User talk:Tuscumbia

Messages

I rewrote some of the words in Gryazovets—Vyborg gas pipeline so that it isn't a copyright violation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

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

Recent edit at Nabucco

Are you sure this edit is neutral? The wording "Preempting gas supplies for possible use for Nabucco pipeline is another way of preventing the project from successful completion" seems bad — imagine if someone inserted "another way of preventing the project from completion is to make claims about environmental impact" to Nord Stream. I'm sure that would be reverted on neutrality grounds. Recently an agenda-based account (User:Gazpr) made some pretty outrageous edits in energy articles. Although most of your edits are good, I have a slight problem with some of your edits as well. Please remember to be neutral as possible. Offliner (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made the edit based on many articles, sort of an analysis. I do believe this is a big part of Russian energy politics vis-a-vis Europe and the West, as much as getting or White Stream work is energy politics of the West vis-a-vis Russia, or rather dependence on Russia, but I do agree that it might have sounded a bit biased. I did make some corrections. Do you mind taking a look? Tuscumbia 14:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oseberg oil field

On December 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oseberg oil field, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Naftoport

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Naftoport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting

Hi Tuscumbia,
This article has IMHO gone downhill real quick. I was working on it before midnight (local) and it is now ≈4:20 AM. I have never been so pissed. I mean editors come in and arbritrarily delete whole paragraphs without any discussion. Is that the way it's supposed to work here? I dont think so! Too many 'cooks'! You may find more useable (deleted) material in Espoo. There is a now lot of redundant material in the 'Suspect' section since someone merged stuff from the deleted Shkupolli article. All yours now, I'm gonna get pissed, or try to, as I said I am already 'pissed' off! Hope you have a better New Year than I have had! '--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! You're right about the current event article being edited real quick but it doesn't mean it's going downhill. That's what Wikipedia is all about - editing based on sources. Whatever I added was sourced material from primary news agencies. However I did not move or delete any sections or whole paragraphs as you claim. I only added a new section on Allegations and sourced material to the Suspect section. So, no reason to get pissed off. I am not pissed off at those who edited my edits a minute after. Happy New Year and cheer up! After all, we're all glad to be alive and smaller disappointments online should not ruin your holidays. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NO mate, I didn't mean YOU!. I was cool with you. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. It was other people who just appeared out of nowhere, and IMHO stuffed it up (then, it's a lot better, now 2+ hours later) I mean one 'guy' swanned in and all he did was change Suspect heading to Pepetrator, which is very POV. Another 'guy' pulls up, deletes a whole para as 'redundant' (didn't agree) and then goes away. I mean if it's someone with thousands of edits to their credit, but not so here. VERY frustrating. AND I am VERY tired. Supposed to go somewhere tomorrow morning too, (in <≈5 hours!) only told at short notice yesterday, blah blah, whinge whinge, yada yada. I am on the other side of the world from you, probably. The Sun IS coming up, now!(and those damned noisy birds are starting up! Cna't win) NO, no problem with you at all! Oh, the shooting was reported on 5 AM news here in Sydney, nothing new to report but. Happy New Year, (bah, humbug) suggest you don't spend it over the keyboard like I did! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...

for your kind note. Getting there! Still some more to go, and may take me a day or two, but at least now I think we have the main information in it. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work starting the mosque page.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Bryant Neal Vinas as well ... taking a cue from you, I also started the related mosque page (a bit easier, as there were two notable connections there).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a mil. I've never heard of this guy though. I'll make a few minor grammar related edits to that article. Great job with the mosque page :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Black January. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

Happy to be of help. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Grazie! :-) Tuscumbia (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New section

Hello, can you please check this out [1]?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marshall. I replied. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Gyda Oil Field

blanked page

Hi Tuscumbia, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Gyda Oil Field. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions

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. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Hi Tuscumbia. You reverted my edit to the 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig when you made the next edit to the article. Some of the spelling and grammar mistakes I fixed are still in the article now; please be careful so that you don't undo edits by others in the process of making your own. Thanks, - Gump Stump (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gump Stump. Sorry about that. I must have overlooked them. I'll review and incorporate your changes. Thanks for fixing errors. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I just redid the edits, along with some more small cleanup. Cheers - Gump Stump (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks a mil. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion

On 23 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, which you created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ali Mustafayev

