User talk:Mhhossein

Archives (Index)

1 s/ 1 2 3 4 5 6

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month from certain pages (Ruhollah Khomeini and Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini) for tendentious commentary and original research at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the edit that led most directly to this sanction was this one. Not only do you dismiss fairly substantive sources through the use of sophistry, your final argument essentially comes down to "I don't believe this, so it isn't true", which is a clear-cut demonstration that you are unable to separate your personal POV from that of the sources. You've done a lot of decent content work with respect to Iranian topics, but you need to either get back to things you feel less strongly about, or learn to set aside your personal feelings when editing. I've given you a month's block from a single page to let you figure out a strategy to do that; the next sanction, should it prove necessary, will likely be both longer and broader. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not miss the sources provided and gone through some of them. I had started a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and there was no edit war or exchange of edits in between. As a participant, I was expressing my understanding of the of the sources and the term which was to be inserted. I have actively participated many talk page discussions and created dozens of GAs and hence know about the five pillars. I was accused of "sophistry" by the blocking admin. "I don't believe this, so it isn't true" is also used against me to reach the conclusion that I am "unable to separate [my] personal POV from that of the sources" then I invite you to take a look at [1] and [2] where the editor, who is an admin, is explaining the applicability of "cult of personality" when it comes to PERSONs. I request the review of block, just tarnished my block-log, since I have always tried to show my participation in talk page discussions in a constructive manner. The block essentially stopped the possibility of any further dispute resolution steps, discussions and refinements. Mhhossein ^talk 07:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Mhhossein, I'm sorry, I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I agree with Vanamonde. The whole de facto argument does come across as sophistry, and is, therefore, tendentiousness. The Post-1978 Iranian politics General Sanctions gives Vanamonde a lot of leeway in applying sanctions for conduct to which they consider a violation. My assessment is that they were well within their remit. An edit war is not a prerequisite for sanctions to be applied. I'm confident you can improve by learning from this temporary restriction. Best, El_C 13:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

El_C: Thanks for the comment. To be frank, discretionary sanctions seem ridiculous. Users with crystal clear violation and previous blocks may escape sanction[3]. I feel like receiving one of the most ridiculous sanctions of the WP history. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:That which that orphan saw.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:That which that orphan saw.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

fa.Wikipedia deletion needed: هدکوارترز، آریزونا

Hi, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona and, if you are willing, nominate fa:هدکوارترز، آریزونا for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallups, Arizona / fa:گالوپس، آریزونا. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Farsi Wikipedia - COVID-19

Hi Mhhossein, I hope you're doing well. I found your username at the Wikipedia Embassy for Farsi.

Over at fa:دنیاگیری کروناویروس بر پایه کشور و سرزمین, the image "COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg" is used from Commons with a specified date, but the file is continuously updated. To try to make sure the dates are up to date, the person who created the image and I created an item on Wikidata, which will have the correct date on it.

For the most part, I'm just updating the pages on other wikis as appropriate, but in the process of trying to find the relevant bit to update on fawiki (as I'm fa-0), Google Translate translates نقشه موارد تایید شده سرانه کووید-۱۹ (تا تاریخ ۰۰ فروردین ۱۳۹۹) as Map of the approved per capita cases of Quaid-19 (until April 30, 2016). This doesn't seem right...

Would you mind telling me if that's the correct place to put the date that the corresponding map was last updated, or whether the date there is meant to represent something else?

Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)