User talk:TigranTheGreat

	Archives
	Archive 1 (August 11, 2005 - October 17, 2006); Archive 2 (January 28, 2007);

Welcome!

Hello, TigranTheGreat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Today you've made two reverts to Armenians and three to Urartu today. I'm sure that I've already talked to you about this kind of unproductive, hostile behavior. I linked you to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution last time you were blocked and asked you to use mediation when you returned, rather than engaging in confrontational battles of attrition. When you return from this block please make sure you restrict your editing in disputed areas to discussion, compromise, and seeking mediation when those fail. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians

With respect to a recent revert war in the said article: please discuss further changes on the talk page before reverting. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utik

Hey, please see the talk page, it seems as though you confused a quote? not sure I would appreciate it if you confirm it merci. Artaxiad 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have opened an arbitration case regarding the current editing dispute you've been involved in. Please make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan concerning the conflict with the other parties listed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Fad (ix) 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in which you have been named as a party. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. The case remains open for the submission of evidence or proposals. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Paytakaran

See Talk:Paytakaran#Unprotection.

The Transhumanist 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

The arbitration case involving you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has placed you on standard revert parole for a year. This means that you may revert only once per article per week except to revert obvious vandalism. Furthermore, you must explain your reasonings for content reverts on the associated talk page.

You may review the full decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian_hypothesis

Can you try removing the POV statement at the last paragrah in Armenian_hypothesis:

The hypothesis was also embraced by Armenian patriotism as supporting the conviction that Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia.[1] Thus, Kavoukjian (English 1987) tries to identify various peoples known from cuneiform and classical sources with the Armenians. Such attempts were firmly rejected by Diakonoff (1984:129f.)[2] ; see also nationalism and archaeology.

Not only we have Kuro-Araxes culture showing Indo-European presence during the 3rd millenium BC when Armani is mentioned, but also the Greco-Armeno-Aryan it says is linked with the speakers of the Anatolian, which is what it says about Kuro-Araxes culture's Indo-European's being connected, in contact with the Anatolian. So that last paragragh is POV, and Diaknoff never said that, I think Dbachmann is distorted his words. Can you try removing that POV statement in the last paragragh here Armenian_hypothesis, Thanks. The guys dont even put that Ivanov is the challening view of Diaknoff, they simply state Armenian nationlist are stating this, when many many "none"-Armenians state that Armenians are native and our language is native in the Highlands. Apranik 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Ivanov hypo is minority, and Dyakonoff's is majority. But under wiki rules, we can't state either as absolute truth.--TigranTheGreat 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

I'd like to make an apology for a specific remark that I made. When you said: "This is also basically why I don't edit much anymore." — I read it as "This is also basically why I don't edit [this article] much anymore." — this was a misreading on my part and for that I apologise. I didn't mean it was good that you were stopping editting in general, but rather that you stopped editing that page.

I think that you can be a valuable contributor so I hope that you don't stop editing other pages purely on my say so, regards. - Francis Tyers · 13:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man. - Francis Tyers · 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration and apology

Regarding the RfA, the revert war on the Azerbaijan article (in which Atabek baited me into) was not as big of an issue as the present disputes over articles like the Church of Kish. Ever since my last block, I have been extra-cautious and I've made a concerted effort not only to follow my parole but to also avoid any possible disputes that could lead me into edit wars. That said, I still don't want to be involved in this.

I also see that you recommended I be permanently be blocked on the Evidence page of the new Arm-Azer RfA for disruptive behavior. I think it's about time we resolved our row and I apologize for getting on your nerves. This is especially true on that Hungarian thing - you were joking and I should have seen that. I should have not been stubborn and just accepted your token of friendship. I was taking Wikipedia way, way too seriously. I'm sorry, man.

Check your e-mail when you get a chance. I want to work with you in the future on Wikipedia and I still want to help improve Armenian articles here. More importantly, though, I want to end any animosity between us for good. The last thing I want Azeri editors to see is infighting between Armenians. I used to believe that one could compromise with Azeri users. But when the president of Azerbaijan threatens to "attack Armenia in all directions," then I think it's time to consider a different approach.

