User talk:Jkouhyar

Welcome!

Hello, Jkouhyar, 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 has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to 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. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

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

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 help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkouhyar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jkouhyar! 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 ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Salesman (2016 film). 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. please don't removed Unsourced text. You editing do wrong, After you threatened me?!. I'll sue you to Administer. Jkouhyar (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also sue you. thanks!! Jkouhyar (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Salesman (2016 film)

Hi. Please do not add non-notable awards to this (or any film). In other words, if the award/festival does not have it's own article, it's considered to be non-notable. Please see this consensus about it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You Please do not removed Unsourced text. Full list should be, notable award and not important award It doesn't matter. alike The Past. Thanks Jkouhyar (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkouhyar, please stop these edits. When several different people all tell you that your edits are not appropriate, you need to go to the article's talk page and discuss there. (You also must not change posts by other people on the talk page.) But the awards you want to add are not going to be added to the article until they become notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. There is a consensus - an agreement between editors - on this, as Lugnuts explains above. You can't go against such a consensus just because you don't agree with it. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New

Your recent editing history at The Salesman (2016 film) 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 article's 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 an impasse, you can then 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. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for why? What is your problem with me? It's funny. Softlavender attacked me but What is my fault? the law says Nothing. I try make better cinema and historical articles. Jkouhyar (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2016 (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. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkhouhyar, you've been warned per this edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts at The Salesman (2016 film), or if you try to edit anyone else's talk page comments again. You should make your arguments on the article talk page for why your change should stay in the article, and wait for others to support you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for why? What is your problem with me? It's funny. Softlavender attacked me but What is my fault? the law says Nothing. I try make better cinema and historical articles. EdJohnston Jkouhyar (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2016 (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. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't send message for me never, understand? never, never. Jkouhyar (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

-- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Is really funny adjudication. Softlavender usser attacked me but What is my fault?, It is disrespectful with me.

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reason for the block, which is your edit warring and breach of the 3RR rule - they're explained at WP:EW and WP:3RR, which I suggest you read before you make a new unblock request. And stop making unfounded accusations against Softlavender. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2016 (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.

Hi Jkouhyar, I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from me here, just to try to offer you a little help and friendliness. I see you haven't been here long, and you're working on articles about Iranian cinema - that's great, as it's a subject area that's under-represented here, and more people working on it are very much welcome.

However, while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", that doesn't mean we can each edit in our own individual way and decide what should and should not be included in articles. Wikipedia has a bewildering number of editorial standards, and they're decided by consensus (see WP:Consensus). And as individual editors we have to abide by consensus, even if we don't personally agree with it. One consensus that you have fallen foul of, apparently, is a consensus that film awards are only included in film articles if the award itself is considered sufficiently notable for its own article - it's not an area I know well, so I can't offer any opinion on whether that's a good thing or not, but I do know that such consensus decisions must be followed.

Another thing that often catches newcomers is edit warring. It can be very frustrating to make additions to an article only to see someone else revert them for a reason that doesn't seem clear - and the temptation to make the additions again can be very strong. However, that's not the Wikipedia way, and as you can see it can lead to blocks. There's a good essay at WP:BRD which is widely accepted here, and that suggests its fine to be Bold and make changes (the "B"), but if they're Reverted (the "R"), the next step should be Discussion ("D"). So that's what you need to do next if you disagree with the removal of any additions you make - and do not make the changes again unless you get a consensus in your favour.

Finally, if other editors revert your changes and try to make you aware of Wikipedia's standards, please don't see it as attacking you - it really is nothing personal, and is just a good faith attempt to keep our articles in line with accepted practice and to assist you in your further understanding.

Anyway, I hope this is of some help to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Mr Said Zebedee your talk Is not true. usser Softlavender attacked me. understand? go see usser message. I did nothing wrong and respect the law. Block me usser this is not law but this is an insult me. I do not accept your mentality, never. you come u help Softlavender for language for speak with other ussser. Jkouhyar (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical decline, as block has already expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2016 (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.

I'm disappointed that you are unable to understand what I and others have been trying to explain to you. But I must warn you to stop making unsupported accusations against other editors, as the ability to work collaboratively and not fear talking to each other is a key part of Wikipedia work. I wrote that before I saw your message on my talk page, so I'll strike it now as hopefully unnecessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok your opinion, but I have not accepted. Jkouhyar (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equity

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).

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

Request reason:

Just equity. Just justice. Don't forced talk. Jkouhyar (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked. If you continue wasting our time with these unnecessary requests, you will be. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:18, 1 November 2016 (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.

What part of " block has already expired" do you not understand? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. but... all or whatever. my user block, No justly, never. Good luck Jkouhyar (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts

Hi Jkouhyar, how about we talk some more here? Please don't make any more unblock requests, because you are not blocked and if you keep doing that then someone will block you.

I think you understand that I'm happy to see people from non-Western cultures contributing here and helping develop areas of the encyclopedia that are under-represented, and I really do want to encourage your work here as much as I can. I'm also encouraged that you thanked me for your comments - and you are, of course, entitled to disagree with me.

You clearly feel that you have been attacked (although I don't think you have been), and I'd like to help resolve that. So how about you explain exactly what you think was the attack, and I'll take a close look and offer my opinion? If that sounds good, just reply here (and put a ":" in front of your comment to indent it - don't put it in an unblock request), and we'll see where we can get. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zebedee, ok. I read your words. thanks for message thanks for helped me. but I am bound my word, i say my block user no justice, i did not attack. (A thousand times I say). the user Softlavender first time send message for me. here is free edition in wikipedia. I'm trying to be better, i eddit The Salesman (2016 film). If once again intervene Softlavender, you Boing! said Zebedee be the judge. Good luck Jkouhyar (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of maintenance tags

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Crystal Simorgh, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done the same on numerous pages, so please revert those edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Attaran

Having already been blocked for edit-warring, you should be more than aware that edit-warring to restore unsoured and poorly sourced information to biography articles will likely lead to your account being reblocked. The material you add to biographies needs to be supported by reliable sources (not "famousbirthdays.com" which is pretty much the polar opposite of what is expected). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 2 November 2016 (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. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you for this, but let me advise you that it was a viable option. When other editors tell you there is a problem with your editing, you need to stop, listen to what they have to say, and if necessary respond accordingly. Don't just dismiss what they have to say and carry on regardless. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Ritchie333. Opinion Softlavender user This is a personal opinion, not the law and not the standard editing. that force talk me for whay? please stoped. Iam not an error at the my work. Jkouhyar (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Im understand Jkouhyar (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bahram Tavakoli for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bahram Tavakoli 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/Bahram Tavakoli 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hengameh Ghaziani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hengameh Ghaziani 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/Hengameh Ghaziani 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sooteh-Delan

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at The Blue-Veiled. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block? 1 Mont? so funny. Jkouhyar (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:27, 5 November 2016 (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.

Proposed deletion of Roozi Roozegari

The article Roozi Roozegari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable television series.

While all constructive 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. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roozi Roozegari) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roozi Roozegari, Jkouhyar!

Wikipedia editor Cameron11598 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page may not meet wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines This page also makes no claim of notability, has unreliable sources and needs more sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Cameron11598's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.