User talk:Soldier of Ahura Mazda

Hello, Soldier of Ahura Mazda, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Below are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! Rasnaboy (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of Ahura Mazda, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Soldier of Ahura Mazda! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Your recent editing history at Cyrus the Great shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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 edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Soldier_of_Ahura_Mazda reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: ). Thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance[edit]

Hi Soldier of Ahura Mazda, seems you have dove in head first here but please do step back and take some time to get to know Wikipedia. Please read Right great wrongs along with WP:BRD. It will behoove you to work with more experienced editors, who have been editing here for several years and know Wikipedia's policies and norms like the back of their hands. Currently, you are arguing against them which will likely work against you. It could very will be that your purpose does not align with Wikipedia's purpose so you could be wasting your time. S0091 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2021 (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).

Soldier of Ahura Mazda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

as i have stated in my administration complaints against the 2 users "HistoryofIran" and "Wretchskull" their edits on the "Cyrus the Great" wikipedia page are falsehoods and insulting. i wanted them revised, that is why i have made edits on that page to correct their(or other people)'s wrong comments and history telling (or history making at this point) , i admit i am very new to editing wikipedia, and i do not claim to be an expert on editing pages... however i have complete knowledge of the history of my country, Iran and i believe that the 2 aforementioned users are attempting to insult the heritage of my people and insult the Legacy of the Father of our nation. and for that reason i have edited the aforementioned page to create the correct, factual narrative about the "death" of Cyrus the Great and to stop such people as "Historyofiran" and "Wretchskull" from vandalizing the page and the history of the Great king and Prophet, Cyrus the Great. for these reasons, i would like this ban revoked and i would like a third party, impartial judge to discuss this arguement between us in any venue you see fit, so that i can prove my case and expose the people who are falsifying the history of my people !!! thank you.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block at all. It is your responsibility to understand our policies. Please take the time to read and understand WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS, along with WP:RS. Yamla (talk) 22:47, 28 February 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.

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).

Soldier of Ahura Mazda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am not well versed in the complicated webbing of rules and regulations that your site has, and that is because i have just started editing on this site a mere 3-4 days ago. and that was purely out of love for my own country and the sadness i felt when people had spread false narratives in the wikipedia page: "Cyrus the Great" , for which reason i have attempted my first ever edit of a wikipedia page. i did not understand how the system where others can revert your changes to a page, works or how i am not allowed to keep changing it. and i do not think that it is fair to ban me for something that is so hard to know about since your site is a very complicated one to know all of its rules, but when it comes to editing, it is as easy as to make an account and start an edit ! i think it falls on your shoulder to make your rules more "new user" friendly !!! as for the things people have said about me, i merely read the rules and thought i should "warn" people on their talk pages so that i can appeal a report against me in the administration page, i have no personal quarrel with any of them since i do not even know them, i have merely met them for the first time in the last hour or so and i simply do not know how your system works. is it that, people who have been here most, and have most edits have some sort of power over people who are new ? i would've expected an impartial juror to intervene and tell me a.why is it that my edits are being reverted ? b. why are there people putting a notice on a tab called "talk", because i simply had no idea how this site works and c. why am i being complained against in the "administration" tab and called out for "vandalizing" or "pushing wrong narrative" when all i did was to write down an impartial and FACTUAL history, while citing my sources pretty well and putting hyperlinks and all that stuff, which i admit, i had to learn all of them in one night ! if i'm being honest i see your handling of this situation as very immature for a site that claims to have such integrity and fame. i have done nothing wrong but rather making edits on a page, and then some people reverted my edits, and i tried to revert them back, because i simply thought thats how it works. i did not know any of your rules and frankly, i am not here to be a permanent member, i am just here to revise the parts of history that was written the wrong way by people here, specially the "Cyrus the Great" 's History page, which is filled with falsehoods and citing of sources such as herodotus or ctesias who are pretty unreliable narrators of the history, and honestly i can go on for 15 different pages as to why there are so many mistakes in the way of your history telling !!! my last word is that, i tried to make an edit because i thought your site got the history wrong. and i was bombarded by people who reported me without me even knowing i am being set up. because i am pretty new to this site. if your verdict is to ban me for the sake of your older users, and being partial and partisan rather than an impartial juror. then i do not think i have any power here to be able to stop you.

