User talk:Jr8825/Archive 3

31 March Incident
Look, as you said in my talk page "Not Constructive" Turns out, it was. Cypriot-Islamists are A type of Islamists. They proved to Destory the Ottoman Khalifa (Caliphate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.38.122 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Unfortunately I missed your original message at Talk:1909 Ottoman countercoup. In the future, I recommend pinging the user you want to contact so they don't miss your message. Regarding the edit, it's unhelpful to state that Dervish Vahdeti was an Islamist twice in the same sentence. The article already describes him as a "Cypriot Islamist" (that is, an Islamist who is from Cyprus). To me, as a native speaker of English, this seems clear. Could it be that you're misunderstanding the current text? The clarification you added, "(a type of Islamist)", is unnecessary as it's repetitious, and could also potentially be misleading by implying that there's a distinct type of Islamism from Cyprus. I'll be rewriting the two articles shortly as I plan to merge them because of their inaccurate titles, so this shouldn't be an issue going forwards. Bear in mind that if something is already made clear in the article, trying to draw special attention to it because you personally think it's a particularly important point is considered non-neutral. Hope this helps, Jr8825  •  Talk  16:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A Cypriot Islamist is not one who lives in Cyprus. It is constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.38.122 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Black Garden
Hi. I moved reviews section from he article about Thomas de Waal to the article about the book. But I see that the notability of the book is questioned. Could you please see if the article Black Garden passes the notability requirements, in particular in light of the reviews that were included? Thank you. Grand master  08:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for help with improving the article about the book. Just one question. Should the article be moved from its present title Black Garden to the full title Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War? Grand  master  15:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if reviewers refer to it simply as Black Garden then I imagine that's fine. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Grand  master  17:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thomas De Waal criticism
In this revert, you state that "WP:BLP isn't negotiable". Are you referring to this part of the page: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." If so, then if I use non-Armenian reliable sources to add criticism, will you not revert my edit? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. There are a few things to note, so I apologise for my long response. Firstly, the reason WP:BLP is so important is that negative content on biographies of living persons could have a major impact on that person's life or career and defamatory (false, negative) content could even leave Wikpiedia susceptible to WP:LIBEL. I recommend reading the whole of BLP so you get a feel for it, as inserting negative information into a biography requires particularly sensitive judgement.
 * One particular objection I had to the quotes I removed is that they contained negative loaded language and aspersions about de Waal's motives – if you look at WP:BLPSTYLE, it explicitly notes that we should avoid this "unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources" – to justify using such weighted language, it has to be demonstrably widespread among good sources.
 * The sources we use on biographies have to meet a particularly high standard because of the issues I mentioned above – sources that might be acceptable in many other articles may be challenged on a BLP article. Reliable sources don't have to be non-Armenian – I'm sure there are very good Armenian sources – but special care is needed because of the strong convictions involved in conflicts such as this, which can mean that most media sources in these countries (in fact the entire atmosphere in each country, including popular opinion and academia, as can be seen in Azerbaijan with the promotion of anti-Armenian revisionist history) is likely to be shaped by nationalistic pressure, justified (or unjustified) anger, patriotism, frustration etc. I recommend expert third-party sources from outside the conflict zone because of this. Generally, Wikipedia permits sources that are biased as long as they're reliable, but in BLP articles we have to be careful of sources that are biased against that person, as they're likely to be untruthful, inaccurate, exaggerated or otherwise unreasonable.
 * One good rule of thumb is to avoid adding criticism of a person in their biography unless the controversy itself is a significant aspect of their career/notability or this criticism is published in a number of particularly high quality sources. It's also not a good idea to be actively looking to add criticism of a person simply because you're personally critical of them – your own judgement about what's appropriate may be affected. We've had this problem a lot on articles about controversial public figures such as Donald Trump.
 * The first place to go to add criticism of Black Garden is the article on the book itself. The BLP policy doesn't apply there, and if there's a significant amount of criticism within Armenia from senior/notable individuals then it may be suitable for inclusion there. I'd be cautious about adding criticism from reviews of the book to the article on de Waal though, as 1) they're probably not directly about de Waal as a person and 2) it might be a case that someone dislikes the book so much that they're seeking to disparage him. So... the answer is yes. If you can find a number of strong, reliable sources that are critical of de Waal, you can absolutely add them once you've taken into account all of the above. I hope this helps, Jr8825  •  Talk  20:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , While it's certainly the case that criticism of the book Black Garden is more likely to be WP:DUE on the book's article rather than the author's, it is NOT the case that BLP only applies to de Waal's article. The first sentence of BLP policy states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page".
 * In this case, I would support including both Armenian and Azerbaijani POVs in the Black Garden article since they're the ones involved in the conflict so it's clearly relevant. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . I did have in mind due weight, but of course you're right that all of BLP remains relevant wherever we're discussing individuals. I was writing that in a rush and it was careless of me to say otherwise. I definitely agree that significant Armenian & Azerbaijani viewpoints on the book would be valuable in the book's article itself (at the moment, the reviews are exclusively from an international perspective). I'm just concerned about adding critical commentary to de Waal's article for the sake of achieving a kind of balance. De Waal has obviously written about a controversial area and provoked strong reactions. I'm wary about allowing an angry backlash to undermine the integrity of his biography, particularly if it's reflecting the intensity of that anger rather than its widespread nature. Jr8825  •  Talk  11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Very well put above., thank you for the additional information. It should help us all be mindful. My position the entire time has been that the sources for BLP's, and really BLP comments anywhere on Wikipedia, are weighted more heavily because of the ramifications. It is very important that we use as reliably unbiased a source as we can in regards to their independence from the subject of the article. There is no way to absolutely know the motive of the source. We are not thought police. However, it is more likely to be an independent source if there is consensus that it is reliable. That was the purpose for my comments on the talk page. I would expect Armenian sources to be less favorable of de Waal and I definitely don't blame them. Its not like I am unempathetic of anyone's plight for recognition, especially when a group of people feel they are being attacked out of existence. Likewise I expect Azerbaijan sources to be critical of the Armenian position. I would never expect to use an Azerbaijan source on a BLP of an Armenian official, even if reliable, because it would most likely be biased against that individual. Each source is biased against the other. That was the foundation of my comments. I am very thankful that the criticism section was moved to the article on the book itself and that many eyes are watching both articles now. Great edits, btw, Jr8825. -- A Rose Wolf  13:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, . One thing to note is that bias by itself doesn't make a source unreliable. It's the lack of editorial oversight/standards common in think tanks, particularly (but not only) more obscure ones, which is more relevant to their reliability. I agree with Buidhe in pointing to NPOV (particularly due weight, but many other sections as well). It's not that we need to be finding minimally biased sources (or unbiased, if you consider such a thing possible), but about reflecting the RS in a proportional way, avoiding false balance & keeping the tone neutral. BLP is in many ways a reiteration of these points. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the hardest thing to do when dealing with a biased source. How many countless reliable sources with heavy editorial oversight get it wrong occasionally? I dare say all of them. It's the human addition to an already flawed equation. :) With BLP's it is especially important to verify, verify, verify. We are talking about a living human being and in most cases this encyclopedia is the first impression searchers will get of them. I would never take the word of a single source, reliable or not, when formulating the tone of a comment, critical or supportive, within a BLP. That is why the word multiple is crucial within the understanding of the guidelines. I agree that biased sources can be used but I always scrutinize biased sources, even reliable ones, a whole lot heavier than those that would be considered unbiased. Again, we don't know the motive and we can't know the motive behind every source. We can use common sense though. -- A Rose Wolf  14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the hardest thing to do when dealing with a biased source. How many countless reliable sources with heavy editorial oversight get it wrong occasionally? I dare say all of them. It's the human addition to an already flawed equation. :) With BLP's it is especially important to verify, verify, verify. We are talking about a living human being and in most cases this encyclopedia is the first impression searchers will get of them. I would never take the word of a single source, reliable or not, when formulating the tone of a comment, critical or supportive, within a BLP. That is why the word multiple is crucial within the understanding of the guidelines. I agree that biased sources can be used but I always scrutinize biased sources, even reliable ones, a whole lot heavier than those that would be considered unbiased. Again, we don't know the motive and we can't know the motive behind every source. We can use common sense though. -- A Rose Wolf  14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that criticism from Armenian partisan sources has been added to the article about the book. While in general this is possible to do, the question here is how notable are the critics? From what I see, they are not all that well known and respected even in their own country. Please see my comments here: I understand that a source needs to be reliably published, and none of those criticisms were published in a peer reviewed or respected publication. Ararat Center is run by a very controversial person, who promotes weird conspiracy theories, and failed to defend his dissertation on history in Armenia. As for criticism of out of context quoting, de Waal in response published the entire interview with the former Armenian president to show that the quote was correct. Should this also be included, and should the claims about improper quoting be included at all? De Waal also gets criticized in Azerbaijan for being pro-Armenian, but I did not consider such criticism to be notable enough for inclusion, because an objective research that does not support one side's propaganda always gets negative reaction from nationalist authors. Grand master  09:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Not all that well known and respected even in their own country" – do you have any evidence for this? The first reviewer is a senior professor at Armenia's most prestigious university, as far as I can tell. You could mention that de Waal has responded to the allegations, if you can source it appropriately. The Carnegie link might be appropriate (off the top of my head I think it's a well-regarded think-tank) – but then again it's clearly a primary source. Your call. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All these people are hard line nationalist type. Ararat Center for Strategic Research is defunct since 2013. It was run by Armen Ayvazyan, who is known for promoting weird conspiracy theories, claiming that Western special services sponsor falsification of Armenian history and Armenian diaspora scholars are a part of this conspiracy. He was involved in big controversy in Armenia, when he was not admitted to a conference with participation of international scholars, and blamed his failure to defend his doctoral dissertation on conspiracy. More on this in Russian: But even one glance at the website of this organization shows that it cannot be considered a reliable source. It has publications like "Republic of Turkey – the First Fascist State in History" or "Denazification of Turkey and Azerbaijan as Clue", the latter by the same Karen Vrtanesyan, who criticizes de Waal's book.  Why should Wikipedia refer to sources like these?  Grand  master  17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for professor Manasyan, he promotes views like Azerbaijan not being a legitimate state, etc: It is not something a serious scholar would say.  Grand  master  17:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd like to hold our sources relating to Nagorno-Karabakh to a higher standard. The problem is that reliable, non-"hard line nationalist" sources from within Armenia and Azerbaijan are few and far between, and editors will keep on adding problematic sources because they share their views. And then Armenian editors will challenge the Azerbaijani sources and Azerbaijani editors will challenge the Armenian sources. It's all made harder by the fact that both states (and Turkey) have been pushing misleading propaganda online. I'm not knowledgable enough about Armenia to judge whether those sources (however problematic they may be, and I do believe you when you say that they're jingoistic rubbish) are well-respected within Armenia or represent a considerable viewpoint in the country, or not. You could go ahead and remove them, and I certainly wouldn't stop you, but I expect someone will contest it and argue that the university is notable/point to an equally unreliable Azeri source sitting on a different article/suggest that major viewpoints within Armenia aren't being represented. But by all means, feel free to go ahead and do so, I personally chose to not add them when I moved the content from de Waal's article to the Black Garden article as I was also unconvinced about their reliability. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer not to use Armenian and Azerbaijani sources at all, unless they reflect official positions of governments or notable individuals, or concern uncontroversial topics. Otherwise, they are just pure propaganda. I think will raise my concerns about the aforementioned sources at talk, and maybe some appropriate venue to build a community consensus. Thank you. Grand  master  08:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Senedd&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Another feedback request
Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again, I know you have been asked for feedback at other places too. However, if you have time and desire, you may wish to provide a third opinion at 2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. We have a difference of opinions with regards to how to better word the lead to comply with NPOV, and also with regards to the relevance of the statements of Azerbaijani president to the topic of the article. Thank you. Grand master  15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment and have a few on-wiki tasks I need to finish, but I did have a very quick glance over. It's appropriate to state in wikivoice that Azerbaijani soldiers crossed into Armenian territory, as that's a fact reported by multiple authoritative sources. It's also clearly appropriate to include Aliyev's quote in the background section, as he explicitly discusses a corridor through the region and other third-party sources mention it (eurasia.net, for example). I may be able to take a closer look over the next few days, but I can't make any promises. I'll follow up on the talk page of the article (or by editing the article itself) if I do get round to it. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Your efforts as a third party are always appreciated. Grand  master  22:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Donald Trump&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks for the tea,, it's much appreciated. :) My hope is that even if it doesn't work out for some editors in the short term, patient engagement might encourage them to come back further down the line when they've gained a little more wisdom (and perhaps maturity). And even if that doesn't happen, writing a friendly message doesn't cost much. Wishing you all the best, Jr8825  •  Talk  06:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A very difficult user
Hello Jr8825, hope this message finds you well. I have a question about a user you've been involved with, if you don't mind. About 20 days ago, the editor Aydin_mirza started to revert and edit-war in the Stepanakert page, tagging Soviet Armenian historian Shahen Mkrtchyan as "unreliable" and saying that he's "not a historian". If you remember, the discussion went to the Talk: Stepanakert, and everything seemed to be resolved later. Well, almost a month later, the editor is back on a different page now called Azykh, and they're removing the mention of Shahen as a historian [1 ].

I explained to them in the Talk: Azykh page very clearly that they need to prove why the person isn't a historian because he is regarded as one by virtually all Armenian sources [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] [5 ], and in the official Artsakh president's website, the president himself describing Shahen in a letter as a "prominent historian" [6 ]. And even pro Azerbaijani works describe him as a historian [7 ](page 210). He also published works in Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, produced by the Armenian National Academy of Sciences – "Mkrtchian, Sh. "Stepanakert," Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Yerevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1985".

I explained everything with sources to them, yet they're still doing the same old "unreliable" [8 ] tagging, and "not a historian" line again without listening or reading [9 ]. The editor is behaving identical to the last time, claiming that the sources I provided are "unreliable" because they're Armenian, and the Azerbaijani work is also unreliable because it's azertag.az, even tho the publisher isn't the website, and the website is just a medium with a PDF link to download [6 ].

I would really appreciate if you could give your thoughts in, as you were previously involved with an almost identical discussion. This is the first time I encounter an editor, whose sole purpose seems to be to besmirch a certain historian and minimize his credentials. Their contributions only confirm that, with virtually all of them being on one or two pages, and with very questionable behavior.

Thanks a lot, and have a great day! Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sorry but I won't be able to have a look at this for some time as I'm going to be away for a week. You might want to seek a 3rd opinion or ask another editor. Otherwise, I'll see if I can help when I'm back. Jr8825  •  Talk  06:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the reply. Have a nice day! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Laugharne&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:SOE F Section networks&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Churchill and the Bengal Famine
I think you've handled this exceptionally well by providing much needed balance. Your inputs should finish the pov-pushers on the issue. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your kind words - all it needed was some digging through the books, and I was greatly aided by the sources already listed on our pretty excellent article on the famine. It's a pity that many of Churchill's detractors and supporters are so quick to simplify the issues and present a caricature of the man. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

