User talk:IranianNationalist

PA

Please would you now accuse other users of vandalism or bias (or censorship) within talk pages. These are personal attacks and can only poison debate. It also does your argument no good to attack Wikipedia or it's admins. If you have concerns launch an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 received 2 admin (Sahehco and Sunfyre) warnings in his user talk page for his editwars. When Sa.Vakilian said the same thing to me (partial) on the WikiFa WP:ANI it was not a personal attack? Now I said , it is a personal attack? --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked everyone to stop, you are continuing, Moreover edit wars and continuation snide comments on talk pages are not the same (and both are bannable offenses). I am asking you to stop the PA's. And no commetns made on an ANI have different standards (as we are supposed to be disusing users behavior) then outside of an ANISlatersteven (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know the US protective law for Pastafarians :) was the last thing to do (I hope no one to take this as an attack because this is not my talk page :) ) (Edit: clarification: I'm a Pastafarian but Fathers and Mullahs had more protection it is the rule and it is the war between the religions and superstitions keeping them strong) --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is your talk page (so yes if you make PA's here they are PA's). I am almost at the end of my tether, and this will be my last reply on your talk page. I have asked you to reign it in a bit and you have (in essence) treated it as a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this time it was my mistake because I was gonna say : I hope every one :) to take this as an attack because this is not my talk page --IranianNationalist (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marziye Zareii

Hello, IranianNationalist. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Marziye Zareii, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Dragon gate. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I am not going to tolerate personal comments such as this and this forever. Pahlevun (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dragon gate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dragon gate 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/Dragon gate 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. Pahlevun (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PA's

Please do not use talk pages to attack other users or impune their motives. Doing so is against the rules and can lead to blocks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR rule

The page where you've committed edit warring is under sanctions which says "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed." This message was sent to inform you and warn you against further unilateral reverts. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not when someone is trying to censor even the talk pages : Special:Diff/801105236 , however it is not essential for a 3RR to be in a 24-hours to show an Edit war Special:Diff/800873967 and Special:Diff/801067925 by you. If there was a problem in the article content you may ask for a 3rd opinion of an experienced user or admin , or make an RfC not making a war. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be reported at the WP:ANI, if you continue your accusations. I did not censor anything, I was just cleaning the mess up you had created and instead used a diff to your edit. Please be careful, here's En Wiki, not Fa wiki. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove attack contents

Some of the materials in your user page, i.e. "In the name..." and "R'amen...", are against WP:POLEMIC. Please remove them. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marziye Zareii

Hello, IranianNationalist. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Marziye Zareii, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Dragon gate. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I am not going to tolerate personal comments such as this and this forever. Pahlevun (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dragon gate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dragon gate 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/Dragon gate 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. Pahlevun (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Great Mosque of Kufa. (same as the other user votes in the Nomination for delete). It should be nominated for merge not deletion --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PA's

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sina Dehghan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sina Dehghan 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/Sina Dehghan 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. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at List of conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The text you are trying to add is poorly-translated and incomprehensible. Edit-warring to retain it will result in reporting and will likely result in sanctions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: the user is reminding WP:NOENG but the rule is "ask for " the source : "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.[11] (See Template:Request quotation.)" I said in the summary the translation is acceptable but the user tries to WP:PA and claims the translation is machine translation. Did you check the other users' complains in the talk page of the user? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Also the user is in the edit war. I added translations. When you have different edits it is not edit war. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist:, you are mistaken in your apprehension of the policy on edit wars. Please read that policy, particularly: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Adding substantially the same content multiple times over reverts is also edit-warring behavior. See also my post at the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: We have the same thing in the other side. The same user (Cpaaoi) started to revert over and over (more than 3 times). But I added translation and following the WP:NOENG. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist:, I once again (for the third time, in fact) refer you to the policy on edit wars, which you obviously have either not read or not understood. Nowhere in that policy is, "The other guy is doing it , too" a recognized exception to the rules on what constitutes an edit war. Simply calling the removals of your text "vandalism" neither makes it so nor excuses the multiple reverts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn and NeilN: you should check our previous engagements with Slatersteven look at the previous deleted articles you can find him/her there and many other reliable sources this is the new way to censorship in wiki En. Fortunately we don't have this problem in WikiFa (However after many similar blocks and wars). You had to check my good background in WikiFa.

