Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Soviet caucasus1922.png

[edit]

Deletion request as posted by Iberieli: This map is based on original research with anti-Georgian bias of the user who has created new borders within the country of Georgia. The user refuses to make changes and refrains from a constructive suggestions from other wikipedia users. This OR map should be removed in order to avoid biased POV pushing and prevent OR.

*Strong Delete. So we should follow Russian POV maps and OR of this rigid anti-Georgian user? This map is not only un-scholarly but it is a blatant falsification. "Trialetian Ossetia" never existed and nowhere in any scholarly publications do we see this name. It is a creation of Ossetian chauvenists and their Russian counterparts who draw maps like this. This is definitely in complete violation of NPOV, pushed rigid politically motivated POV and OR on Wikipedia. Iberieli (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you claim that author Artur Cuciev is not reliable, please provide a proof for such claims (I hope that you are aware that your own word cannot be a proof for anything). Also, you should provide a proofs that I am anti-Georgian (As I already pointed out, I am an ethnic Serb and I live in Serbia and therefore I cannot have an anti-Georgian agenda and I certainly cannot be an "Ossetian chauvinist and their Russian counterpart"). And usage of word "rigid" is clear example of personal insult, so please try to keep yourself in civil limits. Also, I do not see that my map claim that Trialetian Ossetia existed as political unit - it only claim that it was an disputed territory, as my source claim as well: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg As for claim that we do not see this name in "any scholarly publications", you certainly do not behave as an well educated person that read many of these publications (and it is highly impossible that you read all history books about this subject to say how many of them are using this name). Finally, it is obvious that you are the one who push POV here and you want to delete this map only because you hate ethnic minorities in your country and you want to delete anything related to their history (and it is clear that denial of history of ethnic minorities in one country is a first step towards commiting genocide against that minority). PANONIAN (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, the map based on one Rusian source, Tsutsiev, and map\s he made about Ossetians in Trialeti. In thet version from 08:51, 24 March 2010 (her). In this map appears new entity called Trialetian Ossetia alons side with Abkhazian Soviet Republic and Ajarian Autonomus Republic and South Ossetia. the same night appears in a lot of wikipedia articles posted by anonymous.
Yes map is based on Russian source and I do not see how that can be a problem? (do you want to imply that all Russians are liars and forgers or what?). As for older version of my map, I corrected it in accordance with your proposal, so I do not understand why you trying again to discuss about this older version when there is an new improved and corrected version? And, as I explained, I posted that map into Wikipedia articles when I uploaded it (I do not always log in when I include images into articles, which certainly is not forbbiden by any Wiki policy and I certainly did not thought that somebody will try to disrupt my good-faith work in the way you doing that). PANONIAN (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second reason is the behavior of the maps uploader, User talk:PANONIAN afterward. When I saw this I started to delete them from the articles in other wikipedias but User:PANONIAN posted them back. In the english Wikipedia by his name and in the otherones anonymously. I made Deletion reqwest of the map "Soviet caucasus1922.png" on the talk page asking how come trialetian Ossetia stand alon side with other Republics with borders and he answer that he remove the borders and uploaded new version (her). In that point it was obvious that you dont have nor the knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with issues in conflict. This estimation become stronger after deletion reqwest in Commons. he folloewed other wikipedian in the talk page and uploaded complitly different version, but still the term Trialetian Ossetia stays in the map. I'm afraid this behavior could be repeted by this user. Geagea (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that I posted map back to the articles after you deleted it from there. You deleted that map from these articles without explanation and I am certainly not a person that would allow to somebody to disrupt my work in that way. I tried to have serious discussion with you about this and I asked you to propose how map can be corrected, but instead of that you behaving totally irrationaly and continue to insult me and disrupt my good-faith work. As for my correction of Trialetian Ossetia border in the map, you never answered to my question about new map version, i.e. you did not said what else you might consider wrong in the map (claim that "I do not have knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with issues in conflict" is certainly not an answer to that question). As for term Trialetian Ossetia, that term appear in my source (as you can see here: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg ), and I do not see why I would not use that term when it appear there? PANONIAN (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PANONIAN, your long-time obsession with this genocide mythology and exceptional aggressiveness towards your opponents are well-known. I do remember your rudeness towards me and accusations carelessly thrown around across Wikipedia pages. So it is certainly not up to you to call others to stay in civil limits. Being a Serbian and having no relation with the Caucasus do not make you a neutral on the subject. It’s your language and behavior that display your POV, not your ethnicity. If anything we all know the birth trauma of Serbian nationalists and the solace they have found in the occupation of Georgian territories by their big “fraternal” nation. --Kober (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kober, my bad language and behaviour is only related to the fact that I really hate that somebody disrupt my work in the way you and your "friends" are doing that. It is really pathetic that in last 2-3 months several maps that I created and uploaded here were "attacked" by "angry local patriots" who saw my maps as something that is not good for their nationalistic ideologies (and it is really irrelevant which country I presented in these maps, since maps that were "attacked" in that way were related to histories of different countries - Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Georgia, etc, etc...). I do not think that nationalistic censorship should be allowed here and that work of good-faith users should be deleted only because it does follow or support certain nationalistic ideology. As for your theory about Serbian nationalism, I doubt that you can present any proof for such claims - you only trying to find all possible ways to discredit me and my work and you will say anything that could achieve that goal. PANONIAN (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may hate many things out here, but never resort to accusing others of fascism, genocidal intentions, nationalistic censorship and blah-blah à la kremlin.ru. So your excuse won't work. As for your maps, I'd ask you to abandon an exaggerated sense of self-importance and to stop portraying yourself as a martyr. I find my time too precious to just spend it in "trying to find all possible ways to discredit" you and I have much more interesting goals rather than disrupting your work.--Kober (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geagea and ibereli, it is clear to me that you have strongly pro-georgian pov. so you give us absurd arguments like "anti-Georgian" and "russian map". this map has more rights to be in wikipedia than andrew andersen maps all together.--Bouron (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? --Kober (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What?