User talk:Wikaviani/Archive 1

Wikaviani, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wikaviani! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, i'll do that with pleasure.

Speedy deletion nomination of Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I noticed that in this edit to Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this removed content is one of my previous edits, but i failed inserting an infobox correctly, so i deleted my previous attempt to try again... Thanks for your comment. Wikaviani (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bradly Sinden) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bradly Sinden, Wikaviani!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add appropriate categories and stub templates for such very short articles, e.g. {{UK-martialart-bio-stub}}.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mahammad Mammadov

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mahammad Mammadov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KylieTastic (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morteza Rostami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My bafflement

• Here is the first of the pieces of text from your comments which puzzled me:

"You say Dallal is not a mathematician, but Robertson and O'Connor are prominent mathematicians, do you think they misread Rashed too ???"

This is obviously not a statement, but it does look to me very much like a rhetorical question, carrying an implication that if what I said about Dallal were correct, I should logically hold the same opinion about O'Connor and Robertson. That doesn't follow, because, unlike Dallal, they have nowhere—as far as I'm aware—committed the error of mischaracterising algebraic geometry as "the study of curves by means of equations".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@David J Wilson: Hi David,

First of all, thanks for your message.

Actually, it seems that we have a point of disagreement here. According to me, the study of curves by means of equations is a part of algebraic geometry but since it's not the only one, it can not be used to characterize this field.

As you said on the Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi's talk page, Robertson and O'Connor are in agreement with Rashed when he writes"...it represents an essential contribution to another algebra which aimed to study curves by means of equations, thus inaugurating the beginning of algebraic geometry".

Since the study of curves by means of equations inaugurates the begnning of algebraic geometry, then this study is part of this field.

To support my above statement, here's how St Andrews defines algebraic geometry:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Glossary/algebraic_geometry.html

"Algebraic geometry studies curves, surfaces and their higher dimensional equivalents defined by systems of polynomial equations and relates their properties to the algebraic properties of the polynomial rings that they determine"

While of course, this definition includes modern notions, the first part clearly states that this field studies curves (geometry) defined by systems of polynomial equations (algebra).

Since you have nicely contributed to the article on Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi with a detailed description of his work in mathematics, i assume you have some knowledge in this area so that you can easily understand the definition given above.

English is not my mother tongue, however, i hope to have been clear...

Wikaviani (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was a professional mathematician for 40 years (now retired). While I certainly cannot claim to be an expert on algebraic geometry, I have attended an informal course on the subject conducted by one of my former colleagues. One of the books normally sitting on my bookshelf, but now lying next to me as I write, is Miles Reid's Undergraduate Algebraic Geometry.

Above you write:

"Actually, it seems that we have a point of disagreement here. According to me, the study of curves by means of equations is a part of algebraic geometry but since it's not the only one, it can not be used to characterize this field."

I'm not sure I've understood this correctly. When you write "According to me, ...", are you referring to yourself? Since the sentence is not enclosed in quotation marks, that is the natural way to read it, and the way I initially read it, with some puzzlement, because if that is your position, then on this point it would seem to me that we're in furious agreement. I refer you to a very similar statement I made on the talk page of the article on Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi:

"To clarify this, algebraic geometry most certainly is not "the study of curves by means of equations", as two of your sources have mischaracterised it. While the study of curves by means of equations is one essential ingredient of algebraic geometry it is not the only one, and does not, by itself, constitute doing algebraic geometry."

It later occurred to me that when you wrote "According to me, ...", you might have been trying to restate my position—which it is—as something you disagreed with. Please let me know if that is the case, and I will further clarify why I hold that position.

As for the rest of what you have written above, I see nothing there that I would disagree with.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not an expert in algebraic geometry either (my PhD was on stochastic calculus, Itô's formula with generalized Hurst exponent and generalized heat equation to non-integer derivation orders...) so that what i said you above is effectively my opinion and what i remember from my university courses. To make it simple, studying curves by means of equations implies doing algebraic geometry BUT doing algebraic geometry does not necessarily imply studying curves by means of equations (in other words, a cat is a feline but a feline is not necessarily a cat...). This is why i gave you the example of Euclid and geometry on Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi's talk page. If you agree with what i wrote just above, then we don't have any disagreement on this point. Wikaviani (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wikaviani. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2nd Harran (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2nd Harran and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2nd Harran, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, i have other sources for this : [1], i quote, page 192 : "But in 610 Median and Babylonian troops drove Ashur-uballit away from Harran, and, after a failed attempt in 609 to reconquer the city with Egyptian help he disappeared from the scene. The Assyrian state had finally ceased to exist."

This battle is not given a name, so that i generically called the draft "2nd Harran" to distiguish it from the fall of Harran the previous year. Since it ended the Assyrian state, thi battle seems to have been a major engagement but the lack of sources is due to the fact that Assyrian annals record no more after 610 BC. With more time i may find more reliable sources for this battle or just include a quote about it in the Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: I added 3 other sources for the draft. Your opinion would be welcome. If this submission is accepted, i will further expand the article. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:People of Khorasan

Hi, you seem to have contributing to Iran-related pages, and I am wondering if you can share your views in this voting. The Template:People of Khorasan has been tagged by someone for deletion. I have challenged the decision here. The discussion is open for voting. Can you please give your views in this page? Thanks --Cabolitæ (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siege of Harran has been accepted

609 BCE battle of Harran, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Use Twinkle

Hey, I saw your reverts on Avicenna. Wikipedia:Twinkle makes reverting process much easier. Use it. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man, thanks for letting me know about this, but i confess that i don't know very well many of wikipedia tools and it will take a moment before i find the time to understand them well enough to use them. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you need any help or have questions, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Good luck! --Wario-Man (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wario-Man, i activated Twinkle thanks to your link and this gadget seems great for fighting disruptive edits (gives you some Rollback tool for that, which is very easy to use).---Wikaviani (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nineveh (612 BC), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Nineveh and Mede (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue solved, thanks !---Wikaviani (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Binomial theorem

Please note that there were no “first” claims in my revision at all – it said “probably contributed” (the same phrase used by Struik). Most “first” claims tend to be high-flown panegyric. As I understand it, based on direct evidence, Karaji did it up to the fourth degree. It took another 100-150 years for al-Samawal to ascribe to Karaji a way of generating the triangle of coefficients. Khayyam claimed to have personally discovered the law for the expansion (presumably the binomial theorem). His work predates al-Samawal's publication. Since neither Khayyam's nor Karaji's books have been recovered, any definite conclusions about the extent of their works are conjectural. --Telementor (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Telementor, thanks for your message. My edit had several reasons. First, according to Katz and Rashed, Al-Karaji stated the theorem (for the first time) : Victor J. Katz and Karen Hunger Parshall : "However, algebra advanced in other respects. Around 1000, al-Karaji stated the binomial theorem" and The developpement of Arabic Mathematics : Between Arithmetic and Algebra - R. Rashed, Page 63. More, even if Al-Karaji's version was stated for a fixed explicit exponent, his method allowed to expand this to a random exponent (he used a form of mathematical induction to prove his result, and as far as i know, he made it for a greater exponent than four). Finally, as i said in my edit summary, i was not able to find a quote in your source about a (hypothetical) contribution of Khayyam to this theorem. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Neo-Babylonian Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Nineveh

Tahirid dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Khorasan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Al-Biruni‎

Biruni's background was discussed on talk page several times. Biruni's native language was Khwarezmian. If you read Talk:Al-Biruni#Consensus_for_the_lead_section:_older_revision_(his_ethnicity), you will see why we changed Persian to Iranian. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man, you're completely right. As you can see, first i reverted the IP, but since they said that "Persian" was in the sources, i self-reverted and appologized. After that, i thought a little more about that and i decided to write "Iranian" beacause being Persian implies being Iranian while being Iranian does necessarily mean being Persian. Therefore i wanted to change it again in the article but you made it first and i thank you for that. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It was Persian-Khwarezmian or Khwarezmian-Persian before our changes. If you read Iranica article, his background was related to Afrighids (non-Persian Iranian dynasty). Calling him Persian is not 100% wrong because he was related to Persian culture but it's not accurate per our sources. It's better to look at talk page and its archive when you are dealing with topics like this. It will give you a good image of article revision history. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i usually look at the talk pages, but as you can see, that edit was my last one yesterday and i had not enough time to read the talk page, this was my mistake. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:People of Khorasan

Hi, I'm putting up this message because you participated in the discussion. There were three votes to keep the template, versus two votes to delete. However, a user (non-admin) closed the discussion in favor of deletion. I filed an appeal here. I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cabolitae and thank you for your message, i gave my opinion on the relevant page. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. There used to be a lot of Iranian and Afghan wikipedians who were interested in Persian topics. But they are all gone, and very few are left. Now those who are not expert in Persian studies (except for Wario-Man) make some calls which don't make sense. Thanks again. Cabolitæ (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, Cabolitae, i'm glad i can help.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Please do not remove comments by other editors. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Kleuske, there was an edit conflict and the gadget asked me to resolve it, this is why, i think, a comment was deleted. My appologies.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Awareness of 1RR

• AN3 report
• Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there any evidence that User:OxfordLaw knows about the 1RR restriction at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen? The only mention of it I could find is in here in the talk archive which I only found via a search. There is no 1RR banner on the talk page. I am not even sure what sanction was used to impose the 1RR by User:El_C. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, when i click on "edit source" then this message appears clearly. Please note that OxfordLaw also ignored the warning at Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, thank you for the information, but for my part i was already aware of this rule on these articles, this is why i reported user:OxfordLaw when he broke the 1RR while editing two articles related with this topic. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought was the case. But bureaucracy says, "Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: : Ok, thanks. i've seen that you added me on a notice list, does this mean that i'm sanctionned for having reverted one time OxfordLaw ?---Wikaviani (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I added you to the notifications list. That is, a list of editors who are "officially" aware that general sanctions apply in this area. Anyone can notify editors - it doesn't have to be an admin. If you notice an editor doing non-trivial editing in the area who hasn't been notified I encourage you to use the template to notify them and add them to the list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying, since i was a little baffled about this. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Bias OxfordLaw.

Dear Wikaviani, It seems you have not noticed that only Arab Coalition claims of enemy combatants killed are displayed in the Batllebox. Tell me a reason why not Houthis claims of Arab coalition killed is not present anywhere in the article. Dont be fooled by OxfordLaw, his/her Saudi bias are preent in every edit. He just want to portrait one sided claims in the Battlebox (Pro Saudi of course) not both warring sides. Its POV. Wikipedia work on sources and Verifiability. Main stream media hace reported this already in the Past. The UN have a global 10,000 killed for all the war. The Arab coalition claim is misleading the reader, and not a reliable number. For that reason iam placing all 11,000 killed in the content of the article itself not the Battlebox.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr.User200, the problem is that the casualties are not well known, especially for this kind of "lost war" which is not well covered by medias. I'm trying to keep a WP:NPOV and corrected some mistakes in the articles, but i think we should avoid moving sources and claims around because this is a kind of disruption of Wikipedia, this is why i left a quite harsh edit summary saying that i will report any further disruption. Please discuss the matter with other users on the relevant talk pages in order to gain consensus. Thank you. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I know I was once blocked in Chinese Wikipedia because of sockpuppet abuse, but I had never used sockpuppets again since 2016. I am very disappointed with Mongolian Beef's uncivilized comments and edit summaries. What should I do? Sænmōsà 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sæn, his insulting edit summary cannot be tolerated, you reported this on Oshwah's talk page, just wait and see, Oshwah is a veteran admin and he will deal with this. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually he also violated WP:CIV in Chinese Wikipedia. I reported him there, and he is blocked for 3 days. By my experience, Oshwah is certainly a good administrator. Maybe you shall consider to nominate him as a bureaucrat. Sænmōsà 10:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is a very good admin and he will probably deal with this case, but if he is too busy for this, then you can report Mongolian Beef's edit summary to ANI. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Sænmōsà 11:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.---Wikaviani (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know

The editor who reverted you yesterday at Ottoman–Persian War (1775–76) is now a CU blocked sock.[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Best Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Could you watch this article? I just reverted some pretty severe disruption;[3]-[4]-[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: yeah, done :-)---Wikaviani (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just see what will happen

See my comments in User talk:Oshwah#Mongolian Beef again, not because of articles. He will soon know he shall pay for his uncivil. Sænmōsà 14:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sanmosa - C'mon, really? This is starting to get out of hand... Sanmosa, you need to drop the stick and you need to move on and stop repeatedly opening discussions about Mongolian Beef and those edit summaries. First the ANI, then my user talk page, then Wikaviani's user talk page here... "He will soon know he shall pay for his uncivil"? Really? This is clearly becoming more of a battleground and about "who will win" than it is about concerns with civility and Wikipedia's principles and what's best for the project..

Look, I completely understand and I agree - the edit summaries were uncivil... But you're just adding fuel to the fire by repeatedly going on about this when everyone else has clearly moved on. The ANI you opened was closed shortly after, my response to your message on my user talk page asked you to consider leaving well enough alone, and now I see this message here... Enough is enough. This needs to stop and you need to move on. Please... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OK, I will stop it. I think I am a bit "over-excited" (From Matilda). Sænmōsà 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sanmosa - Good to hear back from you. I'm happy to see that you're taking a moment to understand, calm yourself down, and back away... I understand how it feels and how easy it is to become frustrated and let emotions drive your thoughts, messages, and contributions and I'm glad that you realized this before it got really far out of hand :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, @Sanmosa:, Hey guys, my appologies, i was away from my computers for a while. I'm happy to see that this stuff is fixed, Sanmosa, sometimes it's more useful to drop it and let it be (i know this is easier said than done), especially here, because Oshwah reviewed the case and according to me, took a good peaceful decision in order to settle the situation. No worries man, if Mongolian Beef is really the kind of editor you think he is, then one day or another, he will shoot himself in the foot. if you need any help, do not hesitate, you're welcome on this talk page for that (just like any other editor who is WP:HERE). Oshwah, thank you fo fixing this, efficient, as usual ;-). Take care guys, best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem; always happy to help out ;-). Thanks for letting us blow up your talk page with this discussion and squat here for awhile. Your positive attitude and willingness to offer assistance and help others is a quality that's highly cherished and unfortunately something we don't see enough around here. I hope you know that it doesn't go unnoticed and it's appreciated very much. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-binding resolution - not helpful?

Hi Wikaviani. Just asking - why was it unhelpful to add the clarification that the UN resolution was non-binding? Surely making this fact clear to readers is helpful. If you think not, could you tell me why? Thanks Birtig (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Birtig and thank you for posting here, i reverted your edit because of a lack of sources. Do you have a reliable source stating that this UNO resolution was non-binding ? if you have one, then no problem, revert my edit and add your source. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I have re-added and added a reference. Birtig (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thank you :-)---Wikaviani (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Um can you clarify

What exactly about this is controversial? I fixed {{lang}} and two wikilinks? This is not worthy of a reversion with the summary "unexplained changes" Ogress 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, thank you for posting here. Well, you made some changes without any detailed explanation in your edit summary, right? this is why i said "unexplained changes". Also, i could say "unhelpful changes" or "not an improvement", since i do not see what is the benefit of your edit for the article : you removed "modern Persian language" and wrote "Persian" instead (loss of accuracy) and you replaced "Nisibis" with "Nusaybin", i'm sorry but i don't see any improvement here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Persian" means modern Persian; "old Persian" is literally listed as his name in the first sentence. I can add a clarification if that helps? Also I just changed wikilinks and tweaked the grammar of that sentence so I could be more careful about adding "and tweaked the grammar of one sentence" in the future but really it - ironically - seems like you could have simply written your actual objection into the edit summary? I had to come here to find out your actual objection. Ogress 16:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspected that you know the difference between modern Persian and old Persian but we're here to contribute to a community encyclopedia which is, especially in its English version, read by people worldwide and many among them probably don't know about this difference therefore yes, i would appreciate a clarification. I confess that my edit summary was also a little short and that i could explain my objections in it. However, your edit summary was far away from perfect too, right ? Anyway, no worries, this is not a big deal, thank you for your contribution ;-) Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts at Saffarid dynasty

You reverted the same set of changes, by Stalker1988 twice at Saffarid dynasty. While that does not violate the 3-revert rule it is still edit-warring. Please do not do so again. Instead discuss on the talk page first, or report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard, please. Allow another editor to make the second reversion if the person repeating his or her edit does not self-revert. That way there can be no confusion over who is and who is not edit warring. Not that it is still edit warring even if you ar correct and the other party is wrong on the actual content issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, DESiegel, maybe you should take a close look at my reverts instead of posting an irrelevant message on my talk page. There are many exemptions to the edit-warring rule : [6] and FYI reverting obvious vandalsim or disruptive edits is not edit warring.. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, but the edits you reverted were not vandalism, as they were pretty clearly intended to improve the article. Misguided, yes. Worthy of being reverted, yes. Disruptive, possibly. Edit-warring themselves, surely. But not vandalism. I examined all the edits in the sequence with some care before leaving warnings for both you and Stalker1988. Note that Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions does contain an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, and the examples given are edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. There is no exemption for reverting disruptive editing, and the phrase reverting obvious vandalism or disruptive edits is not edit warring. does not occur on that page, nor on any other policy or guideline page that I know of. So let me be clear: If I become aware of any future similar multiple reverts by you, I will block you for at least 24 hours, with no further warning. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel and sorry for the late answer, i'm quite busy these days. Clearly, i cannot agree with what you say, i spend many time editing this place and am always respectful and trying to help any WP:THERE users (just check my talk page), even if of course, i can make mistakes, just like any other human being, so to make it clear :

"You reverted the same set of changes, by Stalker1988 twice at Saffarid dynasty" : wrong, my first revert was -363 characters of printing, my second -352 characters of printing : therefore not "the same set of changes" ...

"I hate to tell you, but the edits you reverted were not vandalism, as they were pretty clearly intended to improve the article" : wrong, your statement only shows one thing to me : you don't understand Persian language, do you ? the user i reverted replaced the name of the dynasty which is "Saffarian" (صفاریان in Persian) with "Saffari" which is obviously not the same for native Persian speakers, but no worries, i'm not here to teach you Persian. However, it's nothing else than vandalism according to me (and BTW, i was thanked for my edits by an experienced user who speaks Persian ...)

" So let me be clear: If I become aware of any future similar multiple reverts by you, I will block you for at least 24 hours, with no further warning" ; excuse me to say so, but since when users who revert in good faith only two times clear disruptive/vandalism edits are blocked ? especially since i tried to discuss the matter with user:stalker1988 on the talk page just after my second revert : [7] ???

You're an admin and i'm only a new user here, but considering my editing profile, I don't think that i deserve to be threatened with a block and i would welcome the eye of other admins or even the eye of ArbCom on this matter. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No I do not speak or read Persian. The user Stalker1988 may well have been totally wrong to make this change, indeed i assume that s/he was. But unless you are assuming that the change was not only incorrect but malicious, it was not vandalism as Wikipedia uses that term. On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia Many editors, including editors rather more experienced than you, or than I, use the term far too loosely. Since various policy and guideline provisions are specifically tied to the term "vandalism" we must insit on the exact narrow meaning in such discussions. A related all-too frequent problem is editors thinkign that they can respond to edit-warring by edit-warring back, that the prope answer to an editor who has re-inserted incorrect or ill-judged content is to re-revert it. Except in a very few exceptional cases, this is not so, and such reverts simply escalate the situation. Thus edit warring is treated as blockable, no matter who was right or wrong, and no matter who made the first insertion or first revert. I do not normally block for edit warring without warning the editor, except in the most persistent and egregious cases. But if the response to a warning that past conduct is edit-warring, an editor defends it on the ground that the editor was restoring the "correct" version, I will normally warn that further edit warring will result in a block, as i did above. This is, I am afraid, quite common. If you think I was too harsh in my form of expression, or even mistaken in my judgement of the situation, feel free to open a discussion at WP:ANI, or to ask another admin or three to look over the situation. I stand ready to account for my actions as an admin, as specified in WP:ADMINACCT at all times. I am not mperfect, and if the consensus of experienced editors is that I have acted inappropriately in any admin matter, I will take appropriate steps to remedy my error.

It was praiseworthy that you attempted to start a talk page discussion of the matter after your second revert, and I think you for that.

For purposes of considering what is or is not edit warring, if the general effect of two different changes is the same, that the exact bytes involved are not the same does not matter. They will be treated as the same change. In one case you removed the text Descendants of Saffarids were blinded and deported to western Azerbaijan province of Iran, city of Miandoab by Agha mohammad khan qajar in 17 june 1794 due to the Lotfali khan zand. These people have maintained their ancestors' major profession of coppersmith and copper industry. Nowadays their surname is known as Saffarimiandoab. in the section "Descendants" along with the parenthetical term (Saffari) in the lead sentence. In the second, you removed the text Descendants of Saffarids were blinded and deported to various area including western Azerbaijan province of Iran, city of Miandoab by Agha mohammad khan qajar. These people have maintained their ancestors' major profession of coppersmith and copper industry. Nowadays their surname is known as Saffarimiandoab. along with the parenthetical term (Saffari) in the lead. Those were effectively identical changes.

I do understand that your intent was to keep the quality of the article high, and to remove what you believed were ill-advised changes. But ther are good reasons why that should not be done by repeated reverts by the same editor. Only true and blatant vandalism, or the insertion of content violating WP:BLP, or the insertion of copyright violations, or a few other very narrow cases, are exceptions to that rule. I have no hostility towards you, and would be happy to help if my help were desired in future. But the line agaisnt edit warring is hard and strict, and you need to understand that clearly. So does every editor here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all DESiegel, thank you very much for the time you spent for clarifying and yes, i may need the help of more experienced editors like you in the future, however, i would like to underline some issues. First, your statement " So let me be clear: If I become aware of any future similar multiple reverts by you, I will block you for at least 24 hours, with no further warning" is the kind of stuffs admins say to vandals and repeatedly disruptive trolls, not to an editor who reverts only two times and in good faith what he believes being vandalism (and while i reported many disruptive editors to the relevant noticboards, i've never seen any of them being blocked for only two reverts of disruptive edits, unless on the 1RR articles of course), right ? second, you say "Many editors, including editors rather more experienced than you, or than I, use the term (i.e "vandalism) far too loosely", therefore, how can you tell me (an unexperienced new editor) that you'll block me "with no further warning" while even more experienced users than me (or "even you") can make this kind of mistake ?? isn't it a far too much harsh statement toward me ? Third, i already asked three other admins their opinions about my edits at Saffarid dynasty, not in order to create any animosity between you and them, but only because i want to learn to be a better editor here, nothing less, nothing more (if they confirm that you're right and that i deserve to be blocked for what i did, then whether you block me or not, i'll self block myself by stopping editing wikipedia for 48 hours). Finally, unfortunately, these kind of muslim related articles like Saffarid dynasty are quite low profile aricles, they are rarely edited and mistakes may remain in such articles for years before someone correct them, this is why i allowed myself to revert more than one time (see Jabir ibn Hayyan, an editor wrote "Most sources describe him as Persian" without any reference for this wrong statement which is obviously POV-pushing, guess what ? it took 5 years before this wrong statement was corrected ...). Also, i would like to appologize if my above comment about your "irrelevant message" offended you, this was by no mean my goal. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that response, Wikaviani. To be clear, I didn't say or mean to imply that you should or would be blocked for your previous reverts. I said that IF you made the same kinds of reverts in future, having now been thoroughly warned about them, and i became aware of it, i would block. I am not going to follow your every edit waiting for you to do something I can block for. There is a difference between using the term "vandalism" too loosely, and re-reverting based on such use. That is why I wanted to be very clear what did and did not justify repeated reversion. I am not block-happy: I have issued only 207 blocks in all the years since I became an admin, while I've deleted over 2000 pages in that time, and made many more non-deletion edits. I am sorry you felt (and feel, I suppose) overly harshly dealt with. So let me simply say in place of my previous comment "Please do not repeatedly revert in a similar situation in the future. If you comment on the talk page, and possibly report to a notice board or otherwise draw the attention of an admin or experience user (perhaps with {{help me}}) the outcome is very likely to be better. Please understand that only clear-cut vandalism (and the other listed issues) is an exemption from WP:WAR." I have struck the harsher version above. But you should be aware, that when experienced good-faith editors get into an edit war, (and it does happen) there is not much tolerance for it, and quite harsh statements and measures may be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Please do not repeatedly revert in a similar situation in the future. If you comment on the talk page, and possibly report to a notice board or otherwise draw the attention of an admin or experience user (perhaps with {{help me}}) the outcome is very likely to be better. Please understand that only clear-cut vandalism (and the other listed issues) is an exemption from WP:WAR." : I understand, i will try to act more carefully in the future. I also cancelled my demand of third opinion to the other administrators, since i realise that it could be embarassing for them and for you. I don't think that you're a bad admin or a happy block admin, i just felt hurt by the sentence " So let me be clear: If I become aware of any future similar multiple reverts by you, I will block you for at least 24 hours, with no further warning", it was quite disconcerting for me and made me feel just like i was a vandal while i try to be (modestly) useful to the project. Thanks for the time you spent on it and for all the advices DESiegel. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Just making sure...

I saw that you left some questions on my talk page, then reverted them saying that they were answered... did you still need help? Sorry for the delay responding - I've been busy this week and been sick as well... Just let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thank you very much for your kind message. I hope you feel better now. Actually, at Saffarid dynasty, i reverted a set of disruptive and unsourced changes twice : [8] and [9], then i asked to the user who made the disruptive changes to provide sources for his edits on the talk page of the article : [10]. Is this considered to be edit warring and could i get blocked for that ? Thanks. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Seljuk Dynasty

Hi. May I ask you why you reverted my edit on the Seljuk dynasty? SamTürk (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamTürk, i reverted you because you did not provide any explanation in your edit summary for your changes. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. So when I provide an explanation I can re-edit the article? SamTürk (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but in some cases, you also need to provide reliable sources.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello Why delete my edits on Ahvaz ??? I just added more map of this city IamRezaMousavi (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi IamRezaMousavi and thank you for posting here. I reverted your edit because it was stated below the picture "location in Iran and Asia" while the map showed only Iran. To see the position of the city in Asia, one should click on "position in Asia". Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Artaxerxes I, revert

Why did you revert my edit, did you even read it. I understand from your own words you live for science, so I expect a bit more than just a destructive act. What are your concerns?

94.210.116.247, 21 July 2018‎

Hi IP user from Netherland, you removed the Hebrew name of Artaxerxes I, this was not warranted, this is why i reverted your edit. Feel free to edit the article but do not remove content from it without a legit reason. Thank you and happy editing. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikaviani,

This 'Hebrew' name only appears in the Aramaic parts of the Bible. Ezra 4:7, the exception, introduces the Aramaic letter following in Ezra 4:8, akin your Iranian name used in an English sentence. Therefore the 'Hebrew' name actually is Aramaic, I didn't remove but corrected this.

Best regards, 94.210.116.247, 22 July 2018‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.116.247 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

just seen your new edit, thank you.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine-Sassanian war

Hi Wikaviani! Not too much my area of expertise, and I agree the 12th century image from France cannot be considered as historically accurate, it is just an allegory (which we should maybe mention in an hypothetical caption when this image is used). Thanks for pointing that out! However, I see you mention the Byzantine-Sassanian War as a "draw". The first source I find says the Byzantine Empire prevailed [11], although both sides were exhausted, which kind of seems accurate to me looking at the unfolding of events and the crumbling of the Sasanian Empire that followed. Do you have some neutral (non-partisan) sources presenting the conflict as a "draw"? (I'm just interested) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi पाटलिपुत्र it's okay for me to use this image as an allegory, i've seen that you took into account my remark, so let me thank you for that. As to the Byzantine-Sasanian war of 602-628, the source you provided is, according to me, unreliable for this medieval war, since the author himself has specified in the title of his book "Military history of the modern Middle East". More, James Brian McNabb appears to have only written the book you linked above and i have not found any specialized historical skills about this guy, especially for the medieval era. To answer to your question, of course we have numerous reliable sources stating this war ended in a draw (or statu quo ante bellum) :

From Encyclopedia Iranica : "After concluding a hasty peace with Heraclius (as the result of which all Sasanian territorial gains were given up and the “true cross” restored", from the book entitled "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals" (link : https://books.google.fr/books?id=MG2hqcRDvJgC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=siege+of+nisibis+252+sassanian+victory&source=bl&ots=o8M5vgLnSl&sig=MkrZAcE4vttfBSFLY4yljPyl3mw&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=siege%20of%20nisibis%20252%20sassanian%20victory&f=false) page 151 : "There is no doubt that the terms of 628 primarily aimed at the restoration of the status quo ante bellum. The new borders would be those which had existed between the Byzantine and the Sasanian empires before the beginning of the war in the year 602." Of course, since the Byzantine forces repelled the Persian offensiive, the war is sometimes seen by non specialized sources as a Byzantine victory, but this is obviously not supported by specialized sources like the two i provided you above. Since you kindly confess that this is not your area of expertise, do not hesitate if you have any other question, i'll be glad to do my best to help you for this topic. Take care. best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Wikaviani. James Brian McNabb is apparently an academic specializing in International relations, and apparently wrote many other things ([12]). He is just saying that the Byzantines ultimately prevailed, which seems quite faithfull to what happened. Your source ("Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals") is actually excellent and it says clearly (p.148) that Heraclius vanquished Khosrow II, that the Sasanids asked for peace following their defeat (p.149), and that Heraclius settled for lenient terms in order not to overly weaken the Sasanid Empire (p.150). Encyclopedia Iranica, although not too high on the list for reliability still says clearly that Heraclius "repeatedly took the Sasanian forces by surprise and defeated them. Emboldened by the arrival of heavy reinforcements from Khazar and eastern Christian supporters, the emperor devastated Ganzak in Azerbaijan, where the rich temple of Ādur Gušnasp was located, as well as many other towns in Mesopotamia, Persarmenia, and Media, including Dastgerd, Ḵosrow’s own summer resort." [13]. So it seems to me rather clear: the Byzantines eventually prevailed (or were "victorious" according to your sources), and the peace treaty consisted in a return to the status quo ante. I'll try to adjust the "Result" box accordingly in the article, tell me what you think. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I made some changes, we cannot say that Byzantine forces finally prevailed since they gained nothing but their lost territories and the true cross they had lost at the beginning of the war. The source says that "At the beginning of the year 628, Heraclius defeated Khosrow and was on the way of Ctesiphon", this refers to the battle of Ninive, in 627, when Byzantine forces defeated a Sasanid army, not to the entire war. Btw, i have seen nothing about Heraclius not wanting to overly weakening the Sasanian Empire. Later, the same source states "The emperor who defeated Persia in 6 years" is again referring to the successful Byzantine counterattack (622-628) Also, i removed the source from the guy who is specialzed in international relations because it's unreliable here. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani. Thanks for your response, and your correction of the result box is an improvement from what we had there at the beginning, but I am afraid it is in fact innapropriately minimizing the Byzantine success in this war. It seems you are also quoting Beate Dignas wrongly. Here is exactly what he says:

"After his victory over Xusro II Parvez (590-628) and his advance all the way to Ktesiphon at the beginning of the year 628 the Byzantine emperor had decided to widraw his troops" (p.148)

"Immediately after he had succeeded to the throne, the Persian ruler Kavad II initiated peace negociations with Heraclius"

So Heraclius vanquished Khosrow (not just "won a battle"), and Khosrow's successor Kavad sued for peace: I don't know a better definition of victory....

As if it weren't clear enough, Beate Dignas also sums up the conflict in unambiguous terms at the end of his chapter:

"Its festive restoration (....) made it manifest to the world that a Christian Byzantium had triumphed over a Zorastrian Sasanian Empire, and this triumph had been sealed by the foedus of 628" (p.151)

Could this be any clearer? The sentence about Heraclius not wanting to overly weaken the Sasanian Empire is in note 157 p.150:

"Heracles did not make the same mistake as Justinian. He neither wished to humiliate nor to weaken Persia." (p.150)

Let's respect the sources and state correctly that the Byzantine prevailed in the end. The argument that "nobody won because frontiers were returned to the Statu Quo Ante" is a bit like arguing that Japan and Germany did not loose World War II because they essentially retained their frontiers in the end: it is not a proper interpretation of what happened and of the fact that the two countries were utterly defeated. Your own sources are very clear that it was a Byzantine victory. No big deal, and I appreciate your edits, but let's be faithful to what the sources say and not change history. I thought "the Byzantines prevailed" was softer than "Byzantine victory" and would preserve nationalistic sensitivities, especially since it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Byzantine Empire. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to continue this discussion on the article's talk page, thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just something about articles

As I am not so good at English, should I translate an another language Wikipedia FA to here (should be a draft), may you help me to check whether the grammar is correct or not? Sænmōsà^{We shall find a way, or we shall make one.} 04:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi sà, i'm always happy if i can help, therefore you're welcome if you want me to check something. However, please keep in mind that i'm not a native English speaker either. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh … I see (you knew Persian and French), then we may just help each other Orz... I think it will be hard for me to translate a long FA. Sænmōsà^{We shall find a way, or we shall make one.} 23:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just tried to translate a Chinese Wikipedia article to here (Draft:Citation needed), although it is not an FA, even not a GA. May you help me check the grammar, and help me to request the administrators to move this draft to Citation needed (which is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed)? Sænmōsà^{We shall find a way, or we shall make one.} 13:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sanmosa, no problem, i'll take a look for the grammar. However, i don't understand what you mean by "help me to request the administrators to move this draft to Citation needed", do you mean including in the article some tag about the need of citations ?---Wikaviani (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I made the sentence too complicated; I mean help move it to main space, as it is a redirect there, the move needed to be done by admins. Sænmōsà^{We shall find a way, or we shall make one.} 23:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem, i will take look, but since this your work, i'll let you introduce it to the admins (i can support your demand if you want). Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sanmosa, i checked the article and corrected some typo mistakes, now you can ask an admin for the move. Cheers---Wikaviani (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sænmōsà^{We shall find a way, or we shall make one.} 01:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

you're quite welcome dude. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text?

And Talk:Artsruni dynasty. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your perspective

Would you be so kind as to read over User:Kansas Bear/Persian wars of Constantius II? I would appreciate your perspective. If you need an idea of what was changed, read Persian wars of Constantius II. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, thank you for your message. Sure, i'll read your version and compare it with the current one with pleasure. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, just a little message to let you know that i read User:Kansas Bear/Persian wars of Constantius II. I think your version is significantly better than Persian wars of Constantius II. It's better written, according to WP:MOS, and is as well sourced.

Take care mate.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

Hello Wikaviani,

You deleted the Arabic language for the country Pakistan and you wrote "the fact that people are encouraged to learn Arabic in order to understand the Quran does not mean that Pakistan authorities recognize the Arabic language per WP:OR".

In fact, the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. The constitution declares in article 31 No. 2 that "The State shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan (a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language ..."

In addition, the National Education Policy 2017 declares in article 3.7.4 that: “Arabic as compulsory part will be integrated in Islamiyat from Middle to Higher Secondary level to enable the students to understand the Holy Quran.“ Furthermore, it specifies in article 3.7.6: “Arabic as elective subject shall be offered properly at Secondary and Higher Secondary level with Arabic literature and grammar in its course to enable the learners to have command in the language.“ This law is also valid for private schools as it defines in article 3.7.12: “The curriculum in Islamiyat, Arabic and Moral Education of public sector will be adopted by the private institutions to make uniformity in the society.“

For this reason, I don`t understand why you deleted the Arabic language which I added. It is not about Pakistani authorities. It is about the constitution of Pakistan. I also added the sources for the information.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom112233 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom112233, thank you for posting here. I reverted your edits becaause none of your sources explicitly states that Arabic is officially recognized in Pakistan, therefore, adding this to the article would be WP:OR. second, if Arabic was officially recognized in Pakistan, this would mean that one could speak Arabic for example with agents from administration, which is obviously not the case. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello Wikaviani,

Thank you for your reply. You wrote that: "I reverted your edits becaause none of your sources explicitly states that Arabic is officially recognized in Pakistan, therefore, adding this to the article would be WP:OR. second, if Arabic was officially recognized in Pakistan, this would mean that one could speak Arabic for example with agents from administration, which is obviously not the case."

The Arabic language is officially recognized in Pakistan as the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. The constitution declares in article 31 No. 2 that "The State shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan (a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language ..." This statement in the constitution gives the Arabic language a formal status.

I would say it is similar to the case of Iran. The official language according to the current constitution of Iran is Persian. At the same time, the constitution of Iran gives Arabic a formal status as the language of religion, and regulates its spreading within the Iranian national curriculum. The constitution of Iran declares in Chapter II in Article 16 "Since the language of the Qur`an and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, ..., it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study."

You also wrote that: "second, if Arabic was officially recognized in Pakistan, this would mean that one could speak Arabic for example with agents from administration, which is obviously not the case." It doesn`t matter if someone could speak Arabic with agents from administration. It only matters what is mentioned in the constitution of a state.

South Sudan: The interim constitution of South Sudan of 2005 declared in Part 1, Chapter 1, No. 6 (2): "English and Arabic shall be the official working languages at the level of the governments of Southern Sudan and the States as well as languages of instruction for higher education." Later, the government of South Sudan deleted Arabic as an official language and chose English as the sole official language. In Part 1, Chapter 1, No. 6 (2), it is defined that: "English shall be the official working language in the Republic of South Sudan, as well as the language of instruction at all levels of education."

Israel: In Israel Hebrew and Arabic were the official languages according to the constitution of Israel since 1948. In July 2018 the Knesset canceled Arabic as an official language and chose Hebrew as the sole official language of the state by adopting the relevant Basic Law. This new Basic law gives Arabic a special status of the country.

So, it is only depending on the constitution of a state.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom112233, i think you and me don't have the same definition of a recognized language. However, feel free to revert me on the Pakistan article, if your edit is endorsed by other users, then it's fine for me.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikaviani,

Thank you for your reply. In my opinion it would be better if it would be mentioned in the infobox as it is also mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. However, I am aware that many Pakistanis don`t like Arabs or the Arab language because many Arabs in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council don`t treat Pakistanis in an appropriate manner and don`t show respect for Pakistanis. Nevertheless, this should not be a reason not to mention this fact.

Again, thank you very much and we will see how other users will react.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 8:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

do not agree with the Julian article revert

You reverted a change I made with the explanation "Rv, removed per WP:OR"

The change I made does not involve any original research, so I do not understand your reasons.

If anything, the change removed a claim that there are "clear resemblances to other forms of Late Antique religion." There are no sources that support that this is "clear." Moreover, the statement is essentially meaningless, as you can say that about any group of 2 or more religions.

Next, the prior sentence uses the passive voice "it is controversial as to which variety it is most similar." There again are no sourced statements that support this exact statement.

Because of these two problems with the introductory sentence, I simply rewrote it to better summarize and introduce the following several sentences.

Do you disagree with the problems I identify with the sentence? Or have a better rewrite? Declanscottp (talk)

Hi Declanscottp, you wrote in your changes "Julian's beliefs are of great interest for historians", this is under WP:OR, i hope you can understand this. Second, you say above "There again are no sourced statements that support this exact statement.", however, when you edited the article, you did not provide a single source either. Please note that the burden of proof relies on you since you're changing a stable version of the article. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the "great interest" line is not research but a summary of the following sentences. Do you not agree with me about the problems with the sentence as it is now?Declanscottp (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems ok for me now, i'll self revert. Thank you for sharing your concerns here. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Caucher Birkar's nationality

I have seen that you have reverted changes made by someone else to Caucher Birkar's article stating that his nationality is Iranian and Kurdish his ethnicity. In your edit you have included a reference to substantiate your claim, but such reference says "of Iranian Kurdish origin". I assume that by 'nationality' you mean 'holding the right to a passport of said country' (otherwise Kurdish is just as valid as Iranian). If that is the case, then you should write British, since that is the passport he holds.

No, there is no such things like "Iranian Kurd". When a French mathematician wins the prize, nobody says "French Alsatian" or "French Corsican", therefore, there is no reason to distiguish Iranians from each other. End of.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbayistan

"The Arabs, who lent their name to Arbāyistān, were not only nomads but also occupants of Hatra".

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arbayistan-name-of-a-mesopotamian-province-in-the-sasanian-empire

how is that not a source to at least put a translation of it in arabic? Kingesh (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This does not legitimate the removal of the rest of the content with the Zoroastrian and Armenian parts. Your removal is quite clear cut WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

i removed a new addition from a user who removed the translation AGAIN for not reason https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arbayistan&oldid=853094282 Kingesh (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No need to discuss further with you since you keep edit warring. I see no problem with user ZxZxZ's edit. this was a Sasanian province.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if it was a Sassanian province, he removed it for no reason.

didn't you just say that people shouldn't "remove content without providing a legit reason".??? Kingesh (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The one who removed the Zoroastrian and Armenian parts is you, not him. Feel free to add your Arab transliteration, but don't remove the rest since the Zoroastrian and Armenian parts are perfectly legit for a Sasanian province. Done here.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop reverting my edits. I have studied the Invasion of Tenochtitlan for years and traveled all over the world to get this information. Because most of the information comes from oral history, I cannot provide many links, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I am trying to spread information about this little-known historical event. Kevlightning (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is not the place for such "information spreading", per WP:VER. If you cannot provide reliable sources supporting your edit, it will continuously be reverted by me or other users. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)