User talk:Dacy69: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello Dacy69! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Let's talk you there? Ararat arev 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of references on my page and its not just that. Let's discuss this issue which I hear a lot these days. Ararat arev 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To this day the Iranians refer to us as 'Armani' of the ancient name of our tribes. Also Armens or Armen from Haik's tribe during 2500 BC. The whole confusion is this, that when the Persian empire started we and the Persians defeated the Assyrian Babylonian empire and the Persians became the power at that time. Urartu is Ararat and its the same Armenian people. The wording of Armeni started to appear more from that point on again thats why so many people dont understand this. Another thing is the root word "Ur" is "Ar" same just different ways to say it. Semitic people say "Ur" like the Hebrews they even clarify that "Ur" is "Ar" or Ara.

--Urartu and its people is not identical to Armenians at all. Armenians belong to the group of Indo-European people while Urartu is of hurrit family from Caucasian group of Languages (See: Diakonov I.M., Starostin S.A. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Languages. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, R. Kitzinger, München, 1986.) --Dacy69 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient sources have sometimes used "Armenia" and "Urartu" interchangeably to refer to the same country. For example, in the trilingual Behistun inscription, carved in 520 BC by the order of Darius the Great of Persia the country is referred to as Arminia in Old Persian, translated as Harminuia in Elamite and Urartu in Babylonian or Assyrian. You are basing on 800-600 BC Armenian kingdom? We are speaking of 2300 BC inscriptions of "Armani" from Akkadian incriptions. To this day Persians call us by "Armani" and as I said earlier the "Har"minni is the same as "Ar"minni. Haran was the capital of our Hurrian people. Hurri-Mitanni was the first kingdom later they built the stronghold in Armenia and Ararat (Urartu) started. Refer to Hebrew writings again since you didnt look at it that the city Ur is also Ara named after his name. Ar is Ur the various ways of saying from the Semitic peoples Ur we say Ar. It means the same thing light, life, sun. Ararat arev 04:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hurri-Mitanni kings names are the very words we use today in Armenian. Hurri is the very word used today in Armenian language which means fire, or light. Hurri-Mitanni's kings as I said Tusratta means "ten chariots" Tus is ten in Armenian. Ardatama "most righteous" Arda is rigteous in Armenian. These are our kingdoms and ethnic people. These are all our tribes and language changes over the course of 1000's of years and from going to different lands. The "Kh" become "H" for example. The "Har" is "Ar" which I already told you Hurrian capital was Haran. Har-minni is Arminni or Armani. Hurrian is Aryan there is not difference in this. We say "Aryan" in our language we dont use the word "Indo-European". Ararat arev 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are speaking about different things. You are speaking about how ancient sources refered to Urartu and Armenia. I am talking about ethnic composition. The way how in Armenian language you refer to Urartu, its tribes, etc. is not academic source for ethnic composition of ancient Urartu. Definitely, "Indo-European" is a term widely used in the science of linguistics. A term "Aryan" now is refered to Indo-Iranian tribes. It was also used by Nazi Germany to claim the communality and superiority of some Indo-European tribes.--Dacy69 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ar"yan is from the root word "Ar" like Ararat aka Aratta. "Ar"menia , Armani, Arev, We have 10 pages of "Ar" in our dictionary which I told you it means Light, Life or Sun. (Personal attack removed) I told you Persians even today call themselves Aryaee we are Aryans that means from the Armenian Highlands. Urartu is the Semitic word for Ararat. The language and ethnicity is Armani the 2300 BC inscription I told you about you seem to ignore yes? Persians to this day call us Armani. I shouldnt have to repeat. Ararat arev 04:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend these books and historians to read:

Vahan Kurkjian, "History of Armenia," Michigan, 1968

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/home.html

"The Hurri-Mitanni kingdom of Armenia kept close contact with its western neighbor, Hittite or Hatti land. Masses of population were often transplanted from one country to the other.

M.Chahin, "The Kingdom of Armenia," London, 2001

"The new kingdom of Urartu, which proved to be the stronghold of the Hurrian race." Ararat arev 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that its not just the language and I told you language changes over the course of 1000's of years. When the Persian empire happened a social change happened around 500 BC. We are direct descendents of our Armen, Hay tribes. You are basing your words from false teachers who recently have been erasing our history since the tragic events also happened to our people. What is your nationality and what is your passion for erasing our long history which I told you is from the land of Ararat of the time of the flood and beyond. Ararat arev 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that our heritage and culture is older than you think? Read a little about our cultural dances. File:Armenian-Dance.jpg

The Armenian dance heritage has been one of the oldest, richest and most varied in the Near East. From the fifth to the third millennia B.C., in the higher regions of Armenia there are rock paintings of scenes of country dancing. These dances were probably accompanied by certain kinds of songs or musical instruments. In the fifth century Moses of Khoren (Movsés Khorenats'i) himself had heard of how "the old descendants of Aram (that is Armenians) make mention of these things (epic tales) in the ballads for the lyre and their songs and dances.

Music & Dance, By Robert Atayan, Hye Etch

Armenian Dance

Sipan Dance Group Ararat arev 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said watch where you are going with this. I need some information about you are you having a passion for erasing our history? And what is this Dacy"69" number you have? Anything good from that? Ararat arev 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cited an academic source too. I am not ignorant. I can produce more on Urartu - some of them in Russian language, some in Hebrew. Read I. Diakonov. Urartu and surrounding peoples might had many relations - cultural and economic. It is not about their ethnic kinship. Yes, Iranian call themselfs Aryan. So what? I told that Aryan in modern academic term refered to Indo-IRANIAN tribes. You refer to 2300 BC inscription. It is inscription about Urartu and Ararat. Where is proof of ethnic composition.

