User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb022008

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) the motion to dismiss at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision passes 5-1 and the case should be closed. Could you take a look and see if the case needs closing. Thanks. Eluchil404 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are others that are interested in helping out at the WP:AC/CN, so I'm waiting to see whether anyone is interested in taking it. (It's pretty simple for a test closure.) I will do it tomorrow if no new guy does it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All spammed except VK, which you said you'd do. Daniel 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Arbcom has barely closed and the Irish team are already stalking at least me, and the Irish Admin Brownhairedgirl is already threatening me with Warnings (see my talk Page) even though I have deliberately steered clear of them all according to the ArbCom's decision. As she was one of the "involved admins" in The Troubles Arbcom I feel I must protest. Could you direct me? Thanks. David Lauder 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact is that the talk pages of an article generally isn't used to discuss about the subject itself. Just as the fact that I don't like Britney Spears' recent actions, I don't go to her talk page and bash her about it. You were discussing your dislike of Common Era on the talk page. I can see that you feel offended, but you still need to keep a cool head. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article, if it can be shown that the subject is valid. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't so much objecting to the article but the manner in which it had been fabricated and, moreso, to its use in articles across Wikipedia when almost the entire world, (with the exception of China), whatever their religion, has to use the Christian calendar because the West uses it. Many Marxist lectureres in our universities insist upon using the Common Era, for obvious reasons. So its a little more than "I don't like it". It is truth versus garbage. My understanding is that if you have something to say about an article you do it on the Talk Page. If that is not the case, where do you comment? But that is not my reason for coming to you and I would be very grateful if you could address not the Common era issue but my complaint and request about people stalking me. Or was the ArbCom meaningless, as several have emailed me to say. Thanks. David Lauder 08:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to speak of the content, not really the subject -- for example, saying that a paragraph needs to be re-written is okay; bashing the subject of CE is unacceptable. About stalking, I need a little time to analyze. Seeing that I'm a student, I might not be the best person to look into this (though I can certainly try) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to several pages on WP on traditional subjects and I was horrified to see that anno Domini had been replaced by this Common era meaningless nonsence, and upon clicking on that link it took me to that page, where I left my feelings on the matter. I can't really say anything further on that matter, and past experience has shown me that attempting to debate or even discuss certain issues on WP is pointless. There simply are not enough 'old-fashioned' people like me about to make up the 'consensus'. But that was not the issue I brought to you. I just felt that the ArbCom had stipulated that the admins who played a role in that should not be following me around waiting to pounce. That is what has happened. It is not a question of BHG attempting to justify herself. Thanks anyway. David Lauder 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they changed it without a good reasoning, bring it up somewhere (I'm not sure where). See the Sea of Japan naming dispute (which is worse than AD/CE dispute at the moment). I'm sorry that I am unable to give you a good example. I can look into the matter during my free time, but like I mentioned before, student = not a lot of free time. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the 2 sections and moved it up here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? VartanM (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you couldn't be placed under restriction for reverts unless you are outright uncivil? There isn't a single Armenian veteran editor who's not on this restriction while recently user Aynabend was pulled out from it and user Parishan is still free to revert war. Accusing me of vandalising pages (there's being uncivil). [1] Or this: not only bursting with OR but resulting from your inability to pay attention to the information you are being presented with. I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over. [2]

