User talk:Torivar

Kurdish Sun

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You have added Kurdish Sun to the English version of Wikipedia. In the future, use English citation templates. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Ahmetlii. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kurdish Sun, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source 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. Thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ahmetlii, I've added sources, But please in the next time, put a template "need for source" instead of the write-off. Thanks. Torivar (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torivar, I generally patrol recent changes and therefore I cannot look to all edits carefully; I revert and send a warning as default if there's a thing that does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. However, since you added reference, I don't think there's not a problem. Anyway, good edits. :) Ahmetlii (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kirkuk. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

This is the second time I've seen you borderline-edit war. I'd recommend reviewing the bold, revert, discuss cycle. There's an Arabic version too, if you prefer that. Perryprog (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perryprog, I know very well, I have one year of experience with Wikipedia. I understand what you mean, but if you investigate the matter, you will know that I ignore the liberation war by any means, for example in the Kirkuk article, the message arrived to him, but he is still retrieving even without a summary of modification, so I wrote to the editor Semsûrî to act. But I think you'd be better off conveying this message to MasgoufMaster, because he doesn't know much. Thanks. Torivar (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torivar, don't worry, I notified them as well. It's important to remember, though, that the general process should be 1) make the change 2) have the change be reverted 3) discuss the change with the editor who reverted. Continuing to revert the article to the version you edited, even during the discussion, will likely be seen as edit warring. Perryprog (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Torivar, Wikipedia is a place for factual information and unbiased research, not Kurdish propaganda. MasgoufMaster (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Kurdish nationalist

I request you stop your racist propaganda edits and outright vandalism, which you did to Kirkuk, Turkmen pages and more, and stop your historical erasure. Wikipedia is a place for unbiased factual research, not racist propaganda. MasgoufMaster (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MasgoufMaster, There is no link between my character and my modifications, so the modifications should be reviewed and not removed and justified by sabotage or "POV", cause it's your retrieval that will be considered sabotage, because modifications are carefully reviewed, especially those with sources.

Kirkuk is a non-Turkish city and the history of Turkish settlement in is modern, contrast with other groups, such as the Kurds or the Assyrians. So phrases such as "cultural or historical capital" should be detailed. While I don't have a personal hatred against the Turkmen or seek to sabotage their articles, for example the article on Flag of Turkmenli, you may think that I read it originally, while I'm reviewing the files and I checked that file by chance so I removed it from the official articles. If you have questions about Wikipedia write them here. Thanks. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 17:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cizre. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mugsalot (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, The modification wasn't unconstructive, the issue was "Removed incorrected and unverifiable content", and I added resources for you. Whereas if i restore the modification without any change then it may become controversial, so this message is not needed, we can certainly discuss. Accept my greetings. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 00:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]