User talk:Gizgalasi

Welcome!

Hello, Gizgalasi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- John of Reading (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lotfi Zadeh

What do you mean "correcting an error that was published in Gale"? The quote is Zadeh's direct words, that's how he expressed it. Are you saying that there's another source that has LZ saying "Russian empire"? Or are you saying "Russia" as the time he was born was short for the "Russian Empire"? Or are you saying that Zadeh was sloppy and said "Russia" when he meant to say "Russian Empire"

Any way you slice it, you simply cannot change what a souce says by fiat, except by providing a more reliable source that does so. I've reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that Lotfi Zadeh was born in 1921. That means that Baku was part of the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks took control of Baku on May 28, 1920. So your statements - no matter what the source are wrong. I revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizgalasi (talk • contribs) 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Azerbaijan intl cover 2011 Grigol Robakidze.jpg

Hello Gizgalasi,

You uploaded the original File:Azerbaijan intl cover 2011 big.jpg to Commons. The permission given by you include modifying the file. If you don't own the rights for this file please nomiate for deletion the original and the derivative work from Commons. Geagea (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your replay. If you own the rights for the photo of Grigol Robikadze I'll appreciate it if you send the photo with the OTRS permission as you did with the this file. Geagea (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Send me your email - and I'll send the photo to you. You can then use it. ai@artnet.net

Ali and Nino and associated pages

Two things. First, you may not remove maintenance templates until the problem has been fixed. And the problem on that page has absolutely not been fixed. If you are seriously interested in this research, send us your email and we will arrange for you.

But we have referenced all comments. We were extremely careful with our research. The AI magazine comments are highly referenced. What specifically more do you want? It is impossible to condense 364 pages of research into a few paragraphs. Write us at ai@artnet.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizgalasi (talk • contribs)

Second, a question. On the talk page, you said, "In our research, we quote hundreds of Endnotes. And our research is very broad and multi-faceted. " Does that mean that you are one of the authors who worked on the Azerbaijani International issue on Ali and Nino? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

YEs. Gizgalasi (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, please immediately stop making edits to the articles in question. We have a policy called WP:COI, which says that, while people with a real world connection to a subject are allowed to edit a subject, we strongly recommend that they do not. And if they show that they are unable to be neutral, then they definitely have to stop. Instead, you should post your suggestions on the article talk page. Since you have already proven you are unable to edit neutrally by insisting that all of the AI research is correct and other people's research is wrong, I'm sorry to say that you've fallen into the category of "unable to edit neutrally". Don't take this as negative anyway--most of us are unable to edit neutrally about subjects with which we are very close. I'm going to look back at your recent changes and revert those that are clearly POV, and re-add the POV tags along with COI tags to the other articles. Again, let me clarify: we are more than happy to have you provide information as a COI editor. If you can edit neutrally, you can continue to do so, but, if not, you cannot edit the articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Signing your comments

Hi. Please sign your comments by using 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~, at the end. The system will automatically add your name and a timestamp. Also, indent your comments using multiple colons, to make it easier to distinguish comments from responses. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

Also, I need to let you know that all articles related to Azerbaijan are under general sanctions, as explained at WP:General sanctions and WP:ARBAA2. That means that neutrality is an especial concern, and any tendentious or disruptive editing, or any POV pushing, can result in your account being blocked by an uninvolved admin (note that even though I am an admin, I am involved as a content editor, and thus cannot take any administrative actions with regards to these articles). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

COIN

I have opened a discussion regarding your edits at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. The section is WP:COIN#Ali and Nino: A Love Story. You are welcome to comment there if you wish. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, I really don't understand this. No one has done deeper research into this issue that the staff of Azerbaijan International. Nearly 60 people were involved with the research and translations. And this is all documented in front pages of the magazine, Vol 15:2-4. Therefore it is a collaborative activity- of course directed by the editor. But there are so many languages involved, so much research in archives (Russian, Azeri, German, Italian), so many languages from books from UCLA Research Library and Getty Museum. I'm really sorry that you assume that because something relates to Azerbaijan cannot be honest. We are a publication with our main office in the United States. The editor is American.

