User talk:اردیبهشت
August 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AniMate 07:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)- After looking through your contributions, your reactions at WP:ANI, and reading the other opinions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removing_scholarly_sources.2C_disruptive_edit_wars.2C_violation_of_3_RR it appears you are here to push a particular point of view in violation of our core policy of WP:NPOV. Furthermore after coming off a block you immediately returned to edit warring. Because of this, I have elected to block your account indefinitely. You clearly know how to request an unblocking, so I will advise you that should you request one, assurances must be made that you will not continue your campaign, engage in talk page discussions, and no longer edit war. AniMate 07:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
اردیبهشت (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
AniMate, you have cited these three edits of mine as a reason for blocking - [1][2][3] and what you call my 'POV' and disruptive editing. I find this surprising since what is presented there is neither my 'POV' (i am merely presenting a fact that is referenced to two other sources, and i can provide more to that if needed) nor is it disruptive editing on my part. How could it be disruptive editing when i am not removing information, i am adding it? Similarly, my edit to the page Iranian cuisine was not a revert, but a new re-write for the introduction with a second reference added that kept content from both sides of the dispute. So i was the one compromising there, despite my disagreement with some of its content. These are the only two articles (Hazara people & Iranian cuisine) where this edit war has been taking place. The latter appears to have been resolved. But not the former. No credible explanation has been given as to why the references i have added to that article are being removed, only personal whims as to why they should not be included. As such, the article is being distorted and is not congruent with what is written about the same topic in other places (academic, media and so on). Can you actually explain therefore, why you think that i am pushing a POV, when my edits are based on other sources, and not my personal opinion? There are no grounds for you to take sides in this dispute when both myself and the other party have been acting in the same manner. I am willing to stop interacting with the other party if he/she agrees to do the same (There are mutual recriminations which are unnecessary and can be stopped, though bizarre assumptions and unfounded accusations against me of racism had long ago ruled out the possibility serious debate). Anyway the article on Hazara people is a different case, there i have to stand by my edits as i do not believe that i am the one who is disruptively editing there. A 3rd party is needed there to review those edits and a credible, and referenced, reason for the sources i have added not to be included should be given by the other parties. Not their personal POV as to why they should not which is all that has been given as an explanation thus far. Cheers. اردیبهشت (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've reviewed your recent contributions, and the rationale for this block is entirely sound, and I agree with its indefinite duration. As you made no commitments to edit in a more productive way in the future in your request above, I'm declining this request. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
اردیبهشت (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I mentioned that i am willing to stop interacting with the other party, although they should agree to do the same by not stalking my edits. That aside, i am willing to engage in the talk page of Hazara people to remove all doubts about its introductory content. Unless you are asking me not to edit that article? In which case, i dont see how that is justified given that i reference all my edits. However, my priority is not that or any one particular article, but the Wikipedia Iran and Zoroastrian projects. Therefore, i can leave that issue aside for the time being and concentrate on improving and verifying unrelated articles from the above contention if thats what you are asking from me. Although i will make a request for a 3rd party review, but wont revert the introduction myself. If there is any other article i have been editing which you think was not productive then please point it out to me so that i can clarify my position on that too. Cheers. اردیبهشت (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
User has addressed interaction with one user, instead of addressing broad adherence to our policies and where s/he's fouled up. I suggest reading WP:GAB and if you still seek unblocking, try explaining how you are not here to push a POV and will edit other articles that are not related to said POV. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
اردیبهشت (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have explained already that i had made additions to two articles, which were referenced to academic journals (on Hazara people) and as such, those additions were not my POV. That aside, i have agreed to let that issue resolve itself through the talk page rather than edit-war, which i wont engage in. I have not, and am not here to, put forward a POV. I make updates and additions which are referenced to credible sources, and scan articles related to the projects i have joined for errors, style, and so on. Information presented in articles within the projects i have joined should be congruent with what is presented about the same topics in actual academic sources. That is my interest here. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request has been open for 10 days and it is certain that numerous administrators, myself included, have reviewed the request and declined to unblock. Therefore the response to this request is that Wikipedia is not willing to unblock your account at this time. I suggest you leave it at least 6 months before requesting unblock again. The standard offer may apply here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
اردیبهشت (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi there. 6 months seems unreasonable given that i have not engaged in malicious editing or behaviour against somebody else. Disagreements in life are normal. A dispute with some of my edits were raised by only one user, while supported by others. However that dispute at Hazara people is resolved for now as it has subsequently been taken up by somebody else and is no longer a concern of mine. As such, i see no cause for any further suspension as i have confirmed that i will not 'edit-war' on any other issue but seek 3rd party opinions in the event of any future big disagreements. اردیبهشت (talk) 4:26 am, 14 September 2012, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC+7)
Decline reason:
You have not understood that you are blocked indefinitely for Disruptive editing: persistent Point of View Pushing and WP:NOTHERE. I am not confident that you will leave your own opinion(s) out of controversial Wikipedia articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
اردیبهشت (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No. What are you talking about? I have not given my own opinions about anything in any article, nor is there anything controversial that i have been involved in. Regardless, since none of you own this website i will continue to edit with or without this account as i have been doing since anyway as an unregistered user. There is no reason to keep a ban on this account as i am not engaged in disruptive behavior nor am i trying to conceal anything. So i ask this last time to unblock this account so at least you people can still see a record of all my edits in one place if there is ever a need to review them, or i will just continue editing anyway like i have already been doing without this account. اردیبهشت (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not get an unlimited number of appeals, and you have already had more unblock requests than most editors get. Your ability to edit to your talk page has now been revoked. You may contact WP:BASC via email after six months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
No.
Wait 6 months? No. I'll continue editing as an unregistered user / from different IP addresses without this account. Im not going anywhere so long as there are topics of interest to me that can be improved / kept up-to-date. Cheers! - 92.4.165.18 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Socking is never an acceptable way to deal with a block. Considering that you weren't on anyone's radar and probably could have quietly edited without any problem, announcing this for attention is extremely lame. AniMate 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)