond with points of own,  probably do so there rather than here (and at  own pace; not when it's been demanded). (3) Finally, this particular point of yours bothered me. WP:DONTREVERT is not a policy; it's an advice essay. Golden obviously didn't choose to ignore the WP:DONTREVERT policy because it isn't one. under no obligation to follow that essay, and I find it particularly strange an editor of more than 15 years like yourself does not understand the particulars of WP:PGE. For the record, I really hate having to constantly weigh in on these disputes. I have no affinity towards the country of Azerbaijan. If I see Golden doing something wrong, I'm going to call on it. However, this is the third time in a row Golden has made an incredibly minor action which can be seen as slightly pro-Azeri despite being perfectly within Wikipedia's guidelines, and I again see another well established editor (such as yourself) overreact and threaten to report over it. I'm getting sick of this pattern. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Regardless, if that's the note you want to end on, then that's fine. @Golden: please let me know if you have any further difficulties with Armatura. If I see anything you've done wrong on your end, you'll hear from me as always. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't cited BRD as the reason for my revert, so I fail to see the relevance of citing it here. You changed long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without any prior discussion, and you did not expect to be reverted? Sorry, but if the roles were reversed I would rightly be asked to have discussed the changes before-hand. — Golden  call me maybe? 17:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what WP policy are you citing for 1) reverting me and 2) not discussing your revert? --Armatura (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:EDITCONSENSUS; 2) I am discussing this revert right here with you. — Golden  call me maybe? 17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Care to elaborate? Which bit of that policy you are referring to? Specifically, where in that policy it says "if someone changes a long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without prior discussion, reverting should be your primary method of operation"?
 * 2) If you reverted and opened a talk page discussion, I would've counted it as WP:BRD. However, you did not discuss and you were not using WP:BRD you said. You just undid my WP:BOLD good faith edit with a comment that consisted of two parts: A) - "it's not loaded" (while WP:JUSTLIKEIT kind of argument is not an argument and "self-proclaimed" has negative connotation) and B) "it's the most commonly used word" (wrong information about which I can assume good faith, if you care to participate in the relevant content discussion I pinged you to).
 * 3) Why did you choose to ignore the WP:DONTREVERT policy which says that For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. and that Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. Kind regards, --Armatura (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Armatura: Hey Armatura!
 * Thanks for your message, . I do recognise your experience in English and Azerbaijani Wikipedias, but before I can address any of the raised points I am sorry to say I do not think you are the fairest / most skilled mediator in this case (and other Armenia-Azerbaijan related cases). A fair / skilled mediator would be someone who 1) does not make the mediation text to sound like a having a go at the user of opposite opinion, 2) does not "get sick" and otherwise over-emotional in the conclusion of the mediatory text and even if they do - does not speak of it, 3) is not in apparent mentor - mentee kind of relationship with one of the "sides", 4) does not raise WP:ASPERSIONS by hinting at behavioural patterns without promptly supporting those claims with evidence 5) does not call the user they are trying to educate "confused", 6) does not forget to WP:AGF towards the user they are trying to "educate", and so on. I could add more if you'd like, but this is enough for me to refuse your mediation services. Thank you for your time and good-faith effort, though. There are plenty of recognised neutral mechanisms such as DRN, or requesting a third opinion, or an uninvolved admin's opinion, and I am sorry to see that all these options have been bypassed to summon a specific "mentor" "to assist". --Armatura (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not here to mediate, and I don't care about your content dispute with Golden. I am here to tell you that you are blatantly wrong about several of Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing to refuse. Either accept that you are wrong and stop feeding Golden misinformation regarding how Wikipedia works, or I report you for WP:CIR. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this conversation is falling below any acceptable standards, by any wiki or non-wiki measures. It stopped being constructive the moment it started focusing on person instead of content, and when emotions took over neutral reasoning. Have a good day. --Armatura (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are on a user talk page. That's where you focus on the people and not the content. Article talk pages are for article discussion; user talk pages are for user discussion.

Your GA nomination of The Great Wave off Kanagawa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Great Wave off Kanagawa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Great Wave off Kanagawa
The article The Great Wave off Kanagawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Great Wave off Kanagawa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for In the Ploughed Field: Spring
—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flag of Azerbaijan
The article Flag of Azerbaijan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flag of Azerbaijan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you; I appreciate it. — Golden  call me maybe? 14:12, 27 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) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to understand your rationale first
Hi Golden. I'm making a different thread (similar to above) because I find your recent revert in Zangilan quite problematic for a number of reasons.