We began this research because we wanted to get to the truth of the matter. We thought Reiss was right about Essad Bey and were about to announce it in our magazine in 2005 but then we interviewed the Vazirov family and realized that there was something valid about their claims. That's why we started back at the beginning to check everything. Show us what you want us to document and we can show you every source. We are willing to cooperate with you. Everything is documented in our research.

We don't think it is fair that you revert what we write about our own magazine which has been in existence since 1993 and which we devoted 6 years to the research. No other topic has ever consumed us this much. So we think it is only fair that we can lay out our conclusions in the description of our own document. We don't understand. How can it be Conflict of Interest if the magazine belongs to us? Gizgalasi (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If your research is notable, and becomes accepted by the rest of the literary community, then some other person will eventually add it to the articles. The problem is that you have shown, over and over again, that you cannot accept any possibility other than that your research is correct. That's fine--that's what you should do, as a researcher. But that makes your goals fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's goals, which are to neutrally present all relevant theories. Until reliable, independent sources agree that Reiss was wrong and your group is correct, we cannot say that your conclusion (that Nussimbaum was not the author behind Said) are correct. We absolutely can and should say that the AI research has one opinion, and Reiss has another (and include Injia's claims, though they kind-of overlap with both). We should cite both sources. And we cannot take sides. As a simple example, Ali and Nino: A Love Story currently says, "Current research shows that Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli, not Essad Bey, is the primary core author of the novel Ali and Nino.[5]" What that sentence needs to say is "Researchers have varying opinions about who is the main core author of the novel." And then the text will explain those varying opinions, basically like I've done in Ali and Nino section of Lev Nussimbaum.

Please note that I am not saying that you are not honest because you are Azerbaijani. I am saying that you wholeheartedly believe your research is correct, to the point that you are unable to edit Wikipedia neutrally on subjects pertaining to that research. The term "conflict of interest" means that your (group's) interest in seeing your research work accepted and promulgated puts you in conflict with Wikipedia's requirement to cover all sides of the story neutrally. Similarly, while the magazine belongs to you, the Wikipedia article about that magazine definitely does not. And the way we determine what goes in articles is not what the article's subject wants, but a combination of collaborative editing, consensus building, and our policies.

Does this help explain the problem? If you are willing to work neutrally with these subjects, I'm willing to help you do that. If you can't, you'll need to confine your editing to the talk pages of the articles in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: One way that you could show that you are willing to work on this problem is to re-remove the section about Ali and Nino on Azerbaijan International. Then, on the article's talk page, we could discuss how to include some, but not all, of that information to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Help us know how to do it.

Thanks for your explanation to help me understand. I am not Azerbaijani. And the ethnicity of authorship does not matter to me. Many Azerbaijanis who do not know the research of Azerbaijan International continue to believe Essad Bey is the author. So it is not a question of everyone in Azerbaijan endorsing Chamanzaminli. Some do, some don't. The driving force behind our research was quest for truth – which is exactly what Wikipedia is striving for as well.

The research is so involved and so complex. It took so long ago and it involves so many foreign languages (at best, Russian, Azeri, English, German, Italian and Georgian), and then given the NAZI German situation, so many families were broken, businesses abandoned, records and buildings destroyed - that's why the research is so highly specialized. Furthermore, there were thousands of refugees /emigres flocking into the capital cities of Europe - Berlin, London, Paris, from broken empires – Russian, Ottoman, Hungarian, German - and this made them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

This is essentially what happened in the publishing world as well. Even the publisher of “Ali and Nino” - Lucy Tal - wrote her lawyer in the 1970s saying that "all kinds of things happened" - she was referring to authorship issues. I'm sure if one could study the novels and biographies that were published in the 1930s, especially in Europe, one would find this process repeated many times. Even Lev Nussimbaum’s agent Schendell admitted as such when he wrote to Essad Bey that he had Essad Bey's three biographies ready for him – Russian Peter the Great, Turkish Enver Pasha and US President Harding. That was 1934. In the following correspondence, the agent warned Essad Bey not to appear so prolific that it was impossible to write more than one book in a year. That year only two novellas appeared under Essad Bey's name but both were published only in Polish and never reprinted in German.