Decline reason:

You don't have to know all the rules here; I have the admin tools and I don't know all of them off the top of my head. What you do need to do is be willing to hear out others informing you of rules and guidelines and adjust your behavior accordingly. Edit warring is not acceptable even if you are correct with your edits. You also need to understand that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources state about topics. This block is only a partial block from Cyrus the Great; you are free to edit other areas of the encyclopedia, and you are free to go to Talk:Cyrus the Great to discuss your concerns about the article and offer any sources you have to support your claims. To have the block removed, you will need to demonstrate a better understanding of how disputes are resolved. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 1 March 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.

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).

Soldier of Ahura Mazda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am not familiar with the "edit warring" that you keep mentioning. i don't know what your people mean by it. if your site, is as you claim: "wikipedia is maintained by people like you" , then why is it that i cannot talk about it and edit it ? now i admit, i did not know how anything works in this site, i just saw the article and found it abhorrent and wanted to change it, and i only changed a small part of the wikipedia page, and i have cited sources for literally every single topic, some with literal lines of the book mentioned in the resources section. why am i not allowed to edit that ? i will go to the "talk page" about the aforementioned wikipedia page, but i dont expect an impartial juror, because you people have banned me without any reason at all. i did not insult anybody, i did not threaten anybody, and i have been pretty accurate with the changes i made, going so far as to mention passages of the books that i have taken my information from. then why is that i am banned ? because a couple of people who might know each other well, decided to report me and then make accusations about me, specifically "wretchskull" who claimed i went in other people's talk pages and "harassed" them, which is a literal lie. i saw your rules, and i saw that him and "Historyofiran" are changing the page, so i went to learn what should i do with the people who constantly change a page to a false narrative, and thats where i was informed of the term, "vandalizing" , and i also learned i have to use some sort of code on their talk page to let them know i am making an administer complain about them, so i did just that and wrote that i think they are vandalizing the aforementioned page, you can go and double check on that !!! however, when i made a complaint it was declined, and the reason given was a couple of people just saying i am harrassing people, which cannot be further from the truth. but when they issued a complaint about me, it got me banned because of no apparent reason and i have to admit, it bothers me that you site is such a one sided, partial juror that cannot hear both sides of an argument before issuing bans. why don't you bring all of those people to a live chat with me, i will debunk all of their stories with FACTS from my own books, since every single source that i have mentioned is a book that i literally either have a physical copy of it or a digital one and i am more than happy to display it. that is why i want this ban revoked, because the page that i want to edit, is the "Cyrus the Great" 's wikipedia page and nothing else, and i have all the proof required to do it, you can go and check the sources i have cited in my edit, and i will accept any challenge to my sources and my narration. please display impartiality and revoke this ban, so that we can have a truthful argument, not a one sided one, where i am banned for the sake of some older user who happens to have alot of opinions or alot of time on his hands to make alot of edits and put alot of tags on his page !!! and for that reason he is considered a "reliable" source, of course i am talking about User "HistoryofIran" and people like "wretchskull" and others who keep reverting the page back to his specific edit. why is it that his edit is given priority to mine ? just because i have created my accounts 3 days ago ? does that mean i am new to wikipedia or i am new to history ?? a sane person would argue only the former can be correct and not the latter. please revoke this ban so that i can make my edits and i am willing to talk about them for as long as it takes to prove to those people that they are wrong and their narration is either accidentally or intentionally, spreading falsehoods and is insulting to the people of Iran and the great legacy of the Father of our nation, the Prophet-king Cyrus the Great !!!

Decline reason:

I don't see anything here that suggests you've considered our guide to appealing blocks, and I see continued personal attacks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:31, 2 March 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.

