This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just removing warning in accordance with our discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. Jeffpw 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because a reference link goes bad, it doesn't mean its OK to just delete material. That kind of thing happens from time to time. You should WP:AGF. -- Kendrick7talk 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
WIN
I'm afraid that the prospect of getting a coherent, on-topic discussion with WIN is remote. He is, essentially a "fudamentalist" who believes that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages (at least he appears to believe that. It's often difficult to penetrate his meaning). Paul B 10:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Mazandaran
Your welcome. The Mazandaran articles could be written a lot better obviously, so if you've got the time to clean them up, that'd be wonderful. I don't have a lot of spare time these days, but I can certainly help when I do. DragonRouge 21:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding such lengthy comments in the AFD - it's considered an inappropriate form of discussion. Trim them down. A long paragraph is usually too long. Two or three sentences are usually ideal. Georgewilliamherbert 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from changing my edits. i.e. do not separate my comments and write between them. You have done this in the AfD of the Farahnaz Pahlavi article. Please reverse this action, and do not do it again. Please restore my comment to its previous un-seperated form. I do not appreciate you changing the format of my comment, as it detracts the organization and thus the meaning of my comment. Furthermore, how can people coherently read my comment with your edits in between my sentences? I will assume good faith and take no further action, given you restore my comment to it's previous form. Thanks!Agha Nader 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Indo European linguists community
by writing linguist , one can understand that Indo-Europeanist comprises only linguistic community and not other field of sciences. This is true for any reader who may not be aware of it's exact meaning and might understand it with that it comprises all field related to IE studies. This is just to make it more understandable to common readers who refers wikipedia as it's easily available on the net.
I had previously modified intro of IAM article which was implying that migrating Aryans brought Iron Age in India. This is wrong and it was written to in such a way that reader can misunderstand that it is because of this technical superiority migrating aryans could change language & culture of ancient India.
I hope you can understand my point. I am just trying to avoid any misunderstanding in reader's mind.
Saka as you told , were occupying major part of central asia before Turkic invasion. But, same Saka when invaded ancient India, they were assimiliated into India.So, pastoral nomads changing language of vast & heavily populated IVC advanced people is highly illogical, when Witzel accepts that they accepted Material culture of IVC people. Secondly, Aryans invasion of India is ruled out by all.As per OIT , Rig-Veda is pre-Harappan creation. Secondly, it should not be misunderstood that IVC had only towns and no villages like modern India.
Secondly, later other Sanskrit scriptures where Saraswati river is told to be ending in desert or it's demise asserts timeline that Rig-Veda was created before IVC towns. And, mature IVC is vedantic period.
Just think that Iranians have not changed their language ( Farsi ) after Arab invasion. So, why & how Ancient IVC people will change language & culture when Iranians have not changed mother language inspite of Invasion.
I think my point is well written in Wiki pages along with well ref. articles of many scholars. Try to read them to understand my point. Anyway, it was nice to have word with you. WIN 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear, I may not be able to help in any other matter since I am occupied with my daily business work. I am writing about Aryan related topic just because of some unknown immense interest in this matter from my childhood. I am sorry because even if I may know more about it ( Kashmiri people as asked by you ) , it will be difficult for me to spare time to write on any other topic. I wish that I would have been a school/college going guy so that I would have got more spare time to give some inputs. Anyway, thanks for asking. WIN 04:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijan
That Iranian political party you are talking about is not the source of that quote. Read the whole article please before judging such things. Thanks.
This is what the article says: At the same time it was obviously considered a strong reaction to the wave of Pan Turkism, which advocated the idea of separation of Azerbaijan from Iran, posing a great threat to Iran's territorial integrity. This has nothing to do with that political party.Azerbaijani 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed prod tag from Satapes and moved it to Sataspes
Hi, I removed the prod tag you added to Satapes. From what I can tell, the article is actually about Sataspes. I've moved the article to that location and added a few links to the talk page for references I found. Unfortunately, I don't have time to add these to the article at the moment, but they should at least show that the article is about a real topic. ScottW 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal Comments
Please make personal comments in my user page. Only put information that is directly related to keeping the article on the AfD page. I expect you put your comment in the correct page. Otherwise provide reasons as to why it is an argument to keep the article. Agha Nader 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
As I said before, I will only make personal comments on your talk page. And I require you to do the same. I insist that you look up the word "keen". There is absolutely nothing insinuating about asking why someone is keen on keeping a statement on the article. Agha Nader 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
You shouldn't be asking that kind of question if you have assumed good faith. If you accepted that I edit in good faith, the only reason I would want to keep "outranked" is because I feel that it adds to the article. It is not like I failed to provide sources for the "outranked" part. The whole question was insinuating, as my reasons for including "outranked" were clear; you were suggesting that I had "other" reasons for using the term. The Behnam 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparent Bias
It is apparent you are biased towards my nomination of the deletion to the article on Grand Ayatolloah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad. It was in fact you who proposed deleting this article. This was in a previous conversation. After I defeated you in the AfD for Farahnaz Pahlavi, you became sour. You also began following me around, and posting comments against me in the articles I have edited. It is clear that you are just sour about losing the AfD on Farahnaz Pahlavi. It is apparent you wish to debate me further, and thus follow me around. You have done so on the AfD on Grand Ayatolloah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad. Is this constructive to the improvement of Wikipedia?
I didn't propose deleting the article, so I do not know what you are talking about. I didn't become "sour", and no, this is NOT clear, despite what you claim. As far as I know, the only way I have "posted against you"(not a quote), is on the page for the Grand Ayatollah al-Fayadh, and this has nothing to do with Farahnaz Pahlavi. I noticed you edited the Iran-Germany Relations talk page not long after I made some edits when I checked the page. I suspected that you may have been following me around, but in any case, I actually fulfilled the request you made at the talk page. Then, I noticed the Fayadh stuff on your contribs page, including the nomination. Took a look at the page, thought it strange that a Grand Ayatollah was insignificant, did some research, and found that he was significant. Your accusations, especially those relating to the Farahnaz Pahlavi AFD, are utterly baseless, so you really oughtn't write such things. In no way is my opposition to the deletion of the al-Fayadh's page related to the previous AFD. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The Behnam 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I suppose I should say the same thing to you that I said to Elnurso:
While I agree that the disputed material should be taken out for now, you might want to have a look at this: Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. In essence, by editing substance in a protected article, I would be forcing a point of view on the majority of editors who can't edit protected pages, which generally should not be done. There is already at {{totally-disputed-section}} tag there—I hope this will suffice for now. In the meantime, I highly recommend that you try following the dispute resoltuion process, and see if that works. If that fails, try making a request for mediation. Regards, Khoikhoi 06:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, If I unprotect the page right now, how do I know that the edit warring won't resume? The truth is, it most likely will—and it would be better if you could try to resolve the issue first, and then request unprotection. Khoikhoi 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could leave a (friendly) message at User talk:Azerbaijani? He seems to be the main user on the opposing side involved in the dispute. There are other other admins out there as well, perhaps you could ask some of them for advice. Khoikhoi 06:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
3o: Burk's Falls
Oka,y I re-removed that. Hopefully this war will cool off.--Wizardman 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
My third opinion is that both you and User:Agha Nader should carefully read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and take it easy on each other. :) Seraphimblade 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
MAZANDERAN
Present Mazandaran is that Mazandaran which remined in the SHanama, some scholars may think it is some where different, but Did you ever saw shanama ? did you ever hear the poems of Rameshgar ? Did you ever know who was Arash? where he born ? I will revert your all edits, Please don't insist to add what you would like --Ali 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Where was it ?
Ok, I am sure that it was not in eastern part of present day mazandaran province, neither located in yemen, nor located in syria, it was some where near or part of current mazanderan, did you ever hear about dimons ? DIV in shanama ? it is very popular in mazanderan, since many of towns are colled as Div kola, Div koti, which in mazanderani language means, house of divs, valley of divs, town of divs and more, Also i will add more alot information later, since my english is not perfect, even not professional, i need you to correcting them, Also i recommend you to reading this page [1], If any of them would be great, please don't hesitate to adding them to improving of articles about KINGDOM OF TABARIA, Await 4 ur reply --Ali 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please let me about 10 days, during this week i am very busy, I will show you some evidences, did you hear this part of shanama when a mazanderani rameshgar describes mazanderan to the key kavous ?
a remind to mazandaran our country, I wish all of it's building keeped and some more ... Did you saw it ? --Ali 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Behnam, I found a book which i consider could be usefull for you, it has many of evidences about the location of Mazandaran, search ISBN964-6189-01-6 Kind Regards --Ali 14:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article carefully. The designation of Devdasis as prostitutes is disputed by many so calling it as such violates WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. The sources can be appropriately cited if one is careful about NPOV and not just trying to disparage Hindus. The matter is discussed carefully in the article so plz don't violate WP:LEAD by poisoning the reader's mind to a particular POV. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what we should do? Try to come up with a good lead that will be NPOV to all points of view. Those who call it prostitution (a form of anti-Hindu hatred largely meant to incite violence against Hindus) and those who explain that it is a form of symbolic sexuality through divinity and most of the literal sex acts are voluntary and unpaid so not technically prostitution. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Alleges Child Prostitution in Devdasi but does not say that it is normative, which you assert, so it is a misrepresentation on your part. The ref actually means that the Devdasi system is abused by some people to promote Child Prostitution, not that it is categorically child prostitution. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are misquslifying and misreading most of the work. Many "allege" that it is prostitution but offer little evidence to support it other than the usual "Hindus are animals kill them all" polemic we see so often nowadays. Allegations can, of course, be listed if they satisfy notability and they will. However, the bias of scholars should not affect the neutrality of an ancyclopedia, which must give equal credence to all significant viewpoints, including those of notable feminist groups and scholars that I cna cite who rubbish these assertions of prostitution. Lastly, youe post to my talk page shows that you do not know how to Assume Good Faith so please do. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of minority but notability. The views of notable feminists who are involved with these matter carry as much precedence as scholars who allege that Hindus are animals and should be mass-murdered (as many of your cited scholars do, on occassion). By your logic, a majority of people in the west have misconceptions about many non-western religions like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism but those misconceptions are not paraded on wikipedia without qualification. Rumpelstiltskin223
Sorry buddy but it does. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please. I did not make any PA on you. Your post to me assigned a motive to me without sufficient interaction to that effect which is a violation of WP:AGF. Personal attack. Sheesh! Rumpelstiltskin223 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the backup you seek regarding western scholarship of Hindus:
Here [2] read the part about mocking Hindu victims of terrorist killings. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not just one person. It points to a pattern of bias in academia. That is not to say the anti-Hindu hate speech of "academics" should not be cited. It should. It needs to be contextualized and attributed as views and not undisputed facts.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Incivility and personal attacks
Providing bogus warnings as a scare tactic is a standard personal attack so warning:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No proof that this is used as 'scare tactic.' I gave you warnings so that you would shape up your behavior and contribute appropriately. Such warnings do not comprise a personal attack. However, your assertion that this is a scare tactic violates the assumption of good faith. You will be warned appropriately. The Behnam 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As will you if you keep wasting both our times with fake warnings. Please stop trying to intimidate me with wikilawyerings and trying to push a POV and see below. Tha Rumpelstiltskin223 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to intimidate you, not wikilawyering. Please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. AND don't remove warnings from you user page. If you believe your were wrongly warned by me, talk to me about it. I don't consider them scare tactics so you may have to try an argument that has to do with the content I cited when giving the warning. Thanks. The Behnam 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Back-and-forth
This back-and-forth is a waste of both our times. We need to arrive at a mutual resolution so the best and most productive way is to start a sandbox where a neutral lead may be presented by all involved parties. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Says that same thing happens in Pakistan also. Shall we put that in? Then every Pakistani editor on wikipedia will scream bloody murder and stalk us both on wikipedia and hound us away (I've seen this done before. See Women in Pakistanhere, here and here) Rumpelstiltskin223 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Objectionable
And I hope that you see what I find objectionable here. While your refs are notable, they are partisan. That is not to say that they can't be quoted, just not quoted the way you did, with extreme quote mining and misinterpretation with a specific agenda to push. Like I said, if you were truly interested in presenting a non-partisan view then you would attribute your sources, which you did not. See other cases like Geisha, for instance. Many scholars contend that it is a practice similar to Devdasi, but it is not written like you wrote Devdasi before I pointed out your mistake.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Pakistani Child Abuse
I already have tried to do similar things and was hounded out, though some users got banned for doing this to me and others. Like I said. We need to sandbox a lead that will be a compromise. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Furthermore, this article is on Devdasi, not Devdasi in India, so if Pakistan is listed in the source then it should also be listed in the article. Then see the hundreds of edit-wars that will ensue. I am only asking you to be pragmatic and neutral,not push a POV.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
My contention is that the same arguments that apply to Kisaeng and Geishas current versions apply to Devdasi as well. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then the same should apply for Geisha and Kisaeng also. Why bully Indians only? Rumpelstiltskin223 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sources on Devadasis from Indian government website
Hi there. Just to let you know, I spent some time trying to get in something about Devadasi's modern status as sex workers into the article, but could not be bothered debating the issue with Rumpelstiltskin after wasting a day on it. The most NPOV article I could find is this report: http://nhrc.nic.in/Documents/ReportonTrafficking.pdf written by a member of the Indian Police Service and hosted on the Government of India website. Here are some quotes: "There is no denial of the fact that culturally sanctioned practices, such as the devadasi custom, which developed as a purely religious institution, saw a gradual decline when degenerated practices began to be associated with it, especially that of commercial sexual exploitation... For example, Harshad R. Trivedi’s (1976) study entitled, Scheduled Caste Women: Studies in Exploitation, shows how women belonging to the Scheduled Castes are encouraged to undergo initiation ceremony, and accept the devadasi way of life. Later on, such women are allured to take up the profession of prostitution either at local or at city red-light areas." (p199). "According to another estimate, girls dedicated as devadasis to Yellamma, Hanuman and Khandoba temples in the Maharashtra–Karnataka border area number about 2.5 lakhs (Ranjana, 1983:24). After initiation as devadasis, women migrate either to nearby towns or other far-off cities to practise prostitution. The backward areas of Belgaum district such as Saundatti, Kokatnur and Yellamman Gudda are more prone to this cult. These areas thus became the chief source for urban brothels. This fact has been validated in case study No. CS-KR-1." (p200) "Tarachand’s (1991) study entitled, Devadasi Custom – Rural Social Structure and Flesh Markets, once again reiterates that the devadasi system is contributing to the growth of commercial prostitution today and that this relation between the devadasi custom and commercial prostitution is quite ancient and close. Based on the data collected from commercial prostitutes in Gaum city of Karnataka state, his study points out that though it is against tradition, a sizeable percentage of devadasis were commercial prostitutes." (p200). I believe a few quotes from this study and a reference to the report in the introduction of the article would make the article more NPOV. Please feel free to contact me for my input into this dispute. Lemongoat 08:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat
If you see the user talk page for devadasi you can see the long argument I had with Rumpel about this. Historically, devadasis performed a totally different function than they perform now. For instance if you go to Vijayanagar (Hampi) or Khajuraho any of the other ancient / medieval Hindu cities in India you can see from the archeological evidence that devadasis were respected, learned members of those societies. Clearly the word "prostitute" doesn't apply to their role in those societies. However those civilisations are long gone and in modern Indian village culture devadasis are by and large girls from poor backgrounds who end up as sex workers. My *hope* is that if we highlight original role of devadasis and then discuss the modern situation of devadasis we can maintain NPOV and keep Rumpel happy. Some of the "library" is quoted in the Gov of India report above - but you're right, I think the rest can be relegated. A brilliant Indian (Hindi) film that shows the role of devadasis in modern India for what it is Giddh: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260928/.