At least Vartan is discussing his edits, nice job, admins completely ignored the way Atabek has been baiting VartanM to exhaustion to have him then on restriction or the way Parishan has been revert warring with Aynabend's help. These two (Parishan and Aynabend) had very little to say until recently to begin with, if ever justifying their edits beyond two lines. And guess what? This isen't even enough, we have Adil reincarnating into another user to give a hand without restriction without anything at all. We have three users without restriction reverting all the while the other side is entirely under restriction and we also have Atabek constantly provoking. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, uncivil edit comments, as well as behavior issues, lead to the warning. When you respond to a move quoting "Please stop this nonsense. There is no "Turkics" in English, leave it alone in the world" with this, that's downright disruptive and uncivil. I cannot judge on the Adil sockpuppet issue since I'm not a CU and I prefer those who are more experienced to research. I'm merely reinforcing the ArbCom ruling (and yes, I was the clerk on the case, so you can stop pointing fingers at me.) If you haven't realized, Atabek is also under restriction. I placed VartanM under A-A 2 restriction because of that article alone; if you have other issues to bring up, you need to bring them to my attention, seeing that I don't know which pages are being warred over. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats uncivil about this? "Fair enough, then this article will be about Azerbaijanis not Turkic people". Note that the word Azerbaijanis was not placed in quotation marks, it was my failed attempt to make it look bold. VartanM (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like something, so you went ahead and removed a huge section of the article without reasonably explaining on the talk page. I consider that an assumption on the bad side and uncivil. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That something was added by another Armenian editor which included renaming of an article. Let me bring you an example. This would be same scenario if I were to add information about Urartian's into the Armenians in Turkey article. The material I removed made no sense to be there with that title. VartanM (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a minefield; you know better than dive into it. I'm not understanding your behavior except that the article is nowhere near stable; you're at the center and your edit comments made it that much worse. I got an opinion from someone else when I went to give the restriction and they agreed with me.

I'll give you this, though: the other side has been escalating it (but short of being uncivil for me to restrict them). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that someone at the same rank as this. Also your claim that the other side was short of uncivil is not correct.

"I had asked you, prompty and politely, in a standard and coherent variety of the English language, which both of you seem to be conversant in"

"I think my message was clear enough for you"

"Your inattentiveness is wasting both of our time."

"I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over."

"Eupator's statement "a significant population of Tatars (related to modern Azerbaijani)" is preposterous."

User:Parishan on Azeris in Armenia article. You don't see incivility there, but you do when I say that the article should correspond with what it covers? VartanM (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen him making statements like this, claiming that people of certain ethnicity have bazaar mentality: [3] Grandmaster (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the result of Atabek comparing NK to NAZI's. How civil was that? VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Grandmaster stalked me to here, and I consider his above comment harassment. VartanM (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to post on other people's talk pages? If I stalked you, so did Eupator just before me. Grandmaster (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to turn my talk page into a battleground... Be nice, play nice. Get along, or you won't have dessert. >.> - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to battle with anyone, and I want dessert :) Grandmaster (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time either[4]. VartanM (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your explanation on what is incivil about "Fair enough, then this article will be about Azerbaijanis not Turkic people". VartanM (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. VartanM (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your action with that edit is very immature/uncivil. You don't like how the discussion is going and then does a massive removal edit. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that it was a self-revert, which in turn was a revert to Atabek right? [5] and there is nothing incivil about saying that if the title of the article is Azerbaijanis in Armenia then the material about Turkic tribes that was added by Eupator as he was expending the article can't be there. The whole thing started when Parishan decided to claim all of the different Turkic tribes as Azeris and his still freely edit warring. I don't know who you talked or what kind of backroom deals were made, but you're actions are completely unjustified. VartanM (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page, like I mentioned before, is too unstable. I'm extremely tempted to protect and make sure people gain consensus. (Too bad that A-A 2 remedy doesn't allow us to place article on probation, or I would've done that instead.) There were no deals; I only asked another admin to go over the page history and see who (if any) was to be restricted. I'll look into this a little more (when I can; it is the new year's as you know), but pointed attacks and false accusations won't be tolerated. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aynabend, Baku87, Andranikpasha and I were removed from restriction per this. Incidentally the same applies in my case again. VartanM (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask for another clarification. I'll abide by whatever input other gives. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even gonna count on how many articles. "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" See here VartanM (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy is on restriction last time I looked...? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. VartanM (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything going to be done about Parishans repeated removal of sourced material?[6], [7], [8]. He has no problem using the same sources in this article[9]. VartanM (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how Parishan reformed since the last arbitration case. See evidence here, here, here and little bit here and here. I don't see how retaliations like adding Azeri terms to 18 articles because one Armenian term has been added to a single article, or retaliations such as adding a large section on antisemitism to the History of Jews in Armenia, as a retaliation of Andranikpasha adding in the Jews in Azerbaijan, ironically he deleted Andranikpashas addition after he retaliated with the similar.

