Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
I would suggest to keep the title of the page as 'Iran parliament shooting' or other title in which the word parliament is present. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
07 Jun 2017 BBC: "IS claims responsibility for attacks·
"Posted at 5:14·
"So-called Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the attacks in Tehran over an encrypted messaging app, saying its fighters had struck both locations. However, the group provided no evidence to back up its claim."·
there are not many candidates for the attack - either ISIL, Baluchis or Khuzestanis. Kurdish separatists and Mujahedin elHalq have long refrained from such attacks on civil targets.GreyShark (dibra) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is prematurely linked to Syria, background should mention MKO and the Syrian war. The western attacks have partly discounted daesh claims too.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: I noticed commentators mentioning a possible relation with MEK terrorist (which has been funded by Saudi Arabia for the last 3 years). Please share sources if you can find them, we could implement it into the article. Amin(Talk)14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've reverted this once already; can somebody remove the content which includes synthesis about a living person, and is also completely redundant? I'm referring to this content. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up a sentence regarding one of the mausoleum attackers detonating himself, which stated that no-one else was harmed by the blast. But the timeline below says that a gardener was killed and two others injured as a result of an explosion. Is this in reference to the same event? If there was a separate blast that did not harm any bystanders, why is it not included in the timeline? Any clarification would be appreciated. 8.19.241.10 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the militants had hand grenades as well as rifles, it's possible that one explosion was a grenade attack while the other was a suicide vest detonation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there was just one detonation leading to the death of the gardener and probably injuring some others. The other terrorist was shot dead by police before blowing himself up. --Mhhosseintalk13:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NYT: "Iranian Kurds Are Implicated in Terrorist Attacks in Tehran"
The section "Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations" is a real case of WP:SYNTH and is written in a weird style. I've tagged the section. Some of the sources used have nothing to do with Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations. --Mhhosseintalk18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein Hi I recommend you check the VOA-PNN and BBC sources too. Because we had similar thing with you in the Saeed Toosi fa article we were providing euro news but you was talking about twitter. Finally other users calmed you down to check the sources accurately. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the controvesial text and sources. you can check the VOA and BBC sources EXACTLY talking about the Tehran attacks :
Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations
Hussain Zolfaghari (fa) the Security Deputy of Iranian Ministry of Interior announced in the IRIB, the terrorists had ladies wear(Hijab in Iran) when they entered to the Parliament (to hide the guns because it was asked how the attackers could pass the guns through the parliament guards without any shoot (first time, one the victims asked it in the hospital showed in IRIB)) (Mahdi Falahati (fa) in the "LastPage" TV program of the VOA-PNN talked about this paradox[1]).[2] The videos of Closed-circuit cameras of the parliament entrance gate showed no ladies wear (but guns in bags)[3] however in the short video Amaq News Agency of the ISIS broadcast from inside Parliament, there were 6 video frames showing the hand of a woman as the cameraman[2] (but the officials had said nothing about any woman in the parliament) which this ambiguity has became reflected in the interior official news agencies such as Tabnak (fa) or Aftab(fa) or other Iranian websites.[4][5][6][7]
5 days after 2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to the ISIS positions in Syria as the retaliation[8] to the attacks, Mahdi Falahati (fa) in the "LastPage" TV program of the VOA-PNN, on the Friday 25 July,[1] regarded to the more details and paradoxes about the unknown hidden women cameraman in the parliament and to this subject that, some days after the attack, another woman had been introduced as arrested in the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini instead of the parliament. Also one of the terrorists in the entrance of the Mausoleum (Closed-circuit cameras) in an encounter to a simple civil enclosing to his AK-47 shows a moderated behavior unlike other ISIS members (also the suicide of one of the terrorists using Cyanide pill).[1]Also with regarding to the recent ballistic US resolutions dates and the Revolutionary Guard counterattack date Falahati talked to the chief clerk of the whistleblower AmadNews (fa), Roohollah Zam (fa). They talked about the suspicious murder of the commander of the Iranian Cyber Army, MuhammadHussain Tajik 6 monthes before the Tehran attack because, that time, Falahati and Zam had another talk about Tajik revealing information about Revolutionary Guard having informational cooperation with ISIS stealthily (before his death).[1] The murder news had not been published in the Iranian news agencies (Censorship) but Al Arabiya and The Times of Israel and some others had published the news.[9][10][11][12]On 13 Sep 2017, BBC Persian broadcast a documentary by Zhiar Gol about how the Islamic Republic policies caused many Iranian Kurds to join Salafism and ISIS, including Sarias Sadeghi (one of the Tehran attackers), his name had been noticed as an ISIS activist by many sources 3 years before Tehran attack.[13]
--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respect to WP:CIVILITY, Sharaky is not my friend but is a WikiFa admin
It is wonderful when you couldn't censor this content in the WikiFa article you are trying to censor it in WikiEn based on lack of Farsi abilities in WikiEn.
But about the second Paragraph (I told you I repeat PLEASE check the VOA-PNN source the paragraph is exactly based on it (I WAS EVEN MORE MODERATED. ALSO I REMINDED IT AS ACCUSATIONS NOT FACT)) HOW MUCH ZEALOTRY CAN BE PLANTED ON THE MOON :D --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of contradicting reports by the authorities is covered by Persian-language media (both inside and outside Iran) and is worth mentening. However, the content added, which is a rough translation from Persian Wikipedia is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, I suppose. Pahlevun (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Pahlevun. I also think the matter should be dealt with, that's why I said in my edit summary: "please rewrite the materials using reliable sources dealing with Ambiguities." However, IranianNationalist's version was a real mess. --Mhhosseintalk13:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's glad to me to see "The issue of contradicting reports by the authorities is covered ...", a vantage point. Not matter how the subject is proposed in the article but we just avoid censoring and stay impartial (Not fact but alleged and stayed in the article). AFAIK Iranian officials had no response (no responsibility too, like always) to the ambiguities and paradoxes. Also Roohollah Zam and AmadNews are outstanding sources for such discussions but alleged(not fact) (with regard to the disclosure about Saeed Toosi's disgrace and many other news of AmadNews). I don't know , why some users fear from Roohollah Zam to have an alleged claim in the article (if they don't agree with him).--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said : "we just avoid censoring" means we (wiki society) it is a clear policy WP:CENSOR and it was not relative to you Pahlevun again anyway (How did you conclude that?). @Pahlevun, so plz don't WP:RUNAWAY. However Mhhossein tried once Special:Diff/801105236 (and we know what it means). Avoiding censorship means IRIB sources and VOA PNN sources are both reliable sources for what they claim and can be pushed to the article allegedly(NOT AS A FACT) and I had done allegedly too as "accusations" not fact. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 10:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]