This is an archive of past discussions with User:Olympian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi! Re your move Sukhumi Okrug, are you sure "Sukhumi okrug" is indeed more prevalent? Which sources did you consult and how did you query ngram? Note that this article is about a subdivision of the Russian Empire and not about the current Sukhumi district. Alaexis¿question?08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis Hi Alaexis. As I understand, the prevailing (and most reader-friendly) theme in English Wikipedia is to use the Anglicised forms of the Russian Imperial districts, hence for example, Ardahan Okrug instead of Ardagan, or Ardaganskii Okug (Ардаганский округ) and similar instances. After consulting these Ngram results, and these Scholar results, I found Sukhumi Okrug to be the predominant toponym for the district as compared with the less-used Russian romanized form. Happy to discuss this further if needed. Thanks, -Nunuxxx (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, Sukhumi is the most widely used transliteration of the name of the city. However this article is about the district of the Russian Empire so you need to check if it's how that entity is most commonly called. Alaexis¿question?09:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Unfortuntely, searching on Google Ngram with "uezd" or "uyezd" added in the search query of "Sukhum" and "Sukhumi" yields no results, however, the Google Scholar search previously linked support the use of "Sukhumi Uyezd" and on top of that, as the okrug is named for the eponymous city of Sukhumi (just as the Tiflis Uyezd is named for the city Tiflis), it is reasonable to infer that the name of the okrug will principally follow the city's name, hence "Sukhumi" Okrug. -Nunuxxx (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah my apologies, I appeared to have muddled up uezd and okrug after working with the former earlier today. Contrarily, Ngram does not provide results for either spellings when searching with the term "okrug". In any case, I believe the point stands about the city of Sukhumi (Sukhum) being the eponym for the Sukhumi Okrug, therefore it's acceptable to base the district name off of that principally. However, given "Sukhum"'s considerable usage as well, I think it would be a good idea to add that as a secondary/alternative name in the first line of the article. I can add that in unless you'd prefer to? -Nunuxxx (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I see great efforts in creating this article. However, it appears that it contains original research and is kind of a more detailed duplicate of the "administration" section of the article First Republic of Armenia. Since this article is quite substantial, I believe it would be better if issues in the article are discussed in public. Please see the talk page for my comments. Thanks :)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gori Uyezd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for sharing this! I am very interested in Tsutsiev's many detailed maps, especially of the various territorial arrangements that existed during and after the Russian Empire. Nunuxxx (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
For a larger projects, I am currently collecting border changes in Caucasia after WWI. You have drawn a lot of map that might be relevant for the issue on pre-1917 administrative divisions in Russia. What are the sources of them?--Antemister (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I overlaid old Russian Empire maps of the governorates onto topography to draw the shapes of the provinces in accordance with the physical geography they were based on. Good luck with your project. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘09:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I expect that the The Lachin corridor villages' articles should be treated consistently as the articles of other settlements that passed to Azerbaijan in 2020–2022 (except for those formerly part of the NKAO) such as Aghdam which doesn't contain any mention of Artsakh in its infobox. Therefore, I think it would be consistent to remove it based on the new de facto control. – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘09:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
If you would be willing to help further, please rename the articles on individual uezds, and edit them accordingly. Then the categories for individual uezds can be speedily renamed according to WP:C2D. Please let me know if you would like any advice about how to do this. – FayenaticLondon21:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for opening the discussion in the Categories for discussion page. I will definitely rename the other Uyezd articles to Uezd whenever possible. Thus far, I believe only the uezds of the Caucasus Viceroyalty (1801–1917) have been renamed, with many more located in modern-day Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine yet to be done. If you could please advise on how to speedily rename the categories on multiple articles that would be much appreciated. Thanks, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘03:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nrnadzor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armavir. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article Nakhichevan uezd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nakhichevan uezd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
On 26 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakhichevan uezd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nakhichevan uezd was home to more than 54,000 Armenians until they perished through the events of 1918–1920 as a result of the Russian Revolution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakhichevan uezd. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nakhichevan uezd), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
It would be helpful if you could present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.
