User talk:Golden/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Golden. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Golden salam necəsən? Qırmızı Bazar müzakirəsi hələ də davam edir. Ağdərə və Xocavənd müzakirəsini nə vaxt başladaq? Google nəticələrində Ağdərə və Xocavənd daha çoxdur, Hətta Xocavənd şəhərinin 40% azərbaycanlılar təşkil edib. Orda Martuni yazılmağı çox səhv fikirdir məncə. Həm Azərbaycan Respublikasında yerləşir, həm də əhalinin 40% azərbaycanlılar təşkil edib. Ağdərə və Xocavənd alınsa əla olar. Hörmətlə! EljanM (TALK) 11:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Salam, gözlə əgər Qırmızı Bazar eyni baza altında move edilsə, Ağdərə və Xocavənd-ə baxarıq. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Move edilsə də, edilməsə də müzakirə edilməlidir. Xüsusi olaraq da Xocavənd. Bu gün müzakirəni yarada bilsək əla olar. EljanM (TALK) 10:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sadəcə bir Google search yetərli deyil. Sən gərək Xocavənd yox, "Xocavənd" "Karabakh" formasında axtarasan ki ingilis mənbələri sayılsın. Elə edəndə isə Martuni qat-qat çoxdu. Xocavənd adı isə ancaq Azərbaycan mənbələrindədi. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Bir ay əvvəl səhifənin adı Khojavend idi. Daha sonra deyəsən müzakirə edilmədən dəyişildi. EljanM (TALK) 10:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear CuriousGolden,

You reverted the removal of information from the Old Church Slavonic article, stating that no adequate explanation was provided. I agree with you that the explanation might have been insufficient. However, given the word limit, this was the best I can do. The explanation of why the contentious parts of the article need to be removed requires that one familiarises themselves with the historical revision, falsification, and propagation of the current Macedonian national identity to historical figures, events, cultural elements, linguistics, etc. dating from Antiquity to the Modern Age by historians, linguists, and other experts from (or sponsored by) North Macedonia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia (until this political entity existed). Referring to anything as "Macedonian" before the 1940's as something more than a geographical and/or administrative term (excluding the culturally-Greek geopolitical entity of Ancient Macedonia) is historically inaccurate and purposefully misleading.

I would implore you to read the Wiki article titled "Historiography in North Macedonia" to orient yourself with regards to this topic.

Best regards, Vurhovist

@Vurhovist: Hey, I'm not involved in the article or know anything about the topic. I only do know that blanking sourced sections without adequate explanation isn't allowed. I advise you to explain your reasoning in the talk page first and proceed with the deletion if no one objects after at least 3 days. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Salam Golden. Təəssüflər olsun ki Köhnə-Tağlar kəndinin adını 1 səslə itirdik. Lakin, Kiş, Khojavend; Şuşakənd, Həsənriz və Çaylaqqala kəndlərinin adlarını saxlamağa müvəffəq olduq. Artıq bu səhifələrin müzakirələrini dayandırmalı və Xocavənd, Ağdərə səhifələrinin müzakirələrini başlatmalıyıq. Anton tam olaraq anti-Azərbaycan politikasındadır. EljanM (TALK) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please self-revert your recent edit on Hin Tagher. You've already (de facto) reverted my edit on Hin Tagher once - this article is a Nagorno-Karabakh article and it's therefore considered edit warring under the discretionary sanctions (1RR) that are in place for these pages.

Regarding the issue of disputed official names in bold: All of Nagorno-Karabakh is disputed, not just the Armenian controlled areas - this is not controversial. While I think that WP:ON [1] is quite clear, describing what is prudent for undisputed official names - to display them in bold, and disputed official names - which are not recommended to display in bold text, if you want we can ping an administrator to clarify and give us some pointers. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR is in place for all articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. The sanctions are. When there's 1RR in place, there's a notice on the talk page, which I don't see.

