User:El C/Azerbaijan

To avoid all the scrolling on my talk page. El_C 07:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

History of the name Azerbaijan

Hi. Would you mind to have a look at the History of the name Azerbaijan again? I think it is too early to unprotect it. I’m having problems with user Khosrow II, who tries to use this article for anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. I have no problems discussing and agreeing edits with Ali, who’s a very reasonable person, and we have a positive experience of resolving disputes in the past, but Khosrow is completely different. I would appreciate your input in resolution of the dispute on that article. Regards, Grandmaster 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't all of you just ask me to unprotect it? El_C 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally didn’t. But I did not object to unprotecton either, as I thought we would include only the things we had agreed upon. But it looks like a certain user just takes the opportunity to resume the edit war. Grandmaster 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot revert an article that was already under protection just because you take sides with GM. I have contacted the admin who had previously protected it!Khosrow II 23:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your editing is becoming disruptive; if it continues you may be subject to censur. Please start being responsive. Thanks. El_C 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way is my editing becoming disruptive? Please, compare GM's version of the article to the last version of mine, see how many sourced information he took out (from western sources) and also see how much of his suggestions I kept in the article. I am the only one compromising, so why shouldn::::::'t he compromise on a few issues? Well, I will not compromise anymore, all one has to do is read the discussion page to see how much work I have done to make this article better. All GM has done is start a revert war because he wants to push his POV and make his nation look better. This is like me going to the Iranian human rights article and taking out sourced information because I claim its not neutral. Would you support me there? I dont think so, so I dont understand why you are taking GM's side.Khosrow II 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be gaming the system. Please respond to my comment on the article talk page. El_C 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What is gaming the system?Khosrow II 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system. El_C 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how I'm gaming the system... but for now, since I have replied to you, do what I requested, and then we can further discuss the intro. That is what you wanted isnt it? Also, I dont think its kind of you to just assume that I knew exactly what I was doing when I was "gaming the system". I didnt even know what constituted "disruptiveness" or "gaming the system", so shouldnt you have given me a heads up before just blatantly accusing me?Khosrow II 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please just attempt to answer the question on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered it, so please do as I requested.Khosrow II 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference does not count as an answer. El_C 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

section break 1

Why wont you fulfill my request. I said revert the article to the version last edited by me, and then simply change the intro to that to the one that GM wants, then we can discuss it to come to a conclusion. That way we will all be happy till we can furthur discuss this issue. So please, do what I ask.Khosrow II 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to answer the question to my satisfaction. Please do so if you wish any consideration. El_C 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what do you want me to say? This is ridiculous. I answered it, now fulfill your side of the bargain and we will continue this. Im not asking for much, just for the rest of the infomration to be added to the article. Are you trying to blackmail me into agreeing with you?Khosrow II 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no bargaining. And please ensure that you conduct yourself in a professional manner or you will be blocked from editing. El_C 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My request is simple. I am saying that you can keep the introduction the way it is, just revert the rest of the article to the version last edited by me, because it includes more information (I added informatin before it got protected again, so did GM and Ali). Thats all I'm asking, its simple and its not even bargaining because I'm not gaining anything from it. It seems as though you are trying to blackmale me into agreeing with you.