A tag has been placed on Ali Mustafayev requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. The pages I provided sources for are on Azerbaijani regions which you unsuccessfully try to rename with your nationalistic statements. I think you need to stop your vandalism and assume good faith. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You insert data on the population of regions according to the census of the country, which has no control over this territory and delete my neutral authoritative reference a third country. Moreover, be cautious in future statements such as "puppet government", "nationalistic statements" because of you I no longer expect the assumption of good intentions. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Azeri census

Do you know when that census data was taken? --Golbez (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do Golbez. Here it is from Statistical committee of Azerbaijan: [2]. Some numbers are higher than those in the "undated" source, some are lower. I think they add the movement of new and old settlers since 1992-93 to the number of last recorded by Azerbaijan before 1993. Remember that Azerbaijani government considers all the old inhabitants its citizens. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But... how did they count people in an area they aren't allowed in to? This obviously can't be considered a 2009 census of the areas under Karabakhi control. --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

They did not count themselves. Apparenly they use the data from Ministry of National Security which tracks the movement in and out of those regions. They even protested against a mass settlement of incoming ethnic Armenians in Lachin rayon a few years ago. Anyway, they probably add that data to the official count of Azerbaijani census last recorded before the regions were occupied. We can indicate that detail if you like but the data has to come from a legitimate source, that is governmental agency which oversees the population statistics of its country.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that needs to be brought to some form of RFC, if we can use data for a region that the data could not have reasonably be collected from. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would work. I understand the data which you tagged as "undated" was also on that website and might still be there with the date (I'll have to research) since it was referred to in on of the articles I saw.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If they did not count, then it is not a census..., you are just admiting the info you have added is not accurate, since a census is an actual counting. It's futile to parallel some statistic being passed as a census to counter an actual census.

Armenian citizens are not allowed into Azerbaijan for private visits, only Armenians citizens invited to attend international events are exempted.

Armenian citizens are not allowed into Azerbaijan for private visits, only Armenians citizens invited to attend international events such as sport tournaments and conferences are exempted. Foreign citizens, except those with diplomatic passports, having stamps of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on their passports are also not allowed to enter Azerbaijan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.144.172 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern but this is just your opinion. Armenian citizens are allowed into Azerbaijan. Moreover, the current residents living in Karabakh are still formally considered citizens of Azerbaijan by the government of Azerbaijan. Armenian athletes, journalists, politicians, religious leaders, students have repeatedly visited Azerbaijan and do so every year. Whether they are met with suspicion at the airport customs counter or not is a different matter. You do have to be suspicious about citizens of the country which is at war with yours. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lachin is outside NKR"

No, it's not. After years of discussion here, it seems clear that the NKR has annexed the non-NKAO rayons it occupies. It takes the line of control as a border, rather than just a, well, line of control. Lachin, et.al. are all part of the NKR, and have been distributed into provinces of it. --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lachin as well as any de-jure regions are intergral parts of Azerbaijan. Lachin and other 6 regions outside of former NKAO are actually twice are disputable in the context of "NKR" because they had not been claimed by Karabakh Armenians in their petitions. These are territories occupied by force. You don't see an Azerbaijani divisions template in Artsvashen article of Armenia, do you now? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, but if you're going to keep the {NKR} on the former NKAO, then that kind of defeats your argument. The NKR is not the NKAO. And actually, yes, they have been claimed by the NKR, as seen in their own maps, census data, etc. As for Artsvashen, I think that is considered simply occupied rather than annexed, whereas Lachin appears to have been explicitly annexed by the NKR. (What's this about "petititons"? We aren't in 1991 anymore. The Line of Control is a de facto border) Finally, if the NKR didn't claim these areas, then why did they divide them into provinces? Qashatagh, etc? I mean, look at the map on there! Wikipedia's stance seems to be that the NKR has annexed the southwestern corner of Azerbaijan, and is not merely occupying it militarily. (Trivial difference? Hardly. The US occupied Iraq, but it never annexed it) --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