First, you didn't reply to the solid arguments presented on talk page for 20 days. Second, the user Armatura who made that comment was blocked yesterday, after which you bothered to finally reply hours later after their block. Your reply was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments, let alone how inappropriate and problematic it is to wait for someone to get blocked then reply to them. But you didn't stop there, you reinstated your own edit less than a day later with an edit summary "per talk". "Per talk" what exactly? That you didn't have consensus? That you didn't address the arguments brought up on talk? That your comment was subpar for reinstating your edit? That the user is blocked the same day which means they can't reply to you now?

I want to hear your explanation first because I still want to assume good faith even though all of the above is very bad faith any day of the week. I already warned about your WP:TEND edit to your mentor once (like they asked), but I don't plan doing this every time you make a problematic edit in AA area. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Either way, I have no intentions of shielding Golden from accountability (nor is that even something I am capable of). If you need me to get out of the way for you to have this conversation solely with Golden, then just say as much. I just happen to be a lol &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Commenting here to say I saw this comment and will probably give a full response in the morning. In the meantime, Golden, please consider holding off from making any further edits to AA2 until I have completely reviewed this situation. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I spoke with Golden in private. I expressed pretty great frustration with recent actions and received assurances it would not be repeated. I'm responding to memorialize this conversation. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but we are past the assurances part at this point, aren't we? Golden was put under a tban probation after their sock appeal. It was lifted just a couple of months ago, yet Golden doesn't appear to show any signs of change in AA. It is not a single mistake, or even a few unrelated mistakes: I see the same tendentious pattern prior to their socking. I already highlighted one of them to you in the recent past - instead of reporting them I came straight to your talk page as their mentor, out of good faith and courtesy. I didn't yet report for the current incident either, I was willing to assume good faith even in this situation and that Golden must've had some rationale in mind for their recent behavior. I was flabbergasted - there surely should've been some self-reflection after the socking, the tban probation, the edit I notified about on your talk not so recently??? I would expect a serious reflection from someone who has double the age/experience of my account and given all the above context. Yet it's the same old story repeating itself, and the same elusive justifications for tendentious edits/behavior, what are those reassurances worth at this point? I think we reached a point where Golden has to explain themselves directly, in front of a larger community. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ZaniGiovanni: If you are suggesting you should report Golden to AE for this incident (as part of a larger pattern), then nothing I'm going to say is going to be helpful for you. I spoke to Golden privately on the matter because I was personally upset about it, but it wasn't exactly severe gravedancing here. You could argue it was a bit of gaming the system, but I am personally not convinced that was what this was. This is not something that is likely to be repeated nor is it something I think Golden willfully did.
 * The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behaviour rather than the content dispute at hand. I intended to ignore the issue until I had the patience to engage with a user like Armatura again, which is why I didn't respond to him for 20 days. But then he was banned, and since he was the only person in the discussion with whom I was conversing, I wasn't sure what else I was supposed to do. So I just reinstated my edit, explained my reasoning again on the talk page, and anyone new who disagreed could revert and restart the discussion. I can see now how that could have given the wrong impression, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better. I can apologise if that would help? — Golden  call me maybe? 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behavior rather than the content dispute at hand. - they were actually addressing your own comment (about random IP sock speculations, redundant percentage threshold, etc.) and asking valid questions about the article and about your reply? That's a normal reply to your own comment, I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. And the rest of your explanation, I'm really not convinced by it. If you were so unsure what to do, you could’ve pinged other opposing users who formed consensus and asked their opinions, you could’ve done a lot of stuff. You can’t just “reinstate” your edit when you don’t have consensus, in fact, consensus was the opposite of your edit. It’s just tiring that I even have to explain this to someone of your experience. Side note that Armatura’s block wasn't due to Zangilan lead discussion, it was another discussion on a user talk page I believe. Anyway, I'm not looking for apologies, we're past that and it wasn’t my intention in the first place. As I already said, I was looking for a solid rationale for your recent questionable behavior, as I in good faith thought that you must've had one. Unfortunately, I didn't see any. Just some elusive justifications. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Armenian names on Karabakh articles
Your removal of Armenian names from historical heritage sites on Karabakh articles,  is problematic. These names are relevant considering the significant Armenian historical presence in the region, and are useful for people doing research of the area among other things, the source present the names in Armenian script, their description in English-language literature is often limited, and often the case is that searches for the names of the places often only produce relevant results when you search for them in Armenian script rather than in Latin script (an example: ), together all of this belies your justification for removing the names that there is "no indication of any connection to AM, so the translation is irrelevant". AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. The source presents them in Armenian script because the source is entirely in Armenian script; even if it said "Azerbaijani mosque", the text would still be in Armenian script, so I don't really understand the logic of "the source present the names in Armenian script".
 * Placing an Armenian translation near monuments when the source (which, due to its partisan nature, should have been used with proper attribution) makes no mention of it having any relation to Armenia/ns gives the reader the wrong impression and would actually be more harmful than helpful to anyone doing research about the area (it's also safe to assume that anyone willing to research such an obscure topic would check the source themselves and find the AM script name there). The very example you provided demonstrates the flaws in this logic; the Azeri name for the "Karnakash" fortress, "Qalalı", yields three thousand more results than the Armenian script name.
 * So, I don't think it'd be within Wikipedia's guidelines to include such a translation unless you have an at least somewhat non-partisan source (i.e., one that wasn't produced by modern Artsakh or AZ officials) demonstrating a link between the monuments and Armenia/ns. A good compromise to such an issue would be to not use any translations for monuments that have no clear affiliation with either ethnic group. —  Golden  call me maybe? 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's far faster to find names to search for directly in the articles rather than in the source, there should be no problem including relevant Azerbaijani names too when they're available. Sources that describe the region in detail tend to be local sources, meaning Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, the main issue should be if the sources meet standard requirements of reliability, and that propagandistic nationalist sites are to be avoided . The main purpose of the articles are to inform the readers about their respective subjects, it's problematic to point to Wikipedia guidelines to justify decreasing the quality and usefulness of articles, which I would say suggests battleground thinking, which is especially problematic for such a contested topic area as WP:ARBAA2. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing a full citation for The Great Wave off Kanagawa article
With, you added , but there appears to be no full citation for "Bibliothèque nationale de France 2008".