Also, I am conducting myself very professionally, I dont know what you mean.Khosrow II 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Insinuating blackmail is grossly unprofessional. I did not ask you to agree with anything, I asked a question, which you seem unable to answer, but it should not be difficult to do if what you say is true. El_C 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave you my answer, and you said that if I replied to you, you would do what I ask, (what Im asking isnt even a big thing, all I'm asking is that you revert the article back to the last version by me, so that all the information added can be included, and just change the intro to GM's version). Why wont you do it? If you wont do it, then I will have to request for the change on the protected pages article. I dont understand why you wont do it, its not like I gain anything, I just want the most information available to be in the article, and the current version you have protected is old and doesnt contain the new edits.Khosrow II 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You gave me no such answer, nor did I agree to do anything. El_C 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your opposition to my proposition. Please tell me what is wrong with my proposition. I already gave you an answer, the definition of controversy means something that is disputed, and there are people who dispute it, therefore, by the very definition of the word controversy, it is a controversy. I dont know what more you want from me. The word controversy is used all the time, especially in the news. Are you going to contact CNN and ask them why they put the word controversy in some of their articles?Khosrow II 02:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unscholarly not to have reliable sources that establish that it is controverial. El_C 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, you can have the introduction the way you want it. Now please, just revert the article to the last version by me, then we can change the intro. Its done, I'm compromising, and this is going to be the last time.Khosrow II 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a compromise, nor do I want the introduction to be in any specific way, I only care that what it says is well-referenced. I'm unlikely to modify the page further until it's ready to be unrptoected. El_C 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for you interference, it was much needed. I would also like to draw your attention to another issue with the same user. In addition to the article that we are currently discussing, he added a very POV paragraph called “Controversy” to almost every article about the country of Azerbaijan. Please see the articles Azerbaijan, History of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and Arran (Azerbaijan) (maybe some more). I don’t think it is acceptable to spam all those articles with the same repetitive paragraph. Would you mind to have a look at those as well? Thank you. Grandmaster 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I. I am increasingly of the opinion that further steps in dispute resolution are needed here. El_C 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What in your opinion those steps could be? Grandmaster 07:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An RfC seems inevitable; but I'll try having a word with the user about this duplication of the section in multiple articles. El_C 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If it does not work, we'll have to try dispute resolution. The problem is that while there's no controversy over the internationally recognized name of the country, this user still included those sections without any valid substantiation of his claims. Grandmaster 09:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

GM, for some reason, is taking out all the edits that WE AGREED UPON AFTER HOURS OF DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE, claiming that they are POV... I dont get what his agenda is, but what I have been saying all along seems correct. He doesnt want to compromise, he just acts like it so he can keep his POV version and accuse me of starting revert wars... Please talk to him. He also insists that the quotes and my sources for the political section are "fake".Khosrow II 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing agreement for your new additions on the talk page. El_C 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at the History of the name Azerbaijan again. The same problems with the same user. He makes POV changes that were not agreed on the talk and even moves the page to a new title without discussion. Could you please protect the page from move as well? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 05:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

Those were before I created the article. Also, I have seen many sections summarized on many Wiki articles that link to the main page. I dont see whats wrong with it.Khosrow II 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. These weren't summaries, though, that's the problem; i.e. they read far more like outright duplication than as summaries, which is the problem. But I thought you (mostly) authored the text of that #Controversy section. Am I mistaken? El_C 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Becuase like i just told you, I wrote these BEFORE I created the article. Once we finish with the article, I will summarize it and replace what is currently there.Khosrow II 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is the History of the name Azerbaijan, right? Well, as you can see on the talk page, it may not be immediately ready in that sense (hopefuly, it will soon), so in light of the repetition inherent in the duplication, why don't you remove those for now, then, when you're ready to add summaries, re-add the section/s. I think that would be best because, even duplication aside, at the moment they seem (as you yourself admitted) unrefined. Thus, they might be confusing to our readership. My first concern is Azerbaijan, since I am of the opinion that country articles need to be held to especially high standards, but also the other entries. El_C 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan again

Hi. I would like to draw your attention once again to the behavior of Khosrow II. Despite your warning [1]this person continues to spam articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive and POV interpretation of facts. The articles were linked to the main article about the name, as you suggested, but Khosrow keeps on inserting his POV section to the articles Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. On the talk page of Azerbaijan [2] he insists that he’s right on doing so, despite other users telling him that it is not necessary. What do you think could be done to stop him messing up the articles? Thank you. Grandmaster 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User Grandmaster keeps removing a sourced section from the Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic articles (See history). He sites POV and spam for the removal, but:

1) I changed those sections to summarize the neutral and consensus version of the main article (History of the name Azerbaijan, which we finally corrected after about a month of debating). You can see now that the page protect has been taken off and so far everything is fine. Grandmaster was heavily invovled in the creation of the nuetral version of the main article, and the summary is directly summarizing the main article. So I dont know why GM says its POV (read the article, and then read the summary, whats POV about it?). I am openling telling your right now, that you can read the main article, and then read the summary, thats how confident I am that I removed all the POV out of the section myself.

2)GM says I am spamming, however, the section is both relevant to the Azerbaijan article and the ADR article. The reason I am putting the same section on two pages is because its relevant and it makes sense. I dont know why I would have to reword everything just to put it in another article, this way makes more sense.

