Poyani

Previous username

Hello, Your eleventh edit under the Poyani username was an almost perfectly formatted addition to an article,[1] evidencing a prior history with Wikipedia. What was your previous username? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See Paul Berman's Dissent essay "The Anti-Imperialism of Fools".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I took your suggestion on my talk-page to read Paul Berman's Anti-Imperialism of Fools. Unfortunately the article is locked by the magazine you cited. I looked up Berman's views. It was a bunch of propoganda parading around in rosy coloured glasses. It essentially assumes that every US president who has invaded and murdered large number of people in some foreign country, wanted to bring democracy, freedom, flowers, medicine, candy bars and butterflies to the subjugated people but was surprised and painfully awe-struck when he figured out the guns and planes shoot bullet and bombs instead of multi-coloured rainbows. For a good response to that nonsense see here and here. Or you may want to review the following quote by Mark Twain from over 100 years ago:

There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Note that Paul Berman belongs to the "loud little handful" category. That his "conscience-soothing falsities" have convinced you through your own "process of grotesque self-deception", is nothing to be proud of, or to advertise on the talkpages of others. Poyani (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brewcaster. I have never had another wikipedia username. I used to edit articles using my IP address. I usually edit science and math articles. It has never a problem except for me except for articles which are about the Middle East. I am trying to move away from that habit and use this username. I was the person who originally added the "South Africa" part to that page, using my IP. Someone removed it. So I put it back a few days later using my username. Cheers. Poyani (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The article you are talking about was "almost perfectly formatted" because parts of it are very similar to another article. The nuclear weapons section of the South Africa-IDF relations is identical to a portion of the Israel-South Africa relations article. Poyani (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please make up your mind. Also, I assume the IP address you are referring to is 207.188.69.26, but I don't see any edits to "science or math articles" as you claim. All I see, between the IP and the current username, is an Single Purpose Account dedicated to adding anything derogatory about Israel. Your conflicting and incorrect answers make me ever more suspicious you are a returning banned user, and combined with your editing patters indicate this is something that will have to be brought to the relevant higher authorities.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't think my edits about Israel or the Palestinians are derogatory. Secondly, I use many different computers for edits and I assume my IP address would change over time. If I recall which edit in which science and math article was mine I will point you in that direction. In any case, as I said before, I will stick to this username and will not make changes under any IP address. Note that this username is not new. It is active since (I think) 2007. Poyani (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pouyani, batche kooni cheghad duruq mikhai begi? Kiram tu in dahaneh porruht! Quit writing garbage all over and don't try messing with ISRAEL. Enghad mikonimet ta surakh koonet ham kalimi shodeh! Be kosse nanat bekhand wali daste anmaldeh-at az inja vardar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.235.15 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! What is the rule for intimidation and insulting here on Wikipedia because this user (which I suspect to be User:Pantherarosa) did just that in Farsi. Poyani (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you were insulted. See WP:NPA. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated!

1 RR on I-P articles

I am sure you already know this, but just to get all the ducks in a row, I am making you aware that per this, all articles in the Israel-Palestine space are subject to a 1 revert per 24 hours limitation. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I was aware of this policy. But my understanding is that on each Israel-Palestine article each user can revert once per 24 hr period. If my understanding is correct, then I do not believe I have violated this policy. Looking at the Dahiya Doctrine history page, it seems to me that I reverted after over 24 hours. If my interpretation is incorrect, please let me know. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also made a revert of one of your edits. It seems problematic for a few reasons. Do not revert after 24 hours without first engaging in discussion and looking for consensus. Go make a case on the talk page for inconclusion. Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is a discussion I won't revert at all. The other user, "Jalapenos do exist" doesn't really engage in any debate. He kept reverting while claiming my edits were OR and that they did not reflect the sources, without explaining any further. My edits did represent sources. His did not! I went into depth and explained the problem but he was simply not interested. Poyani (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I noticed that you also provided zero explanation for your revert. Given that between yourself and Jalapenos, you seem to have now done this more than half a dozen times, I am beginning to suspect that you are not acting in good faith. Poyani (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dahiya Doctrine talk page

Hello. On the Dahiya Doctrine article talk page, you might like to correct the name of the editor addressed from Brewcaster to Brewcrewer.     ←   ZScarpia   17:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Poyani (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know that there's a discussion going on at the Talk Page about merging the article with others or deleting it.     ←   ZScarpia   16:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Poyani (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also: a belated Welcome!

