User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 3

Shusha

Hi John! You reverted last edits by TigranTheGreat at Shusha without any explanations. Ill be very grateful if you describe at the talk page what and why is disruptive in his edits (especially related to the Shushi massacres a topic which is represented by a strange quote about "Armenian attack" by an Armenian historian). Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading the talk page, and I see no consensus for the changes in that diff, and the edit summary was terrible. Do you personally believe that was a good edit? Are you standing up for those changes, as if it was your own? John Vandenberg (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Im supporting the most part (I can detalize which ones) so I think if something is dubious or discussed previously at talk we can rv or discuss, but why revert the whole edit by TigranTheGreat included justified and never discussed text? For example, a user (Basenius) made some changes which marks there was'nt term Azeris in 1905, there were Tartars (and there were Armenian-Tartar clashes in 1905-06). After the editwarrings started noone says why this edit is commonly unacceptable etc? Everyone knows its true and we can discuss the form of text by Bassenius I dont think if the basis.

Also my editions on 1920 massacres/pogrom were many times reverted to an Armenian historian without any discussion at the talk. How can we get a consesnus in a continuing undiscussed editwarring? Andranikpasha (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How to avoid edit warring? Easy: do only good edits, backed by quality academic research. Don't mix good faith improvements with changes that mess up the article. As an example of the silliness of that diff, TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs) replaced <ref name="penny"/> with {{Fact|date=March 2007}} - that had a reference, and what is more, I had asked for it to be transcribed and Grandmaster said he would do so, so that appropriate thing to do is wait (or do the transcription to prove that the ref wasnt appropriate). To remove it was very disruptive. There were many other problems with TigranTheGreat diff - I should not need to explain why it was so bad. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of a not clear source is not seems to be so bad action! and sorry, reverts of whole edit (also the good sourced parts; for that we have "partially rv") just cuz a little part of it is discussing at the time is also a kind of disruption! Its my opinion... Andranikpasha (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

more on the Shusha revert

Hi John. You recently reverted an entire set of edits in favor of suspected sockpuppet Grandmaster/Parishan/Atabek who in the course of the last two years has been using fake or irrelevant references in order to push their claims , which, in as a matter of fact, mirror what in Western academic sources was exposed as Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. You intentionally or inadvertently support mentioned users and their disruptive tactics. I have not noticed that you possess subject-matter expertise or are keenly interested in discussed subjects in order to make such gestures. It was very suspicious that you brought in the issue of Penny cyclopedia on the Shusha talk page, and only minute later the user Grandmaster used it as a fake reference in the Shusha edit. I am assuming good faith but your behavior is undermining your credibility of a fair admin. Have a nice day. Bassenius (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bassenius, your suspicions about me are without basis or evidence. I do not favour anybodies edits. I favour edits that look appropriate. I have explained here and on User talk:TigranTheGreat why I considered that TigranTheGreat diff inappropriate.

In regards to the Penny cyclopedia, it has been used as a reference on the Shusha article since at least March of this year. I have noticed this with curiosity for a long time, and due to the recent activity on the Shusha page, I asked for it to be transcribed onto Wikisource, because

1. it is one of only a few English sources used on that page, and it is public domain. I am a strong proponent of using Public domain sources where possible, and recording them on Wikisource in order that everyone can see them.
2. it is hard to read the Google Books pages, and
3. I couldnt find the information that was being referenced.

That is the simple explanation of my actions - I dont know what actions of Grandmaster you are referring to; all I know is he has promised to transcribe the article onto Wikisource, which I think is fantastic. I eagerly await the result. It will be interesting to see what facts this old encyclopedia has hidden within its dusty covers. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the accusations John is either a sockpuppet or Azerbaijani quite amusing, especially considering I and a number of other long-term admins and users met him at a meetup just two or three weeks ago in Australia. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, there is no requirement for subject-matter expertise, and given those with subject-matter expertise have seen this matter go to ArbCom twice through an inability to resolve their differences, it's probably better that those well outside the situation be given a go at resolving the matter as they're less likely to hold strong opinions in either direction. Rather than throwing accusations, I would suggest finding and putting forward credible sources Wikipedia can use per our reliable sources guidelines and neutral point of view policy (and to avoid original research) as being a more productive endeavour. Orderinchaos 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Text Boxes for Azerbaijan Rayons

It seems you have removed the boxes that I'd been adding to Fizuli and maybe other Azerbaijan rayons. I don't understand why as I was simply doing as I'd been requested - ie to help improve Azerbaijan pages and had been adding in same-style text boxes as those previously used in other cases on other Azerbaijan rayons.

