Hi I am having trouble understanding your edits. For example in Nasir al-Din Tusi, a Persian author who pre-dates the formation of Azerbaijani-Turkic speaking ethnicity, you put an stamp from the republic of Azerbaijan claiming him as Azeri. He is from Tus in Khorasan. In Babak Khorramdin, you made a claim that he is an Azerbaijani-Turk but the area was not even Turkic speaking then and no serious academic source entertains such a theory. In Caucasian Albania template, you put an Azerbaijan flag. Now you put a separatist flag in Iranian Azerbaijan. You also do not use the talkpage. It is like putting the Talysh flag, Lezgin flag, Karabakh flag in say Lenkoran or Shusha. So if Karabakh flag is put in every city that is within now the Karabakh republic, would you complain? Do you think this type of editing is for creating an Encyclopedia? I am having trouble understanding your edit pattern, maybe you can explain it better. But from this pattern, I do not observe neutrality. Note I wrote this because you said before you are not anti-Iranian in another place, but putting a fringe separatist flag in mainstream Iranian pages is not only Encyclopedic but it is not really a good way to calm down the usual tensions that exists between neighbors in that part of the world. Best wishes.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Im having trouble understanding your point in all this, perhaps you are on a process against me? Because all the arguments you point out to are not relevant. I dont recall working on Nasir al-Din Tusi article or saying he is Azeri. I havent even touched the Babak Khorramdin article in a long while and didnt made any changes that he is Azerbaijani after the given sources that he is Iranian. The Caucasian Albania template was corrected and a symbol of during that era was added instead, its easy to mistake Caucasian Albania for Azerbaijan as its the preceder state. Then you claim I added the SANAM proposed flag to the Iranian Azerbaijan article, which is false, if so then please proof me wrong. All I did was add one sentence to Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement under Modern Period. Your talk about flags is compleet not relevant as I only added the proposed flag to the SANAM article alone. You give me the impression you are making a threat to all Azerbaijan Republic articles. However even due to this impression I am optimistic this is not the case, so please be more careful in your accusations. [User:Neftchi|Neftchi]] (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for your response. I am not making any threats, I was just surprised and I think you explained it well. I was just asking mainly to use the talkpage. On the list of Azeris, I explained my edits on the talkpage. I also added sections for Azeris in Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq and etc. But I did not know the individuals exactly and I added it from other wikipages. So I thank your corrections to the Russian, Georgian and etc. part. But I took them straight from the articles "Azeris in Russia", "Azeris in Georgia" and etc. So you might want to correct those pages. Also feel free to delete this conversation, as I think we are both trying to make wikipedia better in a calm manner. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi what I meant was use of lack of talkpage for restoring two names which I discussed already in list of Azeri. Note I kept Ismail I despite unclear ancestry, but the other two are very unclear and any normal Encyclopedia (Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islami, Iranica) does not mention Azeri. One existed before the formation of Azerbaijani language/ethnicity. Best --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xahiş edirəm "Azərbaycan Silahlı Qüvvələri" ilə bağlı məqaləyə nəzər yetir. Mən orada kiçik əlavələr etmişəm. Məncə onlar qalsa, məqaləyə daha çox hərbiyyəlik və qüvvət gətirər. Xahiş edirəm, xəbərim olmadan ləğv etməyin.
I am confused with the File:Azeri Babek schoolbook.jpg It said that this image is from a fourth grade schoolbook and that you are the author of the image. Are you the author of the image in the original text book???? If yes, please provide what sources you were using making this image also you might want better identification of the schoolbook and yourself. If you only scanned the image from the book the image cannot be free and require some sort of a fair use rationale Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion
Hello. User:RetlawSnellac is known to violate copyright of several photos and impersonate their real author. As there was a strong correlation between that account activities and yours I reported about incidents, and voiced my suspicion, regarding your account. Please comment on situation here. Kind regards --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the evidence presented at the ANI thread, and two uninvolved behavioural analyses (here and here), I have blocked you for one week for sock puppetry. Further engagement in this activity after your block's expiry will result in a much longer block. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk)11:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say anything about the relationship between the Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan. All information has been copied straight from the Caspian Sea article and does not refer in any way to Azerbaijan. The article has remained a stub since its creation three years ago. If there is encyclopedic material about the influences of Caspian Sea on Azerbaijan, there are probably better places to put it, such as the Climate of Azerbaijan article.