--Bouron (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I'd understand Iberieli's and Geagea's point, if the map would state that "Trialetian Ossetia" actually is or was ossetian territory or existed as a territory. But it's current version does not. It just says territory claimed by.... So no problem with it. --SibFreak (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It contains the term. Pleas read down. And the problem is more then that. This is a personal map that made in a perpose of pronoting the idea of Trialetian Ossetia (see also previous versions). The user post the map in a articles related to the Russian/Georgian conflict. Geagea (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Map was created to illustrate history of Ossetians and therefore term used by Ossetians is relevant. As for "personal map" claim, I made this map according to this ethno atlas made by author Cuciev and this term is used there: http://www.iriston.com/books/cuciev_-_etno_atlas/cuciev_etno-polit_map.htm (there is nothing in this map that would be my "personal" addition or promotion). And I did not posted this map in any article related to Russian/Georgian conflict, but only into articles related to former Soviet territories, so Geagea, you have right to have any opinion about this map, but you have no right to constantly LIE, so please stop it and try to behave civilized. User:Kober might share your opinion about this map, but at least one can have civilized and reasonable discussion with him, while your behaviour is totally irrational and unacceptable. PANONIAN (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete There are several issues with this map. First, I have failed to find any indication of the existence of the real, projected or claimed "Trialetian Ossetia" in any other source except for this obscure author Cuciev. No evidence from Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. I do agree with the concerns raised here. Second, why are Armenia and Azerbaijan missing at the map titled as "Soviet caucasus1922"? Third, there were other contested areas in the Caucasus at that time, e.g., Dagestan and Chechnya was not fully controlled by the Soviets, Armenia and Azerbaijan had a couple of disputed enclaves, etc. From what I can see the focus of this map is a Georgian territory allegedly claimed by the Ossetian Bolsheviks. Is this an attempt to advertise Cuciev's "Trialetian Ossetia" concept? --Kober (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are many google hits for term "Триалетская Осетия" ("Trialetian Ossetia") and they certainly do not all come from Cuciev: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F%22&start=10&sa=N - Sure, we might say that English translation of this Russian term do not have many google hits, but "Trialetian Ossetia" is a correct English translation of original Russian term that has many google hits (or you would say that Russian term "Триалетская Осетия" can be translated into English in better way?). As for the question whether author Cuciev is "obscure" or not, can you present to us some sources that would claim that Cuciev is "obscure"? As for Armenia and Azerbaijan, is there an rule that say how many countries I should show in the map? (number of countries presented in the map is certainly not an valid reason for deletion of that map). As for other disputed areas, I included all disputed areas that are presented in the source that I used - if there are other disputed areas you should present some sources about these areas and after examining these sources I can include aditional info into map. As for focus of this map, its focus is not Georgian territory - its focus is history of northern Caucasian peoples (from Dagestan to Abkhazia) and therefore I presented in this map subjects relevant for the histories of these peoples (if you want, I can draw another map focused on Georgian territory only where disputed territories will not be presented and we can find some compromise solution which map should be used in which article). PANONIAN (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"do not all come from Cuciev"? Sure. The rest are from Russian web forums and mirrors from Russian wiki. I don't see any scholarly sources among them. As for Cuciev, I don't need any source to prove his obscurity given the fact that only a set of Russian/Ossetian politically charged web-sites cite him. Regarding "Trialetian Ossetia", I don't question the correctness of the English translation, but the academic legitimacy of this ethno-political term. That's why I asked you to provide third-party, neutral sources for your claims. Otherwise, your map would remain just a remake of a POV source usable only to illustrate the POV of this particular author, Cuciev. It cannot be used as a historical map as if illustrating the unchallenged historical facts on Wikipedia. --Kober (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cuciev is author of a book named "Atlas etnopolitičeskoj istorii Kavkaza (1774 - 2004 gg.)" and I downloaded from Internet about 20 maps scaned from that atlas and maps are very good and accurate, so yes, you need very good proof against that author if you want to claim that he is obscure. As for internet pages that use term "Триалетская Осетия", among such pages are also news articles and web sites of political parties and there is no proof that this term used in these pages originated from Cuciev. In another words, you obviously personally dislike this term, but you did proved that source from which I took this term (i.e, Cuciev) is wrong or obscure. Of course, I do not insist that we use term "Trialetian Ossetia" as a primary name for that territory but I do not see why we cannot use it as alternative one (for example in parenthessis or something like that). PANONIAN (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only the name is a problem call it "Territory in Trialeti claimed by Ossetians" or the like, and add some enclaves in Armenia claimed by Georgia etc... our Georgian friends will be happy, and everything will be OK. @Kober: why do you mention Ossetian *bolsheviks*? I mean, all the world knows... errr... some *Georgian* Bolsheviks like Iosif D. or Lavrenti B. who made up much bigger problems. So better do not talk about "ideologies" here... --SibFreak (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... What have Iosif D. or Lavrenti B. to do with all of these? I mentioned Ossetian bolsheviks, because the source cited by PANONIAN says that the area was claimed by the Ossetian Revkom, i.e., the Revolutionary Committee of the Bolshevik party. Clear now? --Kober (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, all these Iosif D.'s and Lavrenti B.'s were outlawed by independent Georgia in 1918-1921 and the only way they could return back to the country was upon the bayonets of the celebrated Workers' and Peasants' Red Army of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federated Republic of which Iosif D.'s and Lavrenti B.'s were proud citizens and high-ranking officials. They left Georgia as outlaws and criminals and became leaders in Russia only to return in Georgia with fire and sword. So please don;t divert the discussion from its subject and be careful when posting irrelevant charades.--Kober (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can propose two compromise solutions here: 1. instead "Trialetian Ossetia, territory claimed by South Ossetian Ossetian Autonomous Oblast", we can use description "Territory in Trialeti claimed by South Ossetian Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (name Trialetian Ossetia was also used for this territory)", in which case we will not have this name used as an primary term, but I do not see reason why we should not use it in this form, 2. I created another map focused on Georgia only and this map does not show disputed territories: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georgian_soviet_republic1922.png - this new map can be used in articles about Georgian Soviet Republic, while the original map would still remain relevant for histories of northern Caucasian peoples. Is this an acceptable compromise? PANONIAN (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected map description and it does not use anymore name Trialetian Ossetia as a primary designation for that territory. I hope this is OK for everybody? PANONIAN (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here[1] is some information in russian about the history of trialetian ossetia. Kober what third-party source do you want? the whole caucasus has been under russian influence for a long time. so only russian sources are reliable in this topic. --Bouron (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Russian source which is un scholarly and biased. Kober there is no third party sources because its a Russian creation not even Ossetian. They draw new mythical borders and create unheard territorial names. Bouron, if im in your definition a strong pro-Georgian user, then you are strong anti-Georgian user and POV pusher. So I wouldn't talk of neutral point of view if i was you. This map has nothing to do with reality and is based on some dubious Russian made map which clearly presents anti-Georgian bias. Iberieli (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ibereli, where have you got my anti-Georgian views from? I love Georgia. I have a lot of friends and relatives in Kakhet and Bakurian. But I am against "Georgian fanatics" who don't like irritating Ossetia what is unpleasant dent on the map of Georgia. They did it in 1920s, they did it in 1990s and in 2008. So have I reason not to be against that people?--Bouron (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ibereli, how exactly one map that show historical situation in 1921 can be anti-Georgian? I do not see any relation between this map and current political events. In fact, since modern Abhazia and South Ossetia are claiming their independence from Georgia and since my map show that they were part of Georgia in 1921 (not independent states) it is obvious that this map would be closer to Georgian POV than to Ossetian and Abkhazian one. Regarding my source, here are all 50 maps from ethno atlas created by Cuciev: http://www.iriston.com/books/cuciev_-_etno_atlas/cuciev_etno-polit_map.htm - so, if you claim that these maps are wrong, please elaborate why and according to whom. PANONIAN (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a personal map. It made on a base of one man POV, therefor it not balanced. This map can not posted in any article rleated to the Russian-Georgian conflict. When the topic is in conflict, we can find supporters to a lot of ridiculous things.