OK cool. Go ahead and make your changes and I will tweak it. It's worth noting that several states have banned the practice of dedicating Devadasis. For example check out Karnataka's "DEVADASIS (PROHIBITION OF DEDICATION) ACT, 1982": http://www.karnataka.gov.in/dpal/pdf_files/DEVADASIS%20(prohibition%20of%20dedication)%20Act,%201982-new-29.pdf. The act begins: "WHEREAS the practice of dedicating women as devadasis to deities, idols, objects of worship, temples and other religious institutions or places of worship exists in certain parts of the State of Karnataka; AND whereas such practice leads women so dedicated to a life of prostitution; AND whereas it is expedient to put an end to the practice..." This is hosted on the Government of Karnataka's website (Karnataka is a state in South India). Also note articles in the Indian press such as this: http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/30/stories/2006013020130300.htm. Actually the vast majority of informed Indians are quite aware devadasis are sex workers - such as my partner who works on a sexual health project for street children here in India. They see it as a social issue connected with poverty. However a vocal educated minority - primarily, it must be said, non-resident Indians such as Rumpel - see any criticism of any practice of Indian society, even by Indians, as anti-Hindu. Although I will try my best to assume good faith, my fear is that he will take whatever we say as anti-Hindu POV, even if (as I plan) we cite the report by the Indian Police Service (in my first post to you above) and the various acts that have been passed. I would love to be proved wrong. NB I am going to be in China for two months from this weekend, so if you want my input you'll need to do it before then. Unfortunately I don't have much time right now otherwise I'd write an intro myself - but I am happy to proof-read and amend. Thanks for taking this on and all the best. Lemongoat 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the introductory section to be what I consider to be NPOV, starting with the historical status of devadasis and then moving on to their modern situation. I've added sources which I don't see that anybody could rationally consider POV. I haven't added references for the first two sentences as I am short of time - but they are there in the rest of the article. Let me know what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemongoat (talk • contribs) 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey there. Thanks for your comments. You're quite right - colonialists did object to it because of the sex, and so ironically they were forced into prostitution. I wouldn't call what they did originally prostitution - it's more like geishas. I was thinking of adding "ironically" to the start of the second paragraph - but that doesn't sound very encyclopedia. I didn't use the word "prostitute" very much because I think this is exactly the kind of thing that causes people like Rumpel to get excited. However if you look at the sources (the human rights commission report and the government of karnataka act) you'll see that they're much more explicit (!). I don't think there's anything unreliable about child-abuse.com - just that I wanted *all* the sources to be Government of India so that there's no debate about the reliability of the sources. I think that there's definitely room for discussion of the child prostitution aspect further down the page - I am just overall concerned in making sure that the introduction is watertight in terms of NPOV and sourcing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemongoat (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Yep, that sounds good. Unfortunately from now on I will be kinda busy. I should add one thing about Rumpel's sources. He likes to link to this: http://www.samarthbharat.com/devadasis.htm. This in turn links to an article here: http://www.samarthbharat.com/files/devadasihistory.pdf. I find both of these to be interesting and valid articles. Rumpel claims they support his position that not everybody calls it prostitution. Careful reading makes it clear this is a misinterpretation. Both articles make it clear devadasis were not *originally* prostitutes. That we can all agree on. However both of them are quite clear that devadasis are *now* prositutes. The meat of this particular argument is on pp39-40 of the latter pdf. I have quoted the same source as the author (Anil Chawla) which says that 49.5% of devadasis in this particular (typical) village are prostitutes. However the source on the next page is used by Chawla to support his (valid) claim that not all devadasis are prostitutes. This source is "JOINT WOMEN’S PROGRAMME, Regional Centre, Bangalore, An Exploratory Study on Devadasi Rehabilitation Programme Initiated by Karnataka State Women’s Development Corporation and SC/ST Corporation, Government of Karnataka in Northern Districts of Karnataka, Report Submitted to National Commission for Women, New Delhi, 2001-02 (year not mentioned in the report)". This is the source Rumpel reproduced on the Devadasi page. The table from this source reproduced in Chawla on p40 makes no mention of prostitution. However the ONLY other reference I can find to this article on the internet is here: http://listserv.indnet.org/cgi/wa.cgi?A2=ind02&L=reference&D=1&T=0&H=1&O=D&P=2433. It's not on the National Commission for Women site: http://ncw.nic.in/. This second reference suggests that the source *does* claim devadasis are prostitutes. I think it is clear from this that Rumpel's statement that the NCW claims devadasis aren't prostitutes is flimsy at best - for a start, the original article (http://www.samarthbharat.com/devadasis.htm) says "In due course, the malicious false statements became true. Devadasi, left with no other means of survival, had to become a prostitute". Since I am going past the Joint Women's Programme office in Bangalore tomorrow, I'll try and get a copy of the original report so we can settle this. I've emailed the director of the JWP (Jyotsna Chatterji) already to ask for a copy of that report so we can settle this once and for all. Lemongoat 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ironically (there's that word again) if Rumpel hadn't argued with me so hard I probably wouldn't have bothered. I think you can relegate the current references to "further reading" and put a note to the effect that references should be in-text, and that if you want things from the further reading included in the references you should use the in-text citation format so they get put there automatically (see the templates I used). Thanks for all your work on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemongoat (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
OK - Turns out the report from the Joint Women's Programme is for people who have been *rehabilitated*. In other words the government is paying them some cash so that they don't have to pursue prostitution. So of course none of them record their profession as prostitution. That clears up the table on p40 of Chawla, which describes those who have benefited from the rehabilitation programme, and justifies our citation of the table on p39 of Chawla. PS it's worth reading Chawla since a lot of the content on the devadasis page is sourced from it, but *very* selectively. Lemongoat 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
request
Can you please tell Rumpelsteskin223 to stop adding unsourced bias to articles.He is trying to link Pakistan with terrorism.These are unsourced accusations.Nadirali نادرالی
Hi Behnam. You have here proof positive about what I told you earlier. Anyways I suggest you look at this [3] and this [4] and the rest of his talk page and particularly some very interesting discussions concerning a certain underground propaganda website [5][6]Rumpelstiltskin223 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thankyou for your help.
The 2 articles where he has made some biased reverts are:
His so-called "sources" are some POV opininated [article] which he insists are "academic".When I warned him,he turned to an indian admin Rama's Arrow in an attempt to get me blocked.
I have limited evidence to believe he's a meatpuppet of banned Hkelkar.I can provide the evidence if you want me to.Nadirali نادرالی
See above. Also, a rather vain attempt to recruit meatpuppets and smear other users as "Hindu trolls" (see his posts on his little hate site pakhub http://www.pakhub.info) is precisely what got this user blocked before. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The yespakistan website seems similar to the kind of websites I tried to add to the devadasi page, but Rumps removed, except that it's decidedly less academic. There is no qualification for the author, and he uses strange phrases like "devil is in their implementation" regarding laws in Pakistan. Academics don't use odd wording for serious documents. While this could be cited as an example of a Pakistani "reform" opinion, it doesn't qualify to have too much weight. I am sure that other, more reliable sources regarding problems in Pakistan can be found.
I looked at anti-Hindu and Gun Culture articles, and what struck me first is that Rumps removes tags he doesn't like, despite there being no consensus for removal. Don't remove tags, but instead discuss the problem to reach a solution. These aren't your articles, Rumpel, and you shouldn't expect everything about them to be the way you prefer, especially considering your strongly anti-Western POV. You need to make a better effort at working with others rather than simply ignoring them and destroying their work.
However, at least in the case of the anti-Hinduism article, you(Nadirali) need to realize that the article is supposed to be about anti-Hinduism, so inevitably, studies regarding anti-Hindu views in Pakistan will receive mention. And don't tell me they don't exist in Pakistan; I know they do. However, many of the articles cited are not themselves addressing explicit anti-Hinduism, but they are included as part of a synthesis on Rumps part, which thus comprises OR. Just because you(Rumpel) think a certain newspaper article is a good example doesn't mean you can include it, as such a self-analysis is OR. You have to cite an actual reliable source about anti-Hinduism, that in turn may itself cite the article. Also, Jews shouldn't be mentioned; it is about anti-Hinduism, remember?
PakHub. Interesting website, definitely obscure, but from what I can tell, it isn't particularly hateful. Of course, I haven't searched the whole thing yet, so if Rumpel could direct me to the "hate" part, I would appreciate this. Hopefully, this isn't on the forum, since a forum really shouldn't be cited in the first place. Those two little articles don't seem problematic; Rumpel needs to give me some more details.
About the block log... you have blocks too Rumpelstiltskin, so if I judged against Nadirali based upon that criterion, you would be judged similarly. I don't know how you did not foresee my response to that.
In conclusion, remember, stay cool. The Behnam 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It's okay I resolved it [here].