It is already on the peer review backlog so it should get some comments in the next several days in any case, but I will be glad to look at it. It will take me a few days though. Don't worry about the duplicate PR request too much - I was just letting you know why the PR you started was deleted. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this notice because you are on the Participants list for WikiProject Zoroastrianism, or you are a strong contributor to Zoroastrianism related articles. If you wish not to receive anymore updates concerning this WikiProject, then please leave a message here.
This message is related to the opening of the new IRC channel #wikipedia-en-zoro. We have registered this channel for help and information concerning Zoroastrianism and for help related to edits, content, sources etc. If you wish to enter this channel, there are 2 ways: For those with a IRC client, they can simply click the following link: #wikipedia-en-zoroconnect For those who want to access IRC on their browser, they can go to the channel by clicking here.
Recently, most of the participants were put to Inactive Participants to only maintain the active participants. If you are still active, please move your name back up to the Active Participants section right here.
Hi mate
See you've just reverted all my hard work. I did wonder whether I should chat to you before I did it. Never mind - we can have the conversation now. I've got two major issues. First, there are no English sources that describe the 'Az Interior Guard' as an 'Interior Guard,' but there are lots of sources calling it the Internal Troops. Even the reference in the 'Interior Guard' article calls it the 'Internal Troops,' as well as the Ministry's official site [1]. Second, all the material depicts the Az Air and Air Defence Force, as per Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments, the reference I provided, as one force, no two. Can you provide sources saying (a) it's the Interior Guard? and (b) there are two separate air arms of service? Otherwise I would like, with all due respect, to revert your reverts. I'm really happy to discuss this, but the translations seem to indicate, as per the rest of the fSU, that the Interior Troops carried over, and the air arm is one merged force. We need to be accurate in our depictions, not inaccurate. Buckshot06(talk)20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot asked me to comment on the issue of whether the Azeri AF and Azeri ADF are unified or separate forces, since I’m knowledgeable about world air forces. Off hand, I don’t know their current status. Typically, these would have been unified per Soviet practice, but since they’ve been under significant Western influence, they may have recently switched to a different type of organization. I’ll be out of touch all of next week traveling, but when I return, I will do some further research. Neftchi, do you have any specific, citable information we can use to clear up the evolution of these two Azeri defense organizations? Cheers, Askari Mark(Talk)02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buckshot06, you made some major changes to all military articles of Azerbaijan, if you had taken a look in the history logs you would have noticed that I am the biggest contributor to these articles, so it would have been nice if you had talked it with me first. I looked very carefully to all your edits and I understand your changes and I must note that Im happy somebody else is showing an interest in these articles, so I did not reverted all your work, I went through your edits carefully - one by one, only the edits which I strongly did not agree I changes into something neutral. I just want to say, I did appriciate your hard work and did not revert everything, we only have a few points to talk, such as: Interior Guard or Internal Troops; Air Force and Air Defense Force. I suggest before further editing anything in any of the related articles we talk things first and reach consensus. I readed your article on the Internal Troops, as the official given sources uses this title its only correct to use the same on in wikipedia aswell. So on this field I must agree with you and I want to note that earlier official sources called it Interior Guard, but its the same name with synonyms. However the title Air and Air Defense Force not only sounds very weird and perhaps even misguiding, its also never used in the official sites or statements ever before. I never heard of this official title, if the branches are indeed united (which none of us have any confirmation of dismissal of) the title still should be seperate whilest we can add that they are the same branch. Neftchi (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do suggest instead of the title Internal Troops (Azerbaijan) we use Azerbaijani Internal Troops, its easier for the public to reach and understand. Neftchi (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I