So things are not simply black and white. It is true: One would think that if Lev Nussimbaum used the pen name Essad Bey and then also adopted the pseudonym Kurban Said - which we know he did use to write Der Mann (Man Who Knew Nothing about Love) - then clearly that would make him the author of Ali and Nino. That was the conclusion that Reiss reached. And in normal times, that would make perfectly good sense. No one could doubt it. But those were not normal times. Many writers had to give their works over for a crust of bread and the publishers often used "famous names" such as Essad Bey's to push their sales. That's why we subtitled our magazine edition - The Business of Literature. Chamanzaminli, for example, returned to Soviet Baku from Paris in 1926 and wrote a short story based exactly on this theme in the first person, complaining that he only made 25% of the money earned by the broker.

Reiss published in The New Yorker in 1999 and then came to Azerbaijan and interviewed the Vazirov sons in 2000. He lists some of the people whom he interviewed in his book. He doesn’t mention that he was invited to go with the best expert of Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli to the Archives at the Institute of Manuscripts in Baku and that he did not show up. Reiss dismissed Chamanzaminli without really studying that Chamanzaminli's works, his articles, his novels, his autobiographical essays. It turns out that Chamanzaminli’s diaries so closely mirror the development of the story line in Ali and Nino. The diaries even suggest a prototype for Nino - a Jewish girl - Berta Moiseyeva.

YEs, we want to cooperate with you and we hope you will work with us. Wikipedia is an incredible source and we used in for so many topics in our own research. It is indispensable. The World is a better place because of Wikipedia. If you will show us where we err - we will try to correct this. We will also with time - try to make more chapters of our research available on the WEB for readers. The question of authorship becomes as fascinating as the novel itself. Thank you for your patience with us in an effort to build a bigger, better Wikipedia. Gizgalasi (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the more info. More than that, thank you for self-reverting on Azerbaijan International. I thin that some of that material can be included--it does sound, based on what you've said, that this particular sequence of issues is more special than others. Its getting late where I'm at, so I don't have time to start a discussion today, but tomorrow I'll definitely start one on that article's talk page and hopefully we can hash out a compromise! Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to understanding the situation. We never dreamed that our research would take us to such a complicated situation in Europe at the time. But, of course, everything happens in war when people's lives are in danger. And this book was dangerous for all the people who were involved in it - Chamanzaminli, Essad Bey, Elfriede Ehrenfels and Grigol Robakidze. Thanks for showing us how show these things. The issue is far bigger than the Ali and Nino material. It gives insight into the human condition and exploitation of others who are considered to be weak. In itself is a topic for a movie - not just the Ali and Nino film that is being organized now by British team. Are you in Japan? Did I understand correctly? Gizgalasi (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done trying to help. You just added a pile of spam to the AI article, tons of refspam...I'm going to ask for you to be blocked--you're here to promote your magazine, not to make Wikipedia better. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand. You exaggerate on the COIN page. You say you have been trying to help us for the last week or TWO!!!. Well, today is Jan 14 in my part of the world, and this discussion started on Jan 10-11. I don't understand how a comprehensive statement that includes Essad Bey, Robakidze, Ehrenfels and Chamanzaminli in the discussion of authorship of Ali and Nino is biased position. These are all discussed on other pages on WIKI. And they are true. How is that you block my contributions? I make a short paragraph - that shows references and is all inclusive and you say that is biased point of view. Really, I don't understand. Our magazine has 60 editions. The typical article is 2 to 6 pages. This research was 360 pages so why isn't it important and relevant about a topic that has been controversial for more than 40 years? How is it that our research is not permitted but Tom Reiss's is? And our research is much more comprehensive. You say I added "tons" of material. This is tons? This is the statement that you used to block me. I don't think this is fair at all. This is tons?????

