Thanks for your previous comment, as I was working on the Dialog page. I have created an account. Soon, I will start a discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialogue_Among_Civilizations, which you can contribute to, as we proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolerance44 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the vandalism from the lead section of Khatami page, performed by BoogaLouie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 ( talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I suspect you find some of my edits anti-Iran, but they aren't intended to be. If you have an article on the Iran-Iraq war and don't mention prominently that the war ended with a couple hundred thousand people dead but no change in the borders or regimes, or that for most of the war Iran was on the offensive, you're missing two of the most important issues. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Any problems with this? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- sure, add the KSA stuff
- it sound like the Iraqis voluntarily retreated, put down their guns like good boys, and left Iran, when they were defeated and driven out of Khoramshahr by force, and some even argue that the Iraqi forces never really fully retreated into Iraq at any point, and that they held on to many boarder villages and Iranian lands.
- and sure, it should say they were pushed back militarily and should include the word almost in
- "For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces began to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered almost all the area lost to Iraq earlier in the war." -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This is a false/loaded statment, do you have another source for this beside Avrahamian? Does Vali Nasr make a similar claim? -- CreazySuit ( talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. I don't have another quote about the election. That and the fact that it is a controversial subject is why I preceded the statement with "According to Ervand Abrahamian ...". Abrahamian is a reputable scholar and his book Iran between two revolutions is a major work of Iranian history. You can't just assert that it is "false." -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(I will paste this in the Mossadeq talk page)
- see Mossadeq talk page -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have any info on that. why don't you put what you have in the article. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please vote in survey over whether to have article title Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
- 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
- Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.
We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.
Arguements
- In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.
- In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit again, though I have written you a message in the talk page here and you did not reply, please reply in the talk page. Imad marie ( talk) 07:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, consensus will never be reached if editors don't reply in the talk pages. I left you another message here. Imad marie ( talk) 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
CreazySuit, I ask you to be more active and more negotiating in the talk pages so that we can reach consensus. Imad marie ( talk) 06:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been a real big jerk to Ali, and I'm sure that my comments were found offensive by you. My sincere apologies. A review of my contributions that don't involve fights with Ali are much different, and I encourage you to take a look at them. I disagree with Ali on so many levels about reliable sources and what's valuable content that my frustration has degraded into nothing more than insults and reverts, which doesn't help anyone. I'll leave cooler-headed people to deal with his motives, and will remove the Iran article from my watchlist. He has faced enough resistance on the Scythians article to allow me to avoid most fights with him there, but the article is important to me though I have few contributions to it. That's where it stands, and I would have rather approached the situation differently. Ali is a religious nationalist -- truth isn't known to live among such mindsets. Countering such persuasions with vulgar language isn't an effective defense of facts. TeamZissou ( talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You could parse "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article" as 'use captions to explain how the image could be relevant for reasons that aren't related to the subject of the image'. But it doesn't seem sensible to me. John Nevard ( talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
suggestion -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should have stayed on my user page. I moved it there when I wasn't tired and not thinking clearly.
I was a fool. Chastise me with scorpions, stake me out in the desert sun. Give me a root canal.
I screwed up. It was put out too early. Does this make you happy? I assume you have never made a mistake? I'm trying to fix the problems, while dealing with other real-world responsibilities.
The reality is that you put so many tags on the article that it was hard to read in edit mode. When there was a FACT tag after each sentence in a paragraph, do you think I fail to get the idea that you are unhappy?
Assume good faith for a change, and that I'm trying to clean up my own errors without getting continuing complaints. Try some WP:CIVILITY when there is an UNDERCONSTRUCTION tag on it. If you have sources that disprove statements made, please offer them. Just complaining doesn't accomplish anything.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
UNDERCONSTRUCTION vs. INUSE
May I suggest you look at the definition of the two? Indeed, INUSE is meant for a period of hours, although I suspect a reasonable criterion is to give additional time as long as the editor is actively editing and saving. UNDERCONSTRUCTION is defined to cover a longer period of time.
From the UNDERCONSTRUCTION expansion:
This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days.
While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.
Recognizing that you are unhappy with the article, I am working on it as fast as I can, given that I have responsibilities other than Wikipedia. I have apologized for making the error of putting it out too early. I have asked for time, within the scope of UNDERCONSTRUCTION, to improve it. How do you see it as helpful to be making frequent complaints?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
fight over al-Afghani. How about we keep al-Afghani but put in the lead something like, "even though he is known throughout the Muslim world as al-Afghani, scholars agree he was an Iranian Shia born in Asadabad"? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were inappropriate to speak of peoples' POV, there would not be POV tags and both a general NPOV tag and a specific NPOV noticeboard. Shall we take this matter to the noticeboard? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I repeat: do you want to take this to the NPOV noticeboard? I'm not going to discuss this further except on article pages or a procedural page such as the NPOV noticeboard.
- Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll flatly deny associating anyone with a POV based on their nationality. It is, however, POV to insist that every issue be viewed through the viewpoint of an ideology or a country, as distinct from the characteristics of individuals espousing that viewpoint.
- We are not communicating here, and, again, I suggest that you take this to the Iran-Iraq War talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Perhaps it might be informative to look at the way several people are working together, from different backgrounds, on the Soviet support for Iran deletion discussion, with the intention of finding a better way to organize several articles. After some initial clarifications, no one in that group is making accusations, but instead trying to solve a problem. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no problem for having this particular discussion based on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah on my talk page, although if there will be several participants, it might make sense to move it to the Talk:Iran-Iraq War page. I have no particular opinions on this specific graphic or battle; I don't claim intimate knowledge of the subject.
In a broader sense, it is worth considering WP:UNDUE. It's been pointed out that Iran may well have 7,000 years of history to draw from. Really, I think having a classic Persian image, and a note about Persian civilization, is useful for people that have no background in the length of the culture on one side.
It could be asked, however, how much value there is in putting in a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, when the time span of the events with which Rumsfeld was concerned is perhaps a thousandth of the history of Persia, and even a small fraction of the time of existence of the United States. There is a possible POV question of showing Rumsfeld to draw attention to U.S. involvement, but not also having pictures of officials from Iraq's main arms suppliers, the Soviet Union and France. If no such pictures are available, perhaps none should be used, or those available could be in the country-specific articles. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why are you objecting to my having a page, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Tanker War in my userspace, that is experimenting with the concept of the tanker war? No consensus, or even any other opinion but mine, is necessary to have something in a sandbox. If you don't like what's in my userspace, don't go there.
Shall we discuss this with an admin? I'd be delighted to do so!
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped not to write every sub-page by myself. Since you seem to be knowledgeable on Israel, why don't you write the sub-page?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your tag, I proposed renaming the article to status of Azerbaijani language in Iran, which is why I added the material on history of treatment of Azeri language in Iran. There is plenty more material which I have, will be added after the decision on the topic. Atabek ( talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you say "running fridges rule" in Kurdish? Runningfridgesrule ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Amir Taheri. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Ursasapien
(talk) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tagging established users with warning templates is a violation of incivility.-- CreazySuit ( talk) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is the height of civility to attempt to warn an editor when their behavior may be close to sanctions. It would be incivil, IMO, to simply report you without a warning. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
re PMOI
Saw your message, and you're right. NCRI is next on the list for cleanup. As far as the PMOI article goes, I reverted back to BoogaLouie's version. His is the most NPOV, and he's corrected a lot of sources and spelling errors. I think we can safely work from his version. Good luck! // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for this edit. All the edits by that user are anti-Persian. See older pages. -- Iranway ( talk) 06:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Boohoohoo. I guess removing all the peacock (6 thousand years of continuous history! greatest civilization evar! islamic mathematicians were persian!) is really anti-Persian. Get a clue, bud. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
But your version, my friend, is equally flawed. You again present Shapur's and Khosrau's cases as similar, which is wrong! As a matter of fact, your version is even worse that Sept's and Zburh;s and mine. Worse!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- "The Persians twice conquered the Roman East": Shapur never conquered Roman East. NEVER! Read Zburh's thread just before the last discussion in the article's talk page. You rt a version you didn't like and which I also did not find completely satisfactory, in order to replace it with something worse. I'd enough with this stupid and useless edit-warring.--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want. But, first of all, all the three of you sit down and read the history of the topic. I shut down my computer for today. Goodnight (it is night in Greece).