User talk:The Behnam/Archive2

Hey Behnam

We had an awkward discussion in RFCN regarding the fart guy [1]. You were of course right, I should have disallowed in the first place, because that particular excretory function (fart) may be offensive. However, my point about other excretory functions which are not offensive, still stands. There was no OR involved; as I linked both articles (tears and sweat). I think we should reword the policy to allow common sense come into play for such names. I propose we reword "are included" to "may include". The other option would be to list the offensive excretory functions only (which I find WP:CREEPy, but would also work). What do you think? NikoSilver 11:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think it is worth discussion. It needs clarification; obviously 'fart' is bad and 'breath' is alright. My preliminary suggestion actually sides with the 'creep' option, but I'm willing to consider others. But maybe you can hold off until that troll is gone? If you look at the talk pages I think you will see what I mean. I'm afraid our attempt at resolving the matter would be disrupted by him. Tell me what you think. The Behnam 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In defense of the 'creep' idea, I think that it is important for us to actually get the specifics forbidden in this case. So many people showed up pretending 'fart' is not an offensive or rude word in English that it really made a mockery of the RFCN. Perhaps if we get it to be explicitly worded it can't happen again. The Behnam 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the 'non-creepy' instruction properties at WP:CREEP, it appears that specifying in this case will prevent problems and actually agree with those three rules entirely. But maybe I misinterpret. The Behnam 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fart is only one aspect of a greater problem, I'm afraid. A similar example would be that of "TortureIsWrong", which is a "real world violent action" but may be interpreted as non-offensive (in my view at least -and regardless of other issues which you note). Same goes for the rest of the bulleted list there:

• Acceptable/debatable excretory IMO: Sweat, tears etc (well -not always, but depending on context)
• Acceptable/debatable violent actions: TortureIsWrong, NoMoreDeath...
• Acceptable/debatable illness: IgotTheFlu, NoChickenPops... (if you disagree with a particular example don't make an issue, I'm sure we can think of more)

I'm afraid that list goes on and on in virtually all ban-able examples, and I still believe that our best defense is simple: Common Sense. However, I will still endorse the ..."creepy" solution :-), if it is comprehensive, but if something is specified in violation of 'common sense' I still think we should allow it in practice. I also think we should disallow something that is not specified which again we find offensive with our common sense. What do you think? NikoSilver 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to go so I'll be more thorough later, but I was thinking more on the excretory point just specifying. Basically, things like 'fart' and 'vomit' don't have acceptable forms. I mean, we will never allow User:FartingIsWrong or its vomit/upchuck equivalent. I am thinking that such things could be specified, though I wonder about things like hurl, which I believe is a vomit synonym but may have reasonable acceptable meanings depending upon context. I'll get back to you later. The Behnam 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Is there actually a human on the planet who thinks farting is wrong? Or that vomiting is wrong? Sometimes both actions are involuntary, sometimes both are necessary. Cheers. TortureIsWrong 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I dunno, there could be such a person. The point is that there is no 'goodness' to such names that will overshadow the policy, unlike with your name. I didn't vote on your name because of the moral conflict, and plenty voted 'allow' just because they know the statement is true and good. The Behnam 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

TIW to AN

Behnam, see the conversation that was moved from here to here. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I believe you have broken the 3RR on the article 300 (film). Agha Nader 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I'll revert myself if possible. The Behnam 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

At second glance that last one appears to be spam (a guy promoting his own article) so I'm inclined to think that it doesn't qualify under 3RR. The Behnam 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

There is no policy whatsoever to prevent editors from bolding their comments for effect. The fact remains that they ignore the fact that it is a fictional work and the film makers have acknowledged this. If Arcayne doesn't like the bolding, tough luck. They cannot ignore the facts. Khorshid 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed the bolding because it is generally fine and I myself use it on occasion. I do maintain that YELLING should be avoided. See your talk. The Behnam 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cease your stalking

It's clear that you're stalking me on several articles you've never edited or shown interest in, such as Koryun or Persian gulf. I'm asking you stop this harassment immediately, before I take any further action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmenianJoe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

That is quite an accusation there! Contribs pages are public, and it is perfectly acceptable to see what certain users, such as those who revert blindly and shirk discussion, are up to. This helps catch poor editing elsewhere, such as more blind reverts at Koryun. As far as Persian Gulf goes, I saw that the page is protected and realized that this is because they are ignoring WP:LEAD. Policies and guidelines are always a good place to start. I quote the ArbCom decision mentioned in WP:STALK,

"It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy."