It seems strangely negative to simply remove these boxes which had taken some time for me to prepare (including the checking of population figs, post codes etc).

If you don't like the actual design of the boxes, then why not change them rather than simply reverting? In the mean time I'll revert them to how they were so that if people want to they don't at least need to look up the figures all over again... Malikbek (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry if I'm writing this in the wrong place, as I'm new to this wiki game.

Thanks for the message... Malikbek (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan

A tag has been placed on Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First issue of Scientific American

Hi! I've uploaded scan of the first issue of Scientific American to Commons this march (see [1]). I noticed that you recognized the first page on wiktionary. I have the full first issue and of course, if you want, I can scan the rest pages. Should I? --Boleslav1 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All right! I'll scan them the other day in maximum possible quality and tell you. --Boleslav1 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

I harassed no one. Read the two threads in full. Marskell (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's truly bizarre that you are removing that. I was hoping Orangemarlin would stop by and understand that all was well. Whatever. Marskell (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By removing it, you're managing the page yourself. He had managed it by going to the hide/show format. That seemed perfectly fair to me. Because you've removed, Orangemarlin is still under the impression the editor is up to know good; see here. Removing a second time has only confused matters. Marskell (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note received and accepted. The revision history of the page is a mess, admittedly, and hard to follow. Best, Marskell (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks.

Thanks for standing up. I am sorry you and Marskell had a misunderstanding with my confusing edits to my own talk page (which complicated matters). Marskell, I think, was incorrect regarding warnings, but he or she seemed to be nice enough. ^S_wa_r^m _In^t_er_nat_ioⁿal_e 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

^H

Sorry, I slipped and hit enter before I should have. Anyway, the redirection page, ^H was put into a category it should not have been. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects states that "most redirects should not be categorized. Examples include misspellings, minor variations of article titles, obscure alternate titles, and abbreviations." -- H3xx ^(t|c) 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a special category just for redirects: Category:Redirects. Wikipedia is so wonderful, don't you think?

-- H3xx ^(t|c) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

pro-Azeri edits

Hi John! Surely any editor is free to do biased editions. Its even no amazing when they are obvious and too much! Personally me believe that admin's should have less rights to show their bias. but thats for the future. And now pls lets wait for a mediation which will go on at Shusha pogrom (1920) after you made your too much unacceptable (personally for my as Im an author there) and non-compromisse editions on that article during a long period! Best, Andranikpasha (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Verjakette and Bassenius

Greetings John, could you do me a favour and offer the same offer to Bassenius that you gave to Verjakette. I'm very curious as to the response you'd get. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have just responded. Parishan (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: on copyright

Sorry for having not answered for so long, but I have absolutely no idea how I can help. This speech that you speak of is sourced from a Singaporean organisation, which country it is based in also acknowledges Malay as a national language. Lee Hsien Loong is also Singaporean, so the entire issue falls under Singapore's jurisdiction. I have no knowledge of Singapore's copyright policy since I deal more specifically to Malaysia-related articles, but you should have better luck asking anyone affliated with Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board. Sorry again for my belatedness.

Further replies are best made in Two hundred percent's talk page. - Two hundred percent (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, coarse language, racism...

Hello,

Can we do something about this? Parishan (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki needed

Hey there, we just got a new article, Executive Order 13198, that needs to be transwikied to Wikisource. I was told that you use Wikisource often, so I was hoping you could help out. The article's also been put up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive Order 13198. Thanks! GlassCobra 22:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Adil's sockpuppetry

Hi John, I have collected some evidence that Adil = Ehud, here you at User:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov_Evidence. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. - Fedayee (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, thank you; I will look into this, but it will take some time as I am only familiar with specific topics in this region that I have been involved in. I am keen to expand my knowledge of the topics and the disputes. As your evidence is based on editing patterns and topical tendencies, I will need time in order to become familiar with Adil's behaviour; in the meantime, please assume that Ehud is not Adil when dealing with the user. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded here as well: User talk:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov Evidence.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three days now. Why have you not responded?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been Christmas here, which has reduced the amount of time I have been able to spend online. I also administrate Wikisource, and that often takes priority as there are only a handful of admins there. I have started looking into this. Note that as a rule I avoid meaningless chatter - I respond when I have something useful to say. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee

Just in case you didn't get to read my comment on Fedayee's talk page (and given your unawareness of the Wiki rules, you may have a reading disability. I am not trying to insult you, just raising an important concern), I am posting it here as well.

