Physics7

May 2020

Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Event of Ghadir Khumm. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not classify what you wrote as negative censorship. Obviously if something could potentially be the reason for another bombing of a Shia mosque in some Arabian countries then I cannot simply say “I don’t like censorship so I have to put this information down”. You don’t have to include such information nor does it add value to the article of this key event that could differentiate a person from following either sects. Morality is not defined by the giving of information without any exceptional circumstances otherwise countries wouldn’t believe in the injustice of espionage and likewise you can bring about similar analogies with giving a definition of morality in terms of equality without any exceptions. Everyone who does an exam should be treated equally and hence be given an A each, regardless of the examination results (which is wrong). As you can see morality is not fixed, it is flexible and depends upon the circumstances and this small addition of information is not justified under the light of this, nor are you obliged to conform to the moral codes of another person by adding such information and this would especially be true if you yourself are Shia (which I imagine by your name and the article) where we are not taught to spread any information we find or hear just for the sake of the mere spread of information, but rather we have to think about the consequences of our actions and words. Physics7 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make the rule, I'm just enforcing it. If you have a disagreement with the policy, I recommend you open a discussion on the article's talk page or perhaps on Wikipedia's Islam noticeboard to get a community consensus. Repeatedly removing the content will get you nowhere.
Alivardi (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that such an unnecessary inclusion of information of the nature that is at hand is within the permissibility of Wikipedia policy. Let us suppose hypothetically that it was allowed. It would even then still be wrong to include it and I am baffled by why you feel obliged to say something like that in the article. You might as well add finer details about the method of celebration made according to some families in a country or overload the page with new practices. My question to you is, what dictates exactly what information should be included? When is it too little and when is it too much and crossing the line? Physics7 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Event of Ghadir Khumm. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I humbly ask you to rethink whether you are following the policies too. According to conduct policies, “the first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you” and again “if someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a *compromise*”. I kindly request we discuss this before continuing any further actions. For example, we can come to an agreement about specifically mentioning the lack of popularity of such a hate-inspiring practice, under the light of the teaching about unity by ayatollah Ruhollah Khominie that is further propagated by ayatollah Ali Khamenie (his successor) as evident by his speeches. Not only would that be factual and correct information, but it would also avoid this unnecessary issue of poor/conflict-inspiring wording that might not necessarily be representative of the view of Iranians. Do not misunderstand me however. I am not Iranian myself, I simply was shocked by why you felt there was a need to include information that doesn’t represent the majority. Hopefully we can both find compromise as such. Physics7 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe you are performing your actions in good faith when, after I had made that very same suggestion to you earlier, you continued to remove the content without attempting to reach consensus. Your removal has now been reverted by three different editors, which clearly displays a consensus in favour of keeping the content. Yet you continue to perform the same actions. This is known as edit warring and excessively doing so is prohibited here.

Please consider this your final warning.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.
Alivardi (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of doing this in bad faith. You also claim there is a consensus against me failing to realise that I am not the first editor to remove the exact same information. If you see the cup half-empty by saying I am the one who keeps making the change then I can see the cup half-full and say you’re the one who keeps bringing the addition of information into it without trying to first discuss it with me. All you said was “no censored” and you did not want to discuss it with me as you claimed. All you did was direct me towards somewhere where I can discuss this issue as opposed to discussing it directly with me so let us do it here. I will make another change that I think we will both agree on and instead of removing it discuss it with me this time.

As I have said before, please respond to me in regards to what you disagree about in my recent suggestion of a compromise. I was disappointed that you made another revert this time and instead of telling me why you disagreed, you went to file a case about the 3-revert violation policy (something which you were doing too by the way). I thought it would be best as a last resort to open a dispute resolution and want to notify you about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Event_of_Ghair_Khumm

Note: the above response was copied from the user's edit that was disallowed by an edit filter, and should be attributed to Physics7 --DannyS712 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to notify the user of a dispute resolution. Physics7 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Physics7 reported by User:Alivardi (Result: ). Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please respond to me as to why you consistently do not try to seek compromise and why you disagree with my most recent suggestion of compromise? I am sure we can talk as opposed to you threatening me about revert violations that you yourself have been involved with more than 3 times within a 24-hour period.

May 2020

Hi Physics7! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Event of Ghadir Khumm that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Adding 1000 bytes to an article is not a minor edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise about that. Can I rectify that mistake?