Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xebat (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 27 March 2006 (→Stop your nonsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Abu Nasr Mansur and more

Hi, while MB's edits to Abu Nasr Mansur officially aren't vandalism, they come quite close to it. You might want to consider starting an WP:RFC against him. On User:Dariush4444, while claiming on certain biographies that the person is Persian (whicn in one case he was right and in others, I haven't checked) he also removed other true information such as arabic names, which is vandalism. Regarding reverting your edits to Geber. You really need to thouroughly read WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. The website your provided isn't a reliable source and encyclopedia britannica says he waws arab, so if you want to change it to persian you will have to a bit more effort. This would probably include a trip to the library to find some books writting by professor such and such which clearly states he wa persian or find a very reliable source like SouthernComfort did with al-Khwarizmi. Cheers, —Ruud 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Regarding your edit here. You're not even participating in the talks. Why are you reverting a well-sourced edit? Aucaman 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Parsi revert war (and debate)

Please see Talk:Parsi#Revert_wars and make your point. -- Fullstop 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Angels

Regarding angels I don't necessarily disagree with the text. But I don't believe that the intro is the best place for it and I believe there was a section being added for that information if you read the discussion. Also in the discussion there are several people who agree that the text should be moved. Citation doesn't mean it should just go anywhere.Serlin 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You're about to violate WP:3RR in Persian people. I think you're already familiar with how it works, so I'm just letting you know in case you didn't know that you were reverting excessively. Aucaman 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Acuman is trying to get you in trouble

The warning the guy gave you is what he does to everyone who corrects him or wont let him put his biased pro-Israeli nonsense on an article. First he worked on fermenting the Kurdish articles and is now pushing on to Iran while his partners have moved to other articles such as Iraq. Go look at the Iraq discussion and you will see how they are trying to manipulate information for public opinion. 69.196.139.250 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Persians

You didn't revert Lukas' edit, you reverted mine instead. Look here's his edit. --Khoikhoi 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, I'm not going to get involved much in the question of that wording, but I'd appreciate if you didn't just throw away my proposal simply because it came from me. This was a well-meaning compromise suggestion (and very much in your favour, actually). If you don't like it, you could at least give a reason and not an ad hominem rejection. Lukas 08:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasons were already stated on talk. --ManiF 09:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please take a look at this, if you have time. Cheers! --TomJenson17:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:InShaneee

Thanks for your message. I don't really know much about this business — I simply gave my opinion on a particular misdescription in one of InShaneee's comments. I'll have a look, but if it's at all long and complicated I probably shan't be able to say much more for a while. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Ask Zereshk and SouthernComfort what they think. I'm not Persian so I hardly know anything on this subject. Perhaps you could add a merge tag to the articles, and say on the talk page why they should be merged, but I don't really know. --Khoikhoi 18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He also created Nevruz. --Khoikhoi 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

Nevruz is not very similar to the Irnian festival of Norouz it is Norouz!

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, even though there have been warnings made about the provocative term of Farsi and its offensive conotations he is intitionally using the term to upset users and saying Iranians wikis are unreliable and making attcks on the community. See his talk page. 69.196.139.250 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The user Diyako is definnityl not anti-Iranian .. Muhamed 13:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok

Ok, I'll find the diffs. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are the diffs: , , . --Khoikhoi 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز . Amir85 13:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Sorry for doing this on Norouz, but I've named you as a potential party in the Aucaman Arbcom case. Please see WP:RFAR. Thank you, --Lukas 10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds

The Kurdish People is a Irania People ::: That is correct --Muhamed

Re: Greetings

No, as far as I know it is English/Norman. And it is spelled "Parham". Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Diyako Talk + 10:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Thank you for bringing those diffs to my attention. I have left a note on his talk page about both of them. He has been acting more civil lately, so hopefully this will be another push in the right direction. --InShaneee 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan

hi

What do you think of this as an intro for the history section on Persian people. (It is just a rough draft so farther editing might be needed)

The Persians of Iran are descendants of the Aryans (link to Britannica) that migrated to the region during the 2nd millennium BC, as well as peoples indigenous to the Iranian plateau such as the Elamites.

