User talk:Kevo327

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 10:44, 28 August 2023 (→‎Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion closed: new topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harts unem

Discord kam tenc ban duk unek vor yes karanam dzez het khosam? Shat hartser unem dzez tal AmanAmanAmaTurq (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present)

Thank you for leaving an edit summary on your recent edit on Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present). However, I strongly disagree with your revert. By suggesting that you reverted to the last "stable" edit, you are suggesting the editing, was, unstable? I feel that the claims that the lede needs to be completely restructured and that there are evidently many words that are not NPOV to be perfectly valid claims, hence the templates added at the front. Three different editors have recently agreed that the article has neutrality issues, and it has been written in large parts by editors who are emotionally attached to the subject to say the least. I quite frankly don't understand the revert, as all of the content removal was explained in the edit summary.
Also, keep in mind I was being bold. It's going to take way too much time discussing the addition of every single citation on an article with over 500 sources (WP:REFBOMB and citation overkill, by the way). Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie Citations/maintenance edits are one thing and as I said in my comment, it can be restored anytime (unfortunately it was part of overall edits). And I don't see "three editors" on the talk, if you refer to this discussion [1], I don't see you commenting further and the supposed third editor (Tanz768) isn't allowed to edit in the topic area. Please comment on the talk page [2] about specific things you want to edit and gain consensus first, the latter is very important as there is alot of dispute in this topic area and you can be certain anything contentious is going to be challenged or discussed. Also please check archives for good measure, alot of the things may very well be discussed already and have consensus. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Instead of reverting perfectly valid and explained (in edit summary) edits, I would prefer that you left a message on the talk page of the article first yourself. My edits were not unexplained and made perfect sense in accordance with WP:UNDUE (prominence of placement) and MOS:DATED. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie thank you for the message, but I'm afraid you're mistaken here – it is relevant to the conflict. I'll explain why later today most likely. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but, no, it's really not. The NKAO is not relevant to the conflict itself directly. Having UNDUE wording that relates to arguments made by sides during the conflict to justify their "ownership" of the land has no place in the lede. Let's be honest, that's the only reason the population is mentioned in the lede. To prove a point. I could not find another former Soviet autonomous oblast that mentions the oblast's historical population within the opening three sentences. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE "prominence of placement". The demographics of the former oblast are clearly mentioned in that section, where they belong. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie "no other former Soviet autonomous oblast has such a sentence in the lede" – the problem with this is NKAO isn't comparable to other oblasts because of the conflict context. The only other Oblast comparable is the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, which in fact has population demographics in lead, while it's more heterogeneous than NK Oblast. The rest of SSR Oblasts are mostly Russian SSR, and which have been mostly dismantled in the 20s or 30s. - Kevo327 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevo327: Sorry, but, no, the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is irrelevant. Giving the population is a WP:UNDUE violation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie That is just your subjective opinion, there is nothing undue about it especially if we take into account all the context and similar oblast article having same info in the lead [3], which you said no other oblasts had. It's too obvious that it can't be deleted, particularly when it isn't even controversial. The Oblast is a historic entity, it isn't a current event that might or might not change. The reader as it stands wouldn't even guess that it was an ethnically Armenian Oblast, the cultural identity of a region is at least as relevant in the lead as the administrative info is. Particularly when a significant notability, including news coverage of the region IS about the Armenian population. Also please take a note that it was in the article for literally more than a decade [4].
You ought to achieve consensus for removing something like this which has been in the article for a very long time, currently you don't have consensus. Please self-revert and discuss further if you still disagree. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie To add, if there was no ethnic group contrasting with Azerbaijan's SRR, the Oblast wouldn't have been created... mentioning which ethnic group it is in the lede is the least we could do. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Kevo327. Thank you. —NMW03 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion closed

Hi Kevo327, I've closed the AE thread regarding your conduct. One of the things which came up during the discussion was that you have made personalised comments to other editors when you're in disputes with them [5] [6]. This conduct is not acceptable and if it's continued it will very likely result in sanctions. You may appeal this warning using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevo327&oldid=1172641901"