I suspect bad faith because you blindly reverted and did not constructively discuss the dispute. You demonstrated that you do not care about actually cooperating with other editors to work out disagreements and that you prefer to blindly revert articles. With this in mind I looked at some of your contribs to see if you did the same elsewhere, and indeed, I found you doing so at Koryun. You were taking out cited information without any real argument whatsoever, simply claiming that a modern source (unnamed) shows that those people are wrong. I asked you to support your claim by adding information instead, but you did not heed this advice. Such behavior is, to quote you, "contrary to the collaborative spirit of wikipedia, where users are acquired to reach consensus with opposing parties." So, I suggest you retract your silly accusation and improve your editing habits instead, or else you may be the one facing a report. I rest my case. The Behnam 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As warned, further reverting at Azerbaijan (Iran) will be met with blocks. Furthermore, you've been edit warring at Koryun and 300 (film). Please use your period off to read WP:DR and take it to heart. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong at Koryun or 300 (film), so those should not be cited as reasons. Apparently 'one revert alone' was what you meant with your warning. Why wouldn't you just protect the article then, rather then setting a trap? It is silly to make it so only changes can be made, and the cannot be undone regardless of the circumstances. Also, Why don't you take more action against ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) who vandalized my user page twice [2][3]? This is after he removed sourced information from Koryun for no good reason. After that he undid a number of legitimate edits of mine at several pages. See [4][5][6]. He even claimed in that last one that I removed cited information, even though there were no citations! He should receive a much longer block than a mere 24hrs that was given his edit at Iranian Azerbaijan. Please, protect that article. I interpreted that warning as something of a 1RR. Had I realized its true severity I definitely would not have edited it, but seriously why not just protect it again? I'd also like it if you could undo ArmenianJoe's reversion of my legitimate edits at those other articles. Thanks and please keep me informed as I am now very confused. And of course I am always happy to be unblocked, but I don't think you will. :) The Behnam 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your comments to ArmenianJoe. Thanks for relaying him that information. I was just trying to figure out how to report his behavior when I got blocked. For future reference, should that kind of thing go to AIV or ANI? Obviously I needed him to be dealt with quickly since he was vandalizing my page and undoing legitimate edits, so I was leaning towards AIV. But really don't know. Thank you in advance for feedback. The Behnam 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any reason to think he is being dishonest about it being a mistake; you might have said something on histalk page to get his attention. In any case, there was smething wrong with your edits to Koryun. Edit warring is prohibited, and if you think it is only a problem once you get to 4 reverts in 24 hours, you would be very mistaken. Rather, you should always engage in polite discussion when you encounter a conflict, and ask for helo when that doesn't work. And no, I won't carry on your content battles for you. Dmcdevit·t 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest about what mistake? I'm confused. I see now. The Behnam 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, what exactly am I supposed to do about Azerbaijan (Iran)? My main dispute was over using non-English conventions like "Azar-". Despite my extensive arguing nothing happened. I pointed out that "Azar-" words don't appear in dictionaries, we compared Google searches and found that the "Azer-" form is favored there as well, etc. But nothing happened because the other users didn't accept any of the proof as meaningful, even though English dictionaries generally contain words that are English and do not contain words that are not English. What am I supposed to do if the arguments are disregarded for no good reason? The Behnam 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I object to your statement that I stalked him. I see something to this effect on his page, starting "Simply put". Maybe I misunderstand you? If you don't agree with my justification for monitoring him above, please tell me because I don't want to be considered guilty of harassment, especially since I wasn't aiming to harass. The Behnam 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:DR as a suggested. It talks about dispute resolution from avoidance and discussion all the way to arbitration. It sounds like what you are looking for is some mediation. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Can you protect that page instead of the current setup? There is no difference between protection and the current setup except that the current setup allows information to be added but never removed. Furthermore, the 'block' aspect not only leads to an excess of blocks, but also promotes the use of sockpuppets to do reverts (like today's anon). Protection seems a much better setup to force discussion. The Behnam 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of your recent violation of 3RR, and being blocked, I hope you have time to ponder about your civility. Your ill-considered accusation, "Much of your presence on WP, including your entry into WP, seems dedicated to opposing me on various fronts", is in violation of WP:CIV. It was only yesterday when you admonished me about my tone. Please, assume good faith, and do not try to discredit my work at Wikipedia; I will not tolerate it. Agha Nader 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Technically I got blocked for a weird "0RR violation" at Azerbaijan (Iran); I'm not sure why they wrote 24hr there quite some time later as that wasn't the actual reason for my block. Anyway I do not consider my accusation ill-considered and I do not need your threats on my talk page either. I consider your message here just another part of the problem. Please measure your response carefully as I have decided over these last few days to value WP:DNFT. Have a good day. The Behnam 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am truly sorry if I appeared threatening, that was not my goal. I just wanted to say that I do not appreciate ill-considered accusations, and will not tolerate them. Furthermore, I do not wish to oppose your edits, as I find the great majority of them to be good. Although I nominated you for being blocked, it was only because I felt you violated 3RR. As you remember, I agreed with you about Patchouli's POV edits. To think I oppose you for the sake of opposing you is not fair. Agha Nader 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Googoosh

You have blacklisted my link to the effect that I cannot contribute to the Googoosh article. I was going to provide references when I was impulsively blocked. Actually there was an unregistered user who kept reverting the changes I made and I requested he be banned, but unfortunately you listed me.NeutralWriter 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look at Googoosh, and have made some comments in the Talk Page. Maybe give me some feedback? Arcayne 11:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was re-writing the article to wikipedia standards and as I was so doing, some un-registered user kept reverting back the changes. So I requested he be banned, and somehow they banned me. I don't know how to remove myself from being blacklisted.NeutralWriter 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)NeutralWriter

• Hi there. I was requested to take a look at this issue. The first point I'd like to note is that NeutralWriter is neither blocked nor banned from editing [7]. The edits by User:The Behnam from March 31 seem to be reasonable and are mostly associated with removing peacock terms from the article. I note, however, that an anonymous editor reverted your changes twice [8] [9] and both times, it was reverted. Since then, User:The Behnam came along and did some cleanup work. Also, the article is neither semi- nor fully-protected at this time. Can you be a little more specific as to how you're being blocked from contributing? - Alison^☺ 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - I found the problem!! The URL "googoosh dot cjb dot net" is on the Blacklist. This is being caused by the URL itself being blacklisted by the Wikimedia software and nothing to do with any specific editor. Here's the full list. While I was in there, I noticed on the talk page that you guys are going for GA, so by way of a gift, I switched all inlinked URLs into proper cites and added a reflist section. Hope you don't mind :) - Alison^☺ 05:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Religious conversion and terrorism

An editor has nominated Religious conversion and terrorism, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. PelleSmith 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

You have admonished user Arcayne for removing Khorshid's bold text before. He has removed my bold text as well. I used the bold text in his talk page, you can see it in the history. Is your opinion the same this time? Agha Nader 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I'll tell him about it again. I told him before that bold text is not usually yelling but ALL CAPS is, and he seemed to understand, so I don't know why he continues to get rid of things because of that. Of course, he is entitled to do what he wants with his talk page, and I suppose if he removes any message that uses 'bold' because he finds it offensive, he may be OK to do so, but that is kind of silly IMO. Maybe you can just not use bold text for now, and perhaps he will then try to answer the question? The Behnam 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Agha Nader 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Behnam

