User talk:The Diamond Apex

Welcome!

Hello, The Diamond Apex, 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:

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Menti fisto 02:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

On behalf of WP:Armenia, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Consider joining the project or surfing through the page if you intend on editing Armenian-related articles. Feel free to ask me or any other user any questions you might have. Hope you enjoy your stay. - Fedayee (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome. As for Wikipedia, tread carefully. There are plenty of mines, laid long in advance, that are available to those who will want you gone, and gone quickly. Meowy 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto ! Sardur (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sardur for the welcome, but I’ve had some regrets coming here. I’ve underestimated the severity of all the conflicts on Wikipedia. I will summarise my points to the best of my abilities.

Messieurs Fedayee, Gazifikator, Grandmaster and Dbachmann have a really disturbing way of handling this situation.

First and foremost, Dbachmann’s language here is inexcusable (see here [1]). If I was administrating this place, quite frankly, I would have expelled him out of Wikipedia.

It is without question also that Grandmaster reply’s of pouring oil onto the fire was not a good idea either. He repeats here that No mention that most scholars do not support this dating. Didn't I quote in my reply Thomson admitting it is highly disputed; didn't I quote Hewsen withdrawing his support for Thomson’s position when he said the dating was uncertain? What's this hullabaloo of rolling back somebody else’s changes? Grandmaster made no attempt to even modify the newly proposed modifications. I was tempted to modify MarshalBagramyan’s edit to address issues (among one, the way the dating was presented) only to find out the changes were totally undone. I would have liked to have been given the chance to make the relevant changes.

Gazifikator came and reverted and only commented later. I'm an observer here and obviously I'd like to have some feedback of the editors before they fight over which version is accurate. Didn't I say that I was waiting other editors’ feedback before I presented my position? Why was I ignored?

Lastly, Fedayee came and made baseless accusations directed against another user. Even claiming that Grandmaster 'find[s] that [a] nationalist driven created article like a good article', as if an apparent hypercritic of Movses Khorenatsi would even consider Movses 'Kaghankatvatsi, who obviously copied Khorenatsi, any more credible (assuming that single source which Fedayee refers to is indeed Movses Kaghankatvatsi) the latter. Grandmaster's hypercritism of ancient scholars is obviously constructive and needed and Fedayee's allegation of double standard seems to be destinated to discredit Grandmaster (character assassination).

I will not go back in the talk page before things fix themselves, if ever things fix themselves.

Study the edit history of editors to get at where they are coming from. Until you know who you are dealing with, suspect everyone and assume bad faith in everything (but never say it publicly). A lot are here just to wage a propaganda war. Others are here mostly to express their inflated egos - the individual whose language you found inexcusable is such a person (be careful in dealing with him, btw, he will hold a grudge if you push him, will wait his time before taking revenge, and has administrator friends to carry out his bidding). About the Moses of Chorene entry. Rather than making long talk page comments, maybe you should be bold and make the substantial changes to the article, do it all in one go and then ask those who object to specific points or changes to explain their objections in the talk page. At the least, it will get the objections out into the open. You seem to have a greater understanding of the subject than most other editors, and you are looking at the article with fresh eyes. You cannot overestimate the severity of all the conflicts on Wikipedia! The serious problems with Wikipedia are partly because of what Wikipedia is, and partly because academics have chosen to ignore what it contains and ignore its growing influence. Meowy 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice mate. I'll keep it in mind. I have started reading users contributions, and as a result of which, I prefer not getting involved more for now. It's rather interesting to see the link I showed of Dab's talkpage is cut; I've dumped my text into an html based mailbox because a computer I was using was blocking Wikipedia (that's the second time it happens, I wonder from what end the problem stems from). I was sure that I fixed the cut the link when copying it, but apparently not. But from your reply, you seem to be aware of the offending editing habits made by Mr. Dab? Anyway, I have fixed it now and my reply (hopefully) makes more sense. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because many editors are editing for ulterior motives, a desire for accuracy may not be behind many of their edits or their support for (or opposition to) changes. I've got good circumstantial evidence to believe that I've personally suffered from the grudge-holding and revenge-taking habits of Mr Dab (but since nothing is provable there is no point in pursuing it, and even mentioning it breaks their "good faith" rule). I don't know enough about the Moses of Chorene date issues to know who is right and who is wrong, or what opinions should be given greater emphasis. However, if distortions are being propagated in subjects related to your chosen field of study, don't hide from your responsibilities to correct those distortions! Meowy 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Meowy is being a little over-dramatic here ("suspect everyone and assume bad faith in everything"?) but Armenian/Turkish/Azeri pages do seem to be fraught with the overt nationalism of some editors. I would advise not to assume bad faith in everything, but rather judge all things critically and keep articles on topic. Be aware that some editors do tread the line of "decent editing/POV editing" and it is these editors which are most problematic, as Wikipedia is most vulnerable those who are not solely disruptive. But also be aware that some sane editors do exist and are willing to help. Let's keep things generalised at Sari Galin and not make the article a long discussion of nationalistic claims to a shared cultural heritage. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And within a month of posting my "suspect everyone and assume bad faith in everything" advice, The Diamond Apex was banned as a result of a laughable sock-puppetry claim. So, if anything, I was being under dramatic. Meowy 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parev

Hello The Diamond Apex. Thanks for your compliment. I added some details to Abdaladze's biography, but I don't have much info on him right now. Your collaboration is always welcome. Warm regards, --Kober^Talk 04:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm a "part-time historian." --Kober^Talk 04:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Hi. Please be aware of this request for arbitration: [2] Unfortunately, I had to take it to the arbitration, as any attempts at dispute resolution were unsuccessful. Regards, Grandmaster 06:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you noted, I did not name you as a party to the case. You are a relatively new person around here, and I hope we can somehow work out our differences in a civil way. But unfortunately I could not resolve my differences with others via the standard procedures. I tried to follow all dispute resolution procedures, and it is not my fault if certain users refused to cooperate. So let the community trusted people look into the issue and say, who was right and who was wrong. Grandmaster 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexander Abdaladze

The article Alexander Abdaladze has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article about non-notable academic, created by indef-blocked sockpuppet inactive since May 2009 (see contribs)

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pointillist (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]