User talk:Ebrahimi-amir/1

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Qozlu, Ardabil has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://qozluaz.blogspot.com. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blok

Dear Khoikhoi I think it is wrong because I,m another user. Please Please check immediately.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ebrahimi-amir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. Please unblock me. I am not a vandal. Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Simply saying you aren't a vandal isn't a sufficient argument for unblocking you. I see a lot of disruption in your edit history and this block seems appropriate. You may wish to take the advice of Boing! said Zebedee below. -- Atama頭 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mənim müzakirəsiz redaktələrim səhvimiş. Mənim bloklanmama son verilərsə bu işdən çəkinərəm.
Mənim az:Vikipediya:Kənd_meydanında car salmağımda yanlış bir işimiş. Mən bundan çəkinməyə söz verirəm.
Mən 15 April 2011dı bloklanmışam. İndi 5 May 2011 dir . Buzamanda fəallitlərimi gözdən keçirdə bilərsiniz.
Mən yanlişlığımı başa düşərək, bloklanmağa son verməyi tələb edirəm. Hörmətlə--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not clear whether you understand why you were blocked - the block reason is...

"disrupting Wikipedia by edit warring, making controversial edits while refusing to discuss them, soliciting meatpuppets outside English Wikipedia‬ - at az:Vikipediya:Kənd_meydanı".

I appreciate English is not your first language, but you will need to understand that and respond to it to be unblocked. Also, your comments above (Azerbaijani?) are really not much help - few admins here will speak that language, and Google translate can't handle it. You will need to make your unblock appeal in English. (And if your English is not good enough for discussing this here, you are probably not suited to editing the English language Wikipedia anyway) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's North Azeri (Azerbaijani alphabet), not that that will help much... Peridon (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do with it is that he's definitely promising not to do it again, and possibly that his son had something to do with it. He signs off with 'Honourably'. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for my mistakes. Please unblock me. I won't repeat again. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has vouched for your good conduct at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and I don't know that the claims of attempted meatpuppetry are confirmable. There is still an issue with edit-warring. Do you understand that if you try to add or remove information, and come into conflict with another editor, that you shouldn't undo it repeatedly? If you come into a conflict like that, you should immediately discuss it on the talk page, or make some other attempt to communicate with the other editor about the problem. If you understand that and will avoid getting into edit wars in the future, I will consider unblocking you, or another administrator might do so. -- Atama頭 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will do. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you, but consider this a provisional unblock. If similar behavior occurs again, you'll probably have a much harder time getting unblocked. Just remember to use the talk pages on articles and try to work with other editors, rather than against them, and you should be fine. -- Atama頭 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ebrahimi-amir. I've been talking with Peridon, and it seems to me that this is more likely a misunderstanding than anything else - which is always one of our failings when we don't speak each other's languages! I was going to recommend unblock, and I'm happy to see Atama has already done that. Welcome back, and if I can ever be of any help, you are always welcome on my Talk page. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Daghaa sabr elion ...

بو نه اصرار دیر کی هر مقاله گره لاتین الفابتی یازا ؟ اگر سن دییرسن کی بو یازماقی رسمی آذربایجانین دیلی دیر نیه باکونین مقالیا گتمیسن و او مقاللری یازمالاری دئیشمیسن ؟ گت فارسی - عربی یازماقینن او مقالالاری اضافه ات

بو نه ایش دیر ؟ بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason of insisting in using Latin script [for Azeri language] in any article ? If you say that way of writing is the official Azeri writing [of Iranian Azeris] , then way don't you edit in articles of Baku Azeris ? Go and add Perso-Arabic form to that articles . What is that manner ? think a little , a little peace of understanding is a very good thing . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I saw that you have reported the above sentence in Azeri as WP:PA and WP:CIVIL . I think that was better to notify me as the subject of discussion first . But that sentence in our Azeri language does not have bad meaning . But if you consider it to be insulting , I can change or delete it . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm

You have been mentioned here as a party [2] --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Azarbaijani Kurds for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azarbaijani Kurds 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/Azarbaijani Kurds 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.

Could all Azeri users check User:Yerevanci's and User:Nocturnal781's relentless POV additions, lately in the Ermenikend article.

These users constantly change the correct article name of Ermenikend into the incorrect name of "Armenikend". Could all Azeri users prevent the taking over of articles about Azerbaijan by Armenian users with their biased nationalistic POV agenda. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.158.240 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alireza Asgharzadeh

The article Alireza Asgharzadeh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Because the person does not meet the criteria of notability (WP:ACADEMIC) and also the page is not a place for propaganda and advertising : WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SOAPBOX

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I write about this problem in the article talk page--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnning - WP:3RR

This is an official warning, you're on verge of violating WP:3RR. You were recently unblocked ONLY AFTER you made a pledge to the admins that you will not engage in further edit wars.[3] The promise not to edit war is documented on your block log. So if you persist on edit-warring, you will be reported and re-blocked. So stop. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Country Study Guide

Be advised that Iran Country Study Guide published by IBP USA is just a reprint of the A Country Study: Iran published by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. It is more appropriate to cite the original document, which provides additional context for readers. Thus, where a County Study is cited (however badly) such as in the West Azerbaijan Province article, where http://countrystudies.us/iran/41.htm is cited, it is duplicative to add the citation to the same text at the IBP reprint on Google Books, or to the reprint by Kessinger Publishing. I have removed these two duplicative citations. If you believe that this is in error, please let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Google Books