--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- At least, respect the fact that this is FA! This is not the way to add sources as you did. And I'm sorry for that, because by adding an external link in the way you did you show to me: 1) That you don't know anything about FA criteria, 2) That you haven't looked at all at the rest of the article to see how inline citations are introduced.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want. But, first of all, all the three of you sit down and read the history of the topic. I shut down my computer for today. Goodnight (it is night in Greece).--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Arabistan.2C_Iranian_Arabs_and_Racism_in_the_Middle_East . You've been named as a party to the edit disputes. MiS-Saath ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration regarding Iranian arabs and related articles has been filed, citing you as a party. you may participate at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. MiS-Saath ( talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have seen you know persian. Could you please write me how you say "Happy Birthday, you're the best" in Persian? Thank you, Yaron, 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. Please see
WP:BRD. As a
WP:3O provider, I have not seen any contributions to the associated talk page to go with your reversion of tag removal. Please provide detailed and specific justification for the reason you believe that each tag applies to the article as it stands now.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm awaiting your response here. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that now that you are listing specific disputes with the article, editors are agreeing with you and resolving to correct the issues themselves. Remember to assume good faith, we weren't deleting the tag out of malice or a hatred of Iran, but because we didn't know these issues were present. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear CreazySuit, thank you for your supporting words, the first in one week time since User:AzureFury has decided to make my life a hell. You may also wish to visit the following page where this person is doing all he can to discredit me: [1]. Incidentally, last week on the strenght of my Wikipedia article, I was commissioned by the editor of a film magazine in Canada to write an extensive review article on Unruled Paper; the editor has asked me that I should strive to have an article at least twice as extensive as the one I have written for Wikipedia. This User:AzureFury completely wasted my weekend which I had intended to use for writing my review article (mind you, I am a professional scientist and writing on films is just a side activity of mine). With kind regards, --BF 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
- Dear CreazySuit, you may wish to have your say here: [2]. Kind regards, --BF 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Sure thing. Also see the talk page here where I've listed soem disputed sentences. Now I'm told that this magazine contains information similar to the Wikipedia article, and if we can just attribute the source properly and in a neutral manner than I thin this conflict can eventually be resolved. Khoi khoi 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--I saw your help offer at User_talk:129.2.170.113#Sign_up. In case the user doesn't see that, I'm pretty sure they've already signed up and are now user Tolerance44. CRETOG8( t/ c) 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Although this message is a day or two late, please do not edit war on Acid attack. If you continue to edit war in the future, you may be blocked from editing. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I warned him yesterday. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, please post in English where possible. Thanks. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point now that you've explained it :p . I don't know if the acid attacks are re-occuring, but this is definitely not demonstrated by the sources. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi CreazySuit, I'm an uninvolved admin, trying to come up to speed on the dispute at Cyrus cylinder. I'll freely admit that I am not familiar with the article content, so my suggestions are going to be general in nature. I apologize in advance for my ignorance. :)
The first thing I'm noting, is that you have a disagreement about some information that's being put in the lead, and you're deleting it as "fringe". [3] [4] However, to an outside reviewer, it appears that the information is properly sourced to legitimate academic sources. Are you disagreeing that the sources are reliable? Or are you saying that the information from those sources is not being used properly? If the former, I recommend starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the latter, then instead of deleting things entirely, it's better to modify the information from those sources, but to leave the actual citations intact. You may also choose to move the information to a different part of the article, especially if you feel that it's giving undue weight to a particular theory. Does that help? Other advice is available at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- El on ka 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I'm going to be working on an alternate version of the Cyrus cylinder page which would limit all the "reviews" and subjective interpretations of the cylinder (negative or positive) to direct quotes fully attributed to their authors. I'll be making an attempt to replace the sections As a charter of human rights and As an instrument of royal propaganda with a Legacy section. It would be made up of two sub-sections called "proponents" and "critics", containing the various views on the cylinder as direct quotes, while leaving the rest of article to a factual description to give readers a neutral presentation of what the cylinder is, as opposed to what it represents or means -- free of spin or speculation. Feel free to contribute to the temporary page at User:Khoikhoi/Cyrus cylinder. Khoi khoi 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Following your recent disruption of articles on Persian history, I have started a request for comments on your conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comments on the talk page there; I think we can maybe resolve things. DS ( talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any comments on Cailil's latest proposal on this article's talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Crusio (
talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I see he's been abusing his admin tools as well, yet again. I think the best course of action here is to keep giving him rope. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, CreazySuit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
CreazySuit, this doesn't need to go to an arbitration. I dislike arbitrations, personally. They take up a great deal of everyone's time and the results are fairly predictable - often a block or topic ban. I have no interest in seeing you getting banned. All that is being asked of you is that (1) you respect the neutral point of view, by not constantly deleting every POV other than the one you favour; (2) you respect the prohibition on original research by not constantly insisting on your personal interpretations and making claims without citing any sources; (3) you don't engage in disruptive conduct by edit-warring as you did just before Battle of Opis was locked; and (4) you engage in proper dispute resolution by discussing articles rather than constantly reverting them. These aren't hard things to do. Thousands of contributors every day manage to do them without difficulty. Can't you? -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- (update) The ANI thread has been moved to an ANI subpage, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of_Opis. -- El on ka 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Editing privileges of this account have been revoked for an indefinite period of time in response to disruptive editing. If you wish to edit again, please convince the Wikipedia community that you will follow its policies and guidelines, including also neutral point of view, consensus, verifiability, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. The evidence to support this block has been presented here. To other administrators: please do not undo this block without discussion with me, or a consensus at WP:AN. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the ANI thread, and see no consensus there for an indefinite block. --
El
on
ka 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- As do I. See my comment on the AN/I thread. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above block notice, if the user post any sort of polite request that shows a willingness to follow policy, I will agree to unblock them, and any uninvolved administrator may act in my place if I am unavailable. I am opposed to unblocking unilaterally, or if they post a combative unblock request, or if they insist that they will keep doing the same things that go them blocked in the first place. Feel free to contact me for any necessary clarifications. Jehochman Talk 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your account has been unblocked, per an offer of mentorship by User:Nishkid64. [5] I am hopeful that will help the situation greatly. Jehochman Talk 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would also urge you to review my suggestions under #ANI notice above and respond positively this time. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, man. I'm afraid not. While it is certain that Sheikh Ahmed Barzani, Mustafa Barzani's brother converted to Christianity, there is no evidence that Mustafa Barzani or his son Massoud are themselves Christian and no sources can be found that attest to this theory. In case there is a confusion, i actually sourced the statement that Ahmed Barzani was a convert to Christianity in the Mustafa Barzani article and not anyhting about Mustafa himself. Regards, Joyson Noel ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the {{Multiple issues| synthesis = August 2008| unbalanced = August 2008| POV = March 2008}} can be removed. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [6]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous comment, as I was working on the Dialog page. I have created an account. Soon, I will start a discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialogue_Among_Civilizations, which you can contribute to, as we proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolerance44 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the vandalism from the lead section of Khatami page, performed by BoogaLouie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 ( talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I suspect you find some of my edits anti-Iran, but they aren't intended to be. If you have an article on the Iran-Iraq war and don't mention prominently that the war ended with a couple hundred thousand people dead but no change in the borders or regimes, or that for most of the war Iran was on the offensive, you're missing two of the most important issues. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Any problems with this? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- sure, add the KSA stuff
- it sound like the Iraqis voluntarily retreated, put down their guns like good boys, and left Iran, when they were defeated and driven out of Khoramshahr by force, and some even argue that the Iraqi forces never really fully retreated into Iraq at any point, and that they held on to many boarder villages and Iranian lands.
- and sure, it should say they were pushed back militarily and should include the word almost in
- "For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces began to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered almost all the area lost to Iraq earlier in the war." -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This is a false/loaded statment, do you have another source for this beside Avrahamian? Does Vali Nasr make a similar claim? -- CreazySuit ( talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. I don't have another quote about the election. That and the fact that it is a controversial subject is why I preceded the statement with "According to Ervand Abrahamian ...". Abrahamian is a reputable scholar and his book Iran between two revolutions is a major work of Iranian history. You can't just assert that it is "false." -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(I will paste this in the Mossadeq talk page)
- see Mossadeq talk page -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have any info on that. why don't you put what you have in the article. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please vote in survey over whether to have article title Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
- 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
- Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.
We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.
Arguements
- In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.
