User talk:Mneshat

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooks Benedict has been accepted

Brooks Benedict, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Xerxes I 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 get 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. Doug Weller (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. I have very extensively discussed the issue at the talk page; the issue being deletion of a minor, justified, and routinely permissible addition. The issue to my understanding was resolved by agreement of the individual who objected. Please refer to Xerxes I Page and Talk. Regards, M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 11:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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:Mneshat reported by User:William Avery (Result: ). Thank you. William Avery (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Xerxes I. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a Very Justified and Useful contribution to this page, that should not had been by any stretch of the imagination controversial, by adding 8 Persian characters as the Persian name of this Persian king in Modern Persian as is routinely permissible in other biographies. This minor issue was found not permissible by a user with an extreme derogatory reason, who kept deleting and censoring the addition. I have extensively and logically discussed the issue at the Talk page forum to any of his arguments. Please refer to the long text and extensive reasoning. He at the end agreed with foul language that I should do what I want. I reverted the deletion by reinsertion of the text. This is an extreme response for a very routine matter. Regards, M. Neshat Ph.D. M. Neshat 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (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.

In addition to my decline, I would like to remind you about our policy on civility because your tone in that Xerxes discussion was unacceptably confrontatonal. If you continue calling everybody who disagrees with you "biased" and their arguments "derogatory" you might end up blocked again. Max Semenik (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a request for review, and have asked for protocol to resolve this matter objectively. Derogatory comments were placed multiple times, which obviously has gone unnoticed in light of above statement. Please advise and clarify. Regards, M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 17:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about? Not only I have signed all posts, but even stated my full name when accused?? Please comment and clarify fully?! M. Neshat 06:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, on Wikipedia, we usually sign our comments with a link to our userpage, as this makes it easier for people reading your comments to reach your user and talk pages. You can do this with four tildes or using the signature button, as shown in the comment above. Oh, and by the way, the comment above was written by a bot (automated program), so it can't reply to you. Hope this clarifies things a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I always do as stated above. I have even stated my name on posts. Please SPECIFY. Regards, M. Neshat M. Neshat 20:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, you don't do what I just said. The signature should include a link to your userpage. Not just your name. A link. As an example, look at the signature at the end of my post here, and notice that if you click my name, you'll get to my userpage. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No incorrect! I even putted my full name! and as stated on top of talk pages I insert Four ~ as in "M. Neshat 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)" which puts my user name time and other info. If I am mistaken, then clarify SPECIFICALLY!! Mehran Neshat Ph.D. M. Neshat 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I don't seem to able to explain this in a way you'll understand, I guess I'll see if others can explain to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very telling!!!! Thank you admin!!!! Regards ! Mehran Neshat, Ph. D. M. Neshat 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamish (the bear) (December 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more independent references to pass WP:GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hamish (the bear) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hamish (the bear), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hamish (the bear)

Hello, Mneshat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hamish".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 14:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Lone-078. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Badiozzaman Forouzanfar have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not into advertisement, and your above message is most offensive. An open reply was left in the respective page. Immediately provide your credentials or your contact authority for the subject: History of Persian Literature. M. Neshat (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no obligation to disclose my identity and credentials to you or anyone else here. On Talk:Badiozzaman Forouzanfar you accused me of sending you “offensive private messages”, and that’s simply false, consider reading WP:personal attack. That was the automated message above, since it appears quite unambiguous from your username, together with the nature of your edits, that you are in a WP:Conflict of interest.

The fact that Mahmoud Neshat may be recognized on Persian wiki does not mean that he is also notable on English wiki. As far as one can see, he does not have a page on en.wiki most likely because he fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Adding a redlink, plus without any reliable source backing it, is the best way to make your edit quite short-lived.

I suggest you to read the policies I have linked above in order to enjoy a pleasant stay on English Wikipedia. Lone-078 (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]