You are blocked, not banned. Please click on WP:EW to read about what edit warring is; in short, it is continually reverting edits to protect your preferred version of an article. It is not acceptable even if you think that your edits were correct. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Now Soldier of Ahura Mazda is just ranting on the talk page of Cyrus the Great, making attacks towards me and WretchSkull [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of Ahura Mazda, comments like that will not help you. If your nationalism is too strong to allow you to civilly collaborate with other editors on an article, you won't be permitted to edit in the area of Cyrus the Great or even Iranian history in general. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources are summarized incorrectly, or sources are missing, your input is welcome, but you must improve your attitude. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran is a false narrator and during this whole time, where i have been talking with proof, all he did was to attack me and accuse me of different things that i have never done such as "harassing" or "attacking" him or others. if you think you have the right version, why is it that instead of talking with me there, you are attacking me here on a block by the aministration ? is it not because you want me banned, so that you can do your own false narration without any opposition ? i have seen other people in the Cyrus the Great's talk page, arguing with your way of handling the page and bullying people by removing their edits. and by the way, in case you haven't caught on, this, what i wrote here just now, is not an attack or harassment, its arguing. if you cannot handle arguing with other people about a subject, then what are you doing here editing pages ? because the whole point of being an editor is to be able to face an opposition and talk to them about a subject, not dodging them and using other people to spam report somebody until they get blocked or banned, i'm still waiting for your FACTUAL opposition to my narration and edits. so far all you've done was to accuse me of this and that !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solider of Ahura Mazda: 1. If you keep harassing us, it will not help one bit (which also proves that you are not trying to get to know Wikipedia's guidelines), and you might even get in trouble for that. 2. You aren't "talking with proof", Wikipedia needs summation from reliable secondary sources in an encyclopedic style. 3. Instead of doing what you are currently doing, see WP:CS, WP:HARASS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:AIM. Wretchskull (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, arguing about something is not harassing or attacking. you have reported me to the administration without proof of me doing anything wrong, your proof for it was in summary "i am describing a false narrative" , which cannot be further from the truth. i have only cited 100% acceptable proof, right from the Books that i have physical copies or digital copies of and i am willing to talk about them in length. but your way of handling a dispute was to report me to administration, unlike what you claim now which is to want to discuss the matter. so i am calling you out on your conduct !Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not the issue at the moment, but how you conduct yourself is. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot how editing a page with Cited sources, literally by chapter, Page and passage is considered unreliable source ? these are all independent historians from different parts of the world and different ages. i have literally written every account of the story, and then concluded what was right and what was wrong literally based on the FACTUAL information i have stated in my edit. please take your time to go and give it a read. and how arguing with people is considered "harassment" or "attack" ? "HistoryofIran" and "Wretchskull" have never reached out to me to have a civil discussion and is it not true that if they have changed my edits, then it should be them who make an explanation about it ? and why is it that when "Wretchskull" went to the Administration page and made a complaint about me and saying that i am making and i summarize "false narrations" , it was deemed valid for you to block my access to the aforementioned page ? this is not an impartial verdict !!! and yes i am pretty nationalist and i love my country, my religion and people and i am a proud Iranian and Zoroasterian. why should that be considered biased ? did i not cite my sources ??? weren't all of my sources literally foreigners who made their own conclusions without any pressure from any group or country ? then how is it that my edit was biased ? please explain that ! and please be an impartial juror in this case, just because there are more people arguing against me, that does not mean i am wrong. because i have proof for the things i say and i am willing to talk about them, whereas "HistoryofIran" and "Wretchskull" have both been avoiding me, reverting my edits and reporting me and accusing me of harassment and attacking them, while in truth i was the one being reported by them, accused of false narrations and my edits were reverted by them !!! please take this into consideration ! i am only here to make right, a wrong narration !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, including me, is biased. That's not the issue. The issue is how you conduct yourself here, and your attitude. Only you can control what you do- you can't control what others do, but you can control how you respond. I'm not rendering a "verdict" as I am not a judge and this is not a court. Rants like this aren't helping you and if you don't address how you will go about changing how you edit and your attitude, you won't be unblocked from that article, and further sanctions might occur. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot , can you please tell me what is wrong with my edits ? and please do not link a generic link to a page. please tell me what is wrong with the edits i made ? are they wrong ? do they lack a reliable source ? if so how ? because all of my edits have sources, literally by chapter, page and passage, and i have made my conclusions literally based on the said sources, and every single paragraph has a source attached to it. and about my attitude, did i insult, accuse or attack anybody ? if so, how , where and when ? "wretchskull" made a complaint against me in the administration board and accused me of false narration, and i have done nothing but explaining myself and defending my edits from late last night to this morning and now evening. it has been a tiresome journey where i have been attacked from all sides, despite the fact that everytime you make an argument against me, you claim that you want me to have a discussion with the people who are opposing my narration. so i did just that, i went to the Cyrus the Great's talk page, and made my claim... and then somebody edited it. i went to administration board and gave my own version of the argument and my request was declined while their argument was accepted. i tried so hard to open the conversation, but these 2 Users are keep Avoiding me. if they are so willing to discuss this, then shouldn't they stop the accusations and name calling and start having a normal conversation with me ??? why don't you open up a live chat and we can talk about it ? i am willing to cite my sources, because as i said above, i have all of them right here !!! i ask you again, please be impartial in this and stop calling this a rant, if you are accusing me of doing wrong edits and having bad attitude but then expect me to not defend myself ! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening to me. The issue is not your edits. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

