Viceskeeni2

Welcome, Viceskeeni2!

Have a plate of cookies!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Viceskeeni2! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whole Azerbaijan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Karabakh genocide

Hello, Viceskeeni2,

Thank you for creating Karabakh genocide.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Unlike Rwandan genocide, not a single one of the references used in this article has "Karabakh genocide" in its title. If you are going to use a term like genocide, you need to have very high quality sources that directly refer to "Karabakh genocide". thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: The term "Karabakh genocide" isn't really used, it's rather referred to as the "Tragedy of Karabakh" or "Khojaly genocide" (which technically only refers to the massacre in Khojaly but still is sometimes used for all the mass killings that happened in Karabakh). However, the events from 1988-1994 against Azerbaijani civilians can be considered a genocide just like the Bosnian genocide is, although mostly it's only referred to as "Srebrenica genocide". Another name that could be used for the article is maybe "Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh" because although the term "Karabakh genocide" isn't used, the events that happened are still referred to as a genocide. And another question I have is: How does this article get to the public? For example, when I search up "Khojaly massacre" the first thing to appear is the wikipedia article, however when I search up "Karabakh genocide" the article isn't there. Does it have to be reviewed by another mod or what do I have to do to make it public? Oh, and thanks for helping me :) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Viceskeeni2. You need to be very careful with terms like that as it will attract a lot - if not endless - concern. Even Rwandan genocide has to locked. You really need lot of high quality sources (i.e. academic) using the term "Karabakh genocide" to use it. In my experience, the article will be more stable if you have a "dry" title (e.g. Human rights violations during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, or whatever the sources would definitely support). Does that make sense? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but having a "dry title" is downplaying the events. For example: Calling multiple massacres, mass killings and expulsions over the span of 6 years tha tresulted in the deaths of 30,000 people just "human rights violations" is downplaying the scenario and the events. I'll change the name to "Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) if that fits better, if there is any other issue please report it. Also the sources I have named would call the events alltogether "genocide" too if Khojaly alone is called a genocide itself Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But the key issue for Wikipedia is that if lots of high quality independent sources aren't using the term "Karabakh genocide" then it really your opinion, and Wikipedia won't keep that (eg. WP:OR). Everything we do here is about chronicling what many high quality reliable independent sources say. I can tell you from experience, that even when only "some" sources say something, that will still not last on Wikipedia, and others will take it down / challenge it. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

1. While some of the sources refer to it as a "genocide", none refer to it as just "Human Right violations"

2. It is a genocide: The term of a genocide is "a crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

2.1. Intent to destroy Turkic and Muslim people in Karabakh: As already said, the Armenians targeted mainly Azerbaijani Turks, Meskhetian Turks and Muslim Kurds, all three are Muslim and two of the groups Turkic. The Armenians were also committing crimes as "revenge" for the 1915 genocide in Anatolia. An example here in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/azerbaijan/comments/l8oxqb/this_video_makes_every_armenian_proud_armenians/. The Armenians are chanting "Revenge is done, Turks are killed, houses are burned, misht hay!". This video of Armenians chanting about killing especially Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijanis are referred to as "Turks" by Armenians in an insulting manner) that their goal was to kill ALL THE TURKS in Karabak has revenge for 1915. Also this video (and also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/azerbaijan/comments/kz40ph/karabakh_armenians_burn_a%C4%9Fdam_after_capture_of/) shows the Armenians burning down and destroying the city of Shusha (and Aghdam), which would be cultural genocide and also add up to the argument that these events themselves were a genocide. 40 to 65 AZERBAIJANI (again, targeting Azerbaijanis) mosques, a major theatre, 3 big academies, 2,000 exhibits, 19 museums and monuments and many other Azerbaijani heritage were destroyed in a way of targeting Azerbaijanis and their culture and heritage in the region. Another argument for Armenians intending to remove the Muslims and Tzrks from the area is them targeting also Kurds.

2.2 The Kurds in Karabakh were displaced and expelled just like the Azerbaijan, with the Armenians finding no difference, same with the Meskhetians. The Armenians aldo, after destroying the mosques, started building illegal churches in the area such as the St. Hambardszum Church in Lachin which was illegally (according to international law, building monuments on illegally occupied territories is not aloowed) built without the permission of the Azerbaijani government, again an act of cultural destruction and replacement of Azerbaijanis.

