User talk:Iraniangal777

Welcome![edit]

Hi Iraniangal777! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Boud (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mohammadian[edit]

Hello. You started this user account on the same day that the article about Mohammad Mohammadian was questioned for interwiki spam and COI. Is that just a coincident, or are you in any way connected to Mohammadian or to Arenasky (talk · contribs)? Bw --Orland (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orland. That is just a coincidence. I don't have a connection to Mohammadian or to Arenasky. But thank you for asking. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for fixing spelling/grammar mistakes throughout Wikipedia! - LouisAragon (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Luis Aragon. I appreciate the encouragement!

Requesting some article expansion help[edit]

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to article Draft:Aurats (word) and article Islamic advice literature and help expand the articles if you find topics interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookku! Ok, I will give it my best try. Warm regards, Iraniangal777 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your positive response, looking forward to your continued contributions to the articles as and when you can spare time. Warm regards,

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop changing date formats or adding unnecessary commas FMSky (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FMSky for your notice. I'm always glad to improve through such advice. Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

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 post-1978 Iranian politics. 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.

El_C 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Repair Shop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penguin Random House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paramount.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing merger text[edit]

In this content merger, one snippet of text - [The] MEK described the eventual release of the American hostages a "surrender". - was missed. This appears to be reliably sourced and does not seem like a trivial detail, or something that should be casually dropped, so please could you restore it (pending further discussion if it is your intention to remove it). Many thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the source is a Q&A. WP:ECREE says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and a single Q&A does not fit the bill for this sort of claim. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok, that is its format, but it is also produced by an award-winning foreign correspondent published in a WP:RS/PS reliable secondary source. If you think its is opinion, then you should just attribute, but as it is, you have simply left in opinions countering the prior statement while eliminating an opinion supporting it, weakening the NPOV balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says sources suggested the group supported the U.S. embassy takeover, and then that other sources suggested this is not the case. Both sides are represented, so there isn’t WP:NPOV imbalance. Adding a Q&A with an "exceptional claim" would create NPOV imbalance. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are using "Q&A" like it's a pejorative, but that's not really a problem given the source. What exactly about the claim is so exceptional? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Iranian regime had called the release of American hostages "a surrender", we wouldn't be adding this to Wikipedia based on sources like a Q&A. The embassy takeover in Iran happened in 1979, so there has been enough time for a book to cover this (like the rest of the content we have in the article covering the American hostages in Iran). A Q&A article does not measure up to this. The content as it is in the article right now fits WP:NPOV and is sourced to books from credible publishers. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I am sorry, but your edit to remove reliable sources was totally unacceptable. My edit changed absolutely no wording or text in the article, but purely provided additional sourcing. There is not possible reason to object to this. Your edit simply deleted reliable sources, which is highly disruptive, if not downright vandalistic. It does not matter that the text is currently under discussion in an RFC: the very purpose of a discussion is to improve the article, and where better sources can be found to supplement previously poorly supported material, that is exactly the kind of positive outcome that a discussion is designed to produce. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters content about NCRI[edit]

Hello. That 39.41.220.193 IP was me. I inadvertently got logged out during editing and saved it anyways. Apologies for that. As for the NCRI issue, I'm only expanding on the content from Reuters which is one of the most trusted and cited source on Wikipedia. Now, whether it was NCRI or IAEA or some other agency who actually exposed the country's nuclear, it's vital to provide the response of the other side. StarkReport (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the issue was with the source. The issue is that the nuclear facilities claims turned out to be true. If you want to add a denial from Iranian officials, I suggest you try a more appropriate page like Nuclear facilities in Iran or Nuclear program of Iran. If you want to continue having this conversation, please take the matter to the article talk page instead. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Zefr (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure, no problem. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there[edit]

I noticed you made some edits to the Indian articles? Are you Persian or Indian of Persian descent? Nice to meet you. 49.178.142.1 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Iraniangal777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please explain how my account has been used "abusively"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are alleged to be an alternative account of User_talk:Fad_Ariff who was disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2023 (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.

@PhilKnight and Moneytrees: My account is in no way linked to Fad Ariff, so this block is incorrect. Please review whatever led you to come to this conclusion because it's erroneous. If you prefer to do this privately, we can do this by email, but I am not "an alternative account of User_talk:Fad_Ariff", that's completely false. Iraniangal777 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical and behavioral evidence suggests you are at the very least engaging in inappropriate coordinated editing with Fad Ariff. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: you've been misled, and I think I know why. Getting to the basics of this block, what technical and behavioral evidence suggests that I'm coordinating with Fad Ariff? Iraniangal777 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Iraniangal777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There can't be any evidence that confirms I'm coordinating edits with Fad Ariff. This is a baseless accusation, and all of my contributions have consistently been beneficial to the project. No evidence has been presented to validate this allegation or give me an opportunity to refute it, which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that the evidence is private technical evidence available only to checkusers. Your opportunity to refute this is now. I suggest that you think about why technical evidence might indicate that you are connected to another user. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2023 (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).

Iraniangal777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is impossible that there is checkuser (technical) evidence suggesting that I'm connected to Fad Ariff, this is why I'm appealing this erroneous block. I have only opened an alternative account User:Wikiprincesseditor, but I did not use that account for anything, which I thought was allowed. What I was told is that this block is about an alleged checkuser connection between myself and Fad Ariff, and what I'm saying is that this can't be right because there is no connection between myself and Fad Ariff. Iraniangal777 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2023 (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.

So is it your claim that the checkuser that established the block is being dishonest? 331dot (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the blocking admin, but I gave a second opinion beforehand. This is a good block. CUs see [1]. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't/won't disclose the technical evidence, due in part to the Checkuser privacy policy. The behavioral side is pretty easy though, without needing to get specific. You share the same POV in the same topic area, have the same style of communication, and edit in a similar fashion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is not that anyone is being dishonest. My claim is that the only other alternative account I have is User:Wikiprincesseditor, and I only created this account out of curiosity and never intended to use it (and I never did use it). If I broke guidelines by creating User:Wikiprincesseditor, then I am at fault here. However, if I understand correctly, I was not blocked for creating User:Wikiprincesseditor but was instead blocked for checkuser evidence that connects me to User:Fad Ariff. My claim is that I'm in no way connected to Fad Ariff, and also there are plenty of editors with the same POV in the same topic area in those content disputes. Fad Ariff was blocked for being "disruptive", and I've never even been warned for anything. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]