User talk:Bashir Iran

Hi Bashir Iran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sunni view of Ali. 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. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mammoth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Sunni view of Ali. 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 ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

My contribution is based on a peer reviewed master-thesis and related article which have been cited. Please don't guess about me without rational reasons. Bashir Iran (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nobody is guessing anything. Please read WP:EDITWAR to understand why you are blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:11, 6 May 2021 (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.

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: it's not acceptable to cherry pick sources that do not directly support the claims added in articles. You cited a paper that is about North America, not about Shahnameh's claims in relation to Asia. The reason for the block was edit warring it back in as it was (legitimately) contested by other editors (WP:BRD may be useful). —PaleoNeonate – 19:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See SocArXiv. Even if published and peer reviewed, if there aren't others supporting the views in this paper, it's WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bahir Iran! I have reverted your recent edits in Dhu al-Qarnayn, Theories about Cyrus the Great in the Quran, and Cyrus the Great.

They were all adding content that we consider 'undue'. Please read our relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV), and especially its subsection 'Due and undue weight'. If after reading that you still have some questions, please feel free to ask them here, and I will be happy to answer them. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop or I’ll have to block you. If you think you are justified, ask first at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bashir Iran! Your additions to Gates of Alexander have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Gates of Alexander, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Semantic Complexity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, 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.

Doug Weller talk 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use religious terminology in Wikipedia's voice, as when you write "the Holy Qur'an" here and here. Your edits are also inadequately sourced, from an 1891 book by an Arctic explorer (!). I have reverted them. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gates of Alexander‎ into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You seem to have done this more than once. Note that you are expected to go back and attribute anything you've copied. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Dhu al-Qarnayn, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. See my explanation on the talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Theories about Cyrus the Great in the Quran. Doug Weller talk 06:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here[1] your source is but it's misleading because "As Ahmad Dallal points out, however, both verses when read in their contexts more likely refer to knowledge of things in the hereafter; moreover, he insists, “despite their claims, neither al-Ghazali nor al-Suyuti proceeds to correlate the Qur’anic text to science, in a systematic interpretative exercise” (2004, 543)". Doug Weller talk 13:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 07:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you material needs to be directly about the subject of the article, you restored material which wasn't. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ {{re|name}} is to notify other people. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bashir Iran: insisting on OR & incompetence. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a Young Earth Creationist as a source strongly suggest you really don’t understand what we mean by reliable sources. Some of your writing just can’t be understood. You add unsourced material to sourced. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for immediately restarting disruptive editing with poor or no sourcing when your previous block expired. In this short timespan (5 hours), you have used both a Young Earth creationist source[2] and several sources from the 19th century.[3] If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 27 February 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

just,I have introduced some body of knowledge. My sources varied, from very authoritative contemporary essays to 19th- and 20th-century Old Testament interpretive theories (because the subject was related to the body of knowledge associated with Old Testament interpretation). Please do not deprive me of the opportunity to participate in the development of the wikipedia. Thank You.

Decline reason:

Your appeal does not address the stated reasons for the block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (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.

A bit reluctantly, I must point out that your sometimes very poor English contrasts oddly with the at times very academic English some of your additions to articles have. Although I can't prove it, it does look as though you are directly copying from sources as that's the only explanation I can think of that explains it. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]