In summary,[12] the extensive research by Azerbaijan International concludes that (1) Azerbaijani writer Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli (1887-1943) is the core author of “Ali and Nino” as his personal life and works mirror the storyline and issues in the novel.[13][14][15][16] (2) Lev Nussimbaum (Essad Bey) (1905-1942) served primarily as a broker and enhanced passages—especially related to folklore and legendary topics.[17][18][19] (3) Essad Bey plagiarized passages from Georgian writer Grigol Robakidze (1881-1962), especially related to travels in Tiflis (Tbilisi) and Iran.[20] (4) Austrian Baroness Elfriede Ehrenfels (1894-1982) registered the pseudonym “Kurban Said” in her own name.[21]

The conclusions of Azerbaijan International differ substantially from those of Tom Reiss, [22]author of The Orientalist (researched from 1998 and published in 2005), who claims that Lev Nussimbaum was the sole author of the novel “Ali and Nino”.

Gizgalasi (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROMO

Please read the above policy page. Wikipedia is not the place to promote or advertise your magazine. There is a link in the External Links section to your official website, and presumably this has links to your other sites -- that is sufficient, and putting links to all your websites and your Twitter pages in the body of the article Azerbaijan International definitely crosses the boundary into promotion. Please do not re-insert them into the article again, or you will be subject to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop editing all of those articles

I partially wish that I had never started editing the Said/Ali&Nino/etc. articles. Because if I hadn't I would block you immediately. You are exactly the definition of why people with a conflict of interest should not edit articles directly. Your last attempt at removing the POV tag on Kurban Said proves that you either don't understand WP:NPOV, or don't care, or (most likely) simply are so convinced by the account in AI that you think that all other accounts are wrong. One of the very simplest rules is that Wikipedia may never, under any circumstances, state in its voice that one theory is correct and another is wrong unless you can show that the broad opinion of scholars across the field agree with that theory. You have never proven that in this case.

I don't know how to state this any more clearly: your connection to the magazine makes you unable to see what is neutral and what is not. This is a good thing: you should be committed to your project's causes and positions. That is what academics do. But it means that you are unable to provide a neutral overview of scholarship in the field, as Wikipedia requires. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You have interrupted my editing - and not even allowed me to finish the proofs that I am showing you. That is not fair. You continually embrace other points of view - that were not researched thoroughly and you do not allow me to continue to provide proof. This shows that you are very prejudiced in your responses - even your statement that all Azerbaijani articles were under scrutiny is not a fair statement. User: Gizgalasi

My statement that all Azerbaijani articles are under scrutiny is a statement of fact. Due to continued disruption by nationalists (on all sides) in this area of the world, all Azerbaijani articles are under special sanctions, and editors are required to be extra careful to follow rules like WP:NPOV. You can read the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea there was such discussions and that so many AZ and ARMENIANS had been banned. I'm not involved in national discussions and the topics that I have been contributing to do not relate to such arguments - but I know in real life - such topics get very heated. I'm just trying to find a way to resolve these issues that you have added cautions about. Gizgalasi (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)GizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Q. You are incapable of editing neutrally, have a serious conflict of interest, and must stop editing those articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How curious!!! That "Q" agrees with "Beyond My Ken" - who comments throughout WIKI would show to be exactly the same identity!!! Gizgalasi (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be absurd. Two seconds of investigation will show that Qwyrxian and I each have long, separate, histories, and are not the same editor. That kind of paranoid thinking does not serve you well, and is not an acceptable defense against two independent Wikipedia editors who have, on their own, reached the same conclusion about your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When you "sign" your comments, please do nothing except use 4 tildes (Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)). The system will do everything else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azerbaijan International. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit articles about which multiple editors have found that you have a serious POV/COI problem

