User talk:Ankhsoprah2

Hassan Ghashghavi
We will still need to find articles that provide "significant coverage" of Ghashghavi, such as background information about him personally. The simple mentions of quotations are helpful in confirming the position but I don't think being a deputy minister of any type is sufficient. There's an essay (less than a guideline) at Diplomatic notability to get some idea. Basically we can't expect that a two-line article is going to be it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find any source in English that says more about him other than the fact that he's a deputy minister of Iran, some sources do state his views though. I wouldn't mind if you delete the article or nominate it for deletion. Thanks you and best regards,--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Ali Khamenei. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. slakr \ talk / 06:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

, I just figured that user Shazaami is a sockpuppet of banned Iran nuclear weapons 2, Beukford, Ferschais. Came out of nowhere with great knowledge of Wikipedia and started editwarring at Ali Khamenei with first edit just like his other socks.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

, you blocked me for editwarring with an editor who editwarred with 4 editors and violated 3rr 7 times in the last 5 hours, yet you kept him unblocked?--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I only have so many hands. He's been blocked, too. -- slakr \ talk / 07:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my language. I see that you blocked him for 31 hours, is it possible for to lower my block time from 1 week? I only editwarred with him at Ali Khamenei after I saw that he had violated 3rr seven times, while editwarring with four editors! Also thanks for jumping in to end more aggravation of the situation and providing the much needed third-party arbitration. Thank you and best regards.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any clues to support the sock-puppetry allegation? Mhhossein (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

all of his other sockpuppets (Iran nuclear weapons 2, Beukford, Ferschais) were blocked because they were created to editwar and had very good knowledge from the first edit. If you take a look at the Shazaami account, it was created two days ago, and its first edit was restoring POV, followed by editwarring and showing good knowledge of Wikipedia. It started were blocked Beukford left.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you really think that adding "child-killing Zionist regime" here was going to help matters in any way? Let alone believe that would be considered anyway neutral. I'm trying to figure out if I was right at all in unblocking you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the edit-summary, I DID NOT SAY IT, KHAMENEI DID. Here is the tweet from his supposed Twitter account. Confirmed Twitter account of Thomas Erdbrink restating Khamenei's quote, and it was also covered by secondary sources such as ny times & times of Israel etc. By not stating the full quote or factoring it that way, it's kind of taking it out of context and essentially changing the meaning. It's like I'm saying "I like blue pen," and you are factoring it to "I like blue."

Thank you for Sockpuppet investigations/Iran nuclear weapons 2! I thought Shazaami was his only sockpuppet, now it seems there are many more.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I just trusted in what you said! Mhhossein (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - arab-israeli conflict, BLP
-- slakr \ talk / 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC) -- slakr \ talk / 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Islam
I was wondering if you could show me where in the Qur'an it says that. That's very interesting.-- Sexy Kick  00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

, although this is agenda website, in this case it is right and at least points to where it's found: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/changing_allah.htm. I don't have time to find another one now. Regards,--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Darn, I was hoping the Qur'an actually said so. Nevermind. u.u Sexy  Kick  10:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dispute on Islam
If you'd still like to make the proposed addition to Islam, you should use the period of page protection to gain consensus for your change on the talk page, as is required by WP:DR. Eperoton (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)