This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
The section is an exact duplicate of the section from the Azerbaijan article - why does it have to be on both pages? —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Khosrow. I think this issue should be very easy for you to negotiable. You and Grandmaster should be able to reach a compromise. If the main article is clearly linked to, surely the summary can be quite brief. Then people click onto the main article if they wish to know more. Regarding the List of Azerbaijanis, I understand what you're saying. Would you find it acceptable if the introductory section at the top was changed to clearly explain that the list also includes people who were native to the region prior to the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan? I think a compromise can be reached on matters like this. It really doesn't need to be win/lose, one way or the other. Please consider some type of middle ground that you would find acceptable. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. And by the way, I think you should archive some of your talk page as it's a bit of a pain on a dial-up connection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I explained to Larry that it's generally not a good idea to splice comments because it makes it hard to follow who said what. You can find instructions for archiving here: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If you need help with it, just let me know. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
User:NisarKand is vandalizing the article Afghanistan. Please have a look at it. Thx Tājik 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have diffs so I can see what you mean? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an email. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started a special page here User talk:Sarah Ewart/KII-GM. I wanted to start on the list, but what you are saying about manipulating quotes is very serious and it needs to be resolved first. Can you go to the page and make your case in your section and list the quotes that you think are manipulated. Please be as concise as possible and don't make personal commentary about other people and their possible motives, just stick to the facts. This is important because I don't want it to descend into the personal arguing and bickering that was happening on El C's page. I have access to a Britanica subscription, so I will check the quotes myself. Thanks Khosrow, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
GM sent me an email saying he wants El C involved, so I don't really know what to do. I don't mind El C participating if he wants, but it doesn't seem like a very productive way to move forward, or a productive use of our time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, about the "misconceptions" section on your userpage...
Firstly I'd like to point out that I also agree that Iran is overdemonised. However I feel a userpage does not exist for one to express political beliefs. I would encourage you to remove it. You can for instance put the content to a blog and link to it in your userpage.
The deletion is for the now seemingly obsolite "User:Khorshid/Misconceptions". I would appriciate if you ((db))'ed it.
--Cat out 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You can see the whole page here if you want. Thanks for your kind words...please let me know if there's anything I can do (i.e. protecting a page, etc.) for you. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 08:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at this ... it's really hopeless! Tājik 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The USA was a combatant. It used its navy and airforce against Iran, it funded and supplied Iraq, and helped Iraq strategically. One of the biggest offensives by the USA was destroying the entire Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Please do not take out the information again.Khosrow II 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's incorrect. The U.S. was certainly involved in the war by supporting Iraq with money and weapons but they were not an actual combatant. The combat portion you are probably referring to was the "Tanker War" where the U.S. and the Soviets put all the oil tankers under their flags to stop the Iraqis and Iranians from blowing them up. Since I believe that to be the case I'll continue to remove the U.S. as a combatant. Let's continue this discussion on the talk page for the war. Publicus 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
An anon IP is getting annoying in the al-Farabi article, trying to "Turkicize" him. Tājik 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to explain your reasons in the talk/discussion page of the template, before reverting. If there exists any controversy, you should mention at the right place, providing reliable sources, concerning other users. E104421 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
WHY? [1]
LOL Take a look at this: [2] Tājik 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the paper (actually a book) you suggested by Hilaire de Barenton is actually not the one that constitutes the basis of sun language hyphothesis. It's something different. I'll dig more resources on this and try to get back to you. Regards E104421 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing an important point, i already commented on Talk:Hephthalite. I never edited the text of the article. When i first saw the article, i recognized the "factual accuracy" warning and commented about this at the talk/discussion page. After doing so, i put "POV-check" tag and removed the "factual accuracy" tag, cause there is no dispute at the talk/discussion page about this. However, you erased some parts and pushed your version. For this reason, i reverted back, not to favor any version, just to prevent the information to be deleted. You did not need to erase other arguments presented there, but you could try to balance them with neutral statements and sources. One more note, i'm only responsible for my own edits, do not try to accuse me for other's edits. Your statement "...an anon, who you obviously have some connection to..." is definitely a baseless personal attack. What obvious is your impolite manner. For the Huns article, the issue is quite different, i'm not edit warring but trying to neutralize/paraphrase some of the sentences. If you're interested in see Talk:Huns, but be civil at first! E104421 07:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, my Persian is coming along... I understand what you mean—do you want me to protect the page or something? As for the Turkic peoples page, I guess what I'm asking for is a source that says, "the number of Turkic peoples is..." I'm just more comfortable with that rather than you doing your own math. This applies to Zap as well. Ciao, Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
“ | Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. | ” |
Your recent edit to this film article consisted of a biased POV. Furthermore, the claims made were not verifiable by any kind of reliable source. If there are independent, published sources that address this so-called controversy, then it can possibly be included. Be warned that biased statements will not be tolerated, as you were vigorous in your remark on the talk page about including criticism of which there has not been published articles. Furthermore, I doubt that the film will adhere to such a black-and-white perspective -- if you read the article, you'll see that there is a character called Ephialtes, a Spartan soldier who had been mistreated by the "defenders of freedom" and betrayed his side to the Persians. The film is directly based on a graphic novel, which deliberately took artistic license in writing about the Battle of Thermopylae. In the future, if you want to include criticism besides your own, please cite accordingly. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to go sign the arbcom. This has gone to arbitration and the info you are pushing for will be reverted pending the outcome of the arbcom. L0b0t 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A Request for Arbitration has been filed in regards to the failed mediation. As an involved member of the mediation, you have been named a party in the Arbitration request. Thank you for your time. ^demon[yell at me] 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin too, and although I certainly don't have an issue with Khoikhoi's edit (I was actually just trying to revert vandalism which ended up re-inserting that number), you should know that just because someone is an admin doesn't necessarily mean that they're right (although here I think Khoikhoi was right). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Dont know how to sign this but i fixed the reference request you insisted on at the Ataturk page.