Who said anti-Hinduism doesnt exist in Pakistan?I completely agree with you on that.However,the section is somewhat unencyclopediac with words like "biased" and somewhat exhaggerated.Rumps is bhaving like Hkalkar with his continues "anti-semetic" accusations.As for Pakhub,you are free to look over the site.Atleast 2 users there are indeed extrmists.But if you look carefully,we have condemned their comments repeatidly.The purpose of the site is not religion but to make people aware of Pakistan's (pre-Islamic) history.Nadirali نادرالی
Yup, I realize PakHub is harmless. The way Rumps made it sound at first was as if a random Pakistani forum was being used a source, which he characterized as "hateful." But it's obviously not a problem. I just pre-addressed the anti-Hinduism in Pakistan thing for precaution; I didn't know much about your editing habits and didn't know what to respect. After all, with Rumps, I was surprised to learn that he doesn't consider devadasi cult prostitution in any sense. I suppose that its back to normal editing for the most part; just tell me if you have a further issue with something. Thanks for working on this. The Behnam 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The term 'Tabarian'
I understand what you mean, but tabarian is more correct than tabari, like persian, armenian, georgian, and many of others, using tabari is looking like to using farsi or parsi instead of persian! which is possibly inaccurate, I also create the redirection pages from tabari to tabarian which helps to not confusing visitors, Thank you for advice and your care! --Ali 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"The Behnam", stop pretending to be something you are not, those who should know who you really are, have already been e-mailed and informed. If you persist, your impostor aliases shall be added to your profile on the wikipedia watch project. --203.144.160.251 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What is this crap about me being "Dr. Lukas Pietsch"? The fact-checking at Wikipedia Watch must really suck. The Behnam 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It does, indeed. Could you perhaps activate your wiki e-mail? Thanks, Lukas(T.|@) 08:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. You need to activate some checkbox in your preferences. Lukas(T.|@) 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What about it?
Excuse me, but who exactly do you think you are to tell me that I don't have the right to edit the Ahmadinejad article? "Incessant" edits? I've only made 4 or 5 edits in the past week. Looking at your own edits (Surprise, I can open this page!), it's obvious that you edit the MA article more frequently than me.
And I have discussed it on the talk page ad nauseam. If you don't cease stalking meyou will may be acted upon for disruptive editing.
I mean honestly, I've been the most level-headed editor of that article, and you come to me and say that I should ease off my editing? Do you honestly think I intend on decimating the article? Please don't waste my time. I have better things to do than make you happy. In the time it took me to write this, I could have helped so many other articles. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
mohem neest
The additions were not related to you. I really do wish to improve the article. As you can see here, the thong image was there initially. Somebody erased it. Our friend here isn't the first person to try to delete this article in any way possible, whether by AfD, or by erasing bits from it piece by piece. He didnt even suggest any improvements on the discussion page. A sure sign of a politically motivated afd. And that's sad.--Zereshk 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Allegations
Don't you agree it's only Wikiquette to inform people who have put time into the article that the article is about to be deleted? Something Perceval neither did with major power nor did with the emerging superpower articles. —Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Rumpel has contributed to the article and it's talk page in recent times and that's where I first met him on Wikipedia. I'll refrain from asking anyone to join the deletion debate, I also thought about including it in China-related deletions and India-related deletions but decided against it, because in this case Chinese and Indians would be more likely to vote keep as opposed to more neutral Somalians and Mexicans, so including it in those sections would simply allow for more one-sided POV to enter the debate. Your views? —Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, by the way, what are your views on the new proposed formats I have made in my userspace and linked to in the AFD discussion. —Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijan
Please request unlocking the article and put your first edition [7] in the article. I think, only a small debate about the last sentence is remained. In any case, I am OK with this version.--Pejman47 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag is off.I was one of 3 users who kept putting it there.There is no lying he's Hkelkar the evidence proves it derectly.
About a dozen users(including admins) have stated with evidence that he is indeed Hkelkar.
Note:he put a similar tag on Siddiqui's userpage,which i removed.
I'll ignor him for now.I (and other users he bothers) will keep a note of his behaviour.if he causes trouble,asking for intervention WP:ANI would be the simplest and less complicated way resolving things.
Yes I agree with you on RA's intervention.I am one of 5 users who feel there is bias here,but let's not get into that.
Please be advised that you are going to violate 3RR. Farhoudk 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
ANI
Why don't you bring it to ANI? You were part of the discussion and you witnessed all that I witnessed. I wonder if it has anything to do with "[8] and [9]". Note: I have no prejudice towards you, and I have tried to avoid posting on the same articles as you. This was the case with the RfC on Ahruman, Ahmadinejad, Guardian Council etc. Even though I wanted to voice my support for disallowing someone using religious figures as user names, I refrained. Isn't avoidance the best way to make sure we don't have further conflict. Agha Nader 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
First Contribution
On December 5, 2006, and you speak of meatpuppetry? How about sockpuppetry, have you heard of that too? MortonDevonshire Yo · 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Request
I wish I could, but according to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages, "edits to protected pages should be made with the full agreement of all parties involved in the dispute". Maybe you could leave a comment on the talk pages of the other involved parties to let them know that they think? If they have no objections, I'll go ahead and add the info. Khoikhoi 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Mazandarani Georgians
Dear Behnam,
Please do not remove the Georgians from Mazadnaran. I do not see any reasons of your animosity towards the Georgians. Georgians constitute a substantial part of Mazandaran. Still many towns and villages as well as big neighborhoods in Mazanadarani cities bear the name Georgian.
read some historical books.Shah Abbas has settled Mazandaran with Georgians. Read e.g. Tarikh-e Alam-Ara-ye Abbasi. Read Jaygah-e Gorjian by Said Muliani, Read Iranian-e Gorji by Mohammad Sepiani. I do not know whether you are Mazandarani or not. Probably you aren't because otherwise you knew this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.86.252.228 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
I removed it because it didn't appear to be sourced, and others had removed it. You need to provide strong evidence that there is a significant Georgian population in Mazandaran, using reliable sources. This isn't about denying you, this is just about playing by the rules. I don't have anything against Georgians, and in fact, I don't believe I have ever encountered one until here. Please stay calm. The Behnam 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
the above user attacked me in the article talk page and I just gave a response to it.
just for letting you know this. take care. --Pejman47 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted him, and long ago as I said in that talk page I decided to not engage with whom that have decided before and will not change his mind in any case. If He continues to use propaganda instead of replying (blaming me for the acts of other users in other pages that I don't know! and not giving sources and refuting "Ethnolouge" by saying that I was the one who contributed to it) I will going to report him. I would also appreciate it if you do it on my behalf:). --Pejman47 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, do in a way that you think it would be better. take care. --Pejman47 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have written the fragment and provided you with Solid historic sources. But you deleted it. It shows intellectual weakness. Moreover you did not provide me any response with regard to your vandalism in the Mazkazi province page (No Armenians???) Esfahan (No Georgians and Armenians????) the whole Tehran page, and your statement in the page of Georgian language that there are no Georgians in Iran. You have a bad luck that you acted so naively, LA TV's might buy your petty knowledge but neither me nor any other ethnographer/historian will buy it. cheers Babakexorramdin 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW if you guys want to report someone, What should I do about this guy?
BTW . just takle a look at the actions of this guy. Is it OK? Now tell me honestly is it ok what this Persian supremacist does? And you implicitely and explictly support him? But deffending his vandalisms against my corrections?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For 83.250.75.190 (Talk | Block log | Logs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Namespace: all (Main) Talk User User talk Wikipedia Wikipedia talk Image Image talk MediaWiki MediaWiki talk Template Template talk Help Help talk Category Category talk Portal Portal talk
14:54, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Georgian language (georgian is not spoken in Iran)
14:53, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Georgian language
14:51, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Isfahan Province
10:40, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Arak, Iran
10:40, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Arak, Iran (it doesnt live any armenians or azeris or kurds in arak)
10:21, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Markazi Province (nobody speak's armenian in the markazi province)
10:20, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Qom Province (nobody speak azeri in qom, why are you writing so much bull?)
10:18, 11 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sistan and Baluchestan Province
23:05, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Baloch people
(Newest | Oldest) View (Newer 50) (Older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
Just take a look, and be objective. Is it not shameless? Babakexorramdin 12:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply on the Mazandaran Province page. The Behnam 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Look more insults and vandalism from this user. How should I report him? I am tired to revert all his vandalism.
User contributions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For 83.250.67.40 (Talk | Block log | Logs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Namespace: all (Main) Talk User User talk Wikipedia Wikipedia talk Image Image talk MediaWiki MediaWiki talk Template Template talk Help Help talk Category Category talk Portal Portal talk
17:52, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kermān Province (HMM SORRY ASSHOLE I HAVE STUDIED IRAN FOR 12 YEARS AND I AM IRANIAN SO I KNOW THIS MORE THAN YOU) (top)
17:51, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Hormozgān Province (WHY ARE YOU WRITING SO MUCH BULLSHIT? SWAHILI IN IRAN AND THEY DONT SPEAK BALUCHI IN HORMOZGAN) (top)
12:25, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Isfahan Province
12:22, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Aylar Lie (aylar is a turkish name not persian) (top)
07:26, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Hamadān Province (azeri is not spoken in hamedan) (top)
07:23, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kermān Province
20:56, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Abdul Basit
20:56, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Abdul Basit
20:55, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Abdul Basit
(Newest | Oldest) View (Newer 50) (Older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
And I thought about characterizing this as a comment with the CIA, but I am not 100% sure I trust the source enough to say "After a "laborious investigation," the CIA has not accepted this identification." After all, the CIA did not say this. Someone else said it OF the CIA. So is it true? Or was it only one source within the CIA? or what? Its not a very reliable source, but I did not want the article to indicate that this was completely unchallenged. I think the wording should be somehow different. That is why I did not add the CIA. I would not mind if we could find some official CIA source saying this though. --Blue Tie 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
More people who object include:
Ahmadinejad (indirectly as far as I know... through spokespersons)
One of the Hostages -- who did not really object but said he was not sure
Many of the actual hostage takers who were in the embassy (but are they really reliable sources?)
by the way... I found what I think is a pretty good source on the CIA thing : http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2 and it says that they did not exactly dispute it but did not find enough evidence to "definitively conclude" that he was in the embassy. Sort of weasle wordy. Looks like they had to split hairs to not cause an international incident and refuse to give him entry to the US. Thats how it looks anyway. Maybe not. The report is classified and they are not talking about what is in it.
To me... the most credible testimony is Bani Sadr. I think he was in a place to know and he gains nothing by lying about it. He claims Ahmadinejad was there and was an informer to the Imams. But (surprisingly), he does not consider Ahmadinejad a leader, even though Ahmadinejad openly admits to being on the committee that openly admits to planning the affair (though Ahmadinejad says he did not plan it... a bit like not inhaling) and even though Sadr himself recognizes that Ahmadinejad was the Imam's man on the spot. --Blue Tie 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Defamatory content?
Er, no, I don't think so. I was reverting to the version by User:Icez as of 01:16, 11 February 2007. I did not add the "fagots" part - in fact I was attempting to remove it. I expect an apology. All the best, Aivazovsky 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That "very, very poor" thing was in the version by Icez that I reverted to. I didn't realize the change in that part as I was making the revert. I apologize for this. It was my mistake. -- Aivazovsky 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) -- Aivazovsky 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Persian language
Thanks. Saying that Persian is not spoken in all parts of Iran is really ridiculous. That is like saying that English isnt spoken in the majority Hispanic areas of the United states, or saying that Spanish isnt spoken in South West USA. I dont know why he takes it out. Sources are not even necessary. You could go all over Iran and people know how to speak Persian, and their mother langauges as well.Azerbaijani 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Allotment
Which allotment are you looking for? Presumably Madai...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Madai... I find it interesting that the Book of Jubilees recognized the northerly location of Airyanem Vaejah, in a way. But it doesn't make it that much easier to determine the boundaries of the "allotment." The Behnam 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a "Book of Jubilees" mailing list on YahooGroups, that you are welcome to join and then we can talk about this much more - might be better than discussing it here... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/book-of-jubilees/
Thanks, I'll take a look. The Behnam 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Easter egg
The link was not to an article describing how widely it was reported, but rather to a section of an article describing a dispute about the phrases correct translation. As such, it is an "easter egg". Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
User Patchouli
A report has been filed against user Patchouli for his POV pushing. Please contribute at [10]
hi there. i'm not sure if we should move it to an RfC or not. i really haven't done this before. i was thinking about directly going to arbcom. they are the only authority that has the power to make 'binding' decisions. Barnetj 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with taking it to arbcom. I can not imagine any other real solution. I know Patchouli from his edit warring on 'khatami' and 'khatami's reforms'. I don't think there is any chance what so ever that he responds to reasoning. He is not going to stop. Barnetj 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite what the comment on the ANI said I think it would be best to take the matter to ArbCom. This isn't a single edit issue (i.e. the wording or neutrality of one article). The is issue is the nonconstructive behavior and POV/OR editing pattern of user Patchouli. From my understanding RfC is best when both parties are cooperative, and this is not that case here. Thus it should be taken to ArbCom. Agha Nader 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I can add more information from his former POV pushing after you start.--Sa.vakilian 06:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Iran Consensus
Can you revert your change in numbering for those pictures and just leave a blank for the missing number? It throws off all of our votes, so unless you intend to correct them, it is probably better to leave a blank. The Behnam 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My appologies - I was not aware of such a vote. I'll RV my edit. Surena 07:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, though I do think we need to remove the actual picture itself. I'm not entirely sure, but that is what Future Perfect at Sunrise seemed to be saying. I'm thinking we'll just have to leave a blank, and all votes for that picture will not be counted. The Behnam 07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting a legitimate version of the image. Now we can keep it, and probably reintroduce it into articles it was removed from. I think the best place to start for that is Future Perfect's contribs, since he seemed to do all of the removal of the original version of the picture. The Behnam 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The main reason for removing the image was to replace it with correct attribution and details. I already have placed the new version of the image in Babak Khorramdin article. Regards Surena 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Kiarostami
Salam
Would you do me a favor, Bahnam? Would you please help me with copy editing Abbas Kiarostami? I want to be sure the article is readable and free from discontinuities. Any helps or comments will be very much appreciated. Ba sepaas. Sangak 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Behnam. A reviewer informed me that the early life section needs a better wording.[11] Can you help me with that? As you are a native speaker you probably see the weakness of this paragraph (unfortunately it escapes me). Ba sepaas. Sangak 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Early Life section" Done! User:Francis Tyers has just helped me with that. What do you think about the article now? and the peer review comments? Sangak 10:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Salam Behnam jan!
