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)