I am professionally trained historian. If you call me again enemy - I will complain about vandalism.--Dacy69 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you so much references and sources and there is more. Even with those you wont understand. Aryan is how we say in Armenian as Persians do. Do you understand? We say "Aryaee" for Aryan. We dont say Indo-European. There is no word like that in Armenian. The original root word is "Ar"yaee. Read all my references I gave you. I explained that the Hurri-Mitanni language is the same language of Armenian today. The Hurri-Aryan language is Armenian and Persians / Indian Aryans were tribes that went south around that time after 1200 BC. Ararat arev 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Look then at http://countrystudies.us/armenia/23.htm I cite: "According to ancient Armenian writers, their people descend from Noah's son Japheth. A branch of the Indo-Europeans, the Armenians are linked ethnically to the Phrygians, who migrated from Thrace in southeastern Europe into Asia Minor late in the second millennium B.C., and to the residents of the kingdom of Urartu, with whom the Armenians came into contact around 800 B.C. after arriving in Asia Minor from the West." Look also on Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074433/Urartu Of course, these sources contradicts to your opinion. I am inclined to believe in Britannica and Library of Congress. I can cite more. --Dacy69 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Khoikhoi 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Ararat to be more respectful. In the meantime, try not to edit war and mind the three-revert rule, which states that no one can revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. I suggest that you make an effort to discuss changes at Talk:Armenia instead. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you keep on changing the language it has anything to do with this the Armenian alphabet was made much later. So theres no way of telling if Armenians spoke indo-European or hurrian there fore theres no reason for that. Nareklm 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Nareklm 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand your English. What is your point?--Dacy69 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault on the spelling, What im saying is it doesn't matter if Urartu spoke Hurrian or indo-European because the Armenian alphabet was created much later. Theres no way of proving anything the language is the only twist and it doesn't matter. There fore many evidence such as inscriptions shows that Urartu were indeed Armenians. Nareklm 21:17, 11 December 2006

(UTC)

Let me remain in my opinion. Please read other authors - I.Diakonov for example. The problem with some Armenians is that you are so ardent, brain washed by a sense of nationalism. What if Urartu is not your ancestors - how it impacts Armenia. For example - Russia should not be less proud if their first kings were Scandinavians. Britain was conquered by Normanns. So what? It became great empire, anyway. It does not matter at all for your ethnic pride if Urartu is not your direct ancestors. But it is big problem for the science of history - nationalists try to re-write and distort it. Habit of refereing to yourself as "the most ancient people" destroy the science. This problem exists now in Iran, Russia, Balkans, Caucasus. Everybody is competing for being the most ancient. I recommend to you to read your compatriot - Ronald Grigor Suny: for example, Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History or Populism, Nationalism, and Marxism: The Origins of Revolutionary Parties Among the Armenians of the Caucasus--Dacy69 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm not nationalist at all maybe your a nationalist turk because you keep on claiming urartu aren't Armenians there is a big chance they are there, there is alot of evidence alot of historians know this and some disagree so i don't know what your fuss is about because we already added the part that says about urartu and Armenia, There's actually more evidence proving that Armenia was indeed Urartu theres no evidence that says Armenia isn't. Nareklm 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Urartu discussion page. I have put my comments there.--Dacy69 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to take a look around here and keep editing on more pages, so long as you have the time (wikipedia can become addictive and engrossing). You seem to have a level head on your shoulders, and we often need that more than anything else.

You mentioned in another page that you've got formal history training. Mind if I ask what field? Thanatosimii 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have 5-year diploma in History. Then I have worked in the field of Ethnography and Social Antrophology. My expertise was Ethnic Genesis/Development (Eurasia, Middle East particularly). Now it is hobby. I got another two diplomas in Law, and Public Administration. I found your contribution to Wikipedia interesting. It is realy exciting project - the problem to find time to dedicate to it.--Dacy69 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's always the problem. I'd have Ancient Egypt articles looking like the best written on earth if I had the time to dedicate to it.

As for Ultranationalism, It often goes unanswered because the majority of editors don't have the historical training to know what's obviously mainstream and what's obviously a secondary theory of non-scholars or pseudoscholars. This makes things difficult because when Ultranationalists argue, they rarely argue that their position is unaccepted but right, but rather they argue that their position is mainstream, and everyone knows that it's right except the few bigoted holdouts. This would seem to be the case with Ararat Arev's obvious paranoia that everyone who disagrees with him has a Turk sitting at his ear whispering lies to him. In this particular case, I believe that the best way to proceed is to lay forth which sources are right and which are wrong. Peer reviewed Journal articles hold the most weight of all sources, I have found in my time on wikipedia and in scholarship in general. Most scholarly books have reviews published in scholarly journals, and if the review is positive, then the book is generally safe to use. The prestige of the publisher also has a tertiary role. Speier's Introduction to Hurrian obviously discounts this "Hurrian is an Indo-european language" nonsense, and I suspect that I'll find the same in Roux's Ancient Iraq and in The Cambridge Ancient History. I've been meaning to fix up hurrian pages myself, so if I can amass enough sources for my own project that incedentally also disprove this position, I should be able to present a "This is mainstream" case well enough. If you want to combat this, that'd be somthing to try for yourself if you've got access to the big works on Hurrians. Gelb has a book, I believe, that I've never been able to get ahold of, but that would do it as well.