If you check the evidences provided, Parishan has a long history of such retaliations, he has a long history of edit warring, reverts without justifications, a long history of wiki searching the term Armenian and by adding Azerbaijani terms to articles that don't have anything to do with Azerbaijan. He also has a history of creating non notable articles, where in some cases the sole source isn't even in English and references used only in Azerbaijani.

Didn't Moreschi created any precedent by having both Andranikpasha and Ehud_Lesar under restriction for a period of six month? Given Parishan's long history of revert warring and wikiretaliation, not to say his POV pushing (check the evidences above), would it be too much to place him on such a restriction? VartanM (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask him, as he was the one that restricted them. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know that I, Fedayee, Tigran etc. don't have this diplomatic tone which could indoctrinate admins, neither the persistence of Atabek or Grandmaster in reporting every single dot. I keep wondering, is there anyway that such comments: This article is absolute comedy of POV and needs editing either by third party hand (of non-Iranian, non-Azerbaijani and definately of non-Armenian origins) [10] could qualify as incivil from a user who was only recently been removed from the restriction? Just reminding you all the noise my comment did on the enforcement page which later resulted with me being restricted. And about his reply to Ali, who found the comment plain racist. :I am saying that because I see what of emotional postings are made here and what kind of behind the scenes collabiration is going out there. [11]. Pushing Armenian editors away and then failing to assume good faith. Not that it's the first time happening, but still, would this bit at least qualify as unconstructive or incivil? Did he not have a history of edit warring also? Doesn't he have more than enough warnings, also the fact that he was only recently removed from the restriction?

I wonder what kind of language Grandmaster and Atabek use when reporting others, that doesn't work in similar circumstances when I or Fedayee report.VartanM (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not removal of a sourced material. The source does not contain this information. The claim of me adding Azerbaijani terms where they do not belong is not true. The only example Fedayee thought of was the Names of Jerusalem article where he was proved using double-standards (attacking only the presence of the Azeri name and overlooking the "historical irrelevance" of others, such as Persian, Urdu and Hindi) at least twice: here and here. As for the creation of non-notable articles, I believe I have made it clear that I am more than willing to discuss the notability of subjects in any of the articles I have created. How acceptable is it to accuse me of something that is based on a mere presupposition and has not even been discussed, examined or assessed?

You seem to be mentioning retaliation. First of all, don't you think Andranikpasha's edit on Azerbaijani Jews was retaliation for Ehud Lesar's edit on History of the Jews in Armenia in the first place? The time difference between the two edits is less than one day. As for me, I could not possibly "retaliate", as the information had already been in the article, and all I did was expand it. Parishan (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the name dropping and bad faith assumptions by VartanM are ever gonna stop? Why does he bring up my and Atabek's name every time he reports someone and why he keeps assuming bad faith with regard to other people and admins' motives? Is this some sort of an attempt to form a guilt complex with them to make them be more sympathetic to Vartan's reports? Just look at the last thread at AE, which became a total mess because of constant baseless accusations of myself and other people of various irrelevant things. Vartan was warned to stop it: [12], but continues making bad faith assumptions here on your talk page. I see no end to this. If it is OK for someone to ignore WP:AGF, why would anyone else be adhering to it? Grandmaster (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be wrong to suggest that AA case be the first one reviewed? VartanM (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, the claim indeed is true and you are actually not saying the truth, the evidence above gives examples of dozens of articles, not one. And your claim of double standards was being brought which you failed to address convincingly. The Azeri term is the Turkic term; Jerusalem’s foreign names are there for a reason. All Persian, Urdu and Hindi qualify as such because they are relevant and present in several historic documents, maps and manuscripts influencing other languages words for the place. There is no proper Azeri distinct term for the place, it is the official Islamic term and the variants are either Turkish or Persian. We can write Jerusalem in Zulu language too, it doesn’t mean it has any historic or notable value. The evidence above documents that the edit happened in a period when you have found various articles where Armenian terms were present and added Azeri terms when it was not relevant. It was explained to you that the Armenian term for Jerusalem was present because there is an Armenian Quarter in Old Jerusalem and there are manuscripts dating back to a millennium and a half. As for the notability, if you’d have taken the time to read others concerns, you will actually remember one example, in which it was asked to you to provide another source while you were stuck to one article in Azerbaijani admitting to have nothing else. You’ve been contributing here for a very significant period of time and should have by now known what qualifies as notable. According to your standards, any college teacher would qualify. We have enough problems here to have to go through your articles’ creation and bring the notability issue.

