User talk:Divot

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --KoberTalk 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Way...: http://amkob113.narod.ru/ > http://amkob113.narod.ru/gkr/

Alexander M. Kobrinsky's Library / 80.230.8.39 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

AA2
Please be aware of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 before further reverts. Thanks. Brandmeister[t] 17:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hi. Please see this report at WP:AE. Thanks. Grand master  08:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring; placed on notice of sanctions
Further to this Arbitration enforcement thread, you are blocked for 55 hours for edit warring (evidencing diffs: ). Furthermore, you are notified of the discretionary sanctions provisions of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (AA) arbitration case:

In future, please take care to edit constructively on contested topic areas. When in disagreement with an editor over an aspect of article content, take the dispute to the talk page or to dispute resolution; do not use the revert function to repeatedly force through your preferred version of the page. If you need guidance or assistance in the course of editing the AA topic area, you are welcome to message my talk page or send me an e-mail; I will happily assist users who seek help when confronted, instead of blindly reverting.

Regards, AGK   12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my English.

The fact is there is no independent media, which would be writing about adopted a document of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts (see JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE. Thursday, February 25, 2010 discussion and commentary. If Massachusetts takes a political decision, it must be published in the American media. Moreover, it is an international document. But the opponents were returned information with reference to the Azerbaijani media
 * 1) Brandmeister, , , ,
 * 2) Grandmaster, ,
 * 3) John Vandenberg

They do not want to understand that about the official document adopted by Massachusetts are required to report American media, not the Azerbaijani newspaper.

When I put the information that this only view of Azerbaijani media, and on the website of Massachusetts there is nothing about this, they began to roll back this information (John Vandenberg, Grandmaster  )

Thus, against me were three participants from Azerbaijan, including Grandmaster, who tried to present clearly dubious point of view. In this case I refer to the official website of Massachusetts, and they are on some Azeri media. Divot (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded to you at User talk:AGK. AGK   00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your filing at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
The request that you filed there is improper. You're trying to find another forum to back you up after your initial complaints were rejected elsewhere, and that's improper behavior. It's called forum shopping.

I strongly urge you to strike out or retract that filing. If you keep pushing this point, you are putting yourself in jeopardy of being sanctioned again. You were wrong under Wikipedia policy in the first place. Complaining to more people about being held responsible for your actions is not going to change that you were wrong.

Please stop this.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly
You are welcome to join the thread at Talk:Khojaly Massacre, concerning new edits. Brandmeistertalk  18:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on Khojaly Massacre
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Khojaly Massacre.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Khojaly Massacre or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your work, I really appreciate it. Keep it up! -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" at Georgian alphabet
Hi. Regarding the edit summary on your [ recent edit] on the Georgian alphabet article, please remember that there is a difference between vandalism and edit warring. Quoting from the vandalism policy: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."  In this case, I believe it is far more likely that we have a content dispute bordering on an edit war, but not vandalism. That doesn't make what the other editor is doing right (and he's been warned on his talk page to stop it), but we all need to be careful to draw a distinction here and reserve the term "vandalism" for true vandalism. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see, thanks. Divot (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gregory and Leo V
. Divot (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello I am a new user and I saw a grave falsification of history in Azerbaijan page, particularly in history section, we need to fix this as it wrongfully says "In the 2nd century BC, between the years 189 BC and 428 AD the western half of modern Azerbaijan, including the regions of Artsakh, Utik, Syunik, Vaspurakan and Paytakaran, was conquered from Medes by the Kingdom of Greater Armenia"

