User talk:Dighapet

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuscumbia for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I will next time. Thank you letting me know. Dighapet (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize

Hello, Dighapet. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genocides in history. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you but I made only one edit. Dighapet (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I realise that. But participating in a general edit war without discussion on the talkpage is not a good idea. Plus it is always good to know the rules before anyone goes over the the 3R limit. Anyway there is a discussion on the talkpage and please discuss any points you may have there. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I know. Thank you. But why do you not warn the user who removed the Khojaly massacre BEFORE he discussed? why do you not ask him to discuss first? Dighapet (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because his revert was within policy. He is allowed to revert if core policies are violated. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What??? There are 40-50 genocides mentioned in page and he selected one and deleted complete. And with NO discussion and you call it "core policy"??? Dighapet (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Komek

Salam. Sizden mene burada destek gostermenizi xahish edirem. Hormetle, --Verman1 (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Baxdim amma deyesen bashqa yerde arbitraja vermek lazimdi. Orada hetta kimse yazib ki bashqa yerde vermek lazimdi. Dighapet (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tofig Kocharli

I'll try and get to it in a little while - when I have a few minutes free. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Armenia and Azerbaijan

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision.

You have been involved in a large number of edit wars recently (e.g. Karabakh Khanate, Gandzasar monastery, and Tsitsernavank Monastery); particularly in this topic area, reverting without consensus is disruptive to the goal of building a quality encyclopedia in a collegial editing atmosphere. This applies even when you merely join an edit war rather than starting one, and even when you are right. In the latter case, bringing better sources will show that your editing is not disruptive. Your requests for page protection have been helpful. Many of your talkpage posts advance the discussion, but I urge you always to be careful to discuss edits and sources rather than editors, and to avoid a battleground mentality. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)