User talk:Agulani

Hallo Agulani,
I noticed your edit on Hyrudagon page, whom I warned one hour ago. Please move it on his talk page (you wrote it on his user page, which is wrong) and then sign it with the four tildes. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex, Thank you very much and i'm sorry for this. i will do it asap

Thank you very much for the barnstar! :) I agree about Hyrudagon, feel free to proceed and report him and I will back you up. EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EkoGraf, I already reported him for vandalism. Much appreciation for the support and actions against vandalism.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --Hyrudagon (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Agulani
removing such templates from the talk page is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not considered well by administrators. Moreover, I think that it is childish, because the warning remains in the Talk page history, and this means that it is still visible. I think that the dispute resolution noticeboard is worth a try in your case. Consider also that editors of many articles about Armenia and Azerbaijan are subjected to discretionary sanctions, i.e. an admin can block him/her or forbide him/her to edit this subject without going to a board. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Agulani, one important thing: in your request you cannot write that you are backed (or contrasted) by other users, since this will bring the automatic rejection of your request. The dispute must take place between TWO users (and this was actually the case), in order to be considered by this board. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that referring to it as "Artsakh" instead of "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a bit odd, I am firmly in the camp that we don't need to remind readers every. single. time. that Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned that the NKR is unrecognized. While I am assuming that when they say "Artsakh" they mean either "Nagorno-Karabakh" or the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", the terms are not completely interchangeable, since I don't know if they're referring to the informal Armenian name for NK, or the region that is part of NK and the NKR, etc. Therefore, it seems best to simply go with what the source says. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a source for that sentence, so there's the original sin. --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Agulani. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! -24^Talk 23:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you added a wrong number here that was not supported by the source [1]. You added "70,000" while the source says "120,000". I have corrected it for you now. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karabakh carpet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read my note on its talk page about the rename. The same pair of editors have been doing quite a lot of article renaming that appear very pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rufet Quliyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kyiv State University. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the source you cited, the figure of 50 estimated dead includes the missing (which we have already listed separately). The CONFIRMED number of dead is 32. Putting the figure of 50 (which includes the missing), beside the missing number is double-counting. 7 dead volunteers claim is out-dated, newer sources (by a full day) clarify its 5 dead. EkoGraf (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 are 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. EkoGraf (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agulani, i just want to say i agree with you 100% that most Wikipedia editors are biased for Armenia and the border clash article is completely pro-Armenian. Sadly their are not too many people like us on Wikipedia. I am just thinking of most viewers reading this and having a completely different perception of Azerbaijan, which editors go out of their way to make the villain. Cozy00 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, i worked hard last year to bring some neutrality the achievement was limited due to massive pro-armenian agenda on wikipedia and relatively low activity from Azerbaijani side, 3-4 month of effortlessly working on some basic articles to prove that f.e. Papkha is actually an Azeri Turkic name is all in vain because even after proving it, gets edited by some random armenian dude. I'm trying to mobilize some activity among our segment but at least if editors kept neutrality it would be good so far its a big mess and few edits cant stop it!Agulani (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the Western media is almost entirely pro-Armenian due to the fact that the country is largely Christian, so many of these sources are from the western media. If you go on aljazeera they at least give you a different perspective. Im not Azeri but I support any Muslim brother country that is attacked. Even a secular state like Azerbaijan. I have a question for you. Since you are Azeri (It says so on your user page) don't you think your government should just launch a massive operation to retake the disputed land. It is perfectly OK since the Karrabkh or however it is in the native language is a part of Azerbaijan on the map.Cozy00 (talk) 20:70, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry got again busy with Dogging Armenian claims as usual, I would argue Al Jazzera actually is very pro-Armenian maybe even more than CNN, I actually live in Doha and most of the foreign news editions concerning Caucasus are in hands of Lebanese Armenians, so its sad that even we get less support from Muslim originated sources. Regarding Massive scale operation in my opinion it would lead to major death toll on both sides, plus to ruining of economy and tourism perspectives, with this 4 day war Azerbaijan showed that it can take the lands back so it now gives us a very good edge in diplomacy. Lets see how things progress but thanks for the support its very vital that we do our best to keep the place neutral Agulani (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Agulani, I proposed a solution here [2]. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Yayhya, Yes i saw your solution, I jsut wish editors keep the neutral agenda rather than succumbing to Armenian mass editions of articles where they shove everything from "genocide" to kim kardashian. Agulani (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will be forced to adopt it, or else they will never find rest. :)

What is reported in the link provided by Abbatai is a known problem of conflicts involving borders. Civilians are prevented to circulate in the affected area's because they are taken hostages by those higher in the hierarchy. In situations like that vacating is considered as synonymous to admit defeat. This human behavior was observed in every single territorial conflict reported as far as recorded history.

The main problem is that the largest physically stable territorial division is a city because it is directly reachable and therefor tangible by its inhabitants. The larger divisions (provinces and countries) are instable systems relying on arbitrary constructs (per analogy to the instable heavier elements in the periodical table) for their survival. There is a solution for managing the higher divisions. In this case particularly because of the differences in the view of what constitute a nationstate for an Azerbaijani and an Armenian, the solution is known, but neither sides government (in contrast to the people) have the intention to accept them.

For now, I am preparing a long reply to justify upcoming edits on the Isra and Mi'raj article, which patently suffers Western bias, but once dealing with that, I will present you a solution neither side could refuse. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia neutral! :) Azerbaichan (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is not whos source it is. Problem is you don't add the sources to the article when you make your edit. So unsourced edits can be reverted at any time. With the sources you provided me I will make the changes now. EkoGraf (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. PS Your input here would be appreciated. GreyShark pinged you earlier but you seem to have missed it. EkoGraf (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I do understand my skills have gotten rusty and sometimes i forget how to source probably) will try to involve myself more. Thanks again for help Agulani (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In future please avoid of such [3] and such [4] comments (read WP:CIVIL). I suggest you to strike out the offensive comments and apologize. Thank you. OptimusView (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sallaam brother. Do yourself a favor honest to God🌚.please visit my page if you wish👍🏻---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrenadierSoldi3rsKill — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrenadierSoldi3rsKill (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agulani. 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]

Hello, Agulani. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agulani. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azerbaijani rugs. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]