Whats the fuss Baradar??? Citation is not needed when all you have to do is to read about phrates IV. You see Persia never had any bad feelings towards the greeks despite devastating assaults by Alex. Sounds familiar today? hmmm. The message is priceless. Think about it, even back then. Whats the fuss just let it be. Cyrus111

Ok Baradar, Done.Cyrus111

Allright, Ill see what I can do later on, but please if you also find it go ahead

Your Fraudulent comment on my Talk page

Resolved

 – The Behnam 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU Sir? I am wondering why you like to create disputes between people who have no involvment with you in ANY way. Please explain yourself and don't revert my edits again or I will have to report you to the admins. Thanks. SSZ 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Iran's talk page now. May be a computer bug ??(I certainly NEVER vandalized the page, or ANY other page for that matter) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSZ (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Sir, Again I am not removing other people's edit and please explain WHY you need to feed a troll.SSZ 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

LAST WARNING: Please do NOT revert my edit on Iran's talk page. I have nothing to explain to you. If Zereshk wants to know more about it, he will ask me himself. Thank you for your (apparent) concern.SSZ 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? and what do you want? What is your objective in doing that?SSZ 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted on your talk page, this isn't about the Zereshk situation. I was simply restoring my post. I warned you for removing Zereshk's post but I never reverted it. The Behnam 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Behman: Again, I did not put that "green page" in place of the talk page of Iran (I said it was a computer bug to the best of my knowledge and tried to revert this myself, unsucessfully, after you commenting on my talk page today (since you were the last person to edit AFTER me and the page looked fine when I left it). I had no choice but to revert in order to get rid of that "green page" that replaced the entire talk page (Yes, the earlier comments to Zereshk on Iran's talk page was from ME also, to answer your question).

Second, and most importantly: I do not appreciate when you mind other people's business (MINE in that case). Zereshk has eyes to see by himslef. He is a regular editor on Wikipedia and I left a comment for HIM to see on the Iran's talk history page for that purpose (at the SAME time when I removed his question, which unduly implicated me). Again, I have no further explanations to give YOU. Good bye!SSZ 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? That doesn't clear things up at all. The Behnam 05:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is resolved and I see no reason to continue modifying this messy section. The Behnam 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran talk page font problem

Greetings! See if that fixed it for you. All those font tags were confusing so I just added an extra </font> at the end of Zereshk's top comment. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check translation of "isreaL" in arabic

Translations are not OR. Zeq 06:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

not farsi but arabic. Zeq 06:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

check "isril" , izril, or "isreal" - there could be many ways to write it in roman letters. Translations are not OR. Zeq 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

please check with an arrabic speaker. The fact that you typed something into a dictionary sounds like OR to me so I can not accept it as an argument to remove a translation. Zeq 06:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the text left the translation. please check before you make changes. Zeq 06:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I imply nothing just provided a translation of the word on the sign. The sign is the source and I only added a translation. Zeq 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

I don't know why you left me that message about Marilyn Monroe but obviously you don't know anyhing. It wasn't Vandalism, it was a completly truthful edit. And I could care less if you removed it. So go ahead and try to block me, maybe you should read up on her sometime. I don't care because I am intelligent and if you want people to read up on someone and not be aware of the whole truth then that's your problem. I am not gonna even stress you because your a joke.

Your saying I left negative information on several articles? I only edited them from the information I found out about them. From reading or watch bio's on those people. It was in no way to attack their character after their demise. And I only called you a joke because you left me a warning like I purposely went out of my way to write nagative and untruthful information about them. Are you following everything I edit? Because that is a form of stalking...

Well while you feel they are inappropriate. I feel that they were correct because I was just adding information that other people left out when they wrote those articles. The only way I find it unsourced was through me not leaving a reference on where I got the information. I don't need a link on appropriate editing. I believe there was nothing wrong with my editing. There were not untruthful and written to disgrace the people I edited about. You should have written and asked me before you threw out a warning like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetrope1318 (talk • contribs)

Iranian women

Please see Talk:Iranian women#Image gallery. Mukadderat 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

POV links?

Why did you remove links here, calling them POV? Whats "POV" about a testimony of leaving Islam? Also "regime" is not POV, see regime. Also, how is the link you removed here promotional? Make sure to explain while using Wikipedia policies. I'm talking about the RJG link. --Matt57 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are involved in arbitration

You are involved in arbitration. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mudaliar.2C_Kaikolar.2C_Sengunthar.2C_Devadasi

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venki123 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New

Hey, The Behnam. Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner, I've been away for a while. It seems like the original article has been unlocked, so instead of moving Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New to my user space, we can just delete it. ♠ SG →Talk 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardization

Ashkanian should be changed, but Parthian or Parthian dynasty is pretty standard in English, so we don't really have to change it. --Mardavich 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ali Khamenei

Salam, can you please show me those testimonies clearly.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Man nazaram ra tu safhe bahs nevshtam. Motshakker.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New

Hi,

Sometimes Wikipedia uses redirects for other purposes besides searching and user convenience. In this case, the redirect maintained vital attribution information, essential to comply with the terms of the GFDL license that WP uses for its content. We cannot delete that redirect. In general, if you see a weird-looking redirect with a long history, it probably exists for GFDL purposes. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

reply

I randomly sometimes click the minor edit box, half the time my talk page things end up as minor. I did not notice the redundancy on the template, feel free to revert me on that. Devadasi, I'm consulting with people to understand the issue at hand. Actually a member of Category:User Ta-N may be able to help, I'll look into that.Bakaman 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Men harassing page on Mukhtar Mai

It is amazing how three muslim men jumped all over this page, right after I added a number of things, and cleaned it up. Does a woman working for human rights in Pakistan really get under your skin so badly? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.5.51 (talk • contribs)

Note - The above message is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA to learn more on why the IP got blocked for making such attacks. The Behnam 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Assalamu Alaikum brother.Bakaman 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More of the same...