2.3 In conclusion, the Armenians were intending to destroy the Turkic and Muslim groups in Karabakh, whic his by definition considered a genocide.

3. If Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were killed, is considered a genocide (which it is), then how aren't multiple mass killings, massacres, executions and expulsion (16,000-30,000 people killed; 724,000-1 Million people expelled; 613 killed in one massacre alone) over a 6-year-span considered a genocide. Both pass every step to be considered a genocide, and Khojaly (and therewith the opther events together with Khojaly over 6 years) are recognized as a genocide by 7 countries.

4. I've looked through the sources and these sources call it a genocide:

20) "They committed an act of genocide by killing civilians"; "They did not only commit genocide in Agdaban"; "According to the specifics and nature of the Agdaban tragedy, it fully complies with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948. Therefore, this tragedy is considered an act of genocide under international law. should be assessed and this massacre perpetrated against the peaceful population of Agdaban village should be recognized by the world community as a crime of genocide."

27) "the Armenian detachments of Arabo and Aramo nevertheless captured Garadaghly and committed genocide against the civilian population there"; "Some time later, the Armenian Arabo troops committed genocide against the civilian population of Khojaly"

4.1 So the events are referred to as genocide 7 times

5. I already removed the term "Karabakh genocide" and instead renamed it to a more fitting term like you requested Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Karabakh genocide

Hello, Viceskeeni2,

Thank you for creating Karabakh genocide.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is still a problem and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved - none of the references seem to use the term "Karabakh genocide" (unlike Rwandan genocide), which is a real problem here and suggestive of WP:OR. sorry.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I changed the article name and removed the original rsearch I think those were the only mistakes leading to the tag. If there are any other issues, please tell them to me and I'm sorry if I removed the tag although there are still some mistakes Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Restricted topics

Hi. See WP:GS/AA as several Armenia and Azerbaijan related topics are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you’re not an extended confirmed user. Vanezi (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

