Write your writing right here! Ghazaalch (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style guideline about Islamic honorifics that should be followed to maintain a neutral point of view and consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style by adding honorifics disturbs uniformity among articles and should only be done with a special reason. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Alivardi:. little by little i learn how it work working here. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Neutrality award
	For your contributions to Criticism of Muhammad, helping make that article more neutral. VR talk 03:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to connect you with @Bless sins: as he is very interested in this topic.VR _talk 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you VR and @Bless sins: for your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Infected blood scandal (France), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consensus model. 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) 06:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch

Thank you for creating Jabir ibn Yazid al-Ju'fi.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article, but note that other editors have raised issues with the way it is written. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the article. If these issues are not addressed, future editors could call for the article to be deleted.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Doomsdayer520)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:34, 3 January 2021 (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 post-1978 Iranian politics. 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.

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, 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.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhammad al-Jawad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've noticed your edits recently on the Twelver Imams and I'm seeing a couple of issues with how you've been formating section titles, as you did here. Section titles need to follow the guidance given at MOS:HEAD. For example, they should be done in sentence case, where you capitalise words like you would in a normal sentence (i.e. not write something like "Names and Epithets" instead of "Names and epithets"). Additionally, headings shouldn't redundantly refer back to the article subject (like by saying "His Family" instead of just "Family"). Hope you find this helpful.
Alivardi (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Alivardi. It was helpful.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment of yours looks unclear. I'm very frustrated with the talk page discussion too, but its important to be clear and calm in your discussions. If I can help you in any way, please ask!VR _talk 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you VR. I am calm, and try to be clear. Thank you again.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Can you explain this comment a little bit? It is not clear whether you are supporting Bahar's proposal or opposing it?VR _talk 05:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability is not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Saff V. per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saff V.. 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 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 ~~~~)).  Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

As you could see here, the main reason I was suspected can be summarized as below:

It was Ghazaalch's use of the phrase "picking up" (to say "removing")[39] [40] that confirmed for me these are both the same user since this phrase is not used by any other editor to say "removing", and it's something that Saff V. used to say all the time at People's Mujahedin of Iran:[41][42] [43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Barca (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I used the phrase "picking up", just in one situation (both [1] and [2] refer to one situation), and I did not use the phrase "picking up" to say "omitting" or "removing", but used it to say that someone was picking up(by "picking up" I meant "lifting")information from its place and put it in a irrelevant place. So I thought the phrase "picking up" was more appropriate for the situation. But in other situations I usually use "Omitting" as you could see here and here.

I am working on the article People's Mujahedin of Iran, from Iran, and it is not strange if some other Iranians (such as @Saff V, whom I don't know) work on this article too, (because it is about Iran), and it is not strange if people from Iran have the Same POV emphasis on issues like sexual abuse and human rights violations at MEK, cultish characteristics of MEK, MEK link to Israel, ideological revolution at MEK and MeK as a Islamic-Marxist group. All these topics are very controversial issues in the article People's Mujahedin of Iran, and everyone who is active in the article would discuss these issues. Besides, no similarity was found between me and @Saff V, in the review conducted by check users, as they pointed it out here:

Possible. The CU logs from Saff V. show me that they're in the same geolocation and very wide range. That's all I can really say... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Ghazaalch (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

After reviewing this case further, I have decided to unblock Saff V. and Ghazaalch.

The technical evidence here is relatively inconclusive: we can only conclude from the CU data that the editors are editing from the same country. Additionally, one user has only edited from a desktop computer in the last three months and the other only from a phone.

The behavioral idiosyncrasies highlighted in the SPI were initially convincing to me and apparently several other editors. However, after more holistically examining the writing style of the two editors, I found that there are sufficient dissimilarities to raise doubt as to whether the editors are the same user. Specifically, Mhhossein correctly points out here that Ghazaalch's command of the English language appears to be stronger than Saff V.'s. You can find a few examples of this in Saff V.'s talk page archives, e.g. [3][4]. Compared with Ghazaalch, it does feel like they are different users [5][6]. In light of these concerns, it seems to me that the behavioral similarities highlighted in the SPI were merely coincidental, and I think the possibility should be seriously entertained that Ghazaalch's is another editor who merely has the same editing interests and viewpoints as Saff V.

