User talk:Golden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qırmızı Qəsəbə, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quba District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding battle of kalbajar.

i removed some texts because there was no source for them. 2 were from a book which there wasn't even an image of (the text) and the last is from a url that doesn't work/the page is deleted. why did you undo me removing the text with no specific source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallavid (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You removed one source, which is a book with pages cited. You can't delete a source simply because the URL given doesn't work (it's not even an online source, it's a book source, so it doesn't have to have URL) — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

it would be preferable if there was a photo of the alleged quote but fine. how about the boston.com link which literally doesn't work? that should be removed since its not even a book with cited pages, rather a URL which doesn't go anywhere? @CuriousGolden: Dallavid (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The boston.com and the book are the same source. I don't know why a URL was added, but you can remove the URL, not the source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hayanist

You wrote Rediscovering Armenia" only states Azeri population if they were majority (they would never write "Azeris were replaced by Armenians" if Azeris were a tiny minority in the village; "replaced its Azeri population with Armenian" clearly means the original population was Azerbaijani

However, you have shown no proof for this. You are simply making assumptions about Rediscovering Armenia and the Azerbaijani population of this village as a percentage of the whole population of the village. Could you provide a source for "Rediscovering Armenia only stating Azeri population if they were majority" or at least provide solid proof such as a census held around 1980s? @CuriousGolden:

There was no ethnicity census in the 1980s. Ethnicity censuses aren't the only way to know who was majority where (e.g. look at articles of every former Armenian village in Azerbaijan). The book literally writes that the Armenians replaced the Azerbaijani population. Combined with the census results that show that the village consistently had Azerbaijani majority from start of 1900s, it's pretty WP:COMMONSENSE that village still had Azerbaijani-majority (Also makes sense as almost every other village surrounding it also had Azerbaijani-majority). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You didn't even answer what I said, when did Rediscovering Armenia say that they are stating Azerbaijani pop. only if they are majority? Plus EVEN if it had an Azerbaijani majority, the translation shouldn't be there since there is no reason for it to be there. You can add a section called History and say it had an Azerbaijani majority but there is no reason for there to be an Azerbaijani translation. Armenians once formed a majority population in Tbilisi but there is no Armenian translation, why? Because the PAST IS THE PAST, AND THE PRESENT IS THE PRESENT. @CuriousGolden:

If you want to rant about a former majority population of villages being in the lead, then this is not the place for it. Open a discussion in some article's talk page and advocate for information about former majorities to be removed from all village articles (including former Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh (Hadrut, Shikharkh, Madagiz and etc.) and former Armenian villages in other parts of Azerbaijan (Aşağı Ağcakənd, Yuxarı Daşkəsən, Şəhriyar and etc.) — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ping an admin to help resolve this case as it seems like it isn't going anywhere @Ymblanter:

This dispute is how CuriousGolden has added an Azerbaijani translation to a village in Armenia which had an Azerbaijani majority population or a decently sized Azerbaijani population in the village. From my point of view, there is no point in doing so since the village at the present has nothing to do with Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis. For example Tbilisi (capital of Georgia) had an Armenian majority population but nobody adds the Armenian translation for Tbilisi since it's irrelevant to the present. If Baku (capital of Azerbaijan) had an Armenian majority population, it would be weird to add an Armenian translation to the city, right? You may think I'm making a big deal out of this, however CuriousGolden has been doing this to dozens of villages in Armenia and even in other Armenian related articles, his pro-Azerbaijani bias is very obvious. I am not against adding the former Azerbaijani population in a history subtopic however adding it alongside the Armenian translation is completely irrelevant.

I've followed a precedent set by other users that have added about former Armenian-majority to villages in Azerbaijan (Hadrut, Shikharkh, Madagiz, Aşağı Ağcakənd, Yuxarı Daşkəsən, Şəhriyar and much more..). Considering that this was the message you left on my talk page a month ago, I don't think you'd be really interested in keeping or removing both Armenian and Azerbaijani name from respective articles. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what precedent you are talking about. My point is that villages in Armenia, regardless of whether they had an Azerbaijani population, they don't anymore, so there shouldn't be a translation. I already gave several examples, I challenged you on several points, to which you didn't respond to, now you are talking about Armenian villages in Azerbaijan. I want to make it clear that I don't care about (not saying this in a rude way) villages in Azerbaijan, whether they are Armenian villages or not, you can remove the Armenian translation, it doesn't bother me, what I do mind about is villages in Armenia, and why loads of them suddenly have Azerbaijani translations despite now having nothing to do with Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis. Had this been one or two villages, I wouldn't have minded, however your pro-Azerbaijani agenda is really showing regarding the conflict, and now you're even pushing it into villages in Armenia which HAVE (present tense) nothing to do with Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis. @CuriousGolden:

Villages that have been established and continiously inhabited by Azerbaijanis throughout history until their expulsions 20 years ago having information about their former Azerbaijani inhabitants sure is a great pro-Azerbaijani agenda. Listen mate, if you're here to spread WP:ASPERSIONS and just accuse people of bad faith, then my talk page isn't the place for it. Might want to complain somewhere else. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, I'm not only talking about villages, as I said. I'll give a few examples of your pro-Azerbaijani bias. In Kanach Zham church here, "you stated this can't be known from a satellite imagery" (regarding destruction of the church). What? How can a satellite imagery not be enough proof? Is an Azerbaijani soldier supposed to go and boast about his comrades destroying the church and film it? Also on Janapar trail something nothing little to do with Azerbaijan, you changed essentially all the Armenian names for cities into Azerbaijani names. If that isn't pettiness/pro-Azerbaijani agenda pushing, then what is? We are getting off topic however as you yet again fail to respond to what I say, I am stating that there isn't any reason for Azerbaijani translation on names that have nothing to do with Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis at the present moment. Even Julfa, which had an Armenian majority for almost a millennium doesn't have an Armenian translation, it simply has Armenian history under a sub-topic: history, why don't you do the same? @CuriousGolden:

Map request

Hello, Curious. When you've got some free time (as it would probably take some time for me to finish the article), can you make a map of Syrian Seljuks? I'm currently working on the article about the state, it basically covered Syrian region. Namely, at least by 1080, it controlled Jerusalem, Damascus, Acre, Tyre, Tripoli, Jaffa, and Arish (plus Galilee), though I myself don't fully comprehend the state's boundaries during its early years. Maps like this, this about the region's elements. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 19:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll give it a try, though I can't promise as I'll have to determine the borders myself. It also might take some time as I'm somewhat busy these days. I'll update you whenever I've made progress on the map. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quba District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:_Armatura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armatura (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Azykh (village)

Hello, I have a question. 1. reg the tamplate in the article? what does it mean, do we back again? 2. I put template reg unreliable source Shagen Mkrtchan. there are many citations with his source, but he is not historian, never published in reliable editions. how could it be accepted? if nobody reacts in Talk Page, can I remove it after 2 weeks?--Aydin mirza (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, no, you can't just remove something without broad consensus just because you don't like it or you disagree. Secondly, this user has been *permanently* banned for operating sockpuppets. They are NOT going to respond anytime soon because they are gone. From this website. Forever. Regards, BaxçeyêReş (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting for reference that the user has not been banned but was only indefinitely blocked. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear BaxçeyêReş, I approciate you assistance. be sure, I'll do according to the rules, despite you don't. besr regards. --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

My Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Golden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I was blocked by Cabayi on Wikipedia 6 months ago for abusing a sockpuppet account. I created the sockpuppet account User:Gnominite few months before my block and used it for the purpose of affecting the outcomes of several Requested Moves made by my main account on articles about cities. I fully understand why my actions led to an indefinite block and know it was justified. I deeply regret creating the sockpuppet account and lying about it during the sockpuppetry investigation led by Blablubbs. Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of my actions. Since my block, I have not tried to edit the English Wikipedia in any way again. I waited 6 months, as instructed on WP:SO, to make my appeal. Before anything, I would like to promise that I will never sock again.

