Tuscumbia

I rewrote some of the words in Gryazovets—Vyborg gas pipeline so that it isn't a copyright violation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :-)

Are you sure this edit is neutral? The wording "Preempting gas supplies for possible use for Nabucco pipeline is another way of preventing the project from successful completion" seems bad — imagine if someone inserted "another way of preventing the project from completion is to make claims about environmental impact" to Nord Stream. I'm sure that would be reverted on neutrality grounds. Recently an agenda-based account (User:Gazpr) made some pretty outrageous edits in energy articles. Although most of your edits are good, I have a slight problem with some of your edits as well. Please remember to be neutral as possible. Offliner (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I made the edit based on many articles, sort of an analysis. I do believe this is a big part of Russian energy politics vis-a-vis Europe and the West, as much as getting or White Stream work is energy politics of the West vis-a-vis Russia, or rather dependence on Russia, but I do agree that it might have sounded a bit biased. I did make some corrections. Do you mind taking a look? Tuscumbia 14:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Naftoport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia,
This article has IMHO gone downhill real quick. I was working on it before midnight (local) and it is now ≈4:20 AM. I have never been so pissed. I mean editors come in and arbritrarily delete whole paragraphs without any discussion. Is that the way it's supposed to work here? I dont think so! Too many 'cooks'! You may find more useable (deleted) material in Espoo. There is a now lot of redundant material in the 'Suspect' section since someone merged stuff from the deleted Shkupolli article. All yours now, I'm gonna get pissed, or try to, as I said I am already 'pissed' off! Hope you have a better New Year than I have had!   '--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! You're right about the current event article being edited real quick but it doesn't mean it's going downhill. That's what Wikipedia is all about - editing based on sources. Whatever I added was sourced material from primary news agencies. However I did not move or delete any sections or whole paragraphs as you claim. I only added a new section on Allegations and sourced material to the Suspect section. So, no reason to get pissed off. I am not pissed off at those who edited my edits a minute after. Happy New Year and cheer up! After all, we're all glad to be alive and smaller disappointments online should not ruin your holidays. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

NO mate, I didn't mean YOU!.  I was cool with you. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. It was other people who just appeared out of nowhere, and IMHO stuffed it up (then, it's a lot better, now 2+ hours later) I mean one 'guy' swanned in and all he did was change Suspect heading to Pepetrator, which is very POV. Another 'guy' pulls up, deletes a whole para as 'redundant' (didn't agree) and then goes away. I mean if it's someone with thousands of edits to their credit, but not so here. VERY frustrating.   AND I am VERY tired. Supposed to go somewhere tomorrow morning too, (in <≈5 hours!) only told at short notice yesterday, blah blah, whinge whinge, yada yada. I am on the other side of the world from you, probably. The Sun IS coming up, now!(and those damned noisy birds are starting up! Cna't win) NO, no problem with you at all! Oh, the shooting was reported on 5 AM news here in Sydney, nothing new to report but. Happy New Year, (bah, humbug) suggest you don't spend it over the keyboard like I did! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

for your kind note. Getting there! Still some more to go, and may take me a day or two, but at least now I think we have the main information in it. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice work starting the mosque page.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in Bryant Neal Vinas as well ... taking a cue from you, I also started the related mosque page (a bit easier, as there were two notable connections there).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a mil. I've never heard of this guy though. I'll make a few minor grammar related edits to that article. Great job with the mosque page :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Happy to be of help. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Grazie! :-) Tuscumbia (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you please check this out [1]?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Marshall. I replied. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Gyda Oil Field. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  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. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia. You reverted my edit to the 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig when you made the next edit to the article. Some of the spelling and grammar mistakes I fixed are still in the article now; please be careful so that you don't undo edits by others in the process of making your own. Thanks, - Gump Stump (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gump Stump. Sorry about that. I must have overlooked them. I'll review and incorporate your changes. Thanks for fixing errors. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's okay, I just redid the edits, along with some more small cleanup. Cheers - Gump Stump (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks a mil. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

-- tariqabjotu 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Ali Mustafayev requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no vandalism. The pages I provided sources for are on Azerbaijani regions which you unsuccessfully try to rename with your nationalistic statements. I think you need to stop your vandalism and assume good faith. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You insert data on the population of regions according to the census of the country, which has no control over this territory and delete my neutral authoritative reference a third country. Moreover, be cautious in future statements such as "puppet government", "nationalistic statements" because of you I no longer expect the assumption of good intentions. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you know when that census data was taken? --Golbez (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do Golbez. Here it is from Statistical committee of Azerbaijan: [2]. Some numbers are higher than those in the "undated" source, some are lower. I think they add the movement of new and old settlers since 1992-93 to the number of last recorded by Azerbaijan before 1993. Remember that Azerbaijani government considers all the old inhabitants its citizens. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

But... how did they count people in an area they aren't allowed in to? This obviously can't be considered a 2009 census of the areas under Karabakhi control. --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

They did not count themselves. Apparenly they use the data from Ministry of National Security which tracks the movement in and out of those regions. They even protested against a mass settlement of incoming ethnic Armenians in Lachin rayon a few years ago. Anyway, they probably add that data to the official count of Azerbaijani census last recorded before the regions were occupied. We can indicate that detail if you like but the data has to come from a legitimate source, that is governmental agency which oversees the population statistics of its country.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that needs to be brought to some form of RFC, if we can use data for a region that the data could not have reasonably be collected from. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess that would work. I understand the data which you tagged as "undated" was also on that website and might still be there with the date (I'll have to research) since it was referred to in on of the articles I saw.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If they did not count, then it is not a census..., you are just admiting the info you have added is not accurate, since a census is an actual counting. It's futile to parallel some statistic being passed as a census to counter an actual census.

Armenian citizens are not allowed into Azerbaijan for private visits, only Armenians citizens invited to attend international events such as sport tournaments and conferences are exempted. Foreign citizens, except those with diplomatic passports, having stamps of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on their passports are also not allowed to enter Azerbaijan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.144.172 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your concern but this is just your opinion. Armenian citizens are allowed into Azerbaijan. Moreover, the current residents living in Karabakh are still formally considered citizens of Azerbaijan by the government of Azerbaijan. Armenian athletes, journalists, politicians, religious leaders, students have repeatedly visited Azerbaijan and do so every year. Whether they are met with suspicion at the airport customs counter or not is a different matter. You do have to be suspicious about citizens of the country which is at war with yours. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not. After years of discussion here, it seems clear that the NKR has annexed the non-NKAO rayons it occupies. It takes the line of control as a border, rather than just a, well, line of control. Lachin, et.al. are all part of the NKR, and have been distributed into provinces of it. --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lachin as well as any de-jure regions are intergral parts of Azerbaijan. Lachin and other 6 regions outside of former NKAO are actually twice are disputable in the context of "NKR" because they had not been claimed by Karabakh Armenians in their petitions. These are territories occupied by force. You don't see an Azerbaijani divisions template in Artsvashen article of Armenia, do you now? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uhm, but if you're going to keep the {NKR} on the former NKAO, then that kind of defeats your argument. The NKR is not the NKAO. And actually, yes, they have been claimed by the NKR, as seen in their own maps, census data, etc. As for Artsvashen, I think that is considered simply occupied rather than annexed, whereas Lachin appears to have been explicitly annexed by the NKR. (What's this about "petititons"? We aren't in 1991 anymore. The Line of Control is a de facto border) Finally, if the NKR didn't claim these areas, then why did they divide them into provinces? Qashatagh, etc? I mean, look at the map on there! Wikipedia's stance seems to be that the NKR has annexed the southwestern corner of Azerbaijan, and is not merely occupying it militarily. (Trivial difference? Hardly. The US occupied Iraq, but it never annexed it) --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