- In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit again, though I have written you a message in the talk page here and you did not reply, please reply in the talk page. Imad marie ( talk) 07:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, consensus will never be reached if editors don't reply in the talk pages. I left you another message here. Imad marie ( talk) 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
CreazySuit, I ask you to be more active and more negotiating in the talk pages so that we can reach consensus. Imad marie ( talk) 06:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been a real big jerk to Ali, and I'm sure that my comments were found offensive by you. My sincere apologies. A review of my contributions that don't involve fights with Ali are much different, and I encourage you to take a look at them. I disagree with Ali on so many levels about reliable sources and what's valuable content that my frustration has degraded into nothing more than insults and reverts, which doesn't help anyone. I'll leave cooler-headed people to deal with his motives, and will remove the Iran article from my watchlist. He has faced enough resistance on the Scythians article to allow me to avoid most fights with him there, but the article is important to me though I have few contributions to it. That's where it stands, and I would have rather approached the situation differently. Ali is a religious nationalist -- truth isn't known to live among such mindsets. Countering such persuasions with vulgar language isn't an effective defense of facts. TeamZissou ( talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You could parse "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article" as 'use captions to explain how the image could be relevant for reasons that aren't related to the subject of the image'. But it doesn't seem sensible to me. John Nevard ( talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
suggestion -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should have stayed on my user page. I moved it there when I wasn't tired and not thinking clearly.
I was a fool. Chastise me with scorpions, stake me out in the desert sun. Give me a root canal.
I screwed up. It was put out too early. Does this make you happy? I assume you have never made a mistake? I'm trying to fix the problems, while dealing with other real-world responsibilities.
The reality is that you put so many tags on the article that it was hard to read in edit mode. When there was a FACT tag after each sentence in a paragraph, do you think I fail to get the idea that you are unhappy?
Assume good faith for a change, and that I'm trying to clean up my own errors without getting continuing complaints. Try some WP:CIVILITY when there is an UNDERCONSTRUCTION tag on it. If you have sources that disprove statements made, please offer them. Just complaining doesn't accomplish anything.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
UNDERCONSTRUCTION vs. INUSE
May I suggest you look at the definition of the two? Indeed, INUSE is meant for a period of hours, although I suspect a reasonable criterion is to give additional time as long as the editor is actively editing and saving. UNDERCONSTRUCTION is defined to cover a longer period of time.
From the UNDERCONSTRUCTION expansion:
This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days.
While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.
Recognizing that you are unhappy with the article, I am working on it as fast as I can, given that I have responsibilities other than Wikipedia. I have apologized for making the error of putting it out too early. I have asked for time, within the scope of UNDERCONSTRUCTION, to improve it. How do you see it as helpful to be making frequent complaints?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
fight over al-Afghani. How about we keep al-Afghani but put in the lead something like, "even though he is known throughout the Muslim world as al-Afghani, scholars agree he was an Iranian Shia born in Asadabad"? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were inappropriate to speak of peoples' POV, there would not be POV tags and both a general NPOV tag and a specific NPOV noticeboard. Shall we take this matter to the noticeboard? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I repeat: do you want to take this to the NPOV noticeboard? I'm not going to discuss this further except on article pages or a procedural page such as the NPOV noticeboard.
- Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll flatly deny associating anyone with a POV based on their nationality. It is, however, POV to insist that every issue be viewed through the viewpoint of an ideology or a country, as distinct from the characteristics of individuals espousing that viewpoint.
- We are not communicating here, and, again, I suggest that you take this to the Iran-Iraq War talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Perhaps it might be informative to look at the way several people are working together, from different backgrounds, on the Soviet support for Iran deletion discussion, with the intention of finding a better way to organize several articles. After some initial clarifications, no one in that group is making accusations, but instead trying to solve a problem. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no problem for having this particular discussion based on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah on my talk page, although if there will be several participants, it might make sense to move it to the Talk:Iran-Iraq War page. I have no particular opinions on this specific graphic or battle; I don't claim intimate knowledge of the subject.
In a broader sense, it is worth considering WP:UNDUE. It's been pointed out that Iran may well have 7,000 years of history to draw from. Really, I think having a classic Persian image, and a note about Persian civilization, is useful for people that have no background in the length of the culture on one side.
It could be asked, however, how much value there is in putting in a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, when the time span of the events with which Rumsfeld was concerned is perhaps a thousandth of the history of Persia, and even a small fraction of the time of existence of the United States. There is a possible POV question of showing Rumsfeld to draw attention to U.S. involvement, but not also having pictures of officials from Iraq's main arms suppliers, the Soviet Union and France. If no such pictures are available, perhaps none should be used, or those available could be in the country-specific articles. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why are you objecting to my having a page, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Tanker War in my userspace, that is experimenting with the concept of the tanker war? No consensus, or even any other opinion but mine, is necessary to have something in a sandbox. If you don't like what's in my userspace, don't go there.
Shall we discuss this with an admin? I'd be delighted to do so!