Since my block, I took a 4-month break from all Wikimedia projects to reflect on my actions and past edits. After which, I joined back and continued my contributions on several Wikimedia projects, mainly, Wikidata, where I made over four thousand new edits, and Commons, where I contributed over four thousand new edits Uploads (Photographs, maps). I also worked on several other languages' Wikipedias such as Russian Wikipedia and Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

Noting all of the above and my past contributions to this project, with over 12,000 edits, 12 article creations and one good article, I am asking for an unblock as I would love to continue my work on creating and improving articles in a level-headed way.

— CuriousGolden  (T·C)  14:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Conditionally unblocked per the below discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence shows a  Possible link to Omarwithaschwa. Behavioural evidence should be evaluated by the reviewing admin, but please don't put too much stock in this finding. It's between unlikely and possible, rather than possible and likely. --Yamla (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The user demonstrated very disruptive behaviour in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics previously, has a history of violations after being banned previously and history of edit warring in bad faith. I strongly oppose his comeback and if he ever comes back I think he shouldn’t be allowed to edit again in the topics he has got conflict of interest with. --Armatura (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I almost don't need to say this, but Armatura has provided no evidence towards his claims. His comment here should be ignored unless that changes. If anyone wants to read the history between these two users, they can read the AN/I report archived here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The evidence of previous block in his block log, MJL. At 01:01, on 16 April 2020 Callanecc blocked CuriousGolden with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CuriousGolden/Archive#15_April_2020 . I am quite bad at doing a digging work, but the memory of his behaviour is still fresh, as I said earlier a causal search with a keyword "CuriousColden" on noticeboard archives gives so many results it would take a life to post here all diffs of people being unhappy with his edtis, experienced users and admins can have look with batch-searching tools perhaps. His conflict of interest is larger than the examples provided in WP:COI I believe - he was unable to keep the balance in edits in AA2 area and demonstrated strong POV-pushing with promoting Azerbaijani state-sponsored information. If he wants to come back, he should convince other editors (including the ones he actively disagreed with) that his behaviour is not going to be the same as before, including in AA2 - his favorite subject. Hope this makes sense now. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yamla I'd say it's quite possibly likely. If we take a look at the contributions of CuriousGolden on the Russian Wikipedia, there seems to be a lot of overlap with corresponding English language articles edited by Omarwithaschwa.

CuriousGolden created the images that are currently on the Karabakh Economic Region and Baku Economic Region articles and placed both of them on the Russian Wikipedia articles on August 20th.[1][2]

Omarwithaschwa created both the Karabakh Economic Region and Baku Economic Region articles on the English Wikipedia on September 26th.[3][4] Both creations use the images that CuriousGolden created.[5][6]

Omarwithaschwa also seems to be interested in the Lankaran-Astara Economic Region article, which CuriousGolden has also edited multiple times and uploaded different reversions of the image on.

CuriousGolden has a history of spreading images he created to as many different languages Wikipedias as possible, such as he did with this one.

They both also made several edits on the Economic regions of Azerbaijan article, CuriousGolden on the Russian Wikipedia[7][8] and Omarwithaschwa on the English Wikipedia.[9][10][11]

The reviewing admin should also note that User:Oshwah has suspected CuriousGolden uses a VPN.

And there's also a habitual similarity between CuriousGolden and Omarwithaschwa that I noticed, which I can email evidence of to any admin and/or checkuser. I'd prefer not to mention it publicly, so CuriousGolden won't know to avoid it with any possible future socks. --Steverci (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not qualified enough to make a comment about the socking, but I will say that if Omarwithaschwa is a sock of CuriousGolden, then that has some implications for Az.wiki as well since they both are editors there. With the previous sock, Special:CentralAuth/Gnominite shows it was never used outside of enwiki. Special:CentralAuth/Omarwithaschwa is quite the departure from that. I'll contact a trusted azwiki admin to take a look. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, the admin I contacted has not gotten back to me. I've taken a look at things myself, and I do see some minor similarities which probably could be attested to the fact the two live in the same general area. Let me elaborate on the similarity with diffs:

• Interest in Azerbaijani topics[12][13] including its economic regions.[14][15][16][17][18]

Okay, so over on az.wiki, it's a bit of a different story. Over there, Omar has 212 edits and CG has 197 edits. I would've expected at least some overlap there, but this is the Interaction Timeline between the two.