Per this. Don't bother to test the waters to see if anyone's watching, someone is. Please follow the procedures outlined on WP:COI - do not edit articles directly, make suggestions on the talk page and allow other editors to implement them if they agree. Any direct edits you make will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't testing any waters. There were problems with capitalization and spacing. So that is POV/COI. Come on, be fair! That's very unreasonableGizgalasi (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In box, please change" editor" to capital letter - "E" if you will so that it will match the rest of the categories shown. Gizgalasi (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed that. In the future, make editing suggestions -- even the most minor ones -- on the article talk page. I guarantee I will review them, and perhaps other editors will as well. I will try my best to be reasonable and fair, and I reiterate to you (as I have in the past) that I have absolutely no beef for or against Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis. My only concern is that Wikipedia not be used as a platform for pushing a specific point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Great if your only concern is Wikipedia because that is also our concern. Like millions, we depend upon Wikipedia and are so glad that it has become a valuable resource for world knowledge. But I am concerned about the "scales" that are on Ali and Nino and Kurban Said. How to get them removed? Because the research is solid and accurate. Please don't forget those articles and do show guidance about how to remove the scales. Thanks Gizgalasi (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not gonna happen, and is the proximate reason why you have a POV/COI problem. You think that the AI research has established facts which must be accepted, but there are other points of view which disagree with yours, and they, also, must be acknowledged in our articles. It may be that, some time in the future, your magazine's research will be generally accepted as being the "truth", but that is not the case now, and the fact that you cannot see that is the reason you cannot directly edit those articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But what are the statements from other points of view to counter this? Tom Reiss hardly touched upon authorship. He mentions Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli only twice in his 430 page book (page xv and 217). He does not have even an index listing for him except under "Kurban Said (Lev Nussimbaum)" - How would anyone even begin to look for YVC there. Reiss was invited by the best researcher on the subject (who had spent 30 years studying YVC) to go to the Institute of Manuscripts in Baku and examine the materials, but Reiss didn't show up. The problem was that he had already published in The New Yorker (1999) and then he came back to dig deeper and interview others in Baku - according to his own acknowledgement in his book. He's the one who came to the authorship question with an agenda. He needed the association of Essad Bey with "Ali and Nino" - because essentially Essad Bey is not reverred by historians or credible sources. He invented much of the material he wrote, pasting together legends that he had embellished. See contemporary reviews in the 1930s in New York Times and Saturday Review. They shredded Essad Bey. Gizgalasi (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is a prime example of why you cannot be allowed to edit these articles, since you have absolutely no objectivity about these subjects. You believe that AI has resolved these questions beyond any doubt, and wish to see that our articles reflect those "truths" -- but until these opinions are widely accepted, they cannot be allowed to be uncontested in our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But you don't know anything about the research. You have not seen it. You have not read it. So how can you judge. You are just making an assumption.Gizgalasi (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizgalasi--it doesn't matter that he doesn't know anything about the research. I really don't understand why you don't understand this. Wikipedia editors are absolutely forbidden from looking at two different pieces of research and saying "Research Paper A is better written, with better sources, and thus we will feature it, and not talk as much about Research Paper B, which is not as well researched." I cannot say this more clearly: WP:NPOV and WP:OR absolutely forbid this kind of action on Wikipedia. We absolutely cannot make the cluster of articles about this subject mainly focus on the AI position because we (you and me and Beyond My Ken and other Wikipedia editors) think the AI position is "better". When a wide variety of sources support a particular position, or when a wide variety of sources all say "Research Paper A is better", then our article can say that. We cannot, cannot cannot cannot make the analysis ourselves. Does this make sense? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945)