The Persian language and other Iranian tongues all arrived with the Aryans after they split into two major groups, the Medes and the Persians. '

This way no one will make a mistake thinking that Aryan is a synonym for ancient Iranian and if the only concern of Aucaman is this then he should not object to this.

thank you

Gol 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You too

Happy Norooz! :) --Khoikhoi 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, can you please help me out on the Cyprus dispute and Adana pages? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Khayli mamnoon agha, eid-e shomaham mobarak. SouthernComfort 01:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Geber

Khwarizmi is a bad example since much is known about his life and thus we are able to know his ethnic background. However, with a figure like Geber things are quite a bit more complicated since his actual identity is very obscure. The only thing that can be said with any certainty was that he wrote in Arabic. Most of the sources available seem to identify him as an Arab. I've never seen a source that states he was Persian. If you have sources which clearly identify his ethnicity as Persian or "Iranian stock" then that's something. Otherwise you're going to have a very difficult time convincing people. My suggestion is to compromise. SouthernComfort 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If a compromise was agreed upon, then why all the problems? SouthernComfort 03:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you have far more sources identifying him as Arab than Iranian - how many are there that identify him as Iranian? The important question in this is "can you cite sources?" SouthernComfort 03:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link is useless because it is not a proper article or a scholarly source. Are you able to quote the books that state he was Persian? At any rate, if all the editors involved are fine with just "Shi'a Muslim" then feel free to return the article to the original compromise version. However, it doesn't seem like Inahet agrees with that. SouthernComfort 04:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. SouthernComfort 04:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please revert your article move

You unilaterally, without any discussion, moved Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran to Islamicization in post-conquest Iran, with a note that "there was no Arabization". Huh? Half the vocabulary of modern Persian comes from Arabic and there's no Arabization? Furthermore, the article, as it stood, pointed out that the Persians HAD resisted the extreme Arabization that occurred in other countries. The two notions, of Arabization and Islamicization, are usually discussed together by academics.

You acted against Wikiquette, for POV motives. Please undo your move. Zora 12:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the note I wrote, the last part of it is missing due to edit summery limit: The term "Arabization" in the title implies that there was a successful "Arabization" process of Persia and Iran which is not true. According to Professor Bernard Lewis , "Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians." --ManiF 07:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your assertion that "Half the vocabulary of modern Persian comes from Arabic" is totally inaccurate and false. --ManiF 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization of Iran

Generally speaking commenting on other people's messages on private discussion pages is not a good idea. But you're right this is not a good title. Maybe it should be Arabization of the Persian language or Arabization of the Persian script? It depends on what kind of sources User:Zora has, so just remain cool until she responds to what I posted on her page. Aucaman 13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The term "Arabization" is defined as "To make Arabic" and hence inappropriate for the title of any such articles. Even the Persian script, which is based on Arabic, is still different from Arabic. --ManiF 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a better name for it? Aucaman 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, and I don't care. What I know, and what I care, is that the term "Arabization" is misleading and inappropriate in such context as it largely means "To become Arab" or "To make Arabic". --ManiF 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

IM

I'll get on later today, I gotta go right now. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Can I have your e-mail address please? --ManiF 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You can email me by clicking the @ link on my signature. --Cool Cat 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but the @ link on your signature doesn't work. --ManiF 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the message I get "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." --ManiF 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Try again. Sorry there was a minor issue I had to fix. --Cool Cat 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop your nonsense

A Muslim cannot practice Astrology = he was not Muslim.--CltFn 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages. Please do not recvert every edit I do.Xebat Talk + 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please evert your edit, I have explained that for SouthernComfort. Xebat Talk + 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)