User talk:ZaniGiovanni

Present page has some wrong informations such as ″The 1993 Summer Offensives of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War saw the capture of several Azerbaijani regions by Armenian military units in a series of battles from June to August 1993″ and ″By August 20, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, and Zangelan had fallen″. This offensive began in June 1993 but ended in October 1993. Also, Fuzuli and Jabrayil fell into Armenian hands in 23 August 1993. I added ″After capturing these cities, Armenians reached border of Iran and cut link between districts of Qubadli and Zangilan and unoccupied part of Azerbaijan. Qubadli fell in 31 August. [4] This offensive finalized with occupiation of Zangilan in 29 October 1993.[5]″ with reliable sources. But, you deleted wrongly with using reverting. If you looked at the administrative division map of the Republic of Azerbaijan, you would see that the districts of Fuzuli and Jabrayil are neighbors to Iran^[1]You also knew Armenians captured Lachin district in 18 May 1992 and most of Nagorno-Karabakh by July 1993 during First Nagorno-Karabakh war. So, they cut link between districts of Qubadli and Zangelan (Zangilan) and rest of Azerbaijan when Armenians captured them. Consequently, formation of Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh was completed after it. Please, you help me to add correct informations. Yours sincerely, Cemsentin1 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Cemsentin1 you didn't add reliable sources, stop repeating that. I already replied and explained to you in the article talk page, and use the article talk page from now on. I don't wish to have this conversation on my talk page. Also that map isn't a source either, and as I already said, not only you added biased non RS sources, but your unreliabe sources contradict New York Times source, Zangilan isn't even mentioned in NYT source. Again, see my comment in article's talk page and use the article talk page from now on. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What is reliable source ? Are you can explain ? Also, I gave administrative map of Azerbaijan for supporting right objection against your revertion. Wasn't it a reliable source ? Please you leave acting biased. If you looked this map, you could see districts of Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli and Zangilan. So, you understood value of reverted my sentences:″After capturing these cities, Armenians reached border of Iran and cut link between districts of Qubadli and Zangilan and unoccupied part of Azerbaijan. Qubadli fell in 31 August. [4] This offensive finalized with occupiation of Zangilan in 29 October 1993.[5]″. Yours sincerely, Cemsentin1 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cemsentin1 see what WP:RS is. Those state sponsored / WP:COI websites can't be used for facts, especially in such edits as yours. And we already have WP:RS, see the NYT source I pointed out in the talk page. Also, I asked you to post your comments in the article's talk page, how hard can it be? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, or barev! I don't know if you speak Armenian so I continue in English. In the Kingdom of Commagene article it's written: "...kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty that had ruled over Armenia..."

But if you go to the Orontid dynasty article theres multiple opinions of historians that say that they were Armenian or they were Iranian. I think it's better to remove any ethnical affiliation of the dynasty from that sentence and if the readers want to know more about it they just read the full article about them with the multiple view points. How you think about it? UserXpetVarpet (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

UserXpetVarpet Hi there. There was an extensive discussion in talk and apparently there are dozen of sources about Commagene Iranian viewpoint. You can open a new talk discussion if you want. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Victor Maghakian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Victor Maghakian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected Geographical Indications for Georgian products

Please check this and also note that Armenia lost 2011 court trail in European court over name of the pruduct against Georgia, stop vandalising wikipedia over some petty whims ზურა 6446 11:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ზურა6446 (talk • contribs)

ზურა6446 We already have multiple WP:RS for Armenian origin, and in such cases, you do need reliable secondary sources. All you recent accounts that most likely come from the same place just disrupt witout sources or with single primary source, overwriting validly sourced content. That's not how wikipedia works. The wiki article you linked as a "source" is nothing, wikipedia itself can't be used as a source. The common name is Matzoon btw, not Matsoni, WP:JDLI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni don't play so fast and loose with naming noticeboards and concepts like SPAs to new editors, it gives them too much rope than is good for any of us and prevents us from being able to teach them. It's best to not let them know the green room exists until they have plenty experience on-stage, if that metaphor makes sense. If you have issues in the topic area with dispute resolution and don't wish to take the heavy-handed approach of going to DRN or start RfCs, feel free to ping me if you feel a newbie doesn't listen or you see things getting heated. Hope the ANI thing gets resolved quickly and you get to enjoy your weekend :). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz thank you for the message, much appreciated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

.

