Markus2685
Welcome!
Hello, Markus2685, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You are probably overdue for a welcome. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Markus2685 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Capture of Garadaghly
There's still a bit of work required at Capture of Garadaghly (particularly in the later sections), but do you agree that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tags can now be removed? The main concerns seem to have been very effectively dealt with by yourself. I have revised the introduction to provide a better fit with the new title. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The concern was (and still is), that the majority of the article is not based no neutral sources but on sources too closely associated with the subject and on primary sources like the Azerbaijani government or pro-government Azerbaijani news agencies. The main thing that was done, was changing the article title and deleting a few sentences which were unsourced or not verifiable. But as the NPOV problem is still not resolved I don't think one should delete the tags. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily constitute an article which fails to keep a neutral point of view. As I understand it, the incident is not denied by Armenia, though Armenian sources differ on the number of casualties, as is reported in the infobox (it's a pity the information in the infobox hasn't been incorporated into the text). The article also draws on the writings of an Armenian-American, who is detailing the life of his brother who was fighting on the Armenian side in the conflict, and is unlikely to be exhibiting pro-Azeri bias. Azerbaijan's claims are not presented as fact, but are labelled as coming from one of the parties to the conflict. While it would be nice to have some Armenian official sources, if they simply do not exist there is not much anyone can do. There is still probably a case for the sources too closely associated with the subject tag remaining, but I am not at all clear what your objection is to the removal of the neutrality tag. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your viewpoint. But I don't want to decide it. Maybe one should discuss this on the articles talk page. --Markus2685 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily constitute an article which fails to keep a neutral point of view. As I understand it, the incident is not denied by Armenia, though Armenian sources differ on the number of casualties, as is reported in the infobox (it's a pity the information in the infobox hasn't been incorporated into the text). The article also draws on the writings of an Armenian-American, who is detailing the life of his brother who was fighting on the Armenian side in the conflict, and is unlikely to be exhibiting pro-Azeri bias. Azerbaijan's claims are not presented as fact, but are labelled as coming from one of the parties to the conflict. While it would be nice to have some Armenian official sources, if they simply do not exist there is not much anyone can do. There is still probably a case for the sources too closely associated with the subject tag remaining, but I am not at all clear what your objection is to the removal of the neutrality tag. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism?
You should be really careful about what you call vandalism. Moreover, these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, and I will place a template explaining those things below and log that I did. Note the revert limitation, please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcementDrmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not once have I edited the mentioned artciles in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. User Konullu has edited artciles related to Azerbaijan-Armenia by repeatedly deleting relevant "See also" artciles from Azerbaijani articles which mention massacres against Armenians (belonging to the same topic) without discussing it before (deletion 1), (deletion 2). His edits were revoked and he was asked to please discuss this first on the talk page. He has not done so.
- Also other users have decided that his repeated deletions are not appropriate.--Markus2685 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Aziz Shavershian, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
This site, and This site, don't meet our requirements for reliable sources. Please consider finding reliable sources from news outlets (as most of the sources cited in the Aziz Shavershian article are from the Media).
Also, the subject's ethenticity doesn't belong in the lead paragraph - only if that has strong ties to why he's notable, or if he was born in the country of question. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Taksim Gezi Park
Dear Markus2685, I have noticed that you have made changes to the Taksim Gezi Park article, that is wonderful! However, you did not provided related and reliable source to your claims which is not good. Please be informed that I have rolled back your edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See you around, --Murus (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Markus2685! Thank you for your quick reply and for providing a more reliable source: The New York Times from June 7, 2013[1]:
Gravestones from an Armenian cemetery at Taksim demolished in 1939 were used to construct stairs at Gezi Park, a republican-era project by the French planner Henri Prost that is like the jumble of high-rise hotels, traffic circles and the now-shuttered opera house on the square, named after Ataturk.
— Michael Kimmelman, NYT
However, since this is a serious claim that can be even interpreted as a slander, would you be so kind as to research it more. We know for sure that press acts as an echo chamber, so some history books may be of great help. By the way, what area do you refer to when you talk about "on the areal"? [2]
I am asking since near everything in Pera can be included under this category. Meanwhile, I will put the thing back into a limbo while you will continue your worthwhile research. Believe me, I have no political interest in this matter whatsoever, and am driven by the intent to keep this wonderful resource free of bigotry and bias! If you don't agree with me which is fine, you can submit for an arbitration, it is always nice to have a third pair of eyes involved. Best, --Murus (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, so just to make this clear. What exactly is bothering you? The word "demolished" or what is it? Because the fact that an Armenian Cemetery existed on the area of today's Gezi Park is undeniable and this information is supported by numerous reliable source. And also the fact that the cemetery is not existing anymore is something undeniable. So what exactly is bothering you that you still want more sources (although concerning to Wikipedia rules there are already more than enough reliable sources given). And sorry to say this, but your way of argumenting, makes the impression as you obviously have a political interest because saying that more sources are needed (although more than 6 reliable sources are enough) is not understandable and also saying that mentioning this fact could be "interpreted as a slander" reminds of people (mostly Turks) who find that saying there was indeed an Armenian Genocide is a "slender". This has nothing to do with slender or anything else. If the Armenian Cemetery was demolished and if this information can be supported by reliable sources (which it can) than this is a historical fact which belongs to this Wikipedia article. If someone, because of personal reasons, thinks it is as "slender" mentioning this fact, like many Turks think it is a "slender" saying that there was an Armenian Genocide, this is their personal problem and not a Wikipedia problem. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have added an opening sentence to the history section and made a few stylistic edits. I am glad that we are having a worthwhile, cooperative discussion here. The sentence: "After the Armenian Genocide the cemetery was demolished in 1930 and its marble tombstones were sold in 1939 or were used in the construction of the Park" has too many citations, so I am asking to kindly reduce them to one or two, most authoritative. Best,--Murus (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
- Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)