User talk:Bijanii

Bijanii, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bijanii! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Parsi, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. UA3 (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bijanii reported by User:UA3 (Result: ). Thank you. UA3 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bijanii. You and the other party are both warned per this closure. If either of you reverts again at Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation, prior to getting a consensus in your favor on Talk, you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at UAE Arabian Gulf League. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UAE Arabian Gulf League

How did you choose the editors you notified about the move discussion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that they had experience with soccer pages so they'd know the rules better than I do.--Bijanii (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. We have hundreds of editors who edit soccer articles. How did you pick these editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wasn't attempting to "canvas" anyone - I don't know any of them personally. I was just trying to get more opinions on the talk page, namely from those I've seen that run soccer pages. From an impartial viewpoint, it seems clear to me that consensus has been reached - the page should be moved as it's a sponsored name.--Bijanii (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't said what made you pick these ten editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I randomly chose some who have edited soccer pages in the past based on their contributions. If you look closely, even those who were canvassed by UA3 support the page move, thank you.--Bijanii (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For future reference please read WP:CANVASS. It is not enough to say editors were randomly chosen. You should be able to show why each editor was notified (edited the article before, involved in a similar discussion, etc.). If you are looking for wider input consider placing a note on appropriate Wikiproject pages like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Arab Emirates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Randomly choosing editors will likely get you blocked if it happens again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I'll post in the appropriate talk page.--Bijanii (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Gulf RFU

There is absolutely no need to spell out Arab States of the Persian Gulf excluding Iraq in those articles. The side only ever consisted of GCC players and this is covered sufficiently by saying GCC and listing the countries.

You edits are akin to saying a side for European Union member countries made of of European States except Albania, Armenia. Belarus, Gibraltar, Iceland, Kosovo, Leichtenstein, Macedonia, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Vatican City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.102.234 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid comparison, the improper term should be rectified by the correct term in the description.--Bijanii (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriate sportspeople of Iranian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Expatriate sportspeople of Iranian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peter James (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supported renaming, thank you for the correction.--Bijanii (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Gulf Cup redirect