Further differences, include:

• Omar's interest in LGBT topics[19] and South Korea.[20][21][22][23][24] (Also accounting once on enwiki)
• CG uses advanced scripts and tools like AutoEd, JWB, Twinkle, and Hot Default Sort.

Okay, so for me the ultimate test would be to see if among CuriousGolden's 12,238 edits are any mainspace edits on enwiki related to South Korea. I went through them all manually, and I couldn't find a single one. This was the closest I got. To be honest, there were maybe like 100 edits (at most) that didn't directly relate to the Caucuses. I'm pretty sure if there was an article about sneezing in Azerbaijan that CuriousGolden would've edited it at some point.

I've spoken with CuriousGolden in private about it, and while CG has lied about socking before, from everything I was able to find in the last hour or so I compiled this all, I am decently confident this isn't their sock. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm pretty sure if there was an article about sneezing in Azerbaijan that CuriousGolden would've edited it at some point. – The Economic regions of Azerbaijan (where CG edited in the corresponding ru-wiki article [25], [26]) has only 7 edits, 3 of which are done by the potential sock account. If CG edits in most/all Az articles as you say, this will only confirm things. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I'm not sure what you're getting at. CG was blocked in April, and that article was created in July. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you're trying to say since Omarwithaschwa edited it, then that's evidence.. No, I really don't think so. Omarwithaschwa already demonstrated interest in the economic districts. That really isn't new information, and it would follow that Omar would edit the new parent article.

If Omarwithaschwa was really acting like CG, then we would expect a bunch of edits at random villages of Armenian/Azeri origins. That has not been seen in Omar's edits. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For some unknown to me reason, both CG (in ru-wiki because of his/her ban) and that new account suddenly started to edit in economic regions of Azerbaijan, given also as you pointed out the wide range of interest in Az articles CG has. I can't comment about off-wiki stuff, but I noticed CG started to delete some of his/her reddit comments when Nosebagbear mentioned the off-wiki potential WP:COI evidence. Terrific editor, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I mean, yeah, someone was starting to stalk and harass this user off-wiki? I hope you know that CG isn't in the wrong for that. For clarity, the person I'm referring to has not commented in this thread and isn't active on wiki anymore. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressing Steverci's concerns/arguments: I was approached by a Commons user on 7 July to update my already existing Azerbaijan economic region maps as the Azerbaijani government had made changes to the regions. At this time, I was still on a full break from Wikimedia. I saw the comment around 20 days later when I updated the region maps (and uploaded new maps of the new regions) as my first action following a full 4-month break. These maps were and still are the most used (and to my knowledge, the only) maps of the individual economic regions and they're used on all language Wikipedias that have articles about these individual regions (e.g. Persian Wiki).

The user Omarwithaschwa started translating articles of the new economic regions from other languages into English in late September. One of Steverci's arguments is that this user used the maps I have created. This ignores the fact that these maps were the only maps used on all language Wikipedias on these regions' articles, so naturally, Omarwithaschwa used the same map they saw from the other language Wikipedia they were translating from (which seems to be the Azerbaijani Wikipedia as they've been translated word-to-word, e.g. this article's Azeri version vs English version).

