Jump to content

User talk:IamMM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi IamMM! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations

[edit]

When making nominations for AfD, please make sure you provide an actual rationale for deletion rather than simply saying "Wikipedia:Notability (media)". It doesn't have to be a whole essay, but you do need to actually explain your thinking and perhaps what research you did before the nomination that gave you confidence that the subject isn't notable. You should also slow down if you are going to take another run at AfD. Nominating a whole spree of 10 articles within less than half an hour gives you very little time to have conducted any research or checks on each subject, which weakens your rationale even further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right PMC. I decided to nominate only the first one or two who really had a notability issue with this brief explanation and the rest of the articles that had deeper problems to be nominated for quick deletion or correction, but since I am somewhat new to this wiki, I preferred to nominate all articles with the same description as the AfD. Thanks for your explanation, I will comply. --IamMM (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Massoud Molavi Verdanjani (July 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cerebellum was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Masoud Molavi instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, IamMM! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

If you do not know, it is not permitted to link to the real life identities of editors unless they have explicitly indicated who they are. Please do not do it again. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Which part of the sentence "unless they have explicitly indicated who they are" is incomprehensible to you? Your action is a meaningful contribution to organized censorship. I will definitely follow your action and do not allow you to abuse policies. --IamMM (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Please let a manager handle my block by Primefac and its misuse of policies. This user not only censored the documents and evidence presented by the abuses of an Iranian security force on the Jimbo Wales discussion page,[1][2] but also closed my account by blatantly abusing his access. A manager who does not have the power to recognize the situation and can not recognize the meaning of clear sentences (see the above thread) should not take managerial action. IamMM (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's clear to me that you are not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. You violated policy by posting personal information about others. If you want to address Iranian governmental censorship, you need to do that with the Iranian government. There are no grounds to remove the block, and I see no pathway to doing so unless you want to edit in radically different topic areas, and address your inappropriate edits. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2021 (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.

User is here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and harass an editor by linking to personal information about them. Should an uninvolved admin think that I overstepped, I am happy to discuss and be overruled, but all I see is an editor who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I completely deny, Primefac is trying to impose his mental perception as a fact. The user publicly identifies himself with the name and image and uses the same name on all platforms (wiki, twitter, facebook...). I did not refer to any personal or non-public content and only published content that is directly related to Wikimedia (including two photos in a Wikimedia conference). It is clearly stated in the policy that those who work with an exposed identity are not included. If you want to shut me up so that I do not criticize the foundation, at least use the real reasons. --IamMM (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you criticize the Foundation or not, but this is not the platform for doing so. I cannot examine the edits at issue(rightfully so) but I have zero reason to doubt what is said about them. You aren't allowed to post content from off-wiki here, even if it is public. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably find both images by searching Commons, as images from Wikimedia-related gatherings are usually archived. You have created a handmade case for me and for reasons that are not clear to me, you do not want to refer to the policy statement regarding the information disclosed by the person himself. What I have presented is evidence of a member of the foundation abusing his position (and the credibility he receives on behalf of Wikimedia) in a way that is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikimedia. It's very interesting that you think Jimbo himself does not have enough intelligence to distinguish hersement from the evidence! --IamMM (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Massoud Molavi Verdanjani

[edit]

Information icon Hello, IamMM. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Massoud Molavi Verdanjani, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

My account has been blocked for the reasons stated in the discussions above. Now that the security concerns and requests of users living in totalitarian countries have been addressed to some extent, I'm ready to accept the any necessary behavioral commitments for unblocking.

Decline reason:

You have given no commitments to address your inappropriate behaviour. Yamla (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2022 (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.

@Yamla: I am fully committed to ALL of the policies discussed above that have been precisely addressed by the administrators. I must clarify that the previous time, the violation of the policy text and the violations leading to the block were done with the main purpose of preserving the spirit of the policies and there was no intention to harass or damage the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, at that time there was no other way but to present irrefutable evidence to show WMF members the danger of the intrusion of the enemies of Internet freedom and the serious threats it poses to WM users within these countries. I must mention that - with the exception of this block - it was a successful endeavor and increased the physical and mental security of the users. I reiterate my commitment not to repeat this and to adhere to all behavioral policies. -- IamMM (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I am waiting for your attention. -- IamMM (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already declined your unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, make a new unblock request and a different admin will review it. WP:GAB explains how to do this. --Yamla (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the description and link. I think your approach is far from the goodwill and civilized behavior expected of a sysop, so I will make another request soon. Just as you can not clean a glass with a dirty cloth, you can not advise others about the right behavior by behaving inappropriately. Even if it is to be rejected, I deserve a real and respectful consideration. --IamMM (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 3

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

As I write this message, the internet is down in many parts of Iran and the brutal killing of protesters is taking place. The internet was cut off by the same people I was in this miserable situation today for protesting their presence in the Wikimedia management suite! My guilt is that I warned not to let the killers of civilians gain power around the WMF. Tell me, what is the difference between the one who pulls the trigger and the one who cuts off the internet so that the first person pulls the trigger in silence and ignorance of others, when the goal of both people is to assist in the massacre? I repeat, the treatment of me here is very unfair, Jimbo Wells, I got into this situation for writing just a message for you! -- IamMM (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm sorry but I'm not going to convince anyone because this block was wrong from the beginning. It's the administrators, especially Jimbo Wells, who have to apologize for harassing me during this time and disrupting my life on Wikimedia projects. And yes, the treatment of me here is a clear example of Hersement. I will never allow you or anyone else to humiliate me for having human values. I will appeal again and again and again until I am treated fairly. --IamMM (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree with how Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or whatever is run. You don't have to agree that your block is just. You can get unblocked while still saying that your block is unjust. You just have to agree to follow Wikipedia's rules, that's all. Once you do that, you'll likely be unblocked, and you can pursue whatever institutional changes that you think need to be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: As I said in the previous unblock request to the Yamla but he/she did not pay attention: I have read all the above mentioned behavioral policies carefully and I will adhere to them. The effects of this unnecessary block have gone beyond the English Wikipedia, since then I have not been able to participate in Meta polls because those who are blocked in 2 different wikis do not meet the requirements to participate in the polls. I was previously blocked on Persian Wikipedia by the same users I objected to, and this block on the English wiki has affected my presence on all projects. -- IamMM (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 4

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

As I said in the discussions above, I do not believe that this block has been continued with the aim of preserving the encyclopedia. I did my moral responsibility and informed the WMF that they were collaborating with someone accused of aiding and abetting the murder of at least 1,500 Iranian citizens, and I strongly warned against allowing this person to gain credibility for himself under the cover of Wikimedia, because it is ultimately Wikimedia that It becomes invalid. Is the answer to this action a permanent block? Is endless blocking of users due to human responsibility part of the procedure here? I am not willing to humiliate myself for the most humane morals. The treatment I have received here is a disgrace to the whole foundation. I request the immediate end of this wrong block. Jimbo Wells, I got into this situation for writing just a message for you! -- IamMM (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Further WP:SOAPBOX requests will result in the loss of your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:09, 31 May 2022 (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.

If you're unable to understand how the above appeal connects to WP:SOAPBOX, and how it fails to address your block, perhaps this isn't the project for you. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which has already been linked above, and WP:NOTHERE also apply. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: You said that according to WP:SOAPBOX, repeating the appeal will lead to a discussion page editing block and I asked according to which part of WP:SOAPBOX will this happen? This was a simple question and did not need to be answered sarcastically.
You should know that I am not an activist or something like that, this misconception has nothing to do with my wrong block. What I said to Jimbo was completely related to WP issues and the security of encyclopedia users. I don't understand this childish obstinacy of the managers, you are simplistic about the effects of the permanent block on the users and you put the plaintiff in the position of the accused to justify the initial wrong decision. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me anymore. Good luck. -- IamMM (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Today, ArvanCloud company, whose my account has been blocked due to my protest against the presence of its employees in the group of Wikimedia stewards, was sanctioned by the EU for participating in the repression and killing of Iranian protesters by the regime of the Islamic Republic (Source). By proving the truth of my claim, I request for the last time to remove this cruel block. Never wanting WM to be harmed in the slightest, my contributions as a Wikimedia citizen are available on Commons. I am going to be interviewed by the Guardian next week about the role of Western platforms in the regime's cyber activities against the opposition, I expect to see responsible behavior in this regard, otherwise I will be forced to tell the truth about the foundation's long-term ties with the Iranian regime despite many warnings from Iranian users without any meaningful regret. Telling the truth is a moral issue for me in this case, not a personal one. Notification to the perpetrators of this block: @Primefac, Ohnoitsjamie, and Jimbo Wales: and Vice of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees @NTymkiv (WMF):. -- IamMM (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So, you were given four prior chances to convince people that you intend to stop the behavior you were blocked for, but it looks like every unblock request has been used to rant against the WMF and others. I think we've had quite enough. If you wish to be unblocked, contact the UTRS team directly as described at WP:UTRS. Jayron32 16:46, 9 December 2022 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IamMM&oldid=1126491262"