Define the term "personal map". As I already said, map is based on these references: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_caucasus1922.png#References Therefore, there is nothing "personal" in this map. Also, map is not posted into any article related to the Russian-Georgian conflict and I do not see why we would post this map into such articles - this is historical maps that show political situation in 1921 and it is posted into historical articles unrelated to the Russian-Georgian conflict. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. The map based, allegedly, on a sevsral sources but it is not true. It made only on a base of one man, Tsutsiev or Cuciev. It not base on any official map from that period.

Map references clearly describing that Cuciev is a source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_caucasus1922.png#References - so I do not see that I ever wrote there that I used other source except Cuciev. As for Cuciev himself, if you claim that his maps are wrong, please prove that by sources. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Mentioning of Trialetian Ossetia as term is deception. Attempting to impart to her any political status of territory is deception (that Attempts can been seen in the previos versions).

How so? Both, my map and my source claiming that this term was used as such in 1921 and it is not related to modern political status of that territory. Where you get the idea that it is related to modern political status of territory? I am not aware that modern government of South Ossetia expressed any territorial claims towards that territory. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Even the transalation of the term is not Trialetian Ossetia as geographical place. It only have ethnical meaning. It can not appears in a political map as a teritory with borders (differencess between colors are borders).

Ethnical terms often have geographical meaning as well (for example Kurdistan, Talyshistan, etc, etc), and I do not see that map claim that this meaning was anything else but ethno-geographical. Also, it is presented in a political map because it was claimed politically as part of South Ossetia. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. The political status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was not tha same. It can be seen even from the same source.

My map clearly describe political status of both, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so what is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. The map contains few more misstatement about the borders criterion of almost all the entitys in the map.

If you elaborate what these mistakes are, I could try to correct them, no? PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. The user, as he admits himself, with an anonymous IP post this deception map to 5 kind of articles in a lot of languages. This compelled us to delete it from commos. Although that evry Wikipedia responsible to check the maps in there articles this case shows us that new kind of vandalism is possible. It just have to be seen innocent map.