To Ghazaalch, please accept my sincere apologies for having made this erroneous block. Welcome back, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mz7. No need to apologize. I understand. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the two admins @Vanamonde93: and @Blablubbs:. The evidence against Ghazaalch consists entirely of them making the typo "summery" 1 time and using the term "picking up" 2 times (out of 465 edits). If Ghazaalch is from the same part of the world as SaffV then they might use the same idiomatic expressions that might seem peculiar to others. The rest of the evidence in the SPI could just as easily apply to me as I too have made criticism of MEK along the same lines as Ghazaalch. Vanamonde's suggestion that it's not uncommon for users (many of whom do not speak English as a native language) to mimic each other's behavior is also a reasonable possibility.VR _talk 13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Not an admin, just a clerk.) Vice regent, the evidence is far more than that, which Vanamonde has agreed with as well (The behavioral evidence is reasonably convincing to me, as has the blocking administrator Mz7. This is a user with the exact same level of English proficiency and writing style as the master in addition to some shared grammatical idiosyncracies, who shows up after the master has been TBANned and gone largely inactive, pushing for the inclusion of the same sort of material on the same few (talk) pages. On top of that, there's the CU result, which shows that they are in the same place and share IP ranges, meaning that they're on the same ISP. Is there some marginal possibility that these are two functionally indistinguishable, but distinct users? Sure, there always is. But the likelihood is extremely small. I am very confident that this is a good block. Blablubbs|talk 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs SaffV was Tbanned in Feb 2020 but Ghazaalch didn't show up until Sept 2020. In fact, I showed up before that (July 2020) and I have been supporting the inclusion of the same sort of material on the same few (talk) pages. I think its easy to confuse distinct users who share the same views. Regarding ISP evidence, Oshwah said they're in the same geolocation and very wide range. Does that mean the possibility of them being two different people is "extremely small"? How common is it for people in Iran to share the same ISP?VR _talk 14:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, I'm not going to relitigate the entire case here, and please do not twist my words. No, I did not say that the checkuser evidence means that the possibility is extremely small; I don't believe that picking out bits of the evidence and saying "this isn't unique" is useful in analysing SPI evidence; the question is whether there are enough similarities (be they unique on their own or not) to reasonably conclude that two accounts are being run by the same individual. In this case, that conclusion has been made – multiple people familiar with sockpuppetry cases have had their eyes on this and seem to agree that this is a fine block. If the reviewing administrator disagrees, they can say so and unblock. Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said what I have to say at the SPI, and I'm not getting into this further. The reviewing admin can handle this as they see fit with no objections from me in either direction. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're unblocked! It seems that Blablubbs also had something to do with your unblock, so thanks Blablubbs for giving it a second thought.VR _talk 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blablubbs. Thanks to Vice regent, I realized that you helped me out in this case. So I thank you too. Sorry for the delay. Best. Ghazaalch (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent, and Ghazaalch, my sincere apologies that this happened. Best, Blablubbs|talk 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Zakariya ibn Adam, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for participating in this discussion. I've opened up a DR request to see if it can be resolved. If you could leave a comment that would be helpful. Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levantine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hasan ibn Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Husayn ibn Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Chittick 2009" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 00:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Renata3. "Chittick 2009" refers to Imam Ali ubnal Husain (2009). Al-Saheefah Al-Sajjadiyyah Al-Kaamelah. Translated with an introduction and annotation by Willian C. Chittick with a foreword by S. H. M. Jafri. Qum, The Islamic Republic of Iran: Ansariyan Publications. I do not know how to cite it.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Husayn ibn Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kunya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ghazaalch,

Are you familiar with WP:Did you know? If you create an article you can nominate it for that and it can get featured on the main page of wikipedia.VR _talk 01:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. Is the following text good enough for the DYK?