I am going to nominate Abbas Kiarostami for "Featured Article" soon. It is now under peer review. It would be great if you could take a look at it and comment on it. Thanks and have a nice day.Sangak 20:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, any user that wants to make a statement needs to post it personally. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ma bayad alayhe un eqame dava konim. Baraye in kar man pishnahad mikonam ebteda bar asase policiha va guidelinehaye wikipedia madarek ra morattab konim. Bad ba chand ta modir ham mashverat konim va akhar eqame dava konim. Nemidunam mishe dast jamee dadkhast ra emza konim?
I write my statement here[12], please help me with it.
I can't understand ? some one insist to adding georgian ? Ivan Nasizadeh told they assemble to causcasians but not georgian, since they have Caspian heritage, among more than 2000 towns of mazanderan, there are just aboout 5 villages known as Gorji Malleh, 1 in Behshahr, 1 Amol, 1 Tonekabon, are the most knowns, Also please see this page and improve it, Tabarian New Year --Ali 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
attention
Salam. Ma bayad chand ta az POV pushing haye Patchuli ra rev konim va moraqeb bashim ta agar bargasht be baqie ham beguyeem.--Sa.vakilian 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
History of Fundamentalist Islam in Iran
Hi Behnam! and thanks for copyediting this article. Just to inform you that I am not an activist and I don't personally support the content of the article that I wrote. I just wrote a draft and I asked more than ten wikipedians (religious, non-religious, Iranian and non Iranian) to check it, copyedit it and delete the pov and unreliable info. I guess you admit that writing such an article by one person in a short time is very difficult and there is always danger of POV writing. As you see I gathered the info from more than 100 sources. Of course I can make mistake in such a work. I am not also interested in such topics and I did not want to spent more than one month on this article. I have already spent a long time on that. Therefore I asked for others to come and help.
I am neither anti Islamic Republic, nor anti clerics. I am not also a nationalist. See my edits over the last three years. You will admit that I don't consider my personal point of view as a wikipedian. As I wrote the article I know more than anyone how much problems the article have and on the otherside I think the article is very informative and comprehensive. In any case I have other committments and I cann't spend too much time on this article. I am happy that you copyeditted the article and I hope many other people come and edit, add and delete. So that the article become reliable and neutral at the end. Take care. Sina Kardar 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me also comment on the "women in arab societies": 1. I did not notice that that Jewish woman was transsexual. (although I still see no problem to include a transsexual who identifies itself as female now). 2. Deletion of "Female genital cutting" was not justified. It is sourced and true. In any case I will not add it in again.
I agree with you about your edits. I checked them. You were right with the changes. I think the article is much better now.Sina Kardar 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Behnam! I think it is good to find some one who has both arab and jewish/christian/... identities. For instance a jewish singer who also sings in Arabic:
Najwa Karam sings in Arabic (+)/ I could not figure out her religion(-). If you are sure she is Jews or Christian, then this is a very good choice.
Achinoam Nini is an Israeli jews who collaborates with Arabs. Is she considered Arab jew? Any work in Arabic?
Ofra Haza is an Israeli jews who is interested in bringing Arabs and Israelis together. Does she have any work in Arabic?
Shoshana Damari a jews who was born in an Arab country. This is good.
If we argue that Israel is also a partly Arab society then Achinoam and Olfra will be ok even if they have no work in Arabic. This is my idea. Please add the one that fits better. Take care. Sina Kardar 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Roazir
Hello! Could you take a look at the article about Iranian Azerbaijan? I would appreciate your opinion. It really bothers me to see Persianization (or Farsism or Persianism or other sorts of racist contributions) all over articles regarding Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Roazir 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Kiarostami: FAC
Hi
I would like to invite all those who reviewed "Abbas Kiarostami" during last two months to comment on the article at this "final" stage. The article is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Thanks.Sangak 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
White people
Lukas is sitematically reverting me, yours and Carwil. I do not know waht to do with this guy. Veritas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.76.107 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
farzinf
Sure thing sorry about that. I'm fairly new
Caucasian race
Dark T. has now taken on the Caucasian Race article to continue with her Nazi Nordicist Propagana. I thought you would like to know. Veritas et Severitas 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Kiumars
I blocked him for 24 hours for the "f-ing J" post and warned him the next incident would attract an indefblock. His response was to e-mail me a death threat and more ethnic abuse, so he's indefblocked. Please let me know if any other accounts turn up that you think are him. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Dark T.
Look again at Dark T in the Caucasian Race article now. I think we should open a RFC about him. He should be banned. I do not open it because I do not know how to do it. Do you agree? Can you do it?Veritas et Severitas 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
uncivil
Well, first of all -I truely belive you,and its very clear for me, that when you said that the Jewish peopole 'misbehave' you have no antisemic meaning, and its really dont offend me,and i realy faild to understand the meaning -so not only that I let you easy this time ,i also will use this kind of writing - your english is better then mine so I assume that this is the right (and civil) way to correctly express my self in english .secondly -you can name Israel any name you like , no body is that naive to think that "palstine" is not a political term,even when the Jews didnt have self regin in there own land-they still continue to live there in different ammounts. thirdly, i didnt vandlize anything -and treating users that they will be kicked out of Wikipedia if they vandlize it again(and i didnt, since when changing one contriversal word is considerd as vandalation ) -is a little undemocratic, even though i can understand it .
If you dont like the spirit of my replys to you-you can delete them..I just answering yours.
More, if you know history - so i guess that you know the story of the Jewish revolt against Rome , the same emapire that conquest persia for when it misbehave . acctually , the Roamn empire wipe out alot of nations and cultures ,for misbehaving (when it comes to Persia (i.e Glorious Iran) for example.and i assume thats why you are using this term) or for other considerations ,such as an economical or emprial ones, (like when it comes to Israel or to the Phoncians).and the Jews wasnt 'kickout' before they wipe out 1 or 2 legions during the revolt which eminant historians consider to be the hardest, or one of the most difficult, that the Roman empire ever knew. comment was added by --Gilisa 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
10X
And -i have a real interst about Iran , mainly because its nuclear plain.
NICE DAY,
--Gilisa 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute to this article, when you have time. Thanks. Sina Kardar 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:ANI
You are more than welcome to ask again at WP:ANI, if you feel it necessary. That particular section was about potential COI violations, and everyone, yourself included, agreed that there were none. I think we can all agree that MCHAS and yourself can discuss potential character assassination and WP:NPA on your respective talk pages or in a new section. I closed it to prevent further subject creep. Thanks. -- Avi 08:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If, in the future, you feel that Jayjg overstepped his bounds and blocked a user outside the accepted procedure at WP:BLOCK then by all means, bring it up at WP:ANI. However, WP:ANI is not a place where "rulings" are issued, as is posted at the top of the page:
If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.
I hope that clarifies things a bit. Good Luck! -- Avi 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks and claims of COI
Thanks for informing me of the discussion (which has aleady been closed). I agree with your comments, and it is a pity I was not given the opportunity to defend myself against impending blocks. I have opened a new section on ANI to continue the discussion. I would especially like a community response as to whether jayjg's block of my for raising the question of COI would be supported by the community. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Iran naming dispute
I think they named their country Iran or Iranshahr in Alchemids too, please read Iran naming dispute, I will try to find more references for it; regards. about whether it should be in history section or Human rights, I am OK in both case. --Pejman47 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Dem
Oh my god, I was just going to delete the apanti image too! infact, i started to edit it and when i pressed save, it said that there was an edit conflict, so i went into history and saw, but you had already changed it...you know what they say, "great minds think alike!"
Haha, well, don't freak out too much! I did it in response to your post about the massive & blatant consensus against the Apatani image, so I really just executed your idea before you. But yeah, I don't know why it wasn't removed sooner! The Behnam 00:51, 7 March 2007 (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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
For one, User:Viridae already ruled twice that I did not violate 3RR. But more important is that I had at most three 3RR-applicable reverts. As I explained to User:Rayis at the 3RR page, one of the four 'reverts' cited was simply RVV, and hence should not count towards 3RR. This diff [13], which blocker User:Khoikhoi cited as my third violating revert [14], was simply the restoration of an entire reliably sourced section of the article that was removed without discussion or POV accusation substantiation by User:Pejman47. Hence, I was simply reverting an edit [15] that was vandalism (destroying an entire section based upon an unsubstantiated accusation of POV - basically a 'I don't like it' removal) Hence, I reverted at most three times in a manner that counts for 3RR, and so the block is undeserved.
Decline reason:
there were four reversions of edits to article Iran made by you in a 24 hour period. All of these reverts were content disputes and not simple vandalism. I am sorry but 3RR is 3RR Alex Bakharev 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've been thinking about this one, and while this may be worth some more discussion, I have to say I was leaning towards declining, as well -- vandalism is very narrowly defined by WP:VAND (this is intentional), and while we see a lot of disruption, "disruption" and "vandalism" aren't necessarily the same thing. It seems pretty obvious to me that Pejman47 is an established user, having been around since September 2006, and especially considering the paragraph removed was a new paragraph (added the same day), I'd find it rather difficult to characterize that as vandalism. Appreciate your work, please keep up, but 3RR is an electric fence and there for important reasons. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously I contest it entirely; there is no point in repeating myself, though my say on Pejman is that he probably just acted too hastily (didn't check to see if Israel & US were given ref, etc), leading to the blind destruction of an entire section. I'm not sure what important reason is being applied since 3RR is supposed to stop edit wars, but I did not continue the reversions for that actual dispute. I guess this goes back to my assertion that the Pejman thing was RVV, so I guess that I am repeating myself in yet another way, so that's it. I just hope User:Rayis realizes that isn't a real solution to his/her inability to adequately respond to my arguments against the inclusion of the irrelevant & questionable nationalist 'historical' information at Iran#Human rights. I'll be back in a day, though it is unfortunate that I cannot work against the nuclear POV sockpuppetry at Iran or the anti-consensus reverts at India. Hey, do I get some notification that I am unblocked, or do I just have to watch the clock? The Behnam 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to your last question, if you check here, it'll show your block status according to whatever time zone you have set in your preferences. Unfortunately, you don't get a system message, but that'll at least let you know the time to watch for. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Size of History section
I think placing the article under external review under Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a must in this case. Looks like you got caught in a 3RR trap -- hope to hear from you soon. Djma12 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ashkenazi Jews
I've responded in what I believe is the correct section of the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello,
I am sorry I did not recive your mesage before going of computer. I can not change image now. Thanks for being nice.
Some of your edits were reverted by accident, feel free to put them back. This was because the Tom & Jerry thing was sourced in the text..I don't think it needed to be sourced again. Regards, --Rayis 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I didn't realize the source was in the text; it is a very lengthy article. The Behnam 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"Trolling"
Dear Behnam, I am not new to wikipedia. However of course that doesn't mean that I am familiar with all policies and guidelines, so if you feel that I am breaking a policy like you did when you got blocked a few days ago, feel free to remind me as I may with you. However please do not use the templates that are intended for new users. This is for sake of being WP:Civil. Regards, --Rayis 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accidentally used the welcoming template. I switched to a better warning, which you blindly removed. The Behnam 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think I or anyone else is being a "troll" please keep in mind that your provocative comments may be feeding the troll as in not helping the matter and you end up being a troll yourself, which may have been the case here. In any case lets keep it cool! --Rayis 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if we believe one or both of us have "trolled" there is no official policy or guideline that would take "further action" against it. So unless you have any other accusations I don't see any reasons for following up "this". I believe your comments were as provocative as mine, and I don't believe any of our comments were intended as personal attacks. However I still support moving or removing that section which was creately by a provocative comment regarding my edits, and made a joke out of a mistake I made while reverting which is not WP:Civil to begin with --Rayis 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any crowding on that page, so it may not hurt to keep it since it at least establishes that 30 million is wrong. Also, your insinuation that I have trolled is just more trolling unless you actually provide real substance to back it up. And I agree that Gerash shouldn't have addressed the issue the way he did. In any case, you should at least remove your offending statement to resolve this particular conflict. Thanks. The Behnam 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are willing to remove your comments which provoked any further comments, I will not remove anything and in that case I would like it to be kept too --Rayis 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please identify these supposedly provocative comments so that I can see if your accusations are reasonable. I don't remember trying to provoke anything further; in fact I intended for those replies to be final clarification for the section but you responded anyway. Also, it doesn't make sense that you would keep your trolling because I haven't yet removed my "trolling". If it is trolling by you, remove it, regardless of whether or not I have or not, because it is still wrong to keep. The removal of trolling should be independent of my actions. The Behnam 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I had stated that a talk page is not a chatroom twice when your posted your comment regarding that I had "started it" which is provocative in every way and after that you kept "reminding" me about policies on an article discussion page while I knew about them and had already pointed them out so if anyone "trolled" it was you. --Rayis 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, my response aimed to stop patronization of Gerash by pointing out that you were doing the same thing, while at the same time closing the discussion. I'm sorry if this provoked you, but it was intended to counteract a provocation of Gerash caused by an arguably hypocritical reminder, and hence close the discussion. I don't think it can be called trolling quite as clearly as your characterizations & constant reminder of 'me violating policy'. It is obviously provocative since it serves no purpose aside from "rubbing it in my face", which is an odd thing for you to do anyway, considering it was a controversial 3RR call. Anyway, none of this justifies keeping your remark, as it is non sequitur to keep it because I haven't removed my supposed trolling. The Behnam 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't honestly care what is more "clear" uncivility or trolling. In any case I have moved it. If you think any part of the discussion was useful, feel free to put it back otherwise lets move on --Rayis 11:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually the point is that my post was not trolling. Trolling has to be deliberate, and while mine wasn't, there is no way that your disregard of me under a certain characterization (twice now) was not deliberate. The Behnam 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have asked for an admin to step in and set some ground rules, and help prevent the hell and recrimination that is sure to follow any edits that remove POV info. As I do not know that much about anti-Iranian (or Persian) sentiment, but do know how to excise uncited material, I will rely heavily upon you to help find some sources, so the article doesn't end up practically empty (which is likely to happen). Arcayne 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Question
This is a tough one. One would think that it is code "E", although I think this user only reverted three times. Perhaps it would be better if you asked one of the CheckUsers instead (or at least one of the clerks). Khoikhoi 07:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. The Behnam 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Persian Pop Music
Dear Behnam,
I took a close look at Wikipedia:External_links today. I also read the section about websites requiring registration and allowed cases. I am not sure if you also had enough time to take a close look at individual external links for this topic (Persian pop music) before deleting "spams":
1-Pourya's reviews of Persian pop music (on Bia2.com) are the most accurate and professional reviews of these albums on Internet. If we were to create Wikipedia entries for any Persian pop album, the core of the text would mostly be Pourya's review of that album.
2-Radio Javan is the only legal streaming website allowing people to look for Iranian pop artists and songs; request a song; and listen to the song within a few minutes (for free). It also includes interviews with those singers, and premiers many new songs and music videos.
I believe those two external links were important relevant links.
Thanks.
I looked at Persian pop music and I don't see any removal of Bia2. I have take another look at the three links I did remove and stand by my removal. The Radio Javan link was plain advertising that promoted the site. The farsitube was a no-value-added external link, and there was no reason to keep a youtube link promoting Ahmad Zahir. I kept the BBC link because it actually provides more information about pop music in Persian language rather than simply promoting a particular site or artist. The Behnam 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had just asked about two specific links:
1-I noticed that another persoan had deleted the link to professional reviews; sorry about my first note.
2-I still think we should introduce good resources for Persian pop music. I think a good solution is to have new Wiki pages for Record companies and Internet radios. All companies/websites can be introduced there in a neutral way. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.
Well if they are notable enough they can have a page, and of course that would include a link to their home page. Just make something and people will eventually decide if its notable or neutral enough. Notify me when you make it. Of course, I don't know anything about Persian pop music; I just deleted links that were obvious spam. Anyway, get back to me when you have made something. You may also want to ask some other Persian Wikipedianss who seem into that stuff if they can find some more reliable sources to establish notablity & the like. Notability is a big thing with companies and they must assert it early on or they may become speedied. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Farrokhzad
There seems to be a lot of political articles as well as biographies that lack much reliable information. Ahmad Batebi article is also pretty aweful, as bad as the Fakhravar one was (I didn't know too much about Fakhravar to be honest, just checked the sources). I guess step by step I will try to fix whatever I find and I can find info on. Anyway maybe starting a wikiproject or something on Iranian politics or biographies may help to get the efforts organised and highlight what serious sucks and can be improved --Rayis 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Implicit personal attacks
After LSLM's edit: [16], [17], [18] , you have made the following comments: [19]. See WP:NPA and WP:CIV. These types of comments are never acceptable. Lukas19 20:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how WP policies apply to my comment. Please retract this unfair accusation. My statement does not attack any editors personally. The Behnam 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see how they apply to that comment, either. I agree with Behnam. MichaelGriffin 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to just delete Ari (lion), but if you want to redirect it to Ari (name), that would be fine. If you're just concerned about the links, Special:Whatlinkshere/Ari_(lion) shows that there are only a handful of articles which actually link to Ari (lion), the links in those articles could easily be changed. --Xyzzyplugh 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there are a number of speedy deletion tags, but I don't think any of them relates to this, it is obviously a dictionary definition and the original author says so too, but I don't see that qualifying it for any of the speedy deletion templates. --Xyzzyplugh 13:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
LSM
Sometimes I just forget to sign in, that is all, anyone can see my IP address and I never used it to try and pretend that I am a different person, although Lukas is always trying to say that we are all the same person, including you, Globe and a long etc. Veritas et Severitas 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Khamenei
I'm honestly not sure. Try asking Jkelly; he knows more about Fair Use than I do. Khoikhoi 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless we need to discuss that specific image for some reason, it's not a great Wikipedia:Fair use claim. Why not try writing them a polite request to release the image under a free license? We have some nice examples. It can't hurt to try. Jkelly 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the kind word or two during the recent fiasco. Sometimes I underestimate the deviousness of some of the editors, but I certainly appreciate your support. I will certainly have to be a lot more careful. I owe you a drink.Arcayne 12:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for chipping in on the editing. I had to revert back to a previous version, and going through the edits, looking for 'pearls amongst the swine' was pretty tedious. A separate question: how would you feel about the controversy section splitting off into a temp page, so the rest of the article can be worked on for a bit? It would also allow the controversies stuff to get tightened up through attrition more than anything else. Allowing for the addressing of fewer issues, making it more in accordance with a controversy section from an FA article, like V for Vendetta (film) or some such. Your thoughts?Arcayne 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was unclear. What I meant was that the controversy section should be end up being about as tight as the on in VfV. The creation of the Temp Page (Bignole suggests a Sandbox, with which I disagree) allows those editors who really want the various controversies (not critical reaction, but rather the cultural and political reactions by Persions, etc.) a place to hash out what fits and what does not, while those interested in working on the production, themes, plot, box office and whatnot can do that and not have to wade through all the distracting posts in the Discussion area.
I brought it to you before we post the suggestion in the Discussion Page, to test the waters and gauge how to present it to minimize the number of people crying foul. I don't want them to feel like we are minimizing their viewpoints, but instead are divinding our efforts. Thoughts?Arcayne 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
again, I was unclear. There is no Temp page for VfV. I am suggesting that the controversy section of 300 should - after reintegration - look as spiffy as the one from VfV. Sorry for not being clear.Arcayne 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Recommendation
I highly recommend trying to fix so called "defunct" sections instead of deleting them. Also there is a certain user who insists upon adding a lengthy excerpt of an interview in the "Quotes" section. Keeping the "Video and interview" section will allow that user to add the interview in the proper section. Regarding the actual "defunct" template you deleted, [20] the template needs to be changed. For instance there is a link called "A mere puppet?". The template needs to be more NPOV. Agha Nader 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I still prefer NPOV-izing instead of removing material. If that particular video clip is to be removed then the others should be too. Which may be the right thing to do. A-rated articles usually don't have such media sections. For instances the John F. Kennedy article provides the videos in the external links section. I will discuss this on the talk page. Agha Nader 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Re: 300
Sorry mate, I had wrongly assumed good faith to as I felt someone was trolling and pushing their POV. WikiNew 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Temp Page talk has been posted in Discussion. Feel free to comment. Arcayne 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to make the text larger for the temp page and center it so folk cannot miss it? i know what to put into the Temp area, I just need to get the temp page up and nifty-lookingArcayne 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"YEEEAH"
Just so that you know, while I understand your reverting it, you do realise I don't add it to mock the Persians but the Americans, right? I'm half-Iranian myself... Staretsen 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
change to 300
The sources are from MSN/AP, as well as 50,000 recorded petition signatures from Iranians and Greeks. Please check links before making assumptions on credibility. It is not just Iranians that are upset so your re-wording was pointless. Mehrshad123 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please re-instate the edits I made to the 300 article for the reasons stated? I cannot revise it for another 23h according to wikipedia policy. Mehrshad123 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure where you get they idea that an official online petition is "unreliable". Also, are you the one that has broken all the links related to this further down in the article and changed the number 60,000 to 6,000? Where did you get 6,000 from? Please don't touch the article again unless you have new information to offer countering the facts. Mehrshad123 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to get upset. PetitionsOnline.com is a widely used resource for collecting electronic signatures which have been legislated as a valid as a paper and ink. Mehrshad123 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We're no Angels
Sorry for the late reply. It's a movie about 2 criminals who escape from prison and try to hide by pretending to be priests. Doesn't it seem very similar to Marmoulak?
I will re add the link.
TheBehnam, I am not sure why you keep undoing my edits without cause or good reason. Please read the talk page first. What exactly are you referring to by "OFFICIAL NAME CHANGE" and what are you trying to prove overall? Just because there was a request for the europeans to stop referring to Iran as Persia doesn't mean that they changed the name of the country. I am really getting tired of giving trolls history lessons and I shouldn't have to add another person to my list.Mehrshad123 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Your reverts are essentially "I DONT LIKE IT" reverts. They are completely inappropriate removals of reliably sourced and relevant information. Your insinuation that I am a troll is just another count of incivility against you. Please stop, thanks. There is no need to get upset. The Behnam 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You still have not read the discussion have you. I do not appreciate being accused of a personal attack. I came here to teach you something and you retaliated. Mehrshad123 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
== NPA ==
Regarding this notice below that you post on my user page, was it meant to go on the page of the troll that has attacked at least 12 editors including me?
== NPA == With regards to your comments on Talk:Reza Shah: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Specifically this edit [21], where you called another user a "troll." The Behnam 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop with the reverts and re-reverts. If this continues, you may be blocked for violating WP:3RR. I do not want to have to ask this article to be locked.