However, the second option works too. The big troublemaker right now outrightly ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps repeating false data, pov slanted interpretations, and out of context quotes which he doesn't understand. This behavior is not permitted on wikipedia, and if he keeps it up there are avenues open for dispute resolution which will unquestionably fall on the side of those who have tried to interact with him rationally, as one can see I have done for a week or so now if you read either his or my talk page.

Dab is getting to the end of his patience, which has to be pretty big for someone who's been able to stand troublesome editors for as long as he has, and when he runs out I suspect that he'll take some action, such as RfC or Arbitration. As long as we do exemplory work, I suspect everything will turn out fine in the end. Thanatosimii 03:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dacy, I suggest you got to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and follow the instructions there. I'd rather not mediate as I'm too busy at the moment. Cheers, Khoikhoi 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Help:Starting a new page. Khoikhoi 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying there that WP:RFC and WP:AN/I have been done when they haven't? Mistake?--Eupator 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had comments of other people. Regarding administrator - I have asked his/her intervention. Actually, administrator blocked editing. We can still resort to it formally. But what is the point? Our views are completely opposite. I don't see ypour willingness to collaborate on some acceptable wording. You are against this insertion in that part of the article. I believe mediation is better. But make your choice - what you propose?--Dacy69 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the current version of the page. Full protection is by no means an endorsement of the current page's form, so don't get upset. I did not revert to your version or Grandmasterka's version only because I am not allowed to do so per Wikipedia policy. If I see obvious vandalism, I am allowed to revert to a better version before/after protecting the page. Nishkid64 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't make wild accusations for no reason. I said that it's not an endorsement by any means. Did you read my comments? I said the policy says I can't revert to a certain version requested by a user. I can only protect the page in its current form. Nishkid64 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my comments - I overlooked your previous message. I will see what can be done to resolve this dispute with the opponents. From my previous experience it was not possible to refer to mediation.--Dacy69 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Urartu. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi Dacy. You made a request for assistance in your dispute with other editors on the Urartu article. I am interested in helping to resolve the conflict. I have been editing on Wiki for a year, and I have experience of editorial conflicts. However, I should point out that this is my first case as an Advocate. If you'd prefer to work with someone more experienced, let me or the AMA know. In the meantime I will make contact with the other editors you mention, and possibly a few other editors involved in the article to get a fuller picture of the issues.

What I'd like to suggest you do while I am researching is to take a few deep breathes, have a nice cup of good strong tea, and relax. While new to the Wiki world, you have made some firm edits, supported by appropriate referencing. You are clearly someone knowledgeable in your field, and that is exactly the sort of editor we want on Wiki. People can be driven away by becoming frustrated during an edit conflict. We don't want that to happen to you.

Would you agree that you are currently involved in editing some contentious issues? Is this editing causing you some stress? Would you consider editing some less contentious articles for a while so that you can concentrate on this matter? If you prefer to continue your debate with the other editors, that is fine. However, my feeling is that it would assist you to take a little break. SilkTork 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I am looking forward to working with you. Just for information - similar problem on page Urartu we have now on page Armenia - part "Antiquity". Nationalist users like Ararat rev (who vandalized my page - see above), Eupator (who insulted me - see page Talk:Paytakaran), TigrantheGreat and Nareklm in concerted efforts, remove citations and references. Yes, I am little frustrated that now Wikipedia, which is very excellent idea in its essense, turned to be used by nationalists and no more based on academic attitude, rather than political ones. I can also be subjective, but I am ready to work on NPOV, neutral wording and make text incusive and reflecting of various versions. Unfortunately, the opponents, I mentioned, are not. I suggested them mediation - they refused. I hope to work it out finally with your help and like-minded people, who appreciate the importance and impartiality of Wikipedia.--Dacy69 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop with all the nonsense accusing people of doing things you have to discuss before you do a big change like that your trying to say urartians were never related to Armenians when we have sources to we can squeeze in both but you have to stop although and use the talk page.Nareklm 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narelklm, haven't you seen talk page in Urartu? It is not me who refused to work on common language.And please refrain from word like 'nonsense'. I know what words in vocabulary of people I mentioned, e.g. Eupator called my comments 'moronic". Once again, I warn - I will use PAIN for insults.--Dacy69 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well try rewording it maybe your saying Urartu was never related to the Armenians. Nareklm 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.... the problem is not only in the content of dispute itself. It is also about behavior of users - their insults, reluctuance to accomodate various views.--Dacy69 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad temper is always unacceptable, but it has to be admitted can occur when people have different points of view on a subject and are not always talking them through fully before editing. Did you notice when the insults started? What had you done to cause the insults? Were the insults related to the editing of the Urartu article?