And parts of Nagorno-Karabakh that are both de-jure & de-facto under Azerbaijani control aren't disputed (unrecognised government claiming lands it doesn't control doesn't make them disputed) and the official name for a village that is internationally recognised as part of the country and is also de facto governed by the country giving it that name is important enough to be just an alternate Azeri name. Similar thing was observed on Madagiz article. WP:ON clearly states that Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction. It states that it should be similarly represented as the undisputed ones, unless there are many disputed names (in this case, there isn't). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not all pages are tagged, but are affected by same discretionary sanctions as far as I understand, but I can also open an edit warring report and the matter can be settled that way instead. Regarding official names in bold: Pinging @Rosguill:: Would you say that it's correct to display disputed official names in bold per WP:ON [2]?, If I've interpreted the text incorrectly, please let me know. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

1RR isn't automatically imposed to all articles covered by sanctions. As far as I know, they're manually imposed by admins, like it was done here for Battle of Shusha article. And I don't welcome the threatening language with reporting, as it makes it harder for me to assume good faith.

I'll wait for Rosguill's response since any of us could've interpreted WP:ON the wrong way. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

My message was not intended to be threatening, it was merely a description of an alternative way of settling things if you're unwilling to self-revert. Users are allowed to make edit warring reports if they believe they have reasonable cause to do so, regardless of where the matter goes in the end. WP:DSTOPICS states that the discretionary sanctions include "Pages relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)". AntonSamuel (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The "mere description" sure doesn't help me assume good faith or forward us in our dispute. If I knew that 1RR was in place, I'd self-revert, but as I explained above, it's not and yes, sanctions apply to all pages about the conflict, as I pointed out in my previous comments, but 1RR is not part of the sanctions. They're imposed separately by admins on very problematic pages (usually where edit warring happens). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

To summarize: Our discussions usually turn into an endless back and forth arguing, as it seems we have different interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines as well as the spirit of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem very constructive so I'll stop my arguments about the matter here and let Rosguill chime in. Regarding the discretionary sanctions: It seems page-specific restrictions have been applied only to a couple of pages. Regarding how the discretionary sanctions are enforced elsewhere seems to be guided by WP:TBAN and up to the admins: [3], so I'm not certain where revert rules such as 1RR stands with regard to the pages that aren't tagged, perhaps Rosguill can clarify a bit? AntonSamuel (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it'd be best if we let Rosguill chime in instead of back-and-forth arguing that leads to nowhere. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Official names are generally listed in bold in the first sentence of the lead. 1RR can be applied to DS-affected articles at an admin's discretion, but are not automatically placed, nor is there a norm that all AA2-related articles are automatically put on 1RR (if memory serves I think that Israel-Palestine articles regularly get put on 1RR) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for the clarification! Would you then say that WP:OFFICIALNAMES call for the inclusion of official names of disputed regions as well, such as Nagorno-Karabakh, without any differentiation from undisputed regions? One of the main problems here in my view with regard to WP:NPOV, is that many of the official names are problematic to highlight because of Azerbaijan's historical negationism with regard to Armenian heritage and history in the region and the replacement of historical Armenian names with (official) Azerbaijani-language names. Some of the Azerbaijani names for towns in Nagorno-Karabakh however, are more historic. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems like the sort of controversy that may need to be hashed out on a case by case basis. That having been said, my default approach would be to include the most prominent names in both languages wherever applicable. The goal isn't to legitimize one name or the other, but rather to inform readers of the names by which they may see used for a location. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I understand your point, and I am certainly in favor of including all relevant names at least in some form. Would you say that de jure/de facto status matter with regard to "official names"? And that only these official names that aren't article names needs to be included in bold? Otherwise the Lachin article for example, should also include "Berdzor" in bold, as that's the name used by the de facto governing authority (Artsakh), while the town is de jure part of Azerbaijan and outside of the former NKAO. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, my immediate reaction on seeing that article is that attempting to bold anything within the parenthetical would look ugly, and that the status quo of listing the English common name (in this case, currently the anglicized form of the Azerbaijani name), followed by the native language names in a parenthetical, is appropriate. But I haven't studied the situation in detail. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The format could easily be changed for it to look more aesthetically pleasing, my question was mainly with regard to de jure/de facto status, and if this carries weight according to Wikipedia guidelines when it comes to highlighting a name by displaying it in bold? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They carry weight in the sense that they are things to be considered, but you're not going to find a clear guideline that definitively says what should be considered more significant. You and other editors may find it helpful to work off of the precedent of naming conventions used in articles about locations relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the issues are similar and the topic is more mature from a Wikipedia-consensus perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I see, thank you for clearing up the issue a bit! AntonSamuel (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear by now that Lachin's status is anything but simply "governed by Artsakh". And I'd say there's a large difference between a new name given to a place by it's de jure country (and de facto in the case of Kohne Taghlar/Hin Tagher and Madagiz), whose authority is confirmed by most international organizations and a new name given to a place by a self-proclaimed government whose authority is not recognised by any single UN member. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This one. Only one reply concerning the Russia proposal, and no response after I pointed out the official Russia statement. Israel was removed for not having an official statement in support of Azerbaijan, but Russia should stay despite making an official statement not supporting Artsakh? --Steverci (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Steverci: You're presenting an active dispute as a reason for removal in an article? If you think Russia should be removed, open a separate discussion about it, like it was done here for Israel and then proceed to delete it if there is a consensus for it. I'm asking you to self-revert your removal until you reach a WP:CONSENSUS on your issue. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You think that no response in over two weeks is "active"? Do you even have any Russian or third parties sources for Russia supporting Artsakh? All of the sources were Azeri. --Steverci (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Steverci: That dispute involved multiple disagreers, all of whom voiced their opinion (and are the ones who wrote last comments, without getting replies from agree), so there's absolutely nothing close to a WP:CONSENSUS on that dispute. On the other hand, discussion for Israel had a clear consensus with no disagreers (if you disagree now, you can voice your opinion against the reached consensus). And I'm not interested nor have done any research on Russia's involvement, so I can't comment on it, but I'm sure others can, so I'm asking you again to revert your undiscussed removal. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Mirza Shafi Vazeh has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN and Happy New Year.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: It looks great, thank you very much for your work. Happy New Year to you! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello CuriousGolden: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Azerbaijani traditional clothing at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop deleting the history section for the village of Husulu. Lachin. All of the information I provided was directly backed up by multiple sources. If you have any concerns on information that requires further citation added, please add a “citation needed tag.” I included direct quotes from multiple source materials that say exactly what I wrote. I am restoring my work. Please do not commit acts of vandalism again, it is intellectually dishonest. Yours Truly, Tagaworshah TagaworShah (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I think that WikiProject Azerbaijan needs massive overhaul and expansion. What do you think? Is it possible for you to give me a hand in this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Yeah, I tried to do some fixes on it when I first joined and but couldn't understand. I'll try to help as much as I can. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CVU Academy Graduate