US doesn't occupy or annex Iraq. It's fighting a war on terror and is assisted by Iraqi troops. This is a completely different matter and has no place in the argument. It doesn't matter if the occupied territories are claimed by "NKR" or not. Azerbaijan can claim Yerevan but the article about Yerevan does not include the Azerbaijani divisions template. I have not removed the "NKR" templates from former NKAO cities/districts because they are subject to discussion and consensus. Regions outside of former NKAO are not, regardless if they were divided into "NKR" districts or not. Artsvashen is as much occupied as Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 other regions of Azerbaijan. You simply fail to see the 100% similarity.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure anyone would deny Iraq was occupied by the US prior to local rule being re-established. I used the past-tense for a reason. And you are quite incorrect to say areas outside the former NKAO are not subject to discussion and consensus; everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion and consensus, and the consensus is that the NKR consists of the entire southwestern corner of Azerbaijan, not just the NKAO. If you disagree with this, there are several other articles you should start a crusade on, not to mention getting all of the maps changed. Also, since the NKR doesn't fully control the former NKAO (though claims it), this distinction makes even less sense. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Simple to understand. The sources from the international community define these territories as a part of Azerbaijan. Their proper names, i.e. ones given by the de-jure governing Azerbaijan are to what the international community calls them. Any attempt to rename them based on Armenian sources is an academic violation at the very least. Simple as that. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

How did this suddenly become about names? It was about whether or not Lachin is part of the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, what exactly are you trying to clarify? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your argument was that Lachin is occupied, rather than annexed, by the NKR, but that the former NKAO had a separate status. I'm saying, consensus here is that the whole of the area behind the Line of Control is part of the NKR, they appear to have annexed it and divided it among provinces. The former NKAO no longer has any special meaning when dealing with the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, which makes it twice as illegitimate. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

... That doesn't mean any sense, and appears to have nothing to do with what I wrote. --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

What makes sense is that the territory of Azerbaijan, currently under control of "NKR" is not legitimate, no matter if it's outside of anything. The NKR entity is not a recognized state to be able to "annex" anything, therefore the present status of Lachin is as much under illegitimate control as the rest of the occupied territories. Simple as that. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then is it your position that the former NKAO is also just as much not a part of the NKR as Lachin is? Just seeking a clarification here, since your earlier statements seemed to say that the NKAO was part of the NKR, but Lachin was not. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, thanks for trying to clarify. Not many people do it. In a nutshell, yes, the former NKAO is as much not part of "NKR" entity as Lachin is. What I was referring to in earlier statements was from peculiarities of the conflict. While I do understand the whole notion of self-determination by the Armenian authorities in former NKAO, (even though it was not done on legal grounds), the status of former NKAO as claimed in the beginning of the conflict has been a subject to negotiations. The rest of the territories outside of former NKAO have been directly occupied. So, while I understand the status of NKAO needs to be discussed by both countries, the rest of the occupied territories fall under a different category. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough; now that you've explained, I can understand your position and respect it. It's a valid position, though not one I agree with completely. A few years ago, yes, but I brought the issue up on various talk pages and since then my mind has changed, seeing as how the NKR government appears to be treating the other occupied rayons as part of its country, rather than simply occupied territory. But as you said, the referendum was carried out only in the NKAO, so the legitimacy of the other rayons not being part of Azerbaijan is indeed less than that of the NKAO. I just wish the politicians involved would stow their egos and find a solution, not just for the thousands of innocent people involved, but also for Wikipedia's sanity. (though I doubt it will ever stem the flow of geniuses who think [3] is a valid edit. If I appear to have an Armenian bias, it is for two reasons: One, I have an admitted slight bias towards the people of NK as I have a thing for self-determination, call it a naive American trait, but otherwise I think I'm very neutral on the issue; secondly, the Armenian vandals aren't nearly as annoying as the Azeri ones. :P) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a thing for both self-determination and territorial integrity too and respect the will of people. The problem is that the self-determination in case of NKAO was not done on legal grounds disregarding Soviet and Azerbaijani constitutions and the will of Azerbaijani community of Karabakh. Yes, I dislike vandalism too but as anyone can observe there are a lot more Armenian socks :) Tuscumbia (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's probably true. And as for the legal grounds, that's one of the fundamental issues, isn't it: Did they have the legal right to secede from the Soviet Union? Of course, to an independent observer like myself, the whole thing seems moot, seeing as how the Soviet Union would have died in several weeks regardless of the NKAO's declaration of independence. (And, of course, if Azerbaijan had allowed it to go on its way, the NKR today would be an independent nation consisting perhaps of only the NKAO, rather than an ongoing two-decade belligerency controlling the entire southwest corner of Azerbaijan) --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're rather misinformed about the legal basis of the conflict, Golbez :) Or rather, underinformed. NKAO Supreme Soviet (which consisted mainly of ethnic Armenians) was denied the petition to be transferred to Armenian SSR both by the Azerbaijan SSR and the Supreme Soviet of USSR in 1988. The referendum for secession was held after most of ethnic Azerbaijani community was expelled from NKAO and after Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan SSR voted on declaration of independence. Moreover, according to Azerbaiani SSR constitution and that of independent Azerbaijan, the local referendums and their results have to be approved by the Azerbaijani government and the overall referendum in Azerbaijan. In other words, the whole country has to approve or veto the referendum results. The independence of "NKR" was also announced in the beginning of 1992, when Azerbaijan has already proclaimed independence in late 1991 and was independent by January 1, 1992. The independence by NKR holds no legal ground since the Constitution of USSR from 1977 and Amendment on secessions from 1990 (which is always misinterpreted) and the Azerbaijani SSR and independent Azerbaijan constitutions have been disregarded. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I think I'm well-informed; I know about wanting to be transferred to the Armenian SSR. My comment was about [as I understand it] NK's assertion that, as an autonomous oblast of the Soviet Union, they had the right to secede, whereas the Azeri stance is that they were an autonomous oblast of the Azeri SSR. One step removed that eliminated the legality of secession. I agree with the Azeris on this one. Basically, the Karabakh separatists recognized the legitimacy of Moscow more than Baku. And from what I understand, the NKAO initially preferred to remain within the USSR, regardless of the AzSSR's independence, but when that was no longer viable, went for independence themselves. The Soviets clearly knew what they were doing by setting some of these areas apart, looking at the issues in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as NK, but they just as clearly didn't have a way of dealing with the issues as the house of cards fell. Finally, one last note: Enclosing "NKR" in quotes as if it's a figment of someone's imagination (though you aren't consistent with that) is not the path to civil discourse. It's nice to be able to have a discussion on a subject without massive subtext in every mention of said subject. The politicians involved may of course wish to always refer to it as the "so-called", "self-proclaimed" "NKR" at every mention, but as civilians with no dog in this fight, I think the least we can do is be honest in our communications. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not really. NKAO preferred to be annexed to Armenian SSR and the initial calls by Abel Agambejyan (Gorbachev's right hand man) in France in 1987 were exactly that. The initial petitions involved outright annexation including Armenian SSR issuing a proclamation and budget including a part for NKAO as if it was now theirs, however, when the Armenian nationalists saw that Soviet Union will collapse and outright annexation is not going to be justified under the international law, they switched to self-determination principle to create a new state (which actually hosts Armenian army, uses Armenian currency, etc.) Self determination is practised but within the international law, i.e. self-determining state has to comply with the constitution of the governing state it wants to separate from and all international norms. In case of "NKR", we didn't see it. Sorry, I put "NKR" in quotes because it's just my personal preference. And you're right about Soviets. They intentionally created conflict zones to be able to play on ethnic strives. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Be aware of this. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notification. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Tuscumbia, I would suggest you to familirise yourself with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 before asking Ліонкінг to do so [4]. Mind, that this warning was issued and canceled on his page by an Admin. This is an AE you are permanently violating and it shall be dealt with accordingly, if you continue this battleground-behavior. Regards Aregakn (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cancelled? How do you define cancelled? Read one more time. Both of you should read through AA2 before engaging in battleground behavior. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might not understand what I meant, but this is not my problem. Anyway, I can tell you only one thing:":)"

Aregakn (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to speak with You on the Kovsakan (Zangilan) Talk page, as You can create such in each other city and elsewhere, so I'll speak with You here. I remind You that You've done alreade 2 reverts, and if You done the third one You know what will be, so be calm and smart. All Your statements You can prove on the template deletion page. Speaking about statements You've named me a nationalists and other such statements, so first of all You should be careful. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware of this message [5] Aregakn (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

See if you would like to comment this --Hittit (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

See if you would like to comment the merge of this article. --Hittit (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Further to this Arbitration enforcement thread, you are topic banned from all pages relating to Armenia and to Azerbaijan for thirty days from the time of this comment, and also prohibited for a period of four months from the date of this comment from making more than one revert per week. If you violate these restrictions your sanctions will be reset and may be extended, and you may also be blocked from editing. These sanctions are passed further to the provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.

If at any point you need guidance or advice, or if you need support in the course of contributing, my talk page and e-mail is always open. Edit in a constructive way and you will find Wikipedia's administrators quite willing to give you assistance. Serially edit war on a contested subject area and you will find yourself repeatedly sanctioned. Regards, AGK 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good work, Tuscumbia. Creation of this article was in my 'to do list' and this is really a good news you already done it. Beagel (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Beagel. There will probably be more extensive information on this block in the next few months as they start their exploration work. So, I expect your help with completing the article with more data and making it better as you always do :) Tuscumbia (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you look across wikipedia, Dennis Hopper etc you'll see this is actually standard. You had born 1913 which is misleading as she died in 1991. At least have it as (1913-1991). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not really universal since many articles do not follow that format, but I guess it can be kept as in Dennis Hopper article. The way I see it, the point of keeping it short is to avoid repetitive text and redundancy. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to sound arrogant but do you know how many articles I've written? I've started around 1 in 60 of all wikipedia articles so you'd think I have a pretty good idea of what the norm is mate. Trust me birthdates and year next to name in bold is a standard procedure on here. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Alimardan Topchubashov etc. Ask anybody. The infobox is an added touch which is if anything redundant not the intro to the article and the other way around. Veyr much like your work on oilfields and Azerbaijan thought. Keep up the good work which ever format you choose... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't sound arrogant. The thing is that most of the editors review other existing and similar articles and base their new ones on them. So, if one way is the norm, then the rest should be gradually changed as well. The part about misleading text you mentioned can be true though, because just mentioning (born in 1913) for a deceased individual can be indeed misleading in the intro. Thanks for your help.Tuscumbia (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the birthdates don't exist then it is the norm to write the years (1913-1991) but generally from my experience if the birth dates exist you should most certainly include them in the intro. Yes, the infobox does tend to replicate a lot given in the text but it is meant to be a factual summary, this is why. Keep up the good work, nice to see people working on countries like Azerbaijan. If only our Azerbaijani village articles could be expanded!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. OK, will be indicating the birthdays in the intro. I'll try to expand the village articles. The main problem is that they don't take much information out online. The information is mainly delivered on towns and cities. That's the case with many developing countries. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on Valeh Barshadly. I wanted to ask you about the first military unit of the new army. Was the place where it was formed Settlement No. 110? Is Settlement No. 110 and Shikhovo the same place? Is that what the Azerbaijani text means? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Buckshot06, No it seems the number of the military unit (location) is 18-110. Perhaps, it's some internal numbering. At least, that's what the source says and it's most likely the division of the 4th army. There are limited number of sources on that. I tried to search for more sources on 18-110. Haven't found any yet. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah-hah. It's a Ministry of Defence (Soviet Union) 'Military Unit Number' - I think. A code number that bears no resemblance to any unit title. Every Soviet Armed Forces unit had a five digit code number, in this case probably 18110. I assume you speak Russian?- best place to inquire is with the soldat.ru Ground Forces forum, probably asking for a man named Vladimir Feskov, who literally wrote the book on the Soviet Army during the Cold War. His book does not list any motor rifle regiment of the 4th Army at Shikovo, but I've transferred the details from his book about the regiments of the 295th Motor Rifle Division, which was at Baku or technically 'Baku-1,' to the 4th Army (Soviet Union) page. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see what you're saying. I'll inquire there then, maybe they can answer. My guess is that they also had inter-republic numbers too. You did a great job in the 4th army article. Do have the hard copy of his book or is it also available online? And thanks for correcting the 3rd army to 3rd Shock Army. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I've sent you an e-mail, so once you respond I'll send you the online-accessible version of Mr. Feskov's book. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Replied. Thanks much. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please amend Barshadly's dates in office to a consistent set? Azerbaijani Armed Forces and Minister of Defense (Azerbaijan) list only late 1991-early 1992, while his article lists almost a full year. Could you explain the difference (acting? deputy? whatever) in the relevant articles and make them all consistent? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Buckshot, you have an eagle eye :) You are absolutely correct. His term lasted until December 1991 (specific date unknown) and he was then appointed Deputy Minister and Chief of Staff. The source that shows the presidential decree actually says president relieved him of his duties as Deputy Minister and Chief of Staff, not Minister. Good catch Buckshot. I corrected it in the article. As far as the difference between acting and deputy goes, deputy is self-explanatory; it's the person next in charge to the minister. Ministers have several deputies (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) and when the minister is not in position to work for any reasons (travelling, sick, assassinated, etc), then the deputy temporarily assumes his duties and becomes acting (I wikilinked it to explanation). Sort of what US Vice President would do if President could not work Tuscumbia (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tuscumbia. I well understand what 'deputy' and 'acting' are, but wanted to have it made clear in the articles as to what exactly Bashadly's post was during the period. Can you please check the list of Ministers of Defence at Azerbaijani Armed Forces, which has been missing a citation for a long time, and provide a citation? Also, do you have a list of the Azerbaijani Chief of General Staff after Bashadly? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I provided citations for the Ministers of Defense article and will keep adding sources as they appear online. Yes, Buckshot, here is the list of chiefs of staff [6] for now but it seems to be incomplete date-wise. So, I'm still looking for concrete dates of their terms. Please let me know if you find any as well. This is the list: Silahlı Qüvvələrin Baş Qərargah rəisləri: (Chiefs of Staff)