The article The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTABILITY; "The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B." only gets 3 ghits -including- Wikipedia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a new book, just published. Copies have just arrived and soon will begin to circulate. The memoir is published by an independent book publisher but because of content and quality will attract readership. You are right, it is early but the work is solid and very valuable. I would like to delete the template and proceed. Gizgalasi (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment until after proposing it for deletion, but it would not have stopped me from doing so. The guides to what qualifies for a book's inclusion in wikipedia can be found at WP:NBOOK. I understand your belief that this book may be considered notable someday, but for inclusion, it has to be notable already. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not understood from your previous statement that the template could not be removed. Gizgalasi (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, it was appropriate to delete that. What you're seeing is two different deletion processes. What I did before was what is called a "prod", which means that anyone who objects can delete the template, and that ends the process. It's a very simple process for deletions to which there may be no objection. However, as I still believe the article should be deletion, I've moved on to the more rigorous, more involved process, the "articles for deletion" (AFD) process. This involves more people, takes up more time, and reaches a more definite conclusion. This is the template you should not delete, both because it's against the rules and because it won't do any good; the process continues even without the template there, and all that deleting the template is likely to do is to keep people who might argue for keeping the page from knowing that it's up for deletion in the first place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Very helpful. Gizgalasi (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Book cover autobiography of W.B.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Book cover autobiography of W.B.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Book cover autobiography of W.B.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Book cover autobiography of W.B.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Just in case you haven't watchlisted my talk page, please see my response to the discussion regarding Tom Reiss and your editing in general, as I have explicitly stated that I will block you for any more attempts to add any links or references to AI anywhere on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for continuing to add more references to AI, despite the fact that I made it clear that you may not do so. You have an admitted COI with AI, and it appears that your only purpose on WP is to promote the journal. If you believe something from AI is useful for Wikipedia, post it on the article's talk page. This edit added yet another citation to that same journal issue, and this is simply disruptive and counter to our polciies. If you do this again, you will be reblocked for increasing lengths of time.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gizgalasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Gizgalasi (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)The changes were made to correct misspellings and to correct wrong references that Marshallswift had written. We did not make a single reference to Azerbaijan International. Furthermore, if I am to be blocked, then why is it that all of Marshallswift's comments which support Tom Reiss - and there have been soooooo many these past few days. Why is Marshallswift not blocked? Take a good look and see. I was correcting errors that he had made and there was material that he had selectively quoted from AI that did not tell the whole story and thus skewed the meaning in favor of Reiss point of view. The whole statement needed to be shown so readers could draw their own opinio.. Furthermore, in the confusion of the long discussion that now makes up Ali and Nino page, original material - for example No. 4 - that had been mentioned about the role of Ehrenfels had been deleted. Possibly accidentally. Since that is the research of the source that was quoted - it was reintroduced. So to be honest, strange to accuse me of adding new material in favor of a specific point of view - when all I was doing was correcting errors from the record. h

Decline reason:

Per outcome of discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It appears to me that you have been blocked because you are in some way connected to the magazine Azerbaijan International, that all your edits concern that magazine in some way, and because you are unable to make edits about it without breaking our policies on editing with a neutral point of view and not using WIkipedia for promotional purposes due to your conflict of interest. It also appears to me that you were warned very clearly that if you continued to edit in this fashion you would be blocked, yet you went ahead and did so anyway. Because of this, you have no one to blame for being blocked but yourself.

Marshallswift is not blocked, I would suppose, because there has been no evidence that he has a conflict of interest, and because his edits have (generally) been sourced and presented neutrally. The fact that you see him as your opponent, and wonder why he isn't blocked if you are is a good indication that you see Wikipedia as a battleground, and that your overriding concern is not to help create a well-balanced encyclopedia, but to "win" by making sure that your point of view, and that of your magazine, is pre-eminent over every other. POV-pushing is what we call that behavior here, and it's not something that we want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a good look at all the articles that Marshallswift has written and you will see that he represents Reiss. All his articles relate to Reiss's work. And if you read carefully, you will see the same thing in the comments that he makes in this AN article. It appears that he is introducing other points of view - but in essence, he isn't. And if Marshalswift puts the wrong references, wrong pages and wrong footnotes, then what is wrong with correcting them? I would want him to do the same with my writing. Names were misspelled too - names that are in Wiki and relevant to the discussion. So what is wrong with correcting them? And why is that considered pushy? Gizgalasi (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't block you for the whole sequence of edits, like correcting spelling and grammar. I specifically blocked for this pair of edits, wherein you introduce or reintroduce additional material from AI. I believe I made it absolutely clear that you were under no circumstances to provide even a single additional reference from that journal; instead, you must bring up the point on the article's talk page first.