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 91%. Well done! Further information on your achievement can be found on this page. It has been a pleasure working with you these past few weeks, and thank you for offering to help out in removing vandalism from the project's articles. If you ever need any advice or assistance in the future, you're always welcome on my talk page. Hope to see you around! GirthSummit (blether) 16:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

so please don't feel the need to preach to me about that. Re: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I'm not the deceitful person who has faked the British Royal Succession 3 times. Allegedly.

There, not libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.4.135 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi CuriousGolden, after reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen that you have deleted every word or sentence where Armenia was mentioned, I think this is anti-Armenian behavior and it must stop, you delete everything that is connected to Armenia and replace it with Azerbaijani content, please stop this, put it back how it was. Papakh is a hat which is and was worn all over the caucausus, In the 18 hundred people used to do trading and sold clothing to different cultures which also became other cultural, so please stop removing the connected information to papakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavtxa777 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who removed everything about the hat's Turkic origin or about how it's worn throughout Caucasus (replacing "Papaqs are very important to mountainous peoples’ of the Caucasus" with "Papakha are very common in Armenia as well as other mountainous regions"). Please read WP:NPOV. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm no, I wasn't the one who firstly deleted everything and changed everything to Azerbaijani, Lookup 2018 26 October, it was normal and after that, you changed everything, you deleted every Armenian word, there was no Armenian mentioned anymore, but instead, you put that papakh is Azeri Turkmen hat, no it's not, you talk over yourself by saying papakh is caucasian and then saying it's Azeri Turkish hat, Why do you even delete the Armenian pronouncing of it? We didn't start deleting every Azerbaijani linking, you started and I just put it back how it was, if you want to give more information add more information but don't delete any information, please. comment added by Lavtxa777

I wasn't even around in 2018. And there haven't been any edit on that article on 26 October 2018. I've added back the Armenian translation as it was the only helpful addition in your edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a change in 26 October 2018 you can look in the history, You write that I say it's not Azeri Turkish hat, I don't say that, You say it yourself its important in caucausus, it is important also it's important for Armenia, I don't see why to delete every Armenian word or connection, I will change the page with some Armenian connection, I just undid the change from 2018. comment added by Lavtxa777