• 1918-1920 Həbib bəy Səlimov
• 1918-1920 Məmməd bəy Sulkeviç
• 09.1991-05.1992 Polkovnik Şahin Musayev
• 05.1992-10.1992 General-leytenant Valeh Bərşadlı
• 1992-1993 Polkovnik Səfər Əbiyev
• 1993-... Polkovnik Rüfət Əmirov
• ...-... Gen.-may. Nurəddin Sadıqov
• ...- Gen.-polk. Nəcməddin Sadıqov

Hərbi Dəniz Qüvvələrinin komandanları: (Commanders of the Navy)

• 1992-2000 birinci dərəcəli kapitan Rafik Əskərov
• 2000-2003 birinci dərəcəli kapitan Fuad Yusifov
• 2003- vitse-admiral Şahin Sultanov

Although, some sources are a little off. Valeh Barshadly is shown as Chief of Staff from May to October 1992, when he was removed on September 4, 1992 as per another source Presidential Decree. The dates from those times of political turmoil are really hard to track. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi.Please join debate. And tell your opinion. --Earth Defender (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look at this? Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am an administrator, and I'm quite willing to help arbitrate between you and MarshalBagramyan, who I've had interactions with in the past, if that is helpful. However, reading the discussion, I believe you're in the wrong. Please slow down and consider things before making any hasty edits. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Buckshot06, how's it going? Sure, you're more than welcome to help arbitrate. My last edits were not hasty but all sourced and correct. It's obvious why Davo88 removed the text. I'm not in the wrong. Please see here [7]]. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is to inform you that you are topic-banned for three months from pages or edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, as explained and detailed in this AE thread.  Sandstein  14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can write an article coup in Azerbaijan (1992). Here is the text describing these events to the Russian version of article Mutalibov. For such events should be detailed description.

После того как 8 мая пала Шуша у здания Верховного Совета сторонники Муталибова организуют митинг с требованием восстановления его на посту президента. 14 мая на сессии Верховного Совета за восстановление Аяза Муталибова в качестве президента проголосовали 219 из 250 присутствующих в зале депутатов (оппозиция отсутствовала)^[1]. В тот же день первым своим указом восстановленый президент ввёл в Баку чрезвычайное положение и комендантский час, запрещены митинги и демонстрации с 0 часов 15 мая^[1]. В ответ на восстановление Муталибова на посту президента страны начался митинг сторонников оппозиции у здания НФА. Утром 15 мая руководство Народного фронта выдвинуло Муталибову ультиматум с требованием добровольно уйта до 15.00 с поста президента^[1]. С истечением срока ультиматума оппозиция начала марш к президентской резиденции и вскоре захватила власть в городе. Председатель военной комиссии Народного фронта Азербайджана Фахмин Гаджиев в 18.00 по телевидению объявил, что город, кроме президентского дворца, контролируется силами оппозиции, и продлил срок ультиматума президенту до 20.00^[1].В 19 часов объявляется, что все войска переходят под контроль НФА, а в 21 часа без штурма был занят президентский дворец^[2].

• Revolt in Capital of Azerbaijan

The coup d'etat in Azerbaijan (1992) a very significant event, but almost forgotten. You can write it, too. [8] .

Hello. Recently you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [9]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fences and windows. Got it. I appreciate the note. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Ogle School of Hair, Skin and Nails requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

HI. At the moment, this is case of WP:UPANDCOMING; even if its ex-pupil gets into the news, I doubt if the school would be notable enough for a standalone article, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. That's fine. No problem. I'll remove the wikilink tags from the article about individual too. Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stifle. There is still no result for my appeal [10]. Could you please follow up and see if the reduction of the topic ban is granted. Appreciate your help in advance. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've restored it to the live page. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? I think you mistakenly restored the topic ban to the active, not my appeal. Can you please review? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've restored the appeal. See WP:AE#Result_of_the_appeal_by_Tuscumbia. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the caption correction, and for the article itself, which is a nice start. To answer your questions:

• Teodor is definitely Anatol's son, as confirmed not only by our very well-researched biography of Anatol, but also by a bunch of external sources ([11], [12], [13]).
• I don't have a very strong opinion about the "see also" section, except that I didn't put one in myself for the various ministerial biographies I wrote (Radu Berceanu, Elena Udrea, Ecaterina Andronescu, Cristian Diaconescu, etc). I guess WP:SEEALSO might help: "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one". Now, if we expanded this article even further, would Government of Romania or Foreign relations of Romania ever be linked? I'm not sure they would be, and I think the links to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania) and Boc Cabinets are probably sufficient, but it's your call. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

