Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 24 January 2019

Archives

Archive 2012 Archive 2013 Archive 2014 Archive 2015 Archive 2016 Archive 2017 Archive 2018

Did some depov'ing

The opening sentences of the Tabriz and Ardabil articles were extremely POV'ish. I just made some tweaks and added proper RS sources. Also removed the unreliable Britannica/Looklex links.- Thoughts? This might spark some..."interest" as usual (i.e. IP's/drive-by accounts/socks). - LouisAragon (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Britannica is not unreliable in my opinion but we shouldn't cite it when there are better sources. Because its articles have some issues and they sound like basic general info rather than academic info. I think Looklex Encyclopaedia is unreliable and we should avoid it. Yeah, they were obvious POV stuff and they sounded like those cities belonged to an autonomous region or even a sovereign state. Looking at history of those two articles, it seems this user added them. Do you remember what I wrote on your talk page? Another similar case by him. Just take a deep look at their contributions. If you want to solve the issue, you should start it by editing this Azerbaijan (Iran), and then Provinces of Iran (reviewing each province and its capital). For instance, I found Mashhad#Demographics sounds very ridiculous. Or obvious ethnic-nationalistic agenda like this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I remember him. He made "a few" good edits, but overal, he was definitely WP:NOTHERE. Unfortunately, I only realized how disruptive he actually was in around 2016. He should be indeffed or topic banned if he ever decides to return, no doubt about that. There are literally dozens of diffs out there that back up our concerns. As for the Mashhad page, yes, its pure crap, but hey, most Iranian city articles are unfortunately still like that. They are in absolute dogshit state ever since they were created, some 10~ years ago. I recently expanded the Fuman, Iran page and I will start fixing more articles about cities in the future. Isfahan is probably the next one on my list, followed by Mashhad and Kermanshah. As for "Azeri style", don't you think ppl @ AfD will say its "legit" based on this Or do you think we should we just go for it and give it a shot? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you see this btw? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Azeri/Azari style" may be a legit term but seems that article is mostly based on non-English Iranian sources. Someone should improve that article. I still don't understand how a Timurid architecture in Samarkand is Azeri style?! As I remember that user even added it to some Seljuk-era architectures. I ask another editor who is familiar with such stuff to check it. Also about that user; he had a considerable number of ethno-nationalistic rants and aggressive stuff (edits summaries and talk pages) and it's odd how he managed to evade block or why other editors didn't report him. And those issues are not limited to Iran. Many articles about West/South/Central Asian topics suffer from such issues thanks to modern nationalism, chauvinistic agendas, or other kinds of fantasy. For instance see , , , and ; An Uzbek editor liked Iranian elements among Uzbeks, so he created a 100% POV lead and made it worse by adding racialist terms to it (ignoring obvious fact that Uzbeks have Mongolian influences too). Then a Turkish editor appeared from the sky and added another kind of racialist bullshit, then I fixed it but the Uzbek editor still wanted to mention "Persian" stuff in the lead. So encountering such stuff are not odd for me anymore. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems its just a term coined in some Iranian sources. As for those two "gentlemen", yeah, I remember both of them. IRL frustrations, nothing more, nothing less. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Per my experience, many of such users come from so-called anthropology forums or racialist communities to WP. That's the reason why we revert their edits, they can't accept that they're wrong. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"HistoryoftheAryans" admitted to being Jamaas9 and got indeffed by Doug Would you be willing to review the material he added to the lede of the Tajiks article in the past few months? Do you think those edits were verifiably correct?
As for those race/anthropology forums; yeah, they seemingly act like a "hub" for all those ppl. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: The lead is OK in my opinion. Did you find any issue or dubious claim there? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm not really, I think its ok as well, but I was curious for your opinion. Btw, you might be interested in this: - LouisAragon (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You and Kansas Bear might also be interested in this:

• IP 217.35.82.33 expressed interest to contact our mutual "friend" Jamaas9 back in June 2018.
• Almost 7 months later, IP 217.35.82.33 got into conflict with HistoryofIran on Seven Parthian clans.
• And now, just 4 days after his mini-clash with HOI at "Seven Parthian clans", IP 217.35.82.33 tried to WP:STONEWALL the RfC at Talk:Sakastan (created by HoI) even though IP 217.35.82.33 hasnt made a single edit on any related topic and has not provided any sources. I quote: "Give it a rest... that is precisely the agenda you are trying to push, and evidently not only on this article. Sakastan as a term was used before the Sassanid." How did IP 217.35.82.33 find out about the RfC? Its literally his first edit after the "Seven Parthian clans" episode. Looks like obvious retaliation to me.
• Cherry on top of the cake: IP 217.35.82.33 and IP 86.30.66.111 both have the exact same geolocation.- Coincidence? I dont think so.

- LouisAragon (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems it's not a coincidence or a random anonymous user. But as you know, admins do not block IPs unless they do disruptive edits or they are obvious block evasions. About HistoryofTheAryans' edits: most of his edits were OK and as I remember, me and other editors reverted his problematic edits. But his last comments on Talk:Tajiks showed signs of promoting racialism and made-up stuff. For instance, what is this?! He said stuff like "add more photos of darker-skinned and more Turkic Tajiks" AND "Also, as a FYI Tajiks were called "Farsi" because I believe Iranians (modern nationality) changed the modern editions of our classic literature -- replacing "Tajik" with "Farsi"" which were meaningless stuff in my opinion. Darker-skinned?! As if the current used images are some kind of very rare faces among that people or they're as light-skinned as very pale Europeans. More Turkic Tajiks?! Seriously what does that "more Turkic" mean? And the second part was just similar to his previous attempts to create a fantasy ethnogenesis for a modern nationality/ethnicity. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts ?

What do you think about this edit ? Can UNESCO be considered a reliable source ?---Wikaviani 23:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Look at the authors and editor(s) of that book, e.g. János Harmatta. However, if you think that claim sounds dubious or does not apply to all Saka tribes, you can find and add counter arguments. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much.---Wikaviani 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Youare the one engaged in editwaring not just with me but several others. Please stop reverting my edits for no reason

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One Thousand and One Nights; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Xoltron (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)