| Revision as of 22:19, 9 May 2009 editKneeJuan (talk | contribs)134 edits ←Blanked the page← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:45, 12 May 2009 edit undoLouis P. Boog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users43,916 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ---- | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You have been blocked for ] at ]. Although there is a ] which states that no user may revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, these three reverts are not to be seen as some sort of magic barrier (see ]). The point is that edit warring in general is disruptive, and the purpose of these blocks are to encourage users to discuss their changes on the talk page instead of constantly reverting. ] has been blocked as well. When you return, please discuss your changes on the relevant talk pages. Thanks. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disruptive edits== | |||
| I recently discovered a number of deletions and other edits of sourced material by you that do not seem to be justified by[REDACTED] rules. | |||
| In this edit (deleting the adjective "middle class") | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Front_%28Iran%29&diff=278707845&oldid=277926062 | |||
| you claim to be "removing subjective biased wording" in the edit summary. The description ("middle class") is that of a notable historian (]). It's no more subjective than many other pieces of information in the article. --] (]) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| There is no reason for this deletion: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran_naming_convention&diff=285966987&oldid=283223023 | |||
| ] is notable author very knowlegeable on Iran and there is no reason to delete his arguement. | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| In this, the quoted author called them "toughs" and you have changed it to "thugs" | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Democratic_Front_%28Iran%29&diff=285964910&oldid=278395996 | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| In this edit | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mohammed_Mosaddeq&diff=prev&oldid=285964489 | |||
| you deleted the statement ''Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by his increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover'' - along with not one, but four different citations supporting it. | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| In this edit you deleted comments by ], one comments by a journalist and one of if not the leading political dissidents in Iran writing in probabnly the leading foriegn policy journal in the US with "this is encyclopedia, not a newspaper editorial. Gangi is a partsian commentator, not a neutral source" | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Majlis_of_Iran&diff=285966051&oldid=281078841 | |||
| Please stop this pattern of behavior. --] (]) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| These quotes of an Iranian president and a notable (best selling) author given as examples of difference in opinion over the sucess of the Islamic Republic of Iran you deleted as "cherry-picked quotes" | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=285962190 | |||
| <BR>___________________________________ | |||
| This paragraph | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ali_Khamenei&diff=prev&oldid=285962492 | |||
| was deleted as an "opinion piece, not an acceptable source". But where is the article | |||
| http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL17Ak03.html called an "opinion piece"? | |||
| : | |||
| :Most of your edits are not encyclopedic , and a gross violation of ], ], ], ] and various other policies. Misplaced Pages is not your personal journal where you can advance your point of view by cherry-picking quotes from hand-picked sources in order to advance a position. There are policies against editorializing Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you know an active editor disagrees with your deletions and edits, you should at the very least explain your case on the talk page and sort it out there, not start a revert war. What exactly are these "gross violation of ], ], ], ] and various other policies"? --] (]) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:45, 12 May 2009
Blocked
You have been blocked for edit warring at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Although there is a three-revert rule which states that no user may revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, these three reverts are not to be seen as some sort of magic barrier (see Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule#Not an entitlement). The point is that edit warring in general is disruptive, and the purpose of these blocks are to encourage users to discuss their changes on the talk page instead of constantly reverting. BoogaLouie has been blocked as well. When you return, please discuss your changes on the relevant talk pages. Thanks. Khoikhoi 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
I recently discovered a number of deletions and other edits of sourced material by you that do not seem to be justified by[REDACTED] rules.
In this edit (deleting the adjective "middle class") http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Front_%28Iran%29&diff=278707845&oldid=277926062
you claim to be "removing subjective biased wording" in the edit summary. The description ("middle class") is that of a notable historian (Ervand Abrahamian). It's no more subjective than many other pieces of information in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________
There is no reason for this deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran_naming_convention&diff=285966987&oldid=283223023
Hooman Majd is notable author very knowlegeable on Iran and there is no reason to delete his arguement.
___________________________________
In this, the quoted author called them "toughs" and you have changed it to "thugs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Democratic_Front_%28Iran%29&diff=285964910&oldid=278395996
___________________________________
In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mohammed_Mosaddeq&diff=prev&oldid=285964489
you deleted the statement Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by his increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover - along with not one, but four different citations supporting it.
___________________________________
In this edit you deleted comments by Akbar Ganji, one comments by a journalist and one of if not the leading political dissidents in Iran writing in probabnly the leading foriegn policy journal in the US with "this is encyclopedia, not a newspaper editorial. Gangi is a partsian commentator, not a neutral source" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Majlis_of_Iran&diff=285966051&oldid=281078841
Please stop this pattern of behavior. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________
These quotes of an Iranian president and a notable (best selling) author given as examples of difference in opinion over the sucess of the Islamic Republic of Iran you deleted as "cherry-picked quotes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=285962190
___________________________________
This paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ali_Khamenei&diff=prev&oldid=285962492 was deleted as an "opinion piece, not an acceptable source". But where is the article http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL17Ak03.html called an "opinion piece"?
- Most of your edits are not encyclopedic , and a gross violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:Undue weight, WP:SYNTH and various other policies. Misplaced Pages is not your personal journal where you can advance your point of view by cherry-picking quotes from hand-picked sources in order to advance a position. There are policies against editorializing Misplaced Pages. --KneeJuan (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- When you know an active editor disagrees with your deletions and edits, you should at the very least explain your case on the talk page and sort it out there, not start a revert war. What exactly are these "gross violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:Undue weight, WP:SYNTH and various other policies"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)