User talk:Reza235

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines you'd better learn fast

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
• Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.
• Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

Continuing to call people racist just because you didn't get your way can quickly lead to a long block. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Complete this tutorial and look over this guide before editing further. Most of your arguments and problems are rooted in not knowing how this site works. The tutorial and guide can help fix that. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How to get what you want

• Take this tutorial.

• Read this guide.

• Keep in mind that all we do is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.

If you do all three things, you'll know how to accomplish what you want.

I'm literally handing you the solution to your problems. It's all your fault if you ignore this and continue to make pointless arguments based on ignorance of how this site works. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Further to getting what you want, another way of not achieving that is to spam users with the same stuff about Cyprus (or anything else for that matter): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Happy editing! ——SN54129 05:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Your actions indicate that you have chosen to not take the tutorial, read the guide, or try to understand that this site has standards. If you are not interested in this site's standards, nor in improving the quality of your edits, no matter how much we explain the necessity of both to you, please let us know so we can provide you with the proper and most useful treatment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I provided the resources, so where's the problem now?

reza235 (talk)

As I have already explained, the sources you cited don't support the information you added! Do you really not understand how that's a problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And you are adding text to already sourced text that isn't in that source. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Dhul-Qarnayn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)