Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Safavid Georgia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. First of all, start using edit summaries. Secondly, you were reverted once, thus, per WP:BRD, you need to open a talk page section wherein you can raise your concerns. You can't just change information in a GA article like that. This article is about the Safavid province, hence the usage of the Muslimized names of the Georgian rulers. -LouisAragon (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1.This article is about Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti under Safavid State. These Kingdoms were vassals (always mutinious BTW) of the turkic Safavid Dynasty, not direct regions.
2.In this article the names of the Georgian Kings are muslimised, however some of them never converted to Islam (for example Teimuraz I of Kakheti) and even they who did convert bore georgian and muslim names together, and issued many official documents where they had Georgian names (Rostom not Rostam; Vakhtang VI together with Hosaynqoli Khan etc.)
3.Sometimes in this article the names of the Georgian kings are not even muslimised but persianised (for example Lohrasb). This is totally unacceptable. Safavid dynasty was turkic not persian (as you know till XX c. Persia was ruled by turks), that state was founded by Qizilbashs who also were turks.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Safavid Georgia 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All my editions are correct and logical, with plenty of sources, which I have provided. Those 3 users try to Persianise and Islamise the names of Christian and Georgian kings (one of them is the saint of Georgian Orthodox Church). it is an anti-historic absurd. Please, first of all just read my editions, than you will understand that I try to give the article more academic form.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether your edits are correct, logical, or sourced is not the issue. The issue is that you cannot edit war to try to make your preferred version of the page stick. You must discuss your edits at the article's talk page; you may not change it until there is consensus for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat here the message I just left you on my user talk page:
I see where other editors have raised concerns about original research on your part in adding the "Christian/Georgian" names to the article. Based on that, the burden is clearly on you to show that names other than what are currently in the article are the common names by which the kings are referred.
I also have concerns that you may not be approaching this topic from a neutral point of view. On that grounds, I suggest that you voluntarily stop reverting the Safavid Georgia article. Discuss your desired changes at Talk:Safavid Georgia; after consensus is reached, let another editor make the changes (or contact me when clear consensus is reached). If you continue to unilaterally change the article in a disruptive fashion, then my next step will be to consult with other administrators about whether your editing on Wikipedia should be restricted with a topic ban to prevent all edits by you related to kings of Georgia, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I do not attack anyone, but this editor - "Louis Aragon" - tries to falsify Georgian History. He slanders our saint Kings, their biography, even names... --Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I debated making this an indefinite block, since you appear to be unwilling to discuss issues without making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Acroterion(talk)02:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Safavid Georgia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please stop your disruptive editing.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.