User talk:Mehrshad123

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam Spade 12:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To those of you pondering my prolonged inactivity as editor on Wikipedia, I am continuing my protest of questionable activities by certain Wikipedia administrators including violation of Wikipedia's arbitration rules for the sake of personal interests and POV, fraudulent deletion of edit histories aimed at covering up disputed facts in order to falsely blame disputes on people they do not agree with for personal reasons and their gang-like alliances.

Everyone knows that Wikipedia is not the place for advertising people, products or POV for personal gain or for the benefit of corporations and yet these principles are repeatedly violated by these gangs of administrators.

I will continue to limit my edits to occasional minor fixes of articles in protest of these continued acts of fraud, cover-up and retaliaion.Mehrshad123 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: I was just passing through and reading your page -- I completely agree with you. 75.61.98.195 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you for the feedback and the guidelines.

Some of the suggestions you provided have been already fulfilled, and I will steadily strive to intensify my partnership in the coming months.

Regards. Mehrshad123 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Removed unnecessary RV from user "Swatjester" related to Tevanian article, my response follows>>>

Thanks for the lengthy comment, however my page had been attacked without explanation and I had to do a lengthy investigation to find out that two people, including yourself, were retaliating because a legitimate edit I had made to the Tevanian article. A more appropriate place for a discussion would have been on the Tevanian page, and the false accusations were totally uncalled for, especially considering that the reason for the retaliation was not initially clear. Also you mentioned that the Tevanian article and my RV cleanup was the reason my RFA had failed. You are mistaken. The RFA failed due to other reasons regarding minimum contribution requirements to Wikipedia which I currently do not meet. The quality of my contributions, and my response to RV has been exempulary and you are free to research that here. Mehrshad123 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, did you just call me a sockpuppet on my talkpage, or did I read that wrong? And I'm not sure what it is you are referring to by RV...RV is an abbreviation for "revert". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you just call me a sockpuppet on Swatjester's talk page, or did I read that wrong? Bete Noir 09:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mehrshad, Would you please take a look at Sparta. The current introduction says Sparta was a superpower that "overpowered" both Athens and Persia. I think this is wrong because the link says that a superpower is able to "project power on a worldwide scale;", which I think does not apply to Sparta. I have tried moving the text to farther down the article by users Miskin and Domitius insist on keeping it in the introduction. Regards, NN 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Sparta was a greek City State, not a superpower - either militarily or geographically. I will take a look at the article for you...Mehrshad123 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrshad, Thanks for your work with Sparta. The current introduction certainly is not balanced. Classical times stretched over a thousand years, and Sparta was strong militarily for only a small part of this. Also note you have already made 3 reverts, so as per Wiki policy you cannot do any more for the next 24 hours. Regards, NN 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He sure "took a look alright". Speaking of 3 reverts already, your "look" is by default equivalent to rv-warring. Miskin 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you are missing the point - and I am already aware of the 3 revert rule and you must have seen it written above so what was the point of this?Mehrshad123 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrshad123, take it from me. Revert warriors rarely become admins and those with a record of 3RR violations extremely rarely become admins. I was just trying to ensure that you knew about it - if you already knew and my notification was redundant there's no need to get upset.--Domitius 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this: [1] NN 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I have filed a protest and a request for a change to the protected page... Mehrshad123 05:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message on my talk page. Thanks for your efforts. NN 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved with an apology from Yannismarou. Thanks for your time. Please try to be polite and stay within Wiki policy. That is the best way to make sure your voice is heard, as I think my case demonstrates. NN 14:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear it was settled favorably according to policy. Thanks for the tip! Mehrshad123 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Reza Shah, you will be blocked from editing. Faranbazu 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (last warning)[reply]