• ... The Occupation of the American Mind shows how Israeli attacks on Palestinians provoked widespread protests around the world, while the United States remained steadfast in its support for Israel?

I don't know if that hook is good enough, but the process to start a DYK is here. I suggest you start ASAP because you should nominate within 7 days of article creation. Finally, I took a quick look and you might want to add more sources to the article. But don't delay with nominating the article.VR _talk 20:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Vice regent. I nominated it here yesterday. About the sources, most of news agencies I found here are not very reliable, but I will search again. Thank you very much.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zakariya ibn Adam".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Occupation of the American Mind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Occupation of the American Mind sought to explore the United States' steadfast support for Israel in the face of the latter's controversial actions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Occupation of the American Mind. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Occupation of the American Mind), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghazaalch,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Global arrogance, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Anti-Americanism. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Slatersteven)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Global arrogance has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should suggest another hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Global arrogance. VR _talk 03:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. I thought I did not have the chance to suggest another one. Is the following 'hooky' enough?

... that the United States was first described as "the Capital of Global Arrogance" by Iranian students? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please suggest it at the nom page and be sure to ping others.VR _talk 14:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Global arrogance at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vice regent. Do you know what kind of clarification is meant by the above comment?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm confused too. BlueMoonset can you clarify what needs to be clarified? Thanks, VR _talk 09:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR, Ghazaalch, this is a boilerplate message that something has happened at the nomination that you should be aware of. Sometimes the "clarification" isn't what's needed. It didn't appear to me that Ghazaalch had been notified that a reviewer had marked the nomination for closure as unsuccessful, and should be given the opportunity to respond, since the DYK nomination could be closed at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hasan ibn Ali you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hasan ibn Ali you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hasan ibn Ali for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghazaalch I'm going ahead and rewording parts of the article to make it more readable, like this. Is it ok? I know you wrote half the article and I want to be respectful of your work. But at the same time, I think sentences should be worded differently so they are accessible to non-specialists. VR _talk 01:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Vice regent. I do appreciate your help.Ghazaalch (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hasan ibn Ali you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hasan ibn Ali for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shushugah. But I though you said to Vice regent that the time would extend to a double of weeks. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I possibly misunderstand what on hold means, but I think we mean the same thing. After 2 weeks, I’ll give a conclusive review. In the meantime improvements can be made etc… I didn’t mean to convey anything else. Kind regards

Edit; ah the one week notice is from the bot. I am sticking with 2 weeks as communicated earlier ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hasan ibn Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nass.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: Hi! First off, thank you for your work on Hasan ibn Ali. Second, the following source, which is behind a paywall, has been used in Hasan ibn Ali and I wonder if you might have a copy of this article that you'd be willing to share with me. Thanks. Paktchi, Ahmad; Tareh, Masoud; Haj-Manouchehri, Faramarz; Masoudi Arani, Abdullah (2013). Mousavi-Bojnourdi, Mohammad-Kazem (ed.). Hassan (AS), Imam (in Persian). Tehran: Encyclopaedia Islamica. pp. 532–565. ISBN 978-600-6326-19-1. Albertatiran (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran. Thanks for you good help. How can I send it to you? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Please use this file-sharing website, which seems very easy to use: https://www.file.io/ Have a nice day! Albertatiran (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Albertatiran. I guess you can download the file from Here. Please let me know if there is any problem.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your file was deleted before I could download it. I should have mentioned that any uploaded file there is automatically deleted immediately after the first download. Could you give it one last try, please? Sorry for the trouble :) Albertatiran (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience Albertatiran. Here it is again.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Global arrogance at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Baffle gab1978. I appreciate your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your recent edits to Hasan's article. Could you give me one more day to finish and publish my second round of copy-edits? Then the article is all yours :) Albertatiran (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran. That was all I wanted to add to the article. Feel free to modify it using other sources.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States hypocrisy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States hypocrisy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CUPIDICAE💕 14:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch; there's a discussion about your GOCE copy-edit request for the above merged and redirected article here. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United_States_sanctions#Perceptions

