User talk:Wikaviani

Legit removal and changes?

this --Wario-Man (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like another example of POV editing from this user. He removed a reliable source (Alireza Shapur Shahbazi) and replaced it with his POV. Quite surprising that this edit has not been reverted until now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Question

those texts did not provided sources,why u coming back those ? Sasan Hero (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sasan Hero, as i said in my edit summary, you did not provide any explanation for your content removal, this is why i reverted you. Also, maybe you should first check the web in order to see if it's possible to find soures for this content, and, if you cannot find any, then you may remove it. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That bowl has shown didnot belonged to Samanid era ,that is belonged to buyid era ,and text not provided sources ,this is not my duty to find source for articles of other editors ,and my explanation part of my page not work ,so I can't write explain for that,however I am always useful for my reliable information that I wrote yet. Sasan Hero (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani Sasan Hero (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If you know for sure that this bowl is not from the Samanid era, then feel free to revert me, but please provide an edit summary in order to explain your action. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This bowl is currently in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection. According to its catalogue entry there, it was "Produced in northeastern Iran, in the province of Khurasan during the Samanid period, … ". User Sasan Hero's implied assertion that he is not obliged to provide a source to justify his removal of that conent is therefore incorrect.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This bowl is in the Buyid dynasty's page too ,I told that was from Buyid era for that ,but I had search in the net and I saw this bowl from Samanid period excuseme for that ,And for articles I only told thats should better with source provided ,thanks. Sasan Hero (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Buyids never ruled northeastern Iran, i agree with David. Also, apart from consensual content in the lead of Wiki articles, information needs reliable sources.

Hey David_J_Wilson, thanks for your above post and valuable insight. BTW, happy to hear from you, i hope that this Christmas period is full of joy for you and yours, best wishes. take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Arabs#Recent_edits

Can you take a look at this discussion, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Wikaviani, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Davey2010 ! Wish you and you beloved ones the merriest Christmas and a happy new year ! May 2019 be troll free ! Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks so much :), Take care, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A Shaker greeting

	A Shaker Christmas wish
	Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

Thanks very much for your kind wishes. Happy editing, into 2019 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

This[1], may need your attention. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Thanks for letting me know about this. The IP's opinion about Zoroastrianism is not shared by most reliable sources. From Encyclopedia Iranica : " Although modern Zoroastrians question whether their religion even allows conversion, Zoroastrianism, as an ethical and essentially monotheistic religion based on a historical figure " I would say that this should be discussed on the article's talk.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I saw your edit[2] and that user is a problematic one. See this archived report which I submitted a year ago. You can take a deep look at his contributions and see more odd stuff by him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i've interacted with this user months ago : [3]. At that time he was trying to push his odd POV at Azerbaijanis by misrepresenting what the sources say and removing some of them (like Iranica) : [4], [5] before i added some decisive sources to make him drop the stick : [6], [7], [8]. This user dares to claim that today Azerbaijanis are of Turkish origin while all genetic studies deny this, typical Turkish irredentism behaviour. i suggest to give him some more rope before to act decisively and make this stop.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Every time he touches an article and writes edit summaries like "fixed", "fixes", and "pov"; I'm 99% sure that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT has happened! He changes sourced texts and call it fix! His edit history is full of such edits. Another example: [9]. Honestly I don't understand he's still active on English WP while his account is blocked on German WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, indeed that one is quite disruptive. No worries, sooner or later, an admin will realise how WP:NOTHERE this guy is and then he'll be blocked. Another topic, i would appreciate your insight about this edit.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Caucasus