Hello, Poyani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!      ←   ZScarpia   17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Highly appreciated. Thank you very much for the useful links. Poyani (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your publicizing the name(s) of rape complainants

Please remove the naming of complainants in the Sweden v. Assage case, where you reverted me. There has been extensive discussion of this on the relevant article, and where the name does not appear.

Further publicizing the name(s) of rape complainants does violate WP:BLP and decency.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1. There is no mention of removing rape complaintants on WP:BLP

2. There are lots of articles on rape complainants on wikipedia

3. Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSOR

4. This person's name is all over the news.

Poyani (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPN for a discussion of your publicizing the name(s) of rape victims. Per WP:Don't distrupt WP to prove a point, please cease further provocations and imho violations of WP:BLP policies and decency.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not disrupt WP to prove a point. However from my perspective I have not acted indecent. I oppose censorship. In my view attempt at censorship are offensive and in the case in question, possibly defamatory to the accused! Poyani (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Poyani, I've left a note on the assange talkpage that may or may not be of interest to you, let me know if you'd like any advice on possible solutions, I don't know too much, being a newbie, but I come up with ideas here and there. Penyulap _talk 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on. Thank you. You reverted my WP:BLP sanctioned edit, which had removed the name of a complainant: "On his Twitter feed, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (162,000 followers) links to a rambling blog post arguing that [a] Swedish feminist who accused Assange of rape, is an anti-Castro activist with connections to CIA front groups. Elsewhere on the Internet, NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller, the popular liberal website FireDogLake, Bianca Jagger, and The First Post (a British news website “brought to you by The Week”) all circulated the charges without an ounce of skepticism... [The original source was] one comes to an article posted on Alexander Cockburn’s far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett". Michael C. Moynihan "Olbermann, Assange, and the Holocaust Denier" reason.com December 7, 2010

You are further publicizing the name of a rape complainant using an unreliable source (Reason), citing unreliable sources, a Twitter feed and Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch.

As you know, WP:BLP covers talk pages.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just rambling nonsense. I didn't publicize anything. I just reverted your edits where you censored the name of a rape complainant in a talk page. Note that statements in talkpages do not need to be sourced at all. Yet if you need one, please refer to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/europe/26wikileaks.html which clearly identifies the person in question.

More sources if you need them are presented below.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/08/1962779/accuser-in-wikileaks-saga-has.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/assange-fails-to-manage-his-affairs-111773324.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html Poyani (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Adam-Devita.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adam-Devita.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

More re Dahiya doctrine article

Hi, Poyani. Don't know whether it's still watchlisted for you, but I thought I'd mention that I added some sources on the talk page for Dahiya doctrine in a kind of "drive-by" way. A couple were mentioned very briefly, previously, but there are some new ones that you might like to review, as well, in addition to the many you provided there, previously. I'm on a much reduced wikipresence relative to recent months, and am not keeping up with my watchlist, but please do feel free to ping my talk if anyone makes any earnest attempt to delete or merge its content. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do! Thank you very much. Poyani (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam DeVita

The article Adam DeVita has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Candidates for office to not meet wikipedia's guidlines for Wikipedia's guidelines for notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poyani. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mohammad Mosaddegh. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Do not revert against the conclusion of the RfC: Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how is he edit waring? He has made one edit there. You should not put things like this on peoples talk pages when he has not done what you are stating. This is the history of edits on that page Mohammad Mosaddegh and Poyani made one edit today,his last edit there was in August so not even close to edit waringKabulbuddha (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose in the same world where Mossadeq is not democratically elected, one single revision counts as edit warring. Poyani (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good work on directly contacting a reliable source to seek clarification! HectorMoffet (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

mohammad suks dik

mohamad suks dik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.91.234 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia and Islamophobia; all in one go. Kudos to you! Poyani (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Poyani,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Iranian coup