Please help resolve this dispute.Khosrow II 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As I already mentioned to you (Duplicating a section in multiple article), duplicating the same section in more than one article is a no-no. Best to link to the main article, and limit the section to concise (& if applicable heterogeneous) summary. Thanks in advance. El_C 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be going to sleep now, so I ask that the admins not make a decision until I can come back and make a better case tomorrow (as I believe GM and I are in different time zones, he has the opportunity right now to bring up his case, while I do not). In the mean time, I ask that you read the main article and the summary, and decide for yourself whether they are in agreement or not (now I remind you that the main article is a consensus version acheived with GM's participation). Also, I urge you to consider that the Azerbaijan and ADR articles are relevant places to post this information. I'll say good night for now and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thanks adn I hope you are able to resolve this dispute. For now however, since the sections are sourced, I think they should stay in the respective articles until a final decision is made.Khosrow II 05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is not what we agreed on the main article, and even other users object to insertion of this section into all those articles, as is evident on Azerbaijan talk page. The agreement was that we would link the articles to that about the name, and there's no excuse for Khosrow II's continuous POV push. Grandmaster 05:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have inserted in only the Azerbaijan article so that GM cannot call it spamming. Also, GM, tell me what is different with the summary compared to the main article? You still have not clarified what your problem is with the section itself.Khosrow II 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is already an Etymology section in Azerbaijan, is the problem. El_C 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is different than taking about why the name was used in the first place. Etymology is simply about where the word came from.Khosrow II 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That argument aside, having more than one section about the name is excessive. El_C 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one section about the name, the etymology section. Then section below it is about the history of the usage of the name.Khosrow II 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

They should all be in one (brief) section; the name is not that prominent in the scope of the country, so it is imbalanced. El_C 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The name is very important in the scope of the country.Khosrow II 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I atleast combine the etymology and The name sections into one section?Khosrow II 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one takes issue with the section, sure. But it should definitely be shotrened, regardless. It is disporportionately lengthy, I feel. Thanks. El_C 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as its sourced, does it really matter if anyone has objections to it?Khosrow II 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but depending on the nature of the objections, of course. El_C 04:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

section break 1

GM continuously make POV claims yet never says what is POV or even bothers to bring up facts to contradict the sourced information. So if he reverts again, shouldn't you confront him on the issue and tell him that unless he has founded appropriate objections he should not revert? (I am sure he will revert again)Khosrow II 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest you attempt mediation? El_C 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think mediation would do anything. This is the way he edits. For example, he also makes a habit of ignoring posts for a long period of time, and then when some one takes action assuming there are no objections to his proposal, he quickly comes and reverts and says its vandalism or POV, when the opportunity to discuss was open for days or weeks. He also questions facts, yet refuses to bring up sources that contradict them, instead he says its the other person job to prove his sources are reliable... (hes basically assuming guilty until proven innocent, when it has taken humans thousands of years to realize that it should be innocent until proven guilty).Khosrow II 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you know it won't work if you haven't tried it? El_C 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just have a feeling it wont accomplish much. I have recently started notifying admins before I make major edits or add information or revert in order to prevent a revert/edit war and compel Grandmaster to compromise. So far its working, hes not being as aggressive as he usually is. I have prevented several edit/revert wars like this. I think its working out well and so far everything is fine, dont you think? For example, where as before he would not have comrpomised with me on this section issue, now that I have talked to you about it, he cant avoid and simply revert anymore, he has to compromise. So far, I have done everything he has asked for: 1)Stopped "spamming" and 2) Merged the two sections so it wouldnt be repetitive. He has no more reason to revert (by the way, another habit he has is to bring up different issues everytime so he may indeed revert and keep siting new reasons).Khosrow II 05:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no idea. I thought you were in need of dispute resolution. I think history of the name summary in the country entry should be limited to a sentence or two inside the etymology section, linking to the main entry. El_C 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That would not make a good summary at all. THe way it is now is no different than other sections on other articles. Its definetly not too lenghty, its much less detailed than the main article, yet it still gets the piont across and attracts the reader to learn more about the subject. Its a very good summary. I have taken advanced English courses in school, I know what I'm doing. By the way, your mediation is much appreciated. I'm going to sleep, good night.Khosrow II 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I've yet to look at it closely. But I see an imbalance, textually, when I look at Azerbaijan#Culture or Azerbaijan#Economy, which I feel are more significant than the name issue. El_C 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The issue of the name should not take half of the article space. People who read the article on Azerbaijan look for the information on Azerbaijani politics, culture, economy, history in the first place, and there’s absolutely no need for such a repetitive section, especially considering that there’s a separate article about the name. It is enough to link to it. Grandmaster 08:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will shorten it a bit more. But El_C, look at this: [3] He still claims "POV" yet still has not said why, just like I told you he would. He is removing sourced information without justification, so I am now reporting him to you as you are an admin. Secondly, look at this: [4] He keeps inserting figures that having nothing to do with the term Azerbaijani. When I point this out to him, he says that this is a list of people regardless of ethnicity, so I tell him that he should change the article name, which clearly says list of Azerbaijani's. Furthuremore, claiming these figures as Azerbaijani's is like claiming Avicenna was Uzbek, Sitting Bull was American (USA), and Emperor Heraclius was Turkish! These three figures lived 1000 years before the R. of Azerbaijan was even created. Prior to that, the nation in the Caucasus now known as Azerbaijan was never even called Azerbaijan (see History of the name Azerbaijan). Secondly, the Azeri language did not even exist back then. Please stop GM's POV push and edit warring. Since you are an admin, I am formally reporting him to you.Khosrow II 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I shortened it some more, now it should be acceptable. Its shorter than the history section and its the same size as the political section.Khosrow II 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