But seemingly people (even WikiEn admins) love to "prejudge" --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What article deletions?Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist:, Nothing said here has the slightest bearing on your behavior in the article mentioned. Attempting to justify your behavior with tu quoque claims only further cements the impression that you are engaged in tendentious editing and refusing to drop the stick. I do not add these links just for my own fun. They are things you really, really should read if you wish to engage positively on the English wiki, no matter what your experience or reputation or whatever else you may have on the Farsi or Persian or any other language wiki. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 29 November 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:IranianNationalist reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: ). Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

So when was the last time I had any interaction with you before this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Again I have not undone any one your edits (as far as I know) for at least two months, was your addition to list of conspiracy theories your first edit since 14th September 2017?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are good to falsify. Have I had any English edit during the 2 months? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What am I falsifying,=?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I forgot all about the Sina Dehghan page, but even so this is still not much more then one article a month we edit in opposition, hardly following you to every page you edit. So lets have a look [1], [2], [3], (this is one I have even edited before) [4], [5], [6], [7], (another page I have edited in the past, this one is even on my watch list) [8]. This is must your pages edited today (not all your edits) I have n o undone one of these, or even interacted with you on those pages. You have a very odd view of what harrament is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: It is wonderful when you encounter a user repetitively on every edit you did that user tries to remove! (surfing of Slatersteven on misusing of rules) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a diff for the last time I reverted you before the one on the 29th?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All users can see my talk page :) and its history :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am bowing out now, Before this does become a form of harassment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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} 16:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales and Darafsh: This is the new way to WP:CENSOR when you even follow the WP:NOENG to add the translation (as the user (Cpaaoi) on the other side asked) but there is another user Slatersteven follows my edits (Wikipedia:Harassment) to remove them you can see above the other articles including Maryam Zaree and the other one --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you know if anything he seems to be following me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you for the link. So we conclude Slatersteven had no edits for the last 8 years until he/she saw ME (IranianNationalist)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=List_of_conspiracy_theories&users=IranianNationalist&users=Slatersteven&server=enwiki

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: good note to remind you to know that too (the above links). --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[9] if I were harassing you why did I not undo that?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know WP:SOCK? Evidences show you follow me... Thank you :) I have a follower :D --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist: What? I have no idea what on Earth that "note" to me could possibly mean. This verges on tautology, but to hold conversations on talk pages of the English Wikipedia, it is necessary to be able to comprehensibly express oneself in English. You have previously mentioned your participation on other wikis in your native language and I am beginning to believe that you may be much more comfortable limiting your participation to those other languages. The English wiki is neither the most central nor most important wiki. There is no censorship or disparagement implied or meant by this suggestion. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IS THIS A DOUBLE STANDARD?

@NeilN:

Asking from the user on the other side : Would like me to block you for your edit war? No thank you Sir I will not repeat --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: THIS IS IS A COMPLETE FALLACY Wonderful when someone mixes 2 completely different subjects. @NeilN : Are you fighting against the censor-men or against the WP:CENSOR itself? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 17:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're trying to point out here, sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I'm trying to ask you (as an old and valuable admin) to be a few more accurate and do a justly judgement. There is no god in the world so no one is free from faults including you yourself can you accept this? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had five reverts. Cpaaoi had three. Go over four reverts in 24 hours and you'll likely be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: So your excuse is the number of reverts? and you are talking about reverts at all? (5 or 3 or 2 in 24 hours or a week it is clearly in wiki policy told all are revert attempts and must not be essentially in 24 hours) I know exactly what I did because nowadays I see multiple users such as Cpaaoi and Pahlevun censoring contents and falsify in a relax mood and no one stops them(some users support them) (and if we try to be not paranoid and don't make conspiracy theory there is enough religious people around the world to censor this contents but absolutely there is enough money and enough money-paid users (If we try to not dishonor Jimmy Whales's followers who know what is the money-paid edits)) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, go over three reverts in 24 hours and it's likely you'll be blocked. You understand this, right? Because if not, you'll be facing much more lengthier blocks in the future if you continue on in the same way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Also I didn't have 5 reverts how can you see 5 reverts? Special:Diff/812738576/812739328 this is adding the quote translation because the Cpaaoi reminded WP:NOENG How could you find 5 reverts by me? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually hilarious when we see you didn't block Cpaaoi because that user had the same edit war and you don't see that --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN These days will be passed (we passed away too) but the history and this talk will be here and shows what you did :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], [12], [13], [14] If I see any more questions that indicate you haven't read WP:EW I will simply ignore them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what are these below?