Unrelated link

I had added the link a while back because Nader Shah is known by many for his Anti-Hindu actions. I am not sure if you have noticed, but the Anti-Hinduism article has some of the same problems as the Anti-Iranian. I am referring to the OR. Although a case can be made for Nader Shah being Anti-Hindu, sources need to be added. Furthermore, the source must say he is Anti-Hindu. I have not been able to find such a source. I was mistaken when I added the link. Do not you agree that he should be removed from the links? Agha Nader 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The Shia Chat article needs NPOV sources. If it is as notable as some people profess in its talk page, than such sources must exist. It has a lot of peacock tone, if such a term exists. I did not find any specific word that was a peacock term though. By the way, have you been to the new Persian restaurant? Agha Nader 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

GFDL

For the purpose of the license, we must preserve a record of who (what user) wrote what content. When an article is merged, or rewritten on a subpage, and important edits are incorporated in the final product in the mainspace, the record of "who wrote what" (called the attribution history) can be preserved either through a history merge (a little complicated) or a redirect (much easier). In the latter case, the attribution history remains publicly available under the redirect page's history tab. As I said, when you see a redirect with a long history -- even if it has an unlikely name -- it is likely being preserved for GFDL purposes. Redirects are cheap, as the saying goes, so leave it alone. Only speedy-tag an R3 redirect if its history is brief and/or it is relatively new. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility Template

I cannot take credit for it. Bigs and Erik were talking about the issue between themselves about why they had withdrawn fromt he article, and Bigs decided to whip up a template to act as a 'rule for the page'. He just asked me to add it in. I am lucky if my html skills help me encode the right color on my user page. lol. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OIT page

The sections being removed from OIT are identified as OR. It was discussed on talk page where the editors confirmed that Parpola has not made the statement that they want to include. Regarding the comments added, Gandhara region (mainly river names) is mentioned in Rigveda in few different books, so I am not clear why did you object to "it is noted". If you prefer different wording, change it to different wording. When OR is being removed, please don't reinsert it back in article by "rv".Sbhushan 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look. The Behnam 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any action from your "closer look". I am removing the OR from the article again. I would appreciate if you don't reinsert the OR back.Sbhushan 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The OR is that Parpola has not made any claim that Ghandhara was Rigvedic Urhemeit or homeland. Rudra confirmed this [[10]]. To add any content, I had to find very specific statements where explicitly any claim was made. The same rule applies to Dab and Rudra too. They can not go around synthesizing published work. On this specific claim, Dab has changed the source about 4 times, I requested page number back in Nov that Dab never provided. Now Rudra provides this analysis quoted above and confirms that Parpola did not make this specific statement. WP:NOR says that unpublished analysis of published work is OR.Sbhushan 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How come...

Since you're so proactive on 300_film article, how come you haven't chosen a prefernce here. Have you seen this declaration which was followed by this, and now a sudden late surge of support for a particular option. Something fishy is going on there. --Mardavich 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps youmight want to revisit the topic of AGF, Mardavich. Please do not insinuate as to editors' actions, especially when you have your own actiions to consider. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is clear declaration of intent, AGF doesn't apply when an editor is making his intentions clear. Regardless, my comments were neither directed at you nor concern you Arcayne, so stop following me around or replying to me on other people's talk pages. You're just making a RFC on your disruptive behavior more imminent. --Mardavich 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to wait until you stopped modifying your post before responding, but I happen to have Benham's page watchlisted, as we work on some of the same articles. When I note you continuing to make the same sorts of personal attacks that youhave in the past, I am going to mention how you should be more civil and stop making personal attacks on editors whose opinions differe from your own. Please apologize, as an act of good faith that you are at least trying to AGF and that you retract your personal attack accusation. You have recieved a third warning tag regarding this. I would not like to see you get blocked over this behavior. You need to act more politely with your fellow editors, and less disruptive. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that I didn't come here to talk to you, I came here to talk to The Behnam. So please do not reply to me on other people's talk pages, or lecture me about civility, when you're the one who called me a "dirty dog" not long ago. You need to review the policies yourself, before lecturing others about it. Thank you. --Mardavich 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you will recall, that phrase was issued after a particularly contentious series of bad faith edits on everyine's part, Mardavich. You may also recall that I apologized for the comment. that I at one point made a mistake in civility doesn't negate my ability or right to point it out when others fail to exercise good judgment with civility and good faith. that you accused an editor who has excellent edits thus far of bad faith is worthy of note, and ever more so when you stop to consider that this particular problem has been pointed out to you before by numerous editors. That is what justified the comment and 3rd civility/NPA warning on your talk page.

Consider this a friendly reminder that your continued lack of civility and personal attacks upon your fellow editors is going to make it increasingly difficult to receive the good faith that you yourself as quite sensitive about wanting. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, quit eavesdropping. How hypocritical considering you once said "I did not invite you to participate in the conversation. That's like someone eavesdropping at a large public gathering" when you made a personal attack on your talk page. --Agha Nader 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why has a fight broken out on my page? Arcayne, thanks for keeping an eye out but I don't think your involvement is helping at this time. Nader, I don't know how you ended up here but you shouldn't be involved unless there is something constructive you have to add. Sorry but I don't see why you people have to carry your feuds here just because Mardavich posts something weird and ambiguous on my page. I suggest that you all stop worrying about these things.

Anyway, Mardavich, what exactly is fishy here? If you are wondering, I had already previously said that I think "fictional" is the best and safest description, and I haven't bothered voting on one of those many options because I find the whole thing bothersome and WP:LAME. I also don't understand what your diffs are supposed to be showing me aside from more rudeness on Miskin's part, which is neither new nor fishy. So please explain to me what is bothering you. Thanks. The Behnam 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Sorry, I just noticed the attack post on your page, and commented. Come on, Agha - you can follow me somewhere else now. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the Ataturk article?--Agha Nader 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to move the discussion on the iran history article forward?

