User talk:87.126.23.210

Middle Persian
Basically all of what you said is wrong. Read the rules and don't make baseless accusations. If you can't even bother to put a simple citation or two to support the information you've added, tough luck. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. I've read the rules and what they say is that the burden of proof is on me in case of disagreement. They don't say that I am obliged to add a source, in advance, for every single change I make, and they don't say that you are supposed to disagree with every unsourced edit with no motivation and for no reason at all, which is what you did. Since I probably wouldn't have seen that you had undone my edits, I wouldn't have even known that you 'disagreed', if one can call it that, and I couldn't have added any sources. Thus, the effect of your revert was simply pointless obstruction, damage to the encyclopedia and ruining other people's well-intentioned work, which presumably makes you feel good and important.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You added some bold claims, which needed to be sourced - you've deffo not read the rules. Also, keep assuming with those sad thoughts of yours as much as you want if it makes it feel you better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You see, the problem is that the claims seemed 'bold' to you, meaning that they surprised you, and the reason they surprised you can only have been that you didn't know much about Middle Persian, ergativity or both, which is nothing to be ashamed of per se, but in that case the right thing to do would have been to google 'Middle Persian' and 'ergative' and not to delete everything just because you didn't know it and waste my time. Automatically assuming that everything you didn't know before is wrong is a rather complacent attitude indeed.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not Googling anything, the reader shouldn't Google because a certain editor was too lazy to add a citation or two. If you don't like your precious time being wasted, then you're better off leaving this site. Good day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, an editor shouldn't be forced to add citations just because a certain other editor is too ignorant about the subject of the article to know that the edit is right and too lazy to even google what he doesn't know. Let alone doing that in advance for every single edit he makes, since he won't even be notified in case of a revert. If you actually gave a s**t about the noble purpose of building an encyclopedia that provides people with maximally accurate and complete knowledge, you wouldn't undo edits about topics you don't understand and are too lazy to learn anything about, but since you don't and prefer to treat your editing as a video game for the purposes of self-aggrandisement, I have no doubt that you will just go on as before, just as you are saying. And yes, you are, unfortunately, absolutely right that numerous individuals of limited competence like you do indeed, by their obstructive and time-wasting behaviour, make this site unwelcoming to more knowledgeable people like me who don't want to lose tons of time playing their stupid games; and in this way, people like you make sure that many potential good edits are not made and sabotage the actual encyclopedic goals of the project they pretend to be assisting.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And there's the proof that you haven't read the rules. People who self-proclaim themselves as knowledgeable are usually the exact opposite. You won't be missed. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Who is knowledgeable and who isn't has already become quite clear from our edit conflict - as the sources provided by me have shown, I know what's true about the subject of the article and you don't even know how little you know. As for the rules - you don't get it, as usual. I am not saying the rules disallow your actions, I am saying they are arseholish actions. Yes, you have the right to undo any unsourced change of content and to demand a citation for anything, and I am required by the rules to find a citation if I want to keep it. But just because you are allowed to do something under the rules doesn't mean you always should do it, morally speaking. Not everything the rules allow is decent behaviour. The law and ethics are not the same thing. Some things are left to your own conscience, and that's precisely where the problem lies in this case.
 * As for your not missing me - rest assured, I won't stop my very occasional editing because of you, you're neither the first nor the last of your kind that I meet here. You and the likes of you, on the other hand, really should leave this site, since you are noxious to it - just as you will be noxious to any other human activity that you participate in.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cry me a river. Consider yourself lucky that I haven't reported you for several personal attacks. What a sad, little person you are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. A vandal is called a vandal, and your flavour of unconstructive editing needs to be called out for what it is likewise; if that also happens to imply something about your personality, that collateral effect is inevitable. One cannot assume good faith when it is demonstrably absent. In addition, your rude, hostile and aggressive behaviour from the very beginning ran directly counter to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers (since you assumed me to be one), and you were the first to directly comment on my personality with a personal attack by calling me 'lazy' upthread (leaving aside the hostility of the revert itself, cf. WP:Revert only when necessary). If you really think publicising this exchange between us would make you look good in the eyes of other editors, both in terms of competence and in terms of civility, you don't need to be 'merciful' towards me. --87.126.23.210 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I reverted you because you added unsoured additions, simple as that. If not me, then somebody else would have reverted you. I've done more to this site than you will ever will, so I honestly doubt I'm as bad as you assume I am. You're a pretty sad fella, go see a therapist instead of using your "valuable" time attacking someone you don't know. Consider this my last message. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that all unsourced additions and changes are automatically and normally reverted just by virtue of being unsourced is simply false and you know it. They are reverted only if an editor doubts them, disputes them, considers them uncertain, controversial or otherwise harmful. Much of this and many other Wikipedia articles has been produced by unsourced additions, most of which were never reverted (countless such additions have been made by me to various articles through the years); if all unsourced additions had been removed, most of this article and of Wikipedia in general wouldn't exist. None of the other claims in the section of the article to which my additions were made cite any sources either, and nobody has removed them. As I said, editors have the right to dispute things, but they should have the common sense not to dispute things in areas that they clearly know very little about, and if in doubt, they should ask for sources rather than remove things on the spot.
 * As for your boast that you have done more edits to this site than I ever have - first of all, quantity of edits does not equal quality (looking at your first edits, you seem to have started engaging in nationalistic edit warring almost immediately). I can't say I'm even sure about the quantity either - it seems that I have been editing for about twice as long a period of time as you have, from various IP addresses or from an account. Second, even if some of the edits are good, it is perfectly possible and very common to do some useful and productive things some of the time and yet simultaneously cause harm in other ways (both can be motivated by the same desire for self-aggrandisment). Making any number of good edits does not give anybody the right to destroy other people's good edits, or to act badly towards other editors in general.
 * I think telling the truth about bad behaviour such as yours is actually worth some time, and I have been, of course, motivated to spend it by my irritation as well. However, I do agree that this conversation is becoming tiresome, so I won't feel too dejected if you do stop posting new responses which are as ugly in form as they are false in content.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of what you are deleting cannot be considered personal attacks by any standards. The statement that your first edits are nationalistic edit warring is a perfectly normal statement of fact about your edits. The description of your behaviour, as I can observe it in my interactions with you, as rude, hostile, aggressive, obstructive and time-wasting is a statement about your behaviour; the same applies to the description of responses as ugly in form and false in content, which describes your responses, not your precious personality. The statement that the effect of your revert is pointless obstruction, damage to the encyclopedia and ruining other people's well-intentioned work is, again, an assessment of your revert, and the statement that your editing is unconstructive is a statement about your editing. 'Arseholish actions' characterises your actions. I could likewise delete a lot of your statements about my being 'lazy', a 'sad, little person', 'sad fella', my needing to see a therapist, my being 'the exact opposite of knowledgeable', etc., but that would be rather pointless, and they are, if anything, more of a personal attack by you against yourself--87.126.23.210 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
 * OK, reported the discussion myself, since you insist. At worst, I wouldn't mind too much being blocked for my forthrightness for a while, while you are a regular Wikipedian and exposing your style of communication should be of greater concern to you.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)