Now I will ask you again to stop with personal insults: there is no proff that I made this map with "deception" aims and if you check Wiki rules you will see that one user does not have to be logged in during article editing. As for articles where I posted this map, I posted it into articles related to that subject and almost all these articles did not had any map in them, so inclusion of this map was certainly an improvement to these articles. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. The map is changing all the time. Since I responded in this discussion there are 3 new version. That makes the possibility of vandalism even worse.

The fact that I am willing to change the map due to the suggestions that came from other users certainly does not support your deletion proposal. You want to say that it is bad if somebody accept constructive suggestions from others? PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, pleas delete the map and make clear instructions about personal maps to avoid this kind of harassment. Pleas do not split my reply. If somebody want responsed pleas do it under. Geagea (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not explain what you mean by term "personal map" nobody will understand what you want to say - do you want to say that it is "personally mine" or "personally Cuciev's"? There is clear Wiki rule against original research, but as everybody can see this map is not my original research. And I will respond where ever I want - if you constantly lie, repeat yourself and spread insults towards me, I can at least give you an answer. PANONIAN (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not see POV here. Probably we can change the term Trialeti Ossetia by Ossetian-populated areas in Trialeti. Taamu (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  'Delete'Strongest possible delete The term "Trialetian Ossetia" does not exist, it is a clear invention and falsification created entirely by PANONIAN. This user this PANONIAN is well known for creating falsifications and false maps and inventing absurdities so it is not a surprise that he is doing it here. Just use google and search for Trialetian Ossetia it is a total INVENTION, NO WEBSITE uses this name apart from PANONIAN himself!!!! Now google will give PANONIAN's creation for everyone who searches the name this is unacceptable. PANONAIN is also known for using sockpuppets, so everyone should watch out in case he uses sockpuppets again. When he creates sockpuppets he attempts to give them another false identity, for example give them a false "slovak identity" and use the sockpuppet for abuse and revert. So it's very possible for him to create false georgian or russian identity sockpuppets as well. Read the evidence of sockpuppeting here evidence of sockpuppeting VízPart (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is exactly a proof of what I spoke about: my good faith work is attacked by nationalists! User:VízPart is obvious example of an abusive nationalistic sockpuppet that trying to disrupt my work. This person is an Hungarian nationalist and he disliked some of the maps related to the history of Hungary that I created, so he now trying to discredit me and my work in general thinking that in that way these maps of Hungary will be discredited as well. He occasionally tracking my edits and reverting them (which is a clear example of vandalism) and it is how he came to this page. This user even dedicated his whole talk page to me trying to accuse me for sockpuppetry, POV, nationalism, etc: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:V%C3%ADzPart&oldid=36390640 - However, I have to answer to his accusations against me: 1. If User:VízPart ever tried to see sources that I used for this map he would see that name Trialetian Ossetia is present there, so it is obvious that I did not invented that name: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg 2. As for accusation that I am "well known for creating falsifications and false maps" here are examples of some maps created by me: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc, etc. From these examples of my work it is clear that I created various geographical, historical and ethnical maps related to different countries due to my interest for history, geography and ethnography and it is obvious that these maps that I created are not examples of "falsification or nationalistic POV pushing". If somebody have aim to create falsification or to push nationalistic POV then he certainly would not create maps related to these different countries and he certainly would not be accused for nationalistic POV related to several countries (I think that even a person with half brain can coclude that I cannot be Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Slovenian and Ossetian nationalist in the same time and therefore it is obvious that persons who attack my good faith work are nationalists themselves and that they attack my work only because it does not support their nationalistic ideologies). 3. Finally, regarding sockpuppetry accusations, checkuser investigation was conducted regarding this accusation and there was no proof that I have sockpuppets, so this accusation is only another attempt of User:VízPart to discredit me (as I said, he just want to discredit some maps of Hungary that I created and he only trying to "transfer the ball to another field" and to "kick me there"). Obviously User:VízPart himself is an abusive sockpuppet created by some nationalistic Hungarian user from other Wiki project althought I cannot figure out by which one exactly, but we will come to that finding in time... PANONIAN (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. Another perfect example of Ossetian propaganda. As it is said in Russian, Аппетит приходит во время еды.--Gaeser (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appetite for what? Can you understand the simple fact that this is historical map unrelated to recent Ossetian-Georgian conflict and simple fact that I am not an Ossetian? PANONIAN (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Differently from you, I understand this. I also understand, that that have just simply redrawn a propagandistic map. That's why I feel sorry for you, that you fell under propoganda.--Gaeser (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you don't understand that fact. There were lots of Greek an Dukhobor communities in Meskheti, but it doesn't make Meskheti a part of state of Greece or Russia. Same situation was in Trialeti - but unfortunately, neither you, nor ossetians wish to understand this.--Gaeser (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, did you saw my source? I do not see that my source claim that Trialetian Ossetia is a "state" or that it should be a state - this name is used there in historical and ethnographic context, i.e. it describe one territory that was inhabited by Ossetians in that time (and it is clear from this old map that Ossetians lived there in that time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-etno-tiflis.jpg ). There are many similar examples where name of ethnicity that live in one area is used to designate that area (just compare terms like Kurdistan, Talyshistan, Avaristan, Balkaria, etc, etc) and these terms do not refer to independent states or even not to autonomous areas. If my map or my source would claim that Trialetian Ossetia is (or should be) a state then it certainly would be a propaganda, but both maps are only reflecting simple fact that this territory was inhabited by Ossetians in that time. PANONIAN (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of map is it? Political? Then the Trialeti area simply can't be there, as it has never been a political division. An ethnic map? Where are other nations?--Gaeser (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is political map and, according to my source, it was an disputed area in that time, which means that it belong to political map. PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed between WHOM?