talk page corrections/alterations
I am no expert on Wikipedia rules, conventions and procedures, but I think you need to take a peek at WP:TALK for altering a previously posted talk page comment. Cheers, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you're completely right and I know it, it's just my ADHD/obsessive perfectionism getting the better of me. I should take more care though, thanks for the reminder! Jr8825  •  Talk  22:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Pedro Castillo
Hey! Saw that you were on this list and was wondering if you were interested in doing a peer review of Pedro Castillo. Thanks!--WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and apologies for the slow response. If you'd like to start a peer review for the article, follow the instructions here. You'll need to copy  to the article talk page. Once you've saved the talk page there'll be a link you can follow that will help you set up the peer review – it'll only take a couple of minutes. That way, it'll get automatically added to the list of articles for peer review and should hopefully attract some other editors (be a bit patient though, it sometimes takes a while). I'd be happy to have a read through the article (regardless of whether or not you set up a "proper" peer review), but I'm snowed under at the moment so I don't know when I'll get round to it.  Jr8825  •  Talk  06:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia email from user "Jr8825"
Well, as my old teacher used to say "Well done lad for spotting my deliberate mistake!". Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * nice! (Do I get a pass?) Jr8825  •  Talk  11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jan Żaryn&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Bengal famine of 1943 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. The famine had complex causes. There was a crop failure. The rice was Burma was not available on account of the Japanese occupation of Burma. The provincial government of Bengal headed by Suhrawardy was partly responsible for the large-scale hoarding by the grain merchants of Calcutta, which was a major contributor to the inflation in grain prices. The Hindu landlords of East Bengal, where the famine was the worst, refused to grant any remission to their Muslim tenant farmers. Finally, the men of Bengal, in a desperate bid to perpetuate the patriline abandoned their wives, mothers, and children and migrated to the cities. The British government was of course a major factor in making the famine worse than it was, as was the previous Viceroy, Linlithgow, but the causes were many and complex. The Statesman's pictures are considered historic. Before them, there was little awareness of the famine, even in Bengal, even in Calcutta. Wavell, the new viceroy, took the famine seriously. He went immediately to Bengal and the affected areas and instituted relief works. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * please DTR, particularly with uw-vandalism, which is completely inappropriate. I've no issue at all with your revert per BRD – I'm quite happy to start a discussion on the issue seeing as you feel strongly enough about it to revert two editors. I was actually in the process of starting a section on the talk page when I saw this message. But please don't presume I'm ignorant about the topic and need a lecture, or cast aspersions about my motivation by templating me with a warning about disruptive editing, when there's clearly a legitimate content disagreement and I gave a detailed edit summary. It's just rude. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You were edit warring loud and clear.  You don't first revert a revert and then start a discussion on the talk page, per WP:BRD.  I hope you understand how you had violated WP policy.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided a detailed, constructive explanation as to why I felt my change was justified (I almost used up the entire edit summary character limit)! I was working on the presumption that your original revert was a reaction to 's short and insufficient edit summary (your own edit summary when reverting made it clear you were responding to Chaipau's reasoning). I then took the time to show I was providing a different reason for the change. You're within your rights to cite BRD and ask for it to be taken to the talk page, but giving me a history lesson on my talk page and calling it edit warring/disruption is not WP:AGF. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Asking for an advice
Hi. How are you? How have you been?

I've been working on several articles about some Middle Eastern historical personalities, and at least one of them received GA. Though, as you know, I'm topic banned, and this topic ban also affects minor additions (you know from the past reports), which makes it a nightmare for me to basically contribute anything about the Middle East as both topics have too much influence in the region. I also want to work on some Iranian and Anatolian historical topics, but they're for sure within the topic ban. I'm certainly better at using reliable sources than I was before. For some time I've worked on "my native language wiki" and now I'm a sysop there, so, you can say that I've also somewhat improved my patience in discussions and keeping things within the boundaries of the guidelines (which I've been translating to my native language). I'm thinking to apply for the lifting of my topic ban, but I first wanted to ask you, you've been moderating most of the discussions on the topics I'm talking about and well, took a part in the discussion that led to the enforcement. So, what do you think? Should I? Do you personally think that my activity has gotten better enough for the lifting of my ban?

Also, yeah, I passed the exam. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  06:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, nice to hear from you. I'm very overworked IRL but doing well, thanks. Regarding you asking for a lifting of your topic ban, that's a decision you have to make personally, when you feel you're ready. I think you're a valuable editor but I can't vouch for you or prejudge any decision a reviewing admin might make. My advice would be that it's probably better to wait, although it's ultimately up to you. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, are you confident the explanation you've given me here for needing the ban removed (it obstructs you from writing articles on the Middle East generally because of tangential connections to AA2) really reflects how you'd end up using your restored editing rights? Do you think you might find it hard to avoid the provocation, as you might see it, of editors who hold a different viewpoint from you adding biased material you strongly disagree with into contentious AA2 articles, and be able to work patiently and productively with them? I imagine it'd be very easy to get dragged back into the edit warring/disruptive atmosphere of the core AA2 articles, which might detract from the more productive work of fleshing out articles on different topics of interest, a variety which – at least for me – is an amazing way to learn new things and hone critical thinking/writing skills. Also, there's at least one editor I can think of who's had their AA2 ban rescinded and then gone on to carry out contentious editing in the area, which always leaves the possibility open that they'll make a particularly poor judgement/serious mistake in the future and receive a more severe sanction.
 * Secondly, your own conviction that you're ready to edit topics related to AA2 isn't the only thing that matters – you'll have to be able to convince the reviewing admin that things will be different this time around. You can explain how you're currently prevented from working on certain articles and why they relate to AA2, but there are also other considerations. Your ban started in February and you mistakenly breached it twice, in March and May. This is all logged and will count against you: on first appearances, it suggests either your judgement was impacted, you lacked the competence to understand the rules, or you were willing to knowingly breach your ban. Any of these possibilities could suggest you're more likely to violate rules in the area in the future. I'd think it's worth thinking about whether there's a grain of truth in any of these. Honest reflection will count in your favour. You can alternatively argue that these were honest mistakes and the rules were unclear, but be prepared to convince the person reviewing your request of this. It's now July, and the relatively short time since your last topic ban violation could also make it look like you're "desperate" to return to the area. If you were asking for the ban to be lifted in, for example, February 2022 (after 1 year), it might reflect more positively on your request. If you honestly feel you've had enough time to reflect on things, go ahead and make that case, just bear in mind that the more detached you feel from the topic, the better your editorial judgement will be when contributing to content covered by the topic area.
 * A couple of other things to mention: I doubt your adminship over at Azeri Wiki will have any impact on the decision the reviewing admin makes, en-wiki is a separate project and the judgement of any wiki is only a reflection of that particular community – there are differences in expectations, culture, criteria and standards between different projects. Using Google Translate I had a quick look at some of the featured articles you have listed on your user page over at az-wiki, and the ones that fall within AA2 on en-wiki would, in some cases, likely fail NPOV here on en-wiki. On the other hand, the GA/GA-nominated articles you've written outside AA2 speak to your credit. Hopefully this gives you some things to think about when considering whether you should ask for the ban to be lifted. Wishing you all the best, Jr8825  •  Talk  19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very thorough comment, I really appreciate it. I will take my time, and try my best to avoid any minor violation of the sanction when working outside of the AA2. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  11:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and I think it's a wise decision on your part to wait a bit longer. By the way, if you'd like, I can try to find the time to have a look at your GA nominations and give them a proof-read. Just let me know. Cheers, Jr8825  •  Talk  13:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are fellow editors reviewing them at the moment, but if anything comes up, I'll notify you. Cheers! --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Talks about talks
In your edit note about Brexit negotiations, you wrote EU appears to have stubbornly insisted "formal" negotiations weren't open at that time: After Davis & Co turned up first time with no documents nor even the back of a fag packet to write on, could you really blame Barnier for needing to verify serious intent rather than photo opportunity? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I intended that comment in a non-judgemental manner, as in, "they stuck to their guns" on maintaining their insistence that the talks weren't negotiations. I wrote it without giving it too much consideration, thinking it helped make my justification for the edit more clear. I wouldn't use such language in the article itself. I generally tend to avoid discussing my personal political views on-wiki (I try to keep them firmly detached from my role as an editor), but in this case I can assure you I have far more sympathy for the EU negotiators than the British ones – I felt this at the time because of multiple reasons/suspicions, but now with Cummings' remarks about the agreements being non-permanent being proven (unsurprisingly) to be an accurate reflection of the British government's policy, it's looks clearer than ever, in my view, that the UK negotiated in bad faith. I hope this helps clarify that my motive was not to disparage the EU – or, within the article space, the British negotiators either. My focus is only on being a good encyclopedist. I appreciate your message, though. Jr8825  •  Talk  10:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Pedro II of Brazil&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated correction
>Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please provide proof for your allegations before making any unwarranted corrections under the "wikipedia's neutral point of view policy".

Topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddelete013 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. Regarding your edit I reverted, adding your own view that "most sources are biased" and "there is an active political campaign against higher numbers" is unhelpful and irrelevant, as our content policies instruct us to follow reliable sources. Inserting your own view into the article space goes against our policy on no original research – you should only add things to articles that have been said in reliable sources – and our policy on dealing with non-mainstream views, part of our neutral point of view policy (NPOV) which is outlined at here. You might find the essays on Wikipedia being a mainstream encyclopedia and verifiability, not truth informative. "Proof" of my allegation of a NPOV violation in this case is the sources that are included at Bombing of Dresden in World War II, several of which I've read through myself to try and gain an understanding of what the literature on this says. My understanding is that 25,000 is the upper range of more recent scholarship. I did however make a subsequent edit to the infobox to make it clear that the figures are estimated, not precise. If your concern is that reliable sources are not being accurately represented, then I suggest you raise the issue at the talk page and provide quotes from sources to illustrate your point. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello to you too. Good, I will bring up the issue in the "talk" section of the topic, although I have little faith in success, considering how liberally different opinions are being removed with the excuse of countering nebulous "neo-nazi falsifications". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddelete013 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2019 Indian general election&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your comment
I'm sure you meant well but you should really make an effort on your communication skills and not pour petrol on the fire. WCM email 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry you feel that way, and I'm also sorry the FARC ended the way it did. I intended my comments to provide a positive outline of the steps I think can be taken going forward to improve the article and regain its FA status. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping
Hi thank you for telling me about the signature. How do you ping somebody though? --Aaron106 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again . There are a number of ways to do this, you can find the full details at WP:PING. The simplest methods are typing  or  . Hope this helps,  Jr8825  •  Talk  00:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so you always have to mention the users name for it to ping them? --Aaron106 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, that's correct. Although it's unnecessary when you're talking on the user's talk page as they'll receive a notification automatically, and if you're engaged in a long conversation with another user on the same talk page it's usually safe to assume that they've added it to their watchlist, so there's no need to keep pinging them every time you reply (a good indication is to see if they're pinging you). Jr8825  •  Talk  00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And a watchlist means you get notified if somebody posts anything new on a post right :) --Aaron106 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * no, the watchlist is where you add articles you're working on/interested in so you can follow the changes that are made to them/discussions taking place on their talk page. Adding a page to your watchlist means you add the talk page as well. You don't get notifications when something changes on your watchlist, but you can check it easily and new changes are clearly marked (if you're using the desktop site, there's a link in the top right corner). You can read more at H:W. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another helpful thing to know is that you should indent your responses in discussions using ":", so that the thread is clearer for readers (especially when there are different users responding to different points). I've indented this discussion for you so you can see. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear something up
Hey :) I was calling disingenuous not you. It was civil i just think he is being disingenuous and lying in his answer, thats all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understood that, and accusing another editor of lying without evidence and making a comment about their motive ("disingenuous") could be considered a personal attack. Wikipedia only works when editors always remember to assume good faith on the part of their peers – this is a core tenet of our policies. It's important to stay cool even when others disagree with you. It's unpleasant for other editors to receive such comments and could end up with sanctions if things continued. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok im sorry :) we are still friends --Aaron106 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just a heads up, pings only work when you add your signature in the same edit. Adding a ping in a later diff to a comment you've already written won't notify the user. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * resolve failed ping to make you aware of this conversation. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tregrug Castle
Thanks for your very cunning plan! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Jr8825  •  Talk  18:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus
Hello, my point is that there was already consensus on the map that I have added. It is the stable and consensual map of the article.