I don't see anything on 26 October. Perhaps you mean edit on 27 October? You're adding a clear WP:UNDUE by replacing "Papaqs are very important to mountainous peoples’ of the Caucasus" with "Papakha are very common in Armenia as well as other mountainous regions". Don't make any changes until you've reached a WP:CONSENSUS on Talk:Papakha. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then remove Papakh is very common in Azerbaijan, or add Armenia, Russia and Georgia to this line, because it's also very common there.comment added by Lavtxa777

The sentence you replaced didn't say it was very common in Azerbaijan anyway, but I added "Armenia" to another line that was similar to this. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I do have a question, in the gallery, it says Turkmen papakh what do you mean by that? can you explain.comment added by Lavtxa777 — Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the image, so I wouldn't know. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your WP:AE request since it was malformatted and improperly filed. You need to carefully follow instructions when filing a request at WP:AE. Do not use a 'new section' button to add a new section there. Instead, use the "Click here to add a new enforcement request" link at the top of the WP:AE page. It will take you to a template for filing an AE request. Fill in all the fields there, including the link to the Arbitartion case under which you are seeking enforcement santions, and a diff(s) of user talk page notification(s) about the relevant discretionary santions at the user talk page of the user against whom you are filing a report. Also, preferably explain what kind of an action you are requesting (topic ban, block, page block, interaction ban, etc). Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. My opinion is 'Shushi' shouldn't be in the page of Shusha. Because Shusha is located in Azerbaijan (de-jure | de-facto) and the name 'Shusha' is used in all international sources. Azerbaijanis are in the majority there. And also, in 1988, Azerbaijanis were in the majority. Until 1994, Armenians used the name 'Shusha', until 1994 there was no name 'Shushi'. EljanM (TALK) 09:39, 19 January 2021

That's a very contested issue and it would probably require a WP:RfC. The current consensus is that if a city/village had a recent (prior to First Nagorno-Karabakh war) Armenian/Azerbaijani-majority or a historic large Armenian/Azerbaijani population, their name is also given in the lead. For example, it's done in Martuni/Khojavend article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. But we should delete it from the info-box. EljanM (TALK) 09:46, 19 January 2021

You'll have to open a discussion about it in the article talk page and discuss with people who disagree with that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I know they will not agree with that. But we must add the name of İrəvan to the page of Yerevan. Because Azerbaijanis were in the majority in Irevan. EljanM (TALK) 09:55, 19 January 2021

Azerbaijanis were never the majority in Yerevan, nor were they even a recognized minority, ever. It's not even a controversy, it's just outrageous unsubstantiated claims that have no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you don't even claim that it's a recent occupation, so per the consensus the Azeri name has no place in the Yerevan article. As for Shushi, there was no Azeris there for 30 years until a few months ago, so please respect many people's position that it must be included in the article HyeProfile (TC) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not make edits such as this one to Lotfi Zadeh, which have absolutely no effect on how the pae in rendered, but clutter up people's watchlists. This article is subject to vandalism and ethnic POV editing, so every edit needs to be checked out, and I -- and I don't know how many other people -- just spent a small amount of time examining your totally unnecessary edit. Please be more courteous to your fellow editors. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's simple cleaning up. Not sure what's wrong with that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please help me in the following moves? Quş yuvası to Nəbilər, Kalbajar and Sarıgüney to Böyürbinə. I encounter with some technical barriers which I cannot fix. Thanks. KHE'O (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kheo17, Hello, you get an error because of the letter Ə, which creates a bug in the system. In those cases, you need to request a move at WP:RM#TR. Just write the reason for why you're trying to move it and why you can't move it and then it should be moved by an admin. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks.--KHE'O (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cities in Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martuni.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mirza Shafi Vazeh 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Culture of Azerbaijan at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 03:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask how many technical requests you have done to remove Azerbaijani alphabet from Azerbaijan article titles? There was an objection to the current one and it went to RM, but was that the first technical request you placed, or had others been actioned without objection? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, it was the first request relating to anglicizing Azerbaijani city/village names. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1. I see from your edit history you already used Technical request before.

