User talk:Chickchick77

Marking controversial edits as minor
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Yazidis, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. LjL (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversial edits lacking an edit summary
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Yazidis does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! LjL (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Yazidis
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your addition of File:Ezidi girl.jpg see WP:NOR, please avoid that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm only recently coming into this particular article and see that you have had a bit of an uphill battle, since there are several people intent on their WP:POV. However, it is a precedent here on Wikipedia that religious or ethnic groups can be categorized however THEY define themselves...not only how others define them.  An example would be the Ahmadi, who consider themselves Muslim or the Mormons who consider themselves Christian...even though in both examples the mainstream do not.  In other words, while this picture with the sign may not be used, the fact Yezidi lobbied the Armenian govt for ethnic recognition is absolutely enough to show that at least SOME Yezidi do not identify as Kurdish.  I encourage you to add any more cittions you may find regarding this issue, and we can all work together to ensure that at least both arguments for and against Yezidi recognition as a separate ethnic group from Kurds is present.  Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and tendentious editing
Your recent editing history at Yazidis 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.

Yours is a single-purpose account that has done nothing but tendentious editing about Yazidis since its creation, most of the time changing information against sources or reverting justified edits without any edit summary, and even going as far as posting an image of yourself holding a sign with a political slogan. This must stop.

LjL (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadia Murad
Hi, We cannot cite "Ezidi Press" because this is a blog and therefore is not considered a reliable source. Also, she was already nominated by the Iraqi government. Curro2 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yazidis
Hi,

Before changing make sure you are improving the article. You just deleted a lot of sources and added old details which were proved to be falsified. About intermarry: I didn't add it myself but I want you know that such claim need a lot of strong and reliable sources. Majority of Diaspora Yazidis are marrying Westerner people and your claim could be easily proved as false. Thank you for understanding. If you don't accept my changes, please use talk page, we can start to talk about them there. Ferakp (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to tell you that your explanation for your changes are not accepted. Please, read Wikipedi Rules.Ferakp (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I added new section to talk page and you can talk there. Do not reverse my changes. Your changes are simply against your sources and they are falsified. You could be banned and it looks like you are warned many times by many users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yazidis#Changes_11.02.2016 Ferakp (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Yazidis, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''There is a discussion currently on the talk page Talk:Yazidis. Please refrain from making any changes until issues are resolved. Thanks. Uamaol (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)'' Uamaol (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Yazidis 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. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 11 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. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Yazidis
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sharfadin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sharfadin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sharfadin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dorpater (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)