Another one of Steverci's arguments is that Omarwithaschwa edited the Lankaran-Astara Economic Region, which I also happened to edit. Firstly, I've probably edited every single article on the Azerbaijan topic at least once. Secondly, Omarwithaschwa simply moved the page from "Lankaran Economic Region" to "Lankaran-Astara Economic Region" which corresponds to the change Azerbaijani government did as they renamed the region to have a new name as well. So it seems to be part of their bigger editing process of updating these regions' pages. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• @MJL and Yamla: - this appeal is becoming increasingly complicated, and I suspect most of the unblock gang is like me - reticent to make an edge call. We are left with two main facets: the potential socking (primarily behavioural, given the possible reading) and the other behaviour. Now if there's private evidence, as indicated by @Steverci: that is sufficiently strong then a CU-close (even if not a CU-block) would be good. If that isn't forthcoming in the next few days, this should be taken to WP:AN, rather than handling as a sole unblock or a string of procedural closes Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the checkuser evidence is not conclusive in this case, as far as I saw. I concur, I think WP:AN is the right location for this. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  How about we take this to Arbcom since this involves potential offwiki evidence and is under a ds regime? I don't think WP:AN will probably be able to uncomplicate this in any easy manner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  (talk page watcher) I was also going to note that AN is quite likely to generate tension and partisan involvement along the normal AA2 lines, and maybe isn't the best way to illuminate/resolve the situation. Jr8825 • Talk 22:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  ArbCom may well take the case if we encourage it. Yamla, thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I emailed you the sufficiently strong private evidence. --Steverci (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was the clerk who processed the Golden SPI. I'm not convinced of a link to Omarwithaschwa (talk · contribs). To be clear, I can't exclude it entirely based on the limited number of enwiki edits to compare, but I would be far from willing to sanction anyone based on what I'm seeing and a {{possible}} CU result. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add my 2 cents. I don't find claims of sockpuppetry to be compelling. No strong CU evidence, and behavioral evidence is also not convincing. I think CG should be given a second chance. We have done it before for other editors in Armenia-Azerbaijan area who were caught socking, and they continue editing. CuriousGolden is a prolific and useful contributor, who improved existing and created new articles, and if he promises to never make the same mistakes again and strictly abide by the rules, I think he should be allowed back. Grandmaster 10:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your flattery lacks some major context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci:, if he's willing, could you send your evidence to @Blablubbs: as well - I've had a look at it, but tbh, given the nature of this dispute, would prefer someone in that field who is here took a look - I believe at the time they've only reviewed the en-wiki state of affairs, which certainly isn't conclusive imo Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Since I am something vaguely resembling a blocking admin here (the "real" one being Cabayi of course), I suppose I should leave some more detailed thoughts:
  • The private evidence emailed to Nosebagbear and then to me fails to demonstrate any clear connection to Omarwithaschwa (talk · contribs), as does what I have seen on-wiki.
  • If I recall correctly (I was the person who initially requested oversight), the now-oversighted content in the history of this talk page did also not prove any on-wiki misconduct, continued sockpuppetry, or similar.
  • What the off-wiki evidence does suggest is that CuriousGolden has voiced opinions on ARBAA-related matters in off-wiki fora, and that said opinions are partisan. This is unsurprising, and not sanctionable on its own.
  • It also shows that Golden has encouraged other netizens with similar ideological convictions to edit Wikipedia in order to address perceived biases and underrepresentation of specific groups of editors. I did not see calls to edit any specific page or insert specific content. Whether this rises to the level of sanctionable off-wiki canvassing given the partisan audience is probably a matter of interpretation; I will note that things like this are the rule more than the exception in contentious topic areas.
  • I do not believe that, at this current juncture, arbcom has jurisdiction over this specific block since it is based solely on on-wiki misconduct. If it is desired that this block is reviewed privately and against the backdrop of private evidence, then this should become a CU-, Oversight- or arbcomblock, which would transfer block review responsibility to functionaries and the committee.
  • I requested administrative action against Golden because they were blatantly manipulating consensus; I did not review the general quality of their contributions in the ARBAA topic area: Case outcome would have been the same if they had votestacked to promote their point of view regarding kittens, frying pans or automobiles.
    • With the narrow focus on a) the factors that led to this block and b) the on-wiki happenings that unfolded after it, I believe that asking for a standard offer unblock is reasonable; the answer to the question whether continued evasion took place is, at best, inconclusive, and the evidence is insufficient to reset the SO timer, at least in my view.
    • Of course, this does not preclude a discussion about the broader nature of Golden's edits; however, the unblock discussion here has mostly seen editors with conflicting convictions voicing radically different opinions on whether Golden should be unblocked; this is a frequent issue in politically charged topic-areas, and considering the people commenting in the first place are likely ones with a vested interest in Golden either staying blocked or getting unblocked, I don't think this is the best venue to generate a robust community consensus for or against an unblock.
    • The broader questions of a) whether Golden has engaged in sanctionable conduct off-wiki, and b) whether the substantive nature of their contributions in the ARBAA area is such that an unblock would be a net negative to the encyclopaedia, are not ones I am qualified or prepared to address.
• I think it is reasonable for a functionary to re-block based on private evidence and defer to the committee, reasonable to unblock (potentially with a TBAN), and reasonable to defer to AN given the apparent contentiousness of the unblock. I am personally neutral and I would not object to anyone doing any of those things. Continued debate here strikes me as unlikely to move things along in a productive direction, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since the majority of the problems here seem to be in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area: CuriousGolden, would you accept a conditional unblock with a topic ban from "Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted"? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm very thankful for your offer, however, my primary topic area is AA2 and a TBAN would inhibit me from contributing positively in that subject.

