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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Qizilbash

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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. City Of Silver 17:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. City Of Silver 19:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I just changed its place so I can answer it. What's wrong. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page guidelines. Changing the order of comments in a long discussion can impact the meaning of them, sometimes in quite subtle ways. People place and indent their comments based on the comment they are replying to. Moving them can make it look like they were replying to something quite different. I'm not suggesting that there was bad intent here, it's just something that is problematic and best avoided. Either reply beneath the existing comment (in its original position) with one or more additional levels of indent (two or more if needed to ensure that the existing replies are appropriately distinct from your new reply), or use names and quotes to clearly identify a previous comment when adding a new comment at the bottom of the discussion. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution

Normally I answer talk page messages on the page on which they are posted, to avoid fragmenting discussions. However, on this occasion I think it will be beneficial to have a record of what I said in the history of your talk page, so I am copying your recent message on my talk page to here, and answering it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, colleague. Can you look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman. Two years ago there was a discussion with me involved. Several other involved users put forward their arguments, but then I left the English Wikipedia for a long time. Now, I have returned and put forward (or rather reinstated my older ones) my arguments, and these are without any answer for several weeks. What should be done, according to the protocol of mediation. Can I already call for 3O or what? John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Francis Templeson: Two years ago you kept pestering me, more or less demanding that I intervene in this case. Eventually I told you "I don't know what the rights and wrongs of the case are, nor am I willing to put in the substantial amount of time and effort it would take to sort it out." As far as the rights and wrongs of the dispute you refer to is concerned, that still holds. However, your posting yet another message about it to my talk page after two years prompted me to investigate your editing history and various related matters. I have spent rather more than two hours doing so, and I have formed a pretty comprehensive view of your history. I will not waste my time and yours giving you a detailed account of everything that I have found, for several reasons, including the fact that it is all stuff that you already know. However, here are a few salient points.

I am not the only person whom you have persistently pestered over a period of years. You have done so to others, perhaps most of all EdJohnston.
As has been said to you before, your editing looks very much as though it is inspired by nationalism.
A number of editors have found your editing disruptive, and it has been commented on in several places, including in a discussion which you initiated on the administrators' incident noticeboard.
You are frequently unwilling or unable to collaborate with other editors when you don't agree with them. This results at times in a belligerent attitude, personal attacks, and persistent insisting on your own preferred versions even when it is clear that consensus is against you.
You have been notified of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions. The warning was a long time ago, and I do not currently plan either to issue any discretionary sanctions or to formally renew the notification, but I am reminding you of the situation.
Several times editors have expressed concerns that you may have abused multiple accounts. I have now made an independent investigation. Several of the other accounts concerned seem to be certainly not you, but there is at least one which seems much more likely than not to be an account of yours, and since that account is blocked, that means that you are probably evading a block. That seems to me to be so close to certain that I have considered the possibility of blocking your present account from editing immediately, but I decided against it.

In view of the above observations, I am warning you now that any further disruptive editing may result in a block. "Disruptive" covers any of the problems that I have mentioned here, any of the problems that others have mentioned to you in various places at various times, and anything else that is likely to damage the encyclopaedia. Such damage may take many forms, including wasting the time of editors who could have better used the same time in more constructive ways than dealing with your disruption. There are many ways of wasting time of other editors, including persisting with trying to get your way on an issue where it has long since been clear that consensus is against you.

I emphasise that none of this has any connection to the merits or otherwise of the changes you made, or have wished to make, to any articles; that is a matter on which I have no opinion whatever.

@HistoryofIran and Kansas Bear: You may be interested in reading this. If not, my apologies for taking up your time by drawing it to your attention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more point which I intended to include in my message above, but accidentally missed. No, asking for a third opinion is not appropriate, because there are already three opinions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I am very offended with such humiliating accusations. You could make a better investigation. Is it OK to answer in this way to the question on the conflict resolution procedure? Maybe my behaviour were not that good two years ago, but what wrong did I do now? In article about Iraqi Turkmani I have brought several academic peer-reviewed sources. One of the editors didn't accept them based only on his own opinion. The 3O resolved this conflict, as the one could expect, in favour of me. In article about Qizilbash, I challenged the point of view of several editors, giving well-sourced arguments. They didn't answer and I asked for your advice, since I didn't know what to do, according to the procedure. Where I am not unwilling to collaborate? I have brought sources and some editors don't accept them on the basis of their own opinion. What is my fault. And yes, if asking an advice is considered as pestering, do not worry, I won't ask any more. It is a shame, how administrators of Wikipedia behave to the not well-established editors. I am very offended. And yes, I was accused in the sock-puppetry two years ago, but special investigation have shown that I do not use any other account in English Wikipedia. If you wish, check IPs once more — I don't care, since still I do not have any additional account. John Francis Templeson (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]