User talk:NickRovinsky

December 2016[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Iranian Americans. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of designated terrorist groups without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
I am assuming that your motivation is that the group has been de-listed. Do you have any reliable sources demonstrating this to be the case? Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I thought that I had left an explanation on the talk page. If not, you are definitely right. I will check and add it later this evening when I return home from work.

Regarding the designation, it has been removed many years ago (The designation in UK and EU were removed in May 2008 and 2009 relatively and from the U.S. FTO on 2012). Here is an independent study in to the status of MEK, by Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield that also provides information about the delisting of the MEK. https://www.amazon.com/Mujahedin-Khalq-Shackled-Twisted-History/dp/0615783848

Here are some reviews on the book:

http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/news-events/homepage-feature-items/feature-item-57.cfm

NickRovinsky (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing the fact that "pahlevun" and "Denarivs", and perhaps others that will step in, have an agenda to abuse Wikipedia on behalf of the Iran's tyrannical regime, and to demonize the opposition groups that are standing up to the dictatorship and the gross violations of human rights in that country, particularly against women, I see it a duty to help modify the page PMOI based on truth and unbiased information and to inform the public of the intended demonization campaign by the agents of the Iranian regime's ministry of intelligence and Security. I would encourage the Wikipedia Admins and/or volunteers that honor a balanced encyclopedia to help me on this task.NickRovinsky (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no relations and have not had any coordination with any of the users blocked in this file. I have borrowed phrases from previous edits that said what I wanted to say on a particular page, given the fact that I am not very good with Wikipedia's abbreviations. But apart from this I have had a concern about the edits made on PMOI article which I still think are valid-also stated in this page and on article's talk page- but I have been making all the edits on my own and with good faith to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. From the reasoning explained for blocking me, I have gathered that the main reason is using the same phrase another user has used, which I have explained the honest reason for.

Decline reason:

Your connection is confirmed with technical evidence. Combining the technical evidence with the overlap in editing, I conclude the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The page PMOI has been under attack and the details about this our outlined by various users on article's talk page. The frequency of edits on that page which is taken as socking, was genuine attempts to correct the demonization campaign that has been implemented on that page. Sadly numerous reports in this relations have not been reviewed or nothing has been done to prevent it. Instead, I can see that all users that have been making constructive edits to at least balance the article on that page are now blocked, clearing the way for the offenders to continue their destructive role. The expectation is that my reports of the wrong doings in the PMOI article which I have noticed has also been done NCRI page receive a fair review. Again, I have not been involved in coordinated edits or whatever you mean by Sock puppetry on that page, and sincerely I do not see anything that actually in not constructive in any of my edits on that page, or any Wikipedia Rules that I have breached wittingly or unwittingly. The added attention on the days, you have outlined using the special tool, only confirms a general effort to try to address a demonization campaign on the disputed article. Thank you NickRovinsky (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:28, 21 January 2017 (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.