  I would like to re-iterate that I was completely in the wrong for socking to manipulate consensus. It was a disservice to Wikipedia's mission to provide an open platform where all are equal.

  However, I do want to resume editing again. I've had time to grow as a person since my ban and I believe I can do better to uphold WP:NPOV better than I previously had.

  If required, I'm willing to appeal to WP:AN to get a second chance that I strongly believe I won't misuse. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Having spoken to some users about this situation offwiki, I've come to the conclusion that the simplest solution would be for you to take GN's offer of a conditional unblock. Would you be willing to reconsider? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If that's so, then I'm willing to accept the AA2 topic ban until I can prove myself as a capable editor again. Thanks for your assistance. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Very well. I will unblock you under the aforementioned terms. So that there is no room for confusion: you are indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed, and I would especially suggest that you read what "broadly construed" means. I am going to make this a logged Arbitration Enforcement topic ban since, frankly, I think the appeal process there is a lot more straightforward. Technically you may appeal at any time, but I would strongly recommend getting at least three months (preferably six) of productive editing in other areas. And a reminder, indefinite does not mean infinite; what I am hoping for is that you will show you can be a productive editor in other areas in order to show us that you can be trusted editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear and Blablubbs: Hi. Would you suggest this appeal be taken to ArbCom or WP:AN? Thanks. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related conflicts.

You have been sanctioned per the unblock discussion above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction 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. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

untitled

hay mate, how's going? i'm glad to see that you could make it out of block, i would check daily on you when i myself requested an unblock (because you know, i was blocked too) anyway let me know if you need anything. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi: Hi! Great to hear from you again. I didn't know you were blocked as well, that sucks. But I'm glad you were also unblocked, congratulations! I'll be sure let you know if I need anything. Cheers! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Fourteen at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

stub sorting

For future reference, please don't stub tag a disambiguation page. [27] Curbon7 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, missed it while doing an AWB run. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 09:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It's not a big problem, but if in the voice [28] there's a {{WIP}} it's better to not do edit it, see instructions in Template:In use Bye. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Revolt of the Fourteen

Hello! Your submission of Revolt of the Fourteen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Paid editor trying to restore the Donavon Warren article