Hello, Ghazaalch. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for United_States_sanctions#Perceptions at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch, I've copy-edited the section. I found several examples of weasel words related to time, which I've marked with ((when)), and I found an uncited direct quotation in the final paragraph, which I've marked with ((cn)). Otherwise I think it's an improvement. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Baffle gab1978. I appreciate your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made many reverts within the space of 24 hours to an article with WP:1RR restrictions. This diff , this diff, and this diff, and this diff, and this diff. This is a clear breach of the WP:1RR restrictions on the page. I would kindly request that you self-revert. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fad Ariff. I did not know about the restrictions. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please read carefully my last comment. You made a total of 5 reverts in 24hrs. After my comment, you only self-reverted twice. The article says 1 revert per 24hrs, so you need to self-revert 2 more times in order not to breach the WP:1RR restrictions on the page. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three edits in a row counts as a single one as you probably know. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Hasan ibn Ali at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 20:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Miniapolis. I do appreciate your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch,

Thanks for the ping. I had a cursory look at the article and it seems to have undergone significant transformation and there have been numerous deletions and additions of material. Some sources that I suggested to be removed in the pre-GAN review have been reinserted. I've also changed my opinion on Jafarian and I don't consider him RS. If you still think I should review the nomination, I will do. But it will be a lot of work for you I guess. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again AhmadLX. No problem. I have enough time to work on it. Please go ahead and start the review. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Hawkeye7, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Political hypocrisy, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political hypocrisy .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Hawkeye7)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ghazaalch. Thank you.

You just reinstated two of your edits edits which I had reverted, which is breaking the article's "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"s rule:

• 04:20, 11 June 2022 [7] you add this to the article

“Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members.”

• 15:51, 14 June 2022 [8] you add this to the article

"According to the RAND report, former MeK members and detractors are accused of being Iranian agents or dupes, however, interviews with US military and civilian authorities, information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf, indicate that these denials are untrue."

• 12:01, 17 June 2022 [9] I reverted those two edits (and made other edits)

• 18:06, 17 June 2022 [10] You reverted my edit, but by doing this you also reinstated content that I had objected in the talk page [11].

Since this is breaking the article's "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"s rule, then please self-revert. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: Maybe this has something to do with you mixing new edits with old in revisions. Why would you do that unless you are intentionally trying to manipulate the rules? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: Unless you stop making these blended edits I will 100% be raise a fresh case against you at AE/revive the old one, and I'm sure Ghazaalch will back me up on this. This material is contentious. Make simple, well explained edits. Your long edits, mixing new and old, tendentious or not, not explained but then with some flippant note like: "see talk" is clearly not in the interest of clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for informing me. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just reinstated one of your edits edits which I had reverted. This is breaking the article's "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversions)" rule:

• 04:20, 11 June 2022 [12] you add this to the article

"Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members."

• 12:01, 17 June 2022 [13] I reverted that content

• 18:06, 17 June 2022 [14] You reinstated that content

• 11:53, 18 June 2022 [15] I informed you that you needed to self-revert since this is breaking the article’s rule

• 05:59, 19 June 2022 [16] You self reverted this content

• 04:42, 21 June 2022 [17] Then you asked me why I had removed this content

• 12:42, 21 June 2022 [18] I answered you

• 04:03, 22 June 2022 [19] You reinstated the content anyway (without consensus)

Since this is breaking the article's "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversions)" rule, then please self-revert.

