User talk:PayamAvarwand

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Persian Gulf

[edit]

@PayamAvarwand Given your previous block, it's best not to repeat the disruptive edits that led to it. Skitash (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Are you threatening me for trying to correct the false information? PayamAvarwand (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive because the Wikipedia community have decided that this is the best way to refer to the alternative name in this RfC. You can't say you are not aware of this because there was a warning in the text of the article not to change the wording because of this RfC, which you ignored. So, yes, cut out this WP:TENDENTIOUS approach or you will be blocked. And to be perfectly clear, there are plenty of reliable sources that justify the statement that it is "sometimes" called the Arabian Gulf:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The article is rightly called Persian Gulf but you can't pretend that others, mainly Arab countries, call it by a different name, whether you like it or not. Grow up. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Tendentious editing" means bad, and that is what I am not! Probably normal for you to insult others, but please stop talk like this to me!
[16]: This book has been written 1994, it is not valid for such an old Topic.
[17]: This book has been published 2009, it is not valid for such an old Topic.
[18]: This book has been written 2005, it is not valid for such an old Topic.
[19]: This book has been published 2008, it is not valid for such an old Topic.
[20]: This has been published 2023
[21]: This has been published 2000
[22]: 2023 and just a news platform
[23]: 2025
[24]: 2024
Are you kidding me? PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW @PhilKnight PayamAvarwand is now copy-pasting the same message onto multiple users' talk pages, which is clearly disruptive.[25][26][27][28][29] The content they're trying to remove (which led to their block in the first place) was the subject of an RfC, and they're now restoring a vandal's edit to that same article. Skitash (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email block, consequent on email abuse and unconstructive response to a message about it

[edit]
I have blocked you from sending emails. You do not need to receive individual warnings about each and every kind of unacceptable action you take; any further disruptive or unconstructive actions from you may lead to being blocked, without further warning. JBW (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have removed my comment above from its original context, and placed it so that it appears to be a response to your comment above it, whereas you know full well that it was in fact posted as a response to the comment you made in answer to HistoryofIran's message about email abuse. Changing the setting of another editor's post so as to give a misleading impression of what it was about is unacceptable. Either restore my message to its proper context or remove it completely. JBW (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably we made changes at the same time!! no Idea! but I have added your comment up there, and it's correct now! PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are really pushing your luck. I see that: (1) you have decided not to comply with my request to correct the misleading impression you made; (2) you have posted nonsense about "[making] changes at the same time" and claiming to have had "no idea", which anyone who checks the editing history of this page will see is a lie. I am putting a section heading above my comment which you moved, to remove it from its misleading context, but even minor incidents like this add up, and sooner or later one of them could become the last straw on the block-camel's back. JBW (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was my free time I have tried to use it for contribution in an important topic, and this is your job to do something.
"...claiming to have had "no idea", which anyone who checks the editing history of this page"
Of course I checked, but found nothing! I still have no idea what you are talking about!
I always heard from our professors in Iran in small cities: "Do Not Trust Every Internet Pages, Especially Not Wikipedia Articles".
Imagine your weapon is the BLOCK feature, and you use it so often and so easy! Who knows what you do with a real weapon! And you are an admin in Wikipedia!
Now I am sure of his recommendation. Bye Bye PayamAvarwand (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the edit in which I posted my message about the email block: [30]. 2 hours and fifty minutes later, in this edit, you removed my message from where it was on the page and put it in another section. That was clearly a deliberate change, you were well aware of what you were doing. JBW (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because I wanted to follow your topic in the appropriate section, not in the other one from other user! This is my talk page. But I have not removed anything, just shifted, or moved some other things to the archive, because I noticed, some people abuse my old discussions to treat me badly.--PayamAvarwand (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask you to please remove "This account is a suspected sockpuppet of PayamAvarwand ..." in this page?: User:P.AvarwandArabianGulf
It has nothing to do with me, except that my name was misused.PayamAvarwand (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, particularly (but not only) in refusing to accept consensus concerning the issue of names of the Persian Gulf. Almost everyone who does a substantial amount of editing will sometimes find that there is a clear consensus which they believe is wrong; those of us who accept (however reluctantly) the consensus and move on survive as editors; those of us who persist indefinitely in trying to get our own way don't.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just wanted to talk more about the 'Persian Gulf' topic, not more.PayamAvarwand (talk)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you:
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. asilvering (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2025 (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.

--PayamAvarwand (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) Hi @PayamAvarwand, please keep only one request open at a time. Having multiple requests open will not speed up your review time. I don't understand what you're saying; could you please tell us what you did wrong, what steps will you take to prevent this issue from occurring in the future, and what edits you intend to make if you are unblocked? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 16:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it should be a misunderstanding about removing or shifting the messages, I just explained it up there! And the main issue was related to the Persian Gulf, I have no idea, everytime I try to collect information about it, I will be blocked! If it's forbidden in this environment to talk about a certain topic, I won't anymore. PayamAvarwand (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because:

1- now I know that to avoid misunderstandings or text loss during a conversation, it is best not to change or move the conversation messages.
2- now I know that the Wikipedia community have already decided that Persian Gulf is sometimes called with another name.