You have not read or participated in the discussions which provides sources which contradict statements added by troll. Mehrshad123 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are fine, TheBenham, and made in good faith. If he files a 3RR complaint (you might want to set WP:AN/3RR to watch for a while), let me know. Your editsd are more solid than mine, and I will say such in your defense. Arcayne 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't worry all that much. Karma is the greatest of equalizers and the surest of boomerangs. Enjoy the wikibreak, and dance the Safety Dance (tm). :D Arcayne 02:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
His edits are not fine. And please don't touch my user page again as that is extremely improper behavior. The 3RR rule applies to everyone and "TheBehnam" is a biased party here based on his stated opinion of Iranians and "conspiracy theories". The basis of the problem here is that he is not familiar with the topics he is making RV's on and he is not bothering to read or contribute to Discussion pages on articles. If he had he would have seen that there was consensus forming among editors who have researched the Reza Shah factoids and sources already. Mehrshad123 10:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
300 Zionist Stuff
Mercenary2k recently added a cite supporting a statement which makes Iranians look mighty, mighty bad, and I am not sure it belongs, unless it is truly indicative of the sentiment in Iran. You've edited more than I have. I was wondering, is this a fringe group, or a thermometer of the Iranian people? I'm concerned about a strawman argument being posted... Arcayne 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't like what? that was too brief for me to understand. Arcayne 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much for the heads up. I immediately altered my page. Let me know if things escalate on your end, as I might be able to lend a bit more assistance than is normally available. Arcayne 14:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
btw, you are mentioned on my User Page, under Interesting Wikipedians :) Arcayne 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the positive recognition. :) The Behnam 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Eye
Hi Behnam, There are too many translations! i confuse which one is good! So i don't added it, There are words such as çəş, bəj, təs, dəri However these are what i know, it may be possible to be more and more! Since there is no standard for it, i think Çəş could be considered, but i am not sure, --Ali 22:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Unauthorized edits to my discussion page
Please do not edit my page by restoring other people's retaliatory entries --
I have the right to remove such work from my page according to Wikipedia policy; repetition of such activity from you can be considered malicious since you are restoring edits on my page which have nothing to do with your entries on my page. Mehrshad123 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Which policy is that? I'm rather certain my edits are justified. I am simply undoing a completely inappropriate and bad faith removal of legitimate warnings. Perhaps you should heed the advice I give about these warnings before you dig a hole for yourself. There are better ways to deal with warnings than removing them. Cheers. The Behnam 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Behnam, I must agree with Mehrshad here, the current policy is indeed that warnings may be removed by the talkpage owner at their discretion. It may be considered poor style, but it's not something you should edit-war about. It's an issue that gets debated on the admin noticeboards every now and again and there's no very clear consensus about it. No opinion on whether the warnings were legitimate in the first place. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Mehrshad has been throwing around so many accusations (troll this, troll that, "retaliatory") that are supposed as legitimate that I don't immediately think that this accusation is actually true. The warning serves it purpose anyway and is left in the history. Mehrshad not liking it and not taking the advice doesn't mean that it can't be used as a part of a later documentation trail. The way things are going so far, such a documentation trail may be used. Anyway, I'll refrain from restoring warnings, but I won't hesitate to add more if Mehrshad keeps up the incivility. The Behnam 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether he blanks it or not, as its in the history forever. Anyone placing warnings usually checks the history anyway, and if the person has a history, they usually place the new warning and head over to the AN to put the person in their rightful place.
On another topic, Miskin is pretty unhappy, thinking that you are being POV for removing the scholar's ethnicity. Clearly, that doesn't make sense, as you are of Iranian extraction yourself, right? I asked the question in his Talk page that whether the scholar's words would mean less if they were of Irish, Kapanese or Pakistani heritage. I think that's kinda trapped him. If he says yes, then he's waaaaayyyyy over the POV line, as ethn othnocentrism has no place in a neutrality debate. If he says no, then there is no reason to mention it. It might get ugly, as he might go the RfC route (he seems kinda itchy about using that particular stick). -Arcayne 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, but I'm also not sure about the letter code appropriate in this case. This [22] clearly matches our case and so it should be sent to RFCU, but strangely enough I cannot identify the proper letter code there [23]. Do you have any idea of how we should proceed? Shervink 09:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
It's now listed for RCU [24]. Shervink 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Dayaee Statements
Due to some contentions with the Daryaee statements (their citability and accuracy counter to the Herodotus source material), I thought it best to look for more sources that speak out about the historical inaccuracy. I found one ::A pretty good article can be found here, Could you give me your impression as to the citability of the article? I wanted a fresh pair of eyes evaluating it. Arcayne 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
(To begin with, I just read what I originally wrote here, and the sitation was provided by User:Behmod. If we decide to include anything from it, we should give credit to him for having pointed it out). Your observations seem spot on. My field of study was more on far-eastern studies and north european craziness.Arcayne 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Devdasis
Hi, Unfortunately, I don't know much about that either. Sorry! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
for greeting
Welcome to newcomer
Salam. How are you?
I suggest to welcome to newcomer like User talk:Garryglitter49 before any warning. They may not be familiar with wikipedia. We can warn them if they don't change their manner.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Geminemini (talk·contribs) - now indefblocked due to racist vandalism. Thanks :) - Alison☺ 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Homework external links
Those weren't spam - I looked them over carefully. Very useful resources. Chill Factor Five 07:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Amongst the great many things I do not know
Why are Iranians not referred to as Persians then? I guess I don't understand that? Is it because Persians are not the sole ethnic group within Iran, or because of Pahlavi's proclamation in '35? I used to know some Iranians that fled the '79 revolution, and I thought they reverted to calling themselves Persian to avoid the stigma that the Hostage situation in America tended to create. Arcayne 08:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Of that I am sure. No Iranian living in the West wanted to be associated with that at all, no matter how brutal Pahlevi was. Arcayne 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Italian beer links
Hmmm I don't think it's simple spamming. I think he's trying to contribute legitimately, but I'll go through his contribs more carefully. Thanks for the heads-up, and keep up the good work. – Rianaঋ 09:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
hey dood
have seen you on aiv, and quite a few other articles. just wanted to say hello. the_undertowtalk 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for helping out with those vandals. The Behnam 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahmad Batebi
Regarding the name in that link you provided, I've noticed the name is spelled differently in the WP article. I don't know how to create a disambiguation for a different spelling (Ahmad, Ahmed). How is this usually accomplished? Arcayne 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've responded by email. The Behnam 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"Iranian neococonservatives"
Actually that is not a bad article except for the use of the word necononservative. If there is basis for use of that term, and I noticed a few hits on Google, I might withdraw my objection. So far nobody has spoken up in the category for deletion discussion.--Mantanmoreland 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. I would feel better about the term if the person who introduced it would defend it, but that has not happened.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your message
I suggest that you grow a skin; then you'll be in a position to thicken it to normal standards. (Oh, and the unjustified threat of blocking is deprecated rather more strongly than poking fun at an over-puritanical comment. I suggest that you get out of the habit.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to leave inappropriate and silly threats on my Talk page, I might block you from editing myself. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to reccomend chilling out. I have seen nothing that was a serious personal threat or horribly uncivil comment. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate that he seems to think he is above these rules and that the warnings aren't valid for him. Nor do I appreciate the threat to block me for giving him warnings about personal attacks. The Behnam 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Behnam left a vague and odd threat against me on my talk page, too. What's going on here? TortureIsWrong 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Its ok! Dont stress it. Dont take things too seriously. While certain actions may not be "ideal", generally using template warnings on experience editors isent generally the best first line. Stop by, drop a pesronal lined expressing your concerns. If the activity continues, try again. Then, give them the appropriate warnings. (It isent a set in stone policy, but I have found that it is the best way to do things and it keeps most people happy). Remeber, if somebody is being uncivil, try your best to be far above and beyond them! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm used to using the templates from newbie contrib patrol. So I should just leave a personal message then? The Behnam 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[After multiple edit conflicts]
I'm not above the rules, but I've broken none — neither guidelines nor policies. Your inappropriate use of templated warnings and blocking threats are, however, very much deprecated at best.
If you don't want to cause amusement among other editors, I suggest that you not vote to block an account because the User name "young&sexy" "[r]efers to incitement of sexual desire"... When you do cause such amusement, I suggest that you not make things worse by waxing indignant and worse. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my humble opinion. I understand, I think many of us are tempted to throw the standard out there but it can be pretty offensive. Also, make sure to use the appropriate level. None of the comments that I saw were blocking material, just small pokes at each other (which happens from ntime to time). Thanks for being civil and talking through this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I should have done AN/I. Maybe I need to sleep. The Behnam 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I should probably retrieve that info and take it to AN/I. Hopefully they won't be all supportive of violations this time. The Behnam 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Note - The above conflict is the result of being in a bad mood. The Behnam 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see the talk page. I think there are certain steps that you should have taken but did not, such as ask for sources or atleast place citation needed tags in hopes of someone citing some of the information. Massive removal like that, without significant discussion is not the proper way to do handle an article like that. I will revert your edits and place a tag on the top of the article until we can have users discuss the issue on the talk page.Azerbaijani 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CAIS is a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with using CAIS to write an article about Iranian women, especially their role historically.Azerbaijani 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CAIS doesn't appear to be a reliable source; there is a lot of WP:FRINGE on it. Fullstop even said that SSP does copyright infringement. You may want to talk to Fullstop about it since he seems to know much more about the situation than I. The Behnam 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
heh
And I thought I'd get a message from an angry feminist! Yeah, the article is actually blatant lies and misrepresentations of research as it currently stands. The current consensus is that boys actually do fight at a young age because of chemicals, not because parents tell them to, for example. This article seems to becoming from a radical school of feminism which denies the real nature of gender differences. Please help me by working on it, and reverting anyone who reverts me (unless, of course, they're right).--Urthogie 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the article is basically NPOV and such now. I'll start adding actual information to it later as I read.--Urthogie 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please respond at Talk:India#Indus_Valley_Civilization. I came up with three options. I guess (after two weeks and some objective distance), Option B sounds best to me, but I'd like to get your feedback as well. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sassanid Empire infobox
If it goes to mediation, feel free to include me --Rayis 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it'll go to mediation since it is not necessary, but I'll include you if it does. The Behnam 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
RE Magic Bus
I went back and viewed the hist afterward, sorry for tag.--Terrx 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Wikipedia rules specify that new editors first be given a warning when breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. You have already broken that today on your edit war against me and against the voting poll: [25][26][27]. Please adhere to the rules so that we can have a more productive editing environment. Thank You.--Zereshk 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You aren't a new editor Zereshk, I don't have to warn you. Sorry. The Behnam 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, when you are accused of 3RR, let those who know you and your edit patterns know, so we can offer our opinions. Had I not been posting a 3RR violation, I would neverhave known. Anyway, I am glad things turned out for the right. Arcayne 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
He is here
Salam Apparently Patchuli participated with some other names in some of his former articles. Please pay attention to [28] and [29]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please pay attention to these guys:[30] and [31]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have problem in using Template:Cite web in here, could you please correct the problem. And any comment about the lead selection is welcomed!--Pejman47 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Armon, deleted a spam link but also reverted my whole edits. (with out discussing it in edit summery) if someone looks at [32], he may think that I was the one who put the spam. It is unfair!--Pejman47 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
and thanks for your help for using that template. --Pejman47 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Article Devadasi and origins
Please see my comments in the article Devadasi.
Venki 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin and RFCU
Howdy! On the Pornstar02 discussion, you mentioned that you felt SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)'s name was inappropriate. When should we expect to see it on RFCU? I asked, but the discussion closed before you could answer. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, probably not. The Behnam 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you feel it's inappropriate, why not? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen it would not succeed, and it is not worth pissing off a powerful and experienced editor like SlimVirgin to argue out. But I do think it is not an appropriate name. Why do you ask? The Behnam 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you apply the same standards to new usernames that you apply to SlimVirgin? I'm asking because I'd like to make sure that I'm not operating under a misconception when it seems you're saying that you're more likely to "give a pass" to people who have status and only concentrate on new users who lack it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The main reason is that I don't think it would have a chance. The other users tend to have more "tolerance" and I think that SlimVirgin's status would probably keep her safe. Considering the probable futility of the attempt, the fact that I don't need to make powerful enemies is simply a secondary reason. My first experience at that RFC had BigDT taking that approach (see the "Abrahamic Bias" link on my page) and I'm inclined to think that others wouldn't disallow on account of her established-ness as well. The Behnam 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The link isn't on my page anymore so here it is [33]. The Behnam 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent) I'm troubled, it seems as if you're asserting that only new users who can't "defend themselves" (your reference to making 'powerful enemies') are fair game, and that you're participating in RFCN in an effort to pick the "winning side" instead of what you personally believe to be accurate. Please elaborate if this is an inaccurate reading. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, that's not what I am asserting. Did you read my last response? I don't participate to be on the "winning side." I actually don't tend to be in agreement with the rest of the participants because I'm too "Puritan" or something. If you'd look over the history of that page you'd see that your accusation is not true, especially when it comes to sex-related user names. And again, read my last response; I believe I clarify that my main reasoning is the perceived futility of the attempt. I've turned it around in my mind a lot, especially on account of the 'disgusting' reaction I witnessed, but have not yet decided it would be worthwhile to pursue. So please, don't be troubled, thanks. The Behnam 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
allegations of israeli apartheid article
I kept most of your edits but restored a pargraph I felt you actually altered in a way that violated the undue weight clause of Wikipedia:NPOV. You removed a source that did a study of the allegation and its historical context, and said inside that most commentators reject the analogy as propaganda. It's undue weight to not make clear what the majority think.--Urthogie 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
More citations that Devadasis are Kaikolars
Hi,
Please see for yourself some more references from books. I have submitted about a score of articles to prove my point. They are all academic references or books published and accepted by Govt of India. In fact just look at the amount of references within each book.
