User talk:John Francis Templeson

Editing about the Safavid dynasty is covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 You recently changed the article, removing both text and references. The ethnic identity of the Safavids is the subject of long-running dispute, so you should be aware this is a sensitive subject. Some administrators have the Safavid dynasty on their watchlists for this reason. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know, so disputed information must not be in preamble. It can be in sections. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Qizilbash

[1] You might wanna read this before you make changes to the Qizilbash again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Original research. If reliable sources claim that it was tribal confederation we must do so. Sources in your version are generalizing and non-profile. We don't need them if we have profile sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not original research, simple facts that you disagree with it. So far every source that conflicts with your POV are unreliable according to you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate RFAR

I would strongly urge you to retract this case and ask for uninvolved community input on say the administrator's noticeboard or another venue. It is required for Arbitration cases that you have exhausted reasonable alternatives first, and on first impression you have tried no alternatives there other than a short (4 or 5 message) talk page back and forth that didn't have anything approaching admin intervention required posts. You need to talk to them more, or get other editors to review and comment. You don't need arbitration on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Safavid arbitration case request declined

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Safavid dynasty 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—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.
- LouisAragon (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol, you deleted sourced information, including sources that directly claim that claiming Safavid state as national Iranian state is wrong.... Ok, I will return some time later, then we will continue. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"I will return some time later, then we will continue." Does this constitute a threat to keep edit warring? Because if you come back later to do the same editing you were doing without discussing first you'll get blocked almost immediately, 3RR be damned. CityOfSilver 17:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, please. I already have big wiki-experience in Russian Wikipedia and know what to do. By the way, such so unreasoned deletion of academic sources is WP:DIS. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So that's a "yes." You're going to come back and edit war against consensus, and you think you'll avoid being blocked by claiming others are being disruptive. Heh. Good luck. CityOfSilver 19:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Definetely at Mir Jumla II as well.[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)