User talk:Aidepikiwnirotide

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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/wiki/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: [Reference: Skjaervo, Prods Oktor. The spirit of Zoroastrianism. Yale University Press, 2012, introduction] "... 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 Wikipedia, 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W talk 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 Wikipedia belongs to them and their friends! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwnirotide (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. UCaetano (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Citing references
As sources must be verifiable, a Google books link isn't sufficient as sometimes they only work in certain parts of the world. Please see Citing sources and linked pages. Take a look at the template on the left hand side of the menu bar above the edit field when you are editing an article, it will help. Always give page numbers for books, and remember snippets are rarely enough as the next sentence that isn't in the snippet may say "But that's all wrong". Doug Weller talk 18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * " a Google books link isn't sufficient as sometimes they only work in certain parts of the world " ha ha ..


 * Would you please give me some references as counterexample? Did you read EVEN one of them? (e.g : The Cambridge History of Iran) ? or this one ? Do you know who is Pierre Briant ? In general, did you read only one book on history ? I become happy to hear yes ... These are nationalism thoughts? or your thoughts is Anti-Iranian sentiment Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @ User:Doug Weller And, I forgot to tell you that: "Multiculturalism" ,as next part of this snippet, is one the first and obvious properties of an empire like other empires such as British empire! You do not disagree when I say "British" empire?! because, for example Indians in India as a part of this empire are not truly British! ha? Isn't it? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea why you are talking about empire as I was only talking about citation style. You need to follow our guidelines, that is their only reason I posted here. Your response however suggests what we call a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and I suggest you read WP: AGF.  Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @ User:Doug Weller I mean your answer exactly about references, so I repeat my question and wait for your answer:
 * Would you please give me some references as counterexample? Did you read EVEN one of them? (e.g : The Cambridge History of Iran) ? or this one ? Do you know who is Pierre Briant ? In general, did you read only one book on history ? I become happy to hear yes ... These are nationalism thoughts? or your thoughts is Anti-Iranian sentiment ? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Some helpful tips for talk page use. Have a look at WP:INDENT. You can also look at your talk page in the editing view; you'll see that it's standard for each participant to add a colon (:) before their comments to indent them. Then next commenter adds an additional colon and so on. : Comment 1. by first user. :: Comment 2. by next user. ::: Comment 3. by next user.
 * Example:

Also, if you want to notify a user that you have replied to them, you can "ping" them. See Template:Reply to. Basically, you use, that's where you'll see "  " sometimes. This will post a notice on their userpage about your message. Hope this helps - the WOLF  child  01:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of our differences on the Iran article, could I also request that you pay more attention to the indentation? It's hard enough to read sections that you contribute to with all the random bolding/highlighting, without losing the separate converssation threads because you're not using indents.
 * Just use one more colon than the comment that you're replying to, like this.
 * The only slightly annoying thing is that one has to remember to do it on every paragraph in a reponse, like this.
 * And like this, in order to keep the indent going, but it's easy to get used to.

Otherwise, the text starts to look like this, which is weird.
 * There's no problem with editing between comments left by different users (although, obviously, one shouldn't edit between paras that a single editor has added. So, if editors A, B, C & D are involved in a conversation:
 * Editor A makes a point.
 * Editor B responds to Editor A, para 1
 * Editor B responds to Editor A, para 2
 * Editor D responds to Editor B's first para, para 1
 * Editor D responds to Editor B's first para, para 2
 * Editor D responds to Editor B's first para, para 3
 * Editor A responds to Editor B
 * Editor C responds to Editor A
 * Regarding the bolding/highlighting, it's best if it's used appropriately, but I'm not sure if there's any guidance on that. What I do know is that overuse will just lead to people jumping to conclusions re. the mental state of editors, just as one might if people CONSTANTLY USED INAPPROPRIATE CAPS TO HIGHLIGHT SENTENCES/POINTS.
 * As I said, I'm not sure there's any official guidance on that though, so it's just friendly advice. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran: Persia Lead sources
Rather than cluttering up an already-messy Talk:Iran page, I thought I'd see if we can quickly resolve it here. If you'd rather turn it into a discussion there, fair enough.

Irrespective of our relative positions on the inclusion of AKA Persia in the Lead, do you not accept that the 4 cites used do not support the point? Even if our positions were reversed and I thought a contentious statement in the Lead needed supporting, I'd remove those particular sources. Anyway, have a quick look at them and reply here, if that's alright, and we'll take it from there. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I prefer to refer you to Iran talk page, where I tried to explain some matters concerning this and added another related reference. Personally, I think for achieving a consensus it's better to discuss only in a single page, where all users are able to see and follow our discussions. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Bromley86 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging
Please stop pinging me on talk threads which I'm not involved in. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Your recent edits to Talk:Iran are disruptive. Please cease to disrupt what should be a simple proposal process to establish whether or not we currently have a consensus. Bromley86 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're continuing to disrupt the attempt to poll consensus. Please don't.  If you want an apology for my blanking your comment and interpreting what your vote would be, I apologise.  I did not think it would be controversial to you to ask you to stick to the question asked; perhaps I was naive?
 * Either way, I'm not sure if you should be editing WP given my recent interactions with you. You're instrumental in a minor content dispute becoming a total mess, and you've edit warred and avoided requests to explain why you believe certain sources should be included when everyone else agrees they do not support the point made.  You've rambled on ad nauseum about obscure references, taken umbrage when I've started a WP:RSN on the most ridiculous of them, misinterpreted a comment there as support for your position when it isn't.  Incidentally, in case it isn't clear to you, the result of that RSN was that your source was laughable.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page colours
Would you mind toning the bright highlighter-yellow text background and font colours down on talk pages? You're making good points, but as WP:SHOUT says, overemphasis can easily undermine that. Other editors would understand your point just as well, if not better, in simple black text. --McGeddon (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your advice, I would respect this surely. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)