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped not to write every sub-page by myself. Since you seem to be knowledgeable on Israel, why don't you write the sub-page?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your tag, I proposed renaming the article to status of Azerbaijani language in Iran, which is why I added the material on history of treatment of Azeri language in Iran. There is plenty more material which I have, will be added after the decision on the topic. Atabek ( talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you say "running fridges rule" in Kurdish? Runningfridgesrule ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Amir Taheri. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Ursasapien
(talk) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tagging established users with warning templates is a violation of incivility.-- CreazySuit ( talk) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is the height of civility to attempt to warn an editor when their behavior may be close to sanctions. It would be incivil, IMO, to simply report you without a warning. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
re PMOI
Saw your message, and you're right. NCRI is next on the list for cleanup. As far as the PMOI article goes, I reverted back to BoogaLouie's version. His is the most NPOV, and he's corrected a lot of sources and spelling errors. I think we can safely work from his version. Good luck! // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for this edit. All the edits by that user are anti-Persian. See older pages. -- Iranway ( talk) 06:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Boohoohoo. I guess removing all the peacock (6 thousand years of continuous history! greatest civilization evar! islamic mathematicians were persian!) is really anti-Persian. Get a clue, bud. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
But your version, my friend, is equally flawed. You again present Shapur's and Khosrau's cases as similar, which is wrong! As a matter of fact, your version is even worse that Sept's and Zburh;s and mine. Worse!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- "The Persians twice conquered the Roman East": Shapur never conquered Roman East. NEVER! Read Zburh's thread just before the last discussion in the article's talk page. You rt a version you didn't like and which I also did not find completely satisfactory, in order to replace it with something worse. I'd enough with this stupid and useless edit-warring.--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want. But, first of all, all the three of you sit down and read the history of the topic. I shut down my computer for today. Goodnight (it is night in Greece).--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- At least, respect the fact that this is FA! This is not the way to add sources as you did. And I'm sorry for that, because by adding an external link in the way you did you show to me: 1) That you don't know anything about FA criteria, 2) That you haven't looked at all at the rest of the article to see how inline citations are introduced.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want. But, first of all, all the three of you sit down and read the history of the topic. I shut down my computer for today. Goodnight (it is night in Greece).--
Yannismarou (
talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Arabistan.2C_Iranian_Arabs_and_Racism_in_the_Middle_East . You've been named as a party to the edit disputes. MiS-Saath ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration regarding Iranian arabs and related articles has been filed, citing you as a party. you may participate at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. MiS-Saath ( talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have seen you know persian. Could you please write me how you say "Happy Birthday, you're the best" in Persian? Thank you, Yaron, 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. Please see
WP:BRD. As a
WP:3O provider, I have not seen any contributions to the associated talk page to go with your reversion of tag removal. Please provide detailed and specific justification for the reason you believe that each tag applies to the article as it stands now.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm awaiting your response here. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that now that you are listing specific disputes with the article, editors are agreeing with you and resolving to correct the issues themselves. Remember to assume good faith, we weren't deleting the tag out of malice or a hatred of Iran, but because we didn't know these issues were present. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear CreazySuit, thank you for your supporting words, the first in one week time since User:AzureFury has decided to make my life a hell. You may also wish to visit the following page where this person is doing all he can to discredit me: [1]. Incidentally, last week on the strenght of my Wikipedia article, I was commissioned by the editor of a film magazine in Canada to write an extensive review article on Unruled Paper; the editor has asked me that I should strive to have an article at least twice as extensive as the one I have written for Wikipedia. This User:AzureFury completely wasted my weekend which I had intended to use for writing my review article (mind you, I am a professional scientist and writing on films is just a side activity of mine). With kind regards, --BF 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
- Dear CreazySuit, you may wish to have your say here: [2]. Kind regards, --BF 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Sure thing. Also see the talk page here where I've listed soem disputed sentences. Now I'm told that this magazine contains information similar to the Wikipedia article, and if we can just attribute the source properly and in a neutral manner than I thin this conflict can eventually be resolved. Khoi khoi 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--I saw your help offer at User_talk:129.2.170.113#Sign_up. In case the user doesn't see that, I'm pretty sure they've already signed up and are now user Tolerance44. CRETOG8( t/ c) 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Although this message is a day or two late, please do not edit war on Acid attack. If you continue to edit war in the future, you may be blocked from editing. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I warned him yesterday. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, please post in English where possible. Thanks. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point now that you've explained it :p . I don't know if the acid attacks are re-occuring, but this is definitely not demonstrated by the sources. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi CreazySuit, I'm an uninvolved admin, trying to come up to speed on the dispute at Cyrus cylinder. I'll freely admit that I am not familiar with the article content, so my suggestions are going to be general in nature. I apologize in advance for my ignorance. :)