--Gaeser (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed between autonomous South Ossetia and Georgia proper (both, my map and my source are claiming that in map legend, so did you read legends in these maps at all?) PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaeser, He is not innocent. He only pretending to be innocent. He if following the theory of common fatherhood of Serbs and Ossetians from Alans. He only pushing the term. Geagea (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a theory of common origin of Ossetians and Serbs, but I do not see how I "following that theory"? It might be because of that theory that I am interested in Ossetian history little more than I am interested in histories of other peoples of Caucasus, but that does not mean that I push anything here. Things are simple: I saw an interesting source, I made a map according to that source and I still did not saw any evidence that data presented in that source is wrong or inaccurate. PANONIAN (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not psychologist. I dont know why you make false map and then posting it in articles in different Wikipedias. Because of thet it must delete from commons. The term Trialetian Ossetia does not exsist. If the Ossetian hed any more territorial claimes, after the last war, be sure that Russsian "peackeepers" army already be there. Russia already take over the maximum Ossetian territorial demand. Pleas stop the wild behavior and try to be productive user. Geagea (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you cannot claim that my map is "false" if you do not provide evidence for such claims (and you did not provided any evidence for your claims). Also, do you want to say that I cannot improve articles in different Wikipedias? Then in which Wikipedia Your Majesty would allow me to improve articles? As for the term, my map does not claim that term Trialetian Ossetia exist today, but it only mention this term in relation to historical situation in 1922 and nothing else. Even you agree that modern Ossetian government does not claim this territory and therefore I really cannot understand your negative attitude against an map that is not related to modern political events. I mean, just answer this question: how an map that show situation in 1922 can be related to modern events or modern political and territorial demands? PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • this first source isn't even in touch with the map - on the "source map" we can see only northern Caucasus, which isn't in touch with this map.
This source mention the year when South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast was established and therefore it is relevant. PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10] and [11] are the same, created by Ossetian Tsutsiev, whose main aim is propaganda. So is the map, based on such sources, (First of which doesn't even touch the subject, and second created bt ossetian propagandist, whose aim is to justify the occupation of Georgian territories) reliable? Surely not.--Gaeser (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your rhetorical claim that "main aim of Tsutsiev is propaganda" should be backed by some evidence, you know. He made 50 very good and accurate maps related to the history of Caucasus, so I will rather trust to that author than to one Georgian nationalist from Wikipedia (For example, if Tsutsiev want to "push" term Trialetian Ossetia and to justify modern political aims, why he use this term only in one of his maps related to the creation of political entities in Soviet Caucasus in 1921 and he does not use this term in any other of his 50 maps?). And which occupation of Georgian territory you speak about? Every land belong to people that live there, so even if under Georgian rule, lands inhabited by Abkhazians, Ossetians, Armenians, Azeris, etc are not "Georgian". This is exact source of every conflict in the World - agenda of an ethnic group in one country that think that God himself gave them right to rule over other "minor races". Obviously, it is you who want to justify "supremacy of Georgian nation" over Ossetians and Abkhazians and obviously you advocating a genocide or ethnic cleansing against them and therefore you want to delete any mention that they ever lived in any part of what you call "your" country. There is one word for what you want to achieve here: nationalistic censorship and attempt to shut up people that do not think like you. PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again accusing other of genocidal intentions, PANONIAN? You are becoming increasingly ridiculous, you know? Kober (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to say that such genocidal intentions do not exist in Georgia? PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a nice try. But you have forgotten, that abkhaz and ossetians made genocide to Georgian people. You have forgotten about Sukhumi massacre, when ethnic majority of the city, Georgians, were killed and robbed. You have forgotten this, haven't you? :) There is two words for your behaviour - propaganda and trolling. Yes, i don't trust ossetian so called scientist who is trying to create s.c. Great Osetia. Yes, I hate people, who come to one land as guests, and start behaving as masters. --Gaeser (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you already transfered this to political ground, if Georgian government (which want to present itself as democratic) recognized democratic right of the citizens of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to choose by themselves in which country they want to live everything would be solved in peaceful democratic way and there would be no war (In such peaceful circumstances, any democratic solution, including division of both territories could be achieved, in which way Georgian-majority areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could remain in Georgia. But, your government denied democratic rights to ethnic Ossetians and Abkhazians and wanted to impose ethnic Georgian rule over entire Abkhazia and South Ossetia and since one of the Great World Powers (Russia) supported democratic aims of Abkhazians and South Ossetians your government lost everything because it did not wanted to give anything. Whom else you have to blame instead "all or nothing" policy of your government? I very well know that policy since government in my own country Serbia implemented same policy towards Kosovo and also lost everything there, including Serb-majority areas of north Kosovo, which it could keep if it recognized democratic rights of Albanians and if it made an agreement with Albanians about division of Kosovo). Of course, there should be no doubt that in very near future USA and Russia will agree about general recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, since it is only solution in which these great powers will not disgrace themselves. All in all, I hope that one day you will realize that policy of your government is wrong and that you should live in peace with your neighbours (if I realized that about my government, I see no reason why you cannot realized same about your). Aside from the politics, Ossetian scientists are credible as scientists from any other country or ethnicity and therefore I see no reason why Wiki projects cannot use an Ossetian scientist as a source. PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, who asked people of Akhalgaori and Gali? Your knowledge of politics is obviously not very good.--Gaeser (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I told you: it is policy of your government that created circumstances in which people of Akhalgori and Gali came into situation in which nobody does not ask them for anything. PANONIAN (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, for our government is more terrible, than devil, I see. --Gaeser (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you live under that government, not me. If you think that it is OK for you to live in a country without peace, stability and certain future, then you can kiss ass of your government as much as you want. However, if your government starts another war tomorrow, you will be a victim of that war, not your president or his ministers. PANONIAN (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main aim of osetian so called scientists is to justify the ocupation of Georgian territories, thus they are not neutral. I asked to find any source, which talks about so called trialeti osetia before 1990-th. This seems difficult for you to find this, isn't it? --Gaeser (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To which territories you refer to? Trialetian Ossetia is clearly located outside of any territory that is claimed or controled by Ossetians. It is simply against any logic to connect these two things. As for sources, I told you that I live in Serbia so I do not have access to published pre-1990 Russian literature, I only can see and examine these Russian sources that are available on Internet. However, we do not have any hard evidence for your claim that name Trialetian Ossetia did not appeared in pre-1990 Russian literature (did you read all history books published in Russian before 1990 to know that? I certainly doubt that you did). There is also no any hard evidence that my primary source (Tsutsiev) is not neutral or reliable. PANONIAN (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my question - what sort of map is it. If it is a political, your own sources say that this political "division" dind't exist.

