Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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. AGK23:38, 2 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
Answer: Only the final decision! Those are the, sort of, additional rules you have to follow. Ignore his warnings, he's just edit-warring and trying to provoke you! Just act in acordance to the rules and read as many (rules) as you can. If there is anything you don't understand, ask me on my page and I'll help. Aregakn (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I saw he reported you to the notice board. Find all the reverts he did and bring them up. Mention that his reverts were non-vanalism reverts but only adding a template. Ask for a detailed review of his user-contributions by the admin. Note that together with a group of biased editors they started violating multiple points of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as (Disruptive editing, Diplomacy, Consensus, Not a battleground, national sources etc.). Also note, that these actions can probably be directly connected to the the recent announcements in Azeri Mass-Media for everybody to engage in edit warring on Wikipedia as this one is: http://day.az/news/politics/208618.html (in Russian).
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Further to thisArbitration 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, AGK01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then in future, learn to edit constructively. We're here to write an encyclopedia in collaboration with our fellow editors. Viciously edit warring with them is not conducive to that goal. AGK13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just changed unsourceful info into a neutral and sourceful. And I've created a template for comfortability. All my edits were reverted by Tuscumbia, NovaSkola and Brandmeister. I'm very dissapointed that You think that my edits were disruptive. But if You think that I should get a punishment - it's Your decision, because administrator is You. And it is mystery for me, why NovaSkola have not any punishment according to his actions with articles Martuni (town) and Martakert (town). I've written about his actions in the claim which passed Tuscumbia against me. Please if it isn't too hard for You make me know if his actions were legal. Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you think that NovaSkola's actions are sanctionable then I would encourage you to file a complaint at Arbitration enforcement. You were sanctioned because you edit warred extensively. Irrespective of the merits of your edits, you should not have used the undo function anywhere near as often as you did. AGK12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem. According to the policy of NPOV in the geo-articles in disputed territories should be mentioned both POV. So You've tried to delete one of them and I've reverted Your edit as it was not neutral. --Ліонкінг (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
The article is not about disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Your edit would be correct if the article was about the town Agdam itself. For example there is the article Shushi (province) and no Azerbaijani name is mentioned there. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, the article about Agdam district. As I know partly it is under control of Azerbaijan, while the biggest part (including Agdam city) is under the control of NKR. But I can agree with You that it will be normal if the articles about districts of NKR don't contain Azeri names and the articles about Azeri districts don't contain Armenian names. So as a compromise I'll revert my edit. But there are other problem, about population. Before the conflict there were an official census in USSR, so I added the official info with link. I think You can agree with me that the population of Agdam district can not increase in 4 years in 25%, so we should use pre-conflict sourced information, not estimate data's. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
We can show both of the figures with correct attribution. The official information from Azerbaijani authorities is important too. Comparison of these two figures is not our job but the job of the sources. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
And another point is that the terriory of Agdam rayon in 1989 may differ from the territory of the present day Agdam rayon. Do you have ane sources comparing them? --Quantum666 (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
But I it is impossible to have a growth of the population in 25% for 4 years. Compare: in 1989: 131,293 inhabitans according to the neutral all-Soviet official census and in 1993: 158,900 (!) according to the unknown Azeri source. I'm sure that we shouldn't mislead the reader as the second data is very doubtful, it is unavaible to have such growth in theory and in practice. --Ліонкінг (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
3 points:
1. The terriory of Agdam rayon in 1989 may differ from the territory of the 1993 year Agdam rayon so using Soviet census data is not correct.
2. the unknown estimate info (1993) - is the information from the official Azeri site
3. There is no need to explain the high growth rate as we have referenced information. But if you insist I can give you at least two possible reasons:1) Azeri refugees expelled from Armenia settled in Agdam region 2) see p.1. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
As I know a part of the territory of Agdam rayon is under the control of Defence Forces of NKR since 1993. But smaller part is under the control of NAA. According to the administrative division of NKR Agdam rayon was included to the Martakert, Askeran and Martuni rayons, so according the legislation of NKR there are no Agdam rayon. However a smaller part (without administrative center) is under the control of Azeri forces, A) there were no any changes of the territory of rayon according to the legislation of Azerbaijan; B) in the smaller territory cannot live in 25% more people than in the whole territory; and finally C) Azerbaijan just try to falsificate the real number of refugees, so after 4 years from the census the have added 20-30% of population to all regions which they have lost; D) speaking about refugees from Armenia - they would not choose a region where is a war, they will choose more unmilitary region, the population of the territory where are active military actions can't have a growth in 25% of population, so in this way Azerbaijan count refugees from Armenia and then add this number of refugees, saying that they are also from Armenia (so they count the same refugees twice); E) The information from the official Azeri site must links to something and be proved. The information from the neutral site demoskope.ru was taken from the official all-Soviet census in 1989. As there were no any census in Azerbaijan in 1993 this information can't be used. --Ліонкінг (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
A)"there were no any changes of the territory of rayon according to the legislation of Azerbaijan" - I'm not shure. Do you have any sources to confirm this supposition?
