User talk:Siavash777

December 2012

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Amir-Abbas Fakhravar, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Wikipelli ^Talk 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Siavash777. You have new messages at Rushyo's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rushyo ^Talk 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The personal information you posted had to be suppressed. Please don't post it again. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Amir-Abbas Fakhravar 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. Rushyo ^Talk 09:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash777, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Siavash777! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR Rule

Please note that your next change will be in violation of the 3RR rule. The subject's page was blocked so that you could discuss your concerns in the talk page. You didn't and now you continue to revert the page back to editions that contain serious POV issues. This is your last warning before you are reported once again for vandalism. Kabirat (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for violating the 3RR rule: ==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. — Preceding Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

user Kabirat who has personal problem with the subject of Amir Abbas Fakhravar's article Vandalizing subject's page. Using some blog like www.ahmadbatebi.com as a source and deleting reliable sources. Please pay attention to user Kabirat's activity. Siavash777 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please note that your continued reversion of the page regarding Fakhravar constitutes vandalism. Several efforts have been made to address your points, which you have continuously rejected. You will be reported. Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly Vandalism by you user Kabirat who have personal problem with the subject of Fakhravar article. Siavash777 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have been reported for vandalism, and as a suspected sock puppet for Aafakhravar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Please look at the subject page "Amir Abbas Fakhravar" and edit summary again. User Kabirat is the one who is vandalizing this page not Siavash777. User Kabirat has a personal problem with the subject of article and adding unreliable information from some blogs like ahmadbatebi.com to pass the rummer about Fakhravar around. Ahmad Batebi is Mr. Fakhravar's enemy and this is not a good idea to use Ahmad Batebi's blog as a source to attack Fakhravar. User Kabirat is not following the rules and I just Undid his Vandalism activities. Siavash777 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several efforts have been made to engage you in a discussion. Please discuss any of your controversial changes on the talk page or relevant noticeboards before you institute them. Kabirat (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing Fakhravar's wikipedia page. And even if you wish to continue vandalizing the page, can you at least use proper English. Kabirat (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Kabirat (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a possible Wikipedia:Dispute incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Kabirat (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Amir-Abbas Fakhravar".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 08:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Kabirat keep adding some statement to this article base on his personal problem with the subject "Amir-Abbas Fakhravar". for example Kabirat using information from unreliable weblogs which are belong to Mr. Fakhravar's enemies and competitors such as www.ahmadbatebi.us. "Ahmad Batebi" is number one enemy of Mr. Fakhravar and using his blog as a source to pass the rumors about Fakhravar is totally wrong. On the Other hand, user Kabirat keep deleting several sources like United States Congressional Research Service's documents and reliable Israeli and American newspapers. I like to hear why user Kabirat keep doing vandalism attack on the subject's biography. Siavash777 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't believe how user Kabirat could use an unreliable blog as a trustful source against Mr. Fakhravar, the subject of this article. Please check one more time the source number (21) is a blog written by Fakhravar's biggest enemy Ahmad Batebi. (Know More About Abbass Fakhavar, This blog was written by Ahmad Batebi) How Wikipedia lets some one to take advantage of this great website for some personal attacks? And at the end I am being BLOCKED because i tried to delete the wrong information and personal attack and tell the truth. I can't believe it. Siavash777 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2013 (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).

Siavash777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking my account base on wrong information from another user "Kabirat" was not right. User Kabirat have been vandalizing subject article's page on wikipedia base on his personal problem Siavash777 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were already blocked once for the same edit war, and did it again. Edit warring is simply not acceptable. While reverting blatant vandalism is an exception, what is going on in the article is clearly NOT vandalism and clearly is not covered by that exception. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:31, 17 January 2013 (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.

Tips on Editing

Please make sure that when making edits you review them for spelling and grammatical mistakes. At the moment, your edits are rife with issues. Take the time and dedication to ensure your sentences utilize proper English. Kabirat (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on Amir-Abbas Fakhravar

Please see here. I've protected the page for 3 weeks. Propose and discuss changes on the talk page. Note that if, after protection has expired, you revert anything but strict, blatant vandalism - even once - you will be blocked again. Please consider this a last chance. Regards, m.o.p 11:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash777, I've opened a dialogue concerning the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar#Page_Protection. If you have something to say, do it now instead of waiting to repeat your abusive practices. Kabirat (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I write to encourage you to please participate at the discussion on this page so that we can resolve any outstanding disputes. Please note that if you make any additional reversions following the expiration of the page protection, especially without participating in a dialogue regarding the issues, then you will likely be blocked as per MOP's note above.Kabirat (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. m.o.p 17:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on Amir-Abbas Fakhravar

This is the fourth time you have instigated an edit war on this page. Each time you have been blocked due to your behavior and inappropriate POV edits. Please consider this a warning. Kabirat (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]