User talk:Marjdabi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Replaced content with 'ah just fuck it' Tag: Replaced |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
ah just fuck it |
|||
== 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. [[User:Yug|Yug]] [[User talk:Yug|<small><span style="color:green;">(talk)</span></small>]] 20:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Yug|Yug]] [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 17:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Yug|Yug]] [[User talk:Yug|<small><span style="color:green;">(talk)</span></small>]] 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== September 2018 == |
|||
* {{test3|Hurricane Florence}} [[User:Pierre cb|Pierre cb]] ([[User talk:Pierre cb|talk]]) 22:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
What do you mean vandalize. I corrected the page from hurricane to storm, [[User:Pierre cb|Pierre cb]] [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 22:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::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 <u>has</u> 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. [[User:Pierre cb|Pierre cb]] ([[User talk:Pierre cb|talk]]) 01:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok, sorry. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:SOURCE]] == |
|||
Please don't add unsourced information as you did to [[Portal:Current events/2018 September 16]]. Thank you. [[User:Wakari07|Wakari07]] ([[User talk:Wakari07|talk]]) 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Use edit summaries == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon|link=]] Hello. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Marjdabi|your contributions]] to [[Wikipedia:About|Wikipedia]]. |
|||
{{The edit-summary field}} |
|||
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The [[Wikipedia:Edit summary legend|summaries]] are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. |
|||
Edit summary content is visible in: |
|||
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}} |
|||
* [[Help:User contributions|User contributions]] |
|||
* [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes]] |
|||
* [[Help:Watchlist|Watchlist]]s |
|||
* [[Help:diff|Revision differences]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:IRC|IRC channels]] |
|||
* [[Help:Related changes|Related changes]] |
|||
* [[Special:NewPages|New pages list]] |
|||
* [[Help:Page history|Article editing history]] |
|||
{{Div col end}} |
|||
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 {{myprefs|3|check=Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary}}. |
|||
Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-editsummary --> [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Notification == |
|||
{{Ivm|2='''''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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|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. }} [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 13:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== September 2018 == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Serial Number 54129|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 [[Help:Edit summary|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 [[WP:Sandbox|sandbox]]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Serial Number 54129|my talk page]]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''—SerialNumber54129'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">''' paranoia /'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''cheap sh*t room''']]</sup> 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::It is adequately explain, give the edit which you believe is not adequately explained. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 17:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
|||
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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: )]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== AN3 == |
|||
== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
|||
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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== October 2018 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing for continued [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:BATTLE|battlegrounding]], [[WP:NPOV|POV-pushing]], and the deceptive insertion of [[WP:V|unsourced content]], as you did at [[:Egypt]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|||
*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. [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 00:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|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.[[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 01:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
|decline=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. [[User:MaxSem|Max Semenik]] ([[User talk:MaxSem|talk]]) 01:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
{{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 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 = <!-- stale block -->Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request.<!-- Template:stale block--> [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
Can somebody review the latest unblock request please? The first two were reviewed in half an hour, it's been two days since the last request. [[User:Doc James|@Doc James]] [[User:Only|@Only]] [[User:Diannaa|@Diannaa]] [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 22:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Somebody view this unblock request please, I'm waiting to start editing. [[User:Swarm]] [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights]] [[User:There'sNoTime]] [[User:TonyBallioni]] [[User:Seraphimblade]] [[User:Orangemike]] [[User:Nick]] [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 01:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock|reason=Request that the previous request be reviewed, I'm not gonna reword since I already have. My point remains still. [[User:Marjdabi|Marjdabi]] ([[User talk:Marjdabi#top|talk]]) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
Revision as of 04:18, 22 October 2018
ah just fuck it