section break 2

Hi El_C. I would like to ask you to protect the article about Azerbaijan. I’m really tired of Khosrow’s POV push. He was told a million times already that it is enough to link the article to that about the name, and still he continues to insert his POV interpretations of the history into the article. The List of Azerbaijanis got protected because of him. He tries to mislead you about what’s going on there. The list clearly states that it includes all prominent people from the region regardless of ethnicity, yet Khosrow pretends that he does not see it. He claims that a certain person was not Azerbaijani, but the list does not say that those included are ethnic Azerbaijanis! I explained that to him hundreds of times, and here he is claiming that someone was not an ethnic Azeri. Azerbaijani is not just ethnicity, everyone from Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani. And since the article clearly says that it is not a list of ethnic Azerbaijanis, why there should be a problem? I lost any hopes to explain anything to Khosrow, maybe you can. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 04:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as I suspected what would happen, it has happened. GM got the Azerbaijan protected, and he got the List of Azerbaijanis page protected. GM continually starts edit wars, has a double standard, and is a very big POV pusher. Read the below and everything should be crystal clear.

Now regarding the Azerbaijan article:

• GM keeps claiming its POV, yet he does not say whats POV about it.
• GM believes he is the only one that is rigth all the time. He refuses to compromise, I am the one always having to resort to compromising, now why is that?
• I did not break any Wikipedia rules by merging the sections. I shortened it, I stopped "spamming", and I myself conformed the summary to the main article. What did GM do? Nothing but repeatedly deleting a sourced section.
• Again, I will remind you that this is a sourced section.
• Get the page unprotected because it is very evident that the only POV pusher here is GM. This cannot be denied anymore, its write here infront of you.

Now regarding the List of Azerbaijani's article:

• If it is not a list based on ethnicity, then why is it called List of Azerbaijani's? Last I checked, Azerbaijani is an ethnic group. This is like have a list called "List of Turks" and having Kurds on it, just because Kurds live in the same region as Turks from Turkey.
• A significant amount of the people named on that list are from Iran, with nothing to do with the R. of Azerbaijan. So why are they on there? Last I checked, Mexican's dont claim famous people from the state of New Mexico as Mexican.
• The region of Iranian Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan, and the R. of "Azerbaijan (see: History of the name Azerbaijan) have nothing to do with each other at all. This whole thing was started by pan Turkists in 1918 with the aim of claiming North Western Iran.
• Having those ancient figures on that list is like saying that Avicenna was Uzbek, Sitting Bull was American (as in USA), Heraclius was Turkish, etc... That doesnt make sense does it? This is clearly a POV push by GM.
• Also, maybe we should update the List of Persian's page to include everyone from Iran, regardless of ethnicity, because according to GM, list's of people are not based on ethnicity, but by region... and since Persians make up the majority in the region of Iran, that would make everyone Persian. (by GM's logic).

