User talk:Hew Folly

Hello Hew Karlani! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Grandmaster 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! Hew Folly (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Azeri

[1] Please read the stance of scholarship by leading experts in the topic [2] [3] [4] [5]. Using passing mentions, non-experts and non-WP:RS will not change that. Wikipedia does not engage in revisionism/negationism. Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym let alone a nation before 1918. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @HistoryofIran,

I would be grateful if you were more specific.

Please, answer these three questions so to make our discussion substantive.

1. Where did I reserve to passing mentions?

2. What non-experts did I refer to?

3. What non-WR:RS (if there were any) did I provide?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. At least Iranica and Murinson.

2. Murinson, Allworth, Nahaylo, Swoboda. And some certain others which the links will explain.

3. That question is answered by the links I posted here. Please read them all.

Again, the Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym let alone a nation before 1918. This is a fact denied by the governments in Azerbaijan starting from the Soviets. We already have detailed sources by experts on how the Azeris came to be, much of it can be read here Azerbaijani national identity. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ethnonym Azerbaijani (with various transliterations) existed long before 1918.

1. Here is an excerpt from the 1762 Fath-Ali-Khan's letter written in Persian and translated to Russian, as quoted by Alexander von Zagareli.

Quote: "...посылали ее противъ Ибрагимъ Джалиль Хана, тотъ помянутой Грузинской владелѣцъ на помощь къ нему сына своего съ Грузинскимъ войскомъ присылалъ, и отъ сего воспослѣдовали все сін воинскія движенія: собраніе Дагистанцовъ, мятежъ въ Адарбайд- жанѣ, походъ на Грузію, словомъ напослѣдокъ вся вина на него жъ, Грузинскаго владѣтеля, надеть, потому что, во первыхъ, должно его изскоренить, а потомъ уже приняться за дѣла Карабагскія, и мы вѣдаемъ, по какой причинѣ Грузинецъ къ Адырбайджанцу посылал свою помощь, льстись чрезъ него овладѣть всѣмъ Адырбайджанскимъ дистриктомъ. Итакъ, причина сего моего е. в. донесенія есть сія, что часто упоминаемой Иракли Ханъ находится предан- ным превосходнѣйшему е. в. двору, то въ такомъ случаѣ да благо- волено бы было всевые. е. в. указомъ повелѣть, чтобы онъ намѣет- ника своего изъ города Генжи взялъ, съ Эривана денежныхъ пода- тей не требоваль, а довольствовался бы принадлежащею ему Грузією. Лезгинцы, а съ другой Адырбанджанцы не поднялись бы на Грузію и, разграбя всю ея до основанія, не растощили бъ; сверьхъ сего весьма думать надобно, чтобъ они не подняли также къ тому Турокъ, и вся Персія не здѣлалась бы подверженною ужаснѣй- шему мятежу и кровопролитію."

Translation: "...they sent it against Ibrahim Jalil Khan, the aforementioned Georgian owner sent his son with the Georgian army to help him, and from this all the sons of the warrior movement followed: the meeting of Dagistants, the rebellion in “Adarbaijan”, the campaign against Georgia, in a word, finally, put all the blame on him, the Georgian ruler, because, firstly, he must be eradicated, and then take up the affairs of Karabagh, and we know for what reason the “Georgian sent to the Adyrbaidzhani” your help, flatter through him to take possession of the entire Adyrbaijan district. So, the reason for this is my e.v. There are reports that the often mentioned Irakli Khan is devoted to the most excellent H.V. courtyard, then in such a case everyone would be pleased. e.v. by decree order that he should take his monk from the city of Genzhi, not demand monetary taxes from Erivan, but be content with Georgia that belongs to him. 'The Lezgins, and on the other hand the Adyrbandzhanis'would not have risen to Georgia and, having plundered it all to the ground, would not have devastated it; Besides this, it is very important to think that they would not also stir up the Turks, and that all of Persia would not become subject to the most terrible rebellion and bloodshed."

Source: Грамоты и другие исторические документы XVIII столетия, относящиеся к Грузии / под ред. А. А. Цагарели. - СПб. : Комиссия печатания государственных грамот и договоров, 1891-1902. Т. 2, вып. 2 : С 1769 по 1801 год. - 1902. - LV, 330 с. [6]

Comment: this WP:SECONDARY was published in 1902 and refered to the 1762 letter. I am not sure that it was related the Soviet period. So, it would be better to say that your "fact" is denied since Imperial Russia or the Azerbaijani Khanates themselves. Hew Folly (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran you can add that quote to your list, especially comparing it to this one Hew Folly (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still haven't read the links I posted, which is concerning. It's not a secondary source either, after you have the read all the links, please read WP:SYNTH, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:PST, and WP:AGEMATTERS. The quote just mentions the word "Azerbaijan(i)", which is not surprising, considering the word has existed since the Late Antiquity. Historical revisionism/negationism will not be tolerated in Wikipedia, I hope you understand that. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions not only "Azerbaijan" but also "Azerbaijanis" in the context of mentioning other ethnic groups(Georgians and Lezgins), as well. I kindly ask you to read carefully. Hew Folly (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that you still have not read the sources nor policies I posted. Again, concerning. I'm outta here. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The expert opinion might vary. Hew Folly (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:GS/AA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will consider that. Hew Folly (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Vanezi (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted topics