not only they twisted the fact that all those provinces were part of kingdom of Armenia at that time, they also included Syunik, Vaspurakan which has never ever been under Caucasian Albanian rule! Harutyun Cilician (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harutyun Cilician (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Falsification of history
Make a post at Deletion_review asking for the deletion to be reviewed. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * before you do that, read the long comment on my talk p.: I advise you to try a revised article--the current one may pass deletion review, but it will not pass AfD .  DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Obitauri
Divot, I appreciate the problem you are having with this user but edits like this one aren't really helpful. Obitauri's comment was a silly personal attack and there is no need to respond to it - doing so only prolongs the argument. It would be better if you stayed off Obitauri's talk page because plenty of others are watching it now, and your presence is only likely to inflame things further. It will take some restraint on your part, but if you can demonstrate that you are being ultra-civil and co-operative then it looks all the better for you next time there is a discussion at AN/I or elsewhere. Give Obitauri enough rope and if he continues he will hang himself without your intervention. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  17:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Kim. Concentrate on article content and collaboration, not on personality conflicts.  Don't allow yourself to be dragged into another edit war — either by Obitauri (when his block expires) or by anyone else.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bloody label on armenians from Ren TV (russian channel)

 * Sorry for one more disturbing you..As I have mentionned in russian wiki RNT bloody labeld arminians by blaming that there's some secret (totally imaginary one!!!) sect "древнепоклонники" (russian) who commit human sacrafices and so on..as it's common for bloody labeling for the jew, for armenians, irish ones and so on..It's been second time of assuming that's some imaginary sect (financed by England secret services with mentionning of Churchhill ) does exist in armenian mountains and commit human sacrafices and even influence on world politics.Also there're slander that Lady Di could be killed for informing on this cect. I am really scared with such lies and mentionning armenians. All bloody labeling ae crimes agains the humanity and could be followed by pogroms and so on. I ask you and pray you take a heed againts similar RTV channel actions. I think they should apologuise before armenians for this atrocities and bloody labels..Twice. I cannot keep mum being overlived soviet Baku pogroms dating 1990.Date: 25 september 2013 ("Роковая Любовь") an evening  with innocent beginning . Please don't underestimate my info. I think we could mention this action if we have sources.Gaulish 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Azerbaijan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to let you know that the DRN case is open and awaits your comments if you'd like to participate. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet problems
Hi. Regarding the vandalism / edit-warring at Georgian alphabet involving, I would recommend you stop trying to revert him for now, and instead let admins handle the problem. Although reverting of obvious vandalism is technically exempt from the edit-warring / 3RR rules — and Wikiuser224-0-0-9's repeated unexplained deletion of a large block of text from the article appears to me to fall into the "obvious vandalism" category — there is always the possibility that others might not see it that way. Better, in a situation like this, to take it to WP:ANI or WP:EW. If you don't have the time or aren't confident in your experience to do this yourself, I'll check back in a couple of hours and file a report. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Divot (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN for Khojaly infobox
Hello, you participated in the discussions on the talk page of the Khojaly massacre article. Grandmaster was attempting to change the estimated number of casualties in the infobox by using a speculative figure guessed by a member of HRW in the pertinent documents on a footnote on page 24. I believe everyone in the discussion besides Grandmaster agreed that the infobox should remain as is, without the speculative figure (especially since it is already in the body of the article). Please join us at "Khojaly Massacre" to help facilitate a resolution. Thank you. --Urartu TH (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreement to mediation
Would you be able to signify here whether, or not, you agree to participate in this mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev - section of Accusations of Corruption
Dear Divot, you reverted several edits I made on this page. I would like to discuss several points/rules I adhered while making my edits and hope our discussion will contribute to objectivity of article and winning of Wikipedia principles and laws. First point is on the subject of sub-paragraph which changed the allegations of corruption to accusations of corruption. I guess here native English speaking admins or higher status community could intervene. We should draw a line between the term “accusation” and the word “allegation.” Accusation is the formal charge that is made in court where a person is guilty of an offence that is punishable (Black's Law Dictionary). It’s a legal term and mostly used in legal proceedings. There is no any judgment of a domestic or international court, which deals with the allegations of corruption against Ilham Aliyev. For this reason, the term “accusation” has no relevance in this context and should be replaced with the word “allegation.” Source materials also indicate that these info and materials are allegations. Kingedik (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev
I've answered your request for a third opinion on this page. Please review the offered opinion and let me know if there's anything else I could help with! Operator873 CONNECT 23:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)