User talk:Xebulon

)

Lavash

Hello, could you please explain your edit? --Quantum666 (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is your second and final warning for edit warring on Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. [1] --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Shusha. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Please do not lecture me on issues you apparently are not qualified to judge. All sources I ever used are verified and reliable. Thank you. Xebulon (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xebulon, you're really pushing it towards sanctions. Please stop POV edits and your edit warring. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Xebulon - Firstly, you were not lectured you were given a standardised template message. Secondly, the notion of verifiability applies to content not to sources. Thirdly, whilst you may be using reliable sources to verify your content you failed to cite it properly using an inline citation. Based on that I suggest it is you that suffers from WP:NOCLUE not I. That is all Pol430 talk to me 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hello, Xebulon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank's

Thank's Xebulon for reverting my edits!Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Hello, please see this report [2] Tuscumbia (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. While I'm not necessarily implying you've yet risen to this level, I do see some edit warring and civility issues in your recent past. As such, this is a reminder to please pay attention to general civility and WP:BRD guidelines. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, please see this report [3]. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement topic ban

In enforcement and application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, you are topic-banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan, including notably any conflicts with other countries or peoples, as defined at WP:TBAN. Your ban lasts for three months. The reasons for the ban are explained in this AE thread. Sandstein 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for harrassment and other edits in violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Sandstein 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited 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. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

At [4], you accused - in an inflammatory and harrassing manner, and without providing any evidence - another user of misconduct in the context of the area of conflict you are topic-banned from, and at [5] you posted a message that Google Translate renders as "Your opinion / support to the Caucasian Albania page: Find this page and help, Thank you", both in violation of your topic ban. You are therefore blocked in enforcement of your topic ban, and the topic ban is reset to begin anew as of this message. Sandstein 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban extended

Considering that Checkuser confirms that you have used a sockpuppet, Sarmatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to evade your topic ban, I am extending the duration of your topic ban to indefinite. You may appeal to have it lifted after six months of unproblematic productive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for repeated sockpuppeting, it's now an indefinite block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]