Hi. See WP:GS/AA as several Armenia and Azerbaijan related topics are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you’re not an extended confirmed user. Vanezi (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is editing WP:GS/AA Talk pages restricted for the non-extended confirmed users, too?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. [7] Hew Folly (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hew Folly, I just wanted to confirm your understanding here. While you are not extended-confirmed, you are still welcome to post at article talk pages. You should avoid "internal project discussions", including AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Vanezi (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hew Folly (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics notice (Gender and sexuality)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning, GS/AA

Hi Hew Folly. You've been notified a couple times about the extended-confirmed restriction covering "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide". Your recent edit to Karabakh Khanate was a violation of the restriction, since anything Karabakh is likely covered, and your edit in particular is related to modern ethnopolitical conflict over the history of the area. Please be particularly cautious in this topic area moving forward, as future violations will probably lead to a block or ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hew Folly, at my talk page, you said "The Qajar Iran is related neither to the Republic of Azerbaijan nor to the Republic of Armenia. hence, i edited it". I'd rather keep this in one place, so I'm responding here. I don't think all of Qajar Iran is covered by GS/AA, and I'd say the same about Afsharid Iran, which your edit also implicated. That said, the intersection between those dynasties and Karabakh is covered by the restriction. Your mention of the Republics is a red herring, since the topic involved here is not just about the modern republics. You are free to disagree with me, and if you do, I'd say your options fall into three general buckets:

Disagree, but still behave as if I'm right. Do this and you're likely to avoid a sanction.
Disagree, and seek out the opinion of another uninvolved admin. If they disagree with me, I'd be likely to take the matter to ANI if you have another similar violation. If they agree with me, one of us would probably block/ban if you have another violation.
Disagree, and continue as you have been without seeking any other input. I'll probably block/ban if you have another violation.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you for your advice. Hew Folly (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers @Rosguill I believe HewFolly made several violations of WP:GS/AA remedies, in particular "1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I think almost all of their recent comments are disruptive in a number of ways;

Opens a snarky discussion about Kingdom of Artsakh [8], questioning the entity altogether and questioning WP:RS with original research, posting intentionally obtuse “questions”; Artsakh is the original name of the region and one of its first entities to establish a kingdom, Kingdom of Artsakh obviously predates the modern Nagorno-Karabakh and the lead makes it clear (assuming they only read the lead). HewFolly is aware of this because they quote the lead and this is the second Artsakh history article they commented on (below for more), yet they keep wasting community time with these intentionally obtuse and condescending WP:FORUM “questions”.
Opens another snarky WP:FORUM like discussion on Artsakh history article [9], WP:OR disputing the entity's entire existence by “What is Artsakh?”. What kind of framing is that? Only somebody who hasn't read any of the articles that they directly comment on, or are completely unfamiliar with the topic, would be asking this question - it’s clearly not the case here given HewFolly already made comments on at least 2 articles of Artsakh history and is quoting material from them. They're also asking a snarky question that is literally answered in the article itself with wikilinks, such as "Province of Artsakh of the Kingdom of Armenia 189 BC to 387 AD".
Another discussion that showcases they also don't grasp what WP:LEAD summarising the body means, keep wasting editors' time on an obvious historical fact and has to be explained several times by a veteran editor about WP:LEAD, yet to no avail - they still don’t drop the discussion and deny an obvious fact summaried in the lead (see First Nagorno-Karabakh war outcome, Artsakh/Armenia came victorious). Even after this discussion, they still persist with the same WP:INCOMPETENT comments now in another article, pretending WP:LEAD / MOS:LEAD doesn’t exist [10].
Another forum like thread of HewFolly questioning vastly sourced paragraph from the article because of 2 sources described by them “due to multiple refernces to denialists and negationists like the Lemkin Institute, Michael Rubin etc.” [11]. When asked a veteran user to clarify “negationists” [12], goes on a forum type comment about one of the sources and posts WP:OR forum like slanderous vague comments such as “Those who negate history through falsification and distortion of history”[13], then links to a wiki comment of another user/article [14] (same user they canvassed to in the past [15], [16]). This source they're WP:OR forum commenting about btw [17], and it’s just one source out of dozens from the paragraph that they try to cherry-pick to POV push their point.
Removes signature and reference of an IP for no solid reason.