According to the discussions page, the consensus from the editors is that you are the vandal. I was simply restoring the page after you repeatedly vandalized it with political POV. Regarding "blocking" me - please be my guest! :) Mehrshad123 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faranbazu, congratulations on getting yourself and your sockpuppets banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. Mehrshad123 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doroud, Mehrshad. Could you please enable receiving email from other users in your preferences? I would like to contact you. Shervink 08:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Shervink[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Shervin. It should be fixed now. Please let me know if you still cannot get through. Mehrshad123 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mehrshad, I hope you and Shervin continue to contribute in wikipedia. However it is important that both of you try to rely on facts. I know that in the Middle East people are found of conspiracy theories. But in an incyclopedia one needs facts. In fact, if you guys want to be monarchist, its your choice. However, trying to make guys like Reza khan, Hitler, or Stalin look good is absurd and futile. Cheers Faranbazu 04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faranbazu, thanks for the stupid and inflamatory comment. And if I was a "Middle East Person", I might know what you are talking about. On another note, you have commited yet another violation of wikipedia policy in removing the Sockpuppet tag from your user page. [2]

There is no need to place the sockpuppetry removal warning on both Faranbazu's talk page and the article talk page. Just keep it on Farahbazu's page, thanks. The Behnam 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reinstate them until there is a good reason to. The petition is already mentioned enough. To talk about it more is giving it undue weight, and to use the site as a source is not reliable. The changes you made did not improve the article. Anyway, I started a section on the talk page to discuss your edit, so reply there if you still object. See Talk:300 (film)#Online petition. The Behnam 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that an online petition is "official". I suggest that you not reinstate your edit again, and don't give me orders. Thanks. The Behnam 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have reliable sources mentioning the petitions so I don't know why you insist upon adding the claims linked & derived from a petition's webpage. It is simply not necessary, in addition to not being in accord with WP source requirements.

No, we really aren't seeing fact-checking and reliability with that website. Please read WP:RS. Besides, some of what you were adding seemed to be your own conclusion based upon the Greek names in the petition, and hence violated WP:NOR. In any case, the reliability issue is the main thing here, so I again recommend you don't add that back into the article. Cheers. The Behnam 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to get upset. PetitionsOnline.com is a widely used resource for collecting electronic signatures which have been legislated as a valid as a paper and ink. Mehrshad123 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you accuse me of being upset; I am just explaining policy to you. Also, why did you copy this response from my talk page over here too? Anyway, if you aren't going to add anything more to your defense of the inclusion I think we are done on this matter. The Behnam 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the MSN Associated Press article which was provided as the second of two sources - or is that an "unreliable" as well? When someone tells me not to give them orders and then starts giving me orders (look above) then obviously they are upset. Mehrshad123 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you suggestions, not orders. Anyway, I view your new edition as simply an expansion of the former version so I don't really have a problem with it. Perhaps other users will consider it unnecessary to expand that in the lead, but I will let them argue that. I did remove an informal wording ("ever-increasing amount"). I believe we are settled on this matter. Have a good one. The Behnam 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did order you not to give me orders, but that's about it. The Behnam 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why petitions (online or otherwise) are not very reliable is that there is a lot of potential fraud with their use and subsequent citation. I am sure I could go to 100 very opinionated guys who are good with computers and tell them to create a petition against the sun being too bright, and they could quite easily generate a petition thousands of names long, from different IP addresses with different names. If you think that's far-fetched, something very much like that happens a great deal specifically in political campaigns. The petition might be genuine, but because of the potential for fraud, they are not reliable, as per WP:RS. I hope that explains things. Arcayne 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar analogy can be made about traditional "paper and ink" petitions. I don't think there is much of a motive here for people to submit many signatures since it has no material benefit besides making a statement of protest. It was a judgement call on my part to consider it as very convincing evidence that thousands do not approve of certain aspects of 300's content. (And yes I signed it too, as well as many Greeks) Mehrshad123 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk:Reza Shah: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Specifically this edit [3], where you called another user a "troll." The Behnam 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this meant to go on the page of the troll that was attacking all the editors including me? Mehrshad123 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten User:TheBenham with a 3RR complaint. His edits are called good-faith edits, and do not meet the criteria for 3RR, which is usually used to term those edits which are solely designed to create an edit war.Arcayne 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to apologize for putting this comment on your User Page instead of here. Oops. Arcayne 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please could you please refer me to this "threat"? Mehrshad123 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Mehrshad, I have added two new references Keddie and Sullivan. Would it be agreeable to you? I have alot more, but it is time cosuming to type everything. You asked me if I am turk, I wonder what gave you this idea. I am of Persian stock. Would you please let me know what is the evidence on me being sock puppets? The tag you put in my user page says that if you have not created the evidence page linked to my user page I can remove the tag.

