User talk:Nahçivan

Welcome!

Hello, Nahçivan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note about consensus

When text has stood in an article for some time, there is deemed to be implied consensus that the text is part of the status quo. When a user changes it, they're breaking the status quo, so the burden is on them to show that the new change is supported. If it's opposed, then discussion is needed to see if there's consensus for the change.

So that's what happening with your edits to Ottoman Empire. The text you removed had stood in the article for some time, so it's a de facto consensus.

See WP:BRD for more suggestions on what to do when you make a bold edit and it's opposed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. The change is made long before, but it does not still make sense. The sources are irrelevant and one of them is not in display. There are lots of articles involving Arabic and Turkish history that Iranian make changes with Iranian propaganda. This bothers the eyes. Imagine you see "Francophone society" in Switzerland, "Germanic society" in England, "Indian society with English origin" in British Empire etc.

Although I can and will redesign the article in a more objective manner (say, "is highly influenced by Arabic and Persian culture due to its Islamic regime.") all I will get is more reverts by the Iranian trolls and talk which won't end due to the nature of article, which is open to being subjective.

Also note that they do not refer to consensus in the page but among the scholars with no sources. Nahçivan01:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Ottoman Empire 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.
The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule and applies to any edits you make, whether you're logged in or not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]