User talk:Qizilbash123

Qizilbash123, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Qizilbash123! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm OccultZone. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on the page My Stealthy Freedom, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iran. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page of Iran

I did not only insert additional photos, I also had added more important and notable written information, but you removed them. Even information that already existed have disappeared, and it is surprising. I wonder what are you guys trying to do. I'm trying to promote this page, and all of the other notable pages about Iran. I'm taking my time on it, and I believe this country will be appeared much better than how it is shown right now. Maybe the rest of the users are wrong, I can't stop, and I won't stop promoting this page, because this is so much important for me that how my country is going to be shown in this website. But don't worry, since now, beside of promoting, I will take more time in position of the text and images, if it is what you're upset about. Please cooperate with me, instead of removing and wasting the time. Thanks. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at The Stoning of Soraya M. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've violated WP:3RR on the Iran article, which is obviously a major article. Unless you can make an appropriate promise about your future conduct at WP:AN3#User:Qizilbash123 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ) you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Iran. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation of vandalism in a content dispute is a WP:NPA, and a serious one. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that a content dispute is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Iran. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Iran

User:Mendaliv, using emblem of crushed Pahlavi Dynasty as major national symbol of Iran is the same as representing Confederate flag for major United States national symbol, or Nazi swastika for major German national symbol. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are currently at three reverts on the page Iran. I would urge you not to revert again, or you may be blocked. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit warring, as you did at Iran. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Immediate resumption of edit war at Iran after expiry of previous block. See also Wikipedia:ANI#The problems related to the user Qizilbash123 in the page of Iran. Your conviction that you are right (and that others are POV-pushing) is not a subtstitute for a talk-page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (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).

Qizilbash123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

EdJohnston, this makes no sense. # You block person who posted comments on Talk:Iran after changes, and you favor User:Arvid Qasemy who engage in edit wars without discussion and even use WP:ATTACKS [1]. # First time I put comments here: Talk:Iran#Photo wars. No answer. I posted newest comments here: Talk:Iran#Massive reverting by Arvid Qasemy. No answer. His engagement in edit wars continued. I even left messages on User talk:Arvid Qasemy and he simply blanked everything. # After last 3RR problem (I wasn't aware of rule) I even sent apologize and message to expieranced user Binksternet. So you blocked person who follow rules and engange in discussions. Why?Qizilbash123 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should have only discussed. Instead, you also removed/changed material you had removed/changed during the previous edit war. Once you're blocked for edit warring, your reverts post-block expiration receive a higher level of scrutiny. Even if you don't violate 3RR anew, you will be blocked if you resume reverting because it shows you learned nothing from the previous block. Unless you evince some insight into your behavior and correct it, you will eventually be indefinitely blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2014 (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.

You are edit warring and have been warned before. Read WP:NOTTHEM, please. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 14:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origamite, it takes two for tango. Please notice when I left message and apologize to Binksternet I noted: "...regarding section about women, I can write it at talkpage and we can insert it by mutual census agreed". I must speak about others because this has been harashing, I can not make any constructive edits because User:Arvid Qasemy reverts everything. Past time he removed two references and replaced it with unsourced material. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has left Wikipedia because he don't argue with idiots. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring, as you did at My Stealthy Freedom. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Women in Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Women in Iran may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Application of sharia law by country, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Stoning

Please stop edit warring on Stoning. It's filling up my watchlist. Keep in mind that you can be blocked even if you don't violate the three revert rule. As there seems to be a consensus arrived at via a prior RFC, I would advise you to stop your disruptive editing. You can propose a new RFC, take the dispute to DRN or RFM, or argue your case on the talk page. But stop reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stoning. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and tendentious editing on Stoning and My Stealthy Freedom (same edits for which you were previously blocked). 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, before I appeal this block, I have just one question:

Is Wikipedia still an encyclopedia, or platform for political propaganda?

In this particular case we have situation that someone is forcing alleged "Iranian law" based on third-rated sources, which clearly doesn't exist on official websites. So how can sticking to such obvious facts be described as "tendentious editing"? If Wikipedia became tool for mediocre political activist I'm not willing to participating in it. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better ask for block review and see if you can convince an uninvolved admin that The Economist, Washington Post and Reuters etc are "third-rate sources" or "yellow press,"[2] that Amnesty International is unreliable, and so on. See also this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Qizilbash123: It was being used for political propaganda, but now that you're blocked it is fixed.--v/r - T P 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen & User:TParis, I see - media about law is more reliable then law itself, because when it's come to presenting Iranians as some "savages", all propaganda becomes "reliable". Typical brainwashed products of racist governments and it's media, raised to hate and lie without shame. Thanks anyway for introducing me with your "culture". Bedrud. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The law in the United States is that murder is illegal. Does that mean it doesn't happen? There are documented cases of stoning by the Iranian government. Whether or not your law prohibits it doesn't change whether it actually happens.--v/r - T P 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to indefinite, as you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Your access to editing this page has been revoked. To request unblock, please go to Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and follow the instructions there. Bishonen | talk 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]