User talk:MojtabaShahmiri

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Puduḫepa 16:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European homeland

Your edits at Proto-Indo-European homeland are WP:DISRUPTIVE. You're not contributing to building an encyclopedia, but pushing your personale WP:OR

diff: doublure of the Reich-quote; re-insertion of the IFLScience source which is full of errors
diff: again the doublure of the Reich-quote
diff, edit-summary It needs no explaining, this paragraph from Reich's book is itself the best objection to this theory. Which theory exactly? And which "objection"? A suggestion, just that.
diff: do you actually understand what this is about? User:Skllagyook is totally right in his comments on this edit.
diff: you're edit-warring here.

You better take serious notice of Skllagyook's comments; they're good. Otherwise, you're heading to a report at WP:ANI. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Proto-Indo-European homeland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. diff this statement is aleady used in the article, at the appropriate place; it has nothing to do with Sergent's ideas. This is pure WP:SYNTHESIS and pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these warnings seriously. Your Masters degree doesn't give you any authority here (and what is a "discontinued Masters?). If you are taken to WP:ANI you'll probably be blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks, when you say my edits are disruptive, you should also say your reasons, having a difference of opinion is not disruptive. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack but a standard warning using a template, and User:Joshua Jonathan explained his reason. Meanwhile, you haven't answered my question about a "discontinued Masters" and you are making personal attacks - warning below. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Bronze Age migration

You're pov-pushing again at Middle Bronze Age migration and Talk:Middle Bronze Age migration for your Iranian origins. Please stop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Your anti-Iranian attitude that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. diff be carefull with accusations like these; they're wrong. And they show, yet again, that you WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked my question on your talk page but it seems you removed it! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. I, and others too, have already explained to you: you interpret a number of sources in an odd way, pushing your convincion of Iranian origins of Indo-European. The evidence you see is not there. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. I don't doubt at all your good intentions, and I sincerely hope you can find another platform to discuss your ideas, but please not here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me what you interpret when for example David Reich says "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia"? Articles in the latest volume of the Journal of Indo-European Studies also talk about the same thing, I actually think you are pushing your belief of Steppe origins of Indo-European by ignoring all other theories, especially the recent ones. I don't want to discuss about it but I just want that these new studies are mentioned in Wikipedia. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reich's comment is mentioned, at several places; you're making too much out of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum

Hello MojtabaShahmiri. You have been told this before, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages exist to discuss improvements to their respective articles, not to host debates on the content. Almost all your recent contributions have been to start talk page discussions only tangentially related to the article and this is becoming disruptive to our purpose of writing an encyclopaedia.

In future, please make sure that when you make a comment on a talk page you a) have a specific suggestion for or comment on an improvement to the article and b) provide a reference to published reliable sources to back up your argument.

Please consider this a final warning. If you continue to use your editing rights primarily to engage in debates not related to building an encyclopaedia, you will be blocked. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: When I edit something, you revert my edits and say first you should talk about it in the talk page and when I talk about it then you say Wikipedia is not a forum!! As I said here: Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland#Eurocentric_bigotry_in_this_page_about_Proto-Indo-European_homeland the problem seems to be Eurocentric bigotry in Wikipedia, what should I do when they revert my edits which are from peer-reviewed academic journal of Indo-European studies? Look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-Indo-European_homeland&diff=prev&oldid=933173128 --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

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, as you did at Proto-Indo-European homeland, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I did it but you are not impartial towards me. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Skllagyook. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You are heading for a block if you don't take heed of the multiple warnings you've had. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone but just asked them to stop POV-pushing. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did comment "on other contributors" though, right? That's a standard template, not a personal message and reflects WP:PERSONALATTACKS which is policy, not a guideline. On reflection though perhaps I should have given you a warning about assume good faith"

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linear Gutian concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Linear Gutian, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Proto-Indo-European homeland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, MojtabaShahmiri. Based on this discussion and the your creation of Draft:Linear Gutian, it would appear that you might have a conflict of interest regarding the topic "Linear Gutian". Following is a standard notice about Wikipedia's policy concerning Conflict of interest. Please take the time to read and understand it:

Hello, MojtabaShahmiri. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Linear Gutian, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Please pay especial attention to the third bullet about disclosing a conflict of interest. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I already know about it and I have never used my own works for editing pages in the recent months, anyway thanks for your advice. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does not only apply to using your own writing as references. It equally applies to using Wikipedia to promote your own research in the public eye by seeking to force it into Wikipedia articles and give it more legitimacy than it holds in the mainstream scientific community per WP:UNDUE weight and WP:FRINGE.He iro 20:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heironymous Rowe: I have never done it too, I just want that what scholars say are pulished in wikipedia, not what some editors interpret, as you read in the talk page of "Proto-Indo-European homeland" article, other ones have also complained about it. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban on Indo-European topics

I closed the ANI discussion about you [1] with a topic ban on all Indo-European topic, broadly construed. Note that this is a community ban, and it can not be lifted without another community discussion. To get the ban lifted, you will need to open another topic at WP:ANI or WP:AN. I would strongly recommend against doing this in the next 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Ok, but please be impartial, the main reason that I was banned was that I said "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis" is wrong, will you ban other ones who also say this southern of nowhere (!) hypothesis is wrong? Why should it not be corrected?! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone opens the discussion about other users, and the consensus is to topic-ban them, I will be happy to evaluate the consensus and topic-ban each of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– Joe (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Linear Gutian

Hello, MojtabaShahmiri. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linear Gutian, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Linear Gutian

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

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]