and when can i make the article again? after 500 edits? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The minimum requirement is 500 edits and 30 days since your account was created, but please note that rushing to meet those requirements and then reimplementing the same edits is likely to be interpreted as violating the spirit of the rules and battleground behavior. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that editors participating in editing contentious topics are at least somewhat familiar with Wikipedia policy and practices and to discourage people from solely editing Wikipedia to promote their favorite political viewpoint. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm already familiar with Wikipedia, I've had an old account but one day my computer logged itself out of the account and I forgot my name and passport because it was so complicated. If I was completely new to Wikipedia I wouldn't know how to add sources, how to properly wrtie an article, how to add templates and edit properly etc., not even how to make an article. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill I wanted to reply to this, but then noticed that GS/AA restriction mentions "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area". Isn't that a violation of the restriction, or am I missing something? Vanezi (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So now I am not allowed to take part in a discussion about an article I made and which you are trying hard to get deleted or what? This is like when you're applying for a job to get job experience just for them to say that you can't work there without experience, then preventing you from getting any experience. Sorry that I haven't been wasting my time on Wikipedia since the second it got founded and am trying to be a new editor Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanezi's reading of the community rules is correct. Unfortunately this has been a necessary measure due to the level of sockpuppetry around the topics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. As far as workplace metaphors go, this is more like you not reading the application guidelines and getting rejected procedurally. However, unlike a job application where that would likely be the end of your ability to work at that company, you are more than welcome to come back once you've met the minimum requirements and have demonstrated your ability to work collaboratively with respect to policy on this account. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So I'm trying to make an article, then tha tarticle is getting deleted because I don't have experience. When I ask why you say "You can't take part in a discussion, oyu don't have experience". When I try to gather experience, I get a warning for editing too much as a new editor. What the heck am I supposed to do, magically make my experience appear. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You're supposed to go edit literally any topic that is not related to Armenia-Azerbaijan, (or for that matter, Arab-Israeli conflict, or Holocaust in Poland, the only two other topics that face this restriction). That is how you get the relevant experience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How if I'll get a warning for trying to edit on other topics "but please note that rushing to meet those requirements and then reimplementing the same edits is likely to be interpreted as violating the spirit of the rules and battleground behavior". And am I then, e.g. allowed to edit on topics of Azerbaijan that is not related to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple, don't rush. Don't worry about the numbers 500 and 30. Prove your worth elsewhere, then come back in a few months. If you're actually here to build an encyclopedia, this should not be a tall ask. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So am I allowed to edit on the topic Azerbaijan if its not related to the conflict? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated at WP:GS/AA, the restriction applies to Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed.... So, you could edit about Azerbaijani people, food, literature, etc., but need to avoid its history and politics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alr thanks Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill soon after your comment, the user started making these minor automatic move edits [1], [2], which like count as 4 "edits" for each article. And the moves are very minor and as far as I know, you're not required to use the specific English language if it's in latin alphabet. I believe this is just an attempt to game extended confirmed in a fast manner. Vanezi (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Viceskeeni, as a general convention on en.wiki we do use the full Azerbaijani and Turkish alphabets with non-English letters when spelling names in those languages. I agree with Vanezi that this is not constructive editing. More generally, focusing on Azerbaijani geography articles is inadvisable, as geography (and particularly human geography such as cities and municipalities) is rather intimately tied to history and politics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed the name because most articles are used in the English way to write them, I didn't know it can also be written in the normal way .Sorry for that mistake Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dude what the heck am I supposed to do, anything I write about you complain it and somehow tie it to forbidden topics. Editing an article about a Lake at the caspian sea has nothing to do with the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill now a clear violation of GS/AA [3]. The article mentions Armenia/Armenians 14 times, including this in the lede "Due to the very hostile relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Armenian Christians have practically entirely fled the country, and so the Christians in Azerbaijan are members of various other groups, mostly Russians." I think there is a WP:CIR issue here. Vanezi (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Viceskeeni2, please consider this to be your final warning. The addition of a flag for a minority religion in Azerbaijan is clearly related to the ethnic relations and politics of the country. Flags are inherently political. Ethnoreligious identity is political. That the flag in question is also WP:OR uploaded by you without reference to sources makes it even worse. CTOPS restrictions are broadly construed: that means that if a topic is borderline related to the topic, we treat it as if it were related to the topic. I'm cutting you a bit of slack here because you're right that Vanezi has really been on your case, but further borderline edits to Azerbaijan politics topics without EC status will not be tolerated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So, right now I'm trying to translate the "Calut monastery" into English. Will I get a warning for that or not Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguillyes or no Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously yes, historical sites relating to minorities in Azerbaijan is part of the topic, broadly construed. Even just from looking at the existing az.wiki and hy.wiki articles, on az.wiki all mention of Armenian identity is omitted, whereas hy.wiki describes it as an Armenian Apostolic Church. Clearly, its identity is part of the contested topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Man what is your problem did I insult you, did I kill someone from your family, did I do anything against you, you're literally stalking every single on of my moves calm down Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeing your lovely POV fork of an article and then informing you of the associated restrictions, yes I did check a few of your recent contributions afterwards to see if you adhere to the restrictions - what did you expect after someone gives you a notification that you're expected to adhere to? How else would I see if you follow the GS/AA restriction or not? This is perfectly in line with our policies, and per WP:HOUNDING, you might find it difficult to prove that my goal was to create irritation, annoyance, or distress. However, I'm sorry if it caused you distress. Vanezi (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think a page move counts twice, at least not in the counter displayed at Special:Preferences. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4 it just shows 4 edits in the contributions history for each moved article, so I assumed it's 4. Vanezi (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well no it's not as you see, stop stalking anything I do to try and report the even smallest mistake I make to get me a warning Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics

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. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Vanezi (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Viceskeeni2, as an observer in the discussion to delete one of the titles you created that is now a redirect, as well as noticing you have about 120 edits, it may be more helpful for you if this is explained in more detail (especially since me, as an editor with like 200,000 edits did not even understand what was going on):

At a bare minimum, the subject matter referenced in this section requires editors to have at least the "extended confirmed" privilege to avoid their edits from being immediately scrutinized.

In your case, you should automatically be granted "extended confirmed" once you reach 500 edits since that is the only milestone required for the "extended confirmed" privilege which you have yet to reach. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) until a consensus is reached. Vanezi (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)