User talk:Vahid

Welcome!

Hello, Vathlu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GMG ^talk 12:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tips

-Before editing on Wikipedia read these:
Help:Getting_started
Help

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Tehran derby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tehran derby. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tehran derby

Hey Vathlu. You are reminded that persistent edit-warring may result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia again. You are strongly advised to not compete with other editors by reverting edits, but to come to an agreement by discussing with them on the article talkpage. Regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) What have I done exactly? I have not edited any page in more than a week, so what is this warning for? vathlu (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. I understand this was a week ago, and since this was a revert immediately after your block ended, I wanted to remind you, as I don't want to see you being blocked again. I hope I can see you editing on Wikipedia within the rules, and I wish you all the best! Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the thing is there is a certain user with a very biased point of view that keeps removing certain parts and items from wikipedia articles for no good reason, here for exmaple: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Star_(football_badge) All I did was reverting his edits because I do not think it is a good idea to edit wikipedia articles based on our liking and not the facts. You can see his activities here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/YenWitch Cheers vathlu (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Star (football badge)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You were previously blocked in November. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? I genuinely can't understand why on earth I have been blocked? I even did not start this so called edit warring? I even did not edit or add that certain part to the article in the first place? I simply happen to see that part is missing from the article and I even did not revert his edits 9 days after his first edit and I kept asking him why is he removing that certain section but never received a proper answer, my guess is he simply doesn't like it. Well I do not think this is how we are supposed to edit wikipedia's pages, that page is not about why and if or should football clubs add stars to their badge, but simply a list of clubs that have done such a thing, and Esteghlal F.C is one of them as well. I definitely need some explanations for being blocked again? I did everything correctly (at least in my own opnion), asked him for his reasons, warned him a couple of times and reported him at the end, so why was I blocked again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathlu (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

I see 5 "undo" edits by you of the other user in the last two weeks at that article. I definitely see it as edit warring as well. Continuing to revert another user is NOT doing everything correctly. At no point do I see you opening a discussion on the article's talk page. I don't see you asking outside users for input. This is a valid block for edit warring. only (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2017 (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.

Tehran Provincial League

I've moved the article to Draft:Tehran Province League to allow more time for sourcing. Please make sure you follow WP:N and WP:RS before you request for it to be moved back. Thanks, ansh 666 18:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not believe we are still talking about notability of this League. --vathlu (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said you'd add sourcing, and you didn't. None of the three you added even mention the league. No sources = no notability, no matter what a wikiproject essay says should be notable. ansh 666 10:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add source because I did not have enough time, currently I am working on this article on Persian wikipedia and in its history page you can see it is all me editing and updating the page because I nominated it as a good article

Two of the sources I added mention the league, on fifa.com article you can read: The club have not looked back since then, dominating the local scene, the local scene: tehran provincial league and again: the club would spent the 1950's and 1960's cementing their place within the country's top tier. Although there was not a national league during those days, they were rampant in the local competitions, local competitions: Tehran local league. And the Persian language varzesh3.com says: اولین بار فوتبال در تهران با مسابقاتی که بین موسساتی مثل بانک شاهی و تلگرافی انجام می‌ شد، آغاز شد و از سال 1301 مسابقات باشگاه های تهران آغاز شد. which translates to For the first time football in Tehran started with matches between teams like royal bank and royal telegraph and since 1301 (1922) Tehran Clubs Championship started. Also I do have numerous resources in Persian language and if they are ok with you, I will be adding them very soon.--vathlu (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus honours

Hi, Vathlu. I seem to have missed your post on my talk page before, as I've only just seen it. Sorry about that. Anyway, the honours list fails featured list criterion 3b, which states that an FL "does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Since much of the content is present at the records and statistics list, the honours list is in violation of that criterion and would likely be opposed at FLC. The fact that the titles in friendly competitions are totally unsourced would also be a problem in an FLC, as FLs are required to have their content cited to reliable sources. I wish I had better news for you, but I have to be honest when asked for an opinion on a list's readiness for FLC, and I think this one wouldn't have a good chance for promotion in its current form. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blue of Esteghlal (film series)

The article Blue of Esteghlal (film series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NFILM, and not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources 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} 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Esteghlalish Blue (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esteghlalish Blue (film series), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteghlalish Blue (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taj Varzeshi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taj Varzeshi 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/Taj Varzeshi 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.

IamMM (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of foreign players of Esteghlal F.C.

The article List of foreign players of Esteghlal F.C. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NLIST failure as there lacks coverage of this as a group or set.

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. Let'srun (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]