My source was [14]. Of course, that's a wiki, so it may not be reliable, although if they actually did use Scurtu and Neagoe, it should be pretty good. Anyway, feel free to rework the template as you see fit, at least until one of us accesses a reliable source listing the ministers. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll make some edits to the template linking it with new articles I already created. However, the list I from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania) seems to be incomplete as well. For instance, Ion Stoian is missing even though he served as the minister for a very short time while he is in your template. I'll be making additions and corrections. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lovely! After prime minister, foreign minister is among the most important ministries in Romania (and elsewhere), and you should be proud for having completed this project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Birutorul. And I appreciate your help! Tuscumbia (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't able to find a date. The few Romanian sources I've found on the web generally confirm what is already written in the article, and I have some doubts about their use as reliable sources, so I decided to leave the article as it is now. You are one of the few people who created Romania-related real articles (as opposed to one-liners) in the last months, so I guess I am the one who has to thank you! Anonimu (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for trying to help. If you do happen to come across the exact death date, please add it to the article. And you're welcome! I'll try to create articles on all Romanian foreign ministers provided that the information is available (up to now, it pretty much has been) and correct inconsistencies in Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania). If you could also add Romanian pronunciations to the newly created articles, that would be great. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not good at that. However User:AdiJapan has a page dedicated to such requests. I'm sure he'll be glad to help if you list your request there.Anonimu (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good morning. As You're my main opponent it the discussion, please be aware with my mediation request as we have unsolved old discussion and if You Assume good faith make Your agreement. I'll see Your answer next day. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here I see that You make contributions. So don't ignore me request, please give the answer. --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Read a few sections above and make your request in about two months if you like. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, can any other representative of Your views change You in this mediation? As You know this problem was made in very unhonest way by other user, so as You I also want to hear a final consensus, because conflicts can't be decided in the way which used NovaSkola. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really understanding what you're trying to say but if you are implying someone should participate in the mediation, it's your call and your request and you should contact whoever you think should participate in the mediation. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll try to explain. There were two points of view. Those who wanted to save the name Martuni (I and MarshallBagramyan) and those who wanted to move the name (Brandmeister, You and NovaSkola). Also there were a neutral user Golbez. In the discussion tooked part only three users: I, You and Golbez. Other users make only one edit in the discussion page. But it is not a secret that You have Your friends who support Your POV and maybe they can represent Your POV in mediation. So to make the discussion honest and according to the WP:AGF I want to see a participant of other views than I have. Or if You agree with my POV we can stop this discussion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know what happened on the talk page of that article. I am not understanding what you're trying to get out of me. I told you to look above to see a note about topic ban for 3 months. You looked, saw and understood and now it's time for you to stay off my talk page and find the people you want to get involved in your mediation request. I don't represent anyone and nobody represents me. False allegations may result in being reported. If you are eager to discuss specifically with me, you're more than welcome to make a request in two months as I already mentioned above. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Martuni (town) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

AGK, I was placed on a topic ban for three months, therefore can't really participate in the discussion for another month. If my arguments are welcomed, this would have to wait until the end of October. Otherwise, please involve other editors who had participated in previous discussions. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Nobody pointed this out at the request for mediation. I'll reject the request, and invite the filing party to re-file it once your topic ban expires (if there remain unresolved content issues). Regards, AGK 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I had let the filing party know about the ban on my talk page. Thanks AGK. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Request for mediation concerning Martuni (town), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Do you think or imagine you are me? if no, never made such kind [15] reverts and for the first read WP:CIVIL. It may halps... Andranikpasha (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your language. Whatever it is that you're saying has nothing to do with incivility. Please keep your discussion on Talk:March Days. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to be more primitive! Just do not revert people when they doubt anything. Here you represent yourself, not anyone else who doubts anything. You can't decide if I doubt anything or not. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You had a doubt and received a proper explanation from another user. I represent not myself, but my opinion and it was reflected on Talk:March Days. You can keep doubting the addition all you want, but it doesn't mean it has to prevent the sourced addition of text. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I don't consider the explanation as proper, and I'm discussing it (you may have another view, but I keep my opinion, I explained it). And then, I didn't prevent any additions of sources (even misquotings by atabay). I just added a tag that the source is misquoted and my actions are according to Wiki rules. That's all! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't believe you haven't gotten one of these yet. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. Keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the compliment... On another note, good that you are working on Norwegian related articles.. You see, I'm Norwegian ;) and most of Norway-related articles are in bad shape, so again, thanks for your contributions. Again thanks and have a good time. --TIAYN (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

First I want to know one thing; why are you so interested in Norway and Azerbajian... Is it because both are oil rich nations?? If i'm intruding sorry, Its just that i've never met another none-Norwegian here who is interested in either of these countries!... On second note, are there any specific platform images I should upload?? + I doubt there are any free images there; Norway is very strict when it comes to material and possible copyright status, why? I don't know. --TIAYN (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good question but no specific reason :) Both countries are oil rich but being a long time oil and gas exporter, Norway didn't have too many articles on its fields or they were underdeveloped in Wikipedia, such as Oseberg oil field that I expanded. That's why I created several articles on Norwegian oil and gas fields. However, there is a lot to be done. There are still many fields and terminals which need articles in Wikipedia. One can go nuts just by looking at the list in NPD :) No, I think any good pictures from public domains or maybe with permission from NPD, can be uploaded. They would just make the articles better. Too bad I don't speak Norwegian, there are lots of sources that are available in Norwegian only. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I must admit; I have no clue what an NDP is!... Second, I didn't find any public domains photos.. Third, I could probably help you on some articles which are lacking in info, that is if you want of course. --TIAYN (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

NDP is OLJEDIREKTORATET and stands for Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (website: http://www.npd.no/engelsk/cwi/pbl/en/index.htm). It provides information about all Norwegian oil and gas fields, i.e. abandoned, active, prospects, etc. Do you think maybe you can download the photos from flickr, if there are any on the Norwegian fields? But of course, if you have time :) Tuscumbia (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Its awkward to admit but you know much more about Norwegian petroleum and oil industry than i do ;) I should give more attention to the subject, but I am presently working on Soviet-related articles, so it may take some time. About those images of Flickr i can check, but it may take a while seeing that I don't know many of these Flickr uploading criterias.. Second, you can probably upload fair-use images on oil rig/platform pages which are inactive (seeing that there probably exist very few public domain photages of these. Again, I'll check! --TIAYN (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's OK, and there is still much to learn about Norwegian energy potential. Any help you can provide for improving Norwegian oil and gas articles would be very appreciated. Besides images, maybe you could also help with adding the names of oil fields in Norwegian when you have time.

Soviet history is vast and I'm sure your work there is very appreciated :) Thanks again. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just tell me what oil rigs which needs renaming and I'll do it... I can I ask for a favor from you? You see I've been working on the list of leaders of the Soviet Union and nominated it for FL status, a reviewer has said the article is in need of a proper copyedit, in other words, could you help me to copyedit the article?

I haven't had any luck finding NPD-photoes at Flickr... I'll continue looking, but it might take some time! --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can find the Norwegian articles on my page under Norway. Sure, no problem, I'll help with the List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good; Then we have a deal! :) --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help; I've uploaded the logo's for Bayerngas Norge and Norico. If you need anymore help just tell me! --TIAYN (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! Tusen takk! :) Tuscumbia (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tuscumbia, user Magoteers disrupts everywhere. Looks at this article where he reverts all the time dismissing third party sources: [16]. I think he needs to be reported.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I took a look. He has been edit-warring and the best board to report him would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Tuscumbia (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bunch of thank yous! At last, he will stop misusing Wikipedia! From the report I take he's another user using other accounts? Was the other user blocked before?  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he was using another account(s) and God knows how many. No, the account I reported had not been blocked. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mind WP:CIVIL and please avoid turning this into an ethnic battleground. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing incivil. It's just funny, really funny. Look who's reporting me. Really... Go back and study your contributions and all socks and IPs reverting to your versions rather than relating me to Quantum666. I am really eager to see the results of the SPI. In fact, I'll request the admins to look as soon as they can. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, refrain from false accusations. There was nothing turning the page into ethnic battleground. If there was, please provide evidence. You make false accusations one more time, I'll be forced to report you on appropriate boards. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Tuscumbia is engaging in vandalism and disruptive editing - he is removing citations to scholarly texts and rewriting history.