As for Marshallswift, he hasn't done anything bad at all; in fact, he's finally done the thing I wish I could have done a long time ago: he's shown what the scholarly consensus is. And that consensus, as far as he has shown, is that the AI theory is a theory held by, well, the authors of the AI journal; the scholarly consensus seems to be in favor of Reiss's theories. As I have always suspected, you attempted to blow up the theories of one journal, that, while extensively researched, are not nearly as widely accepted as your overinclusion of them would make it appear. I believe that because you honestly believe the scholarship done in AI is "better" or "deeper" or whatever, you are unable to edit Wikipedia neutrally, insisting, rather, that the AI theory is "correct". But that simply isn't how Wikipedia works. You must first win the debate (or at least, establish a strong showing) in the academic/scholarly field, and then after that make Wikipedia represent the scholarly consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the reintroduction of Ehrenfels material - that was exact material that was originally in the article before the article was expanded a few days ago. We have always had four points there that showed the role that Elfriede Ehrenfels played. So why am I being blocked when that material was there long ago and somehow - maybe accidentally - got removed. I was defending Ehrenfels participation.

Yes, Marshallswift has expanded the debate - but a careful examination will show that his comments generally all support EB. What AI's research was saying that is that even though EB's hand was involved and even if he signed the contract, that does not mean that the original work of the book was his. Clearly his career shows that he was a broker and that publishers used him to enhance other's works - of course to sell more books. "The Business of Literature". We have never said that EB was not involved. But Broker / embellisher is a better description of his role in Ali and Nino - as well as the majority of other books that bear Essad Bey's name. Thanks.Gizgalasi (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here point out exactly why I believe the block was appropriate: you say "we have never said". You're not here to build an encyclopedia--you're here to support your (team's) view on the authorship of this and other books. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gizgalasi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

I have searched the Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing site and see no notice of Zadeh's death. Nor does Google have a hit for it. Please do not add it to the article unless you have a citation from an impeccable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the source: On Sep 6, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Shahnaz Shahbazova <shahbazova@gmail.com> wrote:

Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC)

Dear friends! I am saddened to inform you that today, September 6th, world-renowned Azerbaijani scientist, founder of the theory of fuzzy logic, professor of the University of California Lotfi A., Zadeh passed away at the age of 97. For the last two months I have spent a lot of time with him. He was feeling well until September 5 and after that, Zadeh stopped talking and reacting. Today he left us peacefully and painlessly. I am confident to say that Professor Lotfi Zadeh was a great man who loved Azerbaijan. He always cared about the events happening in Azerbaijan. He was so proud to be born in Azerbaijan and being a Bakuvian. It was his desire to be buried in Azerbaijan, in his home country. His body will be disposed to Baku soon and buried in the Alley of Honor. His dear memories will remain in hearts of all scholars who worked and will continue to work using his scientific direction, theories and applications in all over the world. I promised him that the conferences dedicated to him will continue and as his close friends we will be working using his directions and theories. Rest in Peace, dear Lotfi.

No, that's text, that's not the source - and it appears to be a comment from someone, not an official notice. What's the URL so it can be verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's true. You can put it back in. http://en.apa.az/azerbaijani-news/social-news/famous-scientist-lotfi-zadeh-dies.html

That is also not a reliable source, considering it's one of the sources that declared him dead a few months ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gizgalasi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gizgalasi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)