who is editing my Talk:Cyrus the Great's comment ? i am calling you out on this, you are trying to put words in my mouth. stop editing it and have the courage to argue your case instead of jabbing me from left and right and edit my comment in the talk section of Cyrus the Great's page !!! i am talking to you "Wretchskull" and "HistoryofIran" , i do not know whether its you, your friends or your alt accounts, but in either case, STOP it ! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, if the issue is the attitude, it is a misunderstaning. i do not have any attitude towards either of these people because i do not even know them, to me they are just random accounts on the internet. i am only defending myself. and my edits have sources. thats what i've been saying all along !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to the article talk page. You say you have no attitude but your use of exclamation points tells me differently. For whatever reason you are too invested in the topic to be able to edit about it and/or to collaborate with others at this time. If that doesn't change after the block is expired, future blocks will be longer and possibly sitewide. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot the use of exclamation points gave you the impression that i have a bad attitude ? i use those on a daily basis, it is to imply that i am strongly making a point, not to have a bad attitude. and i asked for you to make it possible that these people come and talk to me, and instead you extend the block to somehow coerce me into falling in line and not making edits ? you conduct is pretty much telling of your bias. at this point there is no point in arguing with you, because you have the power and you are willing to use in anyway you see fit. and all of this tiresome argument to defend myself, ended up with your one sided verdict !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is different in Iran, but where I come from the extensive use of exclamation points usually indicates yelling. Your unblock request is still open, and someone else will review it. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot "maybe it is different in iran" is that a racist remark ? where are you from then ? this article was about me and me alone and somehow you found a way to insult my country. and i demand an apology, not to me, but to the iranian people for that racist remark ! and i can assure you that making conclusions that someone is angry or has bad attitude through their use of exclamation points, points out a flaw in you, and notice how i found a way to not insult your country and generalize your people unlike what you did ! and for your information, it is ALL CAPS that inclines yelling, not exclamation points !

It's not racist, I was simply noting possible cultural differences. There is nothing wrong with Iranian culture if that's the case, I'm trying to see where you are coming from. Please try to see where others are coming from. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot i take that explanation as an apology. again, if you have issues with my conduct, do not generalize. and please stop "HistoryofIran" from editing my comment in the Cyrus the Great's talk page. he is trying to put words into my mouth and erase my words. see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009616554&oldid=1009613493 . please for the moment stop his privilege to make changes to the talk page, and revert my words back to what they were. he is literally twisting my words and cherry picking to make his case and your block of my access gave him the perfect opportunity. please see to it that his access to my comment is blocked and my comment reverted to its original !