Thanks for the only intelligent response to my sincere attempt to contribute to the discussion on how big a sub section on Iranian history should be! Sigh. --Psm 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Need a third opinion

Hi.

I feel there is factuality and POV issue with the this article, as I explained Talk:Quds_Force#A_review. I think you as an half Iranian American have a more NPOV regarding the issue! so could you please take a look at it and comment if the article needs repair or not? Thanks.--Gerash77 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you referring to...

this? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When you mentioned me in this?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aryan junk"

Do not ever use such a phrase again. Among Iranians, the term "Aryan" is very sacred and important to us, and it is also a common Iranian name. Please have respect for the culture and heritage of Iranians. Iranians are also descended from ancient Aryan tribes, so your use of the phrase in this context is very derogatory. Khorshid 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is junk because it is unsourced POV OR in favor of some odd ideas about 'Aryan race', with little appropriateness to that article. Hence, 'junk'. And I don't know what crowd you hang out with but I generally don't find 'Aryan' being considered "sacred" outside of fringe groups. In fact quite a number of them are Muslims who don't care much about these distinctions that were mostly 'discovered' by Europeans in the same line of thought that led to Nazi mythology. The Behnam 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pahlavi

Whats the difference between edits like this [11] and if one removed "Shahanshah" from for example Cyrus or Darius's articles? I am a little confused by the reasoning --Rayis 11:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been thinking over it. The problem is that it is obviously POV to write about these people as if they actually continue to hold their positions. I generally determine it based upon whether they lost their position to a different form of government while alive, such that we keep Reza Shah but write Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. There may be a few other criteria to be sorted out, though it is probably harmless to detach the titles from Prince, Empress, and other non-King positions.

I notice anyway that Cyrus and Darius don't have a Shahanshah attached to their names, as you would expect since that was more of a Sassanian title, if I am not mistaken. The one situation that is confusing me is that of Mohammad Zahir Shah, who isn't in such a different boat from the Pahlavis. But the problem with detaching his title here is because he would become unrecognizable, since most conventions actually include the "Shah" at the end of his name. Perhaps we should rely on standard independent RS conventions as the main place to look. Anyway, I don't claim to be for-sure on these matters so please tell me your further thoughts. Thanks. The Behnam 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what Shahanshah article says about Darius atleast. I think the NPOV would be to refer to them as former princess, for example in this case. Because they were princess at one point, no matter what the current situation is --Rayis 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Salam. I try not to revert anything more than 1 time and then discuss about it in the talk page. How ever thanks for your good advice, God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

xxxxx situation

Hi The Behnam, I agree that this is a problematic situation. A number of editors, yourself included, have made an effort to try to bring the article into line, so far with some success. Thank you. And thank you for remaining calm when dealing with this user. One point, though, if a prod notice is removed for whatever reason, the proposed deletion is considered to be disputed and the Prod tag should not be re-applied. I have now taken the xxxxx article to AfD as that's the appropriate next step for any disputed prod. Thanks, Gwernol 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"just returning the favor"

For what have I been blessed with your generosity?! [12]. May God be with you. --Rayis 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was just saying that because I also checked into one of your edits, like you did with my Leila Pahlavi edit. By the way, can you tell me your thoughts on that? I have responded above. The Behnam 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Çoban Salatası

Great surprise, which right you have that you tagged "merge" without any discussion before, and you ask discussion.No. You add. I remove.this is it. Try to discuss before radical steps.

• also take back Shirazi salad.Must.^{T C} 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, but for the record, I did exactly what should have been done. Tagged it, and then created a discussion section for it on the page. Instead of participating in the discussion, you simply removed the tag because you didn't like it, without there being any conclusion to the discussion. So you are in the wrong here, not I. Cheers. The Behnam 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary history of Iran

Do you agree on making a wikiproject or at least a task force (like this)about Contemporary history of Iran which includes issues science 1900.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please write your idea in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iran#Contemporary_history_of_Iran--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The night of the sockpuppets (xxxxx)

I don't think that is a meatpuppet but a straight forward sockpuppet, same edit style, same SHOUTY nature when confronted. I'd also suspected that she will just keep on trying via a number of sockpuppets to keep adding the same trivial (and they are trivial - just listings and the like) references to the article. --Fredrick day 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed. The Behnam 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Iranians are incapable of objectivity" Issue

The fact that you think that I think that "Iranians are incapable of objectivity" is ludicrous. I have supported and I still do actively support Iranian editors in Talk:Avicenna over the Arab POV. I just think that in the specific topic, the specific Iranian editors are not neutral. By past experience I know that the vast majority of Iranians are sensitive on the Greco-Persian war subject, and naturally hold biased POVs. This is the meaning of a "partisan", it would be the same for americans editing WW2 articles, it doesn't have to be anti-something in particular. Miskin 10:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying things like "naturally hold biased POVs" is just what I object to. If you were to truly argue that specific Iranian editors aren't neutral, you could do so provided that you concentrate on their actual edits and statements instead of the fact that they are Iranian. If this is not intentional then you really need to start measuring your words with greater care. The Behnam 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The naturally biased POV of a partisan is an international phenomenon. Of course I argue on the specific editors. More precisely, I'm referring to the editors who showed up and voted out of the blue. Personally I'm convinced that they were notified by email but there are no means of proving this. But even if we assumed that it all belonged to my imagination, it is still a fact that the partisan voters formed an absolute majority over the non-partisans. Therefore even if we have statistically 1 out of 2 partisans being fixed towards a certain non-NPOV view, then the whole vote becomes biased. Miskin 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind you thinking specific editors are partisan... in fact I agree with you there. But please stop calling all Iranians partisan because of being Iranian; that is where you are going wrong. The Behnam 13:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop using that term if it offends you, though I never meant it in an ill-mannered way. All people (and by consequence all editors) are prone to have partisan views when it comes to a controversial national topic, this is even valid for administrators. Miskin 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian women on WP:fr

Salam, The Behnam

I noticed that you were working and talking on Iranian women, and I just wanted to let you know that the article on the french WP, fr:Femme iranienne was reviewed by Azadeh Kian Thiebaut, an iranian/french sociologist, and apart from contesting some of the sources and some detail points, there was nothing really wrong with it. I wanted to let you know because maybe you could try to translate the article into english in order to make it more accurate. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding that article. Fabienkhan | talk page 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not emphasize on iranian women as an ethnic group but more on woman condition in Iran, from an historical and sociological point of view. Its original name was Iranian Woman (fr:Femme iranienne) but a redirect was created with the title fr:Condition de la femme en Iran which is more what the article is about. Woman condition in Iran has a "raison d'être" as the subject is always ill-treated anywhere else... We worked extensively on it with another editor, trying to figure out what was the woman condition like in the past, how it evolved during the XIX/XX century, and how it went backwards with the iranian revolution (legally speaking) but, in the meantime, we present the new trends among iranian society and the islamist women movements... I know there are some people interested in Iran on en: that could maybe help you translate it (user:Arad speaks a little french, as far as I know). My fellow editor, fr:user:Pentocelo will work on it in may in order to take out the "non reliable sources" as CAIS by works from prominent sociologists or other researchers. He'is not available now (on holidays), but we'll be back in may, if you need to ask him any question. Thanks. Fabienkhan | talk page 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"300 Discussion Page

See, Behnam, this is how you respond to someone who has different ideas than you...by 'talking to them, not repeatedly deleting their writing. I see that you are of Iranian descent...is that why you became so mad at my little rant? I find it ridiculous that people are getting so worked up about a movie...oh, well. Any way, I can put that little paragraph up there as many times as you can erase it so please, keep a civil head...12.218.145.112 01:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - The above soapboxer was blocked for vandalizing my user page. The Behnam 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling me "Hypocrite" in edit summery

Regarding this edit-summery [13] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mardavich 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't addressed to you. I mean, how could you be a hypocrite? Simply absurd. Stop worrying so much. Thanks. The Behnam 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that you put these bogus messages up instead of constructively tackling the issues at hand. The Behnam 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, since you are on patrol right now, give ParthianShot a warning for bashing Parsis on the talk page. Thanks! The Behnam 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR: Iranian Women article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

Blocked

It was only a little while ago that you were making three reverts in a day at 300 (film) and Koryun and were blocked. The behavior continues at Iranian women, with 3 reverts under 5 hours. I'm going to go warn ParthianShot for this too, but you have been reblocked, considering your past behavior. Please engage in dispute resolution when the block expires. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Behnam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See below.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not permitted. — Yamla 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is clear from the blocking reason above that I didn't actually violate any WP rules, such as 3RR. Furthermore, the reverts are completely sensible as the others were reintroducing non-RS, possibly COI sources, scriptural misquotes, and other OR into the article. Please see Talk:Iranian women for the discussions, which, by the way, the reintroducers haven't taken any constructive role in. They even introduce false references [14]. The Iranica source says nothing about Iranian women. This kind of dishonest editing needs to be reverted to preserve the integrity of the articles. My reverts are what any objective and honest Wikipedian would do, and I didn't break any rules. These people blindly revert, saying 'seek consensus' but don't actually raise any specific objection. They ignore the edit summaries and talk page discussion. There is no justice in me being blocked. The Behnam 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance, The Behnam? (talk page watchlisted) CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If he'd actually look into this situation he'd find that the reverts were completely justified. What is the point of setting a 3RR rule anyway if I'm going to be blocked on Dmcdevit's whim without any regard to the context? I see well-established editors (some admins) who revert like this all the time; the articles are compromised by the kind of dishonest editing seen from the other party. They work together to keep tripe in the articles. In any case he obviously messed up when it came to User:ParthianShot because somebody allowed that user to change user names and thus escape his past record. If anything that editor should have been blocked longer than me under Dmcdevit's personal blocking policy. Consider [15][16][17]. There are serious issues put forth on that talk page that haven't been addressed by the restoring party, including possible COI. This block is ridiculous. Besides, if you look at my last (3rd) revert, I said that if they blindly revert again I will seek higher authority on the issue [18]. Isn't that enough indication that I don't plan on keeping the revert fight going?

By the way, we have a banned User:RTV-Right to Vanish here [19] The Behnam 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will pass the information along regarding <redacted> to WP:ANI, I can request an another admin look into your block at WP:AN. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. The Behnam 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the issue regarding user XXXXX has been reported to ANI, and I have requested a block review/second opinion at [20]. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I see what you mean by assistance. :) I appreciate the help. The Behnam 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is no problem. I joined the WP:AMA not too long ago, and saw what was happening here and figured I might be able to get some involvement here that otherwise would go unheard. Other users have assisted me like so before, so I'm just doing my part as well. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Newyorkbrad's statement. I see where he is coming from about contacting Dmc, but it would be nice if the decision was made before the block expires, as I would like my record to indicate that the block was overturned (if it is). The Behnam 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some notes - I don't get Tony Sidaway's 'last defender of the wiki' scenario, and Khoikhoi is obviously not "uninvolved" when it comes to Iranian issues. It may also be noted that being blocked unjustly does not encourage 'cooling down.' The Behnam 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Daniel Bryant didn't follow anything that happened. To say that I didn't discuss anything is patent falsehood, as I brought up the misquote of the Avesta they kept reintroducing several times and they never made an attempt to answer it, but instead kept saying 'seek consensus.' The Behnam 00:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another <redacted> IP that was missed [21]. The Behnam 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another <redacted> IP that was missed [22]. The Behnam 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As you have seen, your block was the subject of a discussion among several admins on the Administrators' Noticeboard. The consensus was to uphold the block, and therefore it stands. My view was to reduce the block to a warning but it would not be appropriate for me to act against the consensus. Please resume editing when the block expires but avoid anything that could be construed as edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying but they really weren't planning to AGF with me. I'll see what I can do to resolve these problems otherwise, though the double-standard about ParthianShot makes this a very lopsided situation. The Behnam 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli salad

Very common name in Israel for salad with cucumber, tomatoes, onions and chopped to very small pieces with different flavours like olive oil. Amoruso 11:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny; everywhere else, that is called a Jerusalem salad. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it by any name related to Israel. Of course I've mainly had it as Salad Shirazi, but at some Lebanese restaurants I've seen it called 'village salad.' I was asking Amoruso for its Hebrew name and meaning but he obviously didn't understand my question. Fortunately Abu Ali soon added that it is called Salat Arevi or something, meaning "Arab Salad." The Behnam 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be a variation on 'Mom's Apple pie' - all depending on who the Mom is. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and apparently it is a very serious matter. I realized that Choban salad was pretty much the same thing as Israeli salad/Salad Shirazi, so I proposed a merger. But my tag was removed several times, with edit summaries "no good idea" and "no merge, who care with Israeli salads. Tomato and cucumber dont make these salads, same" [23]. There were also some interesting talk page remarks [24]. The Behnam 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

300

the user in question was blocked for 48 hours; thought you and Slowking would want to know. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Question

He first declared that he can call in all the other [Greek] editors [25] to vote with him, then he immediately realized the consequences of such statement of intent and removed the deceleration [26] which could have been used as evidence, and judging by the next few votes and voters who appeared right after his post within the next few hours, he may have made good of his promise. But I assumed good faith, and didn't pursue the matter any further. --Mardavich 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Na, I wasn't talking about you. I was just wondering how come you're so proactive in witch-hunting for "irregularities" by one side, but ignore obvious "irregularities" by the other side. That just seems a bit odd to me, especially after what you called me the other day. --Mardavich 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey. By the way, I restored the names here, if you search them one by one, they're all notable and published professors. --Mardavich 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was once told that 'red-links' are a good thing actually, because they would encourage editors to create an article for the subject. --Mardavich 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Boxes

I also modified the height of boxes. IMO, the little map of Iran is slightly too large when compared with the box; I'd reduce its size to 40px and adapt the height of the other box accordingly. Tizio 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot

Block extended to 5 days. Please report to ANI if he again evades his block as I may not be available. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that any versions have introduced copyrighted material to wikipedia, please remove them and ask some admin to delete the version which violates copyright. Also if you could find some proof that most of the images on that website are copyvios, then we need to remove many images from wikipedia. I am going on a break for a few days and will be editing sporadically. You can get in touch with User:Thatcher131 who seems to have done some preliminary investigation of this case and the web-site. You can also get in touch with User:Yamla who is a very experienced admin, and has a very good knowledge about wikipedia policies on images. - Aksi_great (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Please read the section in the talk area for information before reverting. All possible care was taken with preserving the votes and the voting record prior to archiving. Anyone can see the voting record in the archiove, and can see who voted. There is nopt reason to further clutter up the Talk Page with votes that are weeks old. The same vote choices have been left ont he talk page, and instructions on voting anew. I completely disagree that the reasons for why people chose before have any effect on why someone would choose now., Each vote is supposed to be independently formed, not just a parroting of what someone else says. Please change it back. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to archive any else that is resolved, but usually active or important threads aren't archived. The Behnam 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the important parts of the subject were not archived. The choices were still present, as well as clear links to see who had voted and for which choice via Mardavich's Diffs and my page for the detailed tally. As well, the link to the archive, for those afraid to form their own opinion, was presented not once, not twice, but three times? mardavich is jumping at shadows here. The Talk page was too long with it, and those who have already voted (and I refer to those who have actually been editing) shouldn't have to scroll over the long list of votes to get to more important things, like actually improving the article. Every possible concern was addressed. Why does Mardavich want to have all the entries listed? It seems...petty. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be petty but the same goes for you in this situation. Just let the votes sit until the issue has resolved. The Behnam 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain how my action is petty. I am just not getting that. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to edit war on a talk page because you want to archive an active/current section. Maybe it makes sense as a space saving measure to you but the issue of saving space isn't so important as to permit overriding users who object to the archival. Please, just let it sit until the whole voting issue is done; the use of space won't kill anybody. The Behnam 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Any particular one you like that you think would be good to use for the geography part of the main article?--Zereshk 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Persian People

I think Persian people is confusing since at the lead it says The Persians are an Iranic ethnic group who speak the Persian languag but when it goes further in the article Persian changes its meaning to Iranian. Like Persian arts, Persian women and Culture. Even in the table the poulations in foreign countries are the populations of all Iranians not just Persian as an ethnicity.(Shahingohar 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

They never say Achaemenid anywhere in the movie from what I remember, they only say Persian. --Mardavich 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhpas link Persian to Achaemenid? --Mardavich 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Mardavich 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid

I am not sure if the paragraph on Iran should be there, but then again it is an allegation. Can you have a quick look in the talk where Sa.vakilian feels that one quote there in the Iranian section is against almost every policy there is :) thanks, --Rayis 09:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the lead of the article, it refers to gender apartheid as included in it, so it's not just 'apartheid' --Rayis 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it's a minority view? just because of what was in the article at that time? --Rayis 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact a quick google search finds links such as this [27] a lecture given by Akbar Ganji on the matter so please revert yourself, cheers --Rayis 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He isn't random, he is a prominent human rights activist and one of the most famous Iranian journalists currently living. --Rayis 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we are supposed to take Neutral POV, showing all POVs, not just NONE because it is your opinion that it is a minority, if we are not gonna take human rights activists view on this, then who are we gonna take the view seriously? the oppressive regime's?! This is a list of allegations after all. Please, don't make me say it again. Revert yourself and keep it included, if anyone wants to give opposing views, let them add that --Rayis 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I will rewrite it with sources which there are plenty, however it was wrong of you to think that it is a minority's view to the point that it should not be included, I don't need to personally demonstrate it for you, feel free to search for it. I don't have the lecture notes! :) --Rayis 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Actually Gerash hasn't yet showed up on that article --Rayis 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw I don't really understand the logic of discrediting what that Phallys guy says, if he is indeed "professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island (CUNY)." but we don't need to directly quote him if some people can explain what problem they have with it, I guess.. --Rayis 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shutting down attack account "spamjaguar"

