Hello Vugar Seidov, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've changed a number of names here, with a changeset comment of "The official name is Lachin".
In this changeset you have changed a number of language-specific names for places to the same value. Language-specific names are there to allow users of different languages to make maps in their own language - your change has prevented those people from doing so.
Adding a place value of "Armenia-occupied region of Azerbaijan" just looks like a political statement, and OSM is not the place for that. For details on the OSMF's policy on disputed territories, see http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . If you think a name is incorrect please provide some evidence that the people who actually live there use the name that you think should be used.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

@chillly Maybe they're waiting for someone to remove their test data before writing up their dissertation on "how robust OSM is to vandalism"!

Can you give any examples? I've left e.g. way/488741633 and way/488741636 . Strictly speaking those are traffic calming cushions though not crossings as such. You _can_ cross the road there, but can just as well cross anywhere else as well.
If you can point to specific examples I can have a look the next time I'm in Kirkby.
Best Regards,
Andy

@marek - having nodes closer together doesn't make for a map that matches reality better; it just makes it more difficult to edit. If you've got some specific examples perhaps write it up as a diary entry?

This bit's just a wall, so barrier=flood_wall would work.

FWIW, personally I'd always add foot=yes to "public bridleways" like this one so that someone (or more likely some router) unfamiliar with designation tags can figure out access rules.
Cheers,
Andy

Other maps will still show them - https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=56.09576&lon=-3.30543 .

Thanks - I'll review the local ones to see if any others need changing.

Thanks - so it's supposed to indicate bits that are disconnected, but are usable in some way as a canal?

The bottom bit of Smotherfly isn't (I retagged that as drain because that's closer to what it is now). The top bit is probably wide enough, but there's no way to get a boat in and out.
The Cromford side is physically accessible, but I don't think it's open to the public? Should that be disused=no:isolated too?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Can you explain a little bit what you mean by "Correcting international waters for Ceuta and Melilla"? As you're no doubt aware it's a sensitive issue, and all sides of the discussion will want to understand what's happened here, including changes to names, geometry, notes on some of the items etc.
A little bit of explanation now might help to prevent problems further on.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
What does "disused=no:isolated" on "Cromford Canal - Pinxton Arm (new line)" (now named as "Smotherfly Wide") mean here? I'm confused - as this stretch of waterway has had or is hoping to have at least 3 uses - a previously one as a diversion for the Erewash during opencasting, a current one as a bit of an unofficial nature reserve free from development, and a possible future one as a part of a reconnected Cromford Canal (but that last one's a considerable distance away with no actual plans in motion as far as I can tell).
Best Regards,
Andy

No problem (it's not your fault - likely your phone hadn't got a location yet).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Please don't add test data to the live OpenStreetMap Server. If you want a test server, perhaps https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
As you can see from the orange line around this change on the map at the right when you view the changeset on the OpenStreetMap website, it overlaps with the Atlantic because some data was accidentally added there.
It's been deleted now, but have you any idea how incorrect latitude and longitude values could have got into the data that you added?
Best Regards,
Andy

For info, see also osm.org/user_blocks/1385 .

That'd be OK licence-wise, sure. I'm not entirely convinced about the need for "square kilometer" values (since they're derivable from the boundaries) but, meh.

No idea - what licence is it made available under?

Not sure how it happened, but Alsager managed to turn into a Domino's Pizza place here - see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-thenorth/2017-June/thread.html for more info. It's fixed now.

Unfortunately, and surprising as it meay seem, wikipedia isn't actually a valid source for OSM!

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Unfortunately something went a bit wrong here - part of a kerb way/439072999 got dragged across town and joined to an underground river way/170048648 . I've moved it back, so no harm done.
Best Regards,
Andy