life in Netherlands today and I study journalism. I appriciate you taking time and explaining it, could we use the Ukrainian approach as Internal Troops of Azerbaijan, it sounds more accessible. As for the Air Force, it might be a united branch, I dont argue you there, but the fact is calling it Air and Air Defense Force sounds very misguiding, in fact it took me a moment to understand what it meant, we cannot expect the avarage reader to understand such complex titles, I would agree to have both Air Force and Air Defense Force in a single article, but under a constructive title - Azerbaijani Air Force. Neftchi (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Azerbaijani Interior Guard article title to Internal Troops of Azerbaijan and also edited the tekst, by using Ukrainian version. Neftchi (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that, that's fine. I think the gendarmerie comparison is particularly good, though gendarmerie don't go around in battalion-size formations. Do you have any other information on the transition from the Soviet Interior Troops to the Azeri Internal Troops? On the air arm, I do not agree: see Military of Cuba#Air and Air Defense Force (DAAFAR) and People's Air and Air Defence Force of Angola, though they changed the name in Angola in 2007 (and we've reflected that with the up to date name). See also in ru:wiki; ru:4-я армия ВВС и ПВО, ru:5-я армия ВВС и ПВО, and ru:6-я армия ВВС и ПВО etc. I also think the average intelligence of people should not be underestimated; it's possible to do air superiority/interdiction and national air defence duties in one force and to name it that way. Buckshot06(talk)21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Azerbaijani Air Forces, multiplied as in Azerbaijani Land Forces, which also has subdivisions under its arm. We could simply as Air Defense under Air Forces, the title explains that its about multiple forces. Neftchi (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) I'm sorry to say I still do not agree - I think Air Forces in the plural without explaining that it's both Air and Air Defence just explains half while not reflecting the official name of the force. That's my problem: as far as I can tell, the official name of the force has both 'Air Force' and 'Air Defence' in its title. Tell you what: why don't we wait for Askari Mark to return and give us a third opinion, but while we are waiting, if you able to find an official air arm website or Azeri government website listing military branches - any language, don't worry about translation - maybe that will give us an official view. Buckshot06(talk)21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait for a 3rd perspective but in the meantime perhaps we could ask the opinion of other Azerbaijani contributors on wikipedia and see what they think of it?
As for the azerbaijantoday source, its a news-website which uses the name Border Service but other Azerbaijani news websites use Border Guard, there is not so much difference in these small words, but it would indeed be better to use official terms and use local words as secondary given in the text. Neftchi (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy for you to ask around other contributors as to what they think the official name of the air arm is, but please think: we've got really an obligation to get it right here. Consider: CIA says its 'Air and Air Defense Force.' But that will be completely buried on the web if wikipedia keeps an inaccurate name. We've got a chance to have the journos who think they're in Western Europe and everything is Western-standard know what the real title is - improve accuracy all round. Come on, please, consider we're supposed to aim for accuracy. Buckshot06(talk)19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im a real reasonable person, so far I have agreed with your changes, I also want to keep things accurate but lets just get some 3rd perspective suggestions on this, that would be the best. I do have some new suggestions:
We should add to Internal Troops a "secundary name" for Interior Troops and Interior Guard, just today I came across this, in which they use Interior Troops and some other news sources use Interior Guard; it would be best to mention those names aswell in the text of Internal Troops of Azerbaijan article and not to ignore these "populair" names.
No difficulty whatsoever. Just make sure the alternate names are in the first sentence of the article, and have sources.
How reliable do you think "Military Balance" book is regarding Azerbaijan? I have 2007 and 2008 books, the statistics are very accurate regarding Western and populair countries but since Azerbaijan is neither I see its been neglected in the books. The statistics dont make much sense, it looks like they havent updated the statistics since 1999 (same goes for CIA); they havent adopted the reforms and modernizations Azerbaijan has taken in the statistics.
