User talk:Marjdabi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:17, 2 October 2018

Focus on Turkey-SDF articles

Hello Marjdabi, you seems to have a special focus on Turkish military operation in Afrin, Syrian Democratic Forces, Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, 2016–present purges in Turkey. I have some expertise on the issue and can discuss with you on why your current way to edit is troublesome for the community. If you want to contribute positively, following Wikipedia's objective to document these subjects fairly, feel free to discuss with me on what you want to do, and how Wikipedia(ns) will react to your actions. Many of us made wrongful edits at first and came to understand wikipedia after trials, errors, and discussions. Yug (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles related to Turkey, SDF and other controversial topics do not cover anything that mentions the SDF's controversy. I have tried to add on some details to make the articles unbiased but the edits were removed citing no consensus reached. How can I report some facts even if some people object to them? Does Wikipedia rather report what the consensus is reached upon rather than actual events which took place? For example, a main issue during Afrin campaign - The suicide bombing by the SDF was not mentioned in the article at all, and once I mentioned it it was removed for not having the consensus reached for the topic. And once I reverted it I've gotten a 7 day block, which is now over. Yug Marjdabi (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing is not a willful repeated strategy by SDF. "Taking a grenade" -sacrifice of one soldier to protect the team- is a common, all armies behavior based on individual soldiers' initiatives. Such cases have been reported in Afghanistan by US marines, an action for wish the soldier "taking a grenade" often win a postumous medal. It been reported by SDF as rare exemplary cases, in Kobane (1) and in Afrin (1). In all these cases, it isn't the fruit of long term planning and terrorist thinking, it emerge from being unexpectedly attacked or trapped, and an individual soldier chose to sacrifice him/herself so to slow his opponent's advance. Both Kobane and Afrin are rare and typical of these. There is no complex conspiracy or controversy to it. It's just sad. It has no common ground with WW2 kamikazes or Al Quaeda massive usage of suicide bombing. Are you willing to showcase these few cases as terrorist practices and controversies ? If so, yes, you will meet resistances because it's simply it's that a controversy. Yug (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an example of US troop killing himself with a grenade to take out a tank. I believe it needs a mention. Also the Pro SDF news media has praised her as a suicide bomber "Wrapped in bomb" Which has 0 mention in the article. Marjdabi (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Hurricane Florence. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Pierre cb (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean vandalize. I corrected the page from hurricane to storm, Pierre cb Marjdabi (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not: First, you changed every occurence of "Hurricane" in the text with "Tropical Storm" and thus completely messing the text (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Florence&diff=859569736&oldid=859566468). Second, you renamed the article as Tropical Storm while the name has to remain the one of the highest intensity of it. This is either vandalism or not bothering reading the rules of Wikipedia on top of not reading the article you changed. Pierre cb (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. Marjdabi (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE

Please don't add unsourced information as you did to Portal:Current events/2018 September 16. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you recently removed content from State-sponsored terrorism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is adequately explain, give the edit which you believe is not adequately explained. Marjdabi (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: ). Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

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. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued edit warring, battlegrounding, POV-pushing, and the deceptive insertion of unsourced content, as you did at Egypt.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm talk 00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a persistent and willful pattern of behavior that has not improved in spite of your previous block or the very close call you had last week, in which you only avoided a reblock due to your second revert. You're consistently exhibiting disruptive and tendentious behaviors, and you do not appear to be here to contribute constructively. Significant changes to your attitude and approach to editing will be required if you would like to continue editing here. Swarm talk 00:32, 2 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinite is an overreaction, why was I not blocked another week or even a month but indefinite? I have made several contributions and created very important articles, but on my second block I am out permanently? This is way too much, I request it be reverted to a week or two or even a month. I am not a newbie user, I make good contributions daily. A perma on second warning is unfair.Marjdabi (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To me this unblock request sounds basically like this: you admit everything, but instead of addressing your problematic behavior you just want to wait your block out and continue. This does not seem like something that will make Wikipedia better. Max Semenik (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would have to a special person to wait a month for unblock just to start reverting again to be blocked indefinitely. Of course I wont do it again, but indefinite block here is unreasonable, I believe many would agree. Unblock me or shorten the duration if you don't trust me, I am not a simple vandal user, I engaged in edit war just once here which resulted in a 7 day block, now I have done it again and it's a indef? Please I make daily contributions here. I create articles every week. Marjdabi (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please detail thoroughly what you will do instead of edit warring. Y'know, I've been here for like 12 years and have never edit warred. I just don't get it. You knew the consequences after the prior block and edit warred again anyway. The purpose of blocking is to prevent disruption, and I'm not convinced that you will not resume edit warring if you feel it convenient. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM after I read Swarm's comment above, quoted here, *This appears to be a persistent and willful pattern of behavior that has not improved in spite of your previous block or the very close call you had last week, in which you only avoided a reblock due to your second revert. You're consistently exhibiting disruptive and tendentious behaviors, and you do not appear to be here to contribute constructively. Significant changes to your attitude and approach to editing will be required if you would like to continue editing here. This makes me feel even more certain of my assessment and my decsion to decline.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2018 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. Marjdabi (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 }}
 {{unblock reviewed | 1=I would have to a special person to wait a month for unblock just to start reverting again to be blocked indefinitely. Of course I wont do it again, but indefinite block here is unreasonable, I believe many would agree. Unblock me or shorten the duration if you don't trust me, I am not a simple vandal user, I engaged in edit war just once here which resulted in a 7 day block, now I have done it again and it's a indef? Please I make daily contributions here. I create articles every week. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 03:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC) | decline = Please detail thoroughly what you will do instead of edit warring. Y'know, I've been here for like 12 years and have never edit warred. I just don't get it. You knew the consequences after the prior block and edit warred again anyway. The purpose of blocking is to prevent disruption, and I'm not convinced that you will not resume edit warring if you feel it convenient. -- [[User:Dlohcierekim|<b style="color:black">Dloh<span style="color:red">cier</span><span style="color:gold">ekim</span></b>]]  ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 03:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)<br> ADDENDUM after I read Swarm's comment above, quoted here, ''*This appears to be a persistent and willful pattern of behavior that has not improved in spite of your previous block or the very close call you had last week, in which you only avoided a reblock due to your second revert. You're consistently exhibiting [[WP:DE|disruptive]] and [[WP:TE|tendentious]] behaviors, and you [[WP:NOTHERE|do not appear to be here to contribute constructively]]. Significant changes to your attitude and approach to editing will be required if you would like to continue editing here.'' This makes me feel even  more certain of my assessment and my decsion to decline.-- [[User:Dlohcierekim|<b style="color:black">Dloh<span style="color:red">cier</span><span style="color:gold">ekim</span></b>]]  ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 03:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)}}
+:::{{unblock|reason=What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)}}