This is GM's tactic. He starts revert wars citing ludicrous reasons. Ignores discussions on talk pages as much as he can. Then goes to admins to get pages locked. Please unblock these pages. Thanks.Khosrow II 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just split the page into ethnic Azeris and citizens of Azerbaijan. El_C 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Khosrow makes another list of prominent ethnic Azeris. I hope that will make him happy. Of course, that will open a whole new can of warms, because there are endless disputes on the issues like whether Nizami was Iranian or Turk, etc. As for the current list, it was created long before I started contributing to wikipedia, and from the day one it said that it is a list of prominent people from the region regardless of ethnicity. We are very proud of our compatriots, no matter if they are ethnic Azeris or not, so you can see that we have many Christians and Jews in that list, such as Mstislav Rostropovich, Lev Landau, Garry Kasparov, Richard Sorge, Max Black, etc. So far no one ever had any problems with this list. I consider Khosrow’s behavior to be highly disruptive and think that it cannot be tolerated any more. Grandmaster 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

section break 3

As for the article about Azerbaijan, I summarized the whole issue in a couple of lines, of course minding NPOV policy, as follows:

The name of the new state, which historically was mostly used to refer to the province of Iran, drew protests from some Iranians, who suspected that it was chosen with the purposes of detaching the Azerbaijan province from Iran, even though the proclamation of independence of Azerbaijan limited the territory of the new state to the areas north of the Araxes river.

The issue is not even worth mentioning in the article about Azerbaijan, if you check, no authoritative encyclopedia (Britannica, etc) mentions claims of Persian nationalists, who are concerned that independence of Azerbaijan republic can trigger a similar process in Iranian Azerbaijan. But I briefly summarized the issue to make Khosrow happy, still he deleted my summary and replaced it with his POV vision, which clearly contradicts the article about the name. In fact, he lies when he says that he summarized the article about the name. The article says nothing about “many” Russian scholars protesting the name, it just quotes 1 Russian scholar, who did not protest, but expressed his opinion much later, in the 1920s, that Arran was a more suitable name. The article does not say that “Historically, the territory of the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan was never called Azerbaijan”, in fact, it says something completely different. It never mentioned Bolsheviks keeping the name, as Bolsheviks never changed the names of territories they conquered, they just added Soviet Socialist to it. I can go on demonstrating how Khosrow tries to manipulate the facts and push his POV, which he failed to include into the article about the name, but I think you see the picture. Grandmaster 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Things have changed a lot since the begining of Wikipedia. Articles have changed a lot. This current List of Azerbaijani's article is clearly POV. Iranians shouldnt even be on that list. It should only comprise of famous people from the R. of Azerbaijan. The List of Azerbaijani's articles should conform to the other lists on Wikipedia. It should not get special treatment. Also, I want to know why you got those articles locked, and why you still have not commented on the main issues. This is making your POV even more evident, as you cannot argue against what I have posted.Khosrow II 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m a busy person, I can’t spend too much time on endless arguments with you, especially considering that you are not willing to listen and compromise. You were told by so many people already that you actions were not appropriate, still you would not listen. In fact, the admin Sarah Ewart made a very reasonable suggestion on your talk page, which you again ignored, the same way as you ignored others. She said: Would you find it acceptable if the introductory section at the top was changed to clearly explain that the list also includes people who were native to the region prior to the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan? I think Ali already did that, but that’s not what you want, is it? So I’ll leave it up to the admins, maybe they can help resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a busy person too. But I'm glad you made your comments, now lets digest them shall we:

especially considering that you are not willing to listen and compromise. Oh really? Because if I remember correctly, your the one continuously removing sourced information. You cited that the section was POV and deleted it instead of fixing it. I fixed it. Then you claimed it as spamming. I stopped spamming. Then you claimed it was repetitive. I made it so that it wouldnt be repetitve. You claimed it was too long. I shortened it. So who is not willing to compromise? I did all of this and what do you do? You still remove sourced information, even though all your greivances were fixed. Your POV is oh so much more clearer.

