User talk:Ejlabnet

November 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alex2006 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ejlabnet reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: ). Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move your laughable claims to talk page

don't add your pov again. discuss them in talk page.--188.158.116.178 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Azerbaijan

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You've been blocked for edit warring at Azerbaijan, per a complaint at WP:AN3 (permalink). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ejlabnet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Currently, some unknown members are deleting the list of resources, and links and evidences provided by me. I offered the list of of ancient scholars such Strabo etc. Trolling ID refused to admit the facts and refused to provide historical facts. The originally presented theory on the etymology of Azerbaijan is incomplete. The substantial change from Atropatene to Azerbaijan through indicated path is impossible, unless there is some form of dyslexia. Therefore, I provided all possible variants based on historical evidences with respect to the etymology, so the reader could have an option to to further investigate, if such is required. Freedom of choice source of further discussion rather disruptive deletion of information. I would gladly discuss it but I need to public view it first. Most of information is based on historical data. Unfortunately, some trolling ID deliberately deleting the information, hence violating the freedom of speech act, the basic part of Human Right Act. And I presume Wikipedia is about freedom of speech and source for research rather pure propaganda.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not the content of your edits. You'll need to address that and only that in any future unblock request. Regarding freedom of speech, see WP:FREESPEECH. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are mistaken. Wikipedia is not about freedom of speech at all, and it does not pretend to be a source for research. Rather, it should summarize what reliable sources report, and modern historians and scholars (who will generally be aware of Strabo) are considered more reliable than ancient writers. You have no right to write on Wikipedia whatever you want to, or to publish original research here. Huon (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter who was deleting. The fact is it is deleted, and nobody done anything to restore justice. Apparently, Wikipedia team doesn’t believe in free speech. Obviously, you created the online world where you can run your own tiranny and oppression.

Azerbaijan is a visit card of citizens of Republic of Azerbaijan. I don’t think anyone with Persian, Armenian or Russian backgrounds have priority in updating that page, neither you or someone called LouiseArgon. You know nothing about Azerbaijan, and first of all you are experts.

You are wondering why? Well, Iran have occupied a half of Azerbaijan. Certainly, the Persians have no interest in promoting Azerbaijani culture, history or tradition. All they say that any etymon in Azerbaijan derived from Old Persian (nobody even knows what is Old Persian). The Persians have created tyrannical Islamic regime, with no respect to other cultures. Same applies to Republic of Armenia, and Russian Federation.

You can block my account. It is not like I do care. I don’t like people who have no respect to Freedom of Speech, or Human Rights Act. You were acting like monkeys in zoo, when they see a new object in their cage. The speed you were deleting my comments, I can only say that you have no personal life. All you do it is just sitting in front of monitor and … .

Funny part is that I have not deleted the previous text, just added new paragraphs to previous text. I have respect to work done. But you guys, really far from the concept of civilization, all you care about is to delete or perhaps even burn and torture if we were living in same country.

My comments hurt? Well, be my guest block or even close my account. I am sure your Little Tyrannical Egos will be satisfied after that.

RE:Azerbaijan

Thanks for writing! Actually I did not touch the article, and I just reported you and the ip since you were both edit warring, and this is prohibited. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ejlabnet , thanks for answering at my talk page. I can understand your anger, but here at Wikipedia there are rules: few, but there are. One of the most important is that concerning edit warring, and I reported you and the other ip because of that, since both of you with your wild reverts were messing up the article. I am not an expert about Azerbaijan (except maybe its geographic location) :-)), so I didn't revert anything, and I didn't take part in the dispute. If you think that your additions were correct, you can apply at several noticeboard, like the Neutral point of view Noticeboard or the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Good luck, Alex2006 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]