Dear Zani, I raised DRN on the dispute that we having on the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan talk page.

When you have time, please provide your summary of the dispute on the DRN.

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

--Abrvagl (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. 13:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!

Why the removal of the reference to Boy in the Mask in ? Tim Bray (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

TimBray Hello, thanks for the message. Firstly, sources shouldn't be in the lead section. Secondly, the cited source didn't have a page number and information couldn't have been verified. I also couldn't find a copy of it online as I wanted to search manually and add the page. I added another source in its place in the body, see .

Feel free to re-add the source if you have a copy of it / can find online and if you can cite a page number, so information is verifiable. Please cite it somewhere in the body if you're going to re-add it as I plan to nominate the article for GA, and GA level articles should avoid having source in the lead section. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for interrupting the discussion, but Lawrence of Arabia's War: The Arabs, the British and the Remaking of the Middle East in WWI, Neil Faulkner, Yale University Press, page 191, would be a more reliable source, IMO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Thanks for the source. I'm checking page 191 but I don't think that page has anything regarding Lawrence's family info, specifically his grandmother being a servant; "Chapman and Junner called themselves Mr and Mrs Lawrence, using the surname of Sarah's likely father; her mother had been employed as a servant for a Lawrence family when she became pregnant with Sarah." This was the part which source had no page number that I replaced and put in the body .

Maybe something's wrong with my Google books preview. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I was searching for his mother, not his grandmother being a servant. My bad. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for stopping by. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have it on Kindle and it's a quality source but this particular Kindle edition omits page numbers, sigh. Point taken about the lead section. I shall seek a copy with a page number. Tim Bray (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ZaniGiovanni. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Re: Wikipedia email from user "ZaniGiovanni".
Message added 01:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article T. E. Lawrence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The article T. E. Lawrence you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:T. E. Lawrence for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The article T. E. Lawrence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:T. E. Lawrence for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Just another word of thanks for the GA work! I'm not a heavyweight contributor by any means, but I've put huge amounts of time into that article over the years; it was educational and pleasing to watch the GA process.Tim Bray (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@TimBray: Thank you for the kind words and thanks for improving the article over the years. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for your revert? Synotia (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the ru-wiki expand section which I accidentally removed in the process. The text about hy-wiki is irrelevant because hy-wiki isn't linked. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was worth mentioning just in case Synotia (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It was bound to happen, thanks for reverting my reversion. I might take a good look through WP:ONUS sometime. SniperReverter (Talk to me and what I've done) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

SniperReverter No worries. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear ZaniGiovanni,

I have seen your entry on ST47's talk page regarding the sockpuppetry case and would like to say that if indeed I am mistaken, I'm sorry for believing in perhaps a misrepresentation of circumstances in the investigation. I initially saw the argument and evidence as sound and put some of the additional stuff I've noticed there. Seeing that you were quite annoyed, I would like to apologize. We had very little previous interaction to consider us having a direct grudge, and I would hate to antagonize a user that I just got to know the existence of pretty recently for completely wrong reasons. Ayıntaplı (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

On 15 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article T. E. Lawrence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that T. E. Lawrence travelled 1,000 miles (1,600 km) on foot alone during a three-month tour of crusader castles before studying the Crusades and European military architecture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/T. E. Lawrence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, T. E. Lawrence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,548 views (606.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2022 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 08:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I did say it was common practice, not necessarily a standard practice. I was following what many other pages do in this regard. Looking at the Manual of Style, further down it does say, regarding italics: "A proper name is usually not italicized", so either bolding is incorrect or italicizing is incorrect, or possibly both are. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Istanbul was conquered by Sultan Mehmet in 1453. The name of this city was used as Istanbul after 1453. In other words, at the time of the establishment of this company, this city was connected to the Ottoman Empire and its name was Istanbul. In short, the name of this city was not Constantinople in 1623. in 1623, the name of this city was Istanbul. 178.233.112.4 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It was renamed Istanbul in 1930 . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ZaniGiovanni. Thank you. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_radicalization_of_users. Read it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ixtal Happy new year, I hope 2023 will be prosperous for you. If you already didn't know, I always appreciate your feedback and I'm happy that we have editors like you on Wikipedia. I'll read the essay, appreciate it. I haven't talked to you in a while, hope you're doing well. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni, hope you are doing well. You've asked me to take the low quality sources you've brought to the RSN on several occasions now. WP:BURDEN states that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Who do you think should prove that source is RS, the editor who brought it, or the editor who objected and explained why they are not RS? Thanks A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My suggested wording doesn't involve any new sources and didn't change since 2 weeks ago. Please continue on talk if you have any other objections and don't split the discussion. The new third-party source which you refer to as "low quality" was merely shown to demonstrate that the Az gov/media stated aim is even more undue and that quotes for it should stay as no third-party reaffirms it and this one directly contradicts it; also the earlier preposterous denial of blockade by Az gov/media which is something condemned by the whole world further ensures the need of quotes for its stated aim. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your reply does not answer to my question: "Who do you think should prove that source is RS, the editor who brought it, or the editor who objected and explained why they are not RS?" I deliberately asked this question on your talk-page to separate it from discussion, because this was not a first instance when you suggested me to take source, that you brought, to the RSN. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

