User talk:Amir ghpro

Mehran Ghafourian moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mehran Ghafourian, 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. CUPIDICAE💕 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop flooding random users' talk pages with the same question over and over again. For a faster response, you might be better off asking that question at the Teahouse. --Streetlampguy301 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Mozaffari moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Majid Mozaffari, 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. CUPIDICAE💕 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Majid Mozaffari (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Majid Mozaffari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Majid Mozaffari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Majid Mozaffari (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Subject STILL fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Majid Mozaffari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Majid Mozaffari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amir ghpro! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Aliasghar ghorbandokht per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht. 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) 19:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Hello I do not really understand You have linked me to this person since the first day I created the account. There is no logical reason. Is it wrong to create a different article for a person who has already been blocked by a user? That is, no one should create for them until the end? Amir ghpro (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Possible sockpuppetry. I find it implausible that you would have no relationship to the other account, given the technical evidence and given the specific overlap in editing. Yamla (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why did you block my account? This is an obvious conflict Amir ghpro (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

my friend Believe me, I have nothing to do with it. You have been slandering me from day one. I am an independent user. How should I say to believe. Please and please be careful my friend I have not heard the name of this person at all, then how can I be related. Please check my friend Amir ghpro (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Slander is a legal term and using it is close to a legal threat, which is blockable. The rest of your request is a denial in the face of behavioral and technical evidence, which is not persuasive. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

my friend Believe me, I have nothing to do with it. You have been slandering me from day one. I am an independent user. How should I say to believe. Please and please be careful my friend I have not heard the name of this person at all, then how can I be related. Please check my friend Amir ghpro (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

my friend Believe me, I'm not that person All edits were irrelevant. My behavior, if similar, was completely random. I have not made any malicious edits. If I was guilty, I would not ask so much for an appeal. I was just getting good grades on Wikipedia. On the one hand, an understanding was prevented from doing so. Please, dear admins, be careful. I'm not related to the blocked person! Amir ghpro (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd say that you are a sock puppet based on just the behavioral evidence. Even if, by some extraordinary coincidence, you're not the same person, it doesn't matter all that much. If you act just like a blocked person, you will be treated as if you are that person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I have nothing to do with this person. If I behave like this person unintentionally and accidentally, I will correct that behavior. And I work in a different way. Please do not deprive me of a mistake or a random resemblance Amir ghpro (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You keep making the same request, basically. So let me give you a more direct answer: we never unblock accounts that have been blocked as sockpuppets just because they say they are not sockpuppets. If we did ... well, what would be the point of having a sockpuppetry policy, then? Hmm? Since this is your fourth version of this same request I am revoking access to your talk page after this because it's clear we're all wasting time here. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]