User talk:DiodotusNicator

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DiodotusNicator! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2018 Venezuelan presidential election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --JBL (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There are articles discussing the burnings of mosques and qurans. Should they not be added? Firekong1 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Also want to add for context that I am Iranian and am aware of existing sentiments by Iranians. Firekong1 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Firekong1, this is the wrong place for this discussion, please use the thread already on the article's talk page. DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do, I just wanted to specify. Firekong1 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize if I came across as edit warring, that wasn’t my intention. However I do feel strongly about the issue (for personal and political reasons). I hope you understand. Firekong1 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Np, I don't think you were being super disruptive at all, just wanted to make sure you understood the process. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You should stop following my edits to revert them and raise disputes on articles I edit. If you do this again I will have to report you to ANI. Zalaraz (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zalaraz "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

This is an utterly transparent NPOV violation; you inserted polemic content sourced to two Marxist publications into an already polemic-tilted WP:BLP page.DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Guide useful if you want to know how to react to AI slop (and huge discussions of what to do next ...), though I think you were right about WP:SEALION too. Boud (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is New death figures mentioned in the infobox.. The discussion is about the topic Talk: 2025–2026 Iranian protests. Thank you. --Hu741f4 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, DiodotusNicator. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

In this edit, you are downplaying information concerning Reza Pahlavi. This is not the first instance I bring this to your attention . Please read the recommendations above. Tasasiki (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspersion to be casting, given your history of edit warring to push a POV regarding Pahlavi. DiodotusNicator (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You questioned why more citations are needed for a sentence describing and citing a primary source. We typically rely on secondary sources to describe what is contained in a primary source. One editor may feel certain topics in the primary source work are the most important. Another editor may ignore those topics entirely and feel others should take precedence in a description of the work. So we go by how secondary sources describe it. Another reason we rely on third party coverage is to determine the notability of the primary source and the relative notability of the topics contained in it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

My impression of the tag in that specific diff was that it was erroneously placed, because the sentence is a simple factual claim about something Keel wrote. If I understand our policy on citing primary sources correctly, a single cite to the primary source being described is acceptable and entirely sufficient. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warfalla, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, the issues of the article are still there so I would like to ask you why the rv ? Greetings... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mr.Lovecraft, I reverted your edit as it is an example of WP:TAGBOMBING. I see footnotes all over the article, and most of the citations have page numbers, so those tags were straightforwardly unwarranted. As for the reliability of sources, please raise specific issues on the talk page or tag specific citations instead of tagging the whole article (the same goes for "self-published" or "full cites needed" tags). DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I have restored the stable version of the article. I tried to explain things to you so you might understand the context, but you clearly aren't here for rational discussion. You are just stonewalling; good faith can no longer be assumed. If you revert again, I will open a case. RiadS99 (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@RiadS99 Since you have stopped replying to the discussion on the talk page, you are now transparently WP:EDITWARRING. Additionally, your claim that I "clearly [am not] here for rational discussion" and the accusation of WP:STONEWALLING, when you are in fact clearly stonewalling by refusing to discuss arguments raised on the talk page, is by my count the 3rd time you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS as part of this content dispute. Feel free to open a case. DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)