User talk:Mahammad tt

December 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2020 (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. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Urmia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final 3RR warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were already blocked once for edit-warring. Please bring your concerns to the talk page per WP:BRD instead of trying to "war" your desired content into the article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove (through WP:CON and WP:RS) why your map is better than the long-standing one. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,but I have cited two authoritative sources for my editing:( Mahammad tt (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not. Do you even read my edit summaries? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sources were completely valid, but you just edited without the source Mahammad tt (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the second source didn't even mention the location! Read the rules, thanks: WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was completely in accordance with the rules. Which rule did I not follow? Mahammad tt (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Click the links and read them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits

Hello Mahammad tt. Another user has made a complaint about your edits at User talk:EdJohnston#Warring about a map of the Republic of Mahabad. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topics related to Armenia or Azerbaijan are covered by WP:ARBAA2

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the sources on your discussion page, but you also did not pay attention. When the map is different from the text of the article, is my work still disruptive? Mahammad tt (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Personal attacks.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per the complaint on my talk page. Especially this message: these are the people who spread hatred without a source(sumsuri,luckie luck,historyofiran)... See WP:GAB for your appeal options. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Hi, Im a newcomer to Wikipedia and I was not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. After reading the rules, I realized my mistakes and I am ashamed of the slander I made. Please unblock me I promise not to slander anyone anymore and not to take part in editorial wars

Decline reason:

I concur with the blocking administrator; I don't think you have provided sufficient assurance that the behavior will not repeat in the future; maybe learn some more about Wikipedia before attempting to request unblock again. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (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 looked and saw that I was blocked only once by you and I don't know what to do next, please help more Mahammad tt (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What productive contributions do you wish to make? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Urmia and I am a football fan and I am fully acquainted with Iranian football. for example, in the article Navad Urmia F.C. , the head coach needs to be updated. Mahammad tt (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one other question I have is how will you handle an editing dispute in the future since you are agreeing to not edit war? 331dot (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a message on the talk page and get help from Administrators as a third party Mahammad tt (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators do not settle disputes; please review dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In resolving disputes about getting help from a third party, I thought admins should be the best because I have not seen anything about who to get help from. Maybe I did not read carefully. I apologize.I will study again. Mahammad tt (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will my account be opened? I'm still waiting for it to open and your answer. Mahammad tt (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Do you have any views on this unblock request? 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't favor an unblock myself, but another admin might lift the block if they became convinced that User:Mahammad tt is going to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Mahammad tt seems to be affected both by ethnic zeal and by limited competence regarding Wikipedia. Getting into fights, and then not being able to understand when people explain why they were sanctioned is a tough combination. The longest sustained discussion I had with this editor was at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 49#Warring about a map of the Republic of Mahabad. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my main account and I don't have another account and I edit with this account and it's no longer possible to repeat this because I know it will block my account, this is the reason for my secrets. Mahammad tt (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]