US doesn't occupy or annex Iraq. It's fighting a war on terror and is assisted by Iraqi troops. This is a completely different matter and has no place in the argument. It doesn't matter if the occupied territories are claimed by "NKR" or not. Azerbaijan can claim Yerevan but the article about Yerevan does not include the Azerbaijani divisions template. I have not removed the "NKR" templates from former NKAO cities/districts because they are subject to discussion and consensus. Regions outside of former NKAO are not, regardless if they were divided into "NKR" districts or not. Artsvashen is as much occupied as Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 other regions of Azerbaijan. You simply fail to see the 100% similarity.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone would deny Iraq was occupied by the US prior to local rule being re-established. I used the past-tense for a reason. And you are quite incorrect to say areas outside the former NKAO are not subject to discussion and consensus; everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion and consensus, and the consensus is that the NKR consists of the entire southwestern corner of Azerbaijan, not just the NKAO. If you disagree with this, there are several other articles you should start a crusade on, not to mention getting all of the maps changed. Also, since the NKR doesn't fully control the former NKAO (though claims it), this distinction makes even less sense. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple to understand. The sources from the international community define these territories as a part of Azerbaijan. Their proper names, i.e. ones given by the de-jure governing Azerbaijan are to what the international community calls them. Any attempt to rename them based on Armenian sources is an academic violation at the very least. Simple as that. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How did this suddenly become about names? It was about whether or not Lachin is part of the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, what exactly are you trying to clarify? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument was that Lachin is occupied, rather than annexed, by the NKR, but that the former NKAO had a separate status. I'm saying, consensus here is that the whole of the area behind the Line of Control is part of the NKR, they appear to have annexed it and divided it among provinces. The former NKAO no longer has any special meaning when dealing with the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which makes it twice as illegitimate. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

... That doesn't mean any sense, and appears to have nothing to do with what I wrote. --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes sense is that the territory of Azerbaijan, currently under control of "NKR" is not legitimate, no matter if it's outside of anything. The NKR entity is not a recognized state to be able to "annex" anything, therefore the present status of Lachin is as much under illegitimate control as the rest of the occupied territories. Simple as that. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Then is it your position that the former NKAO is also just as much not a part of the NKR as Lachin is? Just seeking a clarification here, since your earlier statements seemed to say that the NKAO was part of the NKR, but Lachin was not. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, thanks for trying to clarify. Not many people do it. In a nutshell, yes, the former NKAO is as much not part of "NKR" entity as Lachin is. What I was referring to in earlier statements was from peculiarities of the conflict. While I do understand the whole notion of self-determination by the Armenian authorities in former NKAO, (even though it was not done on legal grounds), the status of former NKAO as claimed in the beginning of the conflict has been a subject to negotiations. The rest of the territories outside of former NKAO have been directly occupied. So, while I understand the status of NKAO needs to be discussed by both countries, the rest of the occupied territories fall under a different category. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; now that you've explained, I can understand your position and respect it. It's a valid position, though not one I agree with completely. A few years ago, yes, but I brought the issue up on various talk pages and since then my mind has changed, seeing as how the NKR government appears to be treating the other occupied rayons as part of its country, rather than simply occupied territory. But as you said, the referendum was carried out only in the NKAO, so the legitimacy of the other rayons not being part of Azerbaijan is indeed less than that of the NKAO. I just wish the politicians involved would stow their egos and find a solution, not just for the thousands of innocent people involved, but also for Wikipedia's sanity. (though I doubt it will ever stem the flow of geniuses who think [3] is a valid edit. If I appear to have an Armenian bias, it is for two reasons: One, I have an admitted slight bias towards the people of NK as I have a thing for self-determination, call it a naive American trait, but otherwise I think I'm very neutral on the issue; secondly, the Armenian vandals aren't nearly as annoying as the Azeri ones. :P) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a thing for both self-determination and territorial integrity too and respect the will of people. The problem is that the self-determination in case of NKAO was not done on legal grounds disregarding Soviet and Azerbaijani constitutions and the will of Azerbaijani community of Karabakh. Yes, I dislike vandalism too but as anyone can observe there are a lot more Armenian socks :) Tuscumbia (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's probably true. And as for the legal grounds, that's one of the fundamental issues, isn't it: Did they have the legal right to secede from the Soviet Union? Of course, to an independent observer like myself, the whole thing seems moot, seeing as how the Soviet Union would have died in several weeks regardless of the NKAO's declaration of independence. (And, of course, if Azerbaijan had allowed it to go on its way, the NKR today would be an independent nation consisting perhaps of only the NKAO, rather than an ongoing two-decade belligerency controlling the entire southwest corner of Azerbaijan) --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're rather misinformed about the legal basis of the conflict, Golbez :) Or rather, underinformed. NKAO Supreme Soviet (which consisted mainly of ethnic Armenians) was denied the petition to be transferred to Armenian SSR both by the Azerbaijan SSR and the Supreme Soviet of USSR in 1988. The referendum for secession was held after most of ethnic Azerbaijani community was expelled from NKAO and after Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan SSR voted on declaration of independence. Moreover, according to Azerbaiani SSR constitution and that of independent Azerbaijan, the local referendums and their results have to be approved by the Azerbaijani government and the overall referendum in Azerbaijan. In other words, the whole country has to approve or veto the referendum results. The independence of "NKR" was also announced in the beginning of 1992, when Azerbaijan has already proclaimed independence in late 1991 and was independent by January 1, 1992. The independence by NKR holds no legal ground since the Constitution of USSR from 1977 and Amendment on secessions from 1990 (which is always misinterpreted) and the Azerbaijani SSR and independent Azerbaijan constitutions have been disregarded. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I'm well-informed; I know about wanting to be transferred to the Armenian SSR. My comment was about [as I understand it] NK's assertion that, as an autonomous oblast of the Soviet Union, they had the right to secede, whereas the Azeri stance is that they were an autonomous oblast of the Azeri SSR. One step removed that eliminated the legality of secession. I agree with the Azeris on this one. Basically, the Karabakh separatists recognized the legitimacy of Moscow more than Baku. And from what I understand, the NKAO initially preferred to remain within the USSR, regardless of the AzSSR's independence, but when that was no longer viable, went for independence themselves. The Soviets clearly knew what they were doing by setting some of these areas apart, looking at the issues in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as NK, but they just as clearly didn't have a way of dealing with the issues as the house of cards fell. Finally, one last note: Enclosing "NKR" in quotes as if it's a figment of someone's imagination (though you aren't consistent with that) is not the path to civil discourse. It's nice to be able to have a discussion on a subject without massive subtext in every mention of said subject. The politicians involved may of course wish to always refer to it as the "so-called", "self-proclaimed" "NKR" at every mention, but as civilians with no dog in this fight, I think the least we can do is be honest in our communications. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. NKAO preferred to be annexed to Armenian SSR and the initial calls by Abel Agambejyan (Gorbachev's right hand man) in France in 1987 were exactly that. The initial petitions involved outright annexation including Armenian SSR issuing a proclamation and budget including a part for NKAO as if it was now theirs, however, when the Armenian nationalists saw that Soviet Union will collapse and outright annexation is not going to be justified under the international law, they switched to self-determination principle to create a new state (which actually hosts Armenian army, uses Armenian currency, etc.) Self determination is practised but within the international law, i.e. self-determining state has to comply with the constitution of the governing state it wants to separate from and all international norms. In case of "NKR", we didn't see it. Sorry, I put "NKR" in quotes because it's just my personal preference. And you're right about Soviets. They intentionally created conflict zones to be able to play on ethnic strives. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

