User talk:Nyisnotbad

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible.

Amir Taheri[edit]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

I've reverted your recent edits to Amir Taheri, because (1) your reversion took out some useful, solid information (mostly details of the books he has written) and (2) inserted stuff which is not allowed by Wikipedia's rules, primarily the rules about living people. It doesn't matter whether this stuff is sourced, it's just not allowed. Here's an example, from the Education section:

Details as to which university he attended, or what he studied, are not provided. Notwithstanding this fact, Taheri is advertised in Benador Associates promotional material as "an expert on Iran",ref>[1]</ref>, and this identification is in turn repeated by the mainstream English-language publications in the United States in which Taheri is published.

This violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:ATT and WP:BLP.

OK, I've given you a lot to read. We don't expect you to understand it all instantly (it took me months), but we will ask you to try to understand it before you edit Amir Taheri again. I strongly suggest you pick an easier article to practice on, maybe an article about someone you admire.

Please do not revert Amir Taheri to a version without the ISBNs again. We do block people for violating WP:BLP.

Best wishes, CWC 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit to Amir Taheri that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. CWC 08:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Amir Taheri, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CWC 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Haemo 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amir Taheri. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Amir Taheri. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

LessHeard vanU 21:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are back to edit warring. You continue to revert Amir Taheri without discussing it on the talk page. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ursasapien (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU[edit]

Sir, I have repeated suggested crafting compromise language on Amir Taheri. Unfortunately, the other editor who keep deleting criticism of Taheri's journalistic integrity refuse to participate in any compromise. What is one to do? Can you compel them to compromise?

Advice re Amir Taheri[edit]

Nyisnotbad, here's my advice. You might prefer to get it from somebody else, but I think it's still good advice.

Stop reverting/undoing the whole article.
Instead, go through the article (the version with the ISBNs), and make a list of the sections you want to change. (We start with the "bland" version because Wikipedia rules require the person adding stuff to justify those changes.)
Read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV carefully. (You probably won't understand everything in them — I sure don't, and Wikipedians with far more experience than me don't either. Worse still, they keep changing.) You will need to base your arguments on these policies. If you are unsure about how some of these policies affect the article, you can ask me, because the WP:BITE rule says I should help you.
Work on one section at a time. It's probably a good idea to start with the one you think you have the best argument for changing.
Here you have a choice. You can either (1) edit that section and start a discussion of your edits on Talk:Amir Taheri, or (2) just start a discussion on the talk page by writing out your proposed new text or proposed changes. (Clicking here will help you create a new section on that talk page.) Remember, you have to make the case for your changes in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, being WP:CIVIL makes you a lot more likely to convince people.
Be prepared for lots of discussion and lots of edits. That's how Wikipedia works on controversial topics. The end result will be a compromise. You probably won't get everything you want, nor will the "pro-Taheri" editors.
Then pick another section you want to change and repeat the process.
Keep doing one section at a time until finished.

This probably sounds like a lot of work. It is a lot of work. But the result is (almost) always a better encyclopedia article, the most important thing at Wikipedia. That's why we keep doing things this way.

I hope this helps. Cheers, CWC 09:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris[edit]

I appreciate your advice and attempt at compromise. Your suggested route for finding a resolution is absolutely sound. The only problem is that there are some third party editors (Ankimai, in particular) who revert blindly without comment. Provided the other side does the same, will you be able/willing to prevent editors involved in this edit war who are of your persuassion from blindly reverting all attempts at compromise?

2 I would appreciate if you would take the first stab at a compromise edit bearing in mind the fact that an acceptable entry should contain a description of the criticisms pertaining to Taheri's journalistic credibility. If it came from you, it is less like to be reverted blindly.

Thanks again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 00:09:52, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You had the proper method of addressing your concerns with the article explained above, yet you again reverted it to the version preferred by you. Reverting without comment and against the consensus is vandalism, which is the basis on which I have blocked. If you wish to improve the article to better reflect your concerns I suggest you improve your conduct. LessHeard vanU 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@LessHeard vanU[edit]

What are you talking about? I have not been reverting "without comment." To the contrary, I have made numerous comments to my edits (see page history; my comments number in the double digits). In addition, I have made *several* attempts at modified or compromised langauge (again, see page history), which have been summarily reverted by the *other* side, the majority of the time without comment and always without alternate compromise language suggestions.

Moreover, I take issue with your classification of one version of the edit as the "consensus" view and another version as "vandalism." This classification of two equally legitimate and sustainable perspectives in and of itself suggests a POV bias on your part.

Again, I urge you and whoever else who has issues with the criticisms of Taheri come up with some alternative compromise language which addresses the legitimate concerns people have with Taheri's journalistic integrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 07:48, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't the Contoversies section cover your concerns? What more would you like to add? Ursasapien (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris / Ursapian[edit]

I believe two things should be added.

The fact that critics allege, with basis in fact, that Taheri deliberately concocts outright fabrications to discredit Iran, and that these stories are (at least in part) developed in conjunction/cooperation with neo-conservative Israel supporters associated with Benador Associates, who are without question Taheri's primary handlers and promoters.
Questions regarding ambiguities about his educational and professional backround, which render his self-proclaimed title of "Iran expert" suspect.

Nyisnotbad, I put the article that you wish to revert to here and left you my comments here. I think, if you work on this collaboratively in your user space, you will be able to find the compromise necessary to get the information you desire into the mainspace article. I am going to post something similar on the article's talk page and invite interested others to come and work on it with you. Ursasapien (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a message in the Sandbox. Replied to you in the Sandbox. Ursasapien (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

A discussion is ongoing here. Feel free to comment. I also suggest you read about disruptive editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazandarani language[edit]

You're falling back on disruptive editing, this time at Mazandarani language. If you continue, you may once more be blocked. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Ankimai (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian language[edit]

It is fine if you want to add a comment that a specific and notable person still holds that Armenian is an Iranian language. You have to note him by name and say that it is his theory. But scholarly consensus for a century has been that Armenian is its own branch, and is closest to Greek, not Iranian. You cannot assert that Armenian is a branch of Iranian as if it were a fact or even close to consensus. I suggest you work out a statement of this particular scholar's opinion on the talk page. I will support your adding the comment if you can do it in a way that proper attribution makes it NPOV.

I formally warn you not to violate WP:3RR.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Take it to the talk page and we can work out adding your ideas in an NPOV manner.μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have reported you to the edit warring board as warned.μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nyisnotbad_reported_by_User:Medeis_.28Result:_.29[reply]

You have been told repeatedly to take your arguments to the talk page. You have been told that your sources are outdated and that Lehmann himself explicitly holds Armenian to be an independent language. You have been blocked for this exact same edit. You will receive no more warnings. More edits like this will lead directly to a complaint for edit warring and may result in an escalating series of sanctions.μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I warned, I have again reported you for edit warring.

The argument *is* in the talk page. Quit the red herrings please. Nyisnotbad (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Armenian language. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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) 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week and a half for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Armenian language. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions[edit]

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:

Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]