Faucon is a new user, so let's follow WP:BITE and WP:AFG and try to assume that he either made a mistake (i.e. he was referring to Iranian Azerbaijan when he added the stub). You should also keep in mind that he doesn't know about Wikipedia policy yet, so the best thing to do is simply explain it to him. As for Karcha, he/she is just stalking you...
About my userpage, was that sarcastic? :-) Khoikhoi 04:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing's removed but added. You're the one deleting the edit of other users. E104421 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. The section seems to have been re-added now. -- Clevelander 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I will ... Thx ... We also have to keep an eye on Azerbaijan and Herat. Tājik 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome message. I will try to contrubute to Iran project but my time limits do not allow me to do so regularly. We can lessen the stress if we can accept the differences between us and out opinions and try to make compromises. Take care
Because of his racist comments, I have reported User:NisarKand to admins. Please take some time to have a look at this: [4]
Your opinion and comments may help to solve the problem.
Thx.
Tājik 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but User:E104421 - a Turkish nationalist who also vandalized the article Hephthalites - is not messing up the articles Babur, Mughal Empire, Khwarezmian Empire, and Seljuqs.
You help is needed.
Tājik 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there some reason I'm missing that this article needs a stub tag? Seems well-developed enough not to fall into the category of a stub, especially compared to other articles in Category:Iranian people stubs, many of which are only a few sentences long and are much more in need of attention. ((cleanup)) or ((expand)) would seem to be more appropriate tags. Thanks. cab 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure...they're welcome to join-in on the discussion, but I'm don't know if their vote gets counted, especially when they don't even bother to sign their comments. Khoikhoi 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been edit-warring on at least 5 different articles in the last 24 hourse, just barely evading the 3RR in each. I count:
As a repeat 3RR offender, you ought to know that exactly 3 reverts every 24 hours is not an entitlement. This clearly constitutes disruptive edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow, I've unblocked you and reblocked you for 48 hours, which is another 24 hours. When I unblocked you early last time, we had an agreement that you would stop edit warring and breaching 3RR. I told you, "If you let me down, the next block will be for 48 hours" and you replied with "Thank you. Now that I know the rule I wont break it." Because you've not only unapologetically and remorselessly breached edit warred again, not just on one article but across numerous ones, you need to be accountable to our agreement. And instead of suggesting that Fut. has abused his tools, how about for once admitting that you are in the wrong?
If the users you mention above have breached policy, report it here on your talk page with diffs, and I will follow it up and take action if necessary. I've told you numerous times, tu quoque is not a defence on Wikipedia and does not exempt you from policy. If others are breaching policies, report them or ask for page protection if necessary, but don't respond by breaching policy yourself.
Please sit this out and when the block expires, I hope you will return and follow policy and guidelines. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have read the diffs. The 3RR policy does not entitle you to revert 3 times in 24 hours:
"...This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."
Your behaviour is dispruptive. Disruptive behaviour is blockable. I've told you repeatedly, that the way to deal with other editors, problem editors or not, is not by edit warring. You know perfectly well how to report people and how to ask for admins to step in and protect articles or block other editors etc. I cut your block back to another 24 hours, 48 hours in total, largely because Fut. indicated to me that he supported me doing that. But I'm not going to cut it back any further. You need to understand that going from article to article and edit warring until an admin steps in and protects the article, and then moving on to the next is not acceptable. The fact that you always refuse to see any wrong-doing on your behalf and instead blame the admins or the other editors only makes me more convinced that this block is appropriate. Please don't use other editor's real names unless they consent (I don't know if he has or not but if he hasn't, please don't do it). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, only a handful of admins have CheckUser privileges (the room for abuse is too large). I suggest you file a report at WP:RFCU, your code letter would be "D". Khoikhoi 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I created a category for Persian names:Category:Persian given names. Hopefully many will help in expanding it! roozegar be-kaam! :-) Sangak 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the image from your user page. It's licenced as a fair use image. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use, fair use images are only allowed to be used in articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Then, can you please explain me why you write everywhere "Zaparojdik" be careful when editing, or it's normal to think that you have some problems, sincerely --Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
At the present time, arbitrator Fred Bauder has moved to dismiss the Iran-Iraq case due to insufficient evidence. Certainly it would be a good idea to avoid controversy in the future. This does not mean you have to avoid controversial articles, but if you do edit controversial articles, try to be especially patient, and use the formal dispute resolution processes (like third opinion, RFC and mediation) rather than edit war. (I would give the same advice to anyone who edited controversial topics.) If the case becomes active again, you could message me for more info. Thatcher131 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Khosrow, why do you have to be soo anti - Turkish in all of the articles? You are not Turkish, have nothing to do with the Turkish history yet you go and vandalize the articles related with the Turkish history. Why do you have to be unabashedly anti - Turkish?--Ogulsev 10:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Your input on this F.A.R. is desired. KazakhPol 02:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The above-referenced arbitration case has been closed. The case is dismissed for lack of evidence. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Salam Khosrow!