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantum666 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks HelloAnnyong. I had already commented on the page. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

IP, please don't just revert to your version. I think everybody agrees that the text you included is an important part of the war and needs to be included. You just need to re-write the the text because it's more or less poorly written. — Help rewrite. I'll be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.113.105 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask you for another favour, could help me to copyedit the Andrei Gromyko article?? I would really appreciate some help, and seeing that you helped me on the List of leaders of the Soviet Union article, I would appreciate to receive your help for a second time. --TIAYN (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure, no problem at all. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on the Andrei Gromyko, I really appreciate it. I owe you one! ;) --TIAYN (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all :) Tuscumbia (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks friend. I really appreciate it. But really you are doing fantastic work on Azerbaijan, especially on politics. Keep it up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the barnstar! That was really nice of you! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the Barnstar for Maiden Tower, which I noticed only today on my User space. My article on Yanar Dag has appeared today on the main page. I hope you like it. In case you want me to work on any other article (except biographies), please let me know. I hope some day I will be able to visit Baku.-- N.V.V. Char ^Talk . 06:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gatoclass (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would not mind seeing at least one source (in Azerbaijani) in that section, no. An overall history, a collection of official documents, speeches and statements, an account of the war during a certain time period, etc.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

But having that in the article is not necessary, especially since you were concerned about the size of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was concerned about the content of the body, not ancillary links and sources. If one were to add an external link or two in the External Links section, provided that they were relevant, I don't believe that I would have any objections. Likewise, I do not think that the addition of a source or two would overly encumber that area, especially considering that it has been sub-divided into sections.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You were concerned about the grammar, then about the size, then about the content, after each instance was met with compromise but that's irrelevant now. The book "Encyclopedia of the Karabakh Liberation War: 1988-1994" by Ayvazian you're adding has a POV title. It's like me adding Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State by Samuel Weems. How would you react to that? Tuscumbia (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

An encyclopedia or a collection of documents are miles, (lightyears actually), away from a racist tract which says that Armenians have "infiltrated" the United States and "established colonies" there and accuses Armenians of trying to "fleece" Christian nations of money for their "genocide industry" (which he in either case crudely discounts as a fabrication). I'm sorry that you are unable to distinguish the difference between a source which attempts to genuinely explain its version of the events and a source which is clearly propaganda in aim and nature.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, there you go. That's the reaction. I expected nothing less. And it's fine because that's what you choose to believe in. Everyone has a right for an opinion. It's not the actual book Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State which I offered to cite, it's the reaction I wanted to see from you. Any Azerbaijani source I would add, would be met with words like "fabrication", "falsifying", "racist", etc. And what does Ayvazian present? Is it anything less than that? I doubt that. By the same token, I could say ethnic cleansing of nearly 1 million ethnic Azerbaijanis from their homes can't be possibly called Karabakh "liberation", because it does sound pretty racist, inconsiderate and inhumane to me. I'm sorry, but your POV book you want to cite in the article is not acceptable. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, good show, then, sir. You can pat yourself on the back all you like now that you know you tricked me into saying what you wanted.

For all that, Ayvazyan is the editor to an encyclopedia which has entries written by multiple authors, including historians and military figures who participated in the conflict. If the views expressed in the Azerbaijani source are done without the typical agit-prop nonsense and character assassinations against entire peoples and tarring them with such damaging nouns and adjectives as "barbarians" and "deceptive", I would have no reason to exclude them. What an Azerbaijani is going to feel is, naturally, going to differ with an Armenian's sentiments. Armenians felt that the Karabakh war was one of liberation against seventy years of Azerbaijani oppression and a life or death struggle that was trying to combat a repeat of what took place in Nakhichevan over that same period. Perspective matters.

I'm sorry you're so ill-disposed to even good-faith suggestions. It only seems to make the editing environment here all the more hostile. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No tricks. Just solid expectations which you proved right. The stories written on the subject by Ayvazian or whichever author from Armenia will most likely not differ from each other. I don't think any of them did, are or will hesitate to suppress the information about Azerbaijani heritage of not only Karabakh but also that of Armenia. So, yes what an Armenian feels will differ from Azerbaijani sentiments. Azerbaijanis feel they were forcibly driven out from their homes in Armenia in mass deportations and ethnic cleansing. Armenians in Karabakh are free to feel they were oppressed although how can a minority be oppressed if it's provided with substantial funding from the government of the republic, has its own autonomy parliament, has several parliamentarians representing the minority in the parliament of the country and has had Armenian schools, TV and radio all along. Look at Ottoman Empire where Armenian minority lived in peace for 600 years practising their language and religion while other empires suppressed the minorities to their will, converting and restricting use of minority languages. And at the end, the Armenian revolt :)

Please save your "ill-disposed" comment for someone else. If you have a genuine good faith comment to make, please feel free to comment on my page. If you're going to use that kind of language, stay off my page and comment on the article page. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is apparently a Azerbaijani government agency. Is there anything about it on the Arm or Az wikis, or elsewhere on the net, that you could point me to? I'd like to create a stub with the mine action authority information that people have added to Azerbaijani Armed Forces that simply doesn't belong there. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Buckshot. No, it's not an independent government agency per se. From what I see from Azerbaijani sources (mostly orders and decrees of the government in Azeri), it's a commission, but not an agency. It is often mentioned along with State Committee for Refugees and IDPs, so it must be its component agency or something.

I don't know if they are conducting any mine action but I'll keep searching and will definitely let you know if I come across anything substantial. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I was trying to make clear was that this removed section on mine clearance could form the basis for an article on the commission or a section in whatever larger-scope article (Az Min of Internal Affairs?) covers it. Please wind it in if you see the opportunity. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see now. OK, I'll search around and if I find anything, I'll let you know. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia. I first heard about these three articles from User:Takabeg a week or two ago - you'll see on my talkpage. I then was re-warned by User:MarshallBagramyan about them yesterday. He asked me to evaluate the sources they were citing because he said the sources cited did not appear to prove the actual existence of the massacres. (He said) the articles were written in such a way as present allegations as facts. Before starting my investigation I bore in mind that MarshallBagramyan had raised the NK War article to FA standard, thus was relatively likely to be able to give some controversial subjects dispassionate treatment. Having checked the English-language sources I saw that they did not prove that actual massacres had taken place. Yes, attacks upon retreating civilians by irregulars had definitely occurred, but whether large numbers of civilians had been deliberately killed in cold blood was not proven. Therefore I decided to delete the articles, without prejudice to their recreation should they appear to present the events in a slightly more balanced fashion. Does that explain my actions more fully? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

My imagination does have to go too far to venture out the guess that this edit was done in retaliation for the edits carried out on the massacre articles today. Regardless of what took place, to add frivolous tags in retaliation on another article is a violation of WP:POINT. The same three tags that were found on those articles were all placed in the same order on the Maraghar Massacre article. Since when, pray tell, did sources like BBC News, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch constitute "unreliable" sources? I can see the point of Caroline Cox being an individual who has great affection for Armenians but, again, to add the unreliability tag seems to not only belabor the point but to emphasize an entirely new one. There was no inherent POV expressed in the article as far as I can tell and everything was properly attributed. That finally brings us to the question of notability. Maraghar may have been poorly-covered in contemporary news sources but its importance in the conflict seems to be warranted by the coverage it has received by the above-mentioned human rights organizations, journalists like Mr. Thomas de Waal, and the editors at BBC.