It is also helpful to notify the second editor about the 3O request.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Now I'm being accused of a conflict of interest for replying in a discussion thread that summoned me twice, so please do not summon me any further. I shared the best source available, which I use extensively, and recommend you use that source as well. Best regards, RaffiKojian (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Raffi, replying in the discussion to clarify questions regarding your book doesn't constitute a conflict of interest and someone wrongfully claiming such doesn't make it so. In any case, I understand your concern and will refrain from pinging you in that discussion further. Thank you for sharing the toponymy source. Regards, – Olympianloquere12:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that source also, seems quite extensive. In regards to Vardenis, you mentioned in the discussion "There is no indication that Vardenis, which was founded by Armenians in the 1800s ever had an Azeri majority or anything approaching that.", but in Soviet Armenian historian Zaven Korkotyan's book, The population of Soviet Armenia in the last century (1831–1931), he writes on page 110 that there were only 178 Muslim inhabitants, and in the next census (1873) there were only 1,296 Armenian inhabitants; what are your thoughts on this discrepancy? Cheers, – Olympianloquere01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's a little odd, but I wouldn't read too much into it, especially since the years 1829-30 are the years of the Armenian resettlement and things were in flux. So the 178 Muslim inhabitants and zero Armenians to me means something is a bit off. Like perhaps a geographical terminology problem or something for the 1831 numbers. Or I don't know how these things were conducted, but maybe they calculated in a way that was not up-to-the-minute (or in this case year) accurate. So in other words, I don't know, but that's how I'd interpret the numbers :) RaffiKojian (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for sharing your thoughts on that, Raffi. If you happen to know where I can find a PDF copy of the toponymy source you provided, I would be highly appreciate if you could share it, it'd just make it more accessible to use and expand Wikipedia with. Cheers, – Olympianloquere02:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry Olympian, I don't recall ever coming across a pdf. I have my own copy but I tend to use the Nayiri one recently. You can do searches and skip to whatever page, so you might find it equal to a pdf in usability when you get used to it. RaffiKojian (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I see, thanks. The final question I had was what exactly is the "1995 bibliography biography" mentioned on page 127 of Rediscovering Armenia? The quote is "[A]ccording to the 1995 biography published by the Republican Party of Armenia, [Nzhdeh] killed 15,000 Azeris for a total loss of 28 Armenians, and cleansed of their former inhabitants 200 villages in the process of saving Zangezur as part of Armenia." Thanks and sorry for inundating you with all the questions! Cheers, – Olympianloquere02:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
It says biography, not bibliography. That quote was added by Brady, and I can't find such a reference in the [2009 edition http://www.hhk.am/files/library_pdfs/7.pdf] of the biography by the RPA which is online as a pdf (see the link). I searched for 15000 and for 28, and got nothing, so I can't really say since I don't have access to the 1995 version. Non-numeric searches are pointless because it's not UNICODE encoding, btw. Back to the Vardenis issue, I suggest you just change the source to the one I shared and see if that solves their issue right there. RaffiKojian (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
My bad, my brain went on autopilot and mixed up the two terms! I see, in any case, I appreciate you checking. Yes, I'll be using that source for that purpose; even though we were discussing it on Vardenis, we were considering Rediscovering Armenia's usage across all articles. Anyway, the source you provided is from the Soviet period (1986) and published by Երեվանի Համալսարանի Հրատարակչոիթյոին ("Yerevan University Publishing House") in Yerevan, hence, I don't see a reason why its reliability should be questioned so I'm happy to use it from now on. – Olympianloquere22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Telavi and Signagi
On a different topic, there's a user that is removing any references to Armenians from the Telavi and Signagi articles. I have posted on their talk page one of the templates to cease, but they just called it propaganda and removed again. Do you know any admins that can be summoned? RaffiKojian (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I've just had a look over each page's revision history, it seems the user is removing sourced content without any consensus, which is usually a revertable edit. As they've continued to restore their edits even after you've correctly attempted to engage them in dialogue, you should file a report in the edit warring noticeboard showing the diffs of the user's vandalism (available in the pages' revision histories) – there are detailed instructions on how to file a report on that page. – Olympianloquere23:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
An article you recently created, Zangezur expedition, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969TT me11:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it to draftspace, @Onel5969. The article was translated from its RuWiki equivalent (which had GA status), but its sourcing was sparse, even more so when I removed a questionable source from it. I'll definitely ping you when I've had time to work on it sufficiently. Regards, – Olympianloquere01:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool. That happens a lot when folks translate from other WPs, where sourcing is not as important. Look forward to your ping. Onel5969TT me01:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Prior to the twentieth century, Azerbaijanis had lived under Russian colonial rule for a century and had never had their own nation-state. Azerbaijanis lacked a sense of national identity, and their unity was based solely on religion.
Thank you for expanding the Azerbaijan democratic republic article. However, isn't it a bit contradictory to say that the above-mentioned Azerbaijanis were proud of their national identity and defined themselves as Muslims? that is, as you know, the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis were the Oghuz crews called Turkoman, who invaded these lands in the 10th century, and Iranian Azerbaijanis called themselves Turkoman until the 18th century. Enderman222 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The modern ethnonym "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" refers to the Turkic peoples of Iran's northwestern historic region of Azerbaijan (also known as Iranian Azerbaijan) and the Republic of Azerbaijan.[63] They historically called themselves or were referred to by others as Muslims, Turks. They were also referred to as Ajam (meaning from Iran), using the term incorrectly to denote their Shia belief rather than ethnic identity.[64] When the Southern Caucasus became part of the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, the Russian authorities, who traditionally referred to all Turkic people as Tatars, defined Tatars living in the Transcaucasus region as Caucasian Tatars or more rarely[65] Aderbeijanskie (Адербейджанские) Tatars or even[66] Persian Tatars in order to distinguish them from other Turkic groups and the Persian speakers of Iran.[66][67] The Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, written in the 1890s, also referred to Tatars in Azerbaijan as Aderbeijans (адербейджаны),[68] but noted that the term had not been widely adopted.[69] This ethnonym was also used by Joseph Deniker in 1900.[70] In Azerbaijani language publications, the expression "Azerbaijani nation" referring to those who were known as Tatars of the Caucasus first appeared in the newspaper Kashkul in 1880.[71]
During the early Soviet period, the term "Transcaucasian Tatars" was supplanted by "Azerbaijani Turks" and ultimately "Azerbaijanis."[72][73][74] For some time afterwards, the term "Azerbaijanis" was then applied to all Turkic-speaking Muslims in Transcaucasia, from the Meskhetian Turks in southwestern Georgia, to the Terekemes of southern Dagestan, as well as assimilated Tats and Talysh.[73] The temporary designation of Meskhetian Turks as "Azerbaijanis" was most likely related to the existing administrative framework of the Transcaucasian SFSR, as the Azerbaijan SSR was one of its founding members.[75] After the establishment of the Azerbaijan SSR,[76] on the order of Soviet leader Stalin, the "name of the formal language" of the Azerbaijan SSR was also "changed from Turkic to Azerbaijani". Enderman222 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I expected him to fully disclose his sources. Particularly for a work which use was questioned.
Coyle is described as Energy watcher for nearly a decade, with articles like
Energy is the key to making Moscow pay (back in 2014, he isn't a newcommer)
"Afghanistan's Place on the Silk Road" in Baku Dialogues
He is a very opinionated advocate.
I can see why some could think that Coyle International Consulting Inc. (on national security issues and how they affect corporate interests) conflict with his position as an academic.
