User talk:Bawer1

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kurdistan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jack Merridew 20:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kurds with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kurds, 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. ''Repeatedly removing sourced information with no discussion is considered disruptive editing. Again, I am not challenging the correctness of your edit, just that you need to gain a WP:CONSENSUS on the article's talk page if you feel that (apparently) properly sourced information is incorrect and needs to be removed.'' —Josh3580talk/hist 15:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kurds 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. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved from User talk:DeCausa: DeCausa, Im not in an "edit war." There is wrong inforamtion on the page that is regarding the Kurds. I have provided links for my sources, and I have proved why the information on their is wrong. It is all on Josh's page. You should send that message you sent me to others that are spreading false propoganda about Kurds, not me. The issue that I have on that page is that it states that Kurds are "Iranian," which not only is false, but does not even make any sense. I have taken many classes on history, and I am a Kurd myself. I know what is on that Wikiepdia page is false. I have provided all the sources, and I am not willing to let false information spread about my people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are engaged in an edit war and if you continue you will be blocked. Being "wrong" or "right" is irrelevant. Before you go any further you need to make sure you read WP:EW and WP:BRD. Also, read WP:CONSENSUS. You have been reverted multiple times y multiple editors. What you must now do is open a discussion on the talk page of the article and make your case. The way Wikipedia works is that you have to persuade the editors who disagree with you that you are right. You cannot make the edit you want without persuading the others. That's how Wikipedia works and if you don't accept it you won't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Hope that's clear - let me know if you have any questions, but otherwise your next edit should be to open a discussion thread on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Bawer1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (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. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Kurds. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. '' This and this diff. '' Sam Sing! 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Kurds, personal attacks and threats of meat puppetry. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow...just wow. Unbelievable.

