| Revision as of 17:37, 8 July 2013 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →Complaint that you are violating your topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 8 July 2013 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →Complaint that you are violating your topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan: 1 monthNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Hello NovaSkola. Please see ]. Your most recent appeal of the ban was declined, yet here you are again. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, ] (]) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | Hello NovaSkola. Please see ]. Your most recent appeal of the ban was declined, yet here you are again. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, ] (]) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce an ] decision, ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''1 month'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a ] "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> Per the discussion at ]. You are currently banned from the topic of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, but on July 7 you created an article about a book, ], which is about the conflict. This is not your first block for violating the topic ban. It is hard to see why you would create this article if you were paying any attention to your restriction. You don't seem able to edit within its limitations, so a block seems to be needed to avoid further turmoil in the topic area. See ]. ] (]) 20:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 8 July 2013
 Archives |
References
Futbol articli yazanda, coxlu reference ele, yoxsa sonra senin articllerini pozacaqlar, ve yazdiqin shey puc olacaq.--NovaSkola (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Reference"siz o qədər maddələr var ki... Amma silmək lazım gələndə birinci növbədə bizim məqalələrə hücium çəkirlər. Neftchi Baku PFK in European football məqaləsinin nəyi pisdir ki? Boşu-boşuna özlərini əziyyətə salıb əməyimizi hədər edirlər... --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli 11:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- O me'nada basha dusurem amma her halda, referatsiz onlarin daha cox huququ olur. --NovaSkola (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Baxiş
Salam, mən ihtimalən biraz müddət online olmiyam, bir iki üç-dənə istifadəçi Azərbycan Xalqinin məqaləsində Türk Xalqi dəyiştirmə isteylər ""Türk danişan Xalqina"" Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard##Azerbaijani people--orda çoxlar xoşbəxt olaram ki sizdə olan İstinadlari göstərəsiz.–uğurlar--Samək 13:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shamkir FK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champions League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Complaint that you are violating your topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan
Hello NovaSkola. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Violation. Your most recent appeal of the ban was declined, yet here you are again. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
To enforce an arbitration decision,
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Per the discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Violation. You are currently banned from the topic of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, but on July 7 you created an article about a book, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, which is about the conflict. This is not your first block for violating the topic ban. It is hard to see why you would create this article if you were paying any attention to your restriction. You don't seem able to edit within its limitations, so a block seems to be needed to avoid further turmoil in the topic area. See WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)