I am not bothered by that tag. It can stay as long as you desire. However, I don't like it when you remove my edits, which are well supported by citations. If you need more citations please feel free to demand, and I will provide you. After all, this is my field. I also appreciate if you can support your arguments with valid citations. Cheers Faranbazu 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the nonesense. You are working against many editors of many backgrounds and ethnicities. Mehrshad123 10:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you please be kind enough to let me know what do you mean? All I ask you is to provide support for your argument. This is the way disputes are resolved.Faranbazu 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? What do you call the sources and arguments presented on the Reza Shah Discussion page over the last week by myself and the other editors? Mehrshad123 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given any reference by a credible source that Reza Shah was not a Nazi sympatizer?

Faranbazu 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the discussion was about. You are changing the subject, or you are saying that we should write lies about him because he is a "nazi sympathizer" in your words. Mehrshad123 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But there are hundreds of references in English, French, and even German that verify he was so. What reason do you have that he was not.
• if you are refering to "Master Race" discussion again there are numerous documents that prove Reza Shah Believed that Aryans are a superior race. Faranbazu 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, a quick note to explain why I've removed this passage (I've explained it on talk, but it's been archived and perhaps not so easy to find):

Since its release, ''300'' has stirred up controversy with accusers labelling it as part of a series of Hollywood films with political overtones aimed predominantly at [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]] and other Asian cultures.<ref name="Iranians outraged over hit movie ‘300’"> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/?GT1=9145]</ref>

Unless I'm missing something, the AP story cited says nothing about "a series of Hollywood films" (it only mentions 300), nor about "other Asian cultures." So really we're left with "stirred up controversy"; which is reflected in the last line of the lead as it currently stands. Best, --Javits2000 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank everyone in helping successfully expose the troll User:Faranbazu /User:Artaxerex and his "meatpupets" and "sockpuppets": [4]

Confirmed and suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets of User:Artaxerex

User:Yima

User:Faranbazu

User:Napht

User:Melca

User:Arteban1

User:140.80.199.91

We have yet to successfully enforce rules regarding personal attacks from the above trolls but the most important part of the work has been done. Again, thank you very much for donating so much of your time for the sake of Truth and Fact.

Now let's get the Reza Shah page unlocked so we can begin the long process of undoing all the vandalism over the last few months!