Also, Parishan, don’t you think that your consistent justifications questioning that it was retaliation are a little bit old? Are you trying to insult our intelligence? You’ve retaliated on various circumstances on various cases and this was brought to you on many occasions. Do you feel the need to have your memory refreshed? You deleted Andranikpasha and expended the other article, much like you have added the entry of Armenia in the anti-Semitism article in the past as retaliation, or worked on a NAZI person as retaliation to Vartan’s point which you misinterpreted. Or when you retaliated to one article where an Armenian term was added by adding Azeri term in a dozen articles. This was all I had to say about the issue and if you won’t come clean and admit any wrongdoings then you are in no position to talk about any other contributor’s misbehaving. - Fedayee (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, with regards to Names of Jerusalem the claim that only languages with "scripture value" were to be added is original research. The article says none of that. There are also no references to "historic documents, maps and manuscripts" for Persian, nor for Urdu, nor for Hindi. Moreover, most of the names there (including Persian, Urdu and Hindi) are derivatives of one another, so there is nothing wrong with the fact that the Azeri name is identical to the general Islamic one. Yet you chose to attack the Azeri name only and were not troubled with any other of those whose addition seems to follow similar logic (I have never questioned the addition of the Armenian name, I have said this to you once, so please avoid pinning this on me in the future). Second of all, what I did then was simply follow multilingual list-type articles merely adding what should have been added. Armenian was not the only language there, and I have not removed or distorted a single reference to any language, including Armenian. How is this a "phobia" or how does this qualify as violation of any of Wikipedia's rules? The only phobia I see is in your attempts to rid Wikipedia of references to Azeris and Azerbaijan, as seen in the above example, as well as on a number of other occasions (what you recently presented as criticism of my contributions to Wikipedia was based on the fact that my articles are centered around Azerbaijan - this is simply beyond outrageous).

The time with being "stuck to one article in Azerbaijani admitting to have nothing else" had nothing to do with notability. The article was dedicated to a notable Azerbaijani film director. The issue of the discussion was linked to one small detail in the person's biography, specifically to the reasons why his family moved from one city to another when he was a child. It was not important in light of his career in cinematography. I admitted to the fact that my source was the only one that contained information that detailed. I never said it was the only source that mentioned this person. If you believe you "have enough problems here" to go through my articles to back up your claims about their notability, please avoid criticising my contributions to Wikipedia in that regard. No one likes being arbitrarily thrown things at.

I did not "delete Andranikpasha and expended the other article." My expansion of the existing information (within the proper timeframe with respect to Ehud Lesar's edit and not just out of nowhere) was done at the time Andranikpasha's edits were present and seen in the Azerbaijani Jews article.