With that said, I ask you not to make such ill-faith edits nor to retaliate again against other articles when you are having discussions on others elsewhere. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

My addition of tags on the Maraghar Massacre article are in line with Wikipedia policies. They have no interference with anything else. Following Atabey's comment on comparison of Maraghar and those three massacres, I took a look at the Maraghar Massacre and added tags.

Please note that this your final warning for crossing the line with your comments like "make such ill-faith edits ". Mind WP:CIVIL or you will be reported. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please check the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Buckshot06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CenkX (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please stop wholesale reverting another editor's edits. I have added explanations on the talk pages on the Sayat-Nova and Ghazanchetsots Cathedral pages. The content that you have been reinserting indicates that I am justified in calling them blind reverts: you are restoring material that is clearly wrong, such as mistakes in grammar and wording, and in your recent revert to the Zar page you reinserted the incorrect term "calqued", even though it is obviously the wrong term to use in this situation (did you read the wikipedia article it linked to?). 93.97.143.19 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meowy, stop edit warring. Your nationalist POV is already a little more than just edits. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

? Seems clear to me you are only interested in doing pov edits. But a least I've managed to drum it into your head what the meaning of the word "calqued" is. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Azerbaijani wine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Toдor Boжinov — 22:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! (unless you specifically celebrate Nowruz) Hope you have a good one.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Marshall. No, I don't celebrate Novruz, although it has nothing to do with the New Year, at least in Azerbaijan. Happy New Year to you too! Tuscumbia (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let's discuss about Barda.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discussing does not mean, reverting and then claiming you discussed. Discussing means a healthy debate on the talk page of the article and when consensus is reached, making changes. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then let's talk!Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

  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. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

  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 (e.g., an accusation of purposeful misleading [17]). As such, this is a reminder to please pay attention to general civility and WP:BRD guidelines. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but you have been misled yourself. The diff you posted above is misleading by itself. In that diff, I removed the armenian POV names from the names of Azerbaijani villages in Nakhchivan because that's what they are called. Please follow to the linked articles on those villages and you will see where they are located. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It isn't much relevant: you had the same warning above from a different administrator: #Sanctions. I'm simply asking that you can assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid edit warring. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming good faith and simply battling with POV which newly created accounts (obviously coordinated effort) add to the articles. So, it's either an agenda to pull me into sanctions by provoking to get engaged in edit-warring, or a mass effort to re-write the history. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why you are deleting citations on Articles relating to Azerbaijan?

I noticed your talk page has many complaints from several years on this subject -- please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbronn (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what exactly you're calling censoring since all you did in that article was remove references speaking of Turkic heritage and presented Azerbaijan as a completely Persian private property. Lots of POV. And considering that you used your sock accounts User:StanfordUniversity and User:CiteChecker for that, I recommend you don't resume your edit warring. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 six months. The reasons for the ban are explained in this AE thread.  Sandstein  10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

None that I know of - if there are enough alumni with articles I don't see why it can't be created, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, see this: List of Fletcher (Tufts University) alumni. Plenty of them :) Tuscumbia (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then I don't see why not. I can create it this evening, if you like. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please and then we can add them to all of them alumni from the above list. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - I'll do that tonight, then. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ser Amantio! Tuscumbia (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure; happy to be of help. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - it's taking longer than I thought, so I'll finish tomorrow. But I've made some good progress today, I think. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great job Ser Amantio. Thanks for your help. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tuscumbia and thanks for your work. Unfortunately, government photos are not in public domain in Georgia. Our principal source of the photos of Georgian officials is the public domain US government web-sites. Kober^Talk 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia, I've reviewed your DYK nomination but there is a problem. Could you take a look at T:TDYK#Borjomi (water)? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that it didn't fly. While there may have been other issues w/ article, its dispatch of the above from DYK was curious. While it may be have been speculation on Georgia's part, the refs do say that the Russian implementation of the ban was to assert itself, and was seen as a manipulation and/or punishment.

Ref 7 "Russia extended its economic pressure on Georgia, banning the import of the popular Borjomi mineral water to Russian markets...Georgia has dismissed the claim as a pretext for manipulating access to Russia's huge consumer markets as a means to punish neighbors not deemed sufficiently compliant or loyal."

Ref 8 "Kremlin critics, however, see the announcement as part of a developing de facto economic blockade in response to Georgia's alignment with the West."

Seems like a missed opportunity to make DYK less USA-centric. It's a nice article. Djflem (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's why I was against anything political in the article although the section did need to be included in the article. My intent was to present an article about a notable item for its quality and place among other drinks/springs. Thanks for your help though. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuscumbia for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tuscumbia. Sorry, apologizing for using your articles for reference and making you involved in the report. 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dighapet (talk • contribs)

HelloAnnyong, thanks for letting me know about the case. Dighapet, no need to apologize. You can use any article created by any user for reference. There are no Wikipedia rules forbidding that practice. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thank you, if I do smth wrong please tell me. Dighapet (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Can't do that at this time (topic banned). You can ask for guidance from other active users. I'm sure they'll be happy to help out. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia. Done it! Keep up with great job you are doing. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 14:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kober! Could also help me out with the issue on United Transport Administration? Perhaps, you could look at Georgian sources and see if you can clarify it for me. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tuscumbia. The Administration appears to have recently become defunct. I found a news story on the topic and made appropriate changes in the article. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia. That's going to be rather a difficult task as the government of Georgia-operated websites have very scarce info on history of the respective agencies. I'll see what else I can do. Best regards,--Kober^Talk 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks anyway, Kober. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please have a look at Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery‎. I hope you can help to prevent endless and useless dispute with well sourced argumentation, as you are more knowledgeable on this issue and Wikipedia rules. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your note. I'd love to but currently I am topic banned, meaning I can't edit or comment on Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles. You can ask about anything related to general Wikipedia rules though and I'll be more than happy to help you out. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was so long ago :) I have no problems with the recreation. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) Tuscumbia (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cooldenny. The link doesn't seem to work. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, User:Tuscumbia. The link now works. Whenever I access the survey data acquired, the link is not valid to access. cooldenny (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article Borjomi (water) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Borjomi (water) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jezhotwells, I appreciate your response. I'll work on those itemized points in a minute. Basically, the tagged portions all are sourced to the main website of the company. I'll add the source to each sentence you tagged for citation. I'll also ask the Georgian users for help since I don't speak any Georgian. Perhaps, there are sources in Georgian which could possibly improve the article. Stay tuned. I'll get back with you. Thanks a lot. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tuscumbia. Thanks for letting me know about your GA. The article reads great. I think I'll be able to make some humble contributions this weekend. Cheers, --Kober^Talk 03:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kober. You made good edits. I just need to fix formatting a bit :) I appreciate your help. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ack, sorry - forgot to get back to you. I looked it over, but honestly? I think you did just fine; I didn't need to add a thing. Thanks for the kind words, though - and apologies for the delayed response; I've been a bit woolly-brained of late. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem Ser Amantio :) Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of The Bridge of Peace (Georgia) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Tzu Zha Men (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tzu Zha Men. I addressed your question here. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tuscumbia. Many thanks for the article. Best, --Kober^Talk 17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem Kober :) Tuscumbia (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wrote you something, please check your email.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've closed this as "speedy keep" because articles for deletion is only for "articles". If you wish this redirect to be deleted then you need to list it at redirects for discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ron, thanks for taking care of it. I'll relist it there. Much appreciated. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. Count me in. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this website Armeniapedia ? Birde insansız uçak konusu ayreten tartışılmalıdır. Tamamını silmeniz çok yanlış davranıştır. Milliyetçilik yapmadan faydalı bilgileri aktarmak bizim görevimizdir. Tarafsız Azeri kullanıcı hiç mi yok ? Kolay gelsin. Takabeg (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You recently called me a "sockpuppet." Wikipedia is an ethical publication and such comments like "puppets" are unacceptable. I do not call you "dog" do I? Please behave. Szeget (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from insults. You are a sockpuppet of Xebulon. Hence the revert. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