Let's just start over with a clean slate. Cool? Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, will you just stop correcting every 1 minute? I am trying to read here, I can't catch up with the updates.--TigranTheGreat 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :-P -- Aivazovsky 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have had no problem with trying to start conflict among Armenian users before. --TigranTheGreat 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know but I've matured a lot since then. I think of my time here on Wikipedia as a learning experience. I was first drawn into learning about Cleveland and then about my ancestry and so I began work on Armenian articles. I never attended Armenian school and so I only began to really understand Armenia through books and through Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you want, what, to talk about this?--TigranTheGreat 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to resolve any differences we may have so we can move on. I believe that Armenian unity is important (or at least I've come to believe that more and more), therefore we need to work for each other, not against each other. I was being stubborn for refusing your friendship earlier and I've since realized that by continuing to be stubborn would be counter-productive. -- Aivazovsky 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you said you had an email or something?--TigranTheGreat 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent you an e-mail. -- Aivazovsky 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your email?--TigranTheGreat 13:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the "Email This User" link on the left side of my user page and you will get it. -- Aivazovsky 13:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you signed on now? If you are not, I will try emailing you some other time.--TigranTheGreat 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm on my break at work but I can't access my e-mail. Just shoot me an e-mail and I'll check it out when I get home. -- Aivazovsky 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will drop you a note and say hi. But I prefer not to discuss anything relating to the ArbCom or Wiki via email--it would be appropriate to talk about it in the open, on talk pages, out of respect to other Wikipedians.--TigranTheGreat 13:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. -- Aivazovsky 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The case in which you were peripherally involved in was closed. According to the records, you were placed on revert parole (now called revert limitations), and as such, you are affected by this remedy, which places you on supervised editing. You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with another editor concerning disputes which may arise.

You may view the full decision at the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George III

I agree. I've tried to amend that. DrKiernan 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I had left you a message about what I took/take to be undue reverting by User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann on these articles Mitanni, Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan. Please take a look at their edits, and decide for yourself if they were justified, thank you!--Moosh88 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann double standard with History Armenia template

Whats really going on is he is removing our historical info from the History of Armenia template that was there from the first day the Template was created. That is whats really going on. So who is the vandal, its dab. There should be no reason to remove Nairi and Hayk. Also, "History of Georgia" template, for example, has all of their earlier history just as we had, but ours gets removed???

I know, he is being a bad bad boy. Who are you again?--TigranTheGreat 10:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar, TigranTheGreat! Andranikpasha (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shusha revert

As there are now two people other than yourself (Andranikpasha and Bassenius) who have commented on my revert of your changes to Shusha, I am explaining myself a little here, as the majority of it is of very little relevance to the article. It is a personal conduct issue.

Firstly, let me be clear - I am not a sock of anyone; I have only one account and it is consistently named on all Wikimedia projects, and I have turned up to two Wikipedia meetups so many Australians know me by name, face and character. I am not a random user. If you need confirmation, please feel free to request that the checkusers verify that; I am sure they will investigate very quickly considering that I am an admin on several projects. I will not object, nor will I hold a grudge if you do want confirmation.

I reverted your change to that article as I considered it to be destructive and disruptive; I mentioned that in the edit summary. I reverted it like I would revert any other change that was not clearly a move forward, in the right direction. I am not familiar with your work on Wikipedia, so I hope that this was just one bad diff among many good diffs.

There are many articles on Wikipedia that deal with these complexities of this region, such as Shusha pogrom (1920), Azerbaijani people and History of the name Azerbaijan, and some of those are still disputed. Before getting into a discussion about the specific changes you made, I would like to point out that it is disruptive to take those disputes to other more general articles such as Shusha. General articles about a topic should keep away from complex issues, instead it should gloss over the issue in a neutral fashion and direct the reader to the sub-article where the reader can gain a better appreciation of the topic if they want to. There is no reason why "Shusha" is a contentious article.

I have explained part of the problem on my talk, where I clearly stated that I found the entire change to be unacceptable. Since it is being defended by others, I will start to elaborate. This is not because it needs to be explain, as I think that most experienced users would judge the diff to be laced with problems, but I will explain in more detail in order to open discussion with you. This is intended to be an explanation on how I viewed the change when I first saw it, so you can see how I viewed it. I will expand on this in the next 24hrs, but lets start with the edit summary:

“

It's doubtfull whether "Azerbaijanis" are a clearly developed ethnicity even today. They definitely would be a fictional nationality before 1918.

”

It is not important whether Azerbaijanis is an ethnicity today - the word Azerbaijanis in this article refers to many factors: nationality, language, culture. To replace "Azerbaijanis"/"Azeris" with "Turkic-speaking Muslims" and other similar terms is VERY simplistic. Someone who does search & replaces like that, ignoring the complexities, is typically the actions of someone with a strong POV, and they often do not take care to appreciate the subtleties of the existing wording when they make their changes. This sparked my interest in your changes, and on inspection, my suspicions were confirmed. For example, the article previously used the terms "Armenian-Azeri" and "Armenians and Azeris", which is a commonly understood way to talk about the clash - to change that to Armenian-"Tartar" is going too far. It is not the best wording to help the reader understand the topic quickly.

It is blatantly ridiculous to say that Azer was a fictional nationality before 1918. Of course in modern times, they only became a nation in 1918 however that was proceeded by many years of a national identity being formed and recognised by other nations[1]. How much earlier than 1918 is a matter of dispute, but a nationality is not formed by a click of a button. (please look into the meaning of the word nationality) Putting that aside, there is lots of scholarly information that explains the nationality going back into ancient history. I havent researched that deeply myself so I cant comment on its accuracy nor do I understand it all at this stage, but I do know that there is a well-held belief that the ethnicity and national identity goes back a long way. To call it a "fictional nationality before 1918" in an edit summary is again VERY simplistic and not the words of someone who respects the complexities.