Also this is the third time I had to explain this rule to you. Either if it’s a Wikipedia:Competence is required or Wikipedia:Gaming the system problem, at any rate it is becoming a problem. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: He has agreement from me to include the content, and it is reliably sourced. What exactly is your objection, based on policy? I don't want links, but an answer. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had also answered about that content here [20], but if you want more explanation, I will respond in the talk page. Ghazaalch, please respond to this notification of your violation. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The content is too long? You only like Abrahamaian when it suits you? Not when he says things you don't like: then he's not neutral and has to be shortened? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless to discuss with you Fad Ariff, because as I said previously [21][22] you do not discuss to reach consensus but you discuss to justify your reverts and to show that there is no consensus on restoring the reverts. I would explain your Gaming the system in details where I know there are some admins watching and moderating our discussions.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits @ People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (making aspersions, edit-warring, tampering RFCs, etc.). Please respect policy, discussions, and other editors. This is a final warning. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraniangal777: I'm far more concerned about your own edit warring and removal of material mid-discussion - an act that deeply obfuscates the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch; unfortunately, I wasn't able to pass the Hasan ibn Ali article for Good Article status right now. I can only imagine that's discouraging, especially since it was such a convoluted process (three GA reviewers!). But I wanted to let you know that I found the article fascinating and enjoyed reading it, and you have made considerable improvements to it since the GA review started. It's in much better shape than it was in January, so thank you for your hard work on the article and I hope you continue to improve it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Ganesha811. Thank you for helping me improve the page. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ghazaalch. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iraniangal777 is actually Alex-h. Both these users mistakenly use plural for a single person. For example Iraniangal777 when reporting you to the Enforcement above mentioned:

((Their Talk page also shows a couple of alerts about discretionary sanctions in this are of conflict.))

Given the fact that both Alex-h and Iraniangal777 are contributing to the talk page of MEK in the "derailing" proposals, I suggest report him/her as sockpoppetry.

cheers.--78.38.77.36 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch I don't think its a good idea for you to file an SPI, it may look like an attempt to have an opponent blocked (in fact, Iraniangal777's AE report is exactly that).

IP, the use of "their" is fairly common in English, see Singular they.VR _talk 04:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghazaalch! Hope all is well with you. This proposal to rename Fatimah might be of interest to you. Please consider participating in it. If you happen to know someone else who'd support the proposal, please also let them know. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ghazaalch. Thank you. NMasiha (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellow editor! I'm going "door to door" to bring this proposal to the editors' attention. Please consider posting your view. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellow editor Albertatiran:) Thank for informing me. I like working with you especially in the articles concerning Shia Imams. Good luck.Ghazaalch (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Albertatiran (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghazaalch! Hope all is well with you. Noticed that you have a new article in your sandbox. I'd be happy to proofread this or other articles. Just ping me when needed! :) Albertatiran (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran. Thank you very much. I hope you had a nice trip. Your kind help is always welcomed. But are we done with this old article? Can we publish it now? In your last comment you wrote " ...probably 2 or 3 more left to go." Ghazaalch (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. For whatever reason, I thought you've already published the old article. Yes, the old article might need a bit more work on my side, which I'll finish by next Monday إن شاء الله Albertatiran (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertatiran: إن شاء الله :)

Hi Albertatiran. How are you? This is the new article ready for you to proofread it:) Meanwhile I would like to help you with shia-related articles. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm doing ok, thanks! Noted; I've added the new article to my to-do list for this weekend. And also thanks for your recent contributions and improvements to the Shia-related articles. Albertatiran (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch,

Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western support of dictators are not so easy to read because you don't indent them properly. Are you aware that you can use ":" to indent comments? For example, let say,

You make this comment.
:Someone else makes this comment. Notice they used one ":".
::Then you should make response like this, using two ":"s, like "::".
:::Then they should respond with 3 ":"s.
::::And you respond with 4 ":"s.

