|
Hi! do you mind activating your email? So you can send and receive emails, thank you — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.117.109.83 (
talk)
13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article,
Avicenna, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Peaceray (
talk)
05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Persian people 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 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.
-
LouisAragon (
talk)
14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: it’s also a violation of many rules to accuse someone of pushing narratives when fixing misquotes which by definition are pushing a narrative as they change the meaning of the original author’s words. Please learn how the rules apply to you as well as that’s not fair to me and that’s my whole point to you. Why did you accuse me of pushing a narrative when reporting a misquote? You could have at least acknowledged the misquote was a good idea to fix or even asked for proof before throwing accusations. Sorry for the personal attack, but you need to know your places well. Furthermore, my “commentary” is meant to serve as an education tool due to frankly, the level (or lack thereof) of expertise regarding topics and the type of questions being asked. I am ensuring that future editors can review historical talk page discussions, like I did before becoming a editor, so they understand more about the topic and also the issues regarding how to objectively present this info to audiences given the complexity of the different modern Persian ethnicities. My only goal is to prevent such unnecessary questioning in the future. Thanks for understanding my perspective. Jamaas9 ( talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies:. Hello, yes that was an embarrassing statement. Again, I apologized directly in the previous message and will so again. It was wrong for me to attack him like that for a variety of academic and ethical reasons. It was wrong and that behavior should not be tolerated. Hopefully, no one will be described as “nuts” or other things as well for simply improving accuracy as that is what triggered me after he also accused me of several violations while uncovering misquote in rather famous Persian pages. Also, feel free to ban me if I do ever make that severe mistake again. I would also just request that we are instituting this standard equally across the board to ensure fairness. Have no issuue being banned for speaking disrespectfully to that degree. Again, apologies all around. We should all maintain better manners when discussing shared history and important topics, especially if we may just have different perspectives on the same topic. Different perspective are ultimately a great thing in academia As it helps us reach what people may consider “true objectivity”. Thanks for the follow up and have a good day. Again, that was completely incorrect and a poor reflection of not only myself, but ultimately the people and societies that shaped me. Jamaas9 ( talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you got this message because you tried to edit logged-out on a TMobile IP address. All of these addresses are blocked due to the dog and rapper vandal, which, ironically, Drmies could tell you all about. Graham 87 01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Tajiks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. 1) Ebel & Menon is non- WP:RS 2) the other source (Schurmann) doesn't state that "Tajiks" are called "Persian". - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Tajiks, you may be
blocked from editing. I can see that Doug Weller already explained you that words like "obviously bla bla bla" or "it's clear that bla bla bla" are not accepted here on Wikipedia. If you want to write articles according to your POV, then i would suggest you to write a blog, not an encyclopedia. Thanks.
Wikaviani (
talk)
23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
In particular for Muhammad:lower case p for prophet, "The" Islamic prophet, which is a grammar issue. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't do it again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That entire editThe whole bit about Wikipedia [2] was inappropriate. Although there's clearly nothing legal you can do, it's also clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Keep your edit summaries about your edits if you want to avoid being blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It is at
WP:ANI#Legal threat?
Doug Weller
talk
18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Hello, I moved you to the former member list for Wikiproject Afghanistan as you are indefinitely blocked. -- Danre98( talk| contribs) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi! do you mind activating your email? So you can send and receive emails, thank you — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.117.109.83 (
talk)
13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article,
Avicenna, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Peaceray (
talk)
05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Persian people 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 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.
-
LouisAragon (
talk)
14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: it’s also a violation of many rules to accuse someone of pushing narratives when fixing misquotes which by definition are pushing a narrative as they change the meaning of the original author’s words. Please learn how the rules apply to you as well as that’s not fair to me and that’s my whole point to you. Why did you accuse me of pushing a narrative when reporting a misquote? You could have at least acknowledged the misquote was a good idea to fix or even asked for proof before throwing accusations. Sorry for the personal attack, but you need to know your places well. Furthermore, my “commentary” is meant to serve as an education tool due to frankly, the level (or lack thereof) of expertise regarding topics and the type of questions being asked. I am ensuring that future editors can review historical talk page discussions, like I did before becoming a editor, so they understand more about the topic and also the issues regarding how to objectively present this info to audiences given the complexity of the different modern Persian ethnicities. My only goal is to prevent such unnecessary questioning in the future. Thanks for understanding my perspective. Jamaas9 ( talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies:. Hello, yes that was an embarrassing statement. Again, I apologized directly in the previous message and will so again. It was wrong for me to attack him like that for a variety of academic and ethical reasons. It was wrong and that behavior should not be tolerated. Hopefully, no one will be described as “nuts” or other things as well for simply improving accuracy as that is what triggered me after he also accused me of several violations while uncovering misquote in rather famous Persian pages. Also, feel free to ban me if I do ever make that severe mistake again. I would also just request that we are instituting this standard equally across the board to ensure fairness. Have no issuue being banned for speaking disrespectfully to that degree. Again, apologies all around. We should all maintain better manners when discussing shared history and important topics, especially if we may just have different perspectives on the same topic. Different perspective are ultimately a great thing in academia As it helps us reach what people may consider “true objectivity”. Thanks for the follow up and have a good day. Again, that was completely incorrect and a poor reflection of not only myself, but ultimately the people and societies that shaped me. Jamaas9 ( talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you got this message because you tried to edit logged-out on a TMobile IP address. All of these addresses are blocked due to the dog and rapper vandal, which, ironically, Drmies could tell you all about. Graham 87 01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Tajiks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. 1) Ebel & Menon is non- WP:RS 2) the other source (Schurmann) doesn't state that "Tajiks" are called "Persian". - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Tajiks, you may be
blocked from editing. I can see that Doug Weller already explained you that words like "obviously bla bla bla" or "it's clear that bla bla bla" are not accepted here on Wikipedia. If you want to write articles according to your POV, then i would suggest you to write a blog, not an encyclopedia. Thanks.
Wikaviani (
talk)
23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
In particular for Muhammad:lower case p for prophet, "The" Islamic prophet, which is a grammar issue. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't do it again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That entire editThe whole bit about Wikipedia [2] was inappropriate. Although there's clearly nothing legal you can do, it's also clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Keep your edit summaries about your edits if you want to avoid being blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Jamaas9 ( talk) 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It is at
WP:ANI#Legal threat?
Doug Weller
talk
18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Hello, I moved you to the former member list for Wikiproject Afghanistan as you are indefinitely blocked. -- Danre98( talk| contribs) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)