2. Do not edit my talk page comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, yes I've used Technical Requests on different topics a lot before. Not sure what your point is. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1006049799 - was it refused? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I requested mass moves for them and they were put on hold until the Sharur's RM is closed. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted some of your undiscussed "anglicization" moves. Please do not attempt any other anglicization of Azerbaijan articles by either undiscussed moves or TR. I think we need a broad RfC to discuss your proposed change to status quo on how en.Wikipedia treats Latin-alphabet geo articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, 2 of your moves weren't even "anglicization" moves (Hasanlı, Jabrayil - the village's official name is Hasanlı in Azerbaijani, it's not anglicization & Çıraqlı, Agdam - anglicized district names are the norm, it's like this everywhere). Mass "reverting" moves that have been made months ago counts as WP:VANDALISM, so I'd suggest not doing that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not care. Please do not make any more your undiscussed "anglicization" moves. Please do not attempt any other anglicization of Azerbaijan articles by either undiscussed moves or TR. Please do not edit or move Talk Page comments. Please look at en.wp and see how we handle geo titles for other Latin alphabets. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you probably should care about vandalism since it could get you reported. I haven't moved random village articles, all that was moved was large city/town/place articles which are covered extensively in English-media, this allows me to move it per WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please restore the moves that have been reverted. I'm gone for the day but I hope that when I come back (in 24 hours) we'll find the moves reverted back in the status quo position. Where, if you wish, you may post an RM to request a move. You are welcome to en.Wikipedia, but you are new here and there is a history of how we treat article titling which you should familiarize yourself with. Including previous Azerbaijan geos in 2014. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, could you please specify which moves you want me to revert? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have an obsession. You literally go to wikis of villages in armenia and add "aZeRbAIjanI majOritY befOre ArMeNIan expoLsioN" you change liberation of shushi to capture of shusha, you remove coat of arms of artsakh and say imaginary coat of arms like wtf what is your obsession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallavid (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Gave me a good chuckle. Thanks! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Mirza Shafi Vazeh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mirza Shafi Vazeh 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	congratulations. i just find out that your GA review for Mirza Shafi Vazeh has passed. you really saved the Article from disorderly that was. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi: Thank you! You helped big time with your suggestions. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fascinating. Really great work, Golden. Jr8825 • Talk 17:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Category:War crimes committed by country is not meant for every single battle where someone went missing or had to move away. Try to use it only for articles where there are multiple reliable sources classifying it as such. --Steverci (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And please don't remove "per Azerbaijan" from the Battle of Kalbajar article again unless you have a non-Azeri source for it. --Steverci (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: Please don't alert people of sanctions when they've already been alerted in the past 12 months I've been alerted 3 times in the 12 months, 2 of which were by people who apparently thought the alert was a warning, hope this also isn't the case for you. (1, 2). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I checked for alerts beforehand. You reverted both of those. --Steverci (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, reverting/deleting discussions in talk pages means the person saw the message. Please read T:DSA. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding 'had an Azerbaijani population before the exodus of Azerbaijanis from Armenia after the outbreak of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict' and an Azeri variant name to every village in Armenia that ever had Azeris living there is WP:UNDUE weight and violates WP:BALASP, especially for articles that have practically no other information. In the case of larger articles such as Sotk that has information back to the Bronze Age, the "exodus" certainly doesn't belong as the only thing in the header and is a clear example of WP:ADVOCACY. --Steverci (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, a similar thing has been done to every article about ethnic-Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh (e.g.: Madagiz, Karakend, Hin Tagher) and every former Armenian village in Azerbaijan (e.g.: Bayan, Aşağı Daşkəsən, Zəylik). I'm simply following an already-set precedent by other users. So if you think this is UNDUE, then go ahead and open a discussion about it, and advocate for all information about former ethnic-majorities of villages in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan not be put in the lead. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qusar District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quba District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for History of Azerbaijan at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 20:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello CuriousGolden. I am interested in the reasoning behind the assumption that "Image of few girls representing the whole ethnicity isn't correct". No one says they are "representing" but it is a common Wikipedia practice to have a culturally relevant image in an ethnicity infobox (see Hungarians, Mongols, Vietnamese people, etc.). Also, I did not understand why you reverted my intro wording. I have been editing this article since 2005, and I have a clear recollection that this particular wording was accepted as the consensus version after months of deliberations to keep everyone happy and featured in the article for over a decade, until recently, when an influx of users started exaggerating either Turkic or Iranian components of the origins of Azeris. Parishan (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, Hi, I am familiar with your editing and I thank you for your constructive edits on Wikipedia. However images in ethnicity infobox aren't as common (e.g Germans, Italians, Indian people, Bosnians). I just don't believe that image of few girls (who don't really look like typical Azerbaijanis) should be used to represent over 30 million people. About the Turkic thing, the article has said "a Turkic ethnic group" ever since I've seen it, as far as I can remember. I don't really mind either way, but could you please link to the discussion because I searched a little and couldn't find it? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand what is meant by "looking typically Azerbaijani". In fact, I doubt such a thing exists. In any event, the image did not come from nowhere: it was first published in the magazine Azerbaijan International and was kindly provided to me (under the appropriate attribution) by its author, Mr. Oleg Litvin, who did not doubt for a second that the photograph he had taken back in 1996 was that of Azeri girls. Therefore, I see no problem in keeping it in the article. I also believe that removing such a prominent part of the article, which in addition has featured in it for 13 years, requires a consensus. There are many more photos in the body of the article that could be removed in accordance with the logic that one or two people "cannot represent" such a large group. So far I am not finding this logic very convincing. Wikipedia is not the first project to display a culturally relevant image in an article about an ethnic group.

You may find the relevant discussions here and here, as well as all throughout this discussion page. I attempted to reword the introduction to reflect a more neutral approach, mindful of the origin and the identity of the people in question. With the way the introduction is structured now, I find that for a people of mixed origin, there is too much insistence on the Turkic component and less on the other two. Parishan (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, providing the image within article body and providing it in the infobox are different though. It's fine to show them in the article body, but it's not a good idea to generalize all Azerbaijanis by one image of 4-5 girls. If you'd like, we could open a discussion about it in Talk:Azerbaijanis to get the opinion of others. In fact, I had opened such a discussion in Talk:Azerbaijanis#Infobox_image, but unfortunately no one replied and another user later deleted the image. Also, there's no "typical Azerbaijani" look, I shouldn't have used that word in my last comment, and that's exactly why few people shouldn't represent 30+ million people. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion on the matter, and it was agreed that a picture of ordinary people in the inbobox was desirable and encyclopedic. Parishan (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, that discussion is 14 years old and it only had a general agreement. That doesn't mean we can't question its inclusion again. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, one can question it. However, questioning it and removing it is not the same thing. The image was removed less than a month ago by a user blocked for sockpuppetry, and the legitimacy of that removal is highly dubious. In light of this, I find it very unfortunate that you should revert the consensus version of 13 years restored by me, an established editor, to reflect the controversial version of a controversial user just because you happen to share their opinion. Parishan (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, oh I don't mind reverting myself to restore the original version. It's what I was planning to do anyway per WP:ONUS. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! You left me a message on my talk page, stating that my edit "did not appear constructive". I think you made a mistake. During the 2020 war, the peak of Murovdag came under Azerbaijani control. However, according to this map, the breakaway state of Artsakh still controls parts of the mountain range. --Stephan 0796 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Stephan 0796, hello! The control has been discussed thoroughly in multiple discussions in the past. OpenStreetMap isn't a great source for control and neither are any online navigation maps. Your best choice in these situations is to check out the used Wikipedia maps which are based on long discussions. For example, this map and this map (you can find relevant discussions in their talk page). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap is not accurate: it notably shows Daşaltı as controlled by Russian peacekeepers and Kiçik Qaladərəsi as controlled by Azerbaijan, when in reality, it is the exact opposite. Parishan (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it doesn't really convince me. The Murovdag Range extends from the Hinaldag peak to the Kura-Aras Basin. Although OpenStreetMap is not quite accurate, the first map I was referring to is basically another version of your Wikipedia map. Indeed, these maps are of varying quality, but they all show the partially shifted northern part of the line of contact. My conclusion: Artsakh still controls the southern slopes of the mountain range, if not a number of peaks. --Stephan 0796 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Stephan 0796, good point, I was mostly referring to the Murovdagh peak, but since the article talks about the whole mountain range, we can show the partial de facto Artsakh control. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

Thanks for catching typos etc... in the article Azerbaijani art. I notice you changed the spelling to British English. I believe that WP practice is not to do this unless an article is tagged to use British English, or, vice versa, American English. I see that you also removed a number of red wikilinks. My understanding is that these are added when an editor believes the subject deserves an article and there is none. I suspect these should likely have been left alone unless they were duplicated. If I'm misinformed, please let me know.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thanks. I didn't know about changing the English version thing, so I'll be more careful in the future, thanks for informing me. Most red links were very obscure and not things that deserved an article, is it normal to keep red links in an article? Wouldn't it be better to link it if the article ever gets created? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden No problem. Here's what the MOS says in part about red links: "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. I know nothing about this subject, so if you feel the subjects are not notable by all means remove the links. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure those links weren't notable. Thanks for the MOS quote, it'll be quite helpful for me. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you undo my corrections? 1) it was not the percentage of peoples, it was the percentage of languages. (...milliyyətini və ""ana dilini"" özü müəyyən etmişdir.) = talking about the native language and the nation.