have you read your own article?--Gaeser (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some personal problem that do not allow you to understand what I speak? I already answered that question, so why you do not read my comments about that? Of course, if you want me to act like a parrot and to repeat same things to you over and over I will please you this time: 1. my map is a political map, 2. it does not claim that Trialetian Ossetia existed as a political unit, but that it was an disputed territory, 3. disputed territories are valid subjects to be presented in political maps. PANONIAN (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered, who claims that is was disputed. The atlas of Osetian POV pusher Tsutsiev ? --Gaeser (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Map of Soviet Caucasus which is created by Tsutsiev and which is listed in references section of my map clearly mention that Trialetian Ossetia was an disputed territory. As for "POV pushing" issue, I told you that you have to present proofs that Tsutsiev is not reliable source or that he is POV pusher. I did not saw that you presented any evidence to support such claims. PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeser please make it clear what do you want to say. As I Understood you deny the fact of ossetians were major people in that region. and please give up your absurd expressions such as "Ossetian Tsutsiev, whose main aim is propaganda" "anti-georgian" "ossetians made genocide to Georgian people" "I hate people, who come to one land as guests, and start behaving as masters " this is not a forum.--Bouron (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check who started this. I am agains the term Trialeti osetia. As this term has never been used by scholars. Also I want reliable sources, which say that ossetians really were majorities. And of course not osetian sources. Very interesting that you don't notice same expressions of your friend.--Gaeser (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tsutsiev is a scholar and he use this term, so whether you are "against" the term or not, term is used in sources and therefore is valid and relevant. As for reliable sources that show Ossetians as majority in Trialetian Ossetia, I would say that this one is reliable enough: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-etno-tiflis.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of term "Trialeti osetia"! Where is it used? Nowhere! Nonsense.--Gaeser (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not lie. See map made by Tsutsiev in external links and you will see that he use this term. PANONIAN (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term was sure used by scholars. tsutsievs book is also reliable source. read the discussion from the beginning.
just say do you think that cia's maps are reliable?--Bouron (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, just name any other scholar using the term? How on earth a single 21th century Russo-Ossetian source represents an unchallengeable truth on the apparently disputable subject? Would you accept a source published exclusively in Georgia in the 2000s and authored by a Georgian scholars of the 21th century as a reliable source on the term which is otherwise unknown to the rest of the world? Insanely irresponsible arguments like "you support a genocide that's why you don't like my reasoning", "you don't like the map. i.e., you want to eat all Ossetian babes", etc. are not acceptable. --Kober (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Kober, why have you written this "Insanely irresponsible arguments like "you support a genocide that's why you don't like my reasoning", "you don't like the map. i.e., you want to eat all Ossetian babes", etc. are not acceptable." ? I didnt like it. please avoid such messages in future. Fairly I dont know another scholar using that term. but that term exists. Maybe it is not neutral. So i dont mind changing it. But you deny ossetians were majority there. Again, do you accept CIA as reliable source?
Kober can I talk to you not in wikipedia? because it takes a lot of time. Via email for example. I have an offer to you.--Bouron (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. You agree, that only osetian guy is using the term - and claim that he is neutral and reliable in history of Caucasus. You agree, that the term "trialeti osetia" has never been used by scientists - and say that this term excited. Really interesting--Gaeser (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Ohhh!!! Gaeser please be friendly. Just a bit. You turned everything upside down. I said I didnt KNOW second scholar(first is tsutsiev) using that term. I dont know everything. But if I try I will find some Ossetian scholars using that term. Tsutsiev is neutral and reliable in history of caucasus. I didnt claim that. Dear George, you are like a child. be kindly.--Bouron (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now. if you ignore this question again I will think you did it intentionally.