See here please. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi tuscumbia, I've left a reply to your comment on my talk page. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In Hamid bey Shahtakhtinski, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Zaqatala (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) 11:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Fixed. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

[19] Winterbliss (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've been calling me a sockpuppet for months, I think its only fair if I returned the favor. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have heard that "I am no sockpuppet" statement for a number of times. Open the pages on Meowy, Hetoum I, Xebulon. That's where most of them ended up. Secondly, sockpuppet is not to be compared to your derogatory word "chauvinist". I hope you got the warning. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the ninth time, why don't you file a report? and FYI Chauvinist: "excessive or blind patriotism" is not a derogatory word. Someone who spends hours on wikipedia is either a chauvinist, or is being paid by the Azerbaijani government. I hope its the latter, because the first one is unhealthy. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is no use of report in this case since the last several socks were evading block by switching locations and were eventually caught for the reasons only admins will know. Like I said, scroll through those reports and you'll see, if you like to pretend. I spend hours because I am a normal editor contributing to Wikipedia. Patriotism? Excuse me, but try that on someone who is an Azeri.

Right, I get paid by the Azerbaijani government, I own a villa in the suburb of Baku and eat black caviar for dinner. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you check the user Yerevanci who insists in changing the article Ermenikend to Armenikend? The user reverts the Redirect page to the article Ermenikend and reverts the text in the redirected Armenikend version, thus becoming a duplicate of the original Ermenikend article.

The name is Azerbaijani, and there is no justification and any credible arguement by this user to change it into the false spelling of Armenikend in the English language Wikipedia, especially using the corruption of the name from third languages (in this case Russian). I addressed this in the talk page of the article. I reverted them to the original state as well as reverted the internal wiki link to that article in the Armenians in Baku article. But the user still violates it.

Saguamundi (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am aware and I have repeatedly said that; however, my point is being ignored. I even said the same thing when a number of sockpuppets battled over renaming the article at the very beginning. With their logic, an Azerbaijani location name can be transliterated into Russian and from then on, to English and used as the main name. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Persuant to the conversation at Talk:Murovdag and my repeated warnings to your there, your refusal to cease tendentious editing and statement of intent to continue doing so on the article and talk page, you are topic banned from articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed including conflicts with any other countries or people across all talk pages and article spaces. Given your previous topic bans in this area, and your last ban having been six months, this ban will be in effect for one year. Violation of this ban will lead to blocks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's a shame people like you are given administrative authority which you obviously misuse. I'll see you in one of the boards soon. Thanks for taking sides, especially with a bunch of socks (excluding Vacio and some established users). Tuscumbia (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Tuscumbia, I think you should appeal this decision. It seems to be a rather inappropriate ban under the circumstances. Wg was getting a little too involved in the dispute to reasonably justify using his administrative authority outside the regular AE process in a situation where, as far as I can tell, you were not actually violating any policies. I don't think he is a bad admin most of the time, but sometimes he gets a little too heated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi The Devil's Advocate. Apologies if I am replying late. Just read the email notification about your post on my talk page. I really appreciate your comment. I do agree with you that the topic ban was not warranted. I didn't violate any rules. On contrary, a number of newly registered socks or ducks whatever one may call them, ambushed me and the article. Neither they nor he were able to answer the questions I posted for dispute resolution. Even WGFinley himself had suggested to place a topic ban on those new accounts which suspiciously appeared during the same period and started professional editing of controversial pages. But instead, he chose to topic ban me, a long time user, who has edited and created hundreds of articles on many topics, many even unrelated to the area in which I was banned. And those 4-5 socks went unpunished. So, this admin chose to block an experienced and established contributor to Wikipedia project with a well-established record over a bunch of socks who were brought just to drag established users into arbitrations and reports and mess up articles. Those will never be caught, because they now know how to evade bans and game the system. This kind of behavior by an admin discourages editors contributing on daily basis. That's the reason, I shut down my Wikipedia activity, at least temporarily. I appreciate your post though. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, just saying that an appeal could be looked at favorably given that this happened outside the normal process and under rather inappropriate circumstances. You can go to AE with an appeal and since you are a month in on a year-long topic ban it shouldn't be too much of a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This situation reminds me very much of what happened to another user. The sock account managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [20] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Yet the established user with tons of excellent contributions in various areas (not just AA) was placed on a 1 year topic ban, which he had served by now. The tactic of baiting the established users and placing them under sanctions works well. Grandmaster 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! How do you do ? Like to know what's your opinion about this comment on History of Azerbaijan . Thank you for your concern , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alborz, good, how are you? Sorry, I think I can't comment on that due to a ban. I suggest you contact users who had possibly been editing that page. Maybe User:Grandmaster or User:Mursel if they are currently active... Tuscumbia (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your concern . I'm not sure if the ban includes the talk pages , but if it is not possible to say your opinion in that place , that is not a problem at all . I will read it HERE . User:Grandmaster is an old friend of mine and his opinion seems to be like me in this matter , but I do want to know if you disagree me . Thanks again , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

Hi, Tuscumbia. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article South Stream Serbia AG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:CORP. Single purpose company which is not notable independently without South Stream. If there is anything worth to be kept, it should be added to the South Stream article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2014 (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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OHS Consortium is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OHS Consortium until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article Misir Mardanov has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Vinagro, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kamran Imanov, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Imanov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply