Talk:Ani (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ANI wikispace link

your edit summary read "references to Wikipedia namespace don't belong into articles", but there are links to WP pages at template, reference, vandalism, and I'm sure a zillion others. I don't think the link to WP:ANI did any harm, especially considering that ani is a disambiguation page. I will put the link back in tomorrow unless you can give strong reasons otherwise. --User24 23:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Especially for WP shortcuts (the three you are citing are not WP shortcuts). It's a shame to have so much slang shortcuts in Wikipedia space already. Do we really have to have these in the encyclopedia proper too? But I wonder what's the purpose of your message. Since you already are so convinced of your opinion :)... --Ligulem 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

your edit summary mentioned nothing about WP shortcuts. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought your objection was to WP links appearing in articles. Please explain what difference it makes that it's a shortcut?

I don't know why you think I'm convinced of my opinion. My manner is almost always curt and to the point. If you can offer strong reasons (stronger than "I disagree"), my opinion will change. --User24 00:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate (perhaps I was a little more curt than usual in the 00:45 comment). I like what I say to be taken at face value. By saying of me that "you already are so conviced" it was making a definite statement about me. That statement is untrue and hence the greater than usual curtness. Had you said "you seem convinced", my response may have been less abrupt. I realise that the 00:45 comment may have been taken as flamebait or similar, and apologise for any offence caused. --User24 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted myself. So we can move on and probably do something more useful somewhere else :-). Best regards, --Ligulem 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

....ok. i guess. not sure what "For peace' sake" is supposed to mean. I'm still interested in your opinion as to why it shouldn't have been there, but it seems you're "already convinced" that I'm attacking you... sorry again for the confusion. I really didn't mean to come across in that way. --User24 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the earlier versions of the page about Ani?

When "Ani" went first to a disambiguation page? Although the earlier version had little to commend it, at least it wasn't riddled with POV stuff. And I don't think that a verbatim lifting of blocks of text from VirtualAni is a particularly correct route to take either. Meowy 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The other page was located at Ani (Turkey) is you want to see the history. The comments there indicate that some people did think the article had POV but I don't feel like sifting through past versions of the article which, in agreement with you, I think had little to commend it. The present article has (I think) has little or no POV outside of the block quotes, and as such presents the opinions rather than opinionating. This is allowed and is, in fact, desireable. I think that these quotes present both the Turk's and the Armenian's complaints, as well as positive statement about Ani from several viewpoints, in an ideal balance. And although its good to judge the work and not the editor, I'll throw in the fact that I have no genealogical, personal, emotional or other connections to this part of the world and had never heard of Ani 2 weeks ago. As far as I can tell, I've presented just facts, including cited facts about the opinions voiced by others. House of Scandal 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be presenting "both the Turk's and the Armenian's complaints" - it should be presenting the facts. But I'll return later make some contributions myself rather than just making negative comments. I have to ask, why on earth did you want to write something about Ani if you only knew wabout the place 2 weeks ago? 81.79.116.181 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues regarding the preservation of a historic site are relevant and that's what I presented. I remade this article because bad articles drive me nuts. House of Scandal 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)