User talk:Sharisna
Orphaned non-free image File:22px-Flag of Kurdistan.svg.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:22px-Flag of Kurdistan.svg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kurdish people
[edit]Hello. Read WP:lead. The lead is a summery of the whole article, so the information of the lead can't be considered redundancy. I suggest to have a fast look to similar articles about how different ethnics articles are writte. Take into account most of the people in middle east are indigenous and in Wikipedia we don't need to provide source for facts. For example you don't need to write Paris is capital of France[1][2][3]. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, the information is still redundant. The information about which I am considering redundant is contained in the lead itself. The lead already mentions that the linguistic relation of the languages spoken by the Kurdish people as Iranian and this does not need to mentioned twice in the same lead of the article. Furthermore, this is also not appropriate as the opener of the lead of an article about the Kurdish people since it is specifically about the language of the Kurdish people, and does not take other aspects into consideration. Again, please refer to Wikipedia's policy against redundancy in the content section of the guidelines. Sharisna (talk) 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No hard feeling
[edit]I just wanted to apologize for any harsh words I may have uttered.. "Iranic" I think is a compromise here since there many sources that state it. I would happy to correspond via email in order to clear up any misunderstanding. You can email me when you activate your wiki-email. Thanks and your presence is needed. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi If you prefer Iranic than I think that is good. You might want to mention WP:concensus. As an active user in that article, I have no problem with substitution of Iranic for Iranian for that specific article (only). Of course when discussing ancient history, I prefer Iranian rather than Iranic. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I added Iranic but I did remove the other soource since the author is a lecturer and he also claims weird theories like Sumerians/Elamites were turks and quotes poorpiraar, etc..
By the way I am trying to get an assessment of all the epic poetry in non-Peresian Iranian languages. I have found Shahnaameyeh Laki. And I have heard there are many epics of the Sistan cycle in Gurani-Kurdish as well. If you know anything about this, please let me know. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeshn Nowruz Piruz Bet.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
February 2015
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kurds. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. -- Sam Sing! 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sharisna. This article has been subject to editing that has attempted to deflect from consensus toward some goal that at times appeared less than neutral. Your edit summary indicated that you were trimming one reference and leaving one. Could you quote the one you left? Another question; have you read the discussions on the article talk page? Tiderolls 02:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Sharisna. Hi "Tide rolls", you can see why the article is in dire situation of taking in our view. Are you going to keep alerting every Kurd who will try to mend this heavily biased "consensus"? DeCausa (dont want to talk to him) keeps reverting whilst referring to the RFC. The RFC only covers two lines, the article is hundreds of lines against Kurds and our history using "crackpot" theories. I can assure you, even if we leave it, next generations will not. Can you help?--هیوا (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- My intent is to maintain editorial consensus where possible. I understand that you, as well as others, have strong feelings on the subject. The reason I directed you and Sharisna to the article talk page is so that you could see that the article does not say what you think it says. It's somewhat concerning that you are not seeing this. I do not know how long this project will exist, but I can assure you that I will continue to do my best to maintain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Tide rolls, the so-called consensus keeps changing on a regular basis so I am not sure that a real consensus has ever been reached. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this constant editing taking place. Everyone appears to have a different opinion on Kurds' classification as Iranians. My edits have not attempted to deflect from any consensus or the opinion of any side versus the other. I have simply reiterated to users many times that there is no need to state that Kurds are Iranian several times in the lead. It is redundant and is not very academic and does not meet the professional standards that are thrived for as per the Wikipedia guidelines. To answer your question specifically: I left in the statement that says "The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages", which accurately describes the contemporary scholarly classification of the language of the Kurdish people. The current page contains a lead in which the Kurdish classification as Iranian is mentioned 3 times in one paragraph. This is highly unnecessary and consistently reappears in this redundant format in the lead. Furthermore, I would propose an even greater change to remove the classification of Iranian peoples altogether since this is no longer relevant in the modern world, and is frankly, outdated. The contemporary usage of Iranian is used for citizens of the nation-state of Iran and classifying non-citizens as such is highly confusing to average readers who make up the majority of Wikipedia readers. Sharisna (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Tide rolls, even though I disagree with the Iranian classification for many of the reasons I have previously stated, I have modified the Kurds page to reflect the proposal in the RFC. I'll be highly surprised if people abide by it though when I see the numerous political interests from Iranian users on this site. We will see. Sharisna (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Tide rolls, the so-called consensus keeps changing on a regular basis so I am not sure that a real consensus has ever been reached. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this constant editing taking place. Everyone appears to have a different opinion on Kurds' classification as Iranians. My edits have not attempted to deflect from any consensus or the opinion of any side versus the other. I have simply reiterated to users many times that there is no need to state that Kurds are Iranian several times in the lead. It is redundant and is not very academic and does not meet the professional standards that are thrived for as per the Wikipedia guidelines. To answer your question specifically: I left in the statement that says "The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages", which accurately describes the contemporary scholarly classification of the language of the Kurdish people. The current page contains a lead in which the Kurdish classification as Iranian is mentioned 3 times in one paragraph. This is highly unnecessary and consistently reappears in this redundant format in the lead. Furthermore, I would propose an even greater change to remove the classification of Iranian peoples altogether since this is no longer relevant in the modern world, and is frankly, outdated. The contemporary usage of Iranian is used for citizens of the nation-state of Iran and classifying non-citizens as such is highly confusing to average readers who make up the majority of Wikipedia readers. Sharisna (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- My intent is to maintain editorial consensus where possible. I understand that you, as well as others, have strong feelings on the subject. The reason I directed you and Sharisna to the article talk page is so that you could see that the article does not say what you think it says. It's somewhat concerning that you are not seeing this. I do not know how long this project will exist, but I can assure you that I will continue to do my best to maintain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Sharisna. Consensus often changes; this is why I have been urging those editors that have an interest in the subject to visit the article talk page and make their cases. I would hope that the editors that regularly edit those articles would be receptive to reasonable discussion. I also hope that you find the time to make use of the article discussion. Again, thanks for taking the time to respond. Tiderolls 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Kurds RFC
[edit]You tried to change the wording specifically agreed in the RFC. You can't do that. The first reference to the Kurds being an ethnic Iranian group in the first sentence was not part of the RFC. If you take "Iranian" out of that I won't revert you - but I can't say what others would do. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- DeCausa, from my understanding, the RFC has a proposal that Iranic be used instead of Iranian, which is precisely what my changes were. I have been watching this page for years and this was a consensus reached in the past and has only recently been back up for debate again. In addition, the "Iranian" classification is mentioned 4 times in one paragraph in the lead. Do you really think this is necessary? This will just further agitate people who oppose this classification altogether. Why is it that no middle-ground is being met here? The Kurds are an modern ethnic group of their own whether or not the debated Iranian classification is valid or not. Therefore mentioning it in the first sentence is misleading. Rather, mentioning it as a classification in linguistic terms in a later sentence - within the same paragraph - is far more appropriate. Let's stop with this redundancy in the lead that seems to have no purpose greater than simply trying to make this theory a central point of this page. Sharisna (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)