User talk:Rast5

Welcome!

Hello, Rast5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DPetryz (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 December 2011‎

Calling "sock"

If you're genuinely concerned about sockpuppet behaviour, please report it so that an admin can look into it and block accounts as appropriate. If you're not that concerned, then don't throw the accusation around so lightly, and just make edit summaries that address whatever actual sourcing issues are at stake. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filled. You're working in Wikipedia enough time to not ask me such questions but to see (feel) the obvious. Do you see any differences between Biographyspot's and DPetryz's edits? Rast5 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Swarm ^X 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False citations

Please be warned not to use false citations, as you did on Tamara Toumanova, to push your point of view. The citations have to explicitly state whatever you are trying to prove, and they cannot merely be lists of something, like ancestry.com list that you like to provide. Please also note that primary sources - i.e. Tamara Toumanova saying something herself - will have to carry more weight than links to some questionable authors and even people who may have known her.--Andriabenia (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Read the sources presented and stop pushing your nationalist POV. Toumanova was of Polish-Armenian decent, even if you dislike it. Rast5 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who 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, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Please also note that calling other editors "nationalists" can be considered a violation of our policy against personal attacks. That type of incivility is not at all welcome on a collaborative project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Your recent editing history at Tumanishvili shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, per WP:ARBAA2, please consider this an indefinite 1RR restriction on all Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed. Any further edit warring problems will likely result in longer, if not indefinite blocks of this account. If you are confused about our edit warring policies, or about the new restrictions on your editing, now is a good time to ask. Kuru (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]