User talk:FellFairy

Help

I'm new here, and I seem to have stumbled right into a conflict, and now I don't know how to proceed without becoming an "edit-warrior" as they say here. I was looking into articles on Territorial dispute and came across this article on Greater and Lesser Tunbs. That's two small islands in the Persian Gulf which are disputed between Iran and the United Arab Emirates. There's been a terrible history of this article, with two factions of editors. One group keeps reverting to a version that says "they are Iranian islands, period", and another group keeps reverting to a version that says "they are Arab islands, period". I tried to rewrite this to make a more neutral version, but now there have been two other editors who just blindly revert back to their old version. I mean, it's blatantly non-neutral, but what can I do now? How am I supposed to behave in such a situation? FellFairy 08:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and reuse the {{helpme}} tag in case you want more help. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RV

No, I'm reverting your POV. For example, you took out the fact that Britain agreed to give Iran back the islands if Iran gave up its legitimate claims to Bahrain, which it did.Khosrow II 17:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wont edit the article till we have come to a conclusion. Also, the difference between using u and o is so small that it really doesnt matter. It doesnt change the pronunciation much.Khosrow II 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fairy—thanks, but I'd really rather not get involved. I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process. If there are unsourced statements, simply add {{fact}} tags. Regards. —Khoi khoi 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hey FellFairy, thanks for your message. To be honest, I don't really know what is going on. I only became involved because a 3RR violation was filed on WP:AN/3RR and I took a couple of cases to help ease the backlog. That is my only involvement with the article. I've asked Khosrow to try to explain to you what he feels are the problems with your edits. It's up to him if he decides to or not, though. Give him a chance, but if you feel you aren't getting anywhere, you can request informal mediation here or try following the dispute resolution process linked to above. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Azerbaijani 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Who's undoing whose work here? But yes, I know the 3-revert rule, and I haven't broken it. FellFairy 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have broken 3RR. Oh and you don't actually own that article, your rights are the same as everyone else there. --Azerbaijani 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who has been expanding it and correcting it and bringing neutral sources. Everybody else has just been destroying and erasing because it didn't fit in with your prejudices. :-( FellFairy 09:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbornness isn't a quality

The paragraph was extremely POV and factually incorrect, so even if it was sourced, I'd still challenge it. I don't understand what your problem is, 90% of the article now is in line with your POV, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of stuff there but I'm wiling to compromise, yet you still want to edit war over every tiny detail that isn't in line with your pan-Arab POV. Can't you just compromise a bit? This is really frustrating. --Azerbaijani 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Pan-Arab POV"? How pray am I a Pan-Arab? I'm Dutch by the way, LOL. No connections with Arab countries whatsoever. And what's "POV" about that paragraph, what's that even supposed to mean? Silly Wikipedia jargon. You mean it's non-neutral? Well, it is presenting the points of view of the two sides. Anything wrong with that? And I insist both sides must be presented in some way, if you have a better summary of what the UAE point of view is, feel free to put it in instead. But the way you had it, the UAE wasn't represented at all any more. Are you seriously claiming that would be a better version? FellFairy 12:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should cool down the rhetoric. I think my last edit is satisfactory. BTW, we have a Dutch speaking fellow Iranian active in the Persian Wikipedia. I am sure he would be happy to help you with your Persian studies. Kaveh 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) In fact, I'm totally green about that. Maybe that box I put in my userpage was a bit of an overstatement. But I'm trying. By the way, now things are getting quieter, can anybody explain to me actually in grammatical terms why there's both "kuchak" and "kuchek"? Our textbooks all say the word is "kuchek". FellFairy 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are to learn conversational Persian, in colloquial Tehrani it is pronounced "kuchik". In the more formal lingo, often if the previous word ends in ـِ then "khuchak" in used. However, I am not familiar with a formulated grammar rule in this regard. Kaveh 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's beginning to make sense. Thank you! :-) FellFairy 08:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding comments such as this: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --InShaneee 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite at least half a dozen insults in your reply, so I'll ask you again to calm down. There are steps to resolve disputes, which you do need to keep trying; they do not include trying to get those you don't agree with blocked. --InShaneee 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian language

Can you list part of the citation from the OED on the talk page. There was a dispute as to if you were "making it up" or not. I suspect they just didn't have access to the full version. - Francis Tyers · 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a quote, he reverted again. - Francis Tyers · 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time could you take a screenshot of that? Mardyvich is complaining about verifiability. You can take a screenshot by pressing the PrntScrn button a few times then opening up Paint and clicking "Edit -> Paste". Please upload it at imageshack.us. Thanks! :) - Francis Tyers · 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the screenshot: [1]. Thanks for helping! FellFairy 11:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian

Do you know Persian? =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrzad hbk (talk • contribs) 07:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]