User talk:Mhhossein

Archives (Index)

1 s/ 1 2 3 4 5 6

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

DYK nomination of Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations

Hello! Your submission of Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

The following - [[1]] is a violation of 1RR on a page with a clear ARBPIA notice on its talk page. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz: Thanks for reminding. You had reverted my change, so did I. Both have done just one revert. I've opened a topic on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your original edit was a revert. However, there is also the following stipulation on ARBPIA warnings - "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (as you may see on the talk page). So even if your first edit was not a revert (which it was), you're still running foul of this stipulation. Again - I urge you to self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course my edit was not a violation of 1RR, but per "If an edit is revert..." I'll do a self revert. Thank you again for reminding. However, I'll remove the synthesized parts. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my lead change would be OK under the rule. Removal of the long-standing section of the body - would not. Note that even if you claim this is SYNTH in relation to Khamenei+Fatwa (though there are sources discussing them in parallel) - it is still well-sourced information on Khamenei - so at most it should be moved to a separate section on Khamenei (e.g. WMD activities in the 1980s).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your source is directly touching the issue, thanks. However, it needs proper attribution for the sake of maintaining NPOV. They can be under any relevant section or in any relevant articles. Please note that, my version was the result of older discussion between editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz: By the way, please note that being "long standing" does not change anything. They can simply be removed if they violate the policies or guidelines. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on AN/I

An editor (not me) has started a discussion on AN/I that concerns you. You'll find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Thanks for pinging me. The user were blocked in Wiki fa for edit warring and other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, Sure! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations

On 28 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been accused of plagiarizing his PhD thesis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Nakhl Gardani

On 11 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakhl Gardani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakhl Gardani (pictured) is a ritual in which a woody structure symbolizing Husayn ibn Ali's coffin is carried on the day of Ashura? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakhl Gardani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nakhl Gardani), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Free Thinking Seats

I am abliged to you for clarifying this discussion and good explanation. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Saff V.. I was astonished to see the whole paragraph was removed. Apaprently, some of the phrases needed to be accompanied by quotation marks and be reworded. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Dr. K. 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Over Ali Khamenei

