AlexanderPar

Re: Ethnic minorities in Iran

Use your own talk pages or the talk page of the article in question. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Anything that is to the north of the Caucasus Mountains and the Kura river, including the Absheron peninsula (see note 20 under Europe, also check out the map): [1] Parishan 09:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows: The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz-related topics

Hi Alexander. I see that you have reverted some of the {WPARAB} templates from some of the Ahwaz-related talkpages. I totally agree about your reasoning but i believe you missed the point that WikiProjects are not categories. Tagging an article means that the scope of the article touches the Arab world at least historically. That's all about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but placing a pan-Arab flag (flag of Arab league) on the article of Iranian cities seems like a pan-Arab attempt to label/claim Iranian territories as part of the Arab world. I would oppose if Iranians were doing the same thing on Arab articles, Bahrain for example has been historically a part of Iran, and Dubai has a huge Iranian population, but you don't see Iran's flag (WikiProject Iran) on the Bahrain or Dubai articles for obvious reasons. AlexanderPar 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No Alexander, it is not a "pan-Arab attempt to label/claim Iranian territories as part of the Arab world". It is a WikiProject and i am responsible of the project and i am sure i am in no way a POV pusher. I've been here since a couple of years and i remember exactly when WikiProjects started.

"I would oppose if Iranians were doing the same thing on Arab articles" - Again, no. Please assume good faith. As an example, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora which include most of the Afro-American topics. For instance, an article about [Dubai Iranians] would be treated as the African diaspora example and so on.

I think you are not familiar enough w/ WikiProjects and you are confusing categories w/ wikiprojects. I hope you assume good faith and understand the purpose of tagging. ~It has nothing to do w/ POV pushing. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, WP:AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I am confident that you have good intentions, and I do AGF with you, but User:Ahwaz's past behavior (20 blocks or so to his name for POV-pushing and edit-waring for pan-Arab causes [2]) is the evidence I am talking about. Placing a pan-Arab flag on Iranian cities is a provocative action, I am sure you'd get the same reaction from other editors if somebody tried to place this pan-Arab flag on the pages of Israeli cities with substantial Arab population like Haifa. AlexanderPar 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best thing we can do is to not put anything in there because after all, the WikiProject tag serves only to enhance articles and not to create conflicts. Just try to cool down the situation w/ User:Ahwaz. If you need help just approach me and if there's anything i can do to mediate between you, i'll be ready. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I wish to inform you that WP:AGF is Wikipedia policy. It seems that you have forgotten this: "restoring the discussion that led to a compormise and an agreement by both sides, the page was prematurely archived to hide the existing consensus." Do not let it happen again. By the way, the compromise that was reached was against WP:CONSENSUS, because it violated WP:LEAD.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Agha Nader already responded to you about your comments. I would advise you to restrict your comments to discussions about the article, and avoid making assumptions about the editors. Aforementioned editors might take exception to mischaracterizations of their edits and smite you mightliy via responses. Be polite, or begone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the way it is going to work, sport. Stop attacking me, or you are going to deal with a rather sizable amount of unpleasantness. Consider this your only warning to stop attacking me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Look, we had a bunch of editors warring about these tags a few months ago. Editors were pulling the same BS you're pulling now. We asked, "what is wrong with the article" and the editors replied, "everything". This is not constructive. It is obvious bad faith editting. What resolved the dispute was citing a few specific examples, giving the good faith editors something to work on. Booga worked hard for the last few months improving the citations and neutralizing the language. You either cite some examples, giving us something to work on or the tags stay off. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WHERE??? Copy and paste for christ sake. You have no excuse not to. You ask us to work hard to remove the tag without committing the effort to copy and paste the issues that have supposedly been raised and not addressed? Do you seriously expect me to take your complaints seriously if you're editting in such bad faith? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued work on Religion in Iran

This isn't "me". That should be obvious that work in wikipedia depends on sources as much as possible. In this particular case the source is clear and the url takes you right to the comments. Perhaps there is some confusion about what you are reading vs what I reading. But this isn't about what "I"'m saying or not. I'm just trying to present what the source says. Smkolins (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith

You know nothing about the political positions of these editors. And I am free to invite anyone to the discussion that I please. Noleander actually was just working on Criticism of Judaism, you would've known that if you had bothered checking his talk page, or mine, or his contributions. But I guess that's too much to expect of you based on your own history. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Empty threats and a suitably hypocritical understanding of policy. Your comments on my page are unnecessary and unwelcome. I know how to deal with POV warriors like you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The best approach is to apply to ANI for a block, based on incivility (accusing other editors of lying and vandalism) mand mentioing past problems. TFD (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Stoning. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 11:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. You both got off easy... -- tariqabjotu 11:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. 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. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of edit-warring on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Stoning for one week. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 08:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication, despite getting off easy last time, that you intend to stop. -- tariqabjotu 08:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hey there. Saw this edit and thought I'd point you towards this ongoing discussion about the point you removed. Cheers, m.o.p 08:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)