M7md AAAA
February 2021
edit
Your recent editing history at Olé, Olé, Olé 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)September 2024
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of al-Qadisiyyah. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Battle of al-Qadisiyyah. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
edit There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)- I said I have no interest in them. Hoi isn't being judged on their actions in the case, they're being judged on their familiarity with other moderators, how is this building an encyclopedia? This is making allies, and I'm not sure you are conducting yourself in a neutral fashion. None of the points I raised were addressed, they were ignored. M7md AAAA (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
unblock
edit
M7md AAAA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The situation here is with regards to this article: Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, in particular the summary page. Before I changed anything, the figures cited were as follows: Units involved
Rashidun army Strength 30,000[5]–40,000
Sasanian army 30,000-40,000[a](medieval estimate)
The [a] here for the Sasanian army says the following:
"According to Daryaee, "Islamic texts...pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1241923794
My additions changed the article to the following: Units involved
Rashidun army
Strength 30,000 (modern estimates) [5]–40,000 9,000–30,000 (Primary Arab Source)[6][7]
Sasanian army 30,000-40,000 (modern estimates) [a]
80,000 (Primary Armenian Source)[9]
60,00–200,000[b]
30 War Elephants (Primary Arab Source estimates)[7][11]
I left the disparaging note in place, changed the nonsensical "medieval" designation for the number of troops into "modern", as the article text itself mentions the figure of 30,000 being a modern estimate and added note[b]:
' According to Ibn Khaldūn, " The greatest concentration of Persian troops, at al-Qâdisîyah, amounted to 120,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. This is according to Sayf, who said that with their retainers they amounted to over 200,000 persons. According to ‘‘ishah and az-Zuhrî, the troop concentration with which Rostam advanced against Sa‘d at al-Qâdisîyah amounted to only 60,000 men, all of whom had their retainers"
In addition to more accurate figures by a recent translation of primary source, Al-Baladhuri, who added more nuance yet still, and was himself Persian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247670270
I followed the example of Battle of Gabiene in including the number of War elephants (and the Battle page ought to be included in List of battles involving war elephants) The aforementioned battle only uses Diodorus as reference, without any notes to boot.
My additions were subsequently removed and the note disparaging Arabs remained in the most significant place of the article. Making the article essentially not about the battle, but about how Arabs are not to be trusted. This is the effect it has. How is this acceptable for an encyclopedia?.
Post WP:Overzealous deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247695404
This was followed by the talk page of aforementioned article, the Talk:Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah#Estimates section, followed by the ANI thread.
I applied the same standards that were followed in Battle of Thermopylae. I couldn't help but see the user HistorianofIran actions being in bad faith, seeing as how they simply repeatedly said that what I'm doing is original scholarship. When I included the 80,000 figure which is cited by non-Arab non-Muslim sources, which was used by a modern persian scholar, as elaborated on the talk page, the user spoke for their motivation behind inclusion of the figure, hence conducting original research.
Now notice how the figures cited by Ibn Khaldun are actually less than the range given by non-Arab non-Muslim source, something that is missing in Battle of Thermopylae despite the numbers for Persians remaining in place for the article, save for a note explaining discrepancy in numbers, despite the aforementioned note [a] also mentioning how Greek accounts were fictional/worthless, the numbers Herodotus cites remained in place for Battle of Thermopylae.
The user then opted to remove all figures for sasanian unit deployment from the Battle of Qadissyah article for the note disparaging Arab sources, even though the Arab sources are corroborated by the included non-Arab sources..
I then went to the talk page, tried reasoning with them, they were unrelenting. They added the link to their call for my banning in the talk page, which triggered another user ---Wikaviani, who also reverted my edits (though at the time I had assumed they were in good faith because of bad editing format, spent several hours fixing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&diff=1247651737&oldid=1247650329, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&diff=1247670270&oldid=1247651737 )
I added a comment in a similar fashion to what the user ---Wikaviani did on my page, to another ANI page where the user historianofiran was calling for the banning of another user. I couldn't see how that weren't acceptable, seeing how I was doing like what was done unto me, but it was a mistake to do so on my part. Then in frustration I called for arbitration of my contributions, in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1248016388#Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah , as I found it unacceptable that information was being censored and asked for a third opinion. I had actually asked for arbitration in the aforementioned article before, but was unsure about the process of doing so. I saw the option for it while replying in the ANI page.
Subsequently I woke up tired today, saw the posts he made and was simply irritated. I will agree that was a mistake on my part, but you can sense my frustration.
In summary, I applied the format the Battle of Thermoplyae used, had my additions removed, all numbers removed for the sake of a note disparaging Arabs, and in arguing the case I became irritated this morning and engaged in a personal attack of the user because my contributions remained removed.
I should add that I am new here and am not aware of all policies involved. All my additions were in good faith, I had even left that which I felt was clearly in bad faith and out of place. I had also changed the phrase ", "I swear by the godof the Kaaba that I have killed Rostam." to ""I swear by the lord the Kaaba that I have killed Rostam." The phrase "و رب الكعبة" is famous and this is a more accurate translation, and it is unsourced, yet both users reverted that edit, despite the user Histprianofiran saying that I can change the text of the article if I feel like doing so M7md AAAA (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Nobody's going to read an unblock request that is this long. Yamla (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
unblock
edit M7md AAAA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I applied the format the Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Gabiene used in Battle of al-Qadisiyyah had my additions removed, all numbers removed for the sake of a note that appeared to be racist, disparaging of Arab accounts as worthless "Islamic texts...pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars.", I woke up irritated this morning and seeing as how the article remained corrupted, I accused the user of what the note they left in place of numbers in the article suggest; being used as a springboard for disparaging Arabs rather than details of the battle. I am after creating an encyclopedia, will pursue proper channels for managing disputes from now on. I did not even have the chance to because I was not aware of how to do so
Note: See previous version of appeal for more details.
Decline reason:
Sorry, this doesn't even begin to address the competence and civility concerns raised in the ANI discussion. Please familiarize yourself with our reliable sources policy and more carefully read what the criticisms are actually saying--they're taking issue with the fact that you are privileging historical, self-aggrandizing accounts over the views expressed in contemporary scholarship. By all means, make reference to Arab Muslim...scholars, active today, not historical figures from near-antiquity. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.