Mehrshad123 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the article because it has been 17 days since it was fully protected. Please note that the article was protected due to an Edit war, and protection is not an endorsement of the protected version (see m:The Wrong Version). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. Mehrshad123 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stay civil. Your posts on Talk:Reza Shah and elsewhere have been grossly uncivil and I do not recommend that you continue on this course. And it has been noticed that you put my name in quotes, and appropriate judgments have been made. Cheers. The Behnam 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that a person with a history of Personal Attacks against my self and others as well as vandalism of my User Talk page should make such a statemant. This is another request for you to Please read Wikipedia policy before "preaching" to myself and others again. Mehrshad123 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is in the corresponding section of my user talk page. Cheers. The Behnam 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post to User:Betacommand. He isn't an admin anymore, so I doubt he can help you. Plus, with the flurry of hate mail that his bot has stirred up, he probably won't respond to you any time soon. I'm not sure the right place to go, but you might try WP:SPAM. I would guess that they have a link to the list of blocked sites or whatever committee oversees this. --GentlemanGhost 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Please have a look at this, since you are listed as an involved party on this request. Shervink 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 22:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned arbitration case is closed. Artaxerex is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. The parties are reminded of the need to adhere closely to the neutral point of view policy. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorood bar shoma, mikhastam bebinam age mitooni ba man yeh tamas begir; koollifeg at yahoo com ...moheme. Sepas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armaiti (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, These users are all one person (It's all the game this man playing with us), and he just wanna denounce the alliance of greens! Usually these users have no stable political and even a normal belief, Somedays ago he accused me as a separatist! we cann't understand what's their main point ! --Parthava (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia is not for soap-boxing, keep your opinions about X or Y movement to yourself (2) Your edit on Farokhzad constitutes original research, all reliable sources name the Islamic Republic as the main suspect in his murder. This is sourced, you're not allowed to remove this, unless you have a WP:RS that disputes this. (3) Please read WP:3RR, and stop making so many reverts on that page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are making false accusations in order to cover up your political movement on wikipedia. Nice try, but all I did was remove unsourced propaganda material you put there. No new information was added aside what was already in sources provided by other editors. DO NOT TOUCH THIS ARTICLE AGAIN!--Mehrshad123 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've given up on this a long time ago. There are just so many of these fanboys of traitor Green movement flooding wiki with propaganda that it's impossible to make any green related article neutral at the moment. But maybe in a year time or so, when the movement has completely died down (it's already mostly dead since the Ashura terror) some of these articles can be re-written.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Greco-Persian Wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.128.9 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Fereydoun Farrokhzad, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- Atama頭 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the matter. The editors in question, Alefbe, CordeliaNaismith and others are deliberately posting false information into articles related to Iran as part of an anti-Iranian political campaign on Wikipedia which they are promoting on their discussion pages. If you read the discussion page for the Fereydun Farkhzad article, the personal attacks are from Alefbe and CordeliNaismith not me. Also CordeliNaismith's claim that "Alefbe" started the discussion on this topic is a lie as much as the false content this editor is deliberately posting on Wikipedia in Iran-related articles. I was the one that started the discussion (titled "Please help clean up Fabricated Content..."): In fact Alefbe IGNORED this discussion and encouraged CordeliNaismith to also ignore the discussion, specifically saying things like "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion.". If anyone is starting a Personal Attack it is Alefbe, and I am the victim, not the perpatrator. My response to the vandalism and edit war has been exteremely patient and civil. I responded to Alefbe's vandalism and edit war on his discussion page as follows: No one doubts Farokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government, however his main target was Islam as a religion, more than the government - The sources provided in the article suggest that he may have been murdered by an arab hit squad operating in Europe. This "editor" ignored my comments and contributions as usual and reposted the same lies in the article by simply doing a full revision. I strongly suggest this group of editors be (at the very least) warned about the consequences of their exteremly rude and inapropriate behavior!--Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already spoken to Alefbe regarding their failure to rely on discussion to resolve disputes, and specifically the request to squelch discussion that you've cited. But you can't accuse people of being members of political organizations if they haven't declared such on Wikipedia, that's harassment per WP:OUTING which we are strongly against, and when those organizations are also considered terrorist organizations, such accusations are also considered personal attacks. Ignore such affiliations, focus on the inappropriate inclusion of information and don't focus or even draw attention to what you suspect about the people behind those edits. You've also warned editors to not edit the article any more, which is a violation of WP:OWN (see your response to Kurdo777 above). I disagree that you've been civil in the discussion on the talk page of the article, ending a paragraph by saying "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE!" is not being calm at all. Take it down a notch. -- Atama頭 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add, if you leave a message on someone's talk page, and they remove it, don't put it back, per WP:HUSH. An editor removing a message you leave is acknowledging that they have read the message, and it's not necessary to restore it. -- Atama頭 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to emphasize that most of the sources they were citing can be traced to the MKO, which suggested an affiliation. As stated earlier, the discussion pages of these editors clearly have tags which show political afficliations and personal involvement in related anti-Iranian political movements - this automatically disqualifies them from editing such articles as per Wikipedia rules which I am certain you are already familiar with.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing sources to the MKO is fine. Not only fine, but very useful in determining the reliability of those sources. Accusing editors of being terrorists is very, very, very far from fine. You need to stop doing so from this point on, I'm giving you a chance to keep your clean block record here, especially as you've been very civil with me so far and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nobody you've claimed to have affiliations to such groups have much of anything on their user pages (Alefbe's is even blank), nor have they in the past (I checked the history of their pages). Even if they did declare political affiliations, our conflict of interest guidelines don't discriminate for religious or political beliefs, only for having ties to organizations or other direct links to the subjects they are editing about. And even if they did have conflicts of interest, it still wouldn't automatically prevent them from being able to edit those articles, it would just bring their edits extra scrutiny. The bottom line is, stop accusing people of spreading propaganda for, or being members of terrorist groups. If sources aren't reliable, then make your case about those sources, but only comment on sources and article content, not editors. Thank you. -- Atama頭 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, this is a very serious accusation. Could you please show me where I referred to someone as a terrorist? I think you've made a mistake here. The MKO is an anti-Iranian political organization with thousands of members, many of whom are now active on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of planting propaganda especially after the June elections. It has been classified by the U.S. as well as the Iranian government as a "terrorist organization", however it has offices in Europe which operate as a political wing, and even if I did accuse someone of being "MKO", that does not imply that they are a terrorist.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mehrshad, I think that it would make it much easier to discuss this article if you would remember to assume good faith. I'm not really understanding your objection to the current article version, and also am not especially appreciating the personal attacks. In particular, I'd appreciate if you could refactor your latest comment. The version that you keep reverting this article to just does not have sources for the disputed bits. If you think that I am trying to push some political agenda here, why don't you start a request for comment so that some uninvolved editors can take a look at the article? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia, beautifully put. However, the lie you wrote about me in the "secret complaint" you and Alefbe filed against me was immediatley recognized and shot down. You have established yourself as a Liar and a Vandal. And you still insist on us taking your propaganda edits seriously?--Mehrshad123 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood my comment on ANI, I didn't say that Alefbe started the conversation, but that he participated in it, which is true. Try having another look at it, and please calm down. If you continue with personal attacks like these, you will almost certainly get blocked. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to misunderstand. You very clearly lied. And you are lying again right now! Do you really think we are that stupid?--Mehrshad123 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (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).