Hello. Be aware of this. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tuscumbia, I would suggest you to familirise yourself with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 before asking Ліонкінг to do so [4]. Mind, that this warning was issued and canceled on his page by an Admin. This is an AE you are permanently violating and it shall be dealt with accordingly, if you continue this battleground-behavior. Regards Aregakn (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled? How do you define cancelled? Read one more time. Both of you should read through AA2 before engaging in battleground behavior. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You might not understand what I meant, but this is not my problem. Anyway, I can tell you only one thing:":)"

Aregakn (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Template

I don't want to speak with You on the Kovsakan (Zangilan) Talk page, as You can create such in each other city and elsewhere, so I'll speak with You here. I remind You that You've done alreade 2 reverts, and if You done the third one You know what will be, so be calm and smart. All Your statements You can prove on the template deletion page. Speaking about statements You've named me a nationalists and other such statements, so first of all You should be careful. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A note

Please be aware of this message [5] Aregakn (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

See if you would like to comment this --Hittit (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

See if you would like to comment the merge of this article. --Hittit (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned and placed on revert parole

Further to this Arbitration enforcement thread, you are topic banned from all pages relating to Armenia and to Azerbaijan for thirty days from the time of this comment, and also prohibited for a period of four months from the date of this comment from making more than one revert per week. If you violate these restrictions your sanctions will be reset and may be extended, and you may also be blocked from editing. These sanctions are passed further to the provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.

If at any point you need guidance or advice, or if you need support in the course of contributing, my talk page and e-mail is always open. Edit in a constructive way and you will find Wikipedia's administrators quite willing to give you assistance. Serially edit war on a contested subject area and you will find yourself repeatedly sanctioned. Regards, AGK 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)