(talk) Wikipedia is a bias organization. I provided sources as to why I made those changes, yet they were denied because they were "unreliable" according to Wikipedia guidelines, which is false. The guidelines are a joke in the first place. I also made my proposal, but before I could even finish making my proposal, Decausa jumped in right away and tried attacking my viewpoints, even though I gave sources and facts. How come you didn't suspend him for that huh? I took a long time writing that proposal and he didn't even let anybody look at it before he jumped in, and that's why I got angry!!! He is supposed to be a moderator and he is being so biased. Out of all the sources on the Kurdish language he decided to find 3 that disagreed with me just so he can get on my nerves. Where is the justice for him?? It is so easy to to just suspend accounts, but your not creating a solution to the problem. Even as we are speaking right now, there is a proposal on the Kurds Talk page that is in favor of removing the term "Iranian" for Kurds, with more people supporting it than opposing, but I see no fucking changes!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood a few things:
 * I'm not a "moderator". I'm no different to you. In fact everyone in Wikipedia is the same, we're all just volunteer editors - although administrators (I'm not one) can block people for edit-warring, being disruptive etc., but they are just volunteer editors too who have been "elected" to do that on behalf of the other editors. The policies that we all have to follow have been developed over time by editors like you and me.
 * You said "he didn't even let any body look at" your proposal. Your proposal is there for anybody to see and to agree with if they want to. No one has.
 * You say at the end there is a proposal on the talk page with most people in favour of removing the term "Iranian". There isn't. You proposed it and no one supported it. I proposed a compromise which was to recognise that the Kurds have mixed origins but are considered Iranian for cultural/linguistic reasons. Currently, 4 support this and 2 oppose. The 2 who oppose are doing so because they don't want the "Iranian" aspect diluted.
 * You say you provided sources for your edits. You provided (in an edit summary) one website source for your removal of "Iranian". The source you gave was kurdistanica.com. That is not published by a recognised publisher. It asks members of the public to send them pieces for inclusion on the website. There is no basis for judging quality control: it's not unlike Wikipedia, and our policies don't allow Wikipedia as a source. I, on the other hand, referenced 11 books all of which were published by respected publishing houses and most written by recognised scholars. Two key works were the major internationally respected Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is so well known it even has its own Wikipedia article) and the book by McDowall which The Washington Post described as "the best single narrative history of the Kurds". Do you not see the difference in the quality of the sources we both put forward? On the question of whether Kurdish is a single language or a group of languages and whether they are Iranian languages, again I produced 4 scholarly books and you produced 3 websites, 1 was a blog which is not permitted, a second was a political website of the Kurdish regional government and therefore cannot be a reliable source on linguistics. The last was a reliable source (which, in any event, called it an Iranian language). But this was outweighed not only by the sources I produced but also by the sources cited in Kurdish languages. The problem is I think you haven't read our "rules" on sources which is set out in WP:RS.
 * Although it's for Bbb23 to comment on why he blocked you, there never is any excuse for edit-warring even if you are "right" . Where there is a dispute on whether a page should change you have to wait until there is consensus on the talk page for that change. Essentially you got blocked, I think, because you weren't prepared to do that. Also insulting other editors will get you blocked. If you don't get that and come back to editing again, you will just get blocked again.
 * The "rules" (policies) on Wikipedia have been developed over time so that it can work properly. Without them there would be chaos and Wikipedia would never have been as succesful as it is. If you're going to edit here you need to become familiar with them. On my first post on the thread you opened on the article talk page I linked to all the relevant ones. Please read them. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) DeCausa, your pissing me off. First of all I have provided many different sources, I didn't just use Kurdistanica. Anytime I used a source, you basically said that It was unacceptable, which is false. You just wanted to deny it because you felt like it. How do I know? Because you did the same with the sources on the Kurdish language. Almost all sources regard Kurdish language as one but you decided to use 4 source, (3 that are actually relevant) that say otherwise. What does that tell you? Do you think I was born yesterday? Oh and by the way, I wasn't talking about my proposal. I was taking about the propsal above mine. Right now there are more people that are supporting the lift of the term "Iranian" on Kurds, but I see no changes. With my propsal, however, you did not let anybody to look at it. As soon as I posted it up, you decided to be a douchebag and just write all nonsense below it, before anyone could even say yes I agree or disagree.

I suggest you don't talk to me again. I don't like when people are biased and rude.

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of paid contributions.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Kurds. Thank you. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kurds. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. -- Sam Sing! 23:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for resumption of edit warring at Kurds after expiration of last block and personal attacks. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If that was the case, if it is for edit waring, then why isnt Josh or DeCausa blocked for editing/edit waring and putting in false inforamtion according to the consensus!! Why!!! tell me huh!! To say that I was blocked for edit waring makes no sense at all.
 * You can't come off of a block for edit warring and resume the battle by putting into place your version(s) of the article. In addition, you were blocked not only for that resumption but also for personal attacks. Have you ever thought about possibly commenting in a more civil and measured tone? Your use of exclamation points, hyperbole, and incivilities toward other editors is rampant. Esssentially, you attack anyone who disagrees with you as apparently only you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

--Bbb23(talk) The amount of bias you are showing is the only thing that is rampant. What do you expect after I constantly get lied to and get factual evidence turned down constantly all because the members who are in charge are simply biased. You obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the paragraph that I listed above, otherwise you would have not been changing the subject. Since when is it illegal to use exclamation points? What does that have anything to do with this!!!!! The only issue is that I have been constantly lied to and now I am blocked for editing an article to put in CORRECT INFORMATION. That is the key words CORRECT - INFORMATION. It is correct to the CONSENSUS and it is correct because it is backed up by EVIDENCE. Both of which were required in order to make changes, but even after I accomplished those there were no changes!!! and now you want me to stop use using "exclamation points". Well what do you want me to give you flowers and send you use chocolate?????? I have been proved time and time again that Wikipedia is a corrupt organization.

and of course I get no reply again, this is what I a corrupt organization looks like people!