User talk:RezaKia

Hi RezaKia and 69.233.169.62,

you have both broken the Three-revert rule at both the Maryam Rajavi and the Mojahedin-e-Khalq articles, which is a serious breech of both editing policy and Wikiquette. You must take your arguments to the talk pages at Talk:Maryam Rajavi and Talk:Mojahedin-e-Khalq, and must stop reverting each other.

Take a look at Resolving disputes and Truce to see how you can both edit peacefully. If you keep reverting each other, however, you will almost certainly get blocked.

Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  01:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Iranian opposition group site
Hi RezaKia -

I'm afraid I'm not an administrator, so I do not have the power to edit the page while it is protected. While you could try asking the user who protected the page in the first place, I can almost guarantee you that they won't revert it while it is being protected. Almost every article that gets protected is said to be The Wrong Version, and admins have grown deaf to people asking for their version to be re-instated.

The point of protecting a page is to get users to start using other means to try and express their views. Looking through your edits, I note that you've never once discussed any page on a talk page. If you're going to try and convince people of your point of view you're going to need to start discussing with other editors on each article's respective talk page: edit wars (constantly reverting the other person) accomplish very little.

If, after considerable amount of discussion, no-one has made any head-way, and everybody still disagrees as much as before, you can consider asking the opinions of the rest of the community, by filing a Requests for comment about the article. You must fully exhaust the option of trying to solve your problem through discussion first, however, if you want other people to discuss the page.

If another editor is not editing in good faith and refuses to try to make progress by discussing the article, you could try filing a Requests for comment about that user. Again, though, you would have had to make a serious effort to discuss the situation with that editor first, which you haven't yet done.

Use this time with the page protected to try and pin down what's wrong with the article and what needs to be changed in the talk page at Talk:Mojahedin-e-Khalq. If I get the chance, I'll look at the page myself, but I know absolutely nothing about the subject, so won't be able to be of much help.

&mdash; Asbestos | Talk  10:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. smoddy 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi
I don't know anything about this except the fact that you are polite and the anonymous editors are not. Still, I suggest that the only way for the article to be stable is by "writing for the enemy".

Try to understand the opposite POV and write a comprehensive summary of it. Something like:
 * P and Q, who are opponents of X, say that....

When their POV is expressed, I doubt that they will want to vandalize the page, because it would be so obvious that they only want their own points to be made.

Since this is an encyclopedia, all viewpoints should be included on controversial subjects. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:09, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran
I renamed and unlocked this article, too. Please help me make it neutral. Write from the perspective of a reporter who doesn't know who is right. Just tell both sides of the story and let the reader make up their own mind. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 10:47 (UTC)