User talk:Vanezi Astghik

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanezi Astghik, I noticed you have been here for a while already, so I assume you know this already. However, I have noticed you mark the majority of your edits as minor. So just a friendly reminder that "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. It refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanezi Astghik. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the information about Ahmad Mammadli because the only thing that links that information to the article is believe of his lawyer that he detained because he criticized recent clashes, Also, reviewing the Facebook posts linked to the source, you will find out that they were not posted during the clashes and are not obviously related to them. Lastly, such detailed information about this case might be fit for article about Ahmad, but definitely not fit for the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article (WP:UNDUE due to above reasons). Can you please self-revert, and if you still believe that this is an improvement and should be in the article, then please reach the consensus as per WP:VNOT. Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The abduction/arrest of Ahmad Mammadli has been linked to his criticism not only by the lawyer but also OC media and Amnesty International, which clearly connect his arrest with his recent criticism of military escalation on the border (see reference to Amnesty statement). You are also mistaken about the date of the Facebook post referenced in the article - it is dated 15 Sep 2022 and thus coincides perfectly with the time of the clashes so the links is as obviouse as it gets. Here, you can check the date again. [1]

As to you argument that such detailed information is UNDUE – the article already includes a much more detailed description of the protests in Armenia compared to which only 3 sentences about Ahmad Mammadli are not only appropriate but also relevant to the general context of the crackdown on anti-war activists in Azerbaijan, so I really see no reason to revert them, unless you've got some more valid arguments for that. Thanks! Vanezi (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad’s post is criticizing Ilham Aliyev, nothing stated about clashes. Reuters says that he was jailed for criticizing President after recent clash. OS media also says same. So he is kinda more anti-Ilham opposition, rather than no war opposition. Timing of his post might be coincidence, may be not, however nothing linking them, but only believe of his lawyer. Considering that officially he was detained not for that reasons, and fact that none if the anti-war opposition was jailed, but Ahmad, also proves that his imprisonment is not obviously related to the anti-war opposition. Saying that, this information is highly undue. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1.    Ahmad’s statement was released on 15 September 2022 (during the attacks) and reads “Ilham Aliyev will surely answer one day before the international tribunals for crimes committed not only against the Azerbaijani people, but also against the Armenian people. The first task of democratic Azerbaijan will be to punish those who make the nations enemies of each other.” Denying that it’s criticising Aliyev for the hostilities between Armenia & Azerbaijan is denying the obvious.

2.    OC Media and Reuters clearly mention that he 1 criticised Aliyev,  2. did so after the clashes, highlighting both facts as relevant.  OC media reinforces that further by quoting: both the lawyer and the secretary general of the D18 Movement, openly connecting his arrest to his anti-war statements.

3.    Amnesty International goes even fruther and calls on Azeri government to:  “Free Mammadli now and stop harassment of individuals who voice peaceful opinions about the conflict.” directly linking his and others’ anti-war utterances to arrest/harassment. 

4.    Azeri government is neither a neutral, nor reliable source, considering it is 1 an involved party, 2 ranks lowest in freedom of speech or any other liberties. Moreover it hasn't even refuted the reason for the arrest, as OC media states their requests for comments were left unanswered by the The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan...

My edits on above are factual/brief (haven’t even quoted Amnesty or given details of his abduction) so calling them UNDUE is totally baseless.  I would appreciate if you can stop arguing based on personal opinions/interpretations (WP:OR) and stick to what the sources actually say. Vanezi (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been away for a while. Apparently I missed twitter post mentioning Free Mammadli now and stop harassment of individuals who voice peaceful opinions about the conflict., that I guess if enough to link it and keep it in the article. Thanks! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some unexplained reason you added the following four links to the article on the Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Was this a test edit?