Thanks for your help with that -- it was a persistant annoyance, but I hadn't got to the point (yet) of going to an admin about it. It's good to see that the wiki community is disciplined and takes care of things like that organically. Cheers. Larry Dunn 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid

Salam. Thanks for your efforts. At the beginning I tried to do so[28] but somebody removed other POV and pushed his own POV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course what you've added is not clear enough. We can ask Leroy65X to help us with it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry Behnam, I see the presence of rayis on the article, and I don't want anything to do with it. But if you visit Iran section on "gender apartheid", which is an incorrect term for sexual segregation, there are a few good sources to challenge Ganji'z POV. Furthermore, a few sources have noted that separation of public washrooms in the west does not constitute a "gender apartheid" per se! I think this can be added as well.--Gerash77 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

.........

if you think thats my sock please checkuser it. Ashkani 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So why do you think I should explain it if you know its not my sock and I reverted myself? Ashkani 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you? if its not my sock like how you said "I don't think <redacted> is your sock." than how do you think I ended up there. Ashkani 06:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly except your ideas, please go on :) Ashkani 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you have ideas you should share them willingfully :-) it was a honest mistake. Ashkani 06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry im kind of busy but I'd like to here your ideas first :-D Ashkani 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you the honors my humble request to you :) Ashkani 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hold on badnam boy

Please do not blindly restore copyright violations and other stated problems to Shapur I. This is considered disruptive. If you contest these issues, please use the talk page to discuss this. Thanks. The Behnam 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

blindly, distruptive? look who's talkin! you are the one like an idiot going around blanking pages. 86.137.146.147 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Supercommentary

Hi! I'm actually not very familiar with the term -- it seems to be an academic one. A quick web search found examples of the term applied to Christian and Islamic works as well as Jewish ones. I'll try to add a couple more sources. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19

Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

TheBadnam it is interesting that a person with a history of Personal Attacks against myself and others as well as vandalism of my User Talk page should make such a statement. This is another request for you to Please read Wikipedia policy before "preaching" to myself and others again -- and please stop making pointless modifications to my User Page in the future.

I noticed that you have REMOVED my previous warnings and requests against you from your User Page: How interesting that you had vandalized my user page in the past by re-inserting vandalism from other users on my page on the basis that "Removal of entries from my own user page is against Wikipedia Policy" as you yourself had stated So what is it called when you do that your self while telling others that it is "Against Policy"? I have a word for it but I probably shouldn't use it here.

I am really getting tired of your repeated acts of STALKING and jumping in on edit disputes that you have absolutely no background knowledge of. Mehrshad123 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I give you civility and NPA warnings. Seriously, 'Badnam'? Also, I doubt that I truly 'removed' your previous "warnings"; for more information, see the "Archive 1" link at the top of the page... :) The Behnam 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image restoration

← See my talk page. --Quuxplusone 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Parvin Darabi

A while you ago you deleted links from this page sayin its promotional and stuff. I've added some links. Let me know how they look to you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted the audio link and the link to her picture? I can agree with removing the book-related link to the book article. Yes ofcourse all the other links are relevant and Montreal Mirrow is relevant as well, as well as it belongs to a real news organization. These relevant links will stay in the article. Plus, I added Parvin to List of famous Persian women. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you deleted the link to Parvin's picture, speech and audio on Godless Americans. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"The audio doesnt add anything"? Thats not true, sorry. Now I'm in doubt of all your edits as well although I dont have the time to check all of them. No it is not repetitive. "just because some atheist circles find her impressive doesn't mean that she is so important to the whole world" - this is a completely unneccesary and irrelevant comment. Yes the audio is relevant. Please do not remove anything relevant again from Parvin's page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. The audio is not repetitive because the emotions of the speech and the way the words are said cannot be laid out in text. We have audio links all over Wikipedia. There's no rule which says if we have the Text link, we should get rid of the audio because its repetitive. If that was the case and if you think an audio is just a repetion of text, why do we have Spoken articles? Further, you also deleted the picture link as well. Could you also explain that? I'm sensing that you strongly disagree with Parvin's views or what she stands for but that is not any reason to delete important information about a person, especially when the article is already a stub. You deleted a link from the Montreal Mirror too claiming that its not notable etc. Again, do not delete anything relevant again from this or any other page simply becuase you dont like their views.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Mirror is not a "minor" newspaper. It has a publication of 287,000 every week. Do you think thats minor? The other links are not "promotional". If the New York Times had an article on Ibn Warraq, this doesnt mean that its a promotional link, plus none of those links which you removed were there to "promote" any website.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Mirror has a quarter of a million readers - this is correct. I've added the sourced information for this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now you're saying the AAN is not reliable? This is really funny. Ok - AAN is reliable. Please prove it otherwise. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For a newspaper, AAN is a reliable source. If you have further issues, I'll see you on the talk pages of these articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So whats your point? How does this connect to Parvin Darabi? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the AAN is a RS for the Montreal Mirror. I'm only concerned with your removal of the MM's link in Parvin Darabi's page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the original redirect for Homa Darabi and moved the Homa information there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Many of the paragraphs were referenced by Iranica. --Mardavich 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Those paragraphs should at least be preserved. --Mardavich 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. --Mardavich 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Just to mention that I really appreciate your trying to find and list copyvio images when the original uploader has not been truthful with the source and the license. Thanks! roozbeh 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)