Are you aware of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty? The IISS gets most of its data from the national data returns to the CFE secretariat in Vienna. There are the official information exchanged among all the member states: both Azerbaijan, Armenia, and all the other CFE members get a copy of each set of information. Yes, the accuracy of the reporting has been falling off in recent years, but you see, the IISS is in wikipedia terms a WP:Reliable Source, so without other sources, I use that. Which sections do you think need changing? What other sources do you have?
Just recently a month or so ago, Azerbaijan established the Azerbaijani Land Forces, its a land command of national guard, internal troops, border guard and army, I think I made a mistake regarding this; because I replaced army with land forces. We need a new seperate article about land forces and preferably with a illustrated schematic of the structure of entire Azerbaijani Armed Forces.
I saw you had been moving the names around a great deal. Remember that wikipedia directs we use the most commonly known name, as per the WP:MOS. I personally don't care whether it's at Army, Land Force, Land Forces, or whatever. For most of the people reading it, it will not make much difference. I would suggest you stop moving the names around, and when you find information about these changes, simply add text with references explaining what the changes have been, and why. Remember the General Staff in Soviet times had coordinating authority over all the power ministry forces. For this particular issue, add your information at about the third or fourth paragraph of whatever you want to call the army, because it's reasonably important, but most people will not mind about changing the title. The most important thing is adding references - in whatever language. Also, if you find a new structure diagram to replace the old one, please don't say it's your own work, just give the website address and inform me. Between the two of us we can sort out the proper template so it can stay on wikipedia.
I know about the CFE treaty, but this is not a perfect reliable treaty, alot of former Soviet state are in violation of the treaty, this was already a known fact in 1998, see here, just go the former Soviet equipement section; this source is also used in the main article of CFE treaty. I think IISS is not a reliable source for former-Soviet states as it would be for Western states. You said the data from IISS comes from CFE and since many former-Soviet staets (including Azerbaijan) were not in compliance with the CFE treaty. Its also know Azerbaijan has twice the inventory allowed by CFE, but it should also be mentioned that CFE limits are based on population and in case of Azerbaijan with a population twice of Armenia, it should also have twice the ammount limit; this is Azerbaijan's argument; we could perhaps include this in the article. You said yourself Western sources are not always perfect as they would like to believe, and IISS is one of them. My main concern is that I dont agree with the Land Forces section in Azerbaijani Armed Forces article. Azerbaijan has a total military personnel of 126,000; of which 109600 is from the land forces branch (including 86,000 from the army). The personnals are: 3500 - air defense; 7900 - air force; 5000 - navy; 109600 - land forces (86600 - army; 15000 - national guard; 5000 - border guard; 3000 - internal troops) Neftchi (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do these numbers come from? They can't appear to come just out of your head. Every time, over and over, I say sources. I keep repeating, Sources. Sorry, I'm going to have to shout. YOU CAN DO PUT JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA JUST AS LONG AS YOU HAVE GOOD SOURCES. I have no object to you adding the data - it would be helpful, and we'd put both in, IISS and yours, with your news link that some countries are not in compliance. Please put it in - but you must add a source. Also, the Internal Troops. You added that their branch is Land Forces. I'm going to reverse that, because we have a WP:RS (the Interior Ministry website) that they are part of the Interior Ministry. As soon as you have a source for this new command for all land forces, you can add the data again. You must also be specific about the relationship - is it a temporary attachment in time of war?, in which case the branch would still be specified as Interior Ministry, with a note in the text that they are 'gained' by the Land Forces in time of war. Buckshot06(talk)04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've searched the Russian side of the web for 'Azerbaijan ground forces' and the numbers you suggest, and have found absolutely nothing. However I will add the higher figure I've got in the MilTech World Defence Almanac 2008, which gives 74,000 in the ground forces. By the way, this source lists: total: 85,000, with 74,000 ground forces/army, 1,500 navy, 12,000 Air Force and Air Defence Forces, for a total military figure of 87,500. It also lists 20,000 MoI Militsiya and 20,000 Popular Front. So you see as far as I'm concerned, you must provide some good sources for your figures. Also I've realigned the Special Forces from the Army to the Navy as I can find no evidence there are Army Special Forces while there are several sources for Navy Special Forces. Buckshot06(talk)06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're closer than me to the publishers - Monch Group in Bonn. It's also published in German as Wehrtechnik. Let me know if you have any problems after you've found the site. If you talk to your local newsagent they should be able to order Wehrtechnik if not Military Technology. What is your source for the new land force command? What is the link? Buckshot06(talk)19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)re[reply]