If the other party has to make a concession by accepting Coyle as a source, the least that they could ask, is that the author provide the reference with the figures. LikesBanana (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your concerns but most of the neutral editors at RSN agreed Coyle is suitable for Wikipedia-usage with respect to the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area. – Olympianloquere10:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
He is the only cited source of estimates on that table. Do you really think that one single estimate, with no provided reference is sufficient? LikesBanana (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There are other sources that attest to similar estimates (such as Balayev, Baberovski, and Mammadov & Musayev) whose restoration to the article is pending. Olympianloquere23:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as their words came to us from reputable publishers, and they provide references for these figures. I am not familiar with those sources and I am not motivated or invested enough to check their credibility (Coyle is a special case), but Hasanli seems fine. However, I doubt that Soviet historiography is acceptable source. LikesBanana (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a matter for RSN to discuss in detail, as unfortunately, there was little consensus or debate on these particular sources. By the way, Balayev's source is the only Soviet source from the ones listed and the footnote for the "7,729" figure cites the findings of a commission in stored in the Soviet archives. Olympianloquere00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. What I was previously writing in the ES was per [[Talk:Uezd#Rename articles about uezds for consistency|consensus]]. – Olympianloquere23:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Chipmunkdavis, could you please explain what you meant by "a huge overemphasis on Sèvres" and "the odd disinclusion of the TSFSR"? The Treaty of Sèvres is mentioned once in the lead (per its monumental significance for the state) and in its own section, how does that constitute an "overemphasis"? Moreover, the TSFSR existed between 1922 and 1936, 2 years after the fall of the FRA and thus outside the scope of the article. Thanks, – Olympianloquere09:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Sèvres was never implemented, yet the article (including the lead) repeatedly goes into detail on the territorial boundaries that never happened, at one point even spending a long paragraph delving into completely theoretical alternate timeline demographics. The lead explicitly mentions 1922 and goes all the way to 1991, so if TSFSR is outside the scope of the article, it shouldn't be remotely close to the lead. CMD (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've implemented your suggestions, thank you. If you're interested, you could review the article for GA as you appear familiar with the AA topic area, and no-one has engaged the nomination yet. Regards – Olympianloquere11:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
One further suggestion would be to cut down on the history in the lead, and write instead about the Demographics and Governance. As it is common for only leads to be read, it's a good idea to touch upon all sections in your article. The lead should roughly reflect the body anyway, per WP:LEAD. I do want to devote more time to GANs, but I wouldn't want to start one I can't definitely say I have the time to doing a full and proper job on. Don't worry if no-one has engaged yet, it is common for a couple of months to pass between nomination and review. CMD (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Olympian. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Your recent edits to the Kapan article are not really an improvement or particularly encyclopedic in my eyes, but I would rather discuss the matter with you here than just go ahead and revert you. As I see you have acknowledged before on this talk page, the Zavek Korkotyan source added is not only outdated, being almost a century old, but contains a number of errors and other problems given it’s age and the available means of statistical and historical research at the time. Are there any other sources available that state that the 31 villages added are all historically part of the modern-day city limits of Kapan?
Also the 1886 nationality section is not really encyclopedic. Nationality is not the right word, as the table refers to ethnicity, “Tatar” is not a nationality. And mentioning a single ethnicity for an entire village at a set point in time when demographics were known to be fluctuant and populations were known to be mixed, does not seem beneficial to readers. I believe we can find a better way to add potential new information about past villages incorporated into modern-day Kapan into the article. Would you mind providing the page # for the Korkotyan source and providing an additional, preferably more modern, source? Looking forward to your response. TagaworShah(talk)04:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tagawor. Certainly, the page numbers are 58–59 (for 1897 & 1926 populations) and 134–135 (for 1831–1931 populations), they're all under the settlement entry number 1467. Whilst certain users have raised qualms about the reliability of Korkotyan's work, the fact is that the Armenian Government cites it for historic village populations in its official index of settlements, see page 4, and such organisations as ANI Armenian Research Centre and CivilNet have made publications, authored by Tatul Hakobyan, based on Korkotyan's work [6][7], meaning that it's clearly relevant and reliably used to this day.