This is the Madras District Gazetteer recognized by the Government of India. I have provided the google search just to show that I'm not manufacturing anything.
Quoted from the book:
..every Kaikolar family was formerly expected to set apart one girl to be dedicated as Devadasi to a temple..
3. Book: Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism - Page 178 by Bannerji, Himani, Mojab, Shahrzad, Whitehead, Judith
Kaikolar girls were dedicated as devadasis, ..and the children of temple women occasionally married Kaikkolars
These are all valid sources and prove once again that the devadasis originated from kaikolars.
The kaikolars are clealry described as the weavers and terinja-kaikolar padai. So its not ambiguous.Mudaliar
All this seems to be saying is that Kaikolars always set aside girls to be Devadasis, not necessarily that all Devadasis originated with the Kaikolar. It seems you are taking more out of the sources than is actually stated. But that is just preliminary; I'll take a closer look later. Thanks for the explanation. The Behnam 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to take some time and read WP:AGF. I found the accusations you made here [34], and I have made sure to explain to Riana that these accusations were completely unwarranted. In my opinion, you should first take the time to make sure you know what you are talking about before running around throwing out accusations. It is interesting you didn't even take the minute to post me a message and make an inquiry. You waste the time of editors and administrators; think about that. Icsunonove 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the rude message. I brought it to Riana because I couldn't figure it out; otherwise I'd just have given you warnings like anyone else. I saw you adding some links to external sites during that day; I considered that they might be spam. I saw you adding a lot of them, and I'm still not sure as to the nature of your edits. If you have cleared it with Riana, that is fine by me. However, I think you should try to understand that I, like other people, can make mistakes in judgment, especially when I'm patrolling newbie contribs, where there are a lot of real spammers and things move quickly. I apologize for the misjudgment and I hope that you apologize your rude message, as it borders on trolling ("You waste the time of editors and administrators" being key). Cheers. The Behnam 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not rude to remind fellow editors to assume good faith. It isn't rude to state my opinion that the way you did things in fact wastes people's time. If you are so inclined to hunt out abuse, you should really take the time to see if your concerns are even slightly valid. This is simply constructive criticism. You mention I added links. Right, I added an external link from the page describing the company to their website. That is hardly uncommon on wikipedia articles, and I'd suggest concentrating on more clear cut abuse. What gets me is you asked an Admin to block another editor without concrete evidence of abuse. That, and when she told you that it looked fine, you still attempted to imply I was doing something wrong. You say you are not sure of the nature of my edits? Then why don't you ask; explain to me what you are confused about. Icsunonove 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked her to take a look because I wasn't sure; my perception was that you were spamming. I didn't give you warnings or put you at AIV because I wasn't sure. I apologized if I was wrong. I considered your message rude because of the last sentence, primarily. Why must you make such a big deal of this? You are not blocked, I didn't pollute your talk page with warnings, and I haven't reported you on anything. I simply asked a better editor to take a look at the issue instead of me because I could not tell. Why must this continue? The Behnam 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine to drop it dude. Listen, I was trying to give you some constructive criticism with that last sentence. A negative critique isn't necessarily meant to negatively effect you. It just gave me a bit of the impression of someone crying wolf. I guess at this point I'm mostly curious to what you saw me doing that was so out of the ordinary. That confuses me! :P regards, Icsunonove 01:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hostile :) Anyway, tone is indeed difficult to ascertain in text-world. Regarding Italian beer, note that the page has existed since 11:38, 3 July 2005. I found it in this condition [35] and just cleaned it up to its current state. I thought I made some useful contribution to the article, considering the condition and profanity! LOL. I'd prefer to make proper pages for all these major Italian brands when I get around to it, but for the meantime I just made the page consistent -- i.e., having links to the websites for brands which have no article yet. I don't know, external links to websites in-topic seems pretty typical. The link spam I usually see is of a completely different sort. Anyway, I'm not a newbie, even though I just opened an account. I thought that besides my small edit count, I must appear to have at least a bit of a clue to what I'm doing; especially since I have at least an "ok" user page. :) regards, Icsunonove 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone happy? ^^ – Rianatalk 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I believe this is over. The Behnam 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Engaging in the same old sterile edit war after weeks of protection and no talk page discussion, just hours after I unprotected the article is unproductive. It's the same edit warriors, the same reverts, and no attempts at discussion. I'm going to unprotect the article again and block editors who revert from now; the article should not be in chronic protection because of a few unreasonable edit warriors. Use the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No ambiguity about the name Kaikolar
Venki123 (talk·contribs) is just vandalising the section South India and the Chola empire which is heavily referenced and clearly states that some of the Kaikolars were indeed dedicated as Devadasis. On the the other hand he is just messing up the section by replacing Kaikolars with Isai-Vellalars which is not correct. This particular section talks about the Kaikolars in the Chola empire and how some of them were dedicated as Devadasis. So Isai-Vellalars have no place here as it is clearly a name to denote all Devadasis. Moreover, he is attempting to portray that the Kaikolars mentioned are different from the Kaikolars which is not true and is proven by numerous academic citations which clearly define them as the Kaikolar of the terinja-Kaikolar Padai of the Chola empire who are indeed the Kaikolars he is referring.Mudaliar 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. You may need to consider some sort of advanced dispute resolution. I'll also call for help from other Indian Wikipedians who may actually know something about this caste stuff. But the point is that you don't help anything by characterizing his edits as vandalism. The Behnam 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The particular section is about South India and how some of the Kaikolar were dedicated as Devadasis, but he is just replacing everything called Kaikolar with Isai-Vellalar. Is this not vandalism? The identity of Kaikolars has been clearly defined while he is attempting to say that there were two different Kaikolar groups. This is not true.Mudaliar 04:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd call it a content dispute. The Behnam 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
New Edits
Is it just me, or did it just get crazy again? First, people want to add line drawings of Xerxes in order to show yet more historical differences, then they want to call the entire thing fictional. I am heading off to bed. Too many pov-pushers, not enough Spartans to push them off a cliff... heh. Arcayne 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know why they suddenly became so active. Maybe they actually got around to seeing the film! The Behnam 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Amazons
Please revert yourself. "The historical Amazons were Scythians, an Iranian people renowned for their cavalry." [36] --Mardavich 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, check Google Book, there are dozens of academic sources that call Amazons "Iranian" or "an Iranian people". Herodotus calls them Iranian as well. --Mardavich 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to do synthesize or project POVs. The source said it is an "Amazon;" this could easily refer to the mythological Amazon. What kind of dictionary says "the most important of the Iranian peoples" anyway? This NPOV dictionary doesn't say such things, [37], not that we should be the ones saying it anyway. If you need a picture of a Parthian Shot you can just use the Shapur one if it isn't there already. The Behnam 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary is a valid source, Amazons were an Iranian people, that's a fact. And since when Shapour was Parthian? --Mardavich 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Even your biased dictionary contains a division of "legend" Amazons and "historical" Amazons. We don't know which this Etruscan piece depicts, and we should avoid OR & POV, so that is out. Sorry. The Behnam 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I actually mentioned Shapur becase there is a depiction of him doing a Parthian shot. Though I also see that, according to Shapur I, he was the son of an Arsacid woman so that actually is Parthian, I suppose. The Behnam 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm after another look it appears I was talking about Shapur II. I suppose he isn't Parthian, but he was still able to do a Parthian shot. The Behnam 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is about Parthians though, I still think the Amazon picture is an appropriate image for the article. I have a print Encyclopedia here, and it clearly says the Amazons were an ancient Iranic people. --Mardavich 09:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As it is interpreted as a "Parthian shot" it could be included, though the text should say "Amazon" just to be on the safe side. The Behnam 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Civility
You said [38]: "You shouldn't make a big deal of this just because your pet academic isn't in there." Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. --Mardavich 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just meant your preferred academic. But per WP:OWN we don't have to put in Farrokh just because you really really want him in. Sorry to break it to you. However, your use of quotation marks around my name on different occasions is inexcusable. The Behnam 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I am going to ask you again to be civil and comment on content, not on the contributor. --Mardavich 11:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop pretending consensus hasn't been previously established. It sounds silly with you insisting that there haven't already been discussions on the matters. The Behnam 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop pretending there is consensus on everything you push for, when there is none. Consensus means mutual understanding and agreement by all parties, when there are 2-3 people proposing something, you can't just dismiss it by playing the "consensus" card. --Mardavich 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'd ask the same of you. If the feedback at the 300 talk page meant anything, it is that a number of users aside from me agreed to do things a certain way. So please don't accuse me of making up consensus, thanks. The Behnam 12:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:
I don't understand, what would I be hiding? Do you have something to hide? I'm confused. --Mardavich 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, what are you talking about? You are hiding something? The Behnam 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not. Are you? --Mardavich 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Where did this talk of hiding come from? I don't remember saying anything to that end. Now I'm also confused. :) The Behnam 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am impressed that you withdrew your false report against me. I must admit, I didn't expect that to happen...but I guess that just goes to show you that people change over time. --Mardavich 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not afraid of admitting to a mistake. I saw that it had just been restored and interpreted your following edits as reverting that, but then I panned back and realized that it didn't meet the definition of a revert. It is actually kind of odd since Agha Nader recently filed a similarly bogus support against me, so I'm surprised I didn't catch myself sooner. Anyway, that is over; what were we arguing about? So what about hiding? Where did that come from? The Behnam 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I sure hope that wasn't another Aucaman insinuation (about 'changing over time'). The Behnam 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Bogus, eh? If you are referring to the 3RR, I was the one that filled the report. I suggest you be a bit more cautious before calling any editors contributions as not genuine. Although I think your edits were in violation of the 3RR, I recognize that you are a good editor. There is no need to discredit my contributions, especially after Nowruz. Do not you agree? Agha Nader 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Check your e-mail in two minutes. --Mardavich 09:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just tell me when you have sent the email; I don't want to keep checking. The Behnam 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on this? I think it's pretty poor. I am really not sure about calling any killed protesters "martyrs" --Rayis 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware you restored a promotional version of the article? I think you made a mistake so I'm going to undo it. Please tell me what is going on. Thanks. The Behnam 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Promotional or not, paragraphs starting with "His hard-to-swallow message" are entirely unencyclopedic and POV. As an editor, you have an obligation to create an article that doesn't overly browbeat its subject. We would rather have a whitewashed version of an article than one that is full of innuendo and weasel words. Cary Bassdemandez 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's just neutralize it then. I actually just restored versions; I don't personally recommend the current one. The Behnam 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your "contribution" to sockpuppets page
Regarding your edits to the Sockpuppet report page:
Thanks for your "contributions" however the sockpuppet accusation was confirmed and resulted in Bannings and other actions against the troll as well as his meatpuppets.