My edit in Ferenc Szálasi also had nothing to do with VartanM. You don't seem to be following the corresponding discussions very carefully. The issue around that edit was that MarshallBagramyan accused me of assuming bad faith for adding information on the person's Armenian background without mentioning his other origins. To which I responded that my source (a neutral one) contained information only on this person's Armenian roots. Parishan (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. [13]. Persian [14], [15]. During the Persian period, Jerusalem has fallen under the Persian power with a Persian governor. It does qualify as Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. Urdu [16], [17]. Urdu represents the most prominent Hindi influenced, nearly exclusive Muslim language. One can not remove it as it falls under: Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The same for Hindi, there are various old documents and maps which are in Hindi, and therefore qualify their name there.

I also don’t understand whats your point for the Armenian term. Your logic of I am not questioning the Armenian term, you are questioning Azeri does not make sense. The old Jerusalem has four quarters, Moslem, Jewish, Christian AND Armenian Quarter. [18] The Armenians have their distinct religion, and this quarter is its distinct holly place, for example search Persian AND Jerusalem on google books, or Jerusalem and other things, and you will also find works covering the Armenians. The Azeri religion falls under the Persian religion, that word for Jerusalem can not qualify as: Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. There was no distinct Azeri language before the invention of the alphabet in the 1930s. And the Azeri word is only a modern transcription of an existing word in the modern Azeri alphabet. When someone looks at those different languages, the Azeri will strike them as what the hell, as if it was some sculpture language or something.

The criticism about your contributions are not as how you describe, the criticism of your contribution is that you create articles with the main objective to have the word Azeri there. You add the Azeri term in every article there is an Armenian term without a valid reason. Your justifications are unconvincing for any neutral editor. The example provided by Fedayee is just one example, and you deny that it does not qualify as notable.

Let’s for example google Huseyn Seyidzadeh[19]. 62 hits, but what is interesting is that it is actually 25 hits and that Hit 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 are from Wikipedia, either other sites indexing Wikipedia pages or its own search engine etc. 18/25 or 72% of the few hits on the person are on google search engine because Parishan created the article. Lets see the rest. Hit 3 and 4 are from an Azeri site, and those hits only contain a list of directors, not on him. Hit 9 is irrelevant so is 10. 15 is an Azeri website, and contain a list, strangely resembling to the one worked by Parishan here on Wikipedia. When removing the irrelevant hits (9 and 10), it makes 18/23 (78%) being on google because Parishan added it on Wikipedia. Parishan claims that only for that specific information did he not have an English reference, but on English on google, there seem to be nothing other than a list. It provides 0 hits on google books or any search engines for several databases including IMDB.

The same could be said about several other articles created by Parishan, many of which cover periods preceding when the Turkic population was called Azeri, adding the term Azerbaijani, or a disproportion for people born in Yerevan, Nakhichevan etc., placing them as Azerbaijani, or on occasions using the opportunity to relate to some massacres which those people escaped from.

From what I gather from Parishan's contributions he's obviously POV pushing, this is not simply an accusation, as there are evidences provided during the last arbitration. And that he continues and finds nothing wrong in what he is doing, would only be viewed as he will be continuing creating non notable articles, will continue adding Azeri terms where they do not fit and retaliate as he always does[20]. VartanM (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, when Jerusalem was part of the ancient Persian Empire, the Persian language did not have the words Qods, Beit-e Moghaddas or Masjid-e Aqsa. Those are pure Arabic in origin and came into the Persian language after the Islamic invasion. Hence you are still yet to prove to me why the Azeri name should not be there. Please refrain from OR such as There was no distinct Azeri language before the invention of the alphabet in the 1930s. This is where Iranica comes in handy: "A written, classical Azeri literature began after the Mongol invasion, and developed strongly in the 10th/16th century after the Safavid dynasty established its dominance in Iran".

The fact that the name of the personality appears on English-language Azerbaijani websites or non-English-language websites does not mean the person is not notable. Where in Wikipedia does it say that only Western sources published in English constitute assertion of notability for an article? It is particularly odd to expect that for a representative of Soviet culture which was not a target research topic to English-speaking Western researchers for obvious political reasons. Anyway, try searching under the Russified spelling 'Gusein Seidzade', as well in Azeri ('Hüseyn Seyidzadə') and in Russian ('Гусейн Сеидзаде'). I am sure you will end up with more than enough results.