You were told by so many people already that you actions were not appropriate, still you would not listen. In fact, the admin Sarah Ewart made a very reasonable suggestion on your talk page, which you again ignored, the same way as you ignored others. She said: Would you find it acceptable if the introductory section at the top was changed to clearly explain that the list also includes people who were native to the region prior to the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan? I was gone until about 2 hours ago, so I wasnt ignoring anything. And its funny because you are hte one who continually ignores talk pages until I come and tell you about it, so that you dont have an excuse. You would rather just delete information rather than it being discussed. Also, Sara Ewarts proposal does not solve this problem. Why should the List of Azerbaijani's article be given special treatment compared to the other lists? I garuntee you that if the Persian list was like this, you would be the one complaining right now. And also, please tell me, who are the "so many people" you are talking about?

I think Ali already did that, but that’s not what you want, is it? So I’ll leave it up to the admins, maybe they can help resolve the dispute. Yes, leave things up to the admins. El_C already said that he had no problem with the edits I made on the Azerbaijan article, hes an admin. Sara Ewarts has also says that she understands what I'm saying regarding the List of Azerbaijani's article, she is also an admin. So take your own advice, leave it to admins. The version of the Azerbaijan article by me is the correct way and taking out those figures from the List of Azerbaijanis article is the correct way. All of them would then be up to Wikipedia standards. Also, I would like to note that Ali is also not fond of the way you work and act on Wikipedia.

Also, who was the one who came to the admins first to get this dispute resolved without revert/edit warring? Me. What did you do? You kept deleting sourced sections. I am the one putting in the real effort, everyone can see this. I am the one trying to avoid revert/edit warring, that is why I come to admins first. I would like the admins to comment on this issue as soon as possible.Khosrow II 20:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, you are so right, but I don’t see either of the admins or any other third-party users approving your actions. Show me where exactly EI C approved your edits, please. Your edits to Azerbaijan article are inappropriate, as they deliberately distort what the article on the name says, so it is better just to link the Azerbaijan article to that about the name to avoid any POV interpretations of the main article. Plus the name issue is so insignificant that it does not have to take so much space in the article about the country, as you were told so many times. Grandmaster 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

section break 4

Here is where El_C approved my edit: If no one takes issue with the section, sure. But it should definitely be shotrened, regardless. It is disporportionately lengthy, I feel. Thanks. I merged them, and I shortened the section significantly. But ofcourse, you have an objection with anything that doesnt fall in the line of your POV dont you GM?

Your edits to Azerbaijan article are inappropriate, as they deliberately distort what the article on the name says, so it is better just to link the Azerbaijan article to that about the name to avoid any POV interpretations of the main article. For the hundredth time, tell us what is wrong with he summary so we can fix it, instead of just deleting it. See, it is becoming even more obvious how much of a POV pusher GM is. How many times have I asked you to fix the mistakes instead of deleting a whole sourced section GM? You have been on Wikipedia long enough to know what is acceptable and what isnt.

Plus the name issue is so insignificant that it does not have to take so much space in the article about the country, as you were told so many times. It not being significant is your POV. Ofcourse a nations name is significant, after all, it is what we call it by, it is what determines everything about a country. If names werent important than we might as well call it Guagopoloyapolis or whatever... The name has everything to do with why we all the R. of Azerbaijan by the name Azerbaijan. It has everything to do with the founding of the nation and its 80 year history. How can you say its not significant? Maybe you are trying to hide facts that are not pleasing to you? For a nation like Azerbaijan, its name is everything. Plus, I shortened the section so that it is now smaller than the Politics and the history sections.Khosrow II 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there are many articles where GM has been involved in that were full of POV, especially anti-Iranian POV, until some Iranian editors got to them. Some of them were the way they were for months. GM clearly does not care about NPOV, because he himself has been involved in contributing and exanpsion of some articles with lots of POV in them.Khosrow II 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

