Talk:Spitak
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Toghrul R in topic Revert
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Revert
[edit]@Toghrul R can you explain your recent edit on this article? You removed a lot of info, stating 'restoring sourced version', when it was the opposite; you removed a lot of unsourced and sourced information. If there was an issue with the unsourced information, it would've been better to add a [better source needed] tag instead, especially considering that the information on this article isn't politically contentious. In addition you removed a lot of sourced content. Please self-revert. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @KhndzorUtogh hello. Current demographic table shows more details, therefore I reverted your edit. I partially recovered the part where it contained more information about the earthquake and emigration — Toghrul R (t) 13:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I restored the tags that you removed on other articles because an outdated source from a century ago isn't appropriate especially for contentious information. Also the source isn't reliably published and is a no-name publication, its not academic or scholarly. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @KhndzorUtogh Firstly, it didn't have any relation with this article. You could have written about restoring the tags on my talk page. Please, revert and we may discuss about that issue. Currently we are talking about Spitak article, not other districts. — Toghrul R (t) 13:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I restored the tags that you removed on other articles because an outdated source from a century ago isn't appropriate especially for contentious information. Also the source isn't reliably published and is a no-name publication, its not academic or scholarly. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)