B)"in the smaller territory cannot live in 25% more people than in the whole territory" - it seems to be a reasonable idea but which figures did you compare? Unfortunately you cannot compare figures of 1989 and 1993 as figures of one date
C and D - it's only your opinion. Any sources (reliable of course) with the same opinion are welcome.
B) There can't be an increase of population in a quart for 4 years in a region with military activity.
C, D) I can make a compare of the data of the official all-Soviet census in 1989 from the neutral site and the site of Azerbaijani Minister.
E) The official site just represent the information from other source. I want to know this source. As I know there were no any census in 1993, so this data is unconfirmed. As a compare I can say that the population of Shahumian rayon before its occupation was a million residents and I will give a link to the official Armenian web-site. But there were a census which can refute it. --Ліонкінг (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
First of all your edit contraverses your own words "I can agree with You that it will be normal if the articles about districts of NKR don't contain Azeri names and the articles about Azeri districts don't contain Armenian names." Please define your exact position, wikipedia is not a market to bargain about edits.
A) It's not my job to confirm the equality of Agdam rayon in Azerbaijanian SSR and Agdam rayon in post-Soviet Azerbaijan because I see no need to replace the information about the population. As a compromise I have already offered to insert both of the figures.
A) As I know, Azerbaijan controls a smaller part of the rayon. Since the collapce of the USSR there were one census in Azerbaijan. If this census gives a real info about the population of Azeri-controlled part of the Agdam rayon, we can mention two sources: of the Soviet census in 1989 and the new census which was in the Azerbaijan. But only if this data is not doubtful.
B) It's just common sense. It is as obvious as the fact that during the Second World War the country in which the battle took place the population declined, not increased.
C) Of the census in 1989 and unsourceful info in 1993.
D) In such way if any official Armenian web-site mention that the population of occupied Armenian village was a million You'll also say that it is a normal source and no need to confirm it from any datas from census? It's seems to me that You try to use double standards. While it is unlogical but You like it - there are no problem.
P.S. we're discussing now and if You disagree with my edits we should have a final decision, because I've proposed such compromise, but You disagreed. So I've proposed a new compromise (look p. "F"). And in future please try to avoid such phrases as "wikipedia is not a market to bargain about edits". I am not the seller from the market, so try to be more tolerant as You have insulted me. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
A)But ther is still a problem about equality of territories of Agdam rayon in Azerbaijan SSR and in present day Azerbaijan. So before mentioning 1989 census we must find sources to confirm the equality.
B) once again OR
C) you cannot compare them as they are for different dates and possibly different territories
D) Can you give me an example of my "double standards"? Such wording really insults me. I hope you will not use it anymore.
Market/compromise: OK. I will not use this word. But it seems that you are trying to exchange edits, that have no relation with each other. So I cannot call it "compromise". And you haven't answered my question about defining your position. If you don't have any arguements I see no reason to leave Armenian name for Azerbaijani rayon. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
We can mention only reliable sources. So I see the solving of the problem in the next way: 1) Mentioning of the results of the official census in 1989 and mentioning the results of the census in 1999, while Azerbaijan controls a part of the territory. All other info except the official censuses are OR or even falsifications.
It is the same if I say that You're a wikipedian. It isn't sourced by any reliable source, but it is true. Also we can't say that white is black.
Before the 1993 there were a similar territory, but as I have already mentioned the population can't naturally increase in a quart for few years. It is impossible and unlogical. There are no need to confirm an info which is understandable for everybody.
No problem. You full a template to the administrative division of NKR that they are violating NPOV, while about the old soviet rayons which wants to control Azerbaijan You don't full such template. But it is not a plot of discussion, so we shouldn't waste a lot of time on it.
Are we editing one article? So as I understand we try to find compromise. Before the final compromise we shouldn't edit the current version of the article. The most important argument is that the territory mostly controls by the Republic of Mountainous Karabakh. And as You know, the official language there is Armenian. But I repeat that if we reach the final compromise I don't think that Armenian name there is a principal. Wishes, --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
The official site of Azerbaijani authorities is a reliable source to represent their opinion.