This is about the dispute that was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard over the article on Ali Khamenei. The filing party had removed a section from the article because he found it incomprehensible. I also thought that it was incomprehensible. You had said that an entire section should not be removed from an article because of a simple resolvable issue. An issue is not simple and resolvable if you do not discuss it collaboratively. I assumed that there was a language problem, that your command of English was not sufficient to permit detailed discussion of what you had written. Since you say that there is no language problem and that you can contribute to the English Wikipedia well, you should have been willing to discuss your edits, at least if your objective is to improve the encyclopedia. I had to close the request for dispute resolution because you did not appear to be willing to discuss. I see that the section has been removed. Please do not add sections to articles unless you are willing to discuss them in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Thanks for commenting and the intervention. This was not the first article I edited and he was not the first opposing editor I saw! I don't say the section did not need to be copyedited, but this was the first time I saw that a whole section was removed for such issues! This behavior on his part signaled something negative and the TP discussion regarding this topic and other cases, showed me that he was not seeking reasons to avoid the section, be it comprehensible or not, let alone his personal attacks. I don't need to prove, but you may see my "collaborative" behavior on other TPs and articles. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein - You don't seem to understand. The section did not need to be copy-edited. The section was incomprehensible, and needed either to be removed or completely rewritten. You mention personal attacks, but I have not seen any personal attacks. Do not claim that there have been personal attacks when there have not been. I do not know whether you have been willing to discuss your edits on other articles, but you were not being constructive or cooperative about the article on Ali Khamenei. Your addition was incomprehensible, and you were not discussing it reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: 1- You yourself mentioned his "comments on the editor". 2- You failed to see that I was not the original editor of the section. 3- You failed to see his making fun of me on the TP which removed the collegial atmosphere and made "being constructive or cooperative about the article on Ali Khamenei" almost impossible (see his response to my using of "please show us"). 3- Please don't say "The section was incomprehensible" and that it "did not need to be copy-edited" since this is not the article I'm editing. At least, we could ask GOCE editors for help. 4- Your immature closure of the DRN even worsened every thing, because I had written that I would be answering at your request, meaning that I was ready to cooperate and discuss. Now, how much did we move forward after the DRN? Zero meters! --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I thought that we can achieve to unique solution to write about free thinking seat during the DRN, but it was just recommended me to edit on wikipedia in my native language!Saff V. (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V. - It does not matter which of you originally wrote the paragraph. As it was written, it made very little sense. It needed either to be removed or to be rewritten. The need to rework the paragraph was not simple and resolvable if you would not discuss it in good faith. If you want to add a paragraph about Free Thinking Seats, discuss it on the article talk page. That is what article talk pages are for. If you are unable to discuss the paragraph in English, then perhaps you should edit in another language. If you want to add a paragraph, then be ready to discuss it in English, and do not refer to "software movement", which makes no sense. If a native Anglophone says that something makes no sense in English, it might be better to start over than to try to copy-edit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Thanks for the comment. But please note that your repetitive referring to language problem is suggesting me your biased approach toward the case, given my recorded contributions, DYKs and GAs which you are amazingly ignoring. I'm going to consider it as a personal attack, if it's repeated. If the major problem stems from the "software movement" term, then labeling the whole section as "incomprehensible" is unfair and removing the section for this reason is weird. There could be some misunderstandings regarding "software movement" which could be resolved. Moreover, you amazingly ignored that they discussed in a manner making mockery of us. If they had taken a soft language, things would be much different. I have to repeat that your intervention and the subsequent immature closure of the DRN worsened the case without resolving anything, considering the very fact that I had shown my willingness to respond at the request of the admins or volunteer editors. In other words, you did every thing but resolving the dispute! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V. - I don't understand what you are saying. Your statements are convoluted and hard to understand, just as the original section, that has been removed, was impossible to understand. It appears to me that the other editor tried to discuss that section, and that you did not discuss constructively. It is true that I didn't resolve the dispute, but I didn't see a willingness to resolve the dispute by discussion. Please explain, in English, what you are trying to say. If you want to go forward, please explain how you want to go forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Things are becoming much more interesting! Your language problem is very serious, if you don't understand my comments. Then please ask others with an enhanced level of the English language to explain them. If you have problems with understanding such level of English, you can't be editing in a collaborative Encyclopedia where users from around the world are editing and having contributions. Said that, you don't seem to be a good candidate to resolve disputes at the DRN, where those international users may be involved. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: is correct. He is also a great and needed contributor at DRN. Please accept his

