Hello, Andranikpasha! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! VartanM 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi everyone! Please post below if a help is needed! The Archive page you can find here!

I like writing on nice clean talkpages :) Today reminded me of an old USSR cartoon about a duck who learned how to count and was counting everybody. one of the lines was " I tebya poshchitali" (They counted you as well). What I'm trying to say is that remember the policies to make sure that you don't get counted as well :) --VartanM 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the situation is really like that so the cartoon you marked is also my favorite one:) Sure Ill try to keep policies! And hope Ill be successful:) Thank you! Andranikpasha 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexey Ekimyan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andranikpasha, I finally got your email in September about this. I don't check that email address often since it is only for my Wikipedia email and I don't edit as much as I used to, so I don't get much email there at all (I've had 9 emails there since May 2006). In the future, please contact me at my talk page since I check that every couple of days.

It's good to see that you got removed from the list though. I didn't get to look at your edit history very much, but it looks like you weren't doing anything to warrant being called a sockpuppet. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Andranikpasha 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andranikpasha, I asked dab about his preference, and he prefers open discussion. So, as far as I'm concerned you're free to open a MedCab case. If you decide to take that path, please, in addition to the normal procedure, change the Medcabstatus to "status = open" and "mediators = SebastianHelm" to make it clear to other potential mediators that they don't need to take on this case. In the edit summary, please link to this message to make it clear that I authorized you to put my name there. You may also find it helpful to take a look at my own mediation page, User:SebastianHelm/Mediation. — Sebastian 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I opened the case here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases. Andranikpasha 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your name from the list of users placed under supervised editing in the above arbitration case because although I see edit warring from your account, I fail to see any incivility with the edit warring. Sorry for any inconvenience from you being placed there in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in regards to this, please use Wikisource whenever a source is public domain. That article is already on Wikisource. See s:The New York Times/Nurses stuck to post. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wikifing the Smbat Sahaziz article and Congratulations on your new barnstar and new userpage. You can place __NOTOC__ if you don't want the table of content. --VartanM (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, VartanM! All the best, Andranikpasha (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this page as a duplicate (copy & paste), and replaced it with a redirect. Please do not try to move pages around unless you have 100% consensus, and only rename a page with the WP:MOVE button. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry John but I have to disagree. Andranik was exercising his right to be WP:BOLD and you are not assuming good faith. The page was indeed moved without a consensus and its current title is OR. Even people living at that time didn't call themselvs Azerbeijanis. Every self respecting scholar refers to the event as Armenian-Tartar(Tatar) ... Wikipedia isn't the place to re-write the history because its confusing. I'm sure as an administrator and a neutral user you would agree. You were right about the using the move button. Andranik the move button is next to the history tab, if used, it automatically transfers the history and the talkpage to the new location. VartanM (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, being constantly BOLD is not the wiki way. So far, Andranik has been too bold, too often, so I felt it was necessary to advise him that he should not be making these decisions on his own. I do not want Andranik to become another fallen hero - about a week ago (?) I quickly went through the users contribs and found a number of new articles (I tidied a few up and added redlinks because I want to know more), so I honestly want to see a good broad involvement from Andranik. To last the distance, all new users must learn that this encyclopedia does not need to be "fixed" today. Rushing around trying to fix everything that is broken is outright disrespectful of the people who like to discuss complex issues. There are way too many content disputes that Andranik has generated or re-invigorated in the last few days - this has to stop. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the "too bold" for me, is if he started moving articles left and right, edit warring and unwilling to talk or compromise. None of which describe Andraniks behavior. He didn't just woke up in the morning and decided to move the article. He voiced his opinion in the talkpage and received no response, He waited 24 hours prior to making the page move. Also if a user has the time and energy to fix things, I don't think its appropriate to tell them not to. The only thing you and I can do is to show him the right direction. Those content disputes were there long before Andranik joined wikipedia and I don't think its right to single out users and point fingers as to who started them. VartanM (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, in this case "too bold" is making a change that is likely to further conflict. WP:BOLD is intended to encourage new editors to get in and help. It is not a justification for being reckless.

In isolation, Andranik move would have been OK, but I am regularly seeing the user making changes that are too bold in an area that is already being hotly disputed, and he is by now well aware that it is hotly disputed and that the Wikipedia community has twice warned everyone in this region to clean up their act, move slowly and carefully, and always use excellent sources.

