Moretonian

Moretonian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Moretonian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persian famine of 1917–1919. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Persian famine of 1917–1919 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Moretonian. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mohammad Gholi Majd, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You seem to be what is known as a single purpose account if you have a link to Majd you must declare it. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

You must discuss on the talk page and stop reverting or you may be blocked. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Persian famine of 1917–1919

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to come to the article's talk page to discuss the additions that you wish to make. There has been previous concensus among editors about the death toll. If you have new elements to bring to support Majd's estimate this will need to be discussed as scholarly concensus outside of WP was that his figures were exaggerated. This discussion is included in the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I greatly regret the infraction. I am new and was unaware of the rule. I am a slow learner so please bear with me until I become more functional. Thank you. Moretonian (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

SPA account 2nd warning for COI

As I have already mentioned you seem to have a clear Conflict of interest You are what is known as an Single purpose account you must declare any links you have to Majid as your account is being used solely to push nd promote his works and point of view. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Persian famine of 1917–1919, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Domdeparis Thank you for your message and posting on the talk page of 1917-1919 famine. The 1922 book by the Hon. J.M. Balfour is widely cited in the literature and I will respond soon to the points you have raised. Regards, Moretonian (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Due to your disruptive editing, including conflict of interest editing, persistent use of self-published, unreliable sources and POV pushing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia articles. You can make well-referenced neutral edit requests on article talk pages. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Moretonian (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your below explanation does not cover the reasons you were blocked. Additionally, talk only about your actions, not those of others. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. Yamla (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Sir- Mohammad Gholi Majd has published 12 books: 9 with University Press of America, 2 with University Press of Florida, and 1 with Hamilton Books. There are at least 35 reviews of these books in scholarly journals that I am aware of. If there were problems with the works, the reviewers would have caught them, and the author discredited. As of January 2022, 7,462 copies had been catalogued by academic libraries worldwide.https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n99833332/ In addition, Majd is the author of a dozen articles published in refereed scholarly journals, including International Journal of Middle East Studies, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, and Journal of Peasant Studies. To call Majd's works "unreliable", and by implication dishonest, and impugning his character by repeatedly evoking the image of the "duplicitous oriental" should not be tolerated. I attach the talk pages of the Persian famine of 1917-1919 and Iranian famine of 1942-1943 The total lack of respect and civility displayed by reviewer TheTimesAreAChanging is remarkable. He even has the audacity, not to say insensitivity, to call the 1942-1943 Iranian famine a "putative famine", a "minor inconvenience". Tell it to the 3-4 million Iranians who starved in the famine or died of typhus and typhoid.

Majd's books on the WWI and WWII famines are based on American diplomatic archives, British official sources (published by HMSO), Persian newspapers, and memoirs of British and Iranian officials. He is the only person to have written books as well as a refereed article on the two famines in any language. There is NO OTHER source on the topics. So the remaining claims are really moot. I have pointed out to TheTimesAreAChanging that the documents are in the public domain and can be easily checked. And yet he persisted in calling the books "unreliable". As to disruptive editing, I submit that the rude and repeated reverting and removal of perfectly valid citations by TheTimesAreAChanging constitutes disruptive editing. Whether I am reinstated or not, I suggest Wikipedia should address the issue of this gentleman's behavior and treatment of users. I am sure I am not alone. Respectfully,Moretonian (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiyan Hakim. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)