Cpaaoi

Eggishorn

Hah Eggishorn him/herself finally find that I was right about the earthquake.... LOL but you @NeilN: are still supporting Cpaaoi

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN do you know what is the mistake of many users including you? More contributions... More excuse to violation ... :v Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance. Even I have to remind my WikiFa contribs to enlight for you that I'm not a newbie using bad references :v (Farsi - because you cann't read Farsi doesn't mean the Farsi sources to be wrong if you can't read Arabic finally you will find your country in an Islamic revolution aftermath. SO PROTECT YOUR WIKI AND YOUR PEOPLE). --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

IrainianNationalist, I really would drop your tactic of trying to shift blame. It is only going to get you a longer block. Especially when some of those editors are not even involved in this current dispute. Your best bet would be to accept the block and move on.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change your signature to "The angel of fallacy" :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked talk page access since it seems to just be being used to continue the dispute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section

@Sayenevisande and Farhangirani: درود، ابتدا به خاطر بندایش شما فرهنگ ایرانی عزیز به اتهام ربط داشتن به خودم متاسفم و از این بابت از طرف خودم از شما عذرخواهی میکنم. این روند باندبازی و پادشاهی متحد مدیران مسلمان ویکی‌پدیا عادت دارند که بدون هیچ مدرک و استدلالی به دیگران تهمت بزنند یا به صورت تبعیض آمیز خرابکاری های امثال طاها را نادیده بگیرند و به شما حمله کنند که چرا مکرر واگردانی کرده اید مثالش همینکه طاها با کمال پررویی به خودش اجازه داده که از عبارت «مکتب‌خانه‌ای» استفاده کند و کسی هم جرات نکرده بگه بالای چشت ابروئه یا به Huji بگن که داداش دم خروست زده بیرون (و این دقیقا دلیل بیان تند و انتقاد آمیز بنده در صفحه کاربری ام از عقاید خرافی ایشان بود). البته زبان ما را که در ویکی فارسی بستند تا در پاسخ به چرندیاتشان نظری ندهیم ولی خب غافل از اینکه من کلا از ویکی خداحافظی کرده بودم اما هرگز نتوانستند حتی یک بار مدرک کافی برای اتهام زاپاس بازی بنده ارائه کنند چرا که اگر اهل این مدل کارهایی که خودشان بیشتر انجام میدهند بودم همان زمان که فعال و مورد تایید بودم و واگردان بودم و ویرایشهایم مورد تایید بود برای واگردانی خرابکاری های یک خرابکار مثل طاها یا امثال او از حساب کاربری اصلی خودم ابدا استفاده نمیکردم. خلاصه اینکه ویکی تبدیل شده است به بوق تبلیغات این گروه خاص که البته تا وقتی که پول یامفت و دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی هست این امر چیز عجیبی هم نیست وگرنه ویکی قطعا در ایران فیلتر میشد. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 12:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist: درود ناب بر شما همکار گرامی! سپاس از مهرتان. در واقع، شما نباید پوزش بخواهید؛ بلکه... (بگذریم).

دربارۀ آن کاربری که فرمودید، من به دلیل ممنوعیت تعامل، چیزی درباره‌اش نمی‌نویسم (و نیازی هم نیست؛ چون واقعیت، روشن شده است).

برخی از دفاعایات خود درباره اتهام‌های مربوط را در دو پیوندی که در ذیل مطلبی با عنوان «در راستای صداقت و شفّاف‌سازی»-که در ابتدای صفحۀ کاربری‌ام آورده‌ام-یادآور شده‌ام.

جدای از مسئلۀ آن دو کاربر (محترم) مربوط، به گونۀ کلی، عرض می‌کنم: هیچ گاه آزرده نیستم از اینکه سبک نوشتاری ادبی‌ام یا مقالات روشنفکری و حقوق بشری...ام مورد... قرار گیرد؛ چون سختی دیدن درین راه، برایم نوعی افتخار بوده و است.

به هر روی، تلاش می‌کنم که با منطق و مهربانی، به فعالیت فرهنگی و دانشنامه‌ای بپردازم و با منطق و مهر، حقانیت راهم را نشان دهم؛ زیرا انسان‌های منصف و منطقی، هیچ گاه ارزش کارهای انسانی و منطقی را نادیده نمی‌انگارند. شاد و پیروز باشید به مهر. با احترام و ارادت. Sayenevisande (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]