User talk:Mohammad785

September 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abu Musa has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abu Musa was changed by Mohammad785 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915595 on 2020-09-28T06:54:18+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abu Musa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rdp060707 (Talk/My fight against the devil/contributions) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Gulf of Oman, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Iranian peoples, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2020 (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. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edit does not violate any Wikipedia rules. Aturpatkan is the ancient name of the area and a historical fact. Thank you

Edit warring — stop immediately[edit]

Your recent editing history 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edit does not violate any Wikipedia rules. Aturpatkan is the ancient name of the area and a historical fact. Thank you

Mohammad785 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t matter, you have been edit warring, which is against Wikipedia rules. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where and in what case?Mohammad785 (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much single edit you have made so far. See WP:ANEW#User:Mohammad785 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: ) for your report. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we agreed and it was decided to use Atropatene on the Azerbaijani page (disambiguation) and to display the old Azeri language on the Azeri page with explanations.

Is there still a problem, Mr. Inspector?Mohammad785 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I call BS because disambiguation pages are only used for stuff related to the title of that page. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this page and return my edit.Mohammad785 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Azeri (disambiguation)[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Edit warring and WP:CIR.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to AN3. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2020 (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).

Mohammad785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I did not intend to violate Wikipedia rules at all and I was blocked by mistake. I told the truth about Azerbaijan, which was called Atropatene before the Arab invasion. Is there a problem with the phrase? Mohammad785 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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. Yamla (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2020 (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).

Mohammad785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I agree with the terms mentioned Mohammad785 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are no terms to agree with; those are points that you need to specifically respond to, or otherwise tell us what you did wrong, how you will avoid doing it again, and what productive contributions you wish to make. Since this request does not do those things, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2020 (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).

Mohammad785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said, I did not violate Wikipedia rules and I was blocked by mistake. I added Old Azeri and Aturpatkan to the relevant disambiguation pages. Mohammad785 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly and unambiguously edit warring after being warned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:49, 13 December 2020 (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).

Mohammad785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, because some users canceled my edit And I had no choice what to do. Aturpatkan is the ancient name of Azerbaijan before the Arab invasion and is clearly related to Azerbaijan and should be on the demystification page.Mohammad785 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're obviously making no progress here. Talk page access revoked to stop further time-wasting. If you bother to read through our policies and WP:GAB, make an unblock request via WP:UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2020 (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.

UTRS 38523 declined[edit]

UTRS appeal #38523 has been declined.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. You always have a choice. There are alternatives to edit warring. As you do not know what they are, I see no reason to believe you would not return to edit warring if you were unblocked. It would seem there are also competence issues. You must address these as well. Please review your talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]