Lionking, please be aware of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.D0.9B.D1.96.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.BA.D1.96.D0.BD.D0.B3_reported_by_User:Tuscumbia_.28Result:_.29] [[User:Tuscumbia|<font color="#0000FF"><strong>Tuscumbia</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Tuscumbia|<font color="#DC143C">''talk''</font>]]) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:19, 12 May 2010
Ashnak
Population was as reported by this, which has been updated for 2009. The new figure is in line with the census, the 2008 number may have been an aberration or mistake. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vardablur
The GNIS database shows two different places with the same name about 4 miles (6 km) apart. Do you have something to show that's in error? Some old Soviet sources may be useful that I don't have access to, and my Russian isn't too good either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked at the map, and the Kirovakan map adjoining - only 1 Vardablur - I'll delete the other one. Thanks and good catch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо
спасибо за то что перевели мою просьбу на английский язык, надеюсь на нее откликнутся --Lori-m (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Не за что, но здесь вряд ли откликнутся... я сам писал, мне не ответили. Советую писать кому-то конкретно. --Ліонкінг (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another warning. Please stop your vandalism and disruptive edit warring. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Vandalism"
Please do not characterize edits you disagree with as vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but he just delete the info which I've proved with important neutral references and after this he says that I pick "nationalism statemenys". What I should do? Just wait when he will delete all my edits which are proved by links? --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links that inserts this user simply represent the interests of propaganda in Azerbaijan. They are not reliable and can not indicate the actual population of regions, according to a mythical Azeri population census, which could not be conducted in areas that are not under the control of Azerbaijan. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Good morning. I don't know the system of enwiki, so I've a question on which maybe You've an answer. Should I write a reliatory plaint to here in the same case or in the new case, if violations of my opponents are connected to this case?
Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take it in attention. --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of AE thread closure, and of editing restrictions
I have closed the recent AE thread concerning you as inactionable. But as you are an editor who is active in the Armenia-Azerbaijan subject area, I am also placing you on notice of the editing restrictions provided for by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case:
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:
Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
If you have any questions or at any point need advice in conjunction with your editing in this subject area, please contact me on my talk page or by e-mail. AGK 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking that question, then it's clear you didn't read my edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, we don't include a template with a list of every city in the United States in every article for a US city. That's what {NKR} appears to be; I've never heard of cities being administrative divisions in the NKR, as saharlar are in Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That notice had been given (and canceled) above, if you can see. This is an AE you permanently violate and I noted it on your talk-page, so better read it first, then make notes to others. Aregakn (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lion, be very careful and considerate. read all the sanctions of that rule and know noth: your obligations and rights. To be able to see others' mistakes you need to read that AE and also other Wiki-rules. Pls do it as often as possible. Wrong edits (by others) can be corrected in the future. Wrong behavior can't. Regards Aregakn (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lion jan, PLEASE READ THE AA2 RULING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! Aregakn (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do it just now, but I don't understand some termins. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: should I read all statements or only since chapter 17 "Final decision"? --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report
Lionking, please be aware of this: [1]Tuscumbia (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
