User talk:94.193.135.142

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, 94.193.135.142. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BBC Persian Television. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Rapido (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at BBC Persian Television. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

94.193.135.142 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Rapido deliberately reverts without reasoning nor engaging in active discussion prior, to provoke and start an edit war despite my numerous requests for him to resolve the situation in the discussion page. His reverts are deliberately marked as "minor" despite it being far from minor showing his user based trait to engage in deceptive editing. Please bare in mind, Mediation, and Dispute resolution are being filed against Rapido's editing, for provoking an edit war and unwillingness to resolve dispute first is being filed. An official report is also being filed to Wikipedia via mail.

Decline reason:

This IP is not currently blocked. Closedmouth (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (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.

BBC talk[edit]

If you would have read WP:SOAP or WP:talk, you'd see that the talk page should not be used as a forum. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Your post that I removed was clearly not talking about article content and was trying to encourage readers to investigate your conspiracy. Your supporting evidence is mostly showing pictures of people holding signs in protests, which is irrelevant. If you read the guideline you'll also see that talk page content can be removed if it violates policy, and if you continue pressing you'll be blocked and your comments removed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think my raised discussion is of a "soap talk" nature, please provide details as I beleive it is very concise, raises a valid issue concerning BBC and I can put forth countless daily newspapers in Iran not only raising the issue, but also citing journals and research done in Iran of academic levels. I'm Jewish myself and we are very close with Bahai's, however, some thing as part of a plan needs to be recorded accurately, and this is one. The article needs mentioning of Iran's official, journalistic, and academic view with regards to their objection of by unfair Bahai domination in BBC Persian breaching many BBC's equal oppurtunities rule amongst other laws, both of UK and EU origin. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful advice[edit]

I understand that you are a new editor. In addition to my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I'd like to suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Third opinion and think about using it if you need it in future - it can be very helpful, and if necessary you can request a fourth or fifth opinion.

Getting an uninvolved editor to look at a content dispute is one of the best ways to resolve disputes. A editor supplying a third opinion will often also be useful in spotting any form of abuse, or other etiquette issues from either of the parties involved.87.102.67.84 (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)