Look brother, I don't want to continue this back and forth between us. We are both good editors who help the Football community in different ways. Let us just discuss the issue properly and not just calling me a vandal when I'm not. The Gulf Cup of Nations has been called Arabian Gulf Cup for 48 years and is an international tournament that has received notable coverage for decades. UAE League Cup has been known as Arabian Gulf Cup for 4 years and is a secondary domestic cup competition for UAE clubs that was only founded 10 years ago and receives no where near the same coverage as well as actually being called UAE League Cup as the official name. Hence, the Arabian Gulf Cup has to redirect to the much more notable competition. Then, on the Gulf Cup of Nations page, there is a hatnote that links to the UAE League Cup page. It says "This article is about the international competition. For the Emirati cup competition that is known as the Arabian Gulf Cup for sponsorship reasons, see UAE League Cup." This is the exact same thing that happens all across Wikipedia for issues like this. Look at "Arsenal F.C.", it links to the English club, and at the top there is a hatnote saying "this article is for the English clubs, for other clubs see here" etc. Also, did you know there are two people called Steve McQueen, but the name only links to one of them? And there is a hatnote that links to the other less notable person called Steve McQueen. This is the exact same thing I am implementing. You calling me a vandal is attacking me and my motives and I do not appreciate it at all. Hashim-afc (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wait until the WP:RM discussion is finished at Gulf Cup of Nations before relinking the Arabian Gulf Cup page without consensus being reached, which you have a history of hastily doing without consensus.--Bijanii (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So can you show me where the consensus was reached that the Arabian Gulf Cup should be a disambiguation page and should not redirect to the Gulf Cup of Nations page? Hashim-afc (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop edit warring and wait for consensus on Gulf Cup of Nations before relinking the disambiguation page. It should remain a disambiguation page as there are multiple tournaments with that name.--Bijanii (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RM discussion is nothing to do with this discussion. But ok, I will take your advice and will wait for that discussion to conclude. Did you read any of what I said above? I know there are multiple (well, two) competitions with that name. There are also multiple clubs with the name Arsenal F.C. There are also multiple people with the name Steve McQueen. But, if you type Arsenal F.C. or Steve McQueen into Wikipedia, does it take you to a disambiguation page? NO! So, where is the consensus that Arabian Gulf Cup should be different to Arsenal F.C. or Steve McQueen? Please show me where this consensus was achieved. Thank you. Hashim-afc (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't show me a consensus, then you are edit warring too, and are also a hypocrite as you are doing the exact same thing you criticised me for. Hashim-afc (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi Bijanii, please keep in mind that not everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. Sro23 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page has been constantly attacked in recent days, and User:UCaetano's actions are very similar to that of the attacking sockpuppet User:Maxvermillion.--Bijanii (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest: you've also been clearly edit-warring to push your preferred POV. It's not unreasonable that more than one person takes issue with your actions. Sro23 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it Bijanii, I reverted your changes per WP:BRD but you don't seem to be willing to be civil and engage in the normal WP process, and went straight to accusing me of being a sockpuppet (even though you could see from my edit history that I've been active in some of these pages for about 10 years). You were warned and now you'll be reported. UCaetano (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you’re truly not a sock puppet and if I mistook you for one, but please understand that I’ve been attacked by a sock puppet in recent days with actions very similar to yours. I’m also not interested in edit warring whatsoever and would prefer to keep it civil through thoughtful discussions.--Bijanii (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bijanii reported by User:UCaetano (Result: ). Thank you. UCaetano (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. UCaetano (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bijanii. Due to the fact that you are currently involved in a significant number of edit and move wars, as well as the fact that you have persistently been making personal attacks, including unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism against established editors, I have reblocked your account. When your block expires, serious changes will be required. First, you need to avoid personal commentary of any kind. Comment on content, never contributors. Refrain from accusing any editors of sockpuppetry. Suspected socking is handled at WP:SPI, according to evidence, and without direct confrontation. Never template your opponent in a good faith content dispute, especially for vandalism. If you are reverted, strictly adhere to WP:BRD, even if you feel you're "right", or your opponent is being difficult. When disputes span several articles, do not drag the dispute into all of the articles at once, but discuss civilly and try to reach an agreement before editing, and if you are unsuccessful, pursue dispute resolution. Your current behavior has crossed firmly into tendentious editing, and if you stay on your current course, you're going to end up indefinitely blocked. Swarm ♠ 07:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ll take some time off to consider using talk pages more frequently next time. But shouldn’t the categories that were reverted by User:UCaetano and User:Calton be restored as they are clear examples of the Persian Gulf naming dispute per the article?--Bijanii (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HOW? There's not a breath of a hint of a whisper of a suggestion that the articles you added to the category have anything to with the dispute. Categories are supposed be defining in some way, which you've provided no evidence for. Oh, and "I've been blocked for edit-warring so please continue to edit-war on my behalf" is NOT what you should be saying now. --Calton | Talk 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is false; the names of the articles are clear indications of the Persian Gulf naming dispute per the article. Alas, I digress as justice is hard to come by here. I’ll be leaving now until my block is up, goodbye.--Bijanii (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. First, you shouldn't be doing original research, your claim has to be backed by reliable external sources. Now, do I have your ok to revert your changes (since you're blocked)? I'm happy to discuss the changes, but please follow WP:BRD. UCaetano (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted most of the moves and category inclusions. I'm happy to chat about it when you're back to editing. Thank you. UCaetano (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't be restored, because they are disputed. They should be discussed, and then they can be restored if they are supported by consensus. That is all there is to dispute resolution. It's not complicated. You insisting on them being restored is why you are blocked. Again, familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, and if you adhere strictly to it, you won't end up blocked for edit warring any more. And, just to be clear, this isn't something that needs to be resolved right this second. This is very low priority. It can be discussed when you return. Swarm ♠ 17:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf naming controvery

I've nominated the category for deletion.

Proposed deletion of Category:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute

The article Category:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.UCaetano (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: categories can't be prodded, they need to be taken to WP:CFD. The prod has been reversed. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Request to help in Discussion

Please help us in this Discussion. Shahin (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers of Iranian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Footballers of Iranian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Inter&anthro (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bijanii. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf

A tag has been placed on Category:Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf

A tag has been placed on Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf has been nominated for discussion

Category:Futsal in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UA3 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf has been nominated for discussion

Category:Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UA3 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf has been nominated for discussion

Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf has been nominated for discussion

Category:Football in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]