There was already a consensus: Itagnol (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That diff is from three years ago, I don't know what discussion took place then, but clearly consensus has changed as it has since been removed. I haven't seen any editors agree with your proposed change on the talk page – but I have seen two editors voice their opposition to including Portuguese territories. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been no consensus in the Discussion you have read. Because you have also read that there are two who are opposed to excluding the Portuguese territories and using a non-anachronous map, myself included.
 * Since there is no consensus, the stable version and the previous consensus have to be set.
 * Do you understand now what I mean? The map I have added is the most stable and used map in the article, you can see it in the article's history. Basically because it is the consensual map.Itagnol (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are two editors who oppose including Portuguese territories, not excluding them, and no editors have expressed support for showing Portuguese territories in that conversation. I'm capable of reading. I don't know when the map you want to re-add was removed, but I looked back several months and didn't see it, so it must've been quite some time ago – indicating it's no longer the consensus version. If you feel it's helpful, you can link to previous discussions about the map to support your argument in the current discussion. I also have to ask: how are you aware of what this page's "consensus version" from 3+ years ago is, if you registered your account this month? Jr8825  •  Talk  03:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a user who says he prefers to use an anachronous map and so do I.


 * An anachronous map is literally to include the Portuguese territories from 1580-1640 because during the Iberian Union theses territories belonged to the Hispanic Monarchy (aka Spanish Empire). The current map is not anachronistic, it is the maximum extension of 1750.


 * On the other, because I have edited this article a lot as anonymous obviously. And whenever the consensus map is deleted, it is added, by me or by others. Itagnol (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * An anachronous map doesn't need to show the Portuguese Empire, you can have an anachronous map without the Portuguese territories. Other editors clearly disagree with your view that Portuguese territories should be shown as being under the Spanish Empire. Regarding editing while logged out, please be aware that it is prohibited to log out of your account in order to edit war, revert or use the session for activities disallowed under the policy on multiple accounts. Please make sure you review this, including the policy on editing while logged out. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Portuguese overseas territories became part of the Hispanic monarchy, specifically with Felipe II of Spain, Felipe III of Spain and Felipe IV of Spain. That is, those are facts supported by sources, they are even in the Body's article as well:


 * About the Iberian Union: "Philip established the Council of Portugal, on the pattern of the royal councils, the Council of Castile, Council of Aragon, and Council of the Indies, that oversaw particular jurisdictions, but all under the same monarch"


 * In the description of my image it is clarified that they are anachronous territories of the Spanish monarchy or Empire. So... It's impossible to be anachronous and not include the Portuguese territories. Itagnol (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's quite possible to have an anachronous map which shows all the territories controlled by the Kingdom of Spain at different times while excluding the lands controlled by its personal union partner, the Kingdom of Portugal. This article is about the Spanish Empire after all, not the Iberian Union (nor necessarily the Spanish Crown). You might think it's historically appropriate to include Portugal, but that doesn't mean other editors will agree with you – so we need to wait for the discussion to take place on the talk page before replacing the map that has been there for at least the last few months. Jr8825  •  Talk  04:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * But Portugal was not a partner... Take a good look at the article on the Iberian Union and the body of the Spanish Empire.


 * Literally Portugal and its territories belonged to the Hispanic Monarchy. The name of Spanish Empire is a modern name to understand it better, its true and historical name is Monarquía Hispánica. (Hispanic Monarchy), that is, the collect of territories of Spanish kings. It is in the Lead. Itagnol (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia lead is not a reliable source to demonstrate your claim. Particularly that lead, which needs a thorough review/rewrite because of the stream of edit warring/disruption. Jr8825  •  Talk  04:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Really??? There are 3 sources in the Lead that state that this was historically called as such. I don't understand why so much skepticism if there is content and sources in the article itself. Itagnol (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There are even 18th century history books that call the Spanish Empire "Monarquía de España" (Monarchy of Spain), because thats the true and historical name. Itagnol (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The counter argument is that the subject of the article, the Spanish Empire (i.e. the territories controlled by the predecessor state of modern Spain), is not the same as the Spanish Crown. For example, you won't see Scottish colonies shown on the anachronous map of the British Empire, even though the Kingdom of Scotland was in a personal union with the Kingdom of England at the time its colonies existed. However, I'm not an expert on the Spanish Empire by any means, so I suggest you continue to discuss with editors on the talk page, particularly those who you've seen disagree with you, as they're more likely to be familiar with the topic. Explain fully why you disagree with them, with sources (ideally recent academic ones which make the same points you're making, to avoid the risk of WP:OR when dealing with primary sources) to support your argument. I'm heading off now, but I may chip in to contribute to that conversation if I have time to read about it over the next few days. Thanks for your messages, Jr8825  •  Talk  04:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on your country either but I think the comparison with the UK is out of place in my opinion. The Crown of Spain (Formed by the Council of Castilla, Aragon, Portugal, Indies and their territories) of the Iberian Union began with Felipe II and they were basically all the territories governed by the Spanish Monarchy, and that is exactly the Spanish Empire (Hispanic Monarchy), it really is the same.


 * I don't think Talk gets anywhere. Those who have opposed adding the anachronous map are coincidentally Portuguese, I know how this works, and sometimes the nationalisms are very noticeable. Would you be surprised to see some Scottish nationalist and biased editions in the British Empire article? (or related) No, right? Well, the same with the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese.


 * As a curiosity, the Portuguese Empire article (article that they review frequently) has an anachronous map, however they are clearly "opposed" to anachronous maps. So it is clear that they seek to try to reduce the extent of the Spanish Empire in the image by not making it anachronous and without territories of the Council of Portugal. Sounds ridiculous right? Well, believe me, I'm not wrong, I've seen this strange things many times hahaha


 * A cordial greeting. Itagnol (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't object to an anachronous map and I think there's already tentative support one. I'm just unsure about whether it should necessarily include Portugal. I don't know the outcome of previous discussions, you might want to link them on the talk page so other editors can find them easily. There are 461 editors watching that page, I'm confident not all of them are Portuguese. Also, a Portuguese editor won't necessarily be editing in a biased manner. If there's still no new input after a while you could try an RfC. Anyway, I'm off – good night! Jr8825  •  Talk  05:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a good look at the article Spanish Empire
You have posted the wrong image.

