Hello, Mitrayasna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Necktie did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Drmies (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitrayasna

I wanted to let you know that I have altered your entry to the infobox at polo and explain why. While you're right that often the "First" parameter is used to list the first game played in a sport, because it is such an ancient game, I wanted to fully explain its origins. For that reason, I have labelled the that paramter as "origins", which is a legitimate, and to me anyway, more useful approach in this case.

I know the the Encyclopaedia Britannica cite you added does say "first played in Persia" but it also says "A game of Central Asian origin". The preexisting sources, which are more detailed works, talk about the origins of polo with nomads, and that Persians then formalised the rules and developed it from its simple beginnings. I think that is important too, so I have included that in the infobox as well. I believe this gives a clearer picture. If you don't think this is correct, can we please talk more about it on the article talk page? I would be pleased to discuss with you. My thanks, 175.39.67.82 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitrayasna, what I understand is that this is an edit conflict, which I approached in food gaith and all courtesy, and to which yu responded with unfounded aspersions of vandalism. If I accidentally went over the reversion WP:3RR rule in the heat of the moment, then so, now, have you. Ihave no more vandalised the page than you have. Your viwe is only one view; my view is just as valid and worthy of consideration. Your comments are extreme;y discourteous. (Did you read and take in the tone of my approach: even if I'm incorrect, how does that warrant being spoken to like that and reverted so instantly, without discussion? 175.39.67.82 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss in the polo section of the conversation. I do not take this discussion personally and I would never insult you or anyone else Mitrayasna (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "vandalism" is an insult, acusation, aspersion, whatever you want to call it. I did discuss: you chose to ignore, and call my work "vandalism" because you did not agree with it. That is WP:UNCIVIL. 175.39.67.82 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We were challenged a little at first, but now the situation between us is good, let us continue to help each other. Mitrayasna (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the 6th to the 11th century AD, Turks migrated to Central Asia. Before this date, Iranian peoples such as Scythians, Parthians... lived in Central Asia. Therefore, this article is not contradictory at all.

The game of Turkomans and Iranians has no source and was recently invented by ethnic nationalists, but the fact that the first polo game was played in Iran in the 6th century BC is clearly stated by the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica. Turkmen live in Turkmenistan today, but in the past, one of the cities of Turkmenistan was the main capital of the Parthians, in the event that the Turks entered Central Asia and present-day Turkmenistan from the 6th to the 11th century AD.

So I strongly criticize the polo history section of this Wikipedia article. The origin of this sport is mentioned in Central Asia, which is consistent with other available sources, then Iranian and Turkish people are mentioned, and in the main sources such as Britannica, Turks are not mentioned at all. Because they did not live there at that time Mitrayasna (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1978 Iranian politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehsa Amini's murder had nothing to do with her ethnicity. Unfortunately, he was killed because of hijab issues. And some people in Wikipedia tried to distort and

and ethnicization are this issue. Mitrayasna (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why you don't like her Kurdish name, but please discuss on the talk page, thank you! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all understanding why her ethnicity or Kurdish name are controversial, can you please explain? I'm an America, so really not understanding why this would be an issue. Just seems like the respectful thing to do, by including her name and background info. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His official name is Mehsa and his second name is Gina. This has nothing to do with the protests against his murder. In cases similar to famous personalities, except in cases where the biography of that person is discussed, only the name that is known to them is said. Mitrayasna (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HER name. She is a woman, that's why she was murdered, due to the "bad hijab" law etc. What is so controversial about her name or ethnic background, exactly? Please explain, thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that this page is not his biography. The content you want to add has nothing to do with our discussion and this information does not help English speakers, it just makes this article ugly and unreadable.

On Mahsa Amini's death page, impartial people removed his second name from the list for the same reason as I said above. But since there is no page of Mehsa Amini, his second name and... are still in the text of that page. That page is very different from the page protesting Ishlan's murder.

Also, in similar cases, Wikipedia does not have a process that edits you, and only their official or well-known names appear on pages other than their biographies.

We agreed on the page of Mehsa Amini's murder to write her second name and its local font with the argument that that page is also a page of her biography. Mitrayasna (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that you can call it "animation" - you could never see it move until technology caught up. The cup does show phases of movement, though, but it is wrong to say that the cup originally showed animation. Janke | Talk 21:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cup once again - you have misconstrued the citation you refer to. See the talk page of the article! PS: The cup does belong in the early history article, no doubt about that... --Janke | Talk 18:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mitrayasna, could you please stop adding the extra text and images of this artifact on the [Animation] and [Eary history of animation page]? It was already mentioned on the latter page, because its images have indeed been considered as a possible depiction of motion. However, the text and the illustration that were already there seem sufficient.

If you think this artifact deserves more attention, you might, instead of disrupting these pages, consider looking for support to create a dedicated wikipedia page for it. If so, please read your sources more carefully. It may also be a good idae to look for some help to construct texts with fewer mistakes.

It's great if you like to add new information or images, but please consider that there are editors who invest much time and effort to keep these pages carefully written, properly sourced, and with a balanced amount of pictures in a clear layout. They are not merely fighting the inclusion of certain facts, as you seem to think, and I expect that most are keen to see new improvements and are willing to help if new contributions may be in need of some more work.

I suppose it's not intentional, but unfortunately, your added lines contained many problems. Besides lack of interpunction and linguistic errors, your contibutions included serious misrepresentation of the cited sources. I hope you truly do care about citing proper sources, like you claimed on the Animation talk page, but unfortunately you haven't shown much consideration of what these sources are actually saying. For instance, you wrote on the [Early history of animation page]: "Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery." You thus seem to accept that these images are not actually a form of animation, but even that part of your text doesn't represent what Bendazzi has written. More importantly, the part about intricacy and an "unprecedented discovery" is from a text that Bendazzi quoted as an example of productions that "look like something we now call animation" which in his eyes are "anecdotal and thus useless to our historical discourse."

Another problem is that you added a picture of this same example on the [Animation] page, although it has been deemed irrelevant to its history not only by several regular contributors to that page, but also by the source you keep citing. When we pointed out that it was already on the [[ Early history of animation] page, instead of showing any consideration about such complaints, you started stuffing that page with more images of the same example. On both pages you disturbed a layout in which carefully chosen illustrations were neatly placed next to where they were mentioned in the etext.

Such problems have been pointed out to you several times by several wikipedians, but you dismissed such comments as "false claims" and stating "I proved them wrong" and just put your stuff back. If you would like fellow wikipedians to reconsider the worth of your contributions, it might help if you at least try to understand their comments and to react less antagonistic. From a look at this talk page and those of the relevant pages, you start to come across as a nationalistic zealot instead of someone who cares about fact and reliable information.Joortje1 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your opinions in the discussion section of the article Mitrayasna (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. SilverLocust (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joortje1 (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]