Jump to content

User talk:Nelsito Maduro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Battle of Marv, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"did not appear to be constructive" - this is a strong statement and you hold the obligation to prove with scientific sources - under what circumstances it "did not appear to be constructive". Nelsito Maduro (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should follow your own advise first. You're the one altering sourced info and adding unsourced info. You also clearly tried to hide the word "Iran/Persian", changing a link that worked to a red one. This is what Savory says "In November 1510, Ismāīl marched into Khurāsān, and on 2 December succeeded in luring the Ozbegs, who had taken refuge behind the walls of Marv, into a pitched battle. Muhammad Shibani Khan and 10,000 of his men were killed." Where do you see mention of 2,000 killed? HistoryofIran (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How come could Uzbeks invade "Safavid region of Khurasan" in 1507 if Safavids never stepped on Khurasan soil until 1510? Where is your logic?!
How come "outnumbering Uzbek army" would hide behind the walls?! Where is the logic here?!
Where is the logic in 10,000 Uzbek victims while Merv Castle could not accommodate more than 5000 garrison in the early 1500s?! Nelsito Maduro (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself, what happened to "you hold the obligation to prove with scientific sources", I guess you're an exception? Sorry, but your opinion is irrelevant. In Wikipedia, we follow WP:RS, not our personal opinions. If you keep adding unsourced info / removing/altering sourced info, I will report you. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly answer the questions! Thanks Nelsito Maduro (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you check the authenticity of the indicated sources? I downloaded the books and opened the indicated pages, but there is no information indicated in this particular wikipedia page. If you are not able to check the source, then kindly find more suitable job for yourself. Nelsito Maduro (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're either being dishonest or can't read a single page properly. Considering your comment up above ("Where is the logic here?!"), I think the former. Here, everyone can see that you're wrong. https://archive.org/details/savory-1980-safavids/page/35/mode/2up HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look and read what is written: "The Battle of Merv occurred on 2 December 1510 as a result of the Uzbek invasion of the Khorasan region of Safavid Persia" and now go to the link and read and try to find where it confirms this illogical statement! How come could this battle happen as a result of Uzbek invasion if the Safavids came to emerge just three years ago and the Khurasan region has never been part of Safavids until 1510. Read your book and there is nothing about this.
About 10,000 victims, the author has brought no reference for these numbers! No reference! Why don't you ask a simple question: How come could Safavids kill 10,000 Uzbeks if the Merv Castle could not acommodate more than 3000 garrison in the early 1500s? I don't see any logic in the way you think! Nelsito Maduro (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not a historian, thus your opinion/claim on the event is irrelevant, and so is mine. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
kindly, answer the questions you were asked Nelsito Maduro (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDHT. Feel free to read my comments here again. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khanate of Bukhara, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khanate of Bukhara. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Khanate of Bukhara. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bbb23,
It seems you blocked my account from further editing right!
I assume it is a serious decision. I ask you for a convincing clarification.
The User "HistoryofIran" was accusing me on causing some damages to the content. Did you even check whether my contribution was really a damage to the content?
I look forward to seeing your professional approach to this case! Nelsito Maduro (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nelsito Maduro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I firmly believe that this blocking act was not well-considerate decision! This "Bbb23" has failed to provide convincing arguments and has blocked me on the basis of baseless claims of the user "HistoryofIran". This one-sided application of rule towards me puts the reputation and fairness of Wikipedia team under questions. I insist on studying every accusation of the user "HistoryofIran" in details. Apparently, admin "Bbb23" did not even dive into the situation to read and understand the context. I am not satisfied with this behaviour of Administration team, because there is nobody can take the responsibility for this act and can come into dialogue with me. I personally see a monopolitstic use of power here, which seriously undermines the reputation of this platform. I strongly urge the team to learn whether the accusations of "HistoryofIran" is convincing or not!

Decline reason:

You were, plain and simple, edit warring. I don't even need to look at the content of the edits to see you were exactly in violation of our three revert rule. You've made no attempt to discuss this on the article talk page; when your block expires in a week, try to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for your change. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nelsito Maduro (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You are temporarily blocked due to edit warring with another user. Can you please review the linked guidelines and explain to me in your own words what it means to edit war, as well as what users should do in case they come into conflict with another user on Wikipedia? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! What I find here not biased is one-sided exercise of power against me while the user "HistoryofIran" has made more attempts to delete my contribution! This user even used another fake account named "Mellk" to avoid this "three-revert rule". But if your team has still allowed the user "HistoryofIran" to make the last change by deleting my contribution! I see here double standards in applying your rules.
This user is blaming me in "attempting to replace a sourced map with their own unsourced, exaggerated, and likely copyrighted map". This is a big lie and the Wikipedia team is not even concerned whether these blames are convincing or not. I actually changed the unsourced map with new more scientifically based map, but your team has still allowed this user to delete my work and reestablish that previous cartoon map. This is ridiculous.
I am deeply disappointed by the way your team has treated my work of several weeks! This is a great shame, unfortunately!
I kindly ask your team to remove the block and allow me to contribute more on this topic. Nelsito Maduro (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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) 20:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been reverted four times at Ottoman Empire. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly stick to the topic! You have failed to provide any justification on what ground you are reverting my contribution. Furthermore, you are no t engaging into a dialogue and my questions are still open. My justification is clear - the word "Uzbeks" is ambiguous in this context since the reader cannot understand which Uzbek State Abbas I was facing to. At that time, there were Khiva Uzbek state, a close ally of Abbas, and Bukhara Khanate, archenemy of Abbas I. Therefore, I made it more precise by indicating the name of the exact state, with whom Abbas I was conflicting. If you keep the word "Uzbeks", with that the reader would falsely believe all Uzbek state, including the Khiva Khanate (which actually was the ally of Abbas I against the Khanate of Bukhara). Therefore, it would be more accurate to indicate the name of Khanate of Bukhara.
If you have some counterargument, you are welcome to bring it out. Nelsito Maduro (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, there were Khiva Uzbek state, a close ally of Abbas, and Bukhara Khanate, archenemy of Abbas I. / with that the reader would falsely believe all Uzbek state, including the Khiva Khanate (which actually was the ally of Abbas I against the Khanate of Bukhara)
"By 1599, Abbas had conquered not only Herat and Mashhad, but had moved as far east as Balkh. This would be a short-lived victory and he would eventually have to settle on controlling only some of this conquest after the new ruler of the Khanate of Khiva, Baqi Muhammad Khan attempted to retake Balkh and Abbas found his troops were still no match for the Uzbeks." This is why I asked you to read the section, a simple task but vital task, which you failed. Also, subsections shouldn't be linked. Also, the Khanate of Bukhara is not mentioned once in the section, its title need to be based on actual info in the section. I've had enough of your lack of WP:CIR and constant WP:REHASH and edit warring, not to mention your unclassy act of deliberately misspelling my username as "HistoryofIraq" twice [6] [7], even when you were told of it the first time [8]. I also did some counting, you have been reverted 8 (!) times since your unblock. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baqi Muhammad Khan was not the ruler of Khiva Khanate! I fixed the error again. I had corrected this mistake before, but you reverted it without even checking it, unfortunately. So, Abbas I had no war with Khiva Khanate, and it is extremely ambiguous to use "Uzbeks" in this subheadings! Because Abbas I had to clash with only Bukhara Khanate. That was my justification why Bukhara Khanate is academically more accurate choice rather than using an ethnic attribute here. Nelsito Maduro (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nelsito_Maduro&oldid=1264012455"