Overall, that edit summary contained barbs in the words used. That is disruptive. In my opinion you need to be more careful to respect the views of other peoples - tone down your edit summaries, and your edits, so they do not incite people to anger. I will continue this later. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is much scholarly evidence that the so-called "Azerbaijanis" were an artificial identity invented by pan-Turks and later Soviets. You may believe what you like, everyone is entitled to his fantasies, but be careful before accusing me for not agreeing with your views. That actually makes you seem the one disregarding others' views. If you have issues with the content, bring it up on the talk page, and stop throwing accusations against those whom you disagree with.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed the point. Your input into whether or not "Azerbaijanis" is a modern concept would be most welcome on articles that deal with that topic, however it does not belong on an article like Shusha. I am truly interested in the development of knowledge in this area, and want to read about all sides of the debate - however on Wikipedia, I want to see that knowledge only appear on articles where it is appropriate. Trying to force that issue on an article about a city is not beneficial to the reader, and bad conduct for the editor in light of the constant editing disputes that have resulted in two arbcom cases. I dont disagree with your POV - I disagree with where you are trying to promote that POV, and also how you are doing it. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran maybe harsh with his words, but his right, and it isn't even a matter of debate, they have changed the term Tartar in a wide range of articles. It is wrong to assume that every Turkic population on that region should be thrown in the same bag, when they were still heterogenous. The 1905 clash was called Armenian-Tartar clash, NOT Armenian-Azerbaijani clash. In every other encyclopedia's we call historical events or identities according to the period we cover. When we use the term Azerbaijani for anything prior 1918 we are clearly using a misleading term. The Turkic elements were called Tartars, and the association of this Turkic element with a land called Azerbaijan was only done after 1918. Only when the Russians laid claims on Persia did they equate northern Arax region to Azerbaijan to claim it as a continuity with the Azerbaijan region now in Iran. But in any case, they were called Tartars in most of the sources prior 1918 and it would be unencyclopedic to not be encyclopedic in the choice of terms.VartanM (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a point, User:Jayvdb assumes that I edit on the Shusha article "to impose my POV" and "to bring in a dispute." This clearly violates WP:AGF. I am mere there to edit. Every article needs to be accurate--no article is above it. So if the article Shusha refers to the Armenian massacres by Tatars, and uses the incorrect term "Azerbaijanis," well, then it needs to be corrected. This correction was made by User Bassenius, whose edits were reverted by User:Parishan without adequate explanation. I merely restored the correct information. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so called

Just say "as for Azerbaijanis," you know there's no need for that "so called"; don't be inflammatory for naught, which to say, at all. Thanks. El_C 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Azerbaijanis" is an artificial ethnonym for group of people with little unifying identity. That is my opinion, it's supported, and it is relevant to the discussion. If you require users to be sanitize their opinions, then you need to require Grandmaster to refrain from calling Nagorno-Karabakh "separatists," "illegal entity," and "non-existent state." If you don't, it's discrimination, and you cannot do it.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re John Vandenberg

I should comment that any review of the above admins recent actions is likely to confirm that it was appropriate, and that your attempts at influencing said actions by intimidation will possibly reflect extremely poorly upon you. Perhaps you may consider this before making such inflammatory statements again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this - it is starting to look like campaigning for one side of a content dispute. Orderinchaos 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee

User:Moreschi is a much better person to contact on this, having taken on the brutal task of handling the Armenian/Azeri issues at Arb. Enforcement. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility parole

Per the remedies contained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, I'm putting you on standard civility parole for one year. If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. This is due to your recent repeated threats and incivility. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. -- Cat ^chi? 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make your case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Osroene Chaldean (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

Hello, I need your advice in this article, which's one section I proposed to merge to this one called The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore (book). --Vitilsky (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haj Araqelakan Ekexecu hodvacy

Hargeli Tigran, Es nkatel em dzer masnakcutjuny arajin petakan ekexecu qnnarkumnerum edessiaji qnnarkumnerum. Kxndrei ognel indz nujnum haj araqelakan ekexecu ejum ajstex. Nor andz e hajtnvel, vor popoxum e pastery kam tarakarcutjan arit e stexcum anhimn kerpov. eji vra hin qnnarkum ka dra veraberjal bajc norovi sharunakac. Kanxav shnorhakalutjun. Aregakn 05:08 02/03/2010 GMT —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Baku and Khojaly massacre articles

Hello, I believe you are interested in contributing our efforts to disproof the lies in the so-called Kohjaly Massacre article and here. In the History section of Baku article we read: "Muslims suffered a crushing defeat by the united forces of the Baku Soviet and then felt the whole unbridled ferocity of Dashnak teams. Some 12 000 Azeri became the victims of the massacre carried out by radical Armenians and Bolshevik troops". Thanks. --Kevorkmail (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]