In regards to the addition itself, I'm happy to reorganise it in a way that's encyclopedic, I believe that it's important for the reader to note that the modern city of Kapan grew from the consolidation (and later absorption) of neighbouring villages. In the meantime, I will look for additional sources. The Korkotyan source has more advanced village populations rather than showing the main one at the time, I just wrote the main one to not overwhelm the reader with information. Regards, – Olympianloquere04:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately this does not address my concerns. Modern researchers citing a century-old source in their research is different than a Wikipedia editor directly citing the work. Many old sources contain both good and bad information, professional researchers have the academic authority to use these sources correctly, however, that cannot be said for Wikipedia editors, which is why I still find the use of the source problematic unless you are citing a modern researcher that used the source in their material. Also you did not address my concerns on the unencylopedic nature of the edits, I agree that its important for readers to know that Kapan was formed from various historical villages, however that was not the concerns that were listed above regarding the use of 1886 “nationalities” in the table, and the table itself being generally overkill for the article. Best, TagaworShah(talk)04:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I'm fine with you restructuring it in a way that's more suitable for the article. Moreover, in regards to the 1886 nationalities, the original source labels the column Գլխավոր ազգություն 1886 թ. հիման վրա ("The main nationality based on the year 1886"), so it would be OR to relabel them as being the "ethnicities". Korkotyan's work is already a secondary-source which consolidates numerous primary sources' data, it doesn't require a third historian/researcher to interpret it, and it's not a exactly century old either, so I'll have to disagree. Wikipedia editors familiar with the subject are sufficiently qualified to add the book's data to Wiki, see for example RevolutionSaga's additions to the demographics of the village of Shurnukh or Musayelyan. Regards, – Olympianloquere05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, a mistranslation is not “original research,” the concept of a nationality as defined in that source does not match the English concept of a nationality, rather it refers to an ethnicity, Tatar, Greek, Armenian etc. being ethnicities is a well-accepted fact, not original research. This is even more indication that section should be removed from the article. I take the first sentence of your reply that you are ok with me removing that section based on the concerns given in my original message above, correct? As for the source, its still undoubtably outdated and contains errors due to the limited nature of statistical and historical research of the time, I do not agree that Wikipedia editors have the authority to properly use such a source if they are “familiar” with the material. Even you’ve acknowledged the numerous shortcomings of the source before. A second reliable, more modern source should be added to verify a lot of the data being added in these articles. TagaworShah(talk)05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm willing to compromise by renaming the column to "Ethnicity" per the translation intricacies, however, I'm not convinced that the list of villages comprising Kapan is unfit for the article. Despite that, I'll keep searching for additional sources to affirm the list and that perhaps even provide their official Russian toponyms rather than the lengthy Armenian names. Regards, – Olympianloquere06:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Erivan Governorate → Yerevan Governorate
Hi, Olympian! The discussion on your requested move is now closed, so I will respond to you here. You have referred me to your comment to Necrothesp, in which you have stated that on Wikipedia, the common name trumps all other conventions when the article title is in question. That is not my impression after reading Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names, which states:
Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
If the place does not exist any more, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. … Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historical name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a settlement in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same settlement in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. … It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names.
As you can see, in the case of articles about historical provinces, it's not what modern reliable sources are calling it, it's what reliable sources of the time were calling it. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
UnladenSwallow Thanks so much for that insightful answer, I hadn't realised that this rule applied for former places/subdivisions, in that case, many such articles need to be renamed. What would you say is the best method of determining "the widely accepted historical English name"? Should I be assessing sources from a certain time period or is there a list of certain historical sources? Thanks, – Olympianloquere22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Edits on Spitak and Hrazdan article.
Hi,
Can you explain these edits [1], [2]. You removed a lot of content with no edit summary. If the issue is regarding unsourced information, wouldn't it be have been better to have tagged it with 'Source needed' for someone to add a source, maybe even the person that added the sections.