2) it is more correct to write Lezgin and not Lezgian Aserbaidschaner (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The percentages were the same as the ethnicity numbers, which are already shown. And it makes the infobox way too cluttered than it already is. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

These are official statistics, I think it would be better to indicate as I indicated. Why? First, there may be an erroneous opinion that there are most Armenians, but this is not so, most of all Azerbaijanis and then Lezgins. There is also a similar thing in other articles (for example, Iran, there is exactly the same as I indicated). The second important point, which you did not pay attention to, you need to correctly write the name of the peoples, not Lezgian but Lezgin correctly. Aserbaidschaner (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Aserbaidschaner, I think it'd be fine to re-organize the language list based on the number of speakers (e.g. Lezgin first, Armenians second and so on..). I'll get on to doing that and will change "Lezgian" to "Lezgin" when referring to people (as far as I know the language is still called Lezgian). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank u for understanding. No, the language is also called Lezgin. For example we dont say Chechenian, we say just Chechen. By the same token, most of the other small peoples (Tskakhur, Rutul, etc.) are tribes of the same Lezgin people. For example, I also have the roots of qarapapaq, but there is no such separate nation of qarapapaq, these are Azerbaijanis. I hope I can correctly explain my thoughts in English, sorry for my English. Aserbaidschaner (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Aserbaidschaner, makes sense. Then I'll change the language to Lezgin too. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. if u have anything related to Azerbaijan or translation from Russian or Azerbaijani language, I am ready to help, dont hesitate, feel free to contact, I will help u in any way I can. Aserbaidschaner (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologise for intervening but I have to disagree. It may be either "Lezgi" or "Lezgian", but "Lezgin" is just an incorrect phonetic calque from Russian. Martin Haspelmath, the author of the largest reference grammar of this language, calls it "Lezgian". Parishan (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, Aserbaidschaner I think the best option right now would be to open a discussion in Lezgian Language article and figure it out collectively, as there might be people who want to comment but can't see this discussion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not an aspersion calling you white — White Day is an actual event in East Asia where the men give chocolate, the reverse of Valentines Day (which is celebrated worldwide, albeit all genders participate). Either way, I hope this lightens up your day after getting insulted by a blocked editor. I thought of sending actual chocolate to a post office box near your area but that's creepy. So you'll have to work with this instead. Hope you like it! Chlod (say hi!) 16:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello CuriousGolden. First I wanted to thank you for all the great work you have been doing for the Azerbaijani part of the English Wikipedia, it has not gone unnoticed. I just wanted to ask for your opinion: what do you think about Thomas de Waal as a source of historical knowledge? His statements are regularly used on Wikipedia pages relating to Azerbaijan, but as far as I am aware he is a journalist, not an academic/historian. For instance, on the Caucasian Albania page, he is quoted multiple times, but I am having reservations as to whether one should cite a journalist in topics that can be very touchy, what do you think? – Creffel (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Creffel, thank you for kind words. Thomas De Waal is a very reliable source about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and generally reliable on other historical topics. He's not a historian, so his comments about old history should be attributed (e.g. "According to journalist Thomas De Waal"). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, very well then, thank you. – Creffel (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to ask you about the name difference for Iğdır, I can't seem to understand the difference, can you explain it? (I'm asking with the goal of filling the gap in my knowledge on phonetics and the latin script, and not because I doubt you edit) - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327, Turkish name starts with an I ( not the large English i ), which is a different letter in both Turkish and Azerbaijani than İ ( which is the large English i ), therefore the first letters are different. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CuriousGolden, could tou check if the coat of arms on Qırmızı Qəsəbə is an authentic one? Cause it has rhe same style as the fake ones that you removed from other articles a while ago, thank you - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327, it is not authentic. I've removed it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)