User talk:AktadG

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AktadG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Boris Rtcheouloff. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wikipelli ^Talk 14:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing a text

Hello David, I saw your message on Master of Puppet's talkpage, and also that Mr MoP doesn't appear to be around at the moment. My suggestion is that you set up the text on your sandbox, ie here: User:AktadG/sandbox. There you can also get the formatting (especially with your references) ready to go. If MoP doesn't reappear soon I'll be able to suggest other editors whose opinion on your text can be relied upon. Good luck! almost-instinct 14:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Almost-instinct, as suggested, I have now created the page in my Sandbox. I will await other peoples comments on how to improve the article before uploading it. I really appreciate your help! Best regards. --AktadG (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. At first glance, this looks very good indeed. I've asked to fellow editors I know very well if they might take a look. They're strong in notability. I'm just going to do a very light copy-edit, just to get punctuation etc more in line with Wikipedia house style. almost-instinct 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Almost-instinct asked me to take a look at your draft. There are two issues here, one is notability and the other has to do with Wikipedia's copyright policy. I'll start with notability.

Notability The general rule of thumb is that University and college societies are not notable enough for individual articles unless they have received significant independent coverage and/or played a notable role on the history of the university. This doesn't seem to be the case here. It only began in 2003, went dormant twice, and is now a re-founded society with membership open to the general public. Is it still registered with the University Proctors' Office as an official Oxford University society? It's true that other Oxford societies with similar notability/referencing issues have articles, but they would most likely not pass a Deletion discussion either and so far have simply escaped the process. (I imagine you are familiar with the advice in WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Unfortunately, this one was nominated for Deletion (here) and didn't pass. Once that happens and an attempt is made to re-create it, the contents and coverage in the article come under even closer scrutiny. Based on what's in the current draft, I'm afraid I'd have to argue for deletion. I note the interesting background material about Oliver Wardrop etc. but that has no bearing on the current society's notability, and the society he founded was not an Oxford University society at all and has no relation to this one. So, it's of no real help in establishing its notability.

Copyright issues Your draft is virtually a verbatim copy (with a few minor changes) from this page which is clearly marked "All rights reserved". The only way that page could be copied or closely paraphrased into Wikipedia would be if it explictly displayed a compatible license or the website's owners went through the rather complicated process of donating the material to Wikipedia. I'll copy below some guidance for new editors about these issues as many editors, both new and experienced often find our copyright and licensing policies quite puzzling.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source if public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, an administrator has deleted your draft. This is because copyright violations cannot be posted anywhere in Wikipedia, including drafts in user space. He also confirmed that your draft was virtually identical both to Oxford-Georgian Society which had been deleted after the AfD in November and to University of Oxford Georgian Society which was reposted by another editor in December and speedily deleted on 24 December 2011 (G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Thus, I can see no way that this subject will be notable enough for an article in the foreseeable future. Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback everyone, much appreciated. I am very interested in the subject and will hence try to create a topic on Georgians at Oxford (or OxBridge), which should hopefully be a richer article. Copyright info noted...still learning --AktadG (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! AktadG, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Re:

The reason those sources are not kept is because they are not speaking as authorities on the matter. The ethnicity of "my" (whatever that means) sources is not and should not be made an issue here and I ask that you do not bring it up again or else I will lodge a complaint at the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. They are, however, specialists on the matter and their articles or writings are specifically addressing Pakourianos' ethnic identity. If you actually bothered to read Kazhdan's and Toumanoff's works you'll see they are are much more ambivalent about his identity than you are leading the readers to believe. Kazhdan, who have you cited as supporting a Georgian background, takes a more nuanced position in his article and states that Pakourianos was most probably of mixed Armenian-Georgian background, which Garsoian has accepted in her entry in the ODB. You yourself have engaged in gross POV editing, and have even distorted the meaning of the word "Vrats'", which in Classical Armenian referred to Chalcedonian Armenians (Iberians), and not Georgians per se.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MarshallBagramyan

Thank you for your comments.

Firstly, I don’t appreciate being threatened. I have not removed any of the existing text in the article and all new information was well referenced from world leading publications. You on the other hand have simply deleted on two occasions all my contributions because you were unhappy that already existing statement was slightly bulked up, so it should be me sending you a warning.

Secondly, your arguments are completely flawed:

i) Regarding me confusing Matteos de Urhas statement, its NOT my assumption of the translation of the word Vrats it’s the assumption of 1) Russian/Soviet Academy of Sciences 2) Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Between the Danube and the Caucasus, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987) 3) Indian Institution on Macedonian Studies (New Dehli, 1988). They all put Matteos’s statement as a counter to Anna Comnena’s statement. So DO NOT remove this note.

Regarding scholars noting his Georgian, not Armenian Chalcedonian heritage:

i) Paul Lemerle states that Pakourianos was Georgian by blood, not purely religion. FYI he is founding president of the International Association of Byzantine Studies (AIEB) and the leading scholar on the subject in France

ii) Judith Herrin (Princeton), John Philip Thoma (Harvard), Robert Browning (Washington) differentiate between the two. Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews) even reverses the Armenian connection stating he was a “Georgian noble or an Armenian with a Georgian background”.

iii) Pakourianos himself notes that he is Georgian, using the Georgian word for self denomination Kartveli on 3 different occasions in the original Typikon written in Georgian. He says that he belonged to "the glorious people of the Georgians," he insisted on his monks knowing the Georgian language”

I believe some compromise needs to be found. I hence suggest the following wording:

Gregory himself notes that he belonged to "the glorious people of the Georgians," and insisted on his monks knowing the Georgian language”. His ethnic origins however, are a matter for scholarly dispute. According to the contemporary historian Anna Comnena, who knew Pakourianos personally, Gregory was "descended from a noble Armenian family", while according to another of his contemporaries, an Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa (Matteos of Urha), Pakourianos was Georgian. According to the others, Pakourianos was born into either a Chalcedonian Armenian or Georgian family in the region of Tao or Tayk, which had been annexed by the Byzantines to the theme of Iberia in 1001. Due to the ethnically mixed population and elite of the region, it is likely that Pakourianos belonged to a mixed Armeno-Georgian Chalcedonian aristocracy, which dwelt in the border district of Tayk'/Tao (not just Gasoian notes this, but additional sources exist, so few can be noted)

Please revert if you are happy with this wording. Its strongly backed by facts, so there should be no issues. I will wait for your confirmation before uploading.

Best regards, --AktadG (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]