because this was not a first instance when you suggested me to take source, that you brought, to the RSN. - No you are the one claiming the source is "low quality", that's when I asked you to take to RSN if you believe it is. You said "is just a quote attributed to the unknown web page", when in reality that part has no quotes in the article and is written by the author. As to your question you can ask it in the Help center. Don't post about this again on my talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not claiming, it is low quality, but that is not a point, and Help center is not a help here, as I was trying to understand your rationale. You still did not answer to simple question, but, whatever, looks like you are not going to answer it anyways. Good luck! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

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

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

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Olympian ^loquere 09:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've been topic-banned (just a few minutes ago) from all articles relating to "Conflict in Eastern Europe" (which, for some reason, includes Armenia & Azerbaijan... to be honest, I regard these places as being more in Western Asia). The reason for my topic-ban stems back to the articles about Russia and Ukraine, where I was previously editing before getting involved with Nagorno-Karabakh. I've been accused of casting aspersions and "bludgeoning the talk page".

It was nice meeting you. Obviously, I cannot get involved in the article or in the dispute over Ruben Vardanyan any longer. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus Sorry to hear that. Armenia is generally considered in West Asia, but maybe your topic ban was specifically for these two topic areas as in separately? I'm not aware of the details regarding your Eastern Europe topic involvement so I really can't comment on that, but if Callanecc would kindly willing to listen, I can affirm that the discussion was becoming a bit repetitive tbh. There were 4 editors (me included) opposing the recently added content per undue/libel (and to lesser extent blp) arguments, and 3 editors supporting a shortened version (which would also violate undue/libel per later comments on talk).

While it would be inappropriate for me to comment regarding Jargo's Eastern Europe topic involvement (as I'm entirely unaware of details), if Callanecc would be willing to hear, maybe they could cut Jargo some slack at least regarding the NK conflict part? It was the first time I saw Jargo in AA2 topic area (if I remember correctly), and in my honest opinion, I think a topic ban as their first sanction in AA2 is a bit harsh (if we take into account that they're an experienced user and didn't have any sanctions in the AA2 area previously). Just my 2 cents, I can be entirely off the mark and I'm willing to listen. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason that Armenia/Azerbaijan is considered part of Eastern Europe is due to the fact that both countries were formerly parts of the Soviet Union. Armenia and Azerbaijan are both effectively "in Russia's backyard", which is close enough for the purpose of the topic-ban's scope. Indeed, that would probably make Central Asia and even Afghanistan fall within the scope.