Next time try to be more constructive rather than try to sabotage a valid Wikipedia process because of your POV and personal hatred of Iranians. Mehrshad123 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't hate Iranians, but in any case I posted there long before there was a checkuser. Considering that my post was a request to move it to checkuser I don't think it was completely non-constructive. Requesting checkuser be done for a suspected set is definitely not sabotage and in fact furthers the process. I later contacted Shervink and the checkuser was requested. Thanks for your concern. Cheers. The Behnam 05:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, isn't editing all these articles fun? Arcayne 07:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I had reverted the article to the March 28th version as Dab has removed a lot of properly referenced material without making any effort to get consensus. I have no problem with changing/refining the wording. But I would prefer a discussion before such a large change. This is a controversial topic; could we try discussion before getting into edit warring.Sbhushan 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, well perhaps it should be left as is while you work out things with dab. I just noticed the restoration of some questionable wording and a few other problems, and overall judged dab's version better, so I reverted it. Sorry if I got rid of something good. The Behnam 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern was with removal of all of history section and Sanskrit section. If you don't mind, could you restore it to the "as-is" state. If I restore it might look like I am trying to engage in rv-warring with you. I have no intention of doing that.Sbhushan 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Paste the specific paragraphs here and I'll restore them. I'm not going to restore questionable wording like "Indo-Europeanist linguist community", so give me the specifics and I'll put them back in for now. The Behnam 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
History and Sanskrit sections from the version date March 25th [[40]]. Histroy section is based on Bryant 2001 various chapters. Sanskrit argument was proposed by Kazanas in an article published in JIES (see OIT talk page). I have no problem if the wording needs to be made more clear/refined, but the core argument should be presented. If any reference is not clear add fact tag and I will provide reference.Sbhushan 15:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Your hatred of bots
Our wikipedia bots have delicate, sensitive souls. Please stop making personal attacks on a poor innocent bot, as you did here ([41]), or else they might forget the Three Laws of Robotics and block you. This is your one and only warning. ;-) Fut.Perf.☼ 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, thanks! I'll keep that in mind... The Behnam 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
u r foony mahn, Meester Bennhamm. I mayd simylar plee for oonderstandeeeng heer, boot alas, palsy-walsy with robots es doom-ed to fayl yurr.
Btw, wait before replying. I think we are about to see some fireworks over Miskin's reply. Get some popcorn and a good seat. :D Arcayne 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Portal
That's a template on a portal, you don't put references section on a template. But since you are asking for references, "The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan meaning Land of the Aryans" [42][43]. Please put the references in [nowiki] and reword the sentence according the references I provided. --Mardavich 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain the necessity of including the trivial and almost redundant 'cognate' mention in the introduction article. Thanks. The Behnam 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that trivial info? It shows the origins of the word, and clarifies what language the phrase is derived from. --Mardavich 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It really doesn't clarify anything (cognate to what language's word?) and to do so would clutter the intro. It is better to just stick to the basics, as the most significant aspect is that the name means "Land of the Aryans." This is an intro, let's not invite an etymological digression. The Behnam 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Greater Iran
I'm not sure what you mean. In international texts "Persia" almost always refers to the ancient "Persian Empire". "Iran" is almost always used for the post-Islamic period, but quite frequently for the ancient Persian Empire as well. See works of famous Iranologist Richard Nelson Frye for example. You should also keep in mind that "Iran" in general means more than current territory of the Islamic Republic. It is an umbrella term for linguistic groups speaking Iranian languages, hence the name "Greater Iran". "Persia" is too exclusive, ethnically and linguistically. "Iran" and "Iranian" and "Iranic" includes all Iranian-speakers throughout the historic geographic range. Why is this and the above issue a big deal for you? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not make arguments over what you call "trivial" matters. If they are trivial to you, then please do not make problems. We already have our hands full with anti-Iranian sentiments enough and there are more important issues to deal with. There are so many messed up articles and junk scattered all around, we have to concentrate on this stuff most importantly. Thanks, Khorshid 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean the template? There was a discussion to change that to "Greater Iran" or something like that, but I have no idea what happened. Currently it says "Empires of Persia" and "Kings of Persia" - probably better to remove it since "Greater Iran" article deals with far more complexity than can be listed on a template. Khorshid 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Make the case. If people agree with you, there's nothing wrong. Just make sure you explain exactly what you are going to do so there is no revert war. Khorshid 08:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for assuming good faith. Reverting is a slap in the face of good faith editor. Cheers :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Done :) I found another link...--Scheibenzahl 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Your tone in the Farty McGee discussion on RFCN has become increasingly incivil, most recently when you termed the people you disagreed with as 'apologists' who are 'fielding fringe theories'. Please reign it in a bit, and remember that the people you're working with can have different opinions without being bad people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, whatever. That was kidding anyway. The fact that people are ignoring the evidence, on the other hand, is a continuing problem. The Behnam 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I was simply wondering about it. I mean, you take the objections and claim that it means he opposes consensus, while it is obvious that he is referring to WP:VOTE and doesn't oppose consensus, per se. To characterize his argument as such is building a straw man, and I thought it best to point out. You may have simply made a mistake, which is OK. However, it seemed so obvious that I thought you may have misinterpreted his statements on purpose, which would be trolling. That is why I asked for clarification. Obviously I was also not clear, and I apologize for that. Please feel free to ask me any further questions. Thank you. The Behnam 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Invoking DNFT is not "asking for clarification", I'm having a hard time seeing any other interpretation. I've asked you to abide by the civility conventions adopted by the project. Please reconsider the path you're taking, this isn't a healthy one you're on. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I cannot help it if you cannot understand a question to be a question. But please, do not lecture me, patronize me, or pretend that I have grievously violated civility or any other conventions. After all, I am not one of those who constantly defy the WP:U policy and its RFC, nor do I harass people on their talk pages without showing any sign of acknowledging their response to the questions. So please, stop your exaggerations and threatening language. Thanks! The Behnam 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Civility
I have responded to your comment on my talk page. After looking at it a second time it seems you were trying to mediate more than anything. Although I appreciate your mediation, given that you are an "'Interesting Wikipedian'", I am not sure I was uncivil. So I will keep WP:CIVIL in mind, but I will not soften my tone.Agha Nader 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
What is that all about?!! --Rayis 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll respond there. The Behnam 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Aces High
Comment on an article or article section on the article's talk page. Not only is that the correct venue but it allows others interested in the topic to view the history of discourse. That's why articles have talk pages. Some editors will get in a huff and nance right over to another editor's talk page and place "wildly" inappropiate claims on the editor's talk page, exactly like you did. Don't do that. --Scribner 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please don't continue to make inappropriate posts on user talk pages. Thanks! The Behnam 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Pardon? If y'all feel I've made an "inappropriate post", please provide diffs. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! If you have a diff, I'd love to see it. If you're stalkin' my page because you're unhappy with something I said, c'mon now, that's just not nice. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't usually respond to the obvious, especially when it seems aimed at provocation, but here goes. Looking at your talk page is not "stalking," so please don't make that extreme accusation. It is exactly these kind of things, in addition to your false 'niceness' when posting, that make your posts inappropriate. For example, your lengthy bit about SlimVirgin. Even after I answer you, you don't show any sign that you even read my post, instead stating your are 'disturbed' and otherwise pretending that the issue is escalating. Also, your complaint about my supposed accusation of you being a troll. Even after I explained to you that it was simply a question, you insisted upon seeing it no other way, and then proceeded to give me a few threatening and patronizing 'tips'. I recommend you stop this type of behavior as it is very inappropriate and provocative. Thanks. The Behnam 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "threatening tips", but if you feel my conduct has been improper, I invite you to make use of any of the mediation tools available, including but not limited to WP:RFC. I'm an administrator, and if I've been acting terrible as you suggest, logically something needs to be done. I've responded civilly, I've attempted to work peacefully with you to find resolution to our disagreements, but I feel that you haven't made the reciprocal efforts. If you choose to initiate an RfC, I expect that to be reflected, so I hope you'll consider it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The 'threatening tips' refers to this, "Please reconsider the path you're taking, this isn't a healthy one you're on." I see no reason for you to continue coming to my page acting like there is still some problem or confusion. I've already told you what I found objectionable. Just take it as feedback and move on. I don't know what you mean by reciprocal efforts as I believe I have responded to your inquiries already. What more is there to resolve? You've told me your problems with me, and I've told you my problems with you. I cannot stop you if you take his to a higher level but I stress that it seems an entirely unnecessary response to simple feedback. Is there something about your complaints that I am misunderstanding? I don't see why we continue to be discussing this. The Behnam 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly a "threatening tip", it's a suggestion from one editor to another. It's certainly not some sort of threat, it would be inappropriate for me to perform a block of you considering that we're apparently embroiled in some sort of argument (eg, for our conversation I'm just an editor, not an admin), so that's a non-sequitur. You seem less than forthright on a number of issues, I'll address the troll item for brevity. I made a comment that you disagreed with, and you suggested that the person who responded "not feed the troll". Later, you claimed that you were "just asking a question", but I don't see how insinuating that I'm a troll is "asking a question". It's terribly incivil and highlights a remarkably antagonistic approach you're taking to our conversation. Finally, I'd like an explanation about the "false niceness" you refer to. If your expectation is that I shout and yell and holler and call you names or else I'm lyin', then we may have different viewpoints on how polite discussion takes place. Your thoughts on these issues, as always, are requested. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The troll question. I see your loaded link to Retcon. Are you trying to say that I actually changed something? Please explain. As far as the question goes, I've already explained it, so if you just aren't going to believe me when I say that is a question, there isn't much I can do. It even has a question mark and an alternative answer (strawman), so I am not sure how you contest that it is a question. As far as 'false niceness' goes, I admit it is my personal opinion of your posting here. You include casual-sounding phrases ("Howdy!", "I'd love to", "c'mon now, that's just not nice", etc) while you are being otherwise severe about these specific issues. Maybe it is just the way you write, but it strikes me as discordant. The fact that you seem to be nit-picking over that particular description just makes this seem more hostile than it ought to be. And please don't pretend that it isn't threatening; you are implying that I'm going to run into trouble under my current editing habits. Again, I don't see any reason for this confrontation to continue, and I must note that I have made all efforts to stop this. Yet you keep coming back. I've explained it to you already, so please tell me, what do you want from this? The Behnam 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Behnam writes - "As far as 'false niceness' goes, I admit it is my personal opinion of your posting here. You include casual-sounding phrases ("Howdy!", "I'd love to", "c'mon now, that's just not nice", etc) while you are being otherwise severe about these specific issues. Maybe it is just the way you write, but it strikes me as discordant." I'm reminded of the "Cheers" signoff you used several times with me. It's the pot calling the kettle black. TortureIsWrong 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(To The Behnam) Re-examine the text in question, I'll assume that you don't realize that what you wrote was very reasonably interpreted as "Chairboy is a troll, stop feeding him". If that wasn't your intent, then just consider this a friendly request to carefully consider what you're writing, especially when loaded terminology like that is in play. As to me being friendly, that's just how I roll. Life's too short to be a jerk, and I figure the better I treat other people (even people I disagree with), the better off life is for me. Maybe it's selfish, maybe it's zenlike in its simplicity, I dunno, but that's just my approach and it has served me well so far. I hope we meet again under better circumstances, and I hope you'll receive this message in the spirit with which it was sent. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for concluding this. I can understand if you just have a different way of communicating; it just rung false as I expect severe messages to have similar or at least neutral tone. I apologize for the misunderstanding. And I believe I already apologized for that questionable question, but sorry again for the trouble. Cheers. The Behnam 22:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: COI
I've de-linked it. You're right about that particular guideline not applying, but I still worry about the involvement of people who deal in the actual subject matter that this film fictionalizes. It's a film, not the event itself. Oh, well -- I'm trying to be hands-off of the article for the most part because these kinds of situations really don't make for happy editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My only point is that I believe there is a lot of COI on both sides. Iranian editors and American editors both trying to either downplay or up-play certain aspects of the film into the article. I requested to the admin that blocked Arcayne recently to fully protect the article until it can all be sorted out. Nothing major is probably going to be added to the article now that it's been out for a few weeks, the only "major" things to the article will probably be structure type of edits (e.g. wording, NPOV, etc). I think it's in the best interest of the article, and those editors trying to push the article off neutrality in one director or the other, if it's fully protected so that all discussion MUST remain on the talk page to get settled. Limit anyone trying to say "oh, we have consensus", or "Wikipedia doesn't do consensus", etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the page and left a comment. Wow, I think it's about time to archive your talk page. lol. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It happens. The funny thing is that when you present a concern to that individual he immediately accuses you of the same thing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the shoe fits. TortureIsWrong 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Saudi Arabia
Hi Ahmed. If you are interested in Saudi Arabian topics, you may consider joining WP:KSA, the WikiProject Saudi Arabia. The WikiProject helps coordinate work on related articles. It probably is a good place to start. The Behnam 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
i already did , thanx man. Ahmed32 UK 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Took a look at the page, after seeing the ANI report and the note on WT:HNB. wow! I'll see what I can do, but can you provide me a summary of their arguments? Bakaman 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Iran
I thank you for your politeness and your attention. Wikipedia is all about improving the articles as far as we can.