I had recovered your version, your version had been taken from you by the anonymous user. And by reverting my edit you have posted the wrong version of the anonymous user.

Take a good look at the edits. I had tried not to do Edit War and keep your version. Itagnol (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit war?
I am just wondering, how can I start an edit war by alone? You retook my edits, I put the reference, you retook again. So, who started the edit war? You are the winner because you have the power. This is the way how this website works. You admins don't care to allow correct and reliable information for the internet users. You are not interested in facts, you just take sides in favor of the powerful political communions and these powerful communions are actual vandals not us, not the ordinary internet users. --188.119.39.228 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You were repeatedly removing well-sourced content in a disruptive manner and two different editors disagreed with your removal. By reverting back to your revision three times, you were edit warring – you were edit warring from the first time you reverted the other user. The edit warring policy applies to us as well, we wouldn't have kept reverting you if you had violated the 3 revert rule, as it applies to all editors (except in special circumstances). In this case, I would have sought administrator intervention in order to maintain the stable version of the page. Reliable sources say that the CUP carried out genocidal policies. If you want to remove that statement, start a discussion on the talk page linking reliable sources which support your view. Also, I'm not an admin. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Shusha
Hi. Could you please have a look at Shusha? I see a lot of POV editing going on. Azerbaijan is removed from the lead, even though Shusha is de-facto and de-jure under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Minority view that Shusha existed before 1752 is presented as a fact. Please see this Rv: The claim is made that There are differing accounts as to exactly when the Armenian settlement evolved into a town, and reference is made to a source that confirms foundation in 1752. I would appreciate if you could mediate to solve the issues. Grand master  20:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message, I left a preliminary response in that thread. I think I needed to verify the citation I discussed before I can take a firmer stance on this. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. I think stable version should be restored before we can decide on anything else. Presently, it is not even clear in which country Shusha is located. Grand  master  08:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Azykh Cave
Hello. I'd like to involve to avoid edit war. I edited the information "Located in Azerbaijan, It lies near the formerly Armenian-majority village of Azykh,[2] in the Nagorno-Karabakh region." to "It lies near the formerly Armenian-majority village of Azykh,[2] in the Khojavend District of Azerbaijan.". It'd be better if you see Talk Page and History as soon as possible. --Aydin mirza (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've edited the page to try and create a compromise, and will try to keep an eye on the talk page to see if there are any objections. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * that's why I'm applying to you. I wouldn't like to desturb you for these simple editions, but some Users don't leave me another choice. I approciate your assistance to avoid edit wars. --Aydin mirza (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you asking me for my opinion – don't worry about it "disturbing" me, it's fine! One thing you might find helpful is WP:THIRD. This is a Wikipedia process designed exactly for this situation – for asking an uninvolved, neutral editor to resolve a disagreement between editors. You might want to try it if you find yourself in a similar situation again in the future. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello.