You haven't shown any source confirming equality of territories of the rayon in Azerbaijan SSR and in Azerbaijan Republic.
We are editing differnt things. One is about name and another is about population. Don't try to axchange them. It is not a compromise. The only important thing is Wikipedia principles.
The article is not about the disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Since Armenian is not the official language Armenian name has to be removed.--Quantum666 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
As I see You only hear what I've said. You should listen what I've said. I've mentioned about everything You've wrote in the last answer. If You have a will You can read it higher. If You do not have a will, I'm not going to listen Your old arguments which You're repeating. If You have some new arguments, You are welcome to give them. According to Your answers I don't see them, You just repeat the same position and don't want to move the process. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately you haven't answered any of my arguements. Don't try to use allegations against me instead of arguements abot the matter.
I write you once again: The article is not about the disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Since Armenian is not the official language Armenian name has to be removed. Armenian name is to stay in Agdam article as it is about the disputed town but not about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please, stop playing words. Reverting my edits means adding new photos which were not in the original version. You know the WP:CONSENSUS very well and you know that if the edit was reverted it must be discussed before making it again. I wrote my disagreements in the comment so please discuss before returning those photos to the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Request for mediation concerning Martuni (town), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
Thanks. I'm not going to take part here as English chapter became a propogandist web-site with full chaos where everybody can move any political agitation. I'll try to avoid participation in Enwiki. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ліонкінг! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Ліонкінг. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Ліонкінг. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Ліонкінг. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Ліонкінг. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. I consider that it should be clear enough, but if not, sure I will be glad to explain. It was mentioned in the article that Mr. Pedro Agramunt who was the President of PACE made a statement in support of Azerbaijani side: "He also called for the withdrawal of all Armenian armed troops from occupied Azerbaijani territories in compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions". The same time, Mr. Pedro Agrument was mentioned to be benefiting from Azerbaijani scheme of money laundering. Furthermore, he played a key role in rigging various votes at PACE in favour of Azerbaijan as stated at the "report entitled “The Azerbaijani Laundromat” published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project as result of an investigative journalism". To sum up, according to reliable organisation, Mr. Pedro Agrument was receiving benefits from Azerbaijan and played a key role in votes at PACE in favour of Azerbaijan. For additional information about the corruption cases of the Mr. Pedro Agrument and his ties with Azerbaijan you can read at the article Pedro Agramunt and following the link at Transparency International of the article used as a reference. --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think Mr. Agrument's political views and activity is completely irrelevant to the fighting. We can stretch this topic to further to include Minsk Group Co-Chairs' activities in favor of Armenia, going further down their connections, as well as other persons' connections to warring sides, which will lead this article completely into the chaos. You can create a separate article about each politician and write about their connections to warring sides there. --Verman1 (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's difficult to agree with you. The article includes the section International_reactions where a Head of the PACE has made a statement in favour of Azerbaijan, and later on, has been revealed by Transparency International that he was benefiting from Azerbaijan, and he was a key person in other decisions made by PACE in favour of Azerbaijan. And, I disagree with your opinion regarding the bias of the Minsk Group's Co-Chairs, since they have made a neutral statement and none of the Chairs has been accused by Transparency International, or any other reliable organisation in benefiting from Armenia. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You haven't answered my question. How PACE official's connection with Azerbaijan is related to this fighting? Do you have a valid proof and source proving that this connection is explicitly related to this fighting? --Verman1 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dear Verman1, please avoid expressions that I didn't answered to your question. I understand that you would like to remove the sentence due to political reasons, but the amendment to the article was clear enough and I've provided a broad answer to your question, which I believe didn't require additional explanation, but I've provided it to you. If you still believe that the quotation that the Head of PACE who according to Transparency International has been benefiting from Azerbaijan and has been playing a key role in making decisions in favour of Azerbaijan at PACE should be removed from the section where he made a political statement on behalf of PACE in favour of Azerbaijan, you can refer for meditation. Thank you. --Ліонкінг (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. Is your addition to the article related to the clashes in any way? Is there any proof or evidence supporting your claim? Please don't accuse me in having any political agenda without having any evidence. I am far from this. If you can provide a proof that your addition is related to the clashes, I'll cease this discussion. --Verman1 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Apart from the Artsakh University, there is no other article that is on Wikipedia. Hence, there is no actual "list" here. It's just a bunch of red links and one link to an existing article. Also, Republic of Artsakh has been disolved (de facto), and there cannot be universities in a non-existing state.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:Ua-pop-est2019 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