Will you accept CIA as reliable source?--Bouron (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source that use term Trialetian Ossetia and author is not Tsutsiev but Eduard Abramyan: http://www.regnum.ru/news/843080.html PANONIAN (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Russian POV pusher. I bet, you won't be able to find any sources using this term before 1990. And again my question what sort of map is that? Territory, disputed between Texas and USA? It's simply nonsense! How can autonomy, which itself is a part of a country, dispute something?! It's really nonsense.
Wow, Tbilisi Osetia:) And Kakheti Osetia! Cool propaganda source, you know.--Gaeser (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you asked for one other author that mention this name, but here you have few more: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Soviet_caucasus1922.png#Other_authors_that_are_using_name_.D0.A2.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.B5.D1.82.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B0.D1.8F_.D0.9E.D1.81.D0.B5.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.8F - Also, one of this sources mention the name in relation to the pre-Soviet Gubernia of Tiflis. As for names "Тбилисские осетины" and "Осетины Кахетии" they do not mean "Tbilisi Ossetia" and "Kakheti Ossetia" but "Tbilisi Ossetians" and "Kakheti Ossetians" (your knowledge of Russian is obviously not very good), so you claim that this author is POV pusher because of something that he even did not said? As for border dispute, it is not uncommon that there is territorial dispute between administrative entities within one country - in this case the dispute was the fact that authorities of South Ossetia claimed that Trialetian Ossetia is their exclave, but Georgian authorities did not recognized that. Wiki article in English Wikipedia also claim that and I made this map as illustration for that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians_in_Trialeti PANONIAN (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The en article isn't called Trialeti osetia, but osetians in Trialeti. Also I want you to answer - can anyone imagine "dispute" between state Texas and central USA? Or between autonomy of of Adjara and central Georgia? It's really nonsense. And my knowledge of Russian is quite not your business. Another such behaviour - and I'll ask the admins to act.--Gaeser (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you "ask the admins to act" then you should ask some admin who know Russian and who will see that you provided false translations of Russian descriptions from external link (so either your knowledge of Russian is bad either you done it purposelly and that is really an issue that would be interesting to admins). Also, I did not spoke how article about "Ossetians in Trialeti" is named, but I spoke about context of that article. As for possible imaginary disputes, any dispute between any administrative entity and its country is possible in proper circumstances and there are numerous examples of this in the World - dispute between Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina about Brčko, dispute between Basque Country and Spain about Navarra, dispute between Southern Kurdistan and Iraq about Kirkuk, etc, etc. However, we do not speak about imaginary or existing disputes in various parts of the World, but about sourced historical dispute between South Ossetia and Georgia. If you want to prove that info about that dispute is not accurate then you should provide some sources that claim that such dispute did not existed in the time of creation of Soviet administrative units in Caucasus. Hypothetical speculations are not evidence for anything. PANONIAN (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This so called conflict isn't "sourced". There is osetian and russian POV pushers, with both of which modern state of Georgia is in war. You won't listen to Joseph Goebbels when write articles about WW2? Of course you won't. So either provide neutral sources, or stop this discussion.--Gaeser (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not lie. My map has a list of references and every info in my map is supported by these references, inluding info that Trialetian Ossetia was an disputed territory. Ethnic origin of the author of these references is irrelevant here. The fact that somebody is Russian or Ossetian does not a priori make him to be a POV pusher. If you claim that Tsutsiev is POV pusher, you have to provide some evidences to support such claims. Also comparison of modern democratic Russia with WW2 Germany only show your own nationalism and your own POV pushing and with such statements you will only discredit yourself here. PANONIAN (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one, who lies here, are you, with your lying map. Poor Serbia, if all your sons are like you. Both WW2 Germany and Russia occupied territories of other countries and both had perfect propoganda, so I don't see difference.--Gaeser (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL...Every info in my map can be confirmed by references listed on the map page. So your claim that I lie is nothing but rhaetorical game that you cannot support with any evidence. As for your political opinions about Serbia, Russia or Germany, please keep them for political forums. PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I sad above, appetite for territories comes during food process (In our case - occupation precess). [12]--Gaeser (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sentence in page from that link claim that Ossetians have present-day territorial pretensions towards Trialetian Ossetia? I do not see that word "Trialeti" is mentioned anywhere in that page. I did not saw any other evidence for your claim that Ossetians are having territorial pretensions towards Trialetian Ossetia and therefore your personal opinion that Tsutsiev created his map with aim to support non-existing territorial pretensions cannot be an argument against accuracy of my map. PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, well - have you found any pre 1990 sources? :) Or even pre 2008 sources? --Gaeser (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas made by Tsutsiev is an pre-2008 source. As for pre-1990 sources, I told you already that I live in Serbia and that such sources are not available to me. If I visit Russia and Russian National Library some day then I can give you answer to that question. PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will never believe that Belgrad has such bad library. Visit Russia, visit Georgia - try to find any sources. It's up to you, but they don't exist :) Same is with Truso - only osetian guys claim it is "the territory of Great Alania", georigans didn't exist, and blah blah blah. Tsutsiev is Osetian POV pusher. I repeat Kober's question - if I bring maps from Goergian historians, will you accept them? Or you will concider them as POV pushers?--Gaeser (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about POV, you still did not presented any rational argument why usage of term Trialetian Ossetia would be POV. Please make an rational explanation how an historical situation from 1922 could be related to modern Georgian-Ossetian dispute when current Ossetian politicians are not having territorial pretensions towards territory of Trialetian Ossetia. That explanation is essence of everything here and if you cannot provide such rational explanation for your claims about POV nature of this name then I do not see why anybody would take only your word for it, without explanation, without evidences... PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked this so called "atlas". You know, it was funny to learn that Ottoman empire and Iran disappeared in XVI century :))--Gaeser (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you checked atlas itself or only website where maps from this atlas are posted? Atlas is an published source and website that use maps from this atlas is not same as atlas. The earliest historical period represented in the atlas itself is year 1774 and thus these maps from the atlas are not refering to the 16th century, so I really doubt that you read something about 16th century in that atlas. PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The atlas itself. Tbilisi has good libraries, you know.--Gaeser (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the author shows his abilities even in this map. It was funny to learn that I am not a Georgian :). Really funny. Deviding Megrels, Swans and Adjarians from other Georgians only shows the intellect of the author.--Gaeser (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All maps from this atlas are posted in www.iriston.com and I do not see there any such reference to 16th century Ottoman Empire and Persia. Please quote exact sentence or map that claim that. Also, there are many other authors who are separating Ajarians, Svans and Mingrelians from Georgians. I really do not know how your leaders managed to convince Mingrelians and Svans that they are Georgians when these two ethnic groups are speaking completelly different languages. Linguistical science crearly say that Mingrelian and Svan language are different from Georgian and if you rather trust to Sakashvili than to science it is your problem and your problem only. PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeser your logical thinking is quite more funny. Pannonian, there is no sense in talking with such nationalists as Gaeser. --Bouron (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is no use to talk with osetian propagandists, who have inferiority complex, and who come on commons only for provocations. --Gaeser (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaeser now I am sure you are very thoughtless. Such messages just confirm that.--Bouron (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PANONIAN behavior