I have already presented you with enough neutral scholarly sources that equated the Turkic-speaking population of the Caucasus prior to 1920 to Azeris, on Talk:Azeris in Armenia. Based on them, it is acceptable to apply the term Azeri to the people I apply it to. Please prove me wrong, otherwise I would appreciate if you avoid further OR on the issue of 'What is Azeri?'. You have not gathered a thing from my contributions that will serve as something of a back-up to your otherwise baseless accusations accompanied with 'special-effect' tags such as "as he always does" (followed only by one diff), "long history of xyz" (followed by nothing), "continuing creating non notable articles" (as if I ever have done or been proved to), and so on. Parishan (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not waste anymore of Pinwale's Penwhale's talkspace. I just want to say that unfortunately I'm not surprised. Comparing Persian with Azeri, when Jersalem had already been part of Persia, or comparing it with Urdu or Hindi. As amazing as it is, no one beside Parishan had even though of adding a modern Azeri term, and accusing me of OR, for something which was shown to him by several users and documented as a scholarly consensus. The Iranica quote has already been addressed. As for your notability test, claiming English language publications doesn't show notability. I guess some teacher in Rwanda giving fourth year med school courses and having published three unknown articles could have his article on Wikipedia under the claim that while nothing could be found in English about him, it can in Tuti language. Down with the notability tests.VartanM (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gives you more credibility when you can actually spell my user name, maybe :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This means that you actually read all of the above :) I wanted to ask you, what does your name mean? Is it a combination of two words as in you write a lot? VartanM (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... It's not what you think it is. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you have to kill me if you tell me? VartanM (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" assumption? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but know this, one day I will figure it out. :) VartanM (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, that quote you brought up there is mine and have nothing to to with Grandmaster or Parishan. You have taken it out of context and it relates to Azerbaijani issues/cartoon contreversy in Iran and therefore, I did not see any logical link of this issue/article to wikipedia users of Armenian origin. But most of all, I consider users of Iranian and Azerbaijani (which myself belongs too) origin biased in this particular issue too and suggested the use of sources produced/written only by third party. Thanks for understanding and please do not be hurt by notes. It is not directed to any nation or ethnicity and serves to distinct natural ethnic/kinship bias from true academics. --Aynabend (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aynabend, the quote, is yours[21][22], and I brought it up to admin's attention because its disruptive, incivil and a violation of WP:AGF. The last time I checked this was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and articles were not restricted to a certain group of users because of their ethnicity. VartanM (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you did not originally mention that it was mine and referenced it as that of Parishan, which I think is not coming from good faith. I wanted to correct this misinterpretation both in terms of authorship and context. You are free to think and make conclusions however you like, I have already expressed my position on this matter. --Aynabend (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you see Parishan's name?[23]. Your comments were and are wrong in so many levels that I don't see how Penwhale didn't take any action against it. You really ought to start minding the WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:BATTLE and WP:EQ to name a few. VartanM (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not acting because I've been relatively busy... Not to mention that my talk page is being turned into a battleground. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racist comments like this are in no way helping the situation. This article is absolute comedy of POV and needs editing either by third party hand (of non-Iranian, non-Azerbaijani and definately of non-Armenian origins) [24]. And then instead of apologizing, he says that he sees nothing wrong and I get blamed for reporting him. May I remind you that you found this incivil [25]. VartanM (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Penwhale. I realized that the User:Babakexorramdin is one of the involved parties of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The results of the arbitaration committee's decision was posted to his talk page on 28 August 2007. So, he's aware of the proposed decision and the enforcements. However, this user does not seem to take the ArbCom decision into consideration in his edits and comments. Actually, this user was also warned by Alex for civiliy on 17 November 2007. Recently, I posted a message to Alex's talk page about the latest incivility on 2 February 2008. Since Alex Bakharev is not available at the moment, i decided to post this message to you too. Regards. E104421 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]