My source is milaz, its a Azerbaijani news-website on military developments in Caucasus. Its in Azeri, English and Russian. Its a reliable source, they give out positive and negative information, the only downside is that not every news is available in all three languages. Neftchi (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not adequate to put the general website. If you want to cite it properly, you must link the original news article. What is the link? - my Russian is not up to searching the whole site, and I'm sorry to say I have no Azeri at all. Buckshot06(talk)20:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>Sorry for taking so long to get back to you both, but I’ve had limited time lately. Fortunately, I had earlier gathered a good deal of English-language material on the AzAF while I was working on the Armenian Air Force article, and I was going to work on that one afterwards (before getting sidetracked elsewhere). I’ve gone through that material and some more recent sources I found last over the course of last week. While I can’t offer a definitive answer, the more reliable and authoritative sources refer to the Azeri Air Force and Air Defense Force as a unified organization, and this seems to have been the case since the national defense organizations were established in Oct. 1991 through at least the spring of 2009. (A typical example is Defence in the Republic of Azerbaijan.) Leading news and diplomatic sources formally reporting the murder of Lt. Gen. Rail Rzayev last February note his title as being the chief of the “air force and air defense command”.[4]
Nonetheless, the exact formal organization of this command is unclear. While it appears that the air defense is directly subordinate to the head of the unified command – particularly since the term “Air Force” seems to be used to represent both the aviation arm specifically and the unified command as a whole – I have found nothing specific on the AzAF command structure. I haven’t fully dug through Milaz.info, but so far I’ve found nothing useful on this issue. Perhaps you have some suggestions, Neftchi?
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, these forces could be addressed in one or two articles, but inasmuch as it appears to be a unified command, I tend to concur with Neftchi that it should be one article under the AzAF title, since this appears to be common usage. Askari Mark(Talk)22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ineed, we should keep the article under the name "Azerbaijani Air Force" aka AzAF and we can add the Air Defense Force in the article. Neftchi (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AskariMark for your thoughts. I agree but we should have the first sentence of the article saying 'the Az Air and Air Defence, commonly referred to as the Az Air Force,' and sourced. Neftchi, thankyou for finding an additional source for total personnel numbers. However you have not actually reflected what the source says: total armed forces are listed as 95,000, including, 85,000 of the ground forces. The national guard is listed as 2,500 and being part of the ground forces. The paramilitary agencies of the Interior Troops and Border Service are also listed, but are not claimed to be part of the ground forces. You will have to find a specific source that says they have some relationship if you wish to put that in. If you want to use Milaz you will have to list the specific article and link. Finally, please read the Az Army article more carefully. I had specifically listed the five corps immediately under where you put C.W. Blandy's data in - it's now repetitive. Buckshot06(talk)22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Buckshot, I changed the first sentence in de article based on your recommendations. As for active personnel, I calculated by adding the land forces (85000) + (19500) paramilitary forces (National Guard, State Border Service, and Internal Troops) this makes a total personnel of 104500. I can understand we cannot mention 104500 as land forces, since the paramilitary is not part of it. But surely we need to adjust the total personnel in the infobox to 104500, as this is the number of total armed forces. Neftchi (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is at the core of many of our disagreements. IISS, and the Advanced Research and Assessment Group, and myself, draw a clear distinction between armed forces: army, navy, air force, and paramilitary forces: national guard, State Border Service, Internal Troops etc. You cannot use the source above to say there are 104,500 personnel in the armed forces. You cannot say they have 104,500 in the land forces as they include the navy and air force! They specifically say there are 95,000 total in the armed forces. If you want to say something like that you will (a) have to say '95,000 plus 19,500 paramilitary' or (b) you'll have to find a separate source that specifically says 104,500 in the military - you cannot use the ARAG source. Buckshot06(talk)03:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said land forces equals armed forces. The infobox asks for the total amount of personnel in the military, thats why we need to add the paramilitary forces of 19500 to the land forces of 85000 to get the total ammount of personnel. The current infobox, neglects the paramilitary troops. Neftchi (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you remember, but it's this one. The rule is quite clear, and you have really no chance to respond; if you delete sourced content without replacing it with something that shows it's wrong and is also sourced, you're damaging the encyclopaedia. Buckshot06(talk)19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NK conflict, is highly controversial and the given