Hi Curious Golden, I wanted to make sure that you know I'm not trying to vandalize that article. Please see this edit where Kuru first uncovered that Ugochukwu75 might be a paid editor. Today I discovered an account, Binaza, that I think might be the same person. I left a lot of detail about this on Kuru's talk page, in this edit. Short version: Binaza only edited a handful of pages, but somehow, most of their edits are articles that were created or heavily edited by Ugochukwu75. Just seems fishy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I don't see any confirmation of either accounts being paid editors. As another editor suggested, Kuru should take this to WP:COIN or WP:ANI to confirm whether Ugochukwu75 is a paid editor or not. When it comes to Donavon Warren article, you cited "every source is a self-created press release" as your reason for completely blanking the page, however from what I see none of the sources seem to be created or published by Donavon Warren himself. In conclusion, if you have suspicion that someone is a paid editor or is a sockpuppet of someone else, please take it to appropriate venues and don't blank articles that user has created because you think it's 'fishy'. Cheers! — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "blank" the article based on suspicions, I reverted it to the redirect that was already there long before. The recent added "reference" was this piece, attributed to "Agencies" and it's clearly a press release. Is that a reliable source? Does it not make you the least bit suspicious that multiple people have asked the main editor of the article about his paid editing (on several articles!) and this puff piece shows up mere days after I restored the redirect? Or that the editor in question has another account named Binaza that has ONLY edited articles that Ugochukwu75 is creating, editing, and/or voting "keep" after a deletion nomination? Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The article currently has 7 references, most of which seem acceptable at first glance. One bad source doesn't mean all others are also bad. "suspicion" is not a reason enough to revert/blank a user's edits/articles and spreading such information about editors to other users without proof could be WP:ASPERSIONS. So again, please take your concerns about this user to an appropriate venue before accusing them of such serious violations publicly. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through those sources 1 by 1. They are clearly all created by either the subject of the article or someone being paid by him. I'm analyzing each of them, and when I discover what they are, I'm including the reasoning for removing them from the article in my edit summary. I hope this is satisfactory. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And if you plan on removing all/most sources or think the article doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, then it'd be easier for you to open a deletion discussion for the article and cite your concerns about the article there. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the guidance. I'm thinking that if I analyze the sources and put that in my summaries, that will save other editors some time later, rather than having everyone do all the same investigating that I'm doing right now. In any case, they can more easily verify what I'm saying if I leave those comments. I can see that just blanking the page could leave the impression that I hadn't done all the searching already, but I really did. I'm just doing it more thoroughly now. I would appreciate it greatly if you could step in if the paid editor attempts to restore all that nonsense, but I understand if you're too busy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Verbs

Sentences in Wikipedia should contain verbs.--Grahame (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grahamec: What? — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 11:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry completely misdirected. I was referring to Henry John King, which was actually User:Tradimus's work. Must be tired.--Grahame (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's alright. Have a good day! — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 11:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Fourteen

• Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolt of the Fourteen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article Revolt of the Fourteen you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Revolt of the Fourteen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the Fourteen

On 20 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Fourteen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 14 top art students in the Russian Empire revolted and quit their academy because of a competition theme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Fourteen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Revolt of the Fourteen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,420 views (451.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you.. I had totally forgotten to update it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For making minor edits to a few articles on my watchlist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

The article Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

The article Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Sahitya Akademi Translation Prize winners for Kashmiri

Hello sir , Isn't the official source of Government Press release useful? Cinzia007 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with the topic. I only added an Orphan tag to the article (diff) because no other article currently links to List of Sahitya Akademi Translation Prize winners for Kashmiri. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Species articles cannot be orphans

Good afternoon from a sunny, but wee bit cold Scotland. I see that you marked Pogonoscorpius sechellensis as an orphan. Articles about biological taxa cannot be orphans because they should always link to other taxa. In this case the species is in a monotypic genus (I have had the article moved to the genus name) which in turn is a member of the tribe Scorpaenini which is in the subfamily Scorpaeninae and there is a link from Scorpaeninae to Pogonoscorpius. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Qaraqoyunlular

Bazı araştırmacılar Kara-Koyunlu'nun Oğuz lehçesini Azerbaycan dili ile ilişkilendirmektedir. Örneğin Faruk Şumer, Kara-Koyunlu'nun Doğu Oğuz lehçesinin bugün Azerbaycan dili olarak adlandırıldığını  , Muhsin Behramnejad ise Azerbaycan dilini Kara-Koyunlu Türkmen boylarından miras kalan bir miras olarak adlandırdığını kaydetmiştir  . Sultan Kara-Koyunlu 1435-1467 Cihanşah , Azerbaycan şiirinin genel olarak tanınan bir temsilcisidir

(Kaynaklar) ⬇️⬇️⬇️

M. Faruk Sümer, «Kara Koyunlular», s. VIII:

M. Behramnejad, «Karakoyunlular, Akkoyunlular: Iran ve Anadoluda Türkmen Hanedanları», s. 14:

Yuxaridaki metni qaraqoyunlu seyfesine elave ede bilersiz ? Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kitaplar bunlardir : https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2035

https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2065

https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2156 Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)