I have raised that point with the other user- but I would suggest on your part that you take a step back from this situation to get a breath so you can focus on your own actions. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, i can now see that my comment on the talk page of Cyrus the Great wikipedia page had been reverted back to original. thank you for stopping him. i will as you advised take a break from this, but i hope now you see that the other side of this is not a guilt free person, and is indeed involved in tampering the evidence to his leisure in order to make a case against me. this person needs to be blocked as well from making edits to article and talk page of Cyrus the Great's wikipedia page until our dispute is put to rest. that is all i ask. thank you !

@Soldier of Ahura Mazda: He should absolutely not be blocked. You should be using your time to get to know Wikipedia's rules instead of accusing him (who is extremely experienced) to read rules and even warn them at WP:ANEW. If you do not stop, I will have to report you for that, as you are harassing us as well as being here not to build an encyclopedia or understanding Wikipedia's purpose. Do not respond to this, please just familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, or else it could backfire. Thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, i am trying to learn the rules and it has been less than a day for me coming into wikipedia's editing. i am sure "HistoryofIran" has more experience and he is using that to manipulate evidence as seen in the Talk page of the disputed Article (Cyrus the Great) , but furthermore you have done the same and tried to change my comment, 2 times yourself. and stop trying to coerce me into silence by threatening an admin complaint. "HistoryofIran" should be blocked from making changes to the article and talk section of Cyrus the Great page, because he has been manipulating evidence and changing my words in the talk section and also changing my edits in the Article section, all without ever making an effort to come talk to me, same goes for you @wretchedskull, you have done the exact same and both of you should come and settle this dispute on a live chat, if you feel you are so on the right side of this, and i am on the wrong. lets see who has the evidence to back their claims and who doesn't ! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the block to the entire site due to your attacks and aspersions. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have been abusing your administrator privileges to give a one sided verdict. you asked me to take a break, but did not encourage the opposition, namely @HistoryofIran and @Wretchskull to do the same. you have blocked my access to the article and talk page of Cyrus the Great wikipedia page, but did not do the same to them, even though they have changed my edit about 5 times, and the fact that they are abusing your system of 3 edits block to their advantage (Which i assume is called edit warring) because they are 2 people against me being 1 should have made it apparent to you that they are abusing the rules of this site. and the fact that both @HistoryofIran and @Wretchskull have edited my defenses in the administration complaint AND in the Talk page of Cyrus the Great's wikipedia page, should have been a give away that they are working together to silence me. but none of that convinced you that it is them who are abusing the rules and slandering me with false accusations ? i do not see you as an impartial juror in this and if i get my editing privileges back in the administration complaint, i will make my case against you with proof, because i have picture evidence of all that has been transpired !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk • contribs)

You still have an open request, only one at a time is needed. As I've said, it's not about your edits, and it's not about the behavior of others, this is about your actions. I have nothing else to add; I suggest you wait for your request to be reviewed or you may lose access to this page as well with further attacks and aspersions. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot what part of my behavior with others are you specifically deeming to be ban worthy ? please specify ! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been specific; I have nothing else to add. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, NO you haven't been specific at all. you've only said you have problem with my attitude. so what is wrong with my attitude please specify ? where did make insults, accusations or attacks ? please specify or take back what you said ! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soldier of Ahura Mazda: You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper graver. Stop commenting. Wretchskull (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

