| Revision as of 14:27, 20 February 2016 editThomas.W (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,972 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Qajar dynasty.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:51, 20 February 2016 edit undoAidepikiwnirotide (talk | contribs)363 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) | '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| Sure, always I prefer to discuss so I explained my "logical" reason, but apparently you along with your friend are doing "Edit-War". Perhaps some editors here think that Misplaced Pages belongs to them and their friends! | |||
Revision as of 14:51, 20 February 2016
Welcome!
|
History of Iran
- Dear Aidepikiwnirotide,
- I noticed you've been editing the History section of Iran's article. The image which you keep adding to the section is unrelated. If you repeat this edit, you will be reported to the managers.
- Rye-96 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder while such this image is related: File:Lula Khamenei Teerã 2010.jpg, how Tomb of Cyrus the Great is unrelated to Iran.
Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are adding this image at the section of prehistory. That is an unrelated section. Your first add-up was also damaging the order of the article. I will check the section you have criticized; but this image cannot stay in that section.
- Notable topics related to Cyrus the Great are all already noted in the article. Also, architecture of the Achaemenid Empire is shown several times in the article. So there is generally no need for this image.
- I understand your national sensations, but you are disordering the article.
- Would you please stop adding that image? Or I should regard this as an edit-war?...
- Rye-96 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Iran
Your recent editing history at Iran 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. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Iran: Religions
Dear Aidepikiwnirotide,
The information which you are trying to add into the section of Religion, is a descriptive detail on two particular religions. This section, which is a subset of the section of Demographics, is not meant to give an explanation on a religious quality. These kinds of contents belong to comprehensive articles.
Aside from that, you have been also removing the references to Proto-Iranian religion and Median Empire, which appears as a vandalism.
Avoid restoring the edition to prevent the formation of an edit war.
–Rye-96 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
sometimes silence is the best answer.
Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Farsi names
Hello, I reverted your recents additions of the Farsi names for Artaxerxes II and the Achaemenid Empire. While I assume these are correct, the addiction were quite unnecessary here on en.wiki; just think it as the same of adding to every ancient Egyptian pharaoh on en.wiki his modern Arabic name, or to every ancient Roman emperor on en.wiki his modern Italian name: quite pointless, also considering that the interlinks on the left columns also give the possibility of reading the corresponding article in other languages, including Farsi. I hope you understand the reason for my revert. Khruner (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I am not agreed with you, but I prefer not to continue an illogical discussion. (Just a counterexample of your claim - a page which you edited as last one: https://en.wikipedia.org/Deir_el-Bahari - There are too many other counterexamples of your claim). However, you need to consider that when you are speaking English, you should say "Persian" instead of "Farsi", it is similar to other languages: when you are speaking Persian, you say "Engelisi" not "English". As a result, when you speak in Persian, if you say "English" instead of "Engelisi" is wrong and strange e.g. consider somebody tells you: "Can you speak Engelisi?! that this is like that you say: "Can you speak Farsi?!" Both are exactly similar and also wrong! Because, you are speaking "English" not "Persian". If you have any other "problem" with Persian language, do not hesitate to ask me. Aidepikiwnirotide Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to see how my reverting of a vandalism on Deir el-Bahari is a counterexample of that addition. You should rather find a consensus on Talk:Achaemenid Empire instead. Khruner (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I got what you mean, let's see why these are quite different cases:
- "Deir el-Bahari" is a location in Egypt, this name itself - widely used in Western audience - is a rendering of that Arabic name which is written in brackets, a literal translation is provided later, and a part of it was called in ancient Egyptian times Djeser-djeseru, mentioned later.
- "Achaemenid Empire" is former nation which encompassed several modern nations in what now is the Middle East. The term is universally used on the anglophone world (thus en.wiki). If a native name should be put in the article, it should be its Old Persian name - in fact its original name - rather than its New Persian name which have a meaning only for those who speaks New Persian; that's why such an addition is pointless. It's the same as putting the modern Italian name in Roman Empire article as it is for every long-defunct nations such as Babylonia, Ancient Egypt, Neo-Assyria, Sassanid Empire etc. If a name is needed here besides the one in the title, that's the Latin, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, Aramaic and Middle Persian respectively. Khruner (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Be sure your attempts is wasteful and useless. I advise you to study "The Iranian/Persian History" and read at least some books written by some credible historians. It is better than being submerged in delusion. I quote from Pr. Prods Oktor Skjaervo professor of Iranian studies at Harvard university: "... three great Iranian empires, the Achaemenids (550–330 BCE), the Arsacids/Parthians (247 BCE–224 CE), and the Sasanians (224–650) ..." which clearly shows Achaemenids is an IRANIAN empire. However, I do not care wikipedia that never has been a credible reference. ... AND do not forget Study about Iranian history ... To help you, some other books: Iran: Persia: Ancient and Modern , An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions , Imperial Form: From Achaemenid Iran to Augustan Rome , The World of Achaemenid Persia: The Diversity of Ancient Iran , Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis , Early Persian Empires: Power Structures in Achaemenid and Sasanid Iran BUT I do not suggest reading wikipedia (you know why!) Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- At this point a question springs to mind, though it might be personal. If you do not trust Misplaced Pages, why do you write on it? You have access to several books and with a proper use of a neutral point of view, you could enhance its reliability, so it looks like a pity to me. Khruner (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason is clear, just it needs a little thinking. Because, I wouldn't like "common people" who usually don't study (that means reading wikipedia instead of book) remain illiterate. I'll do my best, however, the tragedy and problem is that it is editable by another "common people" with "low literacy". In fact, there is a great misunderstanding for you. wikipedia needs to be edited by people with enough knowledge to serve other people who do not want or cannot read these books. Hopefully, you get it now. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
Your recent editing history at Qajar dynasty 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 are 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. Thomas.W 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, always I prefer to discuss so I explained my "logical" reason, but apparently you along with your friend are doing "Edit-War". Perhaps some editors here think that Misplaced Pages belongs to them and their friends!