Welcome!

Hello, George Spurlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Elmar Valiyev, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Baseball Watcher 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elmar Valiyev has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Baseball Watcher 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure, being an experienced user with a new user account, you're well aware of WP:AA2 but I'll post it here for you anyway. Please refreain from edit-warring. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the sockpuppet accusations are getting old, continue and I will report you. As for AA2 link, thanks, I didn't know that. Looks like you've been topic banned 3 times already. Don't you think that's indication that you should lay off the nationalistic "NKR doesn't exist" line? --George Spurlin (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sockpuppet activity of many Armenian users is getting old. Please do feel free to report anywhere. You're risking to be found as sockpuppet of a particular user. There is no reason to pretend to not know about WP:AA2. I've heard that from (now) blocked users many times while they were at the same stages as you are now. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so sure that I'm a sockpuppet, why haven't you filed a report yet? --George Spurlin (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timing for that as well. Don't you worry. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least tell me who's sockpuppet you think I am? --George Spurlin (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George Spurlin. I kindly ask you not to do any reverts in article Agdam Mosque without reaching consensus in talk page. --Verman1 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verman1, I kindly ask you not to remove sources in the Agdam Mosque article. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you need to rephrase your words. I removed misleading information from the article. See the relevant discussion in the talk page. --Verman1 (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of it do you think is misleading? --George Spurlin (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [1]. Winterbliss (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I left my two cents. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Murovdag, 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) 10:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Murovdag, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Going back and adding disputed information right after the article comes off of protection for edit warring is bad form and won't be tolerated. You need to step back from what is starting to appear to be tendentious editing or you'll be subject to sanctions on your editing. Discuss proposed changes on the talk page, cite your sources, and work to build a consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, did I change the article Murovdag?! I think the notification on my talk page is wrong. Best, Konullu (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Spurlin, I must warn you and request you assume good faith. Labeling me chauvinist in unacceptable. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grandmaster has filed an AE report on Nagorno-Karabakh trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article Dehr (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [2]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the Manual. It says if those "watched" words are widely used in sources we may use them in WP. (I wrote "Armenian terrorist attack Turkish embassy" at Google search and found many "Armenian terrorist attacks against Turkish diplomats".) I am afraid while we advocate a WP without censure we censor the feelings of those people left in sorrow and orphaned, while taking care about putting or not adjectives to assassins' names... All the best. P.D. I received your msg while I was editing this one. --E4024 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.D. You may interchange "censure" and "censor". --E4024 (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you the reason of your removal of this cat from the article Assassination of Taha Carim? Is it not the very same category that you were recommending me to use instead of "Armenian terrorism"? Do I miss something here? Awaiting your reply, all the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the article is about an assassination, not a terrorist attack. George Spurlin (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

But you recommended me to use that very category for the same serial terrorist attacks against Turkish diplomats. Maybe I am not as intelligent as you and cannot understand your logic, will you please kindly explain to me in a simple way the reasons for this conflictive, as I perceive, attitude? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember where I said that you can use that there, but if I did, I was wrong and I'm sorry. Your problem is that you want to tag everything as terrorist, when in fact there are other words in the English language and other categories that can be applied to the articles. Here is a perfectly good Category:Assassinated Turkish diplomats that fits perfectly well in that article. George Spurlin (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because those people were not assassinated by the Mafia for their unpaid casino debts but by Armenian terrorists who wanted to "punish" Turkey and to try to intimidate its people...--E4024 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And mafia does it to intimidate other debtors to pay up, should we label them as terrorist as well?. George Spurlin (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George Spurlin, I checked the link that you provided. I understand that the word terror can be avoided in some cases, but I do not see any other word to replace terror here. If the category which includes dozens of articles about terror attacks and they are done by Armenians, then why it can not be called Armenian terror? This is quite popular term in the world, searching Armenian terror in Google gives about 17,800,000 results (0.27 seconds) ^[1] Therefore I think the category Armenian terror needs to be recovered with its full content. Sincelery, Konullu (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George Spurlin, idea of the articles Ramil Safarov and Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov are different from each other. While former should include the biography, trial, popularity reasons of Ramil Safarov (in other words, things that happened till his extradition), the latter should include only different aspects of Ramil's extradition, pardon (things that happened after extradition). Section called Reactions are copied from the article Ramil Safarov to the article Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov by other users. I think that information needs to be in the second article, while the first article should give only brief info about this and link to the second one, because the reactions happened after his extradition and pardon. Best, Konullu (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think your edit was unreasonable [3], but by call something which was not an obvious nonsense "vandalism" you expose yourself to claims that you were not civil. I recommend not using v. word in such cases. Just an advice. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider removal of half of the article and tempering what the sources say vandalism? --George Spurlin (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your edit, but from the view of administrators (and rules) this is not "simple vandalism", but a "content dispute". He could even effectively delete whole page by transforming it to a "redirect". On the other hand, calling something "vandalism" when it is not (by the rules) can be interpreted as a violation of WP:NPA by you, and I saw it many times. This is all. Now, if you do see a real persistent WP:Vandal (not in this case), it might be a good idea to report him to WP:AVI. Then see what happens. Frequently he will not be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very first line of WP:Vandal reads "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". This edit contained all of the above. George Spurlin (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should also read second phrase. If you do not trust me, ask any administrator who is active on AVI if that was vandalism. Once again, I think your reverts are legitimate. But it does not matter. Someone from an "opposite camp" is going to collect all your reverts and report you to WP:AE as an "edit warrior". Beware. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, thanks for the warning. George Spurlin (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]