Britannica has a different definition regarding the boundaries of the continent. They see the north and the south of the mountain range as part of Asia. But that's not mainstream. Also the claim that the majority of the scholars consider the whole region (including the northern part) as part of Asia has no source (even the given source Britannica says otherwise, they say "there is now general agreement (which is not true) on assigning the Caucasus to Asia", they don't mention 'scolars'). Most sources, including Wiikipedia consider the Caucasus as a division line between Europe and Asia. The text that you reversed was a biased text that contradicts this. It was a recent edit by someone that is trying to change the definition of Europe. --Wester (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wester and thank you for posting here. If the source says "general agreement instead of "scholars" then we can change the wording of the article accordingly. However, when you say "even the given source Britannica says otherwise, they say "there is now general agreement (which is not true)", i just cannot agree with you, you have been editing this encyclopedia for 13 years, you ought to know by now that we go with what reliable sources say. Britannica is not the best source ever, especially for recent events, but it sounds like an acceptable source for the Caucasus topic.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources are one thing, but in-depth discussion are also necessary. Also internal consistence of Wikipedia is important. Take a look at the articles Europe of Elbrus, which both say that the Caucasus is the border between Europe and Asia. In that article a source is given: https://www.webcitation.org/5kwbxqnne?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html, here's another: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pack/georgia-and-the-caucasus-_b_10240342.html. There a lot more sources that say that the Caucasus is the border. There is also a difference between the region Caucasus (south of the mountain range) and the mountain range itself.

Also the language of the sentence I reversed in the article Caucasus is flaw, it indicates that the Greater Caucasus mountain range 'has historically been considered a natural barrier between Eastern Europe and Western Asia, but is today accepted by the majority of scholars as being part of Asia'. First of all they seem to intermix the mountain range and the region. But also the claim that the majority of the scholars say it's Asian is sourceless since the given source (Britannica) does not mention scholars. It says 'general agreement' which is also questionable given the enormous number of sources that question the region's continental identity. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-georgia-in-europe-or-asia.html The sentence is also a recent edit made by User:Seraphim_System, see the history of that page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasus&action=history .I've given a source that say the Caucasus is the border line. So there are plenty of good reasons to reverse the sentence. --Wester (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point about the "natural barrier", this claim is in the article and i did not revert you for it. The sources you posted above are not supporting the belonging of the Caucasus to Europe (also, Huffpost is clearly not a reliable source). Encarta says : "Modern geographers generally describe the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, part of the Caspian Sea, and the Caucasus Mountains as forming the main boundary between Europe and Asia." this is quite different from "The Caucasus is in Europe", right ? As an aside, if the world "scholars" annoys you, let's then just say what the source says, i.e. : "there is now general agreement on assigning the Caucasus to Asia.", would it be ok for you ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Bogus?

• Azeri style

What do you think about that article? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The article could be quite legit, but right now, it's very poorly sourced (BTW, who are Karim Pimia or Said Fallah'far ?), contains many unsourced claims and is misleading. Example, is really the Goharshad Mosque Azeri style ? No. this Mosque was built some 200 years before Azerbaijanis. same goes for Bibi-Khanym Mosque, Dome of Soltaniyeh (the latter was even completed some 300 years before Azerbaijanis ...) and others. I've not been able to verify this claim of the lead "Landmarks of this style of architecture span from the late 13th century (Ilkhanate) to the appearance of the Safavid Dynasty in the 16th century CE". A correct title could be "Iranian style", but only if reliable sources can be found supporting this. This article should be deleted or better sourced and written. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD nomination

It looks like you're trying to nominate an article for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeri style. Since the nomination currently resembles a comment added to a different AfD in the various log views, I recommend completing the nomination using the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, which walks through the various templates and listings required for a proper AfD nomination. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bakazaka, thanks for posting here. I used Twinkle to nominate the article for deletion and when i read WP:AFDHOWTO, it seems that i've already followed those 3 steps, so i don't really understand what else you want me to do. Please let me know if i'm mistaken. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added the missing afd2 template (step 2) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeri style. Twinkle sometimes does not handle AfD nominations correctly, so it's a good idea to confirm that it has actually added the necessary templates. Bakazaka (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try to keep your remark in mind for the next time. Wish you a great rest of your day. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Ras el hanout 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.