HiQizilbash123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest atthe 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]

Hello, I'mOccultZone. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on the pageMy Stealthy Freedom, but that you didn’t support your changes with acitation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerninghow 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 mytalk page. Thank you.OccultZone (Talk)16:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onIran. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry 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:

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

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

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

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]

Your recent editing history atThe Stoning of Soraya M. shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war.Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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'stalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. SeeBRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.Erik (talk | contrib)^{(ping me)}01:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Binksternet (talk)16:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pleasestop attacking other editors, as you did onIran. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia.The allegation ofvandalism in a content dispute is aWP: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]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of31 hours foredit warring and violating thethree-revert rule, as you did atIran. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.  Bbb23 (talk)17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia: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]

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

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

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of5 days foredit warring, as you did atIran. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

Immediate resumption of edit war atIran after expiry of previous block. See alsoWikipedia: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 anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking 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 onTalk:Iran after changes, and you favorUser:Arvid Qasemy who engage inedit wars without discussion and even useWP: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 onUser talk:Arvid Qasemy and he simplyblanked everything. # After last 3RR problem (I wasn't aware of rule) I even sent apologize and message to expieranced userBinksternet. 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 haveonly 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 behaviorand 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, pleaseread theguide 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.

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

Origamite, it takes two for tango. Please notice when I left message and apologize toBinksternet I noted: "...regarding section about women, I can write it at talkpage and we can insert it by mutual census agreed". Imust speak about others because this has been harashing, I can not make any constructive edits becauseUser: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]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period oftwo weeks foredit warring, as you did atMy Stealthy Freedom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.  Bbb23 (talk)01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atWomen in Iran shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war.Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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'stalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.Binksternet (talk)01:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toWomen in Iran may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

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

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

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

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onStoning. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

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

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

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

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of3 months for edit warring and tendentious editing onStoning andMy Stealthy Freedom (same edits for which you were previously blocked). Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  Bishonen |talk12:07, 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?

Inthis particular case we have situation that someone is forcing alleged "Iranian law" based on third-rated sources, whichclearly 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 thatThe Economist,Washington Post and Reuters etc are "third-rate sources" or "yellow press,"[2] that Amnesty International is unreliable, and so on. See alsothis ANI thread.Bishonen |talk18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Qizilbash123: It was being used for political propaganda, but now that you're blocked it is fixed.--v/r -TP19:48, 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 -TP23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to indefinite, as you are clearlynot here to build an encyclopedia. Your access to editing this page has been revoked. To request unblock, please go toWikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and follow the instructions there.Bishonen |talk00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation