User talk:Turalhemidli

Welcome!

Hello, Turalhemidli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Avicenna. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh War

Stop adding those ridiculous claims. You are not even adding sources to them. Lezgin and Talysh did not help Armenia, neither did Iran and the US. Look at the talk page as this has been discussed previously. If you don't stop i will report you to the admins. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia neutral encyclopedia but not Armenian, have a source,you have no right delete my source Turalhemidli (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to the admin for your addition that lacks sources and for edit warring. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok Turalhemidli (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Nagorno-Karabakh War, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry, mouse slipped. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Dougweller Since when writing the truth is called vandalism? If encyclopedia Wikipedia neutral you should protect this image Turalhemidli 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't understand the function of the conflict infobox, or the meaning of belligerent. To be included as a belligerent the country or group has to have fighters on the ground that are actually involved in the war. The sources you are using to justify the insertion of Iran, and so on, state no such thing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh War is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield I have no words, I live in Azerbaijan, I know who seconded the Azerbaijani army, I wrote to the Minister of Defence. And you have removed all of my writing. Turalhemidli (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is indeed that you have no words. You have placed no words on the article's talk page. If you had discussed your proposed edits first on the talk page, that might have avoided the edit warring. Your 3 additions to the list of belligerents was completely unsupported by the sources you cited. They had to be removed for that reason. If there are in sources variations in fighter numbers you do not just delete one sourced figure and replace it with another sourced figure. If both figures are in reliable sources, then BOTH figures can be placed in the infobox - many other conflict infoboxes do this. Because you deleted a sourced figure and replaced it with an undiscussed figure, I reverted that part of your edit too. You MUST discuss these things on the talk page. If your figures are in credible sources then they will eventually, after discussion, be OK for the infobox. Same for the named person in the Azeri army. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Your recent editing history at Nagorno-Karabakh War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kramatorsk railway station attack. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I see that you have made the same tendentious edits on the Mariupol theatre article and here. Please stop. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]