User talk:Xonus

Welcome!

Hello, Xonus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Iranian Air Forc Crash

I've reverted the article to the state it was in before you started editing it. I could plaster this page with a number of warnings over your editing to the article. Your first edit contains the summary "Article contains false, uncited information. Other citations maybe have been taken from this wikipedia article". As I wrote the original article, and am not in the habit of including false, uncited information, I was a little surprised to read that summary. In total, you edits reduced the article from a structured, well-referenced article to a stub plastered with fact tags. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you are Iranian, and want to put forward a pro-Iranian point of view, or to put it another way, the truth as seen by Iran. With the possible exception of the You Tube clip, all references meet WP:RS. If you have reliable sources that contradict sources in the article, then raise the issue on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.Xonus (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you did that without even bothering to read the article before and after the edit? I already filed an incident report over this which you did not bother to check either before you posted that notice on my page suggesting that I do so. Sounds like I am going to have a very short "career" on Wikipedia if this is the kind of behavior editors have to put up withXonus (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi did you read the article before and after the edit. My revision had sources Mjroots did not." — you won't get very far with obvious lies here. Stop being deliberately foolish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choyoołʼįįh your comment here is extremely rude, offensive and unproductive. For your reference: Wikipedia:Civility.Xonus (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about the Huffington Post reference at the article's talk page. Your views are welcome there. For the moment, I have stopped editing the article whilst the dispute is ongoing. I would ask that you also do the same. The correct procedure in such a dispute is to ask for edits to be made via the talk page, and if other editors agree with the request, they make the edits on the behalf of the requester if they are not constrained by policies such as WP:EW. FYI, I have asked for more eyes on this issue via the four Wikiprojects associated with the article. You should not take this as an attack on yourself. It is merely a request for involvement/review from independant editors, who are free to act as requested, or do something completely different. They are free to raise issues at the talk page, or make such statements as they see fit either there or at ANI.

When I mentioned Persian sources, I was thinking at a regional level, not just within Iran. It is highly likely that Al Jazeera covered the event at the time. They post in both Arabic and English, but I'm not sure of the longevity of their web pages. Mjroots (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xonus, I've created a new version of the article at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp. I've also rewritten it to cover both the radar dome detaching and removing the tailplane, and the mid-air collision scenario. Please comment at the talk page of the article as to whether or not you approve of the new version. As for the title of the article, given the conflicting sources, I am amenable to the article being moved to a title that does not include "mid-air collision", but let's get the article sorted out first, then worry about the move. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]