User talk:Lumberrr

March 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Khojaly Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 07:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Freedoxm,

I'm surprised to come across with strong words such as "unconstructive" and "disruptive" to my edits which was simply intended to reflect the factual and legal realities on the ground.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Lumberrr (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedoxm

I was surprised by your description of my edits as “unconstructive” and “disruptive” when my intent is solely to ensure the article reflects verified facts and legal realities on the ground. My revisions were made in good faith, to present the established international consensus that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity—including the Karabakh region—is legally recognized.

Wikipedia’s Dispute Resolution guidelines clearly state that when encountering biased or unsourced information, editors should improve and balance the content rather than remove verifiable facts. By reverting my edits without substantive, referenced counter-evidence, the article risks misrepresenting this consensus.

In addition, international law reinforces Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Multiple United Nations resolutions affirm that the borders of Azerbaijan, including the Karabakh region, are inviolable. For instance, UN Security Council resolutions and subsequent UN General Assembly decisions consistently emphasize the importance of maintaining recognized national borders.

Should these revisions be repeatedly dismissed without due consideration, the article will continue to reflect an inaccurate portrayal that contradicts both established international legal principles and the neutral, balanced content expected on Wikipedia.

I invite you to review the evidence and engage on the article’s talk page so that we may reach consensus. However, unless you can present clear, reliable sources that dispute the well-documented legal status of this region, I must insist that the article be updated to reflect these indisputable facts.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I remain committed to a collaborative and constructive editorial process, as outlined by Wikipedia’s own policies.

Sincerely, Lumberrr (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To @Freedoxm

Adherence to Wikipedia Policies: Wikipedia's guidelines encourage editors to be bold in updating articles to enhance their accuracy and neutrality. My edits were made in good faith, aiming to improve the article's balance and adherence to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Labeling these efforts as "disruptive" and "unconstructive" without any justification is higly inappropriate, unprofessional and unethical.

Disruptive Editing: According to Wikipedia's Disruptive Editing policy, behavior that hinders the improvement of articles is considered disruptive. Unjustified reversion of constructive edits and issuing unwarranted warnings align with such behavior. Editors who persistently engage in disruptive editing may face blocks or bans.

Administrator Intervention: If this pattern persists, I will have no choice but to report this conduct to Wikipedia's Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Wikipedia does not tolerate intimidation or obstruction of collaborative editing. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

I urge you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page to address any content disputes. Collaboration and adherence to Wikipedia's core principles are essential for the integrity of this platform.

Sincerely, Lumberrr (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How am I disruptive editing? A warning on your talk page doesn't mean I am editing abusively too. If you would like to continue this discussion with replies feel free to continue this at my talk page. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberrr, Please listen to Freedoxm. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/AA

Hi Lumberrr. Please see WP:GS/AA - topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you're not an extended confirmed user. As in regards to talk pages; "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." HistoryofIran (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]