The first thing I'm noting, is that you have a disagreement about some information that's being put in the lead, and you're deleting it as "fringe". [3] [4] However, to an outside reviewer, it appears that the information is properly sourced to legitimate academic sources. Are you disagreeing that the sources are reliable? Or are you saying that the information from those sources is not being used properly? If the former, I recommend starting a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the latter, then instead of deleting things entirely, it's better to modify the information from those sources, but to leave the actual citations intact. You may also choose to move the information to a different part of the article, especially if you feel that it's giving undue weight to a particular theory. Does that help? Other advice is available at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- El on ka 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I'm going to be working on an alternate version of the Cyrus cylinder page which would limit all the "reviews" and subjective interpretations of the cylinder (negative or positive) to direct quotes fully attributed to their authors. I'll be making an attempt to replace the sections As a charter of human rights and As an instrument of royal propaganda with a Legacy section. It would be made up of two sub-sections called "proponents" and "critics", containing the various views on the cylinder as direct quotes, while leaving the rest of article to a factual description to give readers a neutral presentation of what the cylinder is, as opposed to what it represents or means -- free of spin or speculation. Feel free to contribute to the temporary page at User:Khoikhoi/Cyrus cylinder. Khoi khoi 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Following your recent disruption of articles on Persian history, I have started a request for comments on your conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comments on the talk page there; I think we can maybe resolve things. DS ( talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any comments on Cailil's latest proposal on this article's talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Crusio (
talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I see he's been abusing his admin tools as well, yet again. I think the best course of action here is to keep giving him rope. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, CreazySuit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
CreazySuit, this doesn't need to go to an arbitration. I dislike arbitrations, personally. They take up a great deal of everyone's time and the results are fairly predictable - often a block or topic ban. I have no interest in seeing you getting banned. All that is being asked of you is that (1) you respect the neutral point of view, by not constantly deleting every POV other than the one you favour; (2) you respect the prohibition on original research by not constantly insisting on your personal interpretations and making claims without citing any sources; (3) you don't engage in disruptive conduct by edit-warring as you did just before Battle of Opis was locked; and (4) you engage in proper dispute resolution by discussing articles rather than constantly reverting them. These aren't hard things to do. Thousands of contributors every day manage to do them without difficulty. Can't you? -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- (update) The ANI thread has been moved to an ANI subpage, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of_Opis. -- El on ka 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Editing privileges of this account have been revoked for an indefinite period of time in response to disruptive editing. If you wish to edit again, please convince the Wikipedia community that you will follow its policies and guidelines, including also neutral point of view, consensus, verifiability, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. The evidence to support this block has been presented here. To other administrators: please do not undo this block without discussion with me, or a consensus at WP:AN. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the ANI thread, and see no consensus there for an indefinite block. --
El
on
ka 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- As do I. See my comment on the AN/I thread. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above block notice, if the user post any sort of polite request that shows a willingness to follow policy, I will agree to unblock them, and any uninvolved administrator may act in my place if I am unavailable. I am opposed to unblocking unilaterally, or if they post a combative unblock request, or if they insist that they will keep doing the same things that go them blocked in the first place. Feel free to contact me for any necessary clarifications. Jehochman Talk 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your account has been unblocked, per an offer of mentorship by User:Nishkid64. [5] I am hopeful that will help the situation greatly. Jehochman Talk 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would also urge you to review my suggestions under #ANI notice above and respond positively this time. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, man. I'm afraid not. While it is certain that Sheikh Ahmed Barzani, Mustafa Barzani's brother converted to Christianity, there is no evidence that Mustafa Barzani or his son Massoud are themselves Christian and no sources can be found that attest to this theory. In case there is a confusion, i actually sourced the statement that Ahmed Barzani was a convert to Christianity in the Mustafa Barzani article and not anyhting about Mustafa himself. Regards, Joyson Noel ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the {{Multiple issues| synthesis = August 2008| unbalanced = August 2008| POV = March 2008}} can be removed. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [6]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)