PayamAvarwand (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=the block is no longer necessary because: 1- now I know that to avoid misunderstandings or text loss during a conversation, it is best not to change or move the conversation messages.<br> 2- now I know that the Wikipedia community have already decided that Persian Gulf is sometimes called with another name. [[User:PayamAvarwand|PayamAvarwand]] ([[User talk:PayamAvarwand#top|talk]]) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=the block is no longer necessary because: 1- now I know that to avoid misunderstandings or text loss during a conversation, it is best not to change or move the conversation messages.<br> 2- now I know that the Wikipedia community have already decided that Persian Gulf is sometimes called with another name. [[User:PayamAvarwand|PayamAvarwand]] ([[User talk:PayamAvarwand#top|talk]]) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=the block is no longer necessary because: 1- now I know that to avoid misunderstandings or text loss during a conversation, it is best not to change or move the conversation messages.<br> 2- now I know that the Wikipedia community have already decided that Persian Gulf is sometimes called with another name. [[User:PayamAvarwand|PayamAvarwand]] ([[User talk:PayamAvarwand#top|talk]]) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Dear Friends, if this account is going to remain blocked, please let me know it!--PayamAvarwand (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to consider unblocking you, but I need some more clarity about how you will avoid the problems concerned.
  • The thing about moving a talk page post was a minor thing, and I suppose I over-reacted to it. Don't worry too much about that.
  • What you say in your unblock request concerning the "Persian Gulf" issue is fine, but I would prefer to have it more definite, to avoid possible misunderstanding. Are you willing to undertake not to do any editing, anywhere, connected to the Persian Gulf, for at least three months? (Note: that really does mean any editing, anywhere; even a brief mention on a user talk page would be excluded.)
  • Are you willing to undertake not to post multiple copies of any message to different pages, such as different editors' talk pages?
  • Are you willing to undertake not to send emails which are provocative or taunting, of which may be seen as unconstructive by their recipients?
  • That is not an exhaustive list of every problem that may arise, and if you are unblocked you will need to be very careful to avoid other problems. However, it goes a significant way towards covering the problems which led to this block, so it should help. JBW (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Persian Gulf" in Wikipedia is not important for me anymore, and I won't mention it in Wikipedia anymore, at least for next 3 monthes.
    I won't post multiple copies of a message anywhere.
    provocative or taunting E-Mail! It was my mistake, I thought the user is an admin in Wikipedia, I have asked him for help, but he ignored me in a bad way, and I answered him! That was my bad luck answering a person who ignore me! PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The email was intentionally taunting. Pretending that the only problem with it was "bad luck answering a person who ignore[d] [you]" is disingenuous. I am not willing to unblock someone who will not acknowledge or address the reasons for being blocked. JBW (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @JBW, I completely accept that I wrote him something Sarcastic. But if you track his talk page, you will see, the problems the others have with him prove that his acts and reactions are kind of provocative and strange! No matter for me anymore!
As you see:
  • when I remain calm and professional, someone will make a fake account with my name > you block me!
  • once I will answer in the same way back. > you block me!
I still don't want to accept that we are living in a bad world, that's why I asked for unblock. PayamAvarwand (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave you an opportunity to agree to three points, with a view to unblocking you if you did so. On one of those three points, not only have you declined to accept my offer, but you have doubled down on your unacceptable action, and attempted to imply that it was justified because it was a retaliation to what you regard as undesirable actions by HistoryofIran, including matters in the past unrelated to the incident you were involved in. If you exhibit such a combative battleground approach to other editors as part of trying to be unblocked then I can have no faith whatsoever that you will not do likewise again if you are unblocked. Likewise if you are unwilling to agree not to send unacceptable emails then it is impossible to avoid the impression that you are likely to do so again. I reached out to offer you a chance to get unblocked, but you have chosen not to take up my offer. If either PhilKnight or any other administrator is willing to take a more lenient view of what you have said, they are free to unblock you without consulting me (though I hope they will inform me) but as far as I am concerned there is no question of doing so. JBW (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you are unwilling to agree not to send unacceptable emails then it is impossible to avoid the impression that you are likely to do so again.
  • I am agree with that, to not sending unacceptable messages.
  • And I will never send E-Mails to others, I thought, it was the request of that user to write an E-Mail, because he asked me not to write him in his talk!
  • And what you saw (including: ...who are you? What do you want? Do you need any help?...) was my last message.
PayamAvarwand (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JBW, I have not declined to accept your offer, and I have not doubled down on my actions, which seemed unacceptable! Actually, I am reading my messages, and I see that I wrote:
  • I completely accept that I wrote him something Sarcastic.
  • I am agree with that, to not sending unacceptable messages.
  • Now I know that to avoid misunderstandings or text loss during a conversation, it is best not to change or move the conversation messages.
  • Now I know that the Wikipedia community have already decided that Persian Gulf is sometimes called with another name.
That means, of course, I will never repeat something like that, and I will accept the Wikipedia community decisions.
I don't think Infinite Block is appropriate and fair for me! PayamAvarwand (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot reach https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ due to blocking! PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]