sentence is invaled. There is no mention of de-jure part of Azerbaijan and it gives a misleading impression of the origins of the conflict, notice the sentence in order to protect, which POV statement. If the article wants to explain the NK conflict it should approach both sides as done in the main article of Karabakh War. Neftchi (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the source given? Of which one was a geocities link to a nationalist Armenian site, and by the way the source does not excist anymore. Because of this source the sentence of The armed forces of Armenia are seen as the most powerful of the three Caucasian countries (the other two being Georgia and Azerbaijan) by leading military figures both in Russia and the West. the given text was simple POV, that was the reason for my removal. You should look into this. Neftchi (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is sourced is better than anything unsourced. Find something else that negates that view, add it with a source, and replace it = no problem. Content removal without tweaks/changes, all unsourced = problem. Do not do this again. If you find a problem edit - like the ones above, by the way, for which I thank you and I'll fix - bring it to the attention of an administrator; do not delete it just like that. Better still, find something that says it's wrong!! Buckshot06(talk)19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text is not POV necessarily, if it's true. It probably is, given the state of Georgia and Azerbaijan's army. Remember the Israeli example and the way they fought off Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon etc in 1948 and afterwards. Armenia and the NKR are in a somewhat similar situation, and 'in Stepankert, every male is in uniform, while in Az, draft-age males hang around in cafes.' However, it needs better sourcing, and it certainly isn't properly sourced at present. Please do not change the text at the moment, and give some time to allow sourcing. Regards Buckshot06(talk)06:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think its right make comparisons between the military forces of the independent South Caucasus states, does it really contribute to the article? However, upon your request I will assume good faith and wait for a good source. But in the meantime, these kind of lose sentences raise many questions and decrease the quality of the article, surely the sentence can be beter formulated? Neftchi (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been taking a look at the main Azerbaijan article. The information is in the history section, though without the word 'secular.' I would advise you to use Google Books or similar to find the required page numbers, as this will avoid people having to search through the whole book for the reference. I'll take a look at ADR as well. Buckshot06(talk)06:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to figure out what you are claiming; either the Crimean People's Republic (CPR) was first (December 1917), or the ADR was (May 1918). I suggest you either find these page numbers and remove the note about the CPR, or remove the claim on the Az/ADR pages and let it stand at the CPR page. Buckshot06(talk)06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question whether it was first or second was already asked and the issue was solved in the talk page of ADR, see here. After much talking we agreed to use first succesfull attempt to clear things out, and this method was reflected in all related articles. Neftchi (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words 'democratic' and 'secular' do not appear in those citations. Only 'the first modern republic in the Islamic world' is claimed. I will change both articles. Buckshot06(talk)20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources, not just one. You should engage in talk and get some feedback on that, you made the edits without going through the talkpage and examining all the sources. Just as you did on Azerbaijani military articles, you again rushed things without consulting with other editors on those articles. Neftchi (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources, they should be cited there. WP:Verifiability is one of our core principals. If it cannot be verified, it should not be there. As with the military articles, find some WP:V sources, and you're OK. Otherwise statements have to be changed or removed. Buckshot06(talk)01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salam Neftchi. I have already opposed the Hindu variant and supported the Zoroastrian background of Azerbaijan republic as well as any other lands in the Greater Iran. I am happy that now natives take this in their hands. At that time there were a few Panturkist guys from Republic of Azerbaijan who supported the Hindu variant. They hate everything Iranian, and thus also their own culture that they commit such ridiculous acts. Azerbaijan has been Aturpatakan. Aturpat was the name of the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan during the Achamenidian empire. He fought against Alexander. Aturpat (or Atropat in Greek style) means the guardian of holy fire. Atur or Azer is the son of Ahura Mazda in popular old Iranian blief. Azer or holy fire has got a symbolic meaning in the Iranian lands. We see that also in the Sasanid time Azerbaijan (the Iranian Azerbaijan( was an important land and there were Ateshgahs for the Kinfg. The Shahanshah (the great king of all Iran) perfomred ceremonies there in what is now called Takht-e Soleyman, many people belive that this was the site that the Great King of Iran was crowned. There are ample connection of the etymology of Azerbaijan to zoroastrianism. Bad for Hindus and Panturks.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resulzade.jpg
Xoş gördük, Neftçi.
