User talk:Unible

Edit warnings

I honestly couldn't care less for your reasons for removing the relevant Armenian material from these articles but, frankly, I'm sick of the manner in which you carry them out. You've hid behind your university's IPs long enough, and that's an offense which is sanctionable on Wikipedia. I'm getting in the habit of issuing these warnings to users but let this just serve as a reminder that by engaging in revert wars (e.g., your most recent reverts on the Bitlis and edit warring on the Igdir page) related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, you are subject to the general restrictions of the arbitration case as specified here Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. You can be blocked for reverting any article a total of three times in a 24H period, but now, should you revert an article related to Armenia or Azerbaijan more than once in a week, the same restrictions will apply. This is the last time I'm going to issue a warning - if after all this time you still cannot discuss your - legitimate - beef on the talk pages of articles, then I'm really wasting my breath. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom filing

Please see this filing on the ArbCom Enforcement page regarding your latest edits.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable?

I prefer to carry on with this here, as this is an editorial issue, and as such not linked to the ArbCom filing. Your "reasonable" is not reasonable at all: a conclusion on the relevance of an alternative name in an article is only valid for that article. Each article has its specificities, and that relevance has to be assessed according to these specificities. In other words, the relevance of the Armenian name of Igdir does not per se imply the relevance of the Ottoman name of Yerevan; each has to be assessed on its own. Sardur (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the articles should be edited in the accordance WP:NC. Thats it. Relevance criteria is outlined in WP:NC page.Unible 21:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I wrote: relevance yes, but the assessment of relevance depends on each article. Sardur (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. Citing WP:NC :Relevant - "one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"

OK, let's take a stupid example:

city X was included in country Y for 5 centuries, and nationals from that country lived in that city during these centuries
city Z was included in country W for 50 years, and nationals from that country lived in that city during these 50 years

Don't you see the difference there will be as for the relevance of alternative names? Sardur (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NC no difference. That why I think they should be moved to Etymology and/or history section.Unible 09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You may wish to comment here: [1] Regards, Grandmaster 08:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]