User talk:Ted hamiltun

Hi wiki

Your recent editing history at Origin of the name Khuzestan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you 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.Please stop it before being reported for edit-warring. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a bad idea to remove another editor's comments at a discussion, but it is exceedingly bad to remove the other party's report and replace it with your own report of them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Origin of the name Khuzestan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Regarding your report at Requests for page protection. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. A low-level content dispute is not a "High level of IP vandalism". Please consider the situation carefully before asking for administrator intervention, and if you do make these requests, make sure you are representing the situation accurately. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 00:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Stop making false reports at Requests for page protection. The page you reported hasn't been edited in two years. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you meant to report the same page that you reported previously, but your link went to the redirect page and previewed that history, hence the two years without edits. So the issues are the same as with the first denial: you are misrepresenting a content dispute as vandalism and attempting to abuse the page protection process instead of seeking to reach consensus through honest interactions with other editors. The same warnings still stand. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 00:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

chogha zanbil
Hello,

I ask you something in Talk:Chogha_Zanbil, but you don't care about it.

Second Question: Why you delete my edits with 3 reliable sources? and insisting on Unreliable source?

Third Q: Why you attacked me in Edit Summary?

I want to report your actions.Gholaghabijan (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

hi there User: Gholaghabijan

The deletition of 3 sourcesed text was by mistake

About the Word Dur-Untash, Dur is a Simitic word means Palace or fortress, You have the Ziggurat of Dur-Kurigalzu in Mesopotamia they were Babylonian Semitic not language isolated Elamite, you also have the Dur-Sharrukin the Assyrian city with same exact term and etc

This word exist in Arabic today with the same meaning since It's a simitic word, In today Khuzistan [old Elam] it still used by native inhabitants, see the Arabic region of Dār Khūyin in khuzistan

Hello Again,

If I can understand you trying to use a wiki as a tribune for your political ideas?

please Look this links and remember if two word are the same that isn't meant they are came from one tongue and also wiki is not a personal blog and you must using a reliable sources for your entire edits.


 * 1.#WP:RS
 * 2.#WP:SOURCE
 * 3.#WP:RSSELF
 * 4.#WP:CIVIL
 * 5.#WP:ESDOS

Gholaghabijan (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously Not a political view, rather than Your lack of knowledge in linguistics, Dur is the sume for Dar, the two words have the exact same meaning since they have one simitic root, the hole term Ziqurat and Dur are simitic words. Dur was largely used in simitic civilization in Mesopotamia almost all cities of Assyria began with term Dur :

User: Gholaghabijan

Hello again,

No original research Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

Gholaghabijan (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)