User talk:Sooreta

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq & Assyrians

Please see Talk on the Iraq article. I've not reverted your change because I'm waiting to get some advice on the WP:3RR (WP doesn't, from the little I've seen, always follow a common sense approach), but you need to be aware that I will revert it. If you continue to add it, I'll push for it to be labelled as vandalism. Bromley86 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley86, if I proportioned my statement to represent the Assyrian population in all of Asia, I would probably need to write one word. I don't see WP formatted in this manner and I'm not sure why that's necessary when the content is referenced and applicable. (Sooreta (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That's exactly correct. Not every article can include every possibly tangentially related fact. It is not the right thing, in an encyclopedia, to have special interest edits like yours. The way detail is dealt with is by wikilinking to the detailed article. In the case of the Demographics section of the Iraq article and the Indigenous peoples article (and indeed the Demographics of Iraq article, when you discover that one) is like this ((Assyrians in Iraq |Assyrians)); with square brackets instead of round, giving: Assyrians. That way, people who don't give a monkey's about Assyrians can use the articles as intended, and those that do can drill down and find out more.

You know all this, surely, which means you don't care about the content of WP, you only care about getting your message across. As I've said on the articles Talk page, I see no merit in including your edit even in the Assyrians in Iraq article because it is a blatant POV edit, but that's the place where you should be trying to insert it. Otherwise, why not plaster it everywhere? Bromley86 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are one angry person and I just don't see how we can have a productive discussion, as WP would like. I'll ask Farm for advice, thank you.(Sooreta (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop reverting and start discussing instead

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Farm, I don't understand why the proportions of my contribution have to be comparable to the proportions of the Assyrian population in Asia. Bromley86 seems to insist that my content is not proportionate to the population. Not sure how to reason with that? Thank you for your advice. (Sooreta (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The best way to proceed is to go the articles' talk pages and to discuss things there with the other editor(s). If that doesn't produce a satisfactory conclusion, you can always try other steps in dispute resolution, like asking for a third opinion. There are many things to take into account, like no original research, no undue weight, neutral point of view, and our verifiability policy. Fram (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Farm, I started a conversation, but there is no response. Any advice? Thank you. (Sooreta (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Recent edits to Indigenous peoples

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because your addition to Indigenous peoples did not include any references to reliable source. Thank you! APerson (talk!) 21:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashurbanipal

I reverted your edits to the sculpture article, for now. Please discuss on the article's talk page your reason for these edits. Both organizations are mentioned as having commissioned the work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit satisfy your concern? We cannot ignore that this organization claims to have commissioned the work, but the wording no longer implies that the two organizations are the same. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]