Some of my choice of words and behaviour at the talk page may have been a bit poorly thought out, but I will say that I never actually specifically attempted to get either Grandmaster or Abrvagl into trouble. My main objection was with the specific paragraph about Ruben Vardanyan (which was originally multiple paragraphs, but by that point was reduced to just one), and I was fine with continuing to collaborate with these two users. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's correct and a step in the right direction that you're willing to recognize you could've worded your comments better, I hope Callanecc would take a notice of this. From experience, I can say that it's a volatile topic area and often can be difficult to edit/engage with others, but we should strive to do better nonetheless. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think I need a break for now, so I won't be challenging the topic-ban at the present time (or for a long time, I suppose). The charges against me at Russia/Ukraine were valid, and even though I didn't necessarily act extremely egregiously at the Artsakh Blockade article, a large number of small grievances can add up over time. Effectively, my behaviour for a long time has never been "100% perfect", and people have accused me of patterns of substandard behaviour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Enjoy your break, I'm happy to see an editor who can be self-critical. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, ZaniGiovanni. Good luck with your future endeavours on Wikipedia. I'm ceasing my edits for now (relating to my topic-ban), but I will continue to stay informed about issues in Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh in my own time away from the website. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Take note also that my charges during the Russian/Ukraine arbitration discussions were relatively severe, which is why they have taken such harsh actions against me. With that being said, it could be worse; I could be banned from Wikipedia entirely. As it stands, I am only banned from one topic, and I am free to do other things on Wikipedia. In any case, I will be taking a break from this topic for the foreseeable future. I was just letting you know that I can't support you at the present time (since I have been doing so for the past few days). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also take note that my current topic-ban is directly related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the "Eastern Europe" topic-ban was simply combined with this one, more or less. The topic-ban is directly related to my activities at the Artsakh Blockade article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello ZaniGiovanni. I choose to write you directly so as not to further flood BLPN discussion with irrelevant information.

The BLP noticeboard is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. The question regarding Ruben Vardanyan on the BLP notice board is whether or not the material about him is libelous: I would like to ask the wider Wikipedia community for an advice if the above sources could be considered libelous, if they could be used in aforementioned Wikipedia articles, and in which form?. WP:UNDUE, on the other hand, is a separate matter that should be discussed in the related article's talk-page. As a such, BLPN is not responsible for determining whether or not information is WP:UNDUE for a specific article.

Please consider focusing on the BLP aspect of the discussion and refrain from bringing matters into the BLP case that are not for BLPN to tackle, because otherwise the thread will become literally unreadable, to the point where no one from outside the community will be interested in reading and assisting us to find the answer.

The best course of action, in my opinion, would be to refrain from commenting on the BLPN case at all and let the community to engage with it, since we have already expressed our opinions on the article's talk page without reaching a consensus.

Thank for attention and have a nice day! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Abrvagl, please don't comment on my talk again unless there is something important you want to say. I'd rather not spent my time replying to your repetitive comments (or anyone else's for that matter)

WP:UNDUE is/was the larger part of the arguments in the discussion and it's completely appropriate to mention this context, no matter what board it's being discussed (it was voiced by multiple editors which makes it even more significant to mention). In fact, I (and others as well) argued that it's the main issue, and an editor choosing to bring it up in blpn doesn't change this reality, you need to understand. Just because the issue was brought up in blpn (by one of the editors from the discussion) doesn't change the fact that multiple editors repeatedly expressed concerns with WP:UNDUE in the same discussion and that it's the core contention point. Moreover, the OP themselves commented in blpn: Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue. – which is a reasonable thing to ask considering the context of the discussion and its arguments, but for some reason, you aren't even mentioning this or seem to be bothered by it and instead came to my talk page with this trivial comment of yours? Anyway, I really see no point in continuing this discussion further. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Abrvagl, please don't comment on my talk again unless there is something important you want to say" - This is important, so I wrote it down.

It is actually unpleasant that you leave such a comment every-time when I attempt to contact you through here.

"Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue." - OP also not right, but it was reply after you wrote stuff Point being, among majority RS, Vardanyan is not the reason for the blockade neither he's a significant contributing factor for the occurrence of the blockade which is irrelevant to the BLP discussion.

"an editor choosing to bring it up in blpn doesn't change this reality, you need to understand." - I fully get that, and that is precisely what I am attempting to convey here; and yet you answered it yourself: "Just because the issue was brought up in blpn doesn't change the fact that multiple editors repeatedly expressed concerns with WP:UNDUE" In other words, BLPN is exclusively for BLP, not for other content dispute matters, and it will not resolve any WP:UNDUE claims; rather, it will assist us in determining if material is libel.