I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed in my common.js (see the documentation page at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). This script identifies when Sfn does not point at an existing citation. With this, I am seeing a message following the sfn footnote in References, ''' Harv error: link from CITEREFBibliothèque_nationale_de_France2008 doesn't point to any citation. '''

I am hoping that you can still access the full citation for "Bibliothèque nationale de France 2008". If so, would you please add it to the Sources section? Peaceray (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out. I've added the source now. — Golden  call me maybe? 08:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Great Wave off Kanagawa
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * What does the word 'dot' mean to you? This edit is amazingly bad. Even if you are copying pre-existing text, it doesn't mean you just copy pre-existing crap text. Look at the picture again. Does Fuji look like a 'dot' to you? If the original text had said Fuji looked like Hitler's moustache would you have uncritically copied that also?


 * Oh dear, you said it was a 'dot'. Could you please go back and check that cited text and find how they described it? Even if they said it was a 'dot' you shouldn't just copy that, as obviously they were looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Even if they said a pyramid you wouldn't copy that. What word would you use? Shenme (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now changed the wording. You, however, could benefit greatly from speaking more respectfully. — Golden  call me maybe? 08:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Flag of Azerbaijan
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Great Wave
Thank you for you admirable work on the Hokusai's wave! Since the departure of Curly Turkey, there have been few editors who gave Ukiyo-e art its deserved attention. I recall reading a very interesting analysis (alas I cannot recall where) discussing the painting in terms of death, as the wave depicted will doubtlessly kill the boat's passengers, so we are witnessing their last seconds of life–that put it in a new perspective for me! I do wonder if the creation section would perhaps fit better as a subsection of the context section. Regardless, you have my gratitude for you work there.  Aza24  (talk)   04:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Glad to contribute! You're right, it makes more sense for Creation to be a subsection under Context, so I've changed it. — Golden  call me maybe? 05:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard for incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dallavid (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * I would also note that there appears to be a consensus in that discussion supporting the sanction. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)