User talk:Az-507

Disruptive edits

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is your last warning before your vandalism and disruptive behaviour is reported to admins. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for discussion

Hello, Az-507. You have new messages at Talk:Chovgan#Request for discussion.
Message added 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HistoryofIran (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Az-507. You have new messages at Talk:Chovgan#Request for discussion (second request).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HistoryofIran (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Az-507: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nizami Ganjavi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Zyma (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chovgan, you may be blocked from editing. Zyma (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Nizami Ganjavi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zyma (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami Ganjavi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Zyma (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Chovgan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zyma (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Azerbaijani people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:3RR at Azerbaijani people and nationalistic slurs (anti-Persian) across multiple articles. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ismail I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in the Mamluk Kingdom: A Challenge to a Mediaeval Society. Vallentine, Mitchell, 1956. Стр. 109)</ref>. [[Richard N. Frye|Richard Frye]], the author of the article in «[[Encyclopædia Iranica|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:

Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat transgressions.

Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

This notice is being given to you due to your involvement in an edit war in the affected area. If you disagree with another editor, please engage in calm discussion and seek dispute resolution rather than repeatedly making the same edits. Edit warring behavior will lead to sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail I

How can Azerbaijani native be his native language when he was of mixed origin? (which the sources clearly says). He was clearly a bilingual person (which is also said), so it's impossible for Azerbaijani to be his only native language. Plus why do you add that he was of Azeri when it already says that he was of mixed origin? not to forget that the sources which i added agrees that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian one. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each person has their own language. Even if there are mixed bloods 10.

No, because it clearly says that he grew bilingual in Persian and Azeri, meaning that he spoke both languages as a native one. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give sources for it. Azerbaijanis in Iran also bilingual. Everyone knows the Persian language as the language of the state. But the native language of Azerbaijanis Azerbaijani language.

No, that's not called bilingualism, i suggest you to actually do some research about the word. By the way, you did not answer me regarding Ismail's origins. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Ardebil Kurds never lived. If he is a Kurd, it is necessary to remove it from the articles about Azeris. I brought authoritative sources stating that his native language is Azerbaijani. If you have the same thing about the Persian language, give the source.

I did not understand almost a word of what you said, anyway, i use to much energy to just discuss about one thing, so forget that one and let's move to the other thing i said; Why do you add that he was of Azeri origin when it already says that he was of mixed origin? not to forget that the sources which i added agrees that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian one. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources call it a Kurd, other Arab third Turk. Azeris themselves mixed. Iran and Persia it is not the same thing. In times of Ismail state language was Azerbaijani language.

What has that to do with my question? can you please answer it instead of saying meaningless wrong and unrelated things? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much English... In short, the sources speak for themselves. What is your question?

Alright, let me write it for the third time: Why do you add that he was of Azeri origin when it already says that he was of mixed origin? not to forget that the sources which i added agrees that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian one. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said... Azerbaijanis mixed people. Greek blood in him was not enough. Some authors believe that the Safavids were Arabs from Yemen and not the Kurds. Richard Frye, the author of the article in «Iranica», writes that the Safavid dynasty was founded by Azerbaijani Turks... Native language Ismail was Azerbaijani Turkic. He was also a poet of Azerbaijan. Why he made the state language of the Azerbaijani Turkic language?..

The Iranians and the Persians are two different concepts. The Gilan people Iranians, but not Persians.

If you actually took a look on the article, you would see that the majority of sources agrees that the Safavid Empire was Iranian. Plus that the dynasty was of mixed origin. If you actually also read about Ismail, you would find out that he was descended from the Byzantine Greeks, Qaraqounly Turks, and Safaviyya Kurds. Thus a dynasty of mixed origin. Plus Frye meant by his words that the Safavids were of Azeri origin, which they were, however, they also had ancestry from other ethnic groups. Congratulations, he wrote poems in Azerbaijani, he did the same in Persian, that means NOTHING about his origins and Empire. Why he made the state language Azerbaijani? well, he didn't; both Persian and Azeri was spoken (as said in the detailed Safavid dynasty). Anyway, that is not a good example either, and won't make your claims better. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why then David Ayalon says that the Safavids of Turkic origin? Why did decide that Ismail 1 is of Kurdish origin, when it from Ardebil... I cited source says that the Azerbaijani his native language.

