User talk:Parminekhosravi

Speedy deletion nomination of Kachi dessert[edit]

Hello, Parminekhosravi,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username SunDawn, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Kachi dessert, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kachi (dessert)[edit]

Hello Parminekhosravi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kachi (dessert) for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kachi (dessert) moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Kachi (dessert). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kashke kachi[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kashke kachi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Night Watch (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tea. 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. General Ization ^Talk 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not sabotage anything, the process and model of Turkish tea consumption was similar to Iranian tea and I mentioned it Parminekhosravi (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Turkish Angora, you may be blocked from editing. If there are issues with the sources, please explain what they are at Talk:Turkish Angora. This is especially true if you flip a sentence with no further sourcing added. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PigeonChickenFish. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jajim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You had deleted a citation, to add a statement with no supporting citation. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Cyrus the Great. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you, I did not tamper with anything, just to make the existing content clear, I included an article, the content is partial, and the sources mentioned have them .Others have been included and this would have caused a mistake, or it is mentioned in parentheses, which is most likely wrong because the general theory of scientists and researchers was accepted. It is very strange that Wikipedia deletes the content and expires the person for not including the source. Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock reviewed|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} Reliable sources ([[WP:RS]]) are essential for verifiability ([[WP:V]]). ~~~~|1=Your reason here ~~~~}}

. Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you, I did not tamper with anything, just to make the existing content clear, I included an article, the content is partial, and the sources mentioned have them, and that's why the source is not mentioned. Others have been included and this would have caused a mistake, or it is mentioned in parentheses, which is most likely wrong because the general theory of scientists and researchers was accepted. It is very strange that Wikipedia deletes the content and expires the person for not including the source. Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia For unprincipled blocking[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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate report, please only have one open at a time. Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2024 (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.

Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia For unprincipled blocking[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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2024 (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. Reliable sources (WP:RS) are essential for verifiability (WP:V). Please also see WP:NOTTHEM. Aoidh (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2024 (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.

Hello, thank you, I did not tamper with anything, just to make the existing content clear, I included an article, the content is partial, and the sources mentioned have them, and that's why the source is not mentioned. Others have been included and this would have caused a mistake, or it is mentioned in parentheses, which is most likely wrong because the general theory of scientists and researchers was accepted. It is very strange that Wikipedia deletes the content and expires the person for not including the source. Parminekhosravi (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]