User talk:1241edit

Welcome!

Hello, 1241edit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6)

Hello 1241edit,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6), may be copied from http://www.zeably.com/University_of_Paris_VI. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Ghazal has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ghazal was changed by 1241edit (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915839 on 2013-12-24T09:23:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Sorbonne Doctoral College (December 29)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Sorbonne Doctoral College.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rumi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please read the link that User:Ugog Nizdast highlighted → WP:BOLDFACE. Green Giant (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tar (lute)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Persian poets and authors. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:1241edit reported by User:Minimac (Result: ). Thank you. Minima © (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1241edit. You have new messages at Green Giant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please note that I have transferred the conversation to the article talkpage because I think that is the best place for it. Green Giant (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tar (lute) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Green Giant (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tar (lute), you may be blocked from editing. Green Giant (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at Ghazal, Tar (lute) and other articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at the edit-warring noticeboard. The block is for disruptive editing and nationalist edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi is an Iranian poet, Tar is an Iranian instrument

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).

1241edit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Now I discover that Wikipedia information is a big lie ... I am glad for whatever I did. 1241edit (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2014 (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. Please do not waste our time with unblock requests that are simply to make a point. Continuing to do that could result in your talk page access being removed for the duration of your block. only (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2014 (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.

You do not need to waste your time, go and continue lying ...

UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create copies of an existing article. If you think that the article Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University should be renamed UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6), then please propose this through a requested move. Thank you, Pichpich (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6)

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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, UPMC - Sorbonne University (Paris 6). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue copying this article, you can be blocked from editing. Please use the procedure at WP:RM if you want to rename the article. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazal

You are keen to remove material from the article Ghazal.

Please explain this at Talk:Ghazal. When other editors have agreed with you there, then you may remove the material. And not before. If you continue to remove material without the agreement of others you'll be blocked for vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This edit of yours is more than enough. Stop removing material from articles unless you have the agreement of others. If you continue, you'll be blocked for vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, sorry. Your removal was good, my reinstatement was bad. The material you removed was simply irrelevant to the article (or at best tangential to it).

But you'd make life easier for others (and thereby for yourself) if you wrote informative edit summaries. (Here, perhaps "Removing material that isn't about slavery in Iran".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Slavery in Iran, you may be blocked from editing. You should stop edit-warring on this page and on Ghazal and use the talk page. You can't just remove sourced material because you don't like it. You haven't breached WP:3RR, but your refusal to communicate means that your continuing reversions are still edit-warring. All you have to do is stop and use the articles' talk pages. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:1241edit, please be aware you are getting close to an indefinite block from Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, this may be a little more complicated than it looked at first. It's true that 1241edit is edit-warring and not discussing, but the material he's edit-warring to keep out at Slavery in Iran should absolutely not be in that article. 1241edit, please use talk pages and explain your point of view, or it's going to end badly for you. It's quite possible you have something valuable to contribute to the encyclopedia, so please just use your words.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take it back. This editor's work at Ghazal is egregious. 1241edit, do you actually think the ghazal is only Persian? You have to talk about stuff. You messed up the lead paragraph and it stayed messed up for two months.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at the moment, I am just talking about the page of Slavery in Iran and not Ghazal. Although Ghazal was created by Iranian poets such as Hafez, Sa'di, Rumi and so on and its subject is Amorously words and not Mystical topics. (notice Ghazal is an Iranian word not English word!). concerning Slavery in Iran for example the figure that has been added does not have any resource and is not clear that this is belong to which country and so on and it shows the hostilities of the writer about Iran. For more information about Slavery in Iran please have look at ^[1] 1241edit (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably, you are right about Slavery in Iran, but being right is not an excuse for edit-warring. I took the rest of that material out and I'll certainly do my best to make sure it stays out, but you still have to engage on talk pages or you're just going to get blocked, and rightly so, and what good will that do you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on editors' motives

I know it's hard to resist at times, but it's essential that you stick to talking about the content of the articles rather than attributing motives to editors with whom you disagree. You may be right, you may be wrong, but it's not helpful and may end up getting you blocked, even if the points you're making about the content are correct.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks for your recent edits. Please note that Wikipedia articles themselves are not regarded as reliable references to use as sources, from English, French or any other language WP. This is because they are user-edited, and user-edited sources are held to be too malleable. Thanks Anna (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message on the administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I do not believe you have a valid reason to use two accounts (correct me if I'm wrong). You may continue editing with Ss1241 (talk · contribs), if you like, but you shouldn't be editing with both at the same time, especially not in contentious situations--like edit warring on Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (University of Paris 6), for instance. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruption, edit warring, and socking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Sorbonne Doctoral College concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Sorbonne Doctoral College, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Sorbonne Doctoral College

Hello 1241edit. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Sorbonne Doctoral College".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Sorbonne Doctoral College}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i

[1] ttp://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i

[1]