Would you like us to deal with the insults first or the editing of the article? Or do you feel the two are related and should be dealt with together? Can you show me examples of the insults? SilkTork 01:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the use of the word "moronic" in a comment Eupator made to you on Talk:Paytakaran. Are there any other examples of insults made by anyone? SilkTork 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, 4 users, I mentioned are intolerant to opponent views. I had discussion with them on page Armenia, Urartu, Paytakaran and Yerevan. But it is better to focus on editing. If we reach appropriate editing they will feel anyway their wrongness in insulting opponents.--Dacy69 14:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at the PAIN page and also at the editing out of Eupator's comment "Wipe the foam for a second." I would agree that it would be more productive to concentrate on the editing. Tempers have clearly got heated over the editing itself, and people have not conducted themselves in the best possible manner at all times. I will speak to Eupator in a friendly manner, pointing out that as the senior and more experienced Wikipedia editor he should have been more careful in his choice of words to a newcomer. Would we then consider the uncivil behaviour part of the complaint to have been dealt with, and we can fully concentrate on the differences of opinion regarding the editing? SilkTork 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Let's concentrate on editing--Dacy69 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I start to believe that after editing we should focus on insults, too - and Eupator and others users behavior. He is accussing me of what exactly they are doing together. I mean his comments on your page. I will leave it for a while. Be back next week after the holiday. And on twin identity problem - I think it is easy to check my IPs - they should indicate Canadian origin, at least different from Adil or whoever.--Dacy69 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Languages" were used in certain times. It doesnt mean Mitanni was of Akkadian ethincity. Same goes with Urartu's time. Its not about the ethnicity but the language that were used at those "times"

Akkadian was used in Mitanni's time.

"This letter is written in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of Mesopotamia at the time. It is addressed to Amenhotep III from Tushratta, king of Mitanni"

So Hurrian or Hurro-Urartian was used at Urartu's time. The "ethnogenesis" of our people is the same though.

You mean you see Mitanni as Akkadian ethnicity? Hmmm. No that doesnt sound right.

Another point is, Assyrians (direct descendents of Akkadians) to this day refer Armenians by their inscription Armeni written 4,500 years ago! Ararat arev 16:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were different languages spoken at those times, and there are different languages (and even multiple languages) spoke now. For example, before ww2, French was spoken by Armenians too. Doesnt mean Armenians were French. This is the same issue, Mitanni used Akkadian at that "time", doesnt mean Mitanni was Akkadian ethnicity. Same goes with Urartu's time, doesnt mean the language is the reason to say "Oh look see, thats not Armenians!". The language was used at that "time" and also Armenian was spoken as well, just like the examples I gave you of today. Ararat arev 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired to say that it is not about language. I made my points. And, for Urartu dispute, please use Talk:Urartu.--Dacy69 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isnt language alone, and I told you the other reasons. Did you read your page or not? Assyrians to this day refer to Armenians by their inscriptions written 4,500 years ago, written Armeni.

We have always been in our land. The Armenian Highlands. Ararat arev 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, be proud. I support opinion of others.--Dacy69 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the quote you posted on my talk page, and I have looked at [1], but I don't see in either source any statement that says Hurrit tribes moved into Urtatu. The sources say that "the language of the Urartians .... is closely related to Hurrian" and that "reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom", but neither point directly to evidence or even theory for a Hurrit presence. Do you have any other sources that I could look at? SilkTork 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my argument is not about language Hurrit, Armenians and whatever.

So, I argue that people of Urartu and Armenians are different. I.Diakonov in his study maintain that Urartu is of Hurrit language, which belongs to Caucasian group, while Armenians is of Indo-Europenean. The section of "Language dispute" in Urartu page is explicitly saying that. Eupator argue that it is enough. But the section of ethnic composition implies the bonds and continuity between Urartu and Armenia, which, I as well as a bunch of professional historians believe is not the case. Encyclopedia Britannica (and entires there written by highly regarded professionals) is saying that Armenians moved in area of then Urartu in 7-6 BC. Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074433/Urartu) "The Urartians had a number of traits in common with the Hurrians, an earlier Middle Eastern people. Both nations spoke closely related languages and must have sprung from a common ancestor nation (perhaps 3000 BC or earlier). Although the Urartians owed much of their cultural heritage to the Hurrians, they were to a much greater degree indebted to the Assyrians... The Urartians were finally overcome by invading Armenians toward the end of the 7th century BC

We should explicitly say in the section of 'Ethnic composition" about these theories. The same apply to page Armenia, section "Antiquity". It is imperative to show that to users like Eupator, Ararat rev and Co., who insuletd me and ignored my proposal for common wording. It is also important for the spirit of Wikipedia. And finally, it is about history.

And Happy New Year!--Dacy69 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! I'm looking closely at the evidence you present, and comparing it to the Debate over spoken language section in the Uratu article. It appears to me as an objective observer that the matter is covered clearly and evenly in that section. Would you agree?

The viewpoint you wish to present in the article appears to be a speculative and minority viewpoint. The evidence you are providing me indicates that the viewpoint is not widely held - though scholars are aware of it. Would you agree?

If you accept that the viewpoint is speculative (even with the support of some notable authorities), would you agree that it is appropriate that the viewpoint be shown to be speculative?

Would you agree that the article makes no attempt to suppress the viewpoint; that it has been given appropriate weight in what appears to be the place best suited to it?

I would personally agree that if the viewpoint was more widespread and accepted then there might be an argument for placing it in the Ethnic section. However, as it stands it appears to be mainly speculation - as shown by every source you have provided. The speculation springs from the evidence of the language rather than any other material, so it would appear appropriate that it is dealt with in the language section.

Finally, can you explain to me why you would want the claim to be foregrounded as fact in the Ethnic section? SilkTork 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making my points over and over again. That is OK for me. Dispute like that requires it. First Question – Why in section “Ethnic Composition”. It is written in the section that: “These similarities enabled Urartian and early Armenian kings to keep their territory intact and facilitated efforts made to expand their holdings.” From what written above in the section, it states the continuity between Urartu and Armenians. If we delete that phrase, then maybe I shouldn’t insist on my insertion. Moreover, language is not only tool which identify ethnic affiliation – I made my arguments about that already. There is material, anthropological, toponimical and other evidences. Now about your point that my argument is speculative. No, it is MAINSTREAM point. With no offence - but I would never dare to call Encyclopedia Britannica speculative. It clearly states that Armenians came in the region in 7-6 BC. If you have a library nearby, particularly university’s one, you can consult other encyclopedias or history books about Urartu – no evidence about their ethnic bonds with Armenians. Please write ‘Urartu’ or ‘History of Urartu’ in Google. Disregard pro-Armenian sites, and look if anything is written about Armenian presence in Urartu. And I don’t think renown scholars like I.Diakonov, Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett are speculative. There is some assumption about Urartu-Armenia links by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov – quite speciualtive indeed. We can accommodate both theories – I don’t mind. And we should also think of the fact that Eupator and TigranTheGreat refused mediation on that dispute. What they are afraid of? Or just arrogance? --

If you are still unpersuaded, it is fine. I am not going to and can’t, of course, impose my opinion. You may think to ask opinion of other non-armenian non-azeri users who have expertise in the ancient history of the region , for example Thanatosimii and Dbachmann. Then, if you maintain your opinion, maybe I should move to Arbitration. I will accept its decision. Speaking frankly, I don’t think those Armenian users are negotiable. --

And I have another question. There is similar argument on page Armenia (where by the way some other neutral users supported me). Should separate application be filled for that matter or it can be considered together?

In case of your disengagement from Urartu question, may I ask you to deal with personall attacks? Euapator insulted me and Grandmaster but went unpunished. Nareklm and Ararat rev are following me and deleting my contributions with references. It is not only about Armenia and Urartu page. On page ‘Yerevan’ Eupator was deleting well-known fact which I gave with reference until it was protected. They will continue to do that unless they all are disciplined. I realize that they are watching my ‘contrib’ and by replacing each other, following my every steps. It is enough to look at their comments on my page just to have impression about their argumentations.--Dacy69 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Dacy. Thanks for your response. Before we go further can I deal with two matters.

1) We had agreed to concentrate on the editing rather than the insults. Have there been new instances of insults since that agreement? If there have, show me and I'll deal with it. If not, let's concentrate on what we agreed on.

2) Good academic qualities are needed for Wikipedia - and especially here in this editorial dispute. Editors make a point, and then prove their point by supplying evidence. You are asserting your point, but you are not providing me with the evidence. Now you are asking me to find the evidence for you.

All the material you have shown me so far is speculation based on "Reasonable historical hypotheses" from linguistic sources. This speculation is already shown in the article.

You'll need to direct me to the sites you say I should search for, or copy out the text from the books you say I should hunt for. If one of my students handed in an essay with the comment "If you have a library nearby, particularly university’s one, you can consult other encyclopedias or history books", I would be rather surprised! SilkTork 11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ---[reply]

You are not expert in that region, therefore you ask me provide evidence for well-known fact, and I am trying to do that. Normans conquered/settled in England in 1066 – accepted by mainstream scholars. What evidence we need to show that they were absent there before. Almost the same you are asking me with Armenians. No reputative source mention Armenian presence in Urartu before 7-6 BC. Ask other users I mentioned. I quoted 1. Britannica 2. I.Diakonov, S.Starostin 3. Philip Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Should I do it again. Majority of scholars maintain that opinion. One of the comprehensive books about Urartu was written by B.Piotrovskiy (Boris B. Piotrovsky, The Ancient Civilization of Urartu, Cowles Book Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1969; B.B. Piotrovskii, Urartu--The Kingdom of Van and its Art, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, NY 1967) In his article published in 1971 in ‘Newsletter of USSR Academy of Sciences’ (No. 3) Piotrovsky slashed theories about Urartu-Armenian similarities. I have quote in Russian which I can translate in English. (Hypothetically, Georgians or Chechens or any other Caucasian language people would have more rights to claim their linkage with Urartu – but it is not a subject matter now). Look at: “It is generally agreed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians” and “After the disappearance of Urartu as a political entity, the Armenians dominated the ancient highlands, absorbing portions of the previous Urartian culture in the process.” [[2]] Or this from Metropolitan Museum [[3]] – nothing about Armenians. Even some Armenians, except, surely, nationalists, accept that. Look at page of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia: “In the 6th century B.C.E., Armenians settled in the kingdom of Urartu (the Assyrian name for Ararat), which was in decline” [[4]]--Dacy69 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. Thank you. That quote, "It is generally agreed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians", comes from Piotrovskii? It certainly is valuable supporting evidence.

I am not fully aware of the politics surrounding this issue - why are some of the other editors so keen on suppressing this information? SilkTork 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the quote provided by Dacy69 explains the politics behind this denial.

Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. [5]

Because of territorial disputes in the region some people try to claim that they always lived in the area. But I don’t think there’s such an ethnic group on the planet earth that always inhabited a certain area. Grandmaster 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfotunately, after the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia and other developments, history was hijacked by nationalists, and distorted and falsified - it is relevant to all post-Soviet states with no exception.--Dacy69 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, history became a political instrument in the former USSR territory and other areas of the world. Grandmaster 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am getting the picture now. This is a known dispute. So much so that it is known as the "Piotrovskii problem"? It looks to me like it would be appropriate to make mention of alternative views in both the language and the ethnic sections. Neither view need dominate, as long as the general reader was aware that there are alternative views held. Would that be agreeable? Would it now be worthwhile moving this discussion to the talk page and seeking agreement of the editors? SilkTork 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - at least, two versions should be mentioned in Ethnic section as well.--Dacy69 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more request. Is it any way to settle my identity issue finally. I've seen on page Urartu:Talk the same accusation over and over again.--Dacy69 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I've been off site a bit recently with a heavy cold. I'm now going to make a comment on the Urartu talk page. SilkTork 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Khoikhoi 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Unless you feel there is more I can do I now feel the case is closed. I will continue to monitor the article and the way other editors respond to you. In the meantime you may wish to go to Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/dacy69 and complete the form. SilkTork 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank - I really appreciate your help.--Dacy69 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Paytakaran. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Dacy, thank you for your concern. The Kirovabad Pogrom article shall remain for now. I'll think about what it's status should be. Sincerely, Clevelander 00:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll make you a deal. I'll try to get the Kirovabad Pogrom article deleted, but in exchange, I want you to do the following:

1) Stop adding the line about the expulsion of Azeris from Yerevan to the Yerevan article. I just want to see that whole revert war end. In all fairness, there's no mention of the Armenian expulsion on the Baku article.

2) Translate the following phrases from English to Azerbaijani:

"Attempted Nation-Building And Territorial Disputes"

"State borders, 2006"

"Borders of Russian provinces, 1914"

"Borders of Russian districts, 1914"

"Territory under stable control of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 1919-20"

"Territory claimed by Azerbaijan, 1919-20"

"Territory disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, 1919-20"

"Zakatala district of Georgia claimed by both Georgia and Azerbaijan"

"More accurate"

3) Translate the Anthem of Azerbaijan SSR from Azerbaijani into English

Best, Clevelander 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not relevancy, but rather just a general Armenian-Azeri compromise, between points of contention that we both want to see resolved. I also need some English-to-Azeri and Azeri-to-English translations as you can see above. -- Clevelander 01:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Yerevan was under Armenian rule for centuries. It was founded by Armenians. -- Clevelander 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I asked Nareklm to delete the Kirovabad article. As you can see above, I removed parts 2 and 3 of my proposed deal to you as they don't directly effect you anyway. All I ask now is that you just accept the remaining terms. Sound fair? -- Clevelander 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm translating a map into Azerbaijani and that's why I need these lines. The two that you didn't translate, I don't really need anyway. If you can do the anthem translation whenever you have free time, then that'd be great. -- Clevelander 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Are you referring to the map on the ADR article? I didn't make it, Andrew Andersen did. Andersen is a Canadian historian of Scandinavian descent, specialising in Caucasian studies and is he a very authoritative source. He has written a number of books, maintains the Atlas of Conflicts website, and holds a position of research fellowship with the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. I fail to see how the map is OR. -- Clevelander 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a two-man map. Andersen co-authored it with Georgian historian George Partskhaladze. And Andersen not being a contributor or patron of Wikipedia and being an outside historian would thus make him credible. It can only be considered OR if I made the map and even then if I have solid facts to back it up or if I based it off of another map, I'll be okay. -- Clevelander 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Peace Conference map is POV and does not reflect Azerbaijan's territorial disputes with Armenia, Georgia, or the Mountainous Republic of the North Caucasus. It doesn't even show Nakhichevan, Karabakh, and Zakatala as being disputed and instead shows Lori (!!!) as being disputed between Georgia and Azerbaijan and Echmiadzin (!!!) as being disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. If that isn't revisionist history, then I don't know what is. -- Clevelander 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I should probably use the Paris Peace Conference map proposed by the Democratic Republic of Armenia as well which shows Karabakh and Nakhichevan under Armenian control. Do you understand my point? -- Clevelander 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just use the maps that are historically accurate. The Andersen-Partskhaladze maps of the Democratic Republics of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are all used on their respective articles. -- Clevelander 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing regarding the Bolshevik occupation of Azerbaijan. While Bolsheviks seized Baku in April 1920, they did not have complete control of Azerbaijan or its disputed territories with Armenia. In March, the Armenians regained control of Nakhichevan and also secured Zangezur. By the end of April, Karabakh and Kazakh also fell under stable but temporary Armenian control. The Soviets didn't reach Yerevan or Armenia for that matter until November, during the Turkish-Armenian War, at which point the Democratic Republic of Armenia collapsed. -- Clevelander 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ADR map as it stands now stays. It presents an accurate, unbiased, and NPOV interpretation of history. The Peace Conference map is extremely POV and favors a strong Azerbaijani nationalistic interpretation of history. I'm surprised that someone who "hates the falsification of history" would be for adding such a map. Furthermore, as I've said before, the Armenian and Georgian articles also utilize Andersen-Partskhaladze maps. Let's just leave it. -- Clevelander 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not adding, I am just discussing. Second, I adhere to my credo - I haven't never said that the Peace Conference map is Bible's truth - it is just one version, which can be supplemented. And by the way about maps - on Armenia-related historical pages you can find a lot of quite questionable maps. We should somehow look at them - whether they are NPOV or Armenian POV. For now, I am leaving this dispute.--Dacy69 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Clevelander and Narek, I have deleted the article, along with Kirovabad Pogrom. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a warning if you didn't know

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Nagorno-Karabakh War. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Nareklm 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message is irrelavant. I did only 2 editings. I have 1 more. My editing included removal of joke which is absolutely irrelavant to this page. I warn you last time - stop spying me.--Dacy69 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off thats on my watchlist I'm not spying and this was a warning "This is just a warning if you didn't know" because you were very near and i've seen no one told you about it. Nareklm 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rules for yourself. I know them.--Dacy69 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"User space harassment Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page" my first time and you can archive this if you find it embarrassing it was a friendly notice. Nareklm 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it irrelevant and annoying. If you have some friendly attitude - which you and other you like minded people don't have - you would follow Clevelander's interaction - we have sorted out two dispute in friendly manner. don;t want continue that. bye--Dacy69 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the pogrom articles? i requested those for deletion and i was the only one who could have request proper deletion and i did i was being nice there it seems to have no impact on you but bye i guess. Nareklm 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clevalander asked me to ask a admin to delete it and i did i can just ask the admin to restore the page easily. Nareklm 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do if you want.--Dacy69 20:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have much of an onpinion about the quote, but I think it's important that you make a comment about it on the talk page. Mention why you think it should be removed, etc.

