User talk:هیوا/Archive 1

Please be aware
You need to read and understand WP:Edit warring, WP:3RR and WP:Bold, revert, discuss. You are editing against consensus at Kurds and at some point this could appear disruptive. Additionally, you are jeopardizing your editing privilege by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version of the article. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before continuing to revert the article content.  Tide  rolls  13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the visit. I will consult those documents and I have not edited against consensus. If you look more carefully, the sentence I edited was not within the RFC. Is that not true?--هیوا (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When I looked it appeared you added a citation tag to a cited statement and were reverted by two different editors. Two editors imply consensus to me; if you have an interest the article talk page is your next course of action.  Tide  rolls  14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I get what you mean by "consensus" now, I was referring to something else. I am already deeply involved in that discussion. I would not know who is an admin and who is not unless like yours it is clearly visible.Again thanks for the visit and clarification.--هیوا (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins generally make their status plain on their User pages. Please keep in mind, however, that administrators are not "superusers".  We have no special user rights concerning article content; that is determined by editorial consensus.  It is not my remit, nor my wish, to tell people what they can/cannot add to articles.  If there are editors that continue to edit against consensus or edit war article content, then it makes for a disruptive editing environment.  That, and our readers' confidence, are my concerns.  I am watchlisting this page in the event you have further questions; feel free to leave messages on my user talk as well.  Tide  rolls  17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and insight regarding admins and their roles. I have now covered the topics in your first visit. The only thing that was not clear to me was WP:3RR. I think you did not need to worry about it as I did not do it the second time the "citation needed" was reverted. Prior to the first edit, I had participated in the discussion therefore, it was not WP:Bold, revert, discuss either. I still maintain that the opening sentence is only covered by a single source with at least 5 sources against it (as you can see below). Thanks for the warning though. I will not litter your talk page unless I feel the need to.--هیوا (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurds article
I wrote the following on 's talk page 2015 and was "reverted":

"Hi there, I have no choice but to come to your page. Please bear with me. I now understand that you arrived at the conclusion of the RFC based on these:
 * Iranian origins are “the most widely accepted” theory
 * “a distinct branch among diverse Iranian peoples”
 * “ethnically related to the Persians”
 * “an Iranian people”
 * “Kurdish language and culture are indeed Iranic”
 * “an Iranian people”
 * “an Iranian people”
 * 1) "Kurds." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. 2014. Retrieved December 29, 2014 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Kurds.html : “ethnically close to the Iranians”

Now which of these reflect "Iranian people"? Well only 1, 6 and 7, you also have Encyclopaedia of Islam (EoI). OK, did you realise you mis-read the number 1? This is what it says "Indo-European" not "Iranian". Have another look and see my image, it further states "Another theory says that the Kurds are not an Iranian people but...". Citations 6 and 7 remain with EoI. What does the rest say? 2:“a distinct branch among diverse Iranian peoples”, 3: “ethnically related to the Persians”, 4: I wont give a toss about this guy, 5:“Kurdish language and culture are indeed Iranic” 8: “ethnically close to the Iranians”. Now if we add other sources I listed in our discussion? Can you see where I am coming from? Thank you for your time."

That action to me means only write complimentary things on my wall. How this helps to resolve the conflict on the Kurds? It doesn't. Especially when you "misread" citation one and yet keep on going about doing business without listening to me. Now, he was one of the "two different editors" who disagreed with my edition that took as "consensus". Such action means accept what is on the page with no option as he said in his last reply here:"This has been settled and I'm not engaging further". I have also reached out to other people for advice too, how can you read a citation wrongly yet assert your view?--هیوا (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, since you pinged me and then said I misread the source, here is what it says: "The most widely accepted theory claims that the Kurds are of Indo-European origins, primarily of Mede and Iranian stock." So what you are saying is nonsense. As for "another theory", you need to read WP:UNDUE. NPOV isn't about repeating every crackpot theory going. An the "babylonian theory" is completely crackpot and not supported by any relaible source. DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep using "crackpot" and you will not get very far. Everyone can now see how you cherry pick words from the same source you call "crackpot". Now my turn to no longer deal with you. Goodbye.--هیوا (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

History of the Kurds article
you cannot keep playing the too many editors against Kurds game on us. Let us settle certain things nicely. This is my first and final invitation. So the first matter is this: "The ethnonym Kurd may ultimately derive from an ancient toponym in the upper Tigris basin" that is at best heavily biased POV but my instinct tells me it is more an assimilation edit on Wiki.--هیوا (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Information
New posts should be added to the bottom of talk pages.  Tide  rolls  16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Be careful
I think you are referencing editors that use these terms but it's not plain enough; referring to other editors using these terms would not be advisable. Let me know if you require clarification.  Tide  rolls  19:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So their language is acceptable and mine is not? Why? On what basis? Is your job warning everyone who edits "Kurds" article?--هیوا (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down, you're letting your frustration get the better of you. I personally don't care about the language, some here do and you should be aware of that.  I was referring to the difference between describing someone's edits and describing the person.  Again, I'm not that worried about the situation but as I've told you before, I try my best to help maintain an environment in which people can edit without disruption.  If you require further clarification let me know.  Tide  rolls  20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not need "be careful" and "Please be aware" sections on my talk page. They are more un-calming than their vocabulary or your "Calm down". I live on planet earth and I am literally repeating what they are saying. Please clarify this: "an environment in which people can edit without disruption" is this treatment just for those who thinks "Kurds are Kurds"? And, even if you do not care about their language, is it not biting?--هیوا (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not biting. You are fixating on aspects of the discussion that are not germane. Totally your choice; I only raise the subject because it is a waste of your time. It is your time, however, so spend it how you wish.  Tide  rolls  23:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I even get advise about spending my time too. Must say its been best time spent so far don't worry about my time. What is germane? Advise about spending time? Please help me: there is a lock+warning on anyone going against 59 times Iranian word in an article and even the talk page is protected by editors who call a suggestion bullshit. Seriously what do you think I should do apart from advise about my time? --هیوا (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not expect an answer for the last edit. Just for the record: your information section above, is a classic mistake by any newcomer. My good faith tells me you knew that. The "information" you could have given me is to stress the B in BRD, not R, which I knew by the way, but lost control due to ... Please be aware that advise about spending my time is condescending or patronising at best. In good faith thanks.--هیوا (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)