User talk:Ala.academics

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bingobro were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 User:Ala.academics/sandbox 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 User:Ala.academics/sandbox, 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, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ala.academics/sandbox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bingobro&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ala.academics/sandbox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

Userpage content moved to draft
Hi, I saw you had said "created article" when you added the content to your user page. I've move the content to the draft space where you can improve it and submit it for review (its currently not submitted). As for your user page its blank for now but you may wish to add something there. Also, if you are unaware of how top create an article/draft I'd suggest you check out the tea house, where you can ask questions related to editing Wikipedia or ask me or anyone else on the respective talk page. Thank you! Bingo bro  (Chat)  08:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

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 User:Ala.academics/sandbox 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 User:Ala.academics/sandbox, 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, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ala.academics/sandbox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan_arndt&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ala.academics/sandbox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

AfC notification: Draft:Sharif Moghaddam has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sharif Moghaddam. Thanks! KartikeyaS (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharif Moghaddam (February 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kieran207 was:

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:Sharif Moghaddam 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:Sharif Moghaddam, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sharif_Moghaddam Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kieran207&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sharif_Moghaddam reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kieran207 ( talk - Contribs ) 02:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Ala.academics (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account?
 * You don't. That's not an option provided by the software. You can walk away from the account and never edit again. You can scramble the password so you can't get back in, and remove your email from the system so you can't be sent password reset emails, and file a request to have the accoun name changed to some unrecognizable keyboard-pounding 8ftoaYTOHYNDRGK. But the account will still be on the servers. DS (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To add on to this, please take a look at Courtesy vanishing. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

But, is this violation of Human Rights?
Please help me with... But, is this violation of Human Rights? Ala.academics (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Please see previous answers to your question. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no human right to delete a Wikipedia account. If a law in your country requires Wikipedia to take some sort of action regarding the disposition of your account, you will need to communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation, see this page- but I don't think Wikipedia has a physical presence in Iran to be subject to its laws. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account?
Please help me with... How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? Ala.academics (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can destroy the Internet and human civilization. With no Internet, there will be no Wikipedia accounts. Or you can get in your time machine and prevent yourself from ever having created a Wikipedia account in the first place. Or you can accept that Wikipedia does not provide the option to delete accounts, because the terms of the Creative Commons require that every edit be attributed to an account. You are asking for something that is not possible. You can continue to ask for it all you want, but that will not change the facts of the situation. Your account can be banned from ever editing again, it can be renamed to hide the fact that it was ever connected to you, its password can be scrambled, but the account itself cannot be deleted. DS (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, accounts cannot be deleted. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To clarify for your benefit:
 * Accounts cannot be outright deleted because first, there is no technical means to do so, and second, legally all edits must be attributable to someone. Once you make an edit, it belongs to Wikipedia; you are warned about this with every post("By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.").
 * Most people who wish to stop participating at Wikipedia simply stop using their account and leave. If your account is in good standing, and you intend to never return, you may request a courtesy vanishing that randomizes your username and does some other things like delete user pages.  That's the closest you will get to deletion. I hope this clarifies things for you. As I said(and I was serious), there is no human right to completely remove your account from Wikipedia.  If a law in your country requires Wikipedia to do something in particular with your account, you need to communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation as I note above.  They have lawyers that keep them informed on various laws around the world, but they could have missed one. If you have any other questions, please ask here, but please stop repeating your question around Wikipedia.  The answer will not change. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

== How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you. ==

Please help me with... Ala.academics (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC) How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you.
 * I don't know how to make this more clear. You cannot delete your account. If you would like to leave Wikipedia, just log out and don't use your account again. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you persist in asking, your account may be blocked, and if it is blocked, you will be unable to request a vanishing. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bluntly put, accounts cannot be deleted for legal and technical reasons. This is literally the most straightforward explanation. If you cannot accept it, that's your fault and not ours. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 01:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived
Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath. Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.
 * We actually agree that Wikipedia is not a scholarly work; Wikipedia exists to summarize what others say. You got a response to your question, you just didn't like it. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If you continue to post your complaints all over Wikipedia, you will be blocked to stop your disruption. Your question has been answered by very experienced editors. You will not get a different answer if you keep asking over and over again. Your options--stop editing and abandon your account, ask for a courtesy vanishing--have been explained. Or you could go out in a blaze of disruption and just be blocked indefinitely if you persist in your disruption. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sharif Moghaddam
Hello, Ala.academics. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sharif Moghaddam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sharif Moghaddam


Hello, Ala.academics. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sharif Moghaddam".

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. If 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)