As for Eupator, I'd really rather not get involved in another wiki conflict right now. Wikipedia has about 1000 admins—hopefully you can ask another one of them for help. The 3RR warning Narek gave you is standard when people get in edit wars. I don't think he intended to harass you or anything like that. Khoikhoi 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think he might be somewhat correct in this case. "It is generally assumed" does seem to violate Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, which is a guideline for Wikipedia. The following questions can be used to determine some instances of weasel words:

• Who says that? You?
• When did they say it? Now?
• How many people think that?
• How many is some?
• What kind of people think that? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

However, I have reverted him for now. What I recommend that you do is state who specifically assumes that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians. Do the majority of Urartologists really hold this view? Khoikhoi 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I find that very hard to believe. ArmenianNY first registered on September 3 ([6]), and Nareklm first registered on September 29 ([7]). ArmenianNY, for the most part, edits pages that Narek doesn't edit. Furthermore, as the name suggests, ArmenianNY lives in New York City. Narek does not. Khoikhoi 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is only semi-protected from anons and new users. You can still edit it because your account is old enough. Khoikhoi 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article due to edit warring. Khoikhoi 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work on Albanian-Udi, I did not realize anyone else would be interested in that topic. I'm always a fan of obscure groups and obscure history. Take it easy--Kathanar 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a short comment there. Khoikhoi 08:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Urartu, he hasn't reverted you since your last revert. As for Monte Melkonian, it's not a good idea to implement your version by edit warring. Try using the talk page and get a consensus first. That's what I would do. Khoikhoi 06:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you and Nareklm for 24 hours because you need to cool down and rethink your attitude. This block is not a punishment, it's an attempt to get your attention. Allow me to offer som unsolicited advice. This is not a template pasted to your talk page, so I'd appreciate if you thought about what I have to say. Your petty bickering with Nareklm is not productive, and your are making way to many reverts. This is a problem because hostile attitudes and battleground mentalities hinder proper collaborative editing and progress. In particular, when you get into a dispute with another editor, even one you think is pushing a POV abhorrent to you, take your time in writing comments, and don't let yourself get worked up. Sometimes you will even have to deal with unreasonable people; we all have. We need to do this tactfully. Consider that perhaps the other editor perceives you in the same way. Rather than doing things like reporting them to administrators for blocks, or trying to prove their misconduct; imagine how you would feel if someone "reported" you for alleged misbehavior: you wouldn't like it. It would escalate the conflict. Instead, remain cordial and don't engage in petty behavior outside of dispute resolution (discussion/mediation). If simple discussion isn't working, or you notice that it's getting heated quickly, disengage from the conflict and seek outside opinions and mediation, and be willing to make a serious attempt at compromise. I'm concerned that your recent behavior - excessive reverts and sniping - are in the opposite of this collaborative, WP:AGF community spirit. Hopefully you'll make use of this short time off to familiarize yourself with the various dispute resolution precesses, and hopefully to draw up a mediation request to resolve the conflict amicably. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not dispute resolution. I gave you some suggestions above as to how to deal with your personal conflicts, please follow them. Dmcdevit·t 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're no getting it. Three more reverts today at Armenians without any discussion, and another two at Azerbaijan (Iran) is not acceptable. I'm afraid you'll have to learn to use dispute resolution to cooperatively edit in conflicts, rather than your confrontational style, which is counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else already warned him. Khoikhoi 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide diffs? Khoikhoi 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. Vartanm 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broke 3rr rule. On page Armenians I did different editings. It was not the same. On page Iranian Azerbaijan I proposed mediation and stoped reverting after 2 edits. Moreover, users who removed my edits and refrences on above-mentioned pages and were in fact at edit war went unpunished.

I found Dmcdevit attitude to me unfair and not impartial. I was insulted several times and no action was taken against those editors. On page Iranian Azerbaijan my opponent threatened with edit revenge. Dmcdevit did not take any action upon that but blocked me. First time he blocked me unfair - I complained to him about Fadix insult and got blocked for dispute with Nareklm (?!) who was and is removing references w/o discussions .--Dacy69 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did one edit on 17 and 19 February and 2 on 20 Feb and left my comments on edit summary. I am not sure that it might be termed as 'highly disruptive' edit warring. Ok, even if I was wrong, my opponents was only warned, not blocked. Ths is a clearly double standards. But as I undertsand in Wiki one admin covers another. It is a little hope to disrupt indeed that circle.--Dacy69 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an arbitration case regarding the current editing dispute you've been involved in. Please make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan concerning the conflict with the other parties listed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I am supposed to make comments if you blocked me?

