Talk:Operation Ring

message: Hello,
This article looks quite good. A lot of excellent work has been put into it, and I really have almost nothing to complain about. 
I put a few  tags on the article. If I happened to put a tag on a fact that is actually referenced in a nearby sentence, please remove the tag and explain the deletion in a detailed edit summary.
In all, though, this article will be GA with just a bit of work. I certainly don't think it should take the whole 7 days. In fact, it shouldn't be much work at all.
Good work!
Please feel free to ask if you have questions
--Ling.Nut 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS In the closing section, I thought that the exact dates of the Armenian and Azerbaijani secessions would be helpful. --Ling.Nut 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination on Hold for 7 days 

message: Contains an external link to an Armenian website, where the video is not even available http://www.mrav.net/en/videos_en.asp --adil 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is available at http://mrav.net/2007/operation-ring-shahumyan-getashen-1991/ (I just checked), and is the only available video documentary of Operation Ring. It cannot be considered POV since it covers a tragic and terrible event, and therefore is somber in nature since it takes the point of view of the victims through the eyes of an objective observer (it was created by a Bulgarian journalist). It is like saying that documentaries about the Holocaust are POV!!! Please refrain from removing or altering anything before discussing it first, as such acts will be considered in bad faith...HyeProfile 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video works. Artaxiad 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the Armenian site, not video per se. If we are to allow that site, then we can certainly allow Khojaly massacre videos and photos from Azerbaijani websites. Until that is agreed upon, per our discussion before with interested parties, I will remove -- and you would act in bad faith if you revert the removal. --adil 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, it is justified because you already have TWO citations of an ethnic Armenian and very POV author Markar Melkonian, and have in addition to that an Armenian website URL. I removed only the URL, and didn't do anything to the Melkonian's two citations. I think this is more than fair, as still, as opposed to being 3:0, it's 2:0, as you have not presented any Azerbaijani sources. --adil 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be coy, otherwise we start including all Azerbaijani websites and sources, along with Turkish one's, in every page about Armenians and Armenia. There is a rather clear NPOV policy, and view of the community that in order to keep the articles well written and unbiased, third-party sources should be used. If you propose abandoning this policy, that's fine by me -- but as I said, then you and your friends should not prevent the inclusion of Azerbaijani and Turkish sources and links in other pages. --adil 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What a rich vocabularity you are showing off, MB. But it doesn't address the fact that your external links are POV and have no place here. --adil 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adil, you are simply trying to disrupt the article without just cause... Make an argument, bring in neutral sources, or let it go... The current links should remain. HyeProfile 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is simple-- no biased, POV external sites allowed here. And yes, in case you didn't notice, this page concenrs two ethnicities, and the Wikipedia arbitrators decided to call the ArbCom as "Armenia-Azerbaijan" and themselves make a clear distinction and separation based on ethnicity. So save your links, references and other intimidation tactics out of here. --adil 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NPOV, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  To clarify: bias is to be avoided in the content of Wiki articles.  That policy makes no judgment regarding biases of external sources. 128.220.159.1 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes 2 of us... HyeProfile 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HyeProfile, you have never created or improved any article, so you can't join MB. Meanwhile, MB, what and who prevented you from improving any of the articles? I wasn't able to pay more attention to them before, so it's clearly not my "disruptions". Admit it, you are a biased user, a POVster, who can't have a fair discussion and can only resort to personal attacks, incivility and coersion. There should be no POV on these pages.  adil 07:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian POV 

message: Aghpet Welcome to Wikipedia, I reverted your edits because you did not justify the removal of the Gandzasar monastery picture. Since you are new and you probably don't know many of the Wikipedia rules. I welcome you to tell us why you think we should delete the picture. VartanM 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aghpet

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs fair use rationales to be added for :Image:Mil-24 OpRing.jpg & :Image:Operation Ring Article.JPG for its use on the article. Once the FURs are added, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. I don't see that being a problem since these are really easy to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Nehrams2020 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now passed the article since the FURs have been added. Keep improving the article and consider taking it to WP:FAC after you've gotten a peer review and a copyedit from several outside editors. I have changed the article history banner to reflect this review. Good job and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: Is well known (and how talking about it many sources, including neutral), the "Operation Ring" touched not only in the North-Karabakh, but also territories of Shusha (Berdadzor subdistrict) and Hadrut district Nagorny Karabakh. Totally 17 villages were completely deported there. However, that information is not present in the article. --FHen(ru) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadrut and Berdadzor 

message: An image used in this article, File:Mil-24 OpRing.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mil-24 OpRing.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion