User talk:Trxch/Archive 1

January 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ardabil has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ardabil was changed by Trxch (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951149 on 2018-01-24T20:15:50+00:00.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Azerbaijan, 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. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 20:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Azerbaijan, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 20:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

My edits are not disruptive editing; I removed a section containing biased historical information; other than that I added links to certain phrases that were missing them. Nothing wrong with what I did. None of the edits carry any bad intentions behind them, and I hope that is clear.


 * Hi Trxch, Thank you for your comment above. Do note that you have removed "sourced content" without stating any valid reason on your edit summary. Secondly, content in Wikipedia, as long as it well referece from a reliable independent source, it could permit in Wikipedia and content need also balance of all view. Please see representation in proportion to their prominence -WP:UNDUE. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Azerbaijan 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 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.''Mass tweaking of sourced content, amongst others. -'' LouisAragon (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * MORE DETAILS:
 * Edit warring on the "Azerbaijan" page;--
 * Mass removing sourced content from the "Azerbaijan" page;--
 * Removed sourced content from the "Tabriz" page;
 * Changed "Iranian" into "Qizilbash" on the "Tabriz" page;
 * Never using edit summaries
 * Never providing sources
 * Added spellings in an alphabet not used in Iran, to articles about numerous Iranian cities, towns, and districts.-----
 * Added unsourced content to the "Borchali page";
 * Added unrelated entries to the "Template:Azerbaijani topics" page;
 * Swapped the "Iranian architecture" template with the "Azerbaijani population" template;


 * Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say you're WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already cleared up the disagreements faced with user talk ; there was not and is not any disruptive editing or edit war going on here. I fixed spelling errors, removed misplaced/biased sources, added missing links to different related articles in various words wherever possible; there is nothing wrong going on here. I hope that clears it up.
 * If in doubt, feel free to at least take a good look at the edits made and see for yourself. Nothing slanderous or otherwise malicious intended.
 * P.S. I consider your arguments as to the removal of Azerbaijani Latin texts from certain Iranian Azerbaijan-related articles unfounded; there are numerous articles about cities, regions, etc. inhabited by different ethnic groups in other countries where (despite the differences in alphabets) one can find the names of any toponyms given in various languages *and* alphabets. For example, there are articles about cities and other inhabited areas in Iraq which contain their Turkish and Kurdish names, written in the *Latin alphabet* (eventhough Arabic language and the Arabic script are the officially used ones). In other words, there is and should be nothing wrong when considering this. -

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Wario-Man (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is starting to get rather bothersome. What is your deal? I have repeatedly made my points crystal clear, and I see no need in further "bullying" me into stopping from being able to edit articles. This is outrageous.
 * Wario-Man, you can take a look at my edits yourself, as well as the discussions here and in the following link.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018


 * Seriously, stop having the words "disrupt", "edit war" and the like constantly on repeat and actually take a look at the edits themselves! Is it *so much* to ask?

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

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. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, this has gone out of hand now.
 * 1) I did NOT ignore any messages, warnings, etc.
 * 2) I am not at "war" with 4 editors, but rather with 2, them being LouisAragon and Wario-Man
 * 3) This is a free encyclopedia. Anyone, in principle, should be free to edit, add, post information. That being said, there are many people using this to their advantage by posting information derived from biased sources against a certain entity for reasons best known to them. It creates a distorted image of the topic of a given article (in this case, a country) when reading about it and finding information based on sources (whatever they may be (!)) that have written their work in a biased/inaccurate and rather emotional fashion.
 * This should be clear to anyone who ACTUALLY knows a thing or two about the topics of these articles and whatnot. I would not be editing articles if I would not have any proper knowledge of the topics and issues they covered.
 * I seriously hope this message of mine does not get overlooked and that I do not get into trouble for nothing.
 * Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.08.2018

January 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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:. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe this. DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I POST BEFORE MAKING ANY CONCLUSIONS? -_- - User:Trxch, 26.08.2018


 * Since you've pretty much limited me to being able to post only here, for the time being, I expect you to take a look here and reply. - User:Trxch, 26.08.2018


 * Trxch - It's not about what version is right and what is wrong (See WRONGVERSION)- It's all about consensus - You were given 2 warnings to go to the talkpage so you should've took the time to read and heed those warnings - If anyone reverts you then you need to immediately go to the talkpage and discuss it,
 * You're only blocked for a day so take a break and hopefully come back Saturday with a fresher mind. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Davey2010 - Listen man, I get where you're getting at, I really do. But, if you've been following what's been happening over here, then you should know that I've made myself very clear with regards to my edits. There was no reason for such a, may I say, aggressive and not farsighted response. It's almost as if they blatantly refused to hear me out and make sense of my points, which is what bothers me so much.
 * My edits did not contain any sentences, or paragraphs, no entries regarding my personal opinions and views on a particular subject (i.e. this is this and that is that, and that's a fact); in fact, most of it was just correction of spelling errors (e.g. placenames not written with a capital letter), adding links to other relevant articles, etc.
 * Just because they are not well aware of (and maybe even oblivious to) the topics that are covered in the edited articles is not my problem; my problem is people like them interfering with my work on a website where users edit articles online and (figuratively) screaming on top of their lungs that I am "disrupting" or "edit war"ring or sth like that. -_- What kind of a consensus can we talk about in this case? In fact, there was a similar problem yesterday with another user, and we talked it over and managed to resolve everything without any problems! So you can probably tell where the problem lies here; it's one-sided.
 * Anyway, thanks for turning out to be a little more sensible and approachable than those two others bossing me around.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

Disruptive IP
Hi, thank you for trying to keep the content of the articles about Tehran, Sanandaj and Tabriz, but this IP does not seem to drop the stick, i asked for pages protection, so i would suggest you to stop reverting the IP until an admin step in or you'll get blocked for edit warring. Just to let you know. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up. Yeah, well, unfortunately he/she kept pushing it. Although I do have to agree with him/her to some degree. It is indeed odd how, for example, the usage of Azerbaijani Latin script is considered wrong and disruptive editing (since the alphabet is not (officially) used in Iran; then again, plenty of Iranian news agencies writing in Azerbaijani, including Sahar Azeri, write in this particular script) in this article (the Latin transcription also misses in articles about Ardabil and Zanjan) but not in the ones about Urmia or Maku, yet Kurdish Latin is consistently used for articles about cities in Kordestan, Kermanshah, etc. Note that articles on cities in neighboring countries (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, etc.) don't really have such problems, i.e. alphabets (primarily) used outside of/having no official status in those countries tend to be regularly used. So I do think that this back and forth needs to be sorted out. This IP just went the wrong way about it. Best regards. -- Trxch, 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)