Mehrshad123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reasoning for this block is absolutely FALSE. I was not POV pusing but simply removing the POV's of anti-Iran political groups posing as editors operating in Wikipedia over the last several weeks. The users that were spearheading this campaing are Alefbe and CordeliaNaismith. They have made false accusations against me because of my opposition to their propaganda campaign. The information being posted in articles is absolutely false or politically motivated POV or both. The user CordeliaNaismith began his/her "editiing career" at Wikipedia with a MASSIVE barrage of new articles of people allegedly "executed" in Iran as well as lopsided allegations of Human rights abuses in Iran. I have checked the sources being posted by this user and they have no relevance to the material being introduced into the articles by these people. CordeliaNaismith's history of propaganda planting can be seen in the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=CordeliaNaismith&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2009&month=-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091115070439&limit=500&contribs=user&target=CordeliaNaismith

Furthermore, contrary to the Admin "Akama"'s claims, who blocked me, I did NOT accuse anyone of being a terrorist, nor did I engage in any of the other activities he was repeatedly accusing me of. I demand an apology from this admin for taking sides with propagandist/vandals who use personal attacks and falsified sources to push their agendas. My edits, as you can verify, are mostly on Ancient Classical History articles. I am simply maintining articles being planted by political propaganda in response to an alarming increase on anti-Iran propaganda on Wikipedia by users who are using Wikipedia as a political platform (You can verify this on the respective user's talk pages such as that of user Alefbe.) Once again I demand immediate removal of this block as well as an apology.

Decline reason:

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_and_personal_attacks_by_user:Mehrshad123. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (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.

No, you can't undo an admin's declining of your unblock request. That should be self-evident. Talk page access revoked. Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how you explain this away as "not POV pushing". Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]