Errr.. what? i never denied their Turkic origins? (as i said several times, they were of mixed origin) plus it's really hard to understand what you write, and you still did not answer my question. I hope i won't have to quote it again? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should present different points of view. If there are sources speak of Turkic origin, they should also be in the article. You are trying to remove all Turkic, leaving only the opinion of his Kurdish origin ...and Greek

Count the number of Turkish people and Azerbaijanis. Are you sure the Turks, the alien in the region?

He was not a Kurd, he was a Turk. Whoever decided that he Kurd by origin??

Wikipedia should represent different points of view, and do not remove the fact that someone is not profitable. Some authors write about Kurdish origin, about other Arabic, others Turkic. We should present all points of view. Its origin is not known. Similarly unknown origin Nizami Ganjavi. In Azerbaijan it is considered a Turk.

Ismail could know 10 languages, but his first language was Azerbaijani (Turkic language) And as proof, I added an authoritative source.

Sigh.. i am not even going to bother answer the first things you said.

Umm.. Nizami's origins are not unknown, that's the reason your edits got reverted several times, and will continue to do so in other articles if you keep up like this. This is not the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, if you are so fond of it, then go over there, a place where you can also better communicate with other people in your language. Plus if you bothered to read on the Safavid dynasty article, the sources and information states that it was of MIXED origin (i really hope you know what that means).

May i ask you what that exactly has to do with my question? let me ask you for the FOURTH time: Why did you add that he was of Azeri origin when it already says that he was of mixed origin? not to forget that the sources which i added agrees that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian one. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what is written about the Kurdish origin, but does not say a single word about the Turkic origin ... Where information about the Turkic origin? And I added authoritative sources. Azerbaijani language called his mother tongue. You do not agree?

Wikipedia can be edited by simple people, not experts. Nizami monuments installed in China and Italy, with the inscription Azerbaijani poet ... Many were forced to write in Persian, but not all are ethnic Persians.

Carpets woven in Southern Azerbaijan are considered Persian. Although these rugs are woven ethnic Turks.

You are obviously a nationalistic Pan-Turk, since you like to use the tern Southern Azerbaijan so much, and you waged edit war in many articles using anti-Persian slurs and much more. But in the end all your edits were reverted and you were blocked for some time. I am not going to answer your silly claims, you are only trying to change the subject.

Alright, but you added the information about his origins in a wrong place and way. It should, like the Safavid dynasty, state that was of ALSO of Azerbaijani and Greek origin (i will fix that). BUT, there is one thing you still haven't answered yet; the sources which i added agrees that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian one, so i don't see why you added some random and wrongly written information down below the information which i added. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat once again: Iranian and Persian is not the same thing. You think Tajiks Persians? Yes? Excellent. And the Kurds and Mazanderani your Persians too? ... Iran and Persia is not the same ... Persians always steal other cultures. Ismail did not want to create the Persian Empire.

Medes also not Persians. The whole culture in Iran other Iranian peoples, but not Persians.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Caspian race. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Zyma (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read sources. for example Valeri Pavlovich Alekseyev

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tats

You should discuss that at the talk page. Or, with all due respect, are you afraid that your "all Iranian peoples are Persian" POV won't fly? Plus, take care not to confuse the Tat people (Iran) with Tat people (Caucasus). --JorisvS (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tat people (Caucasus)

Your recent editing history at Tat people (Caucasus) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

You don't seem willing to abide by "You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." You have made more than one revert and you haven't been discussing content reversions on the talk pages. The comment "Persians always steal other cultures" is clearly uncivil. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal

Given your sock-puppetry and behavior, I've raised WP:AN#Community ban proposal for Az-507. You can respond here and someone will copy it over. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been banned from editing en.wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]