Hello, I have had only limited time to participate but have seen your posts on the Talk page...In my work editing on wikipedia I have always tried hard to have positive dialogue with people with different, shall we say, philosophical or political background - even pro-Oil-company people have praised my working hard to be fair to all sides, for example, despite my unhidden care for environmental protection, when I edited about that - but here I fear about the coup in Iran it seems some people who have argued against you Poyani, some of them do not seem to be even handed or interested in the truth - for example when you quoted Obama, "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government." they quibbled that, technically, since Obama did not use the term "democratic prime minister" then they can pretend that Obama's statement does not support the idea that the prime minister was just as much part of the democratic government...I wish I had time and energy to support the more sensible voices including what I have read that you put in..but I have one suggestion: you could invite other people that you think will be reasonable and fair, or just invite other people from other articles, like wikipedia articles on Iran in general, to participate. Even messages on Talk pages might help, some people posted on my talk page invited me to participate in editing the BP Gulf Pil Spill related articles for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harel#Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill ) and you could do the same.. Harel (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Harel - thanks for the suggestion. I really appreciate it. It is definitely a good idea. I should note however that I was in the majority in the Iran Coup article. On the discussions regarding whether or not Mossadeq was "democratically elected" the vast majority of editors were on my side. But I do agree that editors from similar topics should be invited to participate in development of related articles. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Poyani - I admit I had not followed the full details..I am glad you hear you were in the majority. However, there used to be a "summary note" there (I think it's no longer in the Talk page) which summarized the outcome as, roughly speaking, "The article will not call him 'appointed' NOR call him 'democratically elected'" or something "two sided" like that - do you know what Talk page summary I'm talking about (it was a "shaded" section shaded in some color..a "please do not edit this section/it is now closed" section...That does not seem like a reasonable conclusion (to basically not take either position) so why did the summary, instead of saying "the article WILL say 'democratically elected'" why did it instead say "it will neither say X nor the opposite of X"?

By the way I see from your user page we have some (actually quite a lot) in common philosophically..I have edited wikipedia on/off for quite a few years but with limited time, there are still many relatively basic functions I need to learn more about..I might another time drop you a note (my hands are too busy are the moment to even create the questions :-) asking for some specific area tips... Harel (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask anything any time. Not a problem. The rules on Wikipedia are more like guidelines than harshly enforced rules. You don't need to know that much to edit. Just start simple and edit some basic stuff. There are lots of articles which need improvement. The request for comment (RFC) which you saw ended by one disinterested user proposing a compromise that neither word be used. My argument (along with others of the same view) was that the position that Mossadeq was elected was nearly unanimous among scholars and that the notion that he was not was a fringe view. Wikipedia has a bias towards the majority scholarly view and there are rules against treating the majority and fringe view equally. The other side cited a major Iranian scholar Dr Milani, and said that when in his book Dr Milani had said that Mossadeq was "appointed" he was essentially implying he was not elected. My position was that they were misrepresenting Milani's position (appointed and elected are not antonyms as some seem to assume). The debate ended when I emailed Dr Milani, and he confirmed that to use his book to state Mossadeq was not elected was a misrepresentation of his ideas. Poyani (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi Page

Hello, I have also been editing this page and trying to clean up any obvious issues. But one user in particular keeps the tags present without making any specific claims as to exactly what is wrong. I've posted a topic on the Talk page and would appreciate your comments. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris Kyle, Alleged incident with Jesse Ventura

