User talk:Lia Palavandishvili

Nomination of Lordkipanidze Law of Economic Competition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lordkipanidze Law of Economic Competition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordkipanidze Law of Economic Competition until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alæxis_¿question? 11:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the AfD message to the top of this article -please do not remove it again, that will not stop the deletion discussion. You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordkipanidze Law of Economic Competition, but read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. The issue will be whether this subject meets Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lordkipanidze Theory of Competitive Equilibrium for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lordkipanidze Theory of Competitive Equilibrium is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordkipanidze Theory of Competitive Equilibrium until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alæxis_¿question? 11:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also restored the AfD template to the top of this article; and I have moved the comments you wrote on the talk page of the deletion debate to the discussion page itself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordkipanidze Theory of Competitive Equilibrium, which is the right place for them. As with the other page, the issue for discussion is whether there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish WP:Notability for this theory. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Religious base of economic growth

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Religious base of economic growth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EuroCarGT 10:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Religious base of economic growth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Supply

Revaz Lordkipanidze (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lia Palavandishvili. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

I pray for You sincerely and wish You all the best in 2018...

Hello, Lia Palavandishvili. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Revaz Lordkipanidze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Revaz Lordkipanidze is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revaz Lordkipanidze until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Revaz Lordkipanidze, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Revaz Lordkipanidze. Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blocking you, I will re-state you CANNOT remove the AFD tag from a page currently nominated for deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, excuse us, we did not know: we conducted essential revision and respectfully thought that it was possible to remove - we explained that we are always waiting for Your High opinions. LiaPalavandishvili (talk)

Please note that Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use only who is "we" ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

PLEASE read WP:REFB for help with referencing on Revaz Lordkipanidze the article is a huge mess of incorrectly formatted sources which makes it difficult to read. Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lia Palavandishvili. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lia Palavandishvili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

We pray sincerely wish You only all the best to Wikipedia and all You permanently. If we had mistakes, we will improve our articles...

Please help us to restore the page - we do not have such a recovery experience.