User talk:Paradoxic

Abdullah ibn Saba[edit]

K, feel free to make any radical changes such as the deletion of primary sources (from all sides, can't just be one) and putting in valid secondary sources, like Hossein Nasr. He's been trying to put this information on the Shi'a Islam article but I've reverted it because of bad sources (you can see his talk page regarding them). I'll back you up if you add valid secondary sources and take out the primary sources. User:Ogress is also working on the article. Umar at Fatimah's house will follow. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project management[edit]

Your recent edit to the page project management appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you may do and take a look at the welcome page, if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran election[edit]

Does THIS look like the protesting is over? [1] well?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at International al-Quds Day. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:33, 20 September 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Consensus was reached with Shamwow, the edit was held for a day, until POV was imposed again by WIMYV, calling people who marched at Al-Quds day "Paid agents" of the Islamic Republic, this is a public and international day. WIMYV then went on to delete cited information and news sources, such as Press TV, the only news source covering al-quds day live. He cited a source instead, Al-jazeera, which is banned in Iran and does not report on al-Quds day. Usage of second hand information and outlets that do not operate in Iran to be an authority. Alefbe later on reverted the page to WIMYV's edits. I discussed in talk page and without replying Alefbe went on to further revert the page to the POV state WIMYV left it.

Decline reason:

You were still edit warring, and as you've had some warnings re. not keeping a neutral point of view yourself, I don't think you can judge this situation in a neutral manner. Please use the time blocked to read up on edit warring and dispute resolution, and remember to discuss (in a wider forum if needed) if you can't reach a consensus between you. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not edit warring until my cited sources were deleted and reversed by WIMYV. I urged WIMYV to discuss it in talk, and WIMYV argued that the people in the march were paid agents, this is not reasonable of course. In fact, the entire section was deleted and revisions were made that used second hand sources. Currently, the section is a POV mess. It handles only the Iranian political refugee view that is inherently against Iran and the Islamic Republic. "Fewer youth attend Al-Quds day" for example comes from exiled television shows aired in Los Angeles, claiming that the elderly clerics are being overrun by a secular youth that admires America. Although this sounds very cute, the claim itself has no statistical evidence, nor empirical, nor verifiable. In fact, the largest mosque in Tehran had to close an entire street to facilitate worshippers. The onus of proof was on the other user to come up with evidences for their claims, WIMYV in particular, who deleted the cited information and called the millions of people that marched "paid agents of the regime". The article is a POV zoo thanks to him. The page now looks as if it was not a march for palestine, but a typical 'state versus the people' populism wiki. Great moderating.--Paradoxic (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I was not edit warring until..." In other words, you admit you were edit warring. Block is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 21 September 2009 (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.

I've left a proposal at Talk:International al-Quds Day#Suggestion for an editing restriction on the article; please comment if you have a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MuZemike 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]