Hi 07fan. Sorry about being lazy and just reverting all... I was tired of writing the explanations to the anon, and hoped that just adding "respectfully" to my
edit summary would magically make what I was thinking clear to any reader. I humbly apologize. —— But it was not intended to be a blind revert. I commented in detail
in my talk page :-)
Best regards,
Ev (
talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep that part then. Thank you for doing all the work :-) And, again, my apologies for not communicating properly. - Best regards, Ev ( talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Fan07, about the House of Wisdom page, First of all, this page is for the House of Wisdom not for the imperial library nor the Indian one, if you want to refer to the imperial library you can add a link in the (see also)'s section, 2ndly the paragraph should be sorted as a story, we should mention the Khilafa moved from Damascus to Baghdad, then we can mention how al-Mansur built it, 3rdly what ever the source you think it's working, it doesn't, it will say a missing page, and finally don't speared warnings if you are not an efficient for it. Mussav ( talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Your removal of sourced content [1] violates our vandalism policy, and will result in a block if you repeat such actions. Mussav ( talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop following me like a shadow and get a life, you need to stop attacking me personally. Mussav ( talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got Yahoo. [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi 07fan.. for the first time, thanks. :) Mussav ( talk) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your message to me was related to this edit I made, but hopefully you will agree that the edit to the infobox it reverted was highly improper. The number given for Turks in Iraq is indeed implausibly high, and the cited sources are, in my opinion, not reliable. A problem is the definition of "Turk": can the Iraqi Turkmen be counted as Turks or not? I don't know the answer. If you want to make an issue of this, the place to raise it is the talk page of the article. See in particular the discussion at Talk:Turkish people#It really adds up. -- Lambiam 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, You're nominated the History of Bahrain page to be checked for its neutrality. On the tag you've place on the page it says that an explanation will be provided on the talk page, yet there's nothing there. Please could you explain on the talk page why the page has been nominated. Thank you. Dilmun ( talk) 09:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh, when did I become someone aspiring to be an admin?..... I have worked as a systems admin on RL, that's why I sound like an admin, not because I want to become a wikipedia admin someday...... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I had only read until this edit [2], I hadn't seen the RfA part until afer writing above message. Well, haha, if someone proposes me to become an admin, then I'll think about it. For now, I'm not going to think about RfAs since, a) I'm not thinking about making one b)I don't care about whether people thinks I am good at adminship or not (I obviously am, I get paid for it, dammit :D ). I just try to help building the wikipedia. Being an admin forces people to be more careful on content disputes, and the advantage given by having administrative power is somewhat balanced by this fact. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
07fan,
You've got no basis to accuse me of falsifying anything, especially given that you’ve just told an enormous whopper on my talk page with your claim that in the book, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, regarding Sanatruq that it "clearly say he was a Parthian". As you know it doesn’t say anything of the sort and I notice that you've not mentioned it again. You want to repeat that claim, or better for you if we don't mention it again?
The source (reference 239, p68 in Farhad Daftary in Mediaeval Isma'ili History and Thought) states that the false Mahdi was captured in the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra, which is what my edits show. Elsewhere Daftary may say he’s from Isfahan also, but that’s doesn’t mean he doesn’t say at this point he’s was captured in Qasr Ibn Hubayra. I don't want to waste both our time with an edit war over this so I think it should go to WP:mediation - I see you've already been banned for disruptive edits so I'd advise such a course in your case.
As for your claim that I’ve “suppressed” information that Sanatruq was Parthian, have you got any evidence of suppression on my part? Its another allegation you’re making without any evidence to back it up. I’ve not included this information on the History of Bahrain page, just as I've not included other information about Sanatruq. However, on the Tylos page I clearly state that Sanatruq was a "Parthian governor". It was me who added this not anyone else.
This is the problem, every time one edits anything relating to Persia one feels one’s walking on eggshells, in case someone takes offence and sees it as part of a vast anti-Persian conspiracy. Most people don’t care one way or the other – what people get irked about is some editors getting excited before they know the facts.
Dilmun ( talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw Western Syria just like you and I was really surprised, but I thought about it, wasn't Mari in Syria belong to Mesopotamia? just like Elam from eastern Iran? Mussav ( talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to scan the document; I've come across some secondary sources that say basically the same thing you're saying (primary documents are to be avoided, as you know). I'll add them when I have time. I'll be revising the article every now and then, anyway, because I still consider it a work-in-progress. -- Slacker ( talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits, such as those you made to
Talk:Nasr Al-Madhkur, are considered
vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be
blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. To be specific, you declaring "historical revisionism ( a common Pan-Arabist practice)" is highly inflammatory and not appropriate.