[edit]

The only reason of making this map is to establish the term Trialtian Ossetia" which never exsist, not in maps befor 1922 and not in maps after that time. non in officail maps of Soviet Union and not in Russian/Georgian/Ossetian maps until 2008 South Ossetia war. The user, as he admits himself, with an anonymous IP, post this deception map to in a lot of Wikipedias all languages (53 Articles). More then that. The user and his maps involve in alot of wars in commons and other wikimedia projects (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hungarians slavs vlachs 10th 12th.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dardanie dans les Balkans.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alania 10 12.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Serbia territorial pretensions.png, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 12#User:PANONIAN, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Illyria and Dardania Kingdoms.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahtum sermon01.png, File:Ahtum sermon04 01.png ect.) Geagea (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Geagea, as I already told you this what you wrotte is a clear example of trolling and a personal harassment. On this page, you should discuss the issue of this map and not behavior of other users. And what you trying to prove here, anyway? I work in Wiki projects for 5 years and I created and uploaded some 200-300 maps for that time, and I do not see how the fact that 8 of them were proposed for deletion by nationalists from some countries would possibly be a something that would prove that "my behaviour" is wrong in any way? Anybody can propose any file from Wikimedia Commons for deletion, but try to remember this: a single map created by me was never deleted from this web site - the deletion process itself is irrelevant, the only relevant thing are results of such process. Also, do you see how many territories are presented on this map? Trialetian Ossetia is only one of many territories (much smaller and much less significant than other territories on this map) and therefore I do not see how can anybody come to conclusion that Trialetian Ossetia is a main issue of this map? I live in Serbia and I have no reason or motive to "estabslish term Trialetian Ossetia", but I also have no reason to delete this term from the map since you and your "friends" did not proved that source in which I found this term is wrong or inappropriate for usage in Wikimedia. Finally, the question which of my maps I posted in which article in various Wikipedias is certainly not an issue to be discussed here - all my actions of this kind were improvements for each of the articles in every Wikipedia and I do not see how improvement of articles could be seen as a "bad thing" by anybody. PANONIAN (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes part of the maps kept only because they where in use. Your behavior is the main reason for deleting. You use anonymous IP and post the map in 53 articles. You know that there is some problem with the map but you keep doing it. evrybody can upload map. but you force you opinion on articles. Geagea (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No single map was kept only because it was in use. They were kept because those who proposed them for deletion were not able to prove their point (and I do not see that you proved your own point as well). Also, usage of an IP adress is not forbidden by Wiki policies unless such IP adress is used for violation of Wiki rules. If you think that I violated any Wiki rule, please say which one and where. And if you think that this map is not appropriate for usage in some of the articles, please post your opinion on proper discussion pages of such articles. PANONIAN (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you make a map in a middle of conflict you must be cerful. even if you are in one of the sides. evrybody can upload ridiculous map in a middle of conflict and thiere is a chance that one of the sides will support you. The only thing you prove that Cuciev thinks thet is some area in Trialeti leaving Ossetians. This one man say is no reason for making a map with the name "File:Soviet caucasus1922.png". Geagea (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as this file is heavily used on a large number of Wikipedia projects and thereby within COM:SCOPE. Please note that we do not resolve content disputes at Commons. These discussions shall take place at the individual projects. Those objecting to the factual accurateness of this map are invited to summarize the problems on the corresponding talk page. Once this has been done, {{Disputed diagram}} may be added to the description. BTW, discussions regarding the behaviour of other users have to take place at COM:AN/U. They are misplaced at a DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Soviet_caucasus1922.png&oldid=38379119"