Even if there are no sources attributed, “unsourced” isn’t a valid reason to remove unless the information is contentious. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow original research per the policy of verifiability, which is content that an editor has added without a reference. If you find a reliable source for the deleted content, feel free to restore it, that being said, unsourced content doesn't require a {{citation needed}} tag to be removed. I hope that answers your question. – Olympianloquere00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This explanation leaves me confused instead of making things clearer unfortunately, Olympian- if that was your logic (I haven’t yet said whether I agree with it or not) then why would you restore contentious content such as unsourced Azeri etymology in Armenian villages [8], [9], [10] ? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding verifiability, it's unfortunately not up to us to agree with it or not, it simply a reality of Wikipedia policy. The linked diffs are from October, since then, I've been deleting unsourced etymology while adding the villages' municipalities: [11][12][13]. – Olympianloquere23:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I’d appreciate if you answer my question: why are you deleting things in one place due to lack of source while restoring other things elsewhere without a source? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
As already explained, I was reverting an IP (in October, 5 months ago) when I restored the unsourced etymology, since then, I've been deleting unsourced etymology while adding the villages' subdivisions. FYI, I've added references for the etymologies I restored (and deleted one which I couldn't find a source for): [14][15][16]. – Olympianloquere04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you
Hello Olympian,
Can you explain why you have the old Russian orthography in your edits (in the table of Counties)? in spite of what I did but didn't succeed. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Phaisit16207, well done! I'm sorry for my late reply. I saw your work and it's good – I'm open to collaborating on expanding and improving the state of the Russian Empire subdivisions if you'd be interested. I think the articles of the Caucasus Viceroyalty subdivisions serve as a good benchmark for improving the imperial subdivisions in Ukraine, Russia, Poland, the Baltics, etc. Let me know what you think. – Olympianloquere00:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me, I have more encouragement to do what I will do. But I still have concerns about the orthography. I want to use the old orthography, which looks more classic, but someone suggested using the new orthography, nevertheless, I still keep using the old orthography. Again, I hope you support it. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Golden (talk·contribs) and Grandmaster (talk·contribs) are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.
HI, With this edit you restored content that had been removed as unsourced but I do not see any info in the source (the link, in my browser, leads just to a general page with no content about Kilisa/Zhamatun) regarding the sentence "The village was populated by Azerbaijanis before the exodus of Azerbaijanis from Armenia after the outbreak of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Could you please check where exactly that info is, and quote from it? Thanks. I removed that info from Zhamatun for the time being. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Olympian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zangezur expedition, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I think you didn't understand my question. By "where do you make your maps such as this" I mean which application do you use to draw the maps? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Btw, did you have in mind about making articles for previous Okrugs of Terek Oblast such as the Voeynno-Ossetinskiy Chechenskiy Okrugs (both existed in the period of 1857–1860)? I'm afraid that even in Russian Wikipedia there's no articles for them, very unfortunate. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't really considered it, I only made articles about the districts that existed until 1917–18. I imagine there's a shortage of sources for these briefly-existing districts, especially since RuWiki does not have articles about them either. I think it would be best to expand the current articles before creating newer, niche ones. – Olympianloquere02:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello @Olympian. How you doing? Is there a wiki rule regarding pre-reform Russian? Because, I'm not sure if I should write pre-1917 source in it's original (i. e. pre-reform) form, or if I should write it in the modern Russian. Do you know anything about this? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
In my view, the pre-reform form in the translation note in the lead should be included, while modern Russian form is used elsewhere such as in the infobox. Also, articles like Dagestan Oblast don't need a pre-reform note as the spelling is identical, so it's redundant to include it in that case. – Olympianloquere02:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
What about the cites? How should I indicate the cite, as 1 or 2?
1. Де-Саже (1902). "Покореніе Галашек" [Conquest of Galashki]. Военный Сборникъ (in Russian) (2). СПб.: Тип. Главнаго Управ. Удѣлов – via Wikisource.
