User talk: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)[reply]

Thanks. --Markus2685 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Findblogging for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. E4024 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katherine Sarafian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]