HewFolly has been: using the talk pages for their WP:FORUM intentionally obtuse comments, snarky comments not limited to denying the existence of former Armenian entities, incompetent WP:IDHT push and wasting editors’ time, partially removing other editors comments with no solid grounds, etc. HewFolly's usage of talk pages has been disruptive in a controversial topic area with restrictions that they're aware about. And HewFolly already had a final GS/AA warning prior to doing all of this. Vanezi (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these complaints have merit: in particular, #2 is clearly a violation of GS/AA, and #3 demonstrates a lack of understanding of how to make relevant arguments about article structure to an extent incompatible with CTOPs. ~~Instead of addressing these concerns raised here, Hew Folly has elected to~~ I am also deeply concerned by the most recent comment, which is another irrelevant, RGW and source-free statement about Armenia-Azerbaijan. Thus, in light of the prior warnings, I'm imposing an indefinite topic-ban on Armenia, Azerbaijan, broadly construed. This goes beyond the standard provisions of GS/AA; you are no longer welcome to make any comments or suggestions relating to these topics. Please note that this ban covers all Azerbaijani and Armenian topics, not just ones that are immediately related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

topic-ban on Armenia, Azerbaijan, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons explained immediately above this notice

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:Khanates of the Caucasus, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @HistoryofIran,

Is a Talk page considered to be a Wikipedia article? Hew Folly (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know what I meant. I already have plenty of diffs you violating the policies of this site. Source misrepresentation to push historical falsification will not be tolerated. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what you meant. Is there any rule prohibiting the Wikipedia users from posting their POV, analysis, deduction, source comment on a talk page? If yes, let me know.

P.S: How could I misrepresent the source 'to push historical falsification' if I directly indicated all the sources and even provided the link for the book, so everyone could read and check it? How could you accuse me of misrepresentation if I clearly indicated what is written by me and what is written by the scholar? (Link) Hew Folly (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rule prohibiting the Wikipedia users from posting their POV, analysis, deduction, source comment on a talk page?

Okay, this must be WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT at this rate. I already posted the policies for that in the talk page of the article as well as yours, look there.

You also keep posting a link that doesn't work, I have no idea what you're trying to say. And are you kidding me? You blatantly omitted that these are claims by Azeri historians to rewrite history, as Bournoutian says, since he does not agree with it (and nor does the rest of scholarship, but you keep ignoring that), but you portray it as so. Here, I post it here as well, read it a few times;

"Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian,2 as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it a single state that has been separated into “northern” and “southern” sectors and which will be united in the future.3 This unsubstantiated claim rests on a number of factors:

"a) Although politically the two rarely formed one region, since the majority of the population of Iranian Azarbayjan spoke the same Turkic dialect as the overwhelming numbers of Muslim Tatars in the South Caucasus, modern Azerbaijani historians view the people and the two regions as one. One cannot argue that linguistically and, to a much lesser extent, ethnically and religiously (Shi`a form of Islam) the two regions are very similar and could be seen as one. Hence, after the rise of their national consciousness at the start of the twentieth century, it was convenient for the Muslim Tatars living in the South Caucasus to refer to themselves as Azeris and to their newly formed independent republic (1918) as Azerbaijan.4 The objections of the weak and dying Qajar Iran were ignored."

"b) The khanate of Nakhichevan and parts of southern Karabagh (the Qapanat) had been, for a short period, included in the administrative division of the Iranian province of Azarbayjan."

"c) Following the Treaty of Gulistan, the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan and their khans were subordinate to `Abbas Mirza, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian forces in Tabriz (Azarbayjan)."

"d) The Tadhkirat Al-Muluk,5 an important Persian source on the administration of Iran in the last years of the Safavids, seems to include the three provinces of Chukhur-e Sa`d (Yerevan and Nakhichevan), Karabagh (Ganja and Karabagh) and Shirvan (Shirvan, Baku, Kuba and Sheki) as being under the governorship (beglerbegi) of Azarbayjan centered in Tabriz.6"

I won't entertain this more. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khanates_of_the_Caucasus#:~:text=First%2C%20Bournoutian%20considers,number%20of%20factors Hew Folly (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khanates_of_the_Caucasus#:~:text=Note%3A%20the%20words%20highlighted%20in%20bold%20are%20direct%20quotes%20from%20the%20Bornoutian%27s%20book.%20Stars%20are%20added%20by%20me. Hew Folly (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you admit your mistake/false accusation? Hew Folly (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you admit your mistake/false accusation? Hew Folly (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve only been told a dozen or times or so that your (barely intelligible) deductions are irrelevant per the policies of this website (no, I’m not linking them again). And in no way do they justify you blatantly misrepresenting a source. Also, dont think I cant see that you’re farming edits. Im reporting you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you imply by 'farming edits'? Hew Folly (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, anyone (including you) can see that the text was represented objectively. Although, I added an opinion of mine, it was mostly refered to as 'another topic', hence was not about being used for the Wikipedia article. Hew Folly (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Hi! On your edit here: [18] please don't edit BLP:s without citing solid sources for the content you add. If this [19] was your source, that's not good enough. See also WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My mistake. Thanks for the information. Hew Folly (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]