funny how there are many people who agree with me that Wikipedia is a biased source, where people who have most edits or labels on their account can dictate what a small time editor can put in the page, here take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDPrpKDjQ5U . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Q7reJtiLU . https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ . your bias is on full display here and i have picture and video evidence of it all. Users @HistoryofIran and @Wretchskull and @331dot are forcing my edits closed and take away my access in order to make their own false narrative about Cyrus the Great and the history of people, stick ! and everybody will know about this !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources in articles are presented to readers so the reader can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other things. No one's trying to dictate anything here- the issue is not with your edits. Repeat, the issue is not with your edits. Once more, the issue is not with your edits. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot at this point, i have completely proven that the issue is EXACTLY about my edits. because 2 users @historyofiran and @wretchskull tried to use the Wikipedia rules to avoid 3 edits ban, by editing 2 times each. and you knew full well that they did it and still ignored their actions. and when they made complaints about me, you were more than happy to take their side, even though they have accused me of multiple "harassments and attacks" and when i asked them or you for proof of that, every time, you dodged the question, and even once went as far as to say exclamation points are harassment. and that alone just proves how shallow your argument is. i am glad that i have flushed out your bias and put it on full display, all of this are backed up by video evidence and i will publish for other people to see, so that they can realize what a cabal of "elite editors" can do to a small time editor, even though every single thing that i have said in my edit is backed up by evidence and it is there for all to see, in the talk section of the "cyrus the great" 's wikipedia page, and even if you edit it out. i have picture and video evidence of it and it will be published !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the accusations you are levying against me which have no basis in reality. I am not an elite editor and welcome involvement from less experienced editors who approach editing collaboratively, civilly, and without levying unfounded accusations and attacks- none of which you are doing. This isn't about your edits, but about your conduct and with every post you make you are demonstrating why the block was made and should remain. If you make further accusations and aspersions, I will remove your ability to edit this page and lengthen the block. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like Wikipedia you are free to go elsewhere. Linking to Russia Today or Larry Sanger doesn't impress. Sanger may have been a co-founder but he had virtually nothing to do with it since and if you read his Twitter feeds they are pushing Trumpian fake news. As User:331dot has said, you are showing that the block was a good block. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dougweller the RT interview was a valid criticism of this site and the investigative journalist who had done the article had given proof for all she said, which during my 2 days experience with your administration team, i have found quite accurate. the user:HistoryofIran , had either used his alternate account User:Wretchskull or had him have his back so that together they can circle through the rules of your site, and that investigative journalist in the RT interview was very on point with this. through your conduct, it is clear that a culture of elitism and favoritism is dominant on this site and the ideas of older user who make more edits is favored above the ideas of new users like myself, which defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia, and that is exactly what the co-founder of wikipedia Larry sanger pointed out. the fact that you favor articles that are aligned with your policies and support writers who are either paid by rouge regimes or grudge editing the articles which you happen to have same politics with. just the fact that you say larry sanger's twitter feeds "are pushing trumpian fake news" is indicitive of your bias towards one side of an argument despite your claim of being unbiased and impartial. you are anything but ! and in the Case of the Wikipedia page that is the center of this dispute between me and your site, it is clear that you favor the likes of @user:HistoryofIran , because he is pushing an insulting and false narrative against my people, despite claiming he is from iran himself, even though there are no evidence to back that claim, he is hiding behind an account and is filling his page with tags in order to create a false identity for himself, even though his account name is vague and he gives no proof of he is who he claims to be !!! whereas i have claimed that i am iranian, and i encouraged @user:HistoryofIran , @User:Wretchskull and @user:331dot to come talk to me in a live chat and settle our dispute there. and instead of mustering the courage to face a real person, they used bans and blocks against me, and edited my comments on admin page, on talk pages and everywhere, where i made a case against them, in order to manipulate evidence and avoid having a talk with me. at this point it is clear that the 2 users , user:HistoryofIran and user:Wretchskull are essentially the same person or operate from the same company which probably pays them to create false narratives and crush any opposition like myself, who might have constructive ideas that is contradictory to theirs. i do not recognize the legitimacy of your organization here and your bias had been proven through your texts. and it is something that i will publish in any venue i can, not because i want personal justice, because i want people to know that your organization has no legitimacy whatsoever, and is as biased as propaganda channel can be and is as lowly or even lower than a subreddit in reddit !!! Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to settle, and I don't discuss Wikipedia matters elsewhere(unless they involve sensitive personal information in which case I use email). 331dot (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the RT "investigation". We are not naive, we know that people having an axe to grind try to use Wikipedia. But the answer to her allegations is: WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:ABIAS. Do take your time to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES (meaning modern, mainstream historians), or you'll lose by default. We are a repository of mainstream media, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, and this isn't a secret. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And don't ping me, leave me alone, stop talking about me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]