2. Де-Саже (1902). "Покорение Галашек" [Conquest of Galashki]. Военный Сборник (in Russian) (2). СПб.: Тип. Главного Управ. Уделов – via Wikisource.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether modern or old script should be used in source titles. I'd recommend you ask in the talk pages of WP:RUS or WP:MOS. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. – Olympianloquere11:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Fyappiy
Hello, how you doing? I have came across this really confusing problem with Fyappiy. The thing is, Fyappiy are commonly known in Russian reliable sources as фяппинцы, фаппийцы, фаппинцы and феппинцы, while in English sources (and these are few) they are known as Feappi. The problem here is that the mentioned English sources aren't really reliable, contain a lot of misinformation (if needed I can demonstrate them) and they're basically copypastes of a single source, one Rixman's book from 1980. Per admin's suggestion (i. e. stick to a transliteration of the reliable Russian sources) it's not clear to me, because if I want to write Fyappiy in plural form, do I have to still add the italicization like this Fyappins? I could possibly avoid this all confusion by using the transliteration Fyappintsy, but that looks awful to be frank. Or perhaps I should write plural form of Fyappiy as "Fyappiy people"? Sorry for bothering you with all this, but could you give me your opinion regarding this? I hope I didn't make this sound too confusing, but I just need to hear an outside opinion. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a second opinion. In my view, if the English sources are unreliable, you should use the most common Russian variant in transliterated form, which seems to be "фяппинцы" as it gets the most hits on Google. In this case, I would probably write "Fyappins". I hope that helps! Best, – Olympianloquere00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I just had another look over the article and learned that Fyappins are also known as Kists. Are you aware that there is already an article about Kist people, or does it refer to a different ethnic group? – Olympianloquere01:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Btw could you do copyediting in Fyappiy and point out things you don't like? Also I wanna know how long it took you to make a good article and does my article currently qualify for a good article? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
To make it qualify for a Good Article status, the article should have only reliable sources, be grammatically correct, have proper structure/flow, and fulfil the rest of the requirements of the manual of style. And yes, I would italicise Fyappiy and Fyappins as it's a transliterated term that hasn't (yet) entered the English dictionary. – Olympianloquere13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed here that apperantly you can't edit the article Fyappiy due to it containing words Armenia and Azerbaijan (even though it's just the name of 2 sources) as you're topic banned. Is there anyway you could point out things in the article for example here? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, the best thing I can suggest is to personally apply the Good Article nomination criteria and fulfil each requirement, then you can nominate it by pasting {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Culture, sociology and psychology}} at the top of the article's talk page. A more specific suggestion is to reword the lead to reflect the article's content and remember that you shouldn't need references in the lead as it should reflect the already referenced text of the article below. Let me know if you have any specific questions.
P.S. Thank you for your efforts in helping add the new pre-reform orthography template. My only remark is that it's unnecessary for the Dagestan Oblast (and probably other oblast articles too) as the pre-reform and modern spelling are identical. Moreover, I think that the pre-reform orthography in the infoboxes should also be swapped to the modern spelling, as the old spelling is already indicated in the note. Best, – Olympianloquere15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright thank you. I will leave the [b] note which contains sources mentions the ethnical belogning, otherwise I will try to remove the sources. Btw did I do right the blocks of texts right below the lead and infobox? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The rest seems okay, though you shouldn't wiki-link headings such as "Endonyms", wiki-links should only be in body text and templates. – Olympianloquere15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello once again. How you doing? Do you think the "Notable people" should be included or not in the article? Also what do you say of the current state of lead? Instead of having paragraphs about the Kist and Metskhalin ethnonyms in the lead as they were, I butchered them up and included in a note so that they wouldn't unnecessarily take up space. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead looks much better now, good work! The notable people section is fine, though it may benefit from references as it appears unsourced. – Olympianloquere09:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