“If no one takes issue with the section, sure” does not mean that he approved your edits. I summarized the article in a couple of short lines, but you were not happy with it. Your edits are gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the article about the name. The article says nothing like what you included there. And yes, the name is a very minor issue. If it was really something important, major encyclopedias would mention it, but check the article in Britannica, for example, or Encarta. This should not be even mentioned in the article about the country, it is enough that it has an article about it, and it is enough to mention the discontent of Persian chauvinists like Kasravi in a couple of short lines and provide a link to the main article. Grandmaster 05:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not summarize anything. Your two lines were all POV and had nothing even to do with the main article. Also, I am asking you again, what is wrong with summary. El C, note that I have asked him this many times, yet he still has not come up with an answer other than "it was POV". Tell is exactly what is wrong with it GM. Also, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it is not bound by political agenda's. User's can add information that canont be found on other articles based on a variety of sources. Brittanica or Encarta do not have a lot of information that is on Wikipedia, thats what makes Wikipedia different, if all encyclopaedia's were the same, then why have a Wikipedia, or Brittanica, or Encarta? The name has everything to do with the country now known as Azerbaijan. Its amazing that you would even deny such a thing. Also its really funny, Kasravi is an ethnic Azerbaijani's, and suddenly in GM's eye's hes a "Persian chauvanist". Also, its funny, Kasravi isnt even mentioned on the list of Azerbaijanis page, even though other Iranians are. Again, this shows GM's POV. Kasravi was an ethnic Azerbaijani who used facts to stop pan Turkist historical revisionism not just against the Azeri people, but against Iran. All of a sudden, an Azeri who does not conform to GM's POV is suddenly labled as a "Persian chauvanist". This really shouldnt be that hard of a decision for El C.Khosrow II 05:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

El C, a comment would be much appreciated at this point, Im not sure whether you have been keeping up or not though.Khosrow II 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. I'll try my best to review today's comments soon. El_C 04:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also consider this revert just recently done by GM: [5] GM says Rv removal of well-sourced info, now isnt that a double standard by GM. I have done by best to show you how GM acts on Wikipedia, its up to you now to decide for yourself whats going on.Khosrow II 05:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to ask you this again, but I would really appreciate a quicker reply (I dont know if your busy, so if you are sorry). Its just that I want to get this disputed over with, get the pages un protected, and put in the factual sourced information again, so that the world can enjoy it.Khosrow II 02:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More removal of sourced information by GM: [6] and again [7]. The Azerification of the nation has everything to do with the concept of Azeri people in the R. of Azerbaijan.Khosrow II 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people is a featured article. It’s been thru thorough peer review to attain that status. To maintain the quality of the article you should only make necessary additions. The info that you try to include is not relevant to the topic and the sole purpose of the insertion of that info appears to be an attempt to present the republic of Azerbaijan in a negative light. If you really need to add that info to Wikipedia, it should be included in the articles about Talysh, Lezgin or Demographics of Azerbaijan, but I see no point in including the info on other ethnicities in the article about Azerbaijanis, unless you have some agenda. Grandmaster 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So your saying just because an article is featured we cannot add information to it? If this isnt POV then I dont know what is. Any sourced information can be added, if its accurate. It doesnt matter if you think it portrays something in a negative light or not, you yourself have no problem doing that to Iran related articles. The question is not why I want to add this information, its why you want to keep it out? So far, you have not brought up a good reason at all. You claimed spamming, I put it in one article instead of two, you claimed POV, I personally conformed it to the main article, you claimed repetitiveness, I made it so it wouldnt be repetitive, you claimed it was too lengthy, I shortened it. Now whats your problem? You are just basically filibustering.Khosrow II 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am busy. So either you find a way to present your case through a more comprehensible and better organized format, or it will take me a while to wade through it. El_C 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More disruptive behavious by GM. In one discussion page, he claims that Brittanica should have the final say in all matters, saying that Brittanica cannot possibly be influenced by outside forces and that it can never make mistakes, etc... Yet he has currently removed sourced information from Brittanica from several articles: [8] [9] [10] [11] This goes to further prove GM's double standard on Wikipedia, certainly an aspect of his POV, and his disruptive behaviour. Also, I will note that GM was pushing several negative quotes about Iran and when I found the exact same type of quotes about the R. of Azerbaijan (these quotes were regarding assimilation of ethnic minorities, in Irans case in the 1920's abd 30's, in Azerbaijani's case the USSR period and present-day) and put them within articles, he quickly came up with a compromise with Ali to just have none of the quotes mentioned at all, saying that the quotes "made Azerbaijan look bad". Double standard? I think so.Khosrow II 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It has just come to my knowledge that GM has been purposely manipulation Brittanica quotes for his own means. Brittanica never says what GM has been claiming it says and using as evidence. I have read the actual text. This is disruptive behaviour, he has purposely been manipulating Brittanica and distorting what it says.Khosrow II 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)