The users energy need to be directed into expanding Wikipedia, and constructively concluding existing disputes. Otherwise excessive energy is akin to a POV warrior that is moving too fast for others to keep up with, and you know how the community feels about that. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, lets use a little more friendly style of writing and to not forecast who (what user/hero) and when will fall! I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue(s). Andranikpasha 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik, the reality is that most of the topics in this region are started by people who are later banned as being too disruptive. The result is that then the rest of us need to go through and figure out what content they created is correct and neutral, and what needs to be removed. Often we find that it is easier to ban these disruptive users because the create too much mess. So far, I am finding you prone to be disruptive, and I dont want to suffer the same fate, because you are writing good new articles, so you are also valuable.

I can only suggest that instead of trying to tell me how to write my warnings, you actually listen to the message and adjust your behaviour.

This talk section started with me notifying you that I had undone your technically incorrect page move, and a recommendation that you seek consensus before doing more page moves. Your response has been argumentative, full of accusations, and justifications of why the page move was correct. I don't particularly care whether the page move was correct -- I am telling you that the way you are approaching these conflicts is disruptive. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VartanM! It was the best help! Andranikpasha 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and double standards

Dear John! Sorry again you're not right! The page's origianl name was Armenian-Tatar massacres and it was moved without any discussion by User:Folantin [1] so it must be changed to the original version to continue discussions! I prefer if you be included to this case and do it yourself or let me know if before self-rv I need to ask to "Incidents" page to clear up if Folantin is free to move what and when he want without even discussions (100% consensus...)? hope for a little neutrality, Andranikpasha (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus is that the current name is more appropriate language in an encyclopedia for readers in 2007.

You are getting yourself involved in every possible dispute that you can, related to one very narrow topic, and even creating new disputes. I am trying to advise you that performing actions without 100% consensus is not the way to learn to be a good Wikipedian. Claiming that there is a "double standard" every time someone disagrees with you is not the right attitude. If you feel you need more input into a discussion, you should calmly notify the wikiprojects involved (without suggesting which way they should vote), and wait.

As an example, I strongly disagree with what has happened to the Aisha's age at marriage redirect, but I have left a note and I am patiently waiting for some input from others. If nobody responds in another week, I will start looking for additional input. There is no rush. I would not dare to change it back, because that would only cause "drama", and my original message would be lost in silly edit wars and hot discussion.

There are plenty of other topics you can work on while you wait, such as the red links I added onto "Askanaz Mravyan". I am interested to learn more. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its all right, John! The words are really so beautiful! I just dont know if there was at least one addition/npov-ing/consensus by you which was welcomed not only by Azeri discussing groups but also by Armenians! I think in that case such edits/movings can not be called neutral and surely are not a "100% consensus"! Thank you. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% consensus is possible (even between Azer & Arm), and should be your aim for when you are working on contentious topics. If you cant obtain 100% consensus for a proposal, there are only two reasons:

1. The proposal is right, but people contributing to the discussion are purposely being difficult
2. The proposal is wrong, and it shouldn't be done. The proposal may need to be improved.

Often the problem is that the proposer doesnt know which reason it is, and starts assuming the proposal is right, when it isnt. We all make many proposals that are wrong. We all need to trust the comments of others - even people we dont like.

Think about it this way ... if you are do something which does not have 100% consensus, how do you know that you are doing the right thing? If you make a change without 100% consensus, how long will your change last ? If it is rolled back in a few days, then you have wasted your own time! You should always be trying to contribute in ways that are not causing "drama". John Vandenberg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I marked previously. As no any user by Armenian side (included me) even achieved a consensus with you and Grandmaster its directly shows that we're always (at 100% of discussions) not right but only you! Can I (we) be interested in such a traditionally one-side consensuses with your participation? Sorry, but the simple statistics says no! Anyways thank you for the interest and reply! Andranikpasha 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. By the way, Grandmaster has mentioned your name on the Request for Arbitration page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=177652910 I thought it's only fair for you to know. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, TigranTheGreat! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ara Gevorgyan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the remedies contained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, I'm limiting you to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, you are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This will apply for six months, and is due to your recent edit-warring across multiple pages. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the other remedies of supervised editing and civility supervision do not apply to you. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andranik, seems like there is whole lot of backroom anti-Armenian dealings going on and its getting irritating. I'm ending our mentorship. I believe I was successful in teaching you how wikipedia works. And you are quite good at it. VartanM (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so good at it that you deserve a Barnstar

		Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
		I, hereby award you this Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for all the new articles you created, as well as maintaining the NPOV in many controversial articles. Keep up the great work! VartanM (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Merkurov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure Andranikpasha. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so it was wrong for certain people to be unwelcoming by removing the WikiProject Karabakh template from the talk page of the articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norair Sisakian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Talk 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. -- Cat ^chi? 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)