Good luck! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Now, if you'll excuse me, I don't feel like continuing this conversation; have a nice day!"  ??? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Abrvagl, I'm asking you for the second time but you need to stop, and please read WP:HUSH for the following reasons: when the discussion revolves almost entirely around WP:UNDUE and it's the main contention point, and that you fully get that, then why it's not appropriate to mention this main significant context in the venue the said discussion was brought up for the first time no less? Why isn't it appropriate to simply mention what multiple editors voiced their concerns over and over again (material being undue)? This is such a non-issue you keep lecturing me about and a steep hill you're willing to die on, ignoring my kind pleas not to bother me again with such no-point matter, I just don't get your behavior. Why do you assume/think I brought simple (yet very significant, almost entire discussion revolving around it) context to resolve UNDUE in blpn? Merely the fact of mentioning that something is undue and was heavily discussed as such (considering the entire discussion revolved around it) and that multiple editors voiced UNDUE concerns, is a normal thing, Abrvagl. It's called providing context especially for outside editors who are unaware of the article discussion details. I would even go so far to argue that the issue wasn't really suited for blpn as this isn't Vardanyan's article and while he's a blp, the larger issue at stake is clear as day by the discussion itself (which is that the recently added material was challenged as WP:UNDUE).

Btw, the same UNDUE was mentioned in the blpn thread you've opened recently, by a third-party editor , and by the OP themselves of yesterday's thread , yet you choose and keep borderline harassing my talk page for the same trivial nothing issue? If you don't listen to what I say and that the simple fact of mentioning and providing context of something challenged as UNDUE is completely normal (especially for the first time it leaves the article talk), at least remember the third-party that commented on your own blpn thread. I hope Callanecc would comment if they of course don't mind (as they're more or less aware of the things discussed), I feel like my talk page is being mistreated for such a trivial non-issue especially when I kindly asked Abrvagl to stop. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello ZaniGiovanni,

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

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

You might want to take a look at this article and see if you can find sources, improve wording, etc. I went through and found multiple WP:OR issues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear thanks, and hope you're doing well. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will take a look when time allows. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello ZaniGiovanni,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni,

Thank you for participating in the evidence gathering process at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence.

Unfortunately, this is the second time that a part of your additions had to be removed. This message is about Special:Diff/1138989986.

Please remember that on the Evidence page, you are talking to the Arbitration Committee. The Evidence page is not a normal discussion page with the usual interaction between users. When you refer to others' evidence in your own section, please focus on why the evidence is factually incorrect. There is no need to discredit the other participants; everyone's evidence will be considered independently of their motives, background, alleged intention, affiliations or whatever else.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree understood. For the record the meatpuppet evidence is legit and from the ru-wiki Arb page itself, there were even news articles in Armenia about that off-wiki group/mailing list. If the "ironic" part was irrelevant, I don't mind you removing it.

Also neither of these are reverts (where you requested the user to provide diffs), could you please remove that as well? These were my own edits from a year ago, and Brandmeister failed (or omitted) to mention the talk discussion where they haven't replied for a year at this point, and only returned to the article months later, to revert me the day I got topic banned... (obviously I have no means to interact with the article at that point). This edit of mine (it's a new edit with additional sources, not a "revert" like the user claimed) only comes later, the edit summary is self-explanatory and it actually follows the talk page discussion where Brandmesiter still hasn't engaged for a year.

I just want to know from somebody of your expericne if these kinds of subpar accusations (like "socking" based on one's own perceived edit-summary "suspicions" and not any WP:SPI or something closely valid), or "revert pattern" (without actually providing reverts and completely neglecting major context) are ok in AA3 and why? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

While I do see an Arbitration page there, I can only rely on the machine translation you had also linked to. Even that machine translation, though, does not seem to directly support the accusation. The translation seems to provide the following points:

• Brandmeister was party to an ArbCom case at ruwiki
• Brandmeister has provided a statement in that case
• Brandmeister has participated in a coordinated edit war at ruwiki
• Brandmeister was topic-banned at ruwiki

You wrote: "Brandmeister, who was part of a 26 member pro-Azeri off-wiki meatpuppet group". So if I understand correctly, we don't even need to discuss the reliability of the source. If I understand correctly, you have made an accusation that is not even supported by that source. Anyway, Brandmeister isn't a party to the case, and the scope of the case is an English Wikipedia topic area. Their ruwiki conduct is thus irrelevant to the case.

