User talk:Marjdabi

October 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued edit warring, battlegrounding, POV-pushing, and the deceptive insertion of unsourced content, as you did at Egypt.

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 ~~~~}}. Swarm talk 00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a persistent and willful pattern of behavior that has not improved in spite of your previous block or the very close call you had last week, in which you only avoided a reblock due to your second revert. You're consistently exhibiting disruptive and tendentious behaviors, and you do not appear to be here to contribute constructively. Significant changes to your attitude and approach to editing will be required if you would like to continue editing here. Swarm talk 00:32, 2 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinite is an overreaction, why was I not blocked another week or even a month but indefinite? I have made several contributions and created very important articles, but on my second block I am out permanently? This is way too much, I request it be reverted to a week or two or even a month. I am not a newbie user, I make good contributions daily. A perma on second warning is unfair.Marjdabi (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To me this unblock request sounds basically like this: you admit everything, but instead of addressing your problematic behavior you just want to wait your block out and continue. This does not seem like something that will make Wikipedia better. Max Semenik (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would have to a special person to wait a month for unblock just to start reverting again to be blocked indefinitely. Of course I wont do it again, but indefinite block here is unreasonable, I believe many would agree. Unblock me or shorten the duration if you don't trust me, I am not a simple vandal user, I engaged in edit war just once here which resulted in a 7 day block, now I have done it again and it's a indef? Please I make daily contributions here. I create articles every week. Marjdabi (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please detail thoroughly what you will do instead of edit warring. Y'know, I've been here for like 12 years and have never edit warred. I just don't get it. You knew the consequences after the prior block and edit warred again anyway. The purpose of blocking is to prevent disruption, and I'm not convinced that you will not resume edit warring if you feel it convenient. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM after I read Swarm's comment above, quoted here, *This appears to be a persistent and willful pattern of behavior that has not improved in spite of your previous block or the very close call you had last week, in which you only avoided a reblock due to your second revert. You're consistently exhibiting disruptive and tendentious behaviors, and you do not appear to be here to contribute constructively. Significant changes to your attitude and approach to editing will be required if you would like to continue editing here. This makes me feel even more certain of my assessment and my decsion to decline.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

What I would do is stop edit warring no matter the reason other than vandalism. Like I would not revert or change submissions in any case unless there is vandalism, if I notice a misinformation or wrong content I would revert it only once, if the user is to re revert it I would simply talk with the user on their talk page or try to reach a common point where both views can be explain with compromise. What I would not do is revert it fully and do it more than once. Marjdabi (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2018 (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.

Can somebody review the latest unblock request please? The first two were reviewed in half an hour, it's been two days since the last request. @Doc James @Only @Diannaa Marjdabi (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody view this unblock request please, I'm waiting to start editing. User:Swarm User:The Blade of the Northern Lights User:There'sNoTime User:TonyBallioni User:Seraphimblade User:Orangemike User:Nick Marjdabi (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Request that the previous request be reviewed, I'm not gonna reword since I already have. My point remains still. Marjdabi (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined per evident intent to withdraw in [1] and [2]. If you have changed your mind, I recommend you review Kevin's approach below and consider the value of such a commitment in demonstrating your ability to work well with others. Collaboration in contentious areas is challenging. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You went three weeks without any luck, and then you were finally told that you would need to "substantially reword" your unblock request because it wasn't convincing anyone to unblock you. And, your reaction is to refuse to do so? Wow. Swarm talk 02:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see your agreement to, at minimum, Wikipedia-wide 1RR and a topic ban from Egypt, Syria, and PIA, all broadly constructed, to last until you have demonstrated an ability to work collaboratively with others to the extent that is demanded of encyclopedia contributors, before we even begin talking about an unblock. Your contribution history shows a disturbing degree of tendentious editing and POV-pushing, and somehow, 22.2% of your edits are undos despite zero vandalism patrol to speak of. If you demonstrate an ability to comply with policy outside of Egypt/Syria/PIA, I may consider relaxing the topic ban to be a mainspace-only topic ban. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Idlib demilitarization and frozen conflict period in the Syrian Civil War

Template:Idlib demilitarization and frozen conflict period in the Syrian Civil War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]