Melca

Welcome!

Hello, Melca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
• The handy Manual of Style
• And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 15:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Hi Melca. I think we should keep the discussion go on the MRP talk page, because it has not been resolved yet and that is the relevant talk page for it. Ongoing changes to the article would depend on the discussions on that page and moving the discussion to here would be unfair to any others following it. Shervink 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)shervink

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

As i have told you again and again your edits are against several official wikipedia policys, (NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research to name a few) and can be removed at anytime. And you are not in a position to give out vandalism warnings. --- Melca 14:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is simply wrong, and you are rejecting valid references because of your own bias. Since you are deliberately pushing your point of view by removing content, your actions can be considered as vandalism. I do not like to do this, but you are not leaving any room for discussion, and I cannot accept to let you intentionally make an article biased. Shervink 15:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

This is not my point of view but the view of nearly every major published newspaper and scholar on the subject [1] [2] [3]. --- Melca 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Do not remove vandalism warnings from your page. They can be verified on the history of your page anyway.

2. I am very well aware that there is lots of published work supporting your point of view. I never denied this, and I did not remove those references or the related text from the page. All I am saying is that there is also lots of work supporting the opposite. This includes at least two books among the references, the exact text of the constitution, as well as inteviews and the like. This evidence cannot be neglected when writing an article on Wikipedia. Shervink 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shervink 15:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shah

Don't remove words like Shah and Shahbanu from articles. It is not, and never has been , Wikipedia policy to use English translations. WP policy is to use the form of words used by English speakers. If English speakers tranlate a word (eg, they call the Austrian emperor Emperor not Kaiser) then use the translation. If English speakers use the original language word (as in Taoiseach for Irish prime minister, Kaiser for German emperor, etc) then the original word, not the translation, is used on Wikipedia. English users refer to the Shah or Iran, never the "King of Iran", so Shah and shah alone is what can be used on Wikipedia. The Manual of Style and the Naming Conventions make that explicitly clear. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it would be more clear to write king, but you make a very good point. Sorry about that. Also good job on bringing the article to a more NPOV state. Most of the Pahlavi articles on wikipedia read as a promotional page for the late monarchy and really need rewriting. Keep up the good work.. --- Melca 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Zealot?

As I have not singled you or anybody out for a personal attack, don't make false accusations! My opinion holds nevertheless.Pantherarosa 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishing in murky waters

Funny that you should "uncover" unhelpful and useless deleteted content, while yourself anabashdly deleting editors precious work, without foundation (e. g. above). You should apply the same zeal in contributing intellectually to wikipedi as shown when naming serious editors on PERSONAL ATTACK page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard). Pantherarosa 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful and useless content? What do you call this edit [4] by you then? The "useless deleted content" on your userpage are deleted warnings for personal attacks. Also before you acuse me of deleting "work without foundation" you should maybe take the time to read the associated talk pages [5] [6] --- Melca 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do YOU know what you are actually doing here on Wikipedia?

After carefully following your activities on Wikipedia for a while now, iI really wonder who would profit from your "edits". I find you apparently mainly exhausting editors with unwarranted "amendments" or deleting content in a vandal-like fashioin or picking fights. You seem to have a big problem with people opposed to your pov. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia! Not a blog for your very personal grievances or your apparent lust for engaging in arguments. I also see that you aggravate editors with baseless but excerting allegations, in order to prompt them to react in disdain and possibly uncivil. You litterally ask for harsh criticism and jump on the opportunity to pick on a victim of your malice. Why don't you just leave serious people alone, as they enhance Wikipedia, while you and the likes of you leave ugly sentiments and imressions with the ones taking it up with you and others who simply get fed up, seeing idle folk spoiling the enthusiasm with which they make their contributions. In light of your caprices, one cannot but regard you with contempt and disdain. Go elsewhere, leave honest folk alone. Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 212.72.21.53 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 22:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Abdulrahman. I appreciate your concern. If you can back up your claims i suggest you report me to an admin so appropriate actions can be taken against me. Also you might want to sign up for an account. --- Melca 23:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Hey, I could use your help with the Pantherarosa discussion. Seems to me that InShaneee has no idea what happened and is just enforcing policies without understanding them. Basically, he's saying that because I made one or two incivil remarks to Patherarosa after we warned him/her and (s)he attacked back many times, that (s)he should get off scott free. Paul Cyr 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So sorry

I fat-fingered something - that was for User:Paul Cyr. -- Gnetwerker 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin InShaneee

Hi, I was hoping you could voice your views on the conduct of InShaneee here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropirate conduct by admin InShaneee. Basically, I am making the case that InShaneee hands out unfair warnings, refuses to discuss them and holds double standards. Paul Cyr 21:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright that's fine. Would it be alright if I quoted your message to me? Paul Cyr 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Paykan40.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Paykan40.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hessam 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Hi Melca. Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm sorry for removing that specific link, it incidentally happened during the edit. As for your revert of the other parts of my edit, I do not really understand the reason. The new version is definitely more NPOV, and completely according to historical facts which I am sure you don't dispute either. What part of the edit is inconsistent with the talk page? By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer regarding a lengthy post I sbmitted on that talk a few months ago! Otherwise, let me add that it's good to see you again. Shervink 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Regarding your second post on my talk page: Firstly, it might be more useful if you actually took your time to politely discuss with me, instead of hysterically distributing warnings. Secondly, I have removed neither of those. There is still stated that he was approved by parliament, which is why he is commonly refered to as elected, and that his removal from office is commonly known as a coup is also stated. So what is your problem? Shervink 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Melca. Regarding your recent post on my talk page, I am trying to discuss on the talk page of the article on Dr. Mossadegh. The problem is you don't seem interested in resolving the content dispute, and prefer to distribute baseless warnings instead. As you can easily verify in the wikipedia page on vandalism, "content disputes" such as this are different from vandalism. If you wish to be re-assured of that by an admin, you can go on and report the issue. The fact of the matter remains that I have removed no content what so ever from the page. I have included the mainstream term coup, as well as references to the CIA, US, and UK, as well as the term democratically elected. I have not included anything from the other point of view, for which I have already provided several references, in the introduction. All I have done is to tone down the harsh tone of the inroduction to make it more encyclopedic. I cannot imagine what your problem is with that. Rgarding the name of Kermit Roosevelt, it is definitely not important enough to be mentioned in a 4 or 5 line long intro, where the names of several other critical figures, such as Dr. Fatemi, Ayatollah Kashani, General Zahedi, ... are missing. Shervink 13:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Re: your report on WP:AIV

I have removed your report on WP:AIV. Thank you for taking concern over the quality of the encyclopedia. However, I believe your problem is more like a content dispute than it is vandalism. Please take a look at dispute resolution and see what can be done to solve this problem. Good luck. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

== Hello Melca. The book was published in Iran about 20 years ago, and seems to be out of print now (which I think is very unfortunate considering its importance). My friend had bought it in Iran many years ago, and I have not seen many copies of it around. I'll definitely let you know if I find available copies. In the meantime, I'm thinking about scanning and making an e-book out of it, but I'll need to wait for now until I can find some more time for such a thing. Shervink 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Two Articles in need of your attention

There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created -- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:

The term Turko-Persian Tradition (or Turco-Persian) does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.

Any contributions would greatly appreciated. Bā Sepās Surena 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah

Thank you for your contributions on Reza Shah. Do you have any source that says his son gave him the title of "the Great". --Agha Nader 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Shah

I reverted your most recent edit. I didn't really understand his edit summary, but we can discuss it here. I am referring to this edit [7]. The edit summary said "Sorry but i have to remove this. He is referring to a misquote by Barbara Walters and not the quote from Orianas book. Walters quote is different then the one in Oriana book whichis what he is ref. to". I believe the Shah was, in fact, referring to the quote from Fallaci's interview. He is telling Walters that Fallaci misquoted him. Agha Nader 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Requests for arbitration

Hi. I moved your comment on the evidence page to the evidence talk page, and your statement to the case's talk page (where statements made after acceptance go). If you'd like to present evidence, you can make your own section down at the bottom of the evidence page. Picaroon (t) 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Old Red Cracker

The article Old Red Cracker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no claim to notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shii (tock) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)