Toddst1 (
talk) 04:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please try to be careful in making statements that can be interpreted as possible negative bias against a racial group. As discussed on my talk page your edit could easily be interpreted as offensive to arabs. I see that there is another way of looking at it. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually people do talk about working in "the Gulf" or the Gulf War. I've no interest in getting into a stupid name dispute. Perhaps it should be called the Gulf. That way the Iranians and Arabs can both be unhappy together. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, and the sources I have met, easily meet their requirements for verifiability, and reliable sources. Removing such content is against policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
· “They must be expelled from universities, either in the admission process or during the course of their studies, once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís.” · “Deny them employment if they identify themselves as Bahá’ís.” · “Deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational sector, etc.” · “A plan must be devised to confront and destroy their cultural roots outside the country.” " I can find you more sources quite easily about it being official government policy, and it should stay in the contemporary status section because it's quite germane to the how Baha'is are viewed by the government. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It was in 1993, which is the early 1990s. I'll find you more sources in a second. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The government did not leak the document, but it was found by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights while he was in Iran and was published by the UN. Here's another source, from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center:
"Memorandum by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hashemi Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, dated 6/12/1369 (February 25, 1991) [hereinafter SCCR Memorandum] [attached as Appendix 7]. The documentalso appears to contain a note from the Supreme Leader (see IRAN’S SECRET BLUEPRINT, supra note 186, at 51). This document was brought to the attention of UN Special Representative Reynaldo Galindo Pohl in 1993"
Also note, that all of these sources are not Baha'i sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I, along with another editor, have taken the case. It is now open. Feel free to come over and comment. Mm 40 ( talk | contribs) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The medcab case is slightly stalling, wondering if you had anything to say (about the Turkish list). I've posed some questions, and drafted an agreement between editors (in part because of the slurs that were made). The case page is here, and the discussion is somewhere at the bottom. Cya. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
07fan, You refused to participate in the mediation and continue to edit the page and remove my contributions according to your POV. This is the last time I warn you. I will take you to the admins. Stop doing this. There is an ongoing mediation and the article has a discussion page.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am really busy in RL and have been away on business, that's why I haven't had the time to follow up with the mediation. Can you give me an update on the developments of the mediation? I came back today, and first thing I saw was Nostradamus1 removing a bunch of sources, and deleting a notable sub-section. Was there a consensus for such removals? Best Regards.
I closed the case as no consensus. The article remains on my watchlist, and I'm still holding him to the agreement (which is just a reminder of NPA). In no way is my closure an endorsement; I don't endorse anyone, nor do I direct traffic or make binding decisions per mediation rules. When pacing is slow, it's very hard to get things moving (I'm fully aware that many editors don't spend their entire waking life on wiki...unlike myself).
As for the IP edits - it's likely Nostradamus1 forgot to log on, or didn't want to bother. This is fine, and I think he's been here long enough to know anyone can geolocate IPs.
All that said, I primarily closed the case to keep people from talking on the casepage instead of on the article's talk page. I apologize that my performance hasn't been all that great - I've been rather busy, too. I'll keep an eye on the personal attacks, and redirect to a better DR solution if things get worse. Anyway: very sorry. But the case is only semi-closed; it's not listed on medcab anymore, but the important bit is that people will discuss things on talk, closer to the article. Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The protection policy doesn't protect pages on any preferred version (see m:The wrong version) with the exception of BLP violations. But I'll see what I can do... (tbh, I'm a bit stuck. There's little recourse left.) Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi 07fan, I just have reverted your Revert in Buyids because you simplify a complex historical matter via putting the word "Iranian" as the origin of the Buyids. Please have a look at the Encyclopaedia Iranica-Article Buyids - the first sentence says dynasty of Daylamite origin ruling over .... The simplification via the word "Iranian" is not only vandalism but also pov. If you do not stop reverting you may become banned. Thanx NPOVfan ( talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I award you with the First Book of Wikipedia because of your efforts so far on Wikipedia. I am not supposed to give you this award because you should give it to yourself but I felt that your contributions so far shouldn't go unnoticed. Good Luck! Ardeshire Babakan ( talk) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you stupid? Have you heard of something called discussion? Muhammad al-Fazari's grandfather was a Sahabi from the Arabic tribe of Fizara. I want you to bring me a source that refute that, not a source that mention he is Persian. As I said before, I can bring hundreds of sources that state Ibn Sina was an Arab. If you don't and you won't because him being an Arab is a fact, I will report your uncivilized racist behavior.
And btw, if it makes you feel better or if it helps you sleep well at night, go ahead and lie. Not just in the mentioned article above but all over Wikipedia, go ahead and lie. You will still be a pathetic racist wikipedian. I just don't get it, why some Persians here in Wikipedia and outside wikipedia hate that fact that some of the great Muslim scholars were Arab. -- Lanov ( talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)