It is sufficient when linking to a page in a book on Google Books to limit the url to the book id and page number. Thus:

http://books.google.com/books?id=w7_e4qjR854C&pg=PA123

provides almost the same display as:

http://books.google.com/books?id=w7_e4qjR854C&pg=PA123&dq=majority+of+the+population+of+East+Azarbaijan+and+a+majority+of+West+Azarbaijan.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NOFNT-jKI8ibOsChwLYC&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=majority%20of%20the%20population%20of%20East%20Azarbaijan%20and%20a%20majority%20of%20West%20Azarbaijan.&f=false

and the display is more readable. Including the search terms highlights them, but where they occur multiple times on a page, that is distracting rather than helpful. --Bejnar (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs

A book volume has one ISBN per publication. The ISBN for older books can be written either with 10 digits or with 13 digits. All new books have only 13 digit ISBNs. Please see Wikipedia:ISBN. Please use only one ISBN per citation. If available use the 13 digit version. Books published in multiple volumes will have an ISBN for each volume. The ISBN for the first volume is often used as a shorthand for the entire set. If citing volume 4 of a set, use only the ISBN for volume 4. For example, volume 4 of Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World has ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3. Note the dashes. Wikipedia:ISBN indicates that ISBNs should be written with the dashes. When you look at the obverse of the title page of most books published in the last 35 years, you will usually see the ISBN printed there with dashes. If you don't have the book, but have the ISBN without dashes, you can use the utility at http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp to look up the correct version. However, if you don't have the book, you should always check the ISBN using the utility at Special:BookSources to confirm that it actually refers to the book that you are citing. I hope that you don't find this too intimidating. I appreciate your efforts to make the Wikipedia more verifiable. You might want to also look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE TURKISH LANGUAGE IN IRAN

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps. In the Wikipedia, titles of books in citations are written in italics, not in all capital letters, regardless of how the title appears on the title page. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books. Book titles may be written in Sentence case or any of the title cases: (1) Capitalization of all words, except for articles, prepositions, and conjunctions; (2) Capitalization of all words, except for articles, prepositions, conjunctions, and forms of to be; (3) Capitalization of all words, except for closed-class words; (4) Capitalization of all nouns and the first word; (5) Capitalization only of nouns. --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account for a period of 24 hours for slow moving edit warring on Hamadan Province and Kurdish people after having been unblocked with the agreement that you would cease edit warring. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ebrahimi-amir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi dear administers.

1- In Talk:Hamadan Province#Demog i writeen all of text that exist in sources."The deleted information inexistent in sources. If you want add information in article, they should have source WP:PRIMARY", but User:Kurdo777 deleted the existing information and added the information without any sources. The sources are [4] and [5], and i rewrite the section according to information that exist in sources.

2- In Talk:Kurdish people#Kurdish settlement map i explain about map. The map my own work based on Encyclopædia Britannica. Firs User:Kurdo777 undid my edit for reason "no reliable source has been provided for this map, it seems like OR" [6], and undid continue with User:Zirguezi, and reason is "better map showing a wider scale of inhabited regions"[7].

3- User:Kurdo777 written in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ebrahimi-amir reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: both blocked ) "User:Ebrahimi-amir has been gaming the system on Kurdish people...the consensus of three other editors on the talk page...", we see that it not any consensus for adding the information is not available in the sources. I try to show that who is really to game the system? Please attention to User:Kurdo777 edit's in Hamadan Province, Kurdish people and Azerbaijani people. In two article he/she write about WP:CON. I think the mean of WP:CON in Kurdo777 is "when you add new information in article i can clean it without consensus, but you can't clean any information without consensus". According he/she the britannica and Asgharzadeh [8] are not reliable sources! Because they give information difference with he's/she's opinion. I thin he/she try to delete the correct information about Iran and to develop certain ideas in wikipedia. It's against WP:FIVE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and.... Thanks Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not the place to continue the content disagreement - you need to do that on the article Talk page once unblocked, and if that does not solve it, follow the steps described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You were blocked for edit-warring, and you must not do that even if you are right. Have a read of Wikipedia:Edit warring - if you wish to be unblocked early, you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand it, that you will not further engage in edit-warring, and that you will settle your content disagreements by the proper means -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok. I will write about problems in WP:DRN, but i think the wikipedia rules is clear, and administrates should attention them. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Azerbaijani people and Kurdish people, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Slow motion edit warring is still considered edit warring. I'm advising you now to seriously re-examine your pattern of behavior at this encyclopedia, or you will be subject to editing sanctions. Any potentially controversial changes that are disputed by other editors need to be discussed, and you must cite your sources. Thank you. Khoi khoi 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable maps

We do not use non-Western non-specialist sources on Azerbaijan-related articles as a standard practice in English Wikipedia, because such sources are prone to nationalist WP:Fringe issues. Your maps are questionable to say the least, and fall in the same category, contradicting the mainstream accounts of the populations in those regions. This could be considered WP:Disruption if you continue inserting these questionable maps into various articles over and over, without first discussing them on the talk page, and getting a WP:Consensus for it. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What meaning the "non-Western" sources? Where Western sources provide the information about Iran ethnics? For example the maps [9]& [10]&[11] and etc are similar to great Kurdistan map, and there have duplication information WP:Fringe.)) Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, and it is not your personal website WP:NOTBLOG. You should getting a WP:Consensus for remove the maps and content with reliable sources. Your behavior is the opposite; you removed the content and then look for consensus. If you have questions about the maps you can first get it. After reaching consensus, we can be done about it.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined as inappropriate for the committee at this time. Feel free to explore alternative options. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]