• Azerbaijani laundromat
• Caviar Diplomacy
• Foreign relations of Qatar
• Russian laundromat

I have not reverted your edit, on the off-chance that the links might be relevant. Have you thought of the approach taken on disambiguation pages where there is a bit of text about each link to tell the user what each one might be relevant to? Also it is not obvious why you did piping to change the capitalisation style - especially as you made opposite choices for two of them – this suggests to me that the test edit hypothesis might be correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the "See also" section it normally added at the bottom of an article to suggest related or similar articles. The reason I've added them is that they are all on similar or related topics. Just like Qatargate,

• Caviar Diplomacy is a corruption scandal involving EU parliamentarians being bribed by a dictatorship to whitewash its reputation and push policies and views friendly to the regime. Parallels, in fact, have also been drawn between the 2 by politicians and media (see link in the article of Caviar Diplomacy).
• Azerbaijani and Russian laundromat articles also deal with the same subject of an authoritarian government buying influence and whitewashing its reputations through money laundering and bribing of politicians & others. Similarly caused a scandal and a number of investigations/trials of politicians and other influential figures.
• Foreign relations of Qatar - I thought the relevance was obvious as Qatargate was essentially a shady practice of pushing foreign relations/agenda for the country through corruption.
• The difference in the capital letters was just a human error, sorry about that!

I can see similar links in other articles involving corruption and money laundering scandals, so just following the common practice. Hope this answers your question. --~~~~ Vanezi (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanezi Astghik. Thank you for your work on Liberation struggle of Artsakh (1724-1731). User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very nice to hear! Vanezi (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Stepanakert. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. [2], [3]

You should reread the sanctions notice that was previously left on your page User talk:Vanezi Astghik#Discretionary Sanctions Notice - Armenia/Azerbaijan.  // Timothy :: talk  16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please revert yourself here: [4]? The RFC question was "Should the above statements by the UN missions be included in the article when discussing reports on violence against civilian population?", so the community consensus was to use these statements in the section that discussed claims of violence against the civilian population. Thank you. Grandmaster 09:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grandmaster. The RFC was closed with "There is consensus to include the proposed text in the article" and didn't mention a specific section, am I understating this correctly @ScottishFinnishRadish ? So I simply moved it to the most relevant paragraph about that exact report from UN in Azerbaijan. And also the reports of violence section is for before the ceasefire, so the statement after the ceasefire doesn’t really belong there. Vanezi (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was about the inclusion in the section discussing violence in the civilian population. Making an edit that clearly matches your response in the RFC which did not gain consensus is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Fair enough. I thought it was ok to move to its own paragraph since the RFC just said consensus for inclusion and the UN in Azerbaijan paragraph has more context such as that it wasn't just "A UN mission" but the UN in Azerbaijan report, and also mentioned that the report was criticized for arriving late when there was virtually no Armenian population left. Would you mind if I at least add context to it before self-reverting back to that section? Vanezi (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the argument you made in the RFC, demonstrating that you understood the RFC was about the inclusion of that specific text in the section about reports on violence.

−

There is a segment in the article about this exact report from the United Nations office in Azerbaijan [5], and it’s in a better context along with its criticisms. We don’t add an out of context sentence from after the offensive, and which ultimately came from the attacking side’s (Azerbaijan’s) UN office no less after nearly all the region’s Armenian population fled.

+

the UN in Azerbaijan paragraph has more context such as that it wasn't international UN mission but the UN in Azerbaijan report, and also mentioned that the report was criticized for arriving late when there was virtually no Armenian population left.

Again, that position did not have consensus at the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just self-revert then. Vanezi (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not understanding you better, I am willing to cooperate and reach consensus, I was not aware of the community restriction. I have removed the nation of Armenia as a perpetrator in the list 1 on the article. However, I have no knowledge of the sockpuppet issues you are referring to. I also reverted this for now as I wasn't aware of the sockpuppet edit prior https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=prev&oldid=1208819350 Again I apologize if I came off as disruptive and would like to work together. Thanks. JeanCesarGraziani (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Creffel started reverting many articles like Azerbaijani cuisine, Azerbaijani traditional clothing, Azerbaijani dance, Azerbaijani art and so on, but what it actually ended up doing is restoring lots of unsourced, uncited or info that is sourced by dubious or dead links being restored, well It may have been a blocked user who did many of those edits, but I dont see how this justifies reverting a page to a more dubious and worse version of itself, could u please check which of the reverts werent necessary? He basically made a rampage through all pages that were edited once by a now blocked user. Frankish Human (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanezi Astghik Frankish Human (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your opinion in the dispute over the origins of Matzoon Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Summary of dispute by Lemabeta Lemabeta (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]