Regarding , I did have a look at them. I compared to , and the following does look like a revert series: – so while it could perhaps have been presented more convincingly, it does seem to back up the statement "in the article where they had reverted before". Additional context such as talk page discussions is something you are welcome to add as evidence to your section.

You quote the word "socking", but it appears only once on the evidence page and seems to be backed by (linked in a big red box from the contribution list, which is linked on the evidence page). I think you're referring to Abrvagl's and Brandmeister's linking to . Neither of them has accused you of sockpuppetry, but it seems within limits to express confusion about a new user using terms that seem to require familiarity with Wikipedia's meta areas. You did the right thing when explaining this in your section. I'm not sure which kind of clerk action you'd have expected instead; the situation seems fine as it is now.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree what value does it add to AA3 to mention one's own perceived view of an edit-summary, a summary that I could argue just as well indicates nothing? (like Abrvagl claiming I used 'WP:SPA' when I said 'one purpose account' in literal terms, or Brandmeister linking the same edit-summary and another one where I used the word "vandalism" like many newbies do – how does this even indicate anything? What else does an editor(s) mean if they bring such 'evidence' to AA3 of places other than throwing shade of sockpuppetry? In any case, I don't find such unfounded passive-aggressive remarks against others in line with AA3 evidence page where some editors got away with throwing shade without explicitly accusing me of socking, presumably because if they outright make such accusation, they can't prove it or tried already an SPI and failed. Can you see how irritating this is and seems to be borderline WP:ASPERSIONS? I'm sure there is a better polcy/guidline against such behavior/evidence especially in AA3, I'm just now aware of it.

Regarding the series of edits in Pazyryk burials, yes these were my and Brandmeister's edits (though not exactly one to one and months apart but I can see how one can see those as reverts). But as I said, neither did Brandmeister mention the discussion where they essentially conceded from, nor they mentioned their own edits (or reverts), and especially the one where after they failed to engage (essentially conceded) the discussion and didn't edit the article or revert me for months, they only came back to the article later that year to revert me on the day I got topic-banned. Based on this context, can you see how I feel about this 'evidence' and that it actually has no foundation and shouldn't be in any respectable venue? I could argue there are more valid questions to be asked to Brandmeister as to why they waited from February 2022 to the day of my tban to revert me, instead of doing it much earlier or replying on talk if they had a problem/arguments against me. And then the user has the audacity to bring this against me in AA3 as 'evidence', especially when we look into context. Anyway, sorry for the somewhat long explanation. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I'll discuss this with other clerks and the arbitrators. I'd say it's in a gray area; it's not my task to pre-filter everything in a way that lets only good evidence through. All I'm trying to prevent is the type of completely irrelevant and unsourced accusations I have removed, as these are a clear conduct issue. The Arbitration Committee's decision is unlikely to be affected by what you are concerned about.

I don't judge Brandmeister's motives. If Brandmeister has edited disruptively in the English Wikipedia's Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence would be the place to say so with evidence.

I had started this discussion here on your talk page to explain a concern about your behavior; if I understand correctly, there are no further questions about that, so there's no need to continue this discussion from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. 

Specifically, the December 2022 enforcement request is mentioned, one behavioral finding against Abrvagl mentions your name, three behavioral findings have been proposed regarding you, an interaction ban has been proposed against Abrvagl, and three restrictions (topic ban / one-revert restriction / interaction ban) have been proposed against you.

Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm currently writing an article on Taniel Varoujan in Russian Wikipedia. I have already written a lot but I plan to make at least a "good article" out of it. But this is hindered by my ignorance of the Armenian language (to my shame), I can’t even read. In the Russian section, all of the active Armenian users are either too busy to help me with this or don't know how. I have too many questions about the sources I used (which strongly contradict each other). Could you consult me on the subject or indicate to whom I can write on this issue (ideally, I need a specialist in Armenian literature). I will be very grateful to you for the answer. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dallavid (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Olympian (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Golden (talk · contribs) and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
• When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

Hey ZaniGiovanni, I hope you are well.

I have been working on a Wikipedia page and would greatly appreciate your help with editing and confirmation. I value your expertise in this area and would be grateful for any feedback or suggestions you may have.

Would it be possible for you to take a look at the page and let me know if there are any changes or improvements that could be made? I am eager to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Arakelyan.d (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Karen Sevak Arakelyan.d (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)