@Mhhossein: Robert McClenon is correct. Robert is also a great and needed contributor at DRN. Please accept his advice and stop adding incomprehensible text into articles without genuine attempts at discussion. Thanks. Dr. K. 21:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Original comment was modified to avoid any misunderstanding. Dr. K. 01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the last insult is straightforward sarcastic English. Perhaps you can explain yourself more clearly if you use sentences with only one clause. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Robert, I pinged you above, to make you aware of my comment, but my advice was meant for Mhhossein, after I saw his/her negative comments directed at you. I meant that you are correct, and also a great and needed contributor at DRN. I also said to Mhhossein to accept your advice and stop adding incomprehensible text into articles without [making] genuine attempts at discussion. I hope this clears this up. Dr. K. 00:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert: I have since modified my initial comment for added clarity. Dr. K. 01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. - I understood that. I understood. I was at least willing to give him credit for his sarcastic insult being clear, although his article prose was not. Maybe he should stick to sentences with one verb. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert: Thank you Robert. Best regards. Dr. K. 02:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough. If he has difficulty understanding editor's comment, then he certainly is not a good candidate for DRN and so on. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein - It shouldn't matter to you whether Robert is my legal first name. It shouldn't matter to you whether Robert is my christened name. If I use that name, it is my name, not just being so-called. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This seemingly puzzling comment makes perfect sense if editing/reading behind a translation plugin (e.g. Chrome's translate), in which case your given name may translate to the Persian equivelant of "famed", "shining", etc.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. It ought to recognize common first names and transliterate them rather than translating them. Many less common names which are simply coined may also be unrecognized and so untranslated and presumably transliterated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: So, you made no negative comment directed at me? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. How can I have any positive comments for you? Your record during this dispute, and other incidents, speaks for itself, and it is certainly not positive at all. My criticisms of your actions are in response to your continuing attacks toward me and other editors. Even now, you call Robert McClenon, a respected, veteran editor, quote: so called "Robert", and you insist on your unfair criticism of him, instead of respecting his considered opinion. How can I be positive in the face of such bungling? If you want respect you have to behave in a respectable manner. Dr. K. 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, every thing stemed from your harsh behavior at TP, whether you accept it or not. For example, just see how negative you acted when I said "show us", i.e. show us the WP editors. There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc. I suggest you to review your comments once more. I also believe that "your record during this dispute, and other incidents, speaks for itself". My advice for you is to use a softer language, next time, if you really aim to resolve the disputes by discussion. I'm able to receive "criticisms" but expect you to be so, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K. didn't accuse you of running a possibly shared account - he politely requested you cease the use of the Royal we or Nosism which is generally inappropriate in English unless you represent a group or alternatively are royalty.Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, questions about a shared account are not the same as questions about sockpuppetry. Many new editors who represent a group will in good faith use the first person plural pronoun because they really are using a shared account, and do not yet know that corporate accounts are not permitted. Use of a shared account can be a good-faith mistake until corrected. Sockpuppetry is a different matter. However, in this case I agree that the use of the first person plural pronoun may have been a linguistic error. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Icewhiz for your scholarly, and much-needed, reality-check against these baseless accusations. @Mhhossein: If you want to be respected and be taken seriously, please demonstrate that you understand your errors and false accusations. Please retract your allegations that I called your account "shared". Also please retract your unfair PA against veteran and respected editor Robert McClenon for calling him quote: so called "Robert". That's simply not the way to gain respect in this collaborative project. In the process, can you also please apologise to Icewhiz, and myself, for insinuating that we are sockpuppets? Thank you. Dr. K. 11:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. - I don't want his apology. It wouldn't be honest. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert: Based on the trajectory of past responses, I have to agree. Dr. K. 16:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you blatantly accused me from the beginning and destroyed the collegial atmosphere. That "scholarly, and much-needed, reality-check" was an attempt to merely support you, like before. It's very very interesting that he ignored your referring to shared accounts. Did not you accuse me of possibly having a shared account? I don't want respect from you who don't know how to treat others on TP pages.

