User talk:IranianDiaspora

Welcome!

Hello, IranianDiaspora!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Chris Murphy. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there. News articles were written about the Logan Act and the Tweet is still there. There are references to the tweets too. 2600:1700:3BDE:2010:D5B:1940:280:A61F (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference didn't say that Murphy met with the foreign minister "secretly", and the Logan Act comment came from Trump and is complete nonsense as Murphy was there as a U.S. Senator, not a private citizen. It was a "poorly referenced" addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will add the news article that mentions he met him secretly. The publication that first brought this to light. 2600:1700:3BDE:2010:D5B:1940:280:A61F (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/18/after-stonewalling-for-days-sen-chris-murphy-finally-admits-he-secretly-met-with-iranian-regime-in-munich/ IranianDiaspora (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Chris Murphy. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP: The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions. Don't edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing my edits and flagging me? They are the ones that discovered the secret meeting. This is not a place to censure information. People have the right to know! I have never read their other articles but I assume you are a deeply partisan individual as well for trying to censure information. IranianDiaspora (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write it in a way that makes sense. It was a secret meeting, it was controversial, and that is why he wrote the medium article. You don't want that source, use another one. There are other publications that mention that. Do that instead of censuring. i even added the context that Trump called it a violation of Logan Act. IranianDiaspora (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write it in a way that makes sense. It was a secret meeting, it was controversial, and that is why he wrote the medium article. You don't want that source, use another one. There are other publications that mention that. Do that instead of censuring. I had even added the context that Trump called it a violation of Logan Act that you asked but you removed the whole thing.

Here is a citation that is not a violation of WP:RSP: https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-murphy-meeting-zarif-iran-foreign-minister IranianDiaspora (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:MAHSA Act

Hello, IranianDiaspora. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "MAHSA Act".

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. When 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. ✗plicit 02:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Bishonen | tålk 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert at George Soros

Hi, IranianDiaspora. Did you read the edit notice at George Soros, where it says, in a very in-your-face way when you go to edit the article, that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page"? You made a change here; I reverted it here; you should not have reinstated your original edit without first getting consensus for it on talk, but you did, here. Please self-revert and then try to get consensus on talk, or you may be blocked for violating a Contentious topic rule. Bishonen | tålk 23:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, sorry for the bad practice. I am no longer contesting this. Reverted my edit. IranianDiaspora (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 23:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Cori Bush

We need independent reliably published sources meeting our criteria at WP:RSN. Doing your own analysis of a source isn't allowed. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I added was not an analysis but a fact but a voting record on a bill with a rock solid reference. Voting records count as independent reliable sources. Please revert your revert. IranianDiaspora (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether the source is reliable, it is rather is the reason you want to use it encyclopedic/significant. And for that we need several reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's significance arises from it's uniqueness. When there are only 3 representatives voting against something it signals their difference. For example, you can check Barbara Lee's wiki page. Many of the reference are just voting records. For instance this sentence "Lee voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002", 133 members voted no including her and the only references are the roll calls. There should not be preferential biases. IranianDiaspora (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have gathered additional references, from Iranian (in Persian), Arabic sources (in English), and Jewish sources (in English). I will revert your revert and add the additional resources. IranianDiaspora (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter if other articles don’t follow our policies and guidelines, see [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content?. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had added 3 resources if you read my last comment. please revert your last revert. I am starting to feel there is bias to suppress this fact even with resources. IranianDiaspora (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I know nothing about Cori Bush and am against Islamaphobia, it don't see how I could have bias in the issue. Anyway I'm tired of this and have no time for it. So I'm not editing that article again. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take that as a consent to change it back. Rest assured this is not even remotely related to Islamophobia. She is a Christian pastor, not a Muslim and 2 out of the 3 Muslim members of the House voted yes on the bill which again does not have anything to do with religion. IranianDiaspora (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hi IranianDiaspora! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Cori Bush that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for letting me know. I was instructed to revert manually and wanted to add references, previously. I added the change not as 'Minor edit' IranianDiaspora (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]