During last month I worked on this article. I would like to invite you to see the article and help in improving it. I would like to invite you to see the parts on Iranian culture in particular. Thanks alot. Sina Kardar 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created -- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:
Any contributions would greatly appreciated. Bā Sepās Surena 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Khosrow II,
I contacted you a little while back regarding the Sassanid Empire and its greatest extent. Frankly, I definitely agree with you regarding the western borders (after all the Roman Empire clearly shows Mesopotamia (normally a part of the Parthian and Sassanid empires) as a province during its greatest extent, and Sassanid campaigns to those regions are in no way contested. However, after much research, I was unable to locate sources indicating that Gujarat was ever under Sassanid rule (according to the map, during the reign of Khusrau II (apropos indeed, heh)). Anyhow, I was wondering if you could make the corresponding adjustments to the map. Will Durant is an excellent source indeed, but you said he was used for the western borders.
I know you also mentioned the Indo-Sassanians, but they are credited with ruling Southern Afghanistan(typically under the Indian Ambit), Pakistani Punjab, and perhaps Sindh. However, I have not seen any mention of rule in Gujarat. The only gujarati connection I was able to find was that Zorastrian refugees sought the protection of the king of Gujarat following the conquest of the Sassanid Empire by the Arabs.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab71
Please let me know if you can make the changes. Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Devanampriya
has again being undoing other people's edits repeatedly: see his messing about with William Dalrymple (historian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desi 208 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi, the WikiProject for Kurdish related topics has been started and there is still an ongoing discussion about renaming it. You added your name to the list of interested Wikipedian’s on the proposal page, if you still are interested I would like you to join in on the discussion, and please feel free to ask questions or post your opinions on the talk page. Here is the link to the main project page.WikiProject Kurdistan --D.Kurdistani 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I made brief but important edits to two articles to clarify the information: Liberation of Khorramshahr (After the Battle) & Khorramshahr (The Iran-Iraq War)
I think the edits clarify the article, however please review the changes to ensure the improvement of the article. Thank you and keep up the good work!Magicspanw1 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
H, I think we've met before regarding disagreements over the results of the Roman Persian wars. I was looking at your Sassanid Church article and was impressed that there was non-Roman Christianity in the region. However, after some limited research, I realized that the Sassanid Church is another name for the Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church of the East.
However, whilst I had merging in mind, I believe renaming the article to "Christianity in Sassanid Persia" is more accurate, though lengthier. I think that to have seperate articles for the same thing is not good style. However, christianity in the Sassanid Empire (Iraq and Iran) deserves its own article or at least its own section. Let me know what you think.
Respectfully
Tourskin 06:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ahwaz territory. There are question about the truthfulness of the article and whether such a territory exists. Since you contributed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, I am hoping that you would consider participating in the Ahwaz territory deletion review to shed some light on whether the Ahwaz territory in fact exists. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
do you know what year the image of the sassanid template depicts? I was wondering whether it was Kosrau I or II. Since I added the Area part in the template with the note that it was under Kosrau II, someone else replaced it with Kosrau I. Do you know it? Thanks Mallerd (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Seljuk prince.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish to know the original Pesian names of the following Persian saints from the court of Shapur II martyred by Shapur II. In orthodox church we use only their Greek translations. Can you translate them back into Persian from English?
As is often the case in church hymns, there is a play on the meanings of these Persian saints' names here. Acindynus means "unimperilled"; Pegasius is derived from pegazo--"to gush forth"; Aphthonius is derived from aphthonos-"abundant"; Elpidephorus means "hope-bearing"; Anempodistus means "unhindered." These are all Greek translations of their Persian names.
It is important to me becase my two twin boys were born on their day (in Orthodox church we celebrate their memory Nov 15) and so they appear to be heavenly patrons of my children. You can read more about these Persian saints at: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints/270
--Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [6]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC) +
The article Kaveh Farrokh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Kaveh Farrokh.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Sassanid Empire.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Perso-Turkic War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
HistoryofIran (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)