I've unblocked you. Adil, Atabek, and Aivazovsky have been unblocked as well. Khoikhoi 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Khoikhoi 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page. If he violates 3RR, please let me know. Also, I don't think he's a sockpuppet, just a new user. When I was a new user, I was a POV-pusher as well, but the admins assumed good faith with me and taught me the rules. We should probably treat him the same way. I'm sure he didn't remove the semi-protection tag on purpose. Khoikhoi 10:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in which you have been named as a party. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. The case remains open for the submission of evidence or proposals. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you want more welcomes don't be afraid to ask B-) Artaxiad 10:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Qazakh#Compromise? Khoikhoi 22:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an AMA advocate, saw your request and I'm willing to help you. But, first, I must tell you that I have no idea on Azerbaijani history and my help would be more on no-personal attacks policy. If you feel that you need someone with that topical background, honestly tell me and I'll take a step down. Reply me either on my talk page or via email user tool, whatever you prefer. --Neigel von Teighen 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)... P.D.: And if you can, please, could you clarify me the situation a bit more? --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this and note that Vartanm has been added to the case. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on his talk page requesting him to explain his edits using edit summaries. Hope that helps. Khoikhoi 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my private discussion with User:Grandmaster. We have agreed to keep it as a redirect (on the condition that no such article is recreated) and I have withdrawn my deletion nomination. Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a proposal, please see my message to Aivazovsky: [8] Of course, I understand that it is not binding on you or anyone else, we should discuss it on talk first. Please tell us what you think. Regards, Grandmaster 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the entire workshop [9]. I hope this was an accident. Thatcher131 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe it would be better we followed process on this one. Try reading Template:Editprotected, and add the template to the talk page. Thanks, Khoikhoi 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see Talk:Khachkar destruction#This_article. - Richard Cavell 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell User:Khoikhoi about this. I think that it would be best if the article was just deleted. -- Aivazovsky 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out the Nakhichevan article for my proposed compromise version to the Julfa-khachkar paragraph under the Disputes section. I worked it out with Grandmaster on his talk page and I have presented it on the Nakhichevan discussion page for approval. I hope for the soonest possible solution that both sides can agree on. -- Aivazovsky 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case involving you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has placed you on standard revert parole for a year. This means that you may revert only once per article per week except to revert obvious vandalism. Furthermore, you must explain your reasonings for content reverts on the associated talk page.

You may review the full decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Armenian national movement it has a section about Armenian activities in Russia. You may want to develop your summary in this page. --OttomanReference 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to distract you. I'm showing a way to solve some of the issues on the par you presented. You have to understand that it is a skill to contain arguments in your sentences. You have to walk this without stepping into conflicts that you do not want to engage. The best way to do is leave those conflicts in separate articles and give a link to it. Let me show what I mean. Your first paragraf "By 1828-29 Russian fully conquered the South Caucasus as a result of its war with Iran. Russian authorities developed policy of incorporating those territories in compliance with Russian administrative division, particularly area populated by Moslems. (Firuzeh Mostahsari. On the Religious Frontier. Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus, 2006, chapter 1,2) Further Russian resettled many Armenians in the Caucasus ( I am not going to dwell in this issue which might be a cause of dispute. Armenians say that migration was insignificant. Let's even assume that) Russian favored them as a reliable element. "Armenians were granted many exemptions and privileges, and admitted into the ranks of the Russian army and public service, while commercial colonies of them were established in all the chief towns of the Empire. Peter’s successors followed a similar policy, and the immigration of Armenians continued and increased." includes arguments that has some issues. 1) "particularly area populated by Moslems." 2) "Russian favored them". The other side thinks that Armenians were not favored. You can not avoid an argument about these issues if you bring this into ARF page. However, they are really not belong to ARF page. They need their own page. If you want to tell the fact that ARF with the Armenians are coming into already (for centuries) established Muslim social structure and disturbing already established social norms. You need a page (aricle) which will tell us from Armenian-Tatars-Azeri-etc perspective. Assume that you did that (contained these issues on another page) You can say in ARF page ARF killed the governer, business man and for the reasons point to the page you explain the context of the period. I'm trying to help you. That is all.--OttomanReference 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69 says what page exactly I should create It does not matter. Choose a period, an event, or even a personality. Make sure that you are comfortable with the content. It is easy begin from beginning as it will not have a previous history to make it complicated or use a "book". The author of the book should have worked to develop the content in a meaningful way. Choose a chapter or section, and summarize it. Then fill the gaps from other sources. If they oppose your edits, they will be opposing a single event. History of ARF is complex entity. It is easy to exchange ideas if you use a single event. I'm sure with trial and error you will acquire the skills. After you developed the basic history, you will come and add your position to ARF's page with the links to supporting pages. Summary: Begin from simple events. Create a chronology to link these events.. see Chronology of the Turkish War of Independence. Good luck Thanks. OttomanReference 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently submitted a request for checkuser. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please codeletter, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. Cbrown1023 talk 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk[reply]

Please note that the reason for this notice is that you provided more than one codeletter. A CheckUser request can only contain one. Cbrown1023 talk 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hasan bey Zardabi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted Armenian-Tatar massacres. You are on revert parole per an ArbCom decision, and I would like to remind you that you should not revert any articles (even your one time per week) without discussing it on the talk page. In this case you did not take it to the talk page, but rather invited the other editor to do so. I declined a block request at WP:AN3, but I don't know how any other admin might respond. I strongly suggest you be more careful in the future. --Selket ^Talk 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm about to made the Azerbaijan article a GA in the nearest future, feel free to join at any time. --Brand спойт 11:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

.

You have violated your parole by exceeding one revert per week. You have therefore been blocked for 72h in accordance with the parole enforcement policy. Signature^brendel 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make that twenty-four. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please, input your opinion [10]. Thanks. Atabek 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]