Basically, when you respond to a comment, you take the number of ":"s they have used and increase that by one.VR _talk 16:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. That was helpful. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ghazaalch, you should have indented your comment when you said "Thank you ...". I did that for you in this edit. Do you see how I did that? Now could you please respond to this comment with the proper indentation? Thanks and mamnoon! VR _talk 04:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Vice regent. Kheili Mamnoon! Ghazaalch (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! Great :-) VR _talk 14:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this article Democracy promotion by the United States? VR _talk 13:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vice regent Yes. I see it has a section entitled "U.S. support of undemocratic regimes". You mean I should take the deleted article there? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And also that an article called "US policy towards authoritarian governments" could be justified. But before you bring such an article to mainspace it is best to seek feedback on it as a draft.VR _talk 09:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. Here is the new article. I hope it survives Ghazaalch (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But Ghazaalch, I told you to keep it in draft space until its ready.VR _talk 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Yes. I forgot. Sorry:)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democracy promotion by the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasio Somoza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, MEK troll farm. 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 – People's_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran#Propaganda_campaign. 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 People's_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran#Propaganda_campaign. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it 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 "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. 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. Alex-h (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deb: Would you mind refunding that article to draft space? Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom Will you be working on it yourself or is the creator intending to have another try? Deb (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Here is the deleted article. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to work on it. MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MarioGom. As I said here MEK troll farm is not the subject that is covered properly in the main article (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), so I hope to have this new article with your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom See also this source.Ghazaalch (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch: The article currently contains too much close paraphrasing or copyvio. I would suggest pasting the list of sources to a separate sandbox page, and request deletion of your sandbox to start from scratch. MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this form The Daily Beast might also be a usable source. MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MEK troll farm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEK troll farm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alex-h (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't be much help with this as I'm not very familiar with the subject. I would suggest that you ask permission to create it as a draft and ask for assistance in making it more acceptable, from others who have participated in the discussion. Deb (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! Hope all is well with you. I'll hopefully prepare a draft for a point-by-point response to the GA comments, probably in my Sandbox. Are you available to help with the nomination? If so, then we maybe we can divide the tasks in this draft and address them. Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran.How are you? I am available. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch, I'm ok, thanks. Then I'll ping you when the draft is ready. Have a nice day! Albertatiran (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The response draft is now ready! Please have a look. Specially, look out for @Ghazaalch and red comments (which show the remaining items). Thanks! :) Albertatiran (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Albertatiran. I left a comment for each red comment. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For transforming the article on Muhammad al-Jawad out of recognition and bringing it to GA status, and hopefully as a harbinger of much more fine work to come, I award you this token of sincere appreciation. Constantine ✍ 13:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! Hope all is well with you. Just a quick note that this article needs a bit more work on my side. I'll be away for a couple of weeks but hopefully will pick things up again after that. Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran. I hope you are well too. Thanks for letting me know. Have a good trip:) Ghazaalch (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Jawad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Muhammad al-Jawad was the ninth of the Twelve Imams and, with his unexplained death at about twenty-five, the shortest-lived? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad al-Jawad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Muhammad al-Jawad), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! The comments were fairly straightforward to address, so I directly posted the response here. Please feel free to make changes to the response or to the article. Otherwise, I guess we just wait for the next round of comments. Albertatiran (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran. Thank you very much. I left a couple of comment on that page. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghazaalch! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://ebookshia.com/upload/bookFiles/2752/Crisis_and_Consolidation_in_the_Formative_Period_of_Shi'ite_Islam_Abu_Ja'far_ibn_Qiba_al-Razi_and_His_Contribution_to_Imamite_Shi'ite_Thought_-_Hossein_Modarres.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa. I can assure you that Albertatiran and me are still working on the article. I even had placed a note for copy-editors here to help me with the issue. I did not know that it was against policies and maybe I should have worked on the article in my sandbox first. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. — Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa for informing me. I'll take that into consideration next time.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the note. This could be a false positive though. The work of Modarressi (Crisis and consolidation in the formative period of Shiʻite Islam) is indeed the main source of this Wikipedia article but the article does not seem to contain any phrases or sentences copied from the book. (I just checked.) The closest match I found was Jibal, the central and western parts of Iran in the book and the Jibal, which encompassed the central and western parts of modern-day Iran in the article. This (or similar instances) don't seem to violate any copyright laws. Am I wrong about this? Albertatiran (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the overlap using Earwig's tool. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa and Albertatiran: I modified the contested text and put it in the talk page so you can replace the contested content.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Ok, I now realize that the contested content was made invisible and I only saw and checked the visible part. @Ghazaalch: Thanks for revising the text. I'll also copy-edit this over the weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch, I've noted a few problems with this article; parts of it lack references, there are some ambiguities—what is the "traditional prardigm"? Which President Bush? I've added some tags that should help you fix these problems. Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Baffle gab1978. I am trying to fix the problems. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghazaalch. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for United States sanctions#Perceptions at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch, I've copy-edited the section, and have noted a few problems with the wider article; specifically lack of references in some areas and a poorly written lede section (the lede should summarise the entire article), and the essay-like tone of the section I copy-edited is still apparent. I've tagged the appropriate sections so you'll see where improvements can be made. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ghazaalch. Thank you.. Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Gratefully recognizing your work as (apparently) the only other editor these days with a mission to improve Shia articles. Hope I can continue to count your help with future articles. Albertatiran (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghazaalch! Hope all is well! Would you be available to push through another Shia Imam article for GA? I vaguely remember talking about Musa al-Kazim as the next article but that's flexible. If you're indeed available, this time perhaps I can get the ball rolling, so to speak, and then you can edit after me. But again, this too is flexible and I don't have a strong preference. Let me know, please. Albertatiran (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran, Yes please start with Musa al-Kazim and I will edit after you. Thanks you very much. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! At long last, I revised Musa al-Kazim and also plan to submit it to WP:GOCE, recommended by Cplakidas, but it may take some time before it's our turn there. In the meantime, any edits and suggestions or comments are very welcome. Let me know, please! Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran. Well done. I will read it in a few days. Thank you very much.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ali al-Hadi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the restricted life of the Shia imam Ali al-Hadi under Abbasid surveillance ended the imams' direct leadership of the Shia community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ali al-Hadi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ali al-Hadi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committee of 100.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. ~~~~ ParadaJulio (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take a look at this revert. It seems grossly unfair to say that this was a rebuttal to the letter itself. The problem was the way the letter was being misrepresented. Also, take a look at the editing history of the article about that letter. None of the reverts have anything to do with actual content. 201.71.2.255 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've made two reverts in the past 24 hours at this article; please self-revert your most recent. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a revert. This is the start of an edit war. I have reverted you again not because the edit is bad, but you should discuss on the talk page to to get consensus before add it again per WP:BRD. I also reverted your edit adding a mention of Hannibal directive when it is already in the end of the next section. Perhaps you would like to add to that, but you should perhaps seek consensus for that as well as it seems contentious. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard-of-Earth. Would you give your idea about this proposal? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You mentioned me on Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre but unfortunately you misrepresented what I said and I am blocked from editing the talk page and responding. My point was that the PNA did not deny the massacre, and that the alleged denial is a tendentious mistranslation of their press release in Arabic. The sources may be considered reliable, but they nonetheless gave an incorrect translation. Since we have the original in Arabic, anyone who can read Arabic can see for themselves that the reports are incorrect. I don't think that just because a reliable source reports something we should ignore our judgment, no source is always 100% reliable. I've given further explanation about how the translation is incorrect on my talk page. Since you mentioned me by name, I would appreciate it if you could either correct the record by conveying what I have written here, or delete your reference to me.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Exjerusalemite. Done!

Hello, why did you remove the sentence, when you could have simply inserted "with the US vetoing..."? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Which sentence?Ghazaalch (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one linking US and Israel's rejection of a ceasefire to their increased isolation. [23] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is still in the article with a similar wording.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the sources explicitly say that their rejection of the ceasefire is whats leading to the increased isolation, and not just increased isolation in context of support. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for creating and patiently developing the controversial yet much-needed article United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Your efforts are much appreciated. Albertatiran (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albertatiran (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghazaalch,

The Arbitration Committee has decided to procedurally remove the case request Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? as invalid. Details can be found at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1214583983 § Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?: Case request removed.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21,500 Hamas soldiers were killed https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/international-pressure-wont-weaken-our-resolve-to-destroy-hamas-pm-aide-writes-in-wsj/ 65.175.241.99 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, 182Line (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]