But even with the sources, could the "Notable people" section qualify for the good article criteria? What do you say about Composition and Demographics sections? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think so, as long as it's sourced. For the demographics section, I would add digit separator commas for the population column, because without the comma the population numbers can be confused for years. – Olympianloquere12:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but do you think the article is in good shape that now should be the time I requested the GA review? I really struggled with the "Modern" section of history, mainly due to the lack of sources and not really knowing what to write; though I tried my best. If you could again take a look and go through everything (find issues), it would mean a lot to me. Thank you! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article looks good and well sourced, I think it's ready to be nominated for review. Even if it's not ready, the GA reviewer will give suggestions on exactly what needs to be improved for it to qualify. Good luck! – Olympianloquere01:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Hello again @Olympian. How you doing? I was recently feeling enthusiastic so I decided to make another candidate for GA, which is the newly made article Batal Hajji Belkhoroev about a prominent religious figure. Since there's no mention of either Armenia or Azerbaijan (meaning no topic ban is affected by you editing it), could you go through the article and do little bit of copyediting and what not? To me article looks good enough that I could nominate it for GA. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. Just to clarify, if the 'thing' is linked in the infobox, can I link it again in the lead section? Also, If the thing is linked in the lead, I shouldn't link it every time in notes or in the sections down below, correct? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
If it's linked in the infobox, note, or a table, you can mention it again in the normal text of the article. However, this isn't the case for the lead which is part of the article's normal text, consider them as one in this respect. I hope that answers your question. – Olympianloquere10:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the article is now more or less ready for GA nomination, but I was just wondering if there's any rule which prohibites nominating more than one article at the same time? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule limiting how many articles you can nominate at a time. It's normal to be waiting for months for your article to be reviewed, there's currently a huge backlog of nominations so you may have to be patient. – Olympianloquere21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Romanization of Ingush
Hello. How you doing? Is there any specific rules on the romanization of Ingush or other minority languages in the Russian Federation that today use Cyrillic alphabet? I think it would be great to use the Ingush latin letters (see this section in [ru]) in romanization such as æ which would help us understand how to correctly pronounce a word. Example: Ingush: Махьмад-ХитӀе, romanized: Max́mæd-Xithe, instead of Ingush: Махьмад-ХитӀе, romanized: Mahwmad-Khithe. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm afraid I'm unaware of any such rules. For letters like "æ", unless there is a specific romanisation system of Ingush that uses this, I would reserve it for the IPA form (see this). Sorry that I can't be of much help on this matter. – Olympianloquere01:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Sources
Hello! How you doing? Do you happen to have reliable sources which mention the Baku gradonachalniks? I was planning to make someday an article for Guda Gudiyev [ru; az], an Ingush officer who at one time worked as the gradonachalnik of Baku so I thought you would have some sources on this topic. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Titles
Hello! How you doing? Which titles are more preferred: Ingush okrug and Nazran okrug or simply the transliteration Ingushskiy okrug and Nazranovskiy okrug? Gammer mentions the Ingushskiy okrug as Ingush okrug, while Meskhidze mentions Nazranovskiy okrug as Nazran okrug, so I wanted to know, which titles would be preferred more and if a move is needed. Btw also wanted to thank you for helping me out with the GA nominations; my page Batal Hajji Belkhoroev became my first GA recently! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful GA nomination, I was confident the article would pass! Transliterated titles such as Nazranovskiy okrug are preferred where there is no reliably/commonly-used English phrase. In this case, if you believe Gammer and Meskhidze are reliable sources, you may use their terms for the Ingushskiy and Nazranovskiy okrugs, respectively, and move the article pages. – Olympianloquere00:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rkieferbaum was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Still no demonstration of notability as per WP:NPEOPLE. None of the sources cover him directly, some of them don't even mention him and those that do, usually do it in passing. The information that he was born in Los Angeles is followed by an in-line citation that has him give his opinion on sperm count: this is one of a few different instances of WP:REFBOMBING. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rollo Tomassi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Olympian!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I'm unable to weigh in, however: your arguments in the deletion discussion seem solid and I think that generally, the article seems quite well written and sourced. I would recommend collecting additional sources that attest to his notability and expanding your comment to include them. Best, – Olympianloquere00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Olympian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Berd Municipality, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Olympian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chambarak Municipality, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
Hi Olympian. Thank you for your work on Rollo Tomassi. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, Olympian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of settlements in Armenia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Five Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for five years or more.
