User talk:HistorNE: Difference between revisions

Hello, HistorNE, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your contributions, and believe it possible that you are not User: Shaushka, although that matter is still under review. However, even if you are a new user, unrelated to Shaushka, your edits are problematic. There is no doubt that you are edit warring across a wide number of pages. Instead, please go to the article's talk page and discuss the category changes you are suggesting. I've ask Til Eulenspiegel to stop reverting you on the talk pages so that you can have a chance to discuss (or you are confirmed to be a sockpuppet). But you can't just try to force your way on an article; in cases where editors disagree, the prior version should usually stand while discussion continues. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you can technically remove the sockpuppet suspicion tag, it will show good faith if you leave it up for now. No decision has been reached on that discussion; in fact, no one has even yet investigated whether or not you are Shuashka; you may be misunderstanding what was written there. The only decision so far is that we can't block the entire range of IPs being used--that says nothing about whether or not the range of IPs, which you've admitted are yours, should be attributed to Shaushka. Additionally, no one has specifically investigated whether the two accounts should be connected. I believe you probably are not, but let the investigation run its course. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistorNE! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monument to Nizami Ganjavi in Rome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISNA (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 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please tell us what your opinion about this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khosrau_I --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iranian gender restrictions in education, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Telegraph and Robert Tait (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) 11:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion involving yourself was opened at dispute resolution noticeboard

Please refer to the dispute resolution discussion to express your opinion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Kurdish separatism in Iran". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have deleted a sourced description; just put a contra view, of course with a ref. Egeymi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish separatism in Iran, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komala and Persians (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) 10:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is interesting: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/17/319195/baku-destroys-persian-poet-inscriptions/ --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you love to deal with Pan-Turks i think you should take a look on this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijanilanguage.png --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

History of the Kurdish people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Persians

Kurdish people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Persians

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hassan Rouhani, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Yintan  10:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yintan  10:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:HistorNE reported by User:Yintan (Result: ). Thank you. Yintan  10:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HistorNE. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suggest its discussed before you start edit warring. If you find the claims implausable, then the onus of proof is upon you to find an alternate RSS disproving. The NYT is a RS, despite your perceptions of a POV bias. I could say the same about The Guardian but I let stuff from there stand even if it pisses me off. Put a dubious tag before you just revert. I would have picked it up. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish separatism in Iran, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komala and Persians (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) 10:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the aboves' talkpage which will illustrate your point well. :) I have replied to your original post on my talkpage. The Iran Iraq war is a huge and complex article. I admire the work done on it, but I havent even got half way yet. it is teaching me a lot. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would like to collaborate with me when editing the article? I am becoming more interested in it, and have nearly finished absorbing. Maybe we should agree a day in the future to go through it. We can coordinate via its talk page. I see much for improvement there. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion involving yourself was opened at [noticeboard - incidents section]

Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Kurdish separatism in Iran. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kurdish separatism in Iran – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Greyshark09 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict has been nominated for merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Greyshark09 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Rschen7754 22:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran–Iraq War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages KIA and MIA (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) 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i would like to notify you that articles Kurdish separatism in Iran and Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan were proposed to be merged. Previously a related discussion involving yourself was held at proposal to rename "Kurdish separatism in Iran" -> "Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" (rejected). In addition, the template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was later split ([1] into new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict, but was later remerged via a community consensus (see discussion). Current merger discussion is held at Kurdish separatism in Iran#Proposed merge with Kurdish separatism in Iran.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I added another issue to that discussion. Please do not edit carelessly. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HistorNE. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are there warned to stop edit-warring and removing sourced information. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave explanations on both your talkpage and article talkpage, and I consider your threats as laughable. --HistorNE (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iran–Iraq War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:HistorNE reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been closed with a warning to you. Further removal of sources from the Iran–Iraq War article without getting agreement to do so on the talk page may lead to a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the further edit warring and 1RR violation at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. In light of the above circumstances, I would self-revert as soon as possible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Israel related articles instead of the typical 3rr rule which -- as evidenced by your talk page -- you are familiar with, there is 1rr restrictions. This means instead of the limit of three revets there is a one revert limit. At the aforementioned talk page you reverted twice thereby violating said rule. You still have time to self revert if you want to avoid another block.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark already reverted it (twice: 2 + 1). --HistorNE (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark self reverted his own second revert (something you apparently refuse to do despite being warned) so s/he is at one revert. It's the lack of attention to this type of simple detail that appears to get you in trouble and has apparently gotten you in trouble once again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. My mistake, it's reverted. --HistorNE (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this edit on the Exodus of Iran's Jews article violates the 1RR restriction placed on all articles relates to the Israeli Arab conflict. Recent Arbitration Enforcement rulings have clarified this applies to Iran as well (see this - read the comment by Ed Johnston in closing that report. You should undo your edit or may find yourself blocked. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not relevant to Israeli-Arab conflict, neither to Israel itself. --HistorNE (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link for you to explain that it actually IS covered by this restriction. Perhaps you missed it because I added it later, so here it is again: [2]. The relevant comment reads "Also, there was a previous case at AE where someone was editing about Iran-Israel relations. Iran's government refers to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'. I would interpret an I/P topic ban as excluding *all* of the edits and topics listed by Sean.hoyland in this complaint" - said topics being " Israel–Iran proxy conflict or Iran–Israel relations" . Pleas re-revert. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again but you're not familiar with issue. This topic is irrelevant to Iran–Israel relations also, or politics in general. Read Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community. --HistorNE (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you leave me no choice but to report you. We'll see what the administrators think about this. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with your edit-war called "two mouses against one cat" to keep POV. Feel free to do it, sources are on my side. --HistorNE (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• HistorNE, I hope you will read my evaluation of the situation at the noticeboard and take it to heart. Sincerely, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I see you already have. Well done. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on analysis performed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE, your block has been extended to indefinite due to block evasion. If you wish to contest this change to your block, you should follow the normal procedure listed above. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]