User talk:Minorities observer

I must confess that when I was sorting the various re-directs I had a lot of misgivings. I think what you have done is probably the best that could be done, thankyou. Op47 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit here was not at all "vandalism". In fact, I gave a very coherent rationale. The article simply serves no purpose. There are separate articles on German Bohemians and Carpathian Germans. These cover Germans in the Czechoslovak Republic. This article is also incorrect, as it includes German speaking Jews. They are not "Germans", they merely speak German. I've been working on refurbishing the article on German Bohemians, and hence came across that article. There really is nothing better to do than redirect it. I put a hatnote at the top of German Bohemians about Carpathian Germans, so no one gets confused. RGloucester (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to comments here, rather than on my talk page. I’m about the least likely person to be a Nazi in this world. It has nothing to do with Nazis. Quite patently, Jews are their own ethnic group. They are not ethnic Germans. There are Jews with German nationality, i.e. those Jews that live in the German state (who may be called German Jews), but those in the Czechslovak Republic obviously did not possess it. They simply spoke German. In fact, Ashkenazi Jews in general spoke Yiddish, which is a form of German with Hebrew elements. Are all those Ashkenazi Jews now ethnic Germans simply because they spoke a form of German? Not at all. Regardless, you did not respond to my justification. I think this is case where one must assume good faith. RGloucester (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I don’t think you understand is that, no, my conception is not like that of Nazis. Jews who lived in Germany were Germans by nationality, not through ethnicity. Nazis tried to portray these Germans Jews as "un-German". They were German, though, so that was nonsense. Jews in Czechoslovakia, however, were not German through nationality because they did not live in the German state. They were Czechoslovak Jews, who happened to speak German. Franz Kafka was not "German", even though he spoke German and did not identify with Jewishness. In fact, one thinks he would prefer no simplistic label. Regardless, if we were to give him one, it would probably be "Bohemian", but certainly not "German". RGloucester (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M.o.. I've noticed a past move request about "Ahmet Hacıosman" and I find some arguments quite interesting, especially the one that the name of a minority representative should be remain in accordance to his ethnicity [[1]]. Since in the past I was involved in similar moving disputes about Greek minority members in Albanian politics: [[2]], [[3]], but the consensus was against this rule, I wonder if we can use a general rule on the names of minority politicians.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against replacing photos with others. I replaced Abkarian with Shahnour and you replaced Shahnour with Alice Sapritch. Fair enough. But the reason you give for removing Shahan Shahnour that "Shahan Shahnour is totally unknown in France" is grossly misinformed. If one has to talk about Armenian Diaspora literature of the 20th century, particularly the development of Western Armenian, disregarding Shahan Shahnour as arguably the biggest French Armenian literary figure is almost blasphemy. I can provide tens of articles about him in Armenian but you probably do not read Armenian. Suffice to say his book "Nahanche Arants Yerki" (Retreat without Song) is an Armenian literary masterpiece that reflected French Armenian life in its most definitive years of formation and it is obligatory reading in almost all Armenian schools worldwide. This about his Armenian legacy. As for his French output, a huge part of his work as Armen Lubin, refer to the book "Paths to Contemporary French Literature, Volume 2" and a long chapter on his French work as Armen Lubin... [4] Please read it whole through for his effect on French literature. It ends with this remarkable note: "For this haunting poem alone, Lubin (his French pseudonym for works in French) deserves a place in any anthology of modern French poetry". See also [5] about one of his books. The top note on the book: "Chahan Chahnour (1903-1973), fut l’un des plus grands écrivains arméniens du XXe siècle" (meaning he is one of the greatest Armenian writers of the 20th century"). It goes on to say in the same brief page "Chahan Chahnour fut une figure majeure de la diaspora arménienne." (meaning Chahan Chahnour is a majour figure of the Armenian diaspora". So not just in France, but in the "entire Armenian diaspora"... See also coverage by Asbarez [6] on his 100th anniversary.

Keep Sapritch, by all means, but be informed more about Shahnour's legacy. By the way, I am happy you put Sapritch. You might be surprised to know Armenians the world over hardly know about her or her works. But virtually everybody knows and revers Shahnour. So perhaps it would be best to keep Sapritch. She needs to be better known as a French Armenian through this "Armenians in France" page, much more than Shahnour... So her placement is more than appropriate if you ask me... But as a compromise, I suggest keeping both Sapritch and Shahnour such that we replace Vardan Petrosyan instead. Petrosyan is a relatively new arrival to France from Armenia. Most of Petrosyan's theatrical works are still performed in Yerevan as he writes only in Armenian not French and sadly French Armenians have mostly forgotten their mother language. Plus that Petrosyan writes in Eastern Armenian, a language so distant from the predominantly Western Armenian the French Armenians (those who do anyway) use, and thus mostly inaccessible to them. I would bet if he Petrosyan would survive more than one or two showings in even a small theatre venue in France. Plus to add as a side note, he doesn't have a French Wikipedia page, just Russian and Armenian pages... werldwayd (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to take this further than this talk page message, but I am more than a bit rankled by your edit saummary saying "correction of dishonest formulations contradictory with the quoted sources" in this edit. The article had popped up on my watch list because of this edit two edits back. Out of curiosity, I looked at the United States section and found the sectiion completely unsupported. I dug up a relevant source, cited it, and tweaked the existing assertions a bit here. My changes were confined to the initial paragraph of the section and consisted of

• in the initial sentence

1. changing "More than 20" to "Many";
2. changing "or" to "and";
3. cited this supporting source.

• in the second sentence, changing "have been granted to non-citizens from 1968" to "were granted to non-citizens from 1968 onwards".

Your following edit, characterizing my changes as "dishonest formulations contradictory with the quoted sources" twiddled only the initial sentence. It

1. changed "Many" back to "More than 20";
2. removed my cite and cited this one instead.

I won't quibble, but I will advise you to get a grip. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted here has been performed by the same editor in a dozen other articles. I've removed a few. (Just a heads-up.) --JBL (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promising? --JBL (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring on this article, per a complaint at WP:AN3. The next person who tries to add or remove this paragraph may be blocked, unless they first get consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could fix all the links that now point to the DAB page? Thanks, Number 57 12:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Minorities observer (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an article you recently created 1930 Turkish local elections, is not ready as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage with citations from reliable and independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. I've moved your article to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your act as despicable and unacceptable. I have written dozens of articles on Wikipedia since 2005. This article was sourced by scientific books duly quoted. I put in doubt your ability to judge the content and the quality of this article. I won't proceed further. Minorities observer (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bianet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tangerine Revolution § "Tangerine Revolution" term for use in Kaliningrad. Gimelthedog (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC) --Gimelthedog (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]