İngilis dilli vikipediyada işlərinin hamısı təqdirə layiqdir və alqışlanır. Bu üzdən səndən bir faylın lisenziyası ilə bağlı yardım istəyirəm. Xahiş edirəm bu faylın lisenziya formasını bulmağa mənə yardım edəsən. Şəkil dahi M.Ə.Rəsulzadəyə aiddir və mövzünün başlığında da qeyd etmişəm. Mümkünsə bu işdə mənə yardımçı ol. Təşəkkür. --Proger (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Drive-by reversions without even bothering to comment on the talkpage (or, like as not, so much as care to read the relevant discussion) are not acceptable. Due to this and various other recent incidents you are limited to one revert per page per day for all articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, under WP:ARBAA2. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot you are very hasty with your reverts, I have told you this several times. You should have taken the time to actually read the articles on the vehicles, before jumping to such major conclusions. If you are not familiar then please read these two articles (Marauder (Mine Protected Vehicle) and Matador (Mine Protected Vehicle)), you will see Azerbaijan is clearly mentioned in the articles as a producing country. I have readded the pictures, based on this. Neftchi (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neftchi, please DO NOT add data from parts of a source which is not balanced by other material from the same source contradicting it - that's WP:UNDUE. I have removed your data on the Smersh rocket launchers from Armed Forces of Armenia because the same source makes quite clear that only a small change in the military balance Az/Arm has taken place. The Az Army, according to that same CSRC source, is not ready to take on the Armenian armed forces. If you had added that reporting as well, the statement would have been placed in context. Buckshot06(talk)00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not make any conclusions on who is superior or not, so neither should you. You insist on using a source that is a decade year old to conclude who is superior or not and you dont want to mention more updated information as the smerch and tochka by Azerbaijan. This is not credible Buckshot, we need updated information. Neftchi (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ARAG source makes its conclusion very very clear: Azerbaijan's armed forces are not ready for war. One missile system, Smersh or not, does not change that. I am using the exact same source as you, but it is the totality of the force we must consider. Do you have any idea of the literacy requirements, individual training requirements, unit training requirements, unit motivation, commanders' skills, lack or presence of corruption, level of individual thinking or the lack of it (willingness to take difficult decisions in the absence of orders), presence or lack of tools, presence of spare parts, fuel availability, ammunition availability for training etc, that goes into turning weapon systems in their delivery cases into actual military capability?