WP:AGF is not a policy. It is a guideline which "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (WP:AGF). Saying that someone is a sockpuppet is not a violation of AGF--someone may engage in sockpuppetry with good faith (i.e. believing that he is making Wikipedia better). Good evidence alone is enough to point out suspicious behavior--be it disruptive editing, or sockpuppetry. It provides effective common sense restriction against abuse. Otherwise, users would abuse the system freely until "proof" could be achieved, which could be never (especially if the admin asking for a proof is biased).

Furthermore, a penalty should be applied after an official warning is placed on a user's talk page, and the user is told that continued violation will result in blocking. It's spelled out in the ArbCom decision: "Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Poorly worded and vulgar requests (containing stupid phrases such as "shut up") on other pages do not count.

It is clear that you are ignorant of the policies and rules of Wikipedia. You need to step down as an admin and first aquaint yourself with the rules. Before you do that, you need to lift Fedayee's block. If you don't, we, as Wikipedia users, will make sure that you are forced to step down.

If you reply, do it either here or on Fedayee's talk page. I do not want you to spam my talk page with your lengthy tirades as you have done before. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone can engage in accuse someone of sockpuppetry with good faith, either by filing a request, or by quietly compiling evidence on a user page, as Fedayee was doing. I even agreed to assist Fedayee in correlating the data and reviewing it.

That is very different from using an incomplete analysis that has not been confirmed by an admin as a basis for accusing another user of sockpuppetry. Fedayee was warned to stop doing it, but he continued.

p.s. I can read fine. If you have any concerns that I have a problem with reading, feel free to review my contributions and ponder on the question: could I really write so much without the ability to read? Food for thought. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that user A cannot accuse user B of sockpuppetry if user A has good faith basis to believe so. You are making rules up. And WP:AGF is not a policy. And warnings have to be on the user's talk page and clearly indicate that he will be blocked next time. Your behaviour is more like baiting. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:AN#Block on Fedayee; please review. Please discuss there rather than everywhere else. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear John Vandenberg, out of curiosity, and since one side of the Aremnia-Azerbaijan conflict strongly feels that you are not neutral, I have been studying your contributions, and you do have a history of mysteriously appearing on various articles in which User:Grandmaster is involved in, usually to support User:Grandmaster's position in an editorial conflict. There is an undeniable pattern that supports this assertion, so in light of this, can you please clarify the nature of your relationship with User:Grandmaster? Are you in contact with User:Grandmaster outside Wikipedia via emails and instant messaging? --JamesDS (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am in contact with Grandmaster besides on Wikipedia, as I am with hudreds of Wikipedians, via email, mailing lists, IRC, IM and other Wikimedia projects. Specifically Grandmaster often provides page scans of works that are not available online, and has on a few occasions provided translations that I have requested.

To forestall the next question, I received no communication from Grandmaster over the Christmas period, and never has Fedayee been mentioned in communication between him and I, nor has any other Armenian user still in good standing within the community. My block of Fedayee was unrelated to any other dispute (I dont recall even being in any topical dispute with Fedayee) - it was solely to put a stop to Fedayee's accusations against user Ehud, and canvassing of support for a block, based on an incomplete sock analysis - that block has been considered reasonable by uninvolved admins.

From what I have seen, Grandmaster is involved in the majority of the topical disputes in the Azeri-Armenian region, most of which I never go near because I do not like to get involved where I do not have sufficient knowledge of either the topic or the history of the Wikipedia article. I am not aware that my input has closely matched Grandmaster; I recall having different opinions to him on a significant number of occasions.

As best I can recall, the few articles that I have been involved in content disputes are either due to onwiki requests from Grandmaster or others, due to already being involved in closely related articles, or because my watchlist includes a growing number articles from this region. I have also received a emails over the last year from various Azeri and Armenian users who have since been banned, so it is possible I ended up diving into an article based on those emails.

I vehemently reject any notion that I am anything but neutral in the few issues which I have tackled. Please feel free to point out one or two occasions where you think that it looks like I was merely supporting Grandmaster, and I will give you a complete background of my involvement.

Now, as I have been very open and clear, could you please explain how you ended up learning of this matter?

John Vandenberg (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan thing

I see you are active on the issue, please take a look at the following two discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Turkics in Armenia <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia

-- Cat ^chi? 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See this is how much I pay attention to that flame war. I guess you are already looking at that. I strongly suggest bringing this problem to the attention of the greater community. The clue stick needs to be swung a few times. -- Cat ^chi? 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

White Cat

This is user is disrupting the project.

• He just attacked the Armenian genocide memorial images. He deleted the ones in commons and requested the ones on wikipedia to be deleted as well [2] He is a known Armenian genocide denier[3] and his actions are disruptive and insulting. I request immediate attention. VartanM (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)