@Dr.K. Did you forget the warning by the admin regarding the "sockpuppets" thing? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your reply above shows that you will never behave collegially on this project. That was not unexpected and it will eventually catch up with you. And no, the admin told you not to comment on that thread at ANI only. He didn't prohibit you from commenting forever. "You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack." You can still apologise to me and Icewhiz. But I won't hold my breath that you have the strength of character to do so. Dr. K. 17:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How did you miss this one really? "...your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?" --Mhhossein ^talk 17:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I know you have limited understanding of English, but I will try to explain this one more time by copying my reply to you from above: "You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack." Did you see the qualifier in this thread? Now the thread is finished and you are allowed to comment. So there is no more threatening of admin action. You can still apologise. Asking you to apologise now is no "baiting", because there is no risk to be blocked now, as there was in that thread. You also forget that I did not bait you in that thread, and the admin did not challenge my explanation after I replied to him explaining that I did not intent to bait you because I had not read his warning thoroughly. To prove my good faith I even reverted myself and removed my notice on your talkpage, so that you did not have to reply to me at ANI and risk getting blocked, an edit for which you thanked me. But all this, I am afraid, is beyond your current level of English (or honesty) to understand. Dr. K. 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that combative editing can get you blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K. Stop making more Ad hominem comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, as my "warning" is misquoted here with emphasis which I did not intend. The meaning of my comment was not intended to be limited in scope to the ANI thread, it was meant to be a warning against any further personal attacks anywhere against users who participated in that thread. Saying you're not to make negative comments up to an arbitrary break in time but then you're free to run amok and say whatever you want afterwards is absurd. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the "much-needed, reality-check" against the misquoting. "Stop your usual nonsense," he told me in his edit summary when he made another ad hominen comment and made a false conclusion. You can add "I know you have limited understanding of English" and "[it] is beyond your current level of English (or honesty) to understand" to the list, let alone other pages. The reality is clarified now, thanks to your comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Mhhossein's comment above) That being said, @Dr.K.: and @Icewhiz:, repeatedly haranguing someone because they use unusually quirky English (such as the "royal we") is kind of unnecessarily rude. Especially when you know you're talking to someone who is not a native English speaker. You may know that English itself is unusual in being a language with only one form of both "we" and "you"; many others have multiple forms for singular vs. plural, familiar vs. formal, male vs. female vs. neuter, and on and on. If Mhhossein or anyone refer to themselves or others in an unusual plural form, let it go. You probably understood what they meant, and it's definitely not an accusation of sockpuppetry or indication of shared account use. Just, enough of this.

And that being said, Mhhossein, the edit you keep trying to restore is incomprehensible. I'm not saying that as an ad hominem, I'm saying that because English is my mother tongue and the language in which I am university educated and which I have spoken nearly exclusively for coming up on half a century, and I cannot decipher what you wrote. It looks like you've got three editors with native or professional English proficiency (four including myself) telling you that your English needs improvement and suggesting improvements; you should take this as an indication that your skill in English is perhaps not as good as you think it is. If I told you to scron the garfleblag, and then I get angry and aggressive and I keep demanding that you scron the garfleblag, first of all no garfleblaggn are getting scrun, and also you're going to get upset with me for just expecting that you know what I'm talking about. It's not a personal attack to ask you to define "software movement" because it's a term without a logical meaning in English, and as it turns out after you finally provided a link to a definition after arguing about it for 6 days, it doesn't even mean something close to what a native English speaker might intuit. Clearly, a native English speaker expects software to mean, well, software, and "movement" in English has several meanings.

The problem here, Mhhhossein, is your own participation in the discussion. Dr.K. tried to point out specific parts of your edits and very clearly summarize the problems and suggest improvements, and you responded with "sorry that I don't have enough time reading these wall of texts." If you don't "have time" to work out the issues with your edits when others point them out to you, then you can either accept whatever changes they make, or else not edit the article. You can't refuse to participate and then insist on using your edit anyway. That is edit warring, this page is under a discretionary sanctions alert, and if you continue you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you again for the the comment. He shouldn't have used those "unnecessarily rude" comments and I shouldn't have said that I did not have time. Just see how many times he called my comments silly. I was really annoyed by his haranguing, on the contrary I was really affected by your "I'm saying that because English is my mother tongue ... coming up on half a century." I admit your comment on my level of English language, but the last "misquoting" case showed that I was not that bad and dr.k. was probably wrong.

I'm not going to add the text, unless I found more reliable sources and there's a consensus over it. I'm not saying that I was innocent, but be sure that things would be much more different, if they had used a better language. It's not a personal attack to ask one to define "software movement", but calling someone's comment "silly" and saying "Stop your usual nonsense" is probably personal attack. You were really fair on the different areas, including the block warning. But I did not notice warning or comment against Dr.k.'s continued annoying behavior after the ANI case. Thank you again for the comments, I'll certainly take your advice. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)