The source is a decade year old and thats when the conclusion was made, it would be highly misleading to conclude who is superior based on something of 10 years ago and to neglect more updated information mr wiki-lawyer. Neftchi (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Neftchi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Per this AE thread, I have blocked you for 72 hours for violating the 1 revert per article per day restriction you are currently under. You are also for the remainder of the 4 month revert restriction required to post a note on the talk page explaining your rationale whenever you revert any article in the subject area, excepting cases of obvious vandalism. If you wish to contest this block, please post a {{unblock}} request. To contest the additional revert restriction, you can post an appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. henrik•talk21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked in the past for sock-puppetry. Editing patterns indicate strongly, as well as geolocate, that the anon IP in this case was you. Please stick with editing to one account. Buckshot06(talk)22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The highly coincidental appearance of a bunch of IPs with exactly the same interests as you just an hour's drive away from your regular IP is a bit much. Per WP:ARBAA2 you are limited to editing from just this account, and may not edit logged out. Any further messing around with socks and I will ban you, understood? Moreschi (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that Namer is to be produced in Azerbaijan
I havent edited in days, what are you talking about? You dont explain your accusation, how am I supposed to understand what you are saying? Vandalize is a very big word, be careful. Here is the source on Namer, [5], read it then talk.Neftchi (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have to explain this, but you twisted the material. You said the Namer was to be manufactured in Azerbaijan. The source merely said negotiations were underway. Do not WP:CRYSTAL-ball and try to predict things that have not happened yet. Buckshot06(talk)10:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With this diff of early 2009 you again distorted material regarding Azeri defence arrangements. The source said an agreement had been reached that Azerbaijan would produce certain material in the future. You cited and referenced that to indicate that Azerbaijan produced such material now. This is not allowed - it's simply untrue, as well as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Any further such distortions may result in blocks. Buckshot06(talk)07:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You complain about something a month ago, a little to late. And note that you make conclusions based on nothing. You yourself have violated WP:CRYSTAL several times during your edit in Azerbaijani Armed Forces but unlike you I show understanding and try to approach you rational before making assucations and treatsNeftchi (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baku at night photo use requested
Neftchi,
McGraw-Hill wishes to use your photo of file SV100067.jpg in a college textbook.
Please email me at shirley_lanners@mcgraw-hill.com for details.
Thank you!
Shirley Lanners, Permissions Coordinator for McGraw-Hill CLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma3dward (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:SV102262.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SV102262.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Merhaba,
the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid has this sentence:
Cüneyt Ülsever, a commentator in the daily Hürriyet, was quoted by The Wall Street Journal, saying that “People will understand very soon that the IHH is harming Turkey, and warned that the effect of the crisis would be to persuade the West that Turkey is aligning itself with the likes of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.[3][49]
I have just seen that you removed a political scientist's statement, replaced it with Azerbaijani
official statement. I think Cüneyt Ülsever's comment should also be removed because it is not official view. What do you think?Kavas (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it over and I agree. Most statements in the article are from official sources, and this non-official source makes the articles misleading. Besides there are dozens of other noteworthy commentators aswell who havent been added in the article. Neftchi (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can u make Azerbaijani people collage from images that available in Wikipedia Commons and we can use in Azerbaijani people article as all nations got this collage, and only we have only 1 random picture. --NovaSkola (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand that the total figure cited of 595 includes a certain number (27 or so) of that vehicle, then the total number does not add up if you change one of the sub-figures? You have to list the alternate source number separately!! Buckshot06(talk)09:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That map completely ignores the political situation of the time, and simply shows what Azerbaijanis claimed. You are assuming that Azerbaijan controlled all of the regions it claimed. That map is simply a proposal for the Azerbaijani state, issued by the government of Azerbaijan. Using this map is like Armenians using Wilsonian Armenia for the Armenian state in 1918 (simply because Armenians claimed it). At least my map for the democratic republic of armenia shows more than simply what Armenia claimed. It shows the regions that were under Armenian control, and the regions under Azerbaijani control. Please be objective. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neftchi,
I see you're having more fun with carpets, I answered a WP:3O about this issue before, if you have a look at the talk page you'll see I suggested adding a carpet from a less contestable area. You'll have to excuse me on not really knowing an awful lot about the Armenia/Azerbaijan issue, but it seems to me this would be an easy problem to fix. Would you have a look at Talk:Culture of Armenia and see if there's anything you can do? Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_Monument_1978_-_1988.jpg){kind=link}
_Monument_1978_-_1988.jpg){kind=link}
_Monument_1978_-_1988.jpg){kind=link}