Hi, a few years ago you had posted some comments on the talk page for Chris Kyle with regard to the alleged incident with Jesse Ventura. In the talk page for Chris Kyle, there is another editor who wants to reduce the section to a few sentences to summarize the lawsuit that has been going on now for about three years and was just recently appealed (Appeal was filed late last month) and I would appreciate your comments. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:813B:50F9:42D0:6076 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Poyani. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Poyani. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [[:]]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutez (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Mate

The article is under 1RR. You broke it. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert. Made only made a series of small common sense changes in line with Wikipedia policies (all with tags provided) such as removing references which does not mentioned the material for which it was cited and deleting 2 unreliable sources (Index on Censorship and Coda Story). Poyani (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aaron Maté. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please self-revert your edits from 13:29 UTC onwards. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not repeatedly changed content back. I made one major edit. Once it was reverted back, I made a series of small edits explaining the purpose of the edit in each tag. I made the edits because the cited information did not appear in the reference listed. I also removed dubious sources (Index on Censorship and Coda Story). The edits are perfectly reasonable and in line with Wikipedia policies. Poyani (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

With respect, Coda Story has already been discussed by the community, which found that the news website is WP:GREL. You can view the discussion here. While you may disagree with this assessment, there is a community consensus that the source is generally reliable for news, and its use is warranted in the article. I frankly don't see a policy basis for removing this source.

With respect to Index on Censorship, it appears to be an academic journal. If there are particular reasons that you have issues with the source, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but I find the removal of the source odd.

Additionally, this edit appears to have reverted this edit by Burrobert and this edit by me. Was this intentional, or was this accidental collateral in reverting to this version of the page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I had the same question. "Apologists for the Assad regime" is a pointy and non-encyclopaedic way of saying "supporters of the Syrian government". Burrobert (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to restore Burrobert's edit? You're quite active on the article talk, but I want to make sure you've seen this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry - did I revert his edit as well? I am not sure what you are asking me. Poyani (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'm asking you to please restore Burrobert's edit, because you seem to have accidentally reverted it when reverting your own edits. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for the error. Poyani (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Accidental. My apologies. Poyani (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits at Talk:Aaron Maté

With regards to this ANI report: please slow down at the talkpage (don't start multiple redundant discussion sections) and treat the other editors with respect and good faith, or you are liable to be blocked from the article and related discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Aaron Maté) for a period of 1 week for battleground mentality and gaming the community-imposed one-revert rule by making the same edit 27 hours apart edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note also:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am not sure I even understand the reason behind the block and believe it may just be an error. The article is under the 1RR rule, meaning editors cannot make more than 1 revert per 24 hour period. I never made more than 1 revert during any period. I simply made 1 revert, which was apparently within 27 hours of an edit. But any violation of the 1RR rule as I understand it requires making more than 1 revert, which I have not done (during a 24 hour period or, in fact any period - I only made 1 revert) Poyani (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked: time served. Heads seem to be cooler now. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up a few overlapping policies here. You are right that your edit 27 hours prior was not a revert, so this was not gaming the 1RR. It was, however, making yet another controversial revert on an article you had already been warned for edit-warring on. So I stand by this block. But I have updated the template above to correct my error, and will likewise update the logged block rationale. I do apologize for the misstatement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Separately, courtesy note that I've increased the 1RR window from 24 hours to 72 for the next month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. Thank you for your review. I think putting myself and Hobomok in a 1 week suspension on this article is a good idea. Although I honestly was not edit-warring with him, I think his repeated reverts and my edits were keeping an article in desperate need of improvement in a stale condition. Other editors are improving the article in good faith and it already looks much better. Can I ask you.for a favour and request that you to continue to keep an eye on the Aaron Mate article until after our bans have been lifted? Poyani (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You're actually one of three editors I p-blocked from the article, the third being Volunteer Marek. Hopefully those three actions plus the 72-hour 1RR will cool things down. I'll absolutely be keeping an eye on the article in coming days/weeks; I believe Abecedare, another admin, is watching it as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you both. Poyani (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)