User talk:Dohezarsersdah

Hello
Hi friend. I saw your edits on my watchlist and understood you are a new user. If you have any problem or question, feel free to contact me on my talk page.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits
Slow down, take a deep breath. You massively need to re-read our guidelines on sources, as well as edit-warring and assuming good faith. If you continue to edit how you are, you will be blocked. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

try the talk page first
You may have noticed your edits being reverted, with you reinstating. Editing this way will quickly get you blocked. Bring your opinions to the talk page and you may convince people of your case. Simply edit warring as you have been doing will only result in your being blocked and the pages being reverted.--Louiedog (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At WP:ANI it is proposed that you should be indefinitely blocked as a disruption-only account. Please consider responding there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Alevi. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the above message by EdJohnston; you may respond here and someone will copy your comments to that thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. From basically my first edit, I have been harassed by "trigger happy" admin who have reverted my edits on site, and left "warning" messages on my Talk page saying "your edit on x page doesn't seem to be constructive". They usually then, without exception, realize they've made a mistake, and then moved on, without apologizing. Apparently though I upset the user "Dougweller" to such an extent that he and a set of aggrieved admins decided to dedicate themselves to my undoing, with no regard for the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, but continuing to edit war my contributions which are all only to IMPROVE the accuracy of the articles (topics on which I have a great deal of expertise) in order to pursue their petty vendettas. Is it too much to ask for a "Oops, sorry I was wrong there, I didn't mean to assume you were being disruptive"? Obviously it was. So I returned their acidity, and continued to click the "undo" button as often as they did.


 * You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), Yopie's edits (3 reverts) actually degrade the article. I have no problem with the section, but it must be accurately referenced. A random website called "jewishvirtuallibrary" is not a proper source - neither is an opinion piece in a newspaper.


 * You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken.


 * You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) Dougweller (an admin) and Kafka Liz (a senior member who has been on Wikipedia for "4 years, 2 months and 17 days") have been edit warring to remove ESTABLISHED FACT that Bektashi was Persian (he was born in Persia, spoke Persian, and wrote in Persian... the Betkashi's elders are called "Pirs" for christ's sakes, a Persian word) and REMOVING the source I worked to find and that they were apparently too lazy to find themselves (The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, No. 3, Jul., 1909, (p. 343).


 * You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Bektash_Veli) Dougweller (the admin) apparently followed me and carried on the same behavior.


 * You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world), The Mark of the Beast (an admin?) and Metricopolus (another admin? - i don't know, they all posted "warnings" to my page) did the same thing. I had to fight "tooth and nail" to restore the correct information.


 * So yeah, I apologize if some of my comments haven't been particularly "civil". But when all these admins and established users edit war and "warn" me of "vandalism" when I'm only trying to improve articles on topics they clearly know nothing about, it gets a little old. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it pretty disturbing that an admin, Dougweller is allowed to behave this way. He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689) Way to "pratice what you preach"! Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You seem to be new to the wikipedia editing process.  Even if all your edits were correct, the reason your efforts were received the way they were was because of the way you went about them.  In general, the recommended procedure goes like this:


 * 1. You make an edit to a page
 * 2. Someone reverts the edit with an edit summary of why you've been reverted
 * 3. Seeing that someone contests the edit you wanted to make, you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page, making the case for your edit. I noticed you attempted to have this discussion in the edit summaries, which is emphatically not the place to do this.
 * 4. Discussion continues on the talk page until an agreement is reached about what to do. If no agreement is reached, there are a number of further measures either side can take, most of which include asking for input from more users.
 * 5. Whatever the WP:CONSENSUS that comes out of the talk page discussion is, someone implements it in the article.


 * The main point here being, if someone is contesting what you want to do, the WP:STATUSQUO on the page stays up until agreement is made to make a change. Simply making further reverts is generally taken in bad faith.  If you bring anything you contest to the talk pages of the respective pages you're interested in, I'm sure the corresponding editors will discuss your concerns for the articles in good faith.--Louiedog (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, saying "He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689)" is not accurate. What actually happened was that the edit I reverted was which removed the sourced statement that his family was Turkish rather than add something else also, as I suggested. What I was trying to get across was that the sourced statement that his family was Turkish should be left in, but if we had a conflicting statement that his family was Persian that could be added as well to indicate that this was uncertain. As for following anyone, yes, like many other editors when we find an editor vandalising (as was clearly done earlier at Peaches Geldof and  who is on my watch list, we look at the editor's other edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the details conveyed here, none of this would have been an issue and none of this would have resulted in blocking if the whole matter were hashed out on the talk page instead.--Louiedog (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. Once it's obvious that there's disagreement over something it's usually a good idea to seek consensus on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)