Just quickly popping in to say thank you for the great work you are currently doing in the Shusha article to improve objectivity and factual accuracy. Well done :) - WimpyDood (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Uighur page
Just to say you're right to protest the naming of this page as 'genocide', as if it was some kind of objective and unanimously agreed term. WP is really hypocritical in such things. I'm just battling to get the page "Brenda Almond (Philosopher)" off the block, and it's all so rooted in dominant editors' imposing their judgements rather than collective discussion. Sad! 2A01:CB05:3EC:3E00:E0C5:415D:1E40:898A (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Shusha massacre
Hi. I don't know if you have time and interest in this topic, but this article is also connected to Shusha. We have a dispute with the same group of editors with regard to the lead. They object to mention of Armenian revolt in the lead, even though it is described in the article in much detail. A lead must be an accurate summary of the main points of the article's text. In addition, I find the source claiming a death toll of 20,000 to be highly questionable, and as you could see from the history of the article, I'm not the only one. I tried to initiate a discussion at talk, but no one contributed to it so far. Maybe you could provide a third opinion? Grand master  16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again . I'll try to have a closer look at the lead, but it'll probably be late this week/next week. I'm trying to focus more on content creation at the moment, and I'm busy IRL. Regarding the 20,000 figure, I also find it unlikely (other sources put the entire Armenian population around that figure, and it's completely inconsistent with Hovannisian, who seems to be considered an authority on the period). I suspect it's likely a typo/misunderstanding, but the source itself looks to have an academic background and isn't obviously unreliable. Because of this, I think it's best to ask for input at a noticeboard/relevant venue first if you're considering removing it. Jr8825  •  Talk  02:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, whenever you have time. Regarding the source, I see that all the contributors to that source have degrees in law, but none of them has a qualification as a historian. It is not clear what sources or archives they used, and as you noted, a professional historian like Hovannisian provides a totally different number. I may have to take to the community review, indeed. Thanks. Grand  master  09:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again
For your help with that little incident last night, and for issuing the warning. I'll do nothing further and move on. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * no probs. Thanks for the message. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Shusha. Request
Hello, Jr8825. I shoukd apply to you again. We ave consensus to discuss before any undo and even editions. Every my or Grandmaster step is reverted without any discussion. It's very simple issues, but we can't move. I don't like to claim(like some Users make), just request to involve and solve it. 1.1. Section Destruction of cultural heritage on Talk Page. I think that 5 sources are all Armenians. One of them is article from Russian site, but it's based on Armenians report only. It should be noted as "Armenian report", or at least "mostly Armenian reports". 1.2. Grandmaster added the information with the sources. it's reverted without discussion, basing on "unrelieble sources". 2. In Section Alliance. Panakh khan was suzeren and Karabagh Melikdoms were subordinated. is it right to note "alliance" between them? All sources say about supporting of Melik Shakhnazar. Information in this way confuse the readers. It was two independent parties. One was suzyren and another subordinated side. Please, see Talk Page and advice. Why can someone revert without any discussion, while others are always under pressing? I'm sure, if I revert now the last undo, I'll get warnings, claims etc, despite another Users do the same without any problem. Waiting for your advice. --Aydin mirza (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Jr8825 I know your heart is in the right place, but isn't this the definition of asking someone to join a discussion even when all the points they raised were already addressed in talk? This is just either complete incompetence to read talk pages or just blatant lies in an attempt to ask you to join/help them in a discussion, with a very heavy POV tone, breaching WP:CANVASSING. I noticed you asked the user to use WP:THIRD above, can you remind them of that? And please tell them to not spread misinformation about their fellow editors and check talk pages before “requesting” opinions. Moreover, in this instance, they can't “request” your or any third opinion as more than two editors are already involved in those discussions. Note that the user was previously notified of WP:CANVASSING. Note that the recent added edit wasn't in your version and had no consensus. Moreover, it used dubious sources, which again I cover in more detail in the talk. Hence, it was reverted per WP:BRD, WP:ONUS. Judging by their misleading (putting it mildly) essay and partisan comments like this, the user probably won't listen to me. Maybe you could explain to them what I'm trying to say if we don't want to end up with another ANI thread. I'm not going to tolerate this kind of besmirching and baseless accusations again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More:
 * I think that 5 sources are all Armenians. – I think this is about the last sentence of the lead in Shushi, which btw was the agreed version of your proposal. There are 6, , , , , not 5, and no they aren't all Armenian see last source. And 5th article mostly (only?) uses material and vidoes... directly from Azeri soldiers. Not sure why ( but secretly we all know ) why Aydin is doing the ethnic source classification in instances where clearly it's not needed, especially when Azeri soldiers self-documented their vandalism and crimes of destroying Armenian cultural heritage.
 * In Section Alliance. Panakh khan was suzeren and Karabagh Melikdoms were subordinated. is it right to note "alliance" between them? This was answered multiple times, , not sure why they're (again) repeating answered talk questions here with a POV tone. In short, (and I'm gonna write this in BOLD just so we don't do repetitions again), two or more groups need not be equal in order to be allied.
 * I think this is all. Have a good one, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Aydin mirza, if you're looking to formally "appeal" or "apply" to a neutral, third-party voice, please use WP:THIRD, which is the proper process for this. If you want to ask for my help more informally, that's fine, but you should make sure you read the canvassing guideline carefully. Your message should be limited, nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view – don't include a detailed description of your opinion, keep that to the talk page itself. If you haven't seen it already, I recommend you also read the recent administators' noticeboard incident regarding possible canvassing by Grandmaster, as it's relevant. The most important thing to note is that while you're welcome to ask for the help of a non-involved, reasonably non-partisan editor, you have to do so neutrally (your message here isn't neutral).


 * Jr8825, I've asked for your help, because you know this topic. As you say, I need help more informally. You gave us enough compromisiable version. In any case, thank you for advices, I'll consider. If you have time to join to discussion again, it'd be fine. --Aydin mirza (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ZaniGiovanni, I'm busy at the moment and haven't been following the recent discussion closely. The main comment I have right now (without going onto the page and reading all the new developments) is that my text, while it's a compromise version, and possibly better than the previous one, is not an "agreed" or "consensus" version of the lead – editors are free to challenge it. Please don't think that the last version I saved automatically has my endorsement. I left the content about cultural destruction in because I wanted to focus on making the early history section follow the sources more closely. It's just better to make one change at a time, and argue over it, than to make lots of objectionable changes at once, and have the whole thing reverted. I haven't read the latest comments, but my weak preference at the time was to remove all mention of cultural destruction (both claims about destruction during the Republic of Artsakh period, and claims post-the 2020 war) from the lead, and keep them to the article body. This is because I thought the sourcing didn't look exceptionally strong (it's OK, but I wasn't sure it really indicated its significance to the town's overall history, or properly determined whether it was systematic/on a large-scale). Perhaps more sources have been discussed since, I might get round to catching up on the discussion at a later time, perhaps this weekend. (Forgot to initially sign, re-pinging:, .)  Jr8825  •  Talk  15:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Zangezur corridor&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Advice
Hi. I would like to ask for your advice, I hope it won't get me into trouble :) I believe we need more third party opinions on Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement, because I see that we are the same bunch of people there who have difficulties to resolve our differences on our own. More input from a broader Wikipedia community would be really helpful. What in your opinion would be the best way to invite more uninvolved editors to join the discussion? Is WP:RFC an appropriate venue to take this? WP:PM did not generate any interest from outside editors. Grand  master  10:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * have you tried the talk pages of Wikiprojects Armenia and Azerbaijan? Jr8825  •  Talk  13:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those who edit articles about these 2 countries are already all involved in the discussion. I would like to get the wider Wikipedia community to help us reach a consensus on this. Grand  master  14:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps try a wider net of relevant wikiprojects, like WikiProject International relations? Jr8825  •  Talk  17:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea, I will try that. Grand  master  08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in.
Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks very much :) – my work is far from done though! I may have finally finished the merger, but I'm aware I left a handful of sfn target errors I'll need to fix shortly, and in the longer run I'd like to bring the rest of the article up to the standard of the first two sections. All the best, Jr8825  •  Talk  02:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Criticism of Sikhism&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Steele dossier&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)