Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 7 April 2006 (Messenger). 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)

3RR violation at Iranian peoples

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Iranian peoples. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never broken 3RR before and as I fully explained here my fourth edit on Iranian peoples was simply to counter, what appeared to me as simple vandalism, since the user was adding an excessive number of irrelevant tags to the article , disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point (WP:POINT). I accept your decision, but I'd appreciate if you could re-examine the decision considering the circumstances surrounding my fourth edit, and the fact that I've never broken 3RR in the past. --ManiF 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion there, I've got to say that the fourth one is a revert, not the removal of simple vandalism.Eli Falk 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eli Falk, are you an administrator? --ManiF 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but since I thought you should get an answer to your request, and the administrators have not been keeping up with things, I decided to answer you myself.Eli Falk 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks the explanation. As for your original comment, I was under the impression that I was revering simple vandalism as WP:VANDAL states that "Do not place dispute tags improperly". --ManiF 14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the question of when tags are proper isn't simple, reverts on those grounds aren't reverts of simple vandalism. If a user had been placing dispute tags on random articles, then you would have a claim here; since he only put them on this article, things aren't simple.Eli Falk 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This looked like vandalism to me. Simultaneously adding an absurd number of tags on to an article, just for the sake of doing it and disfiguring the article, looked like vandalism to me. --ManiF 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between looks like vandalism to me and simple vandalism. I'm not saying it wasn't vandalism, just that it may not be vandalism. I understand that you think it to be vandalism; however, there is the possibility for a revert war to start, in which each side claims that they're reverting vandalism. For this reason, the rule says it doesn't apply to simple vandsalism.Eli Falk 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but if you have any doubts that the edit in question is simple vandalism, then please take another look at the four tags in question and how the third and fourth tags (The factual accuracy and The neutrality) are actually a repetition of the first tag. (The neutrality and factual accuracy). --ManiF 15:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you should have done, in that case, is remove the first, leave the other three, and in the "Edit Summary" wrote that it is just a repeat of the third and fourth.Eli Falk 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, perhaps I should have, but the edit was vandalism as far as I could see, so I simply reverted it. Regardless, I accept Ruud's decision but I'd appreciate it if he could reconsider the decision since I have no prior history of 3RR violations. --ManiF 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I left him a message on his talk page. If he happens to show up at Misplaced Pages before your block time is over, he will see that.Eli Falk 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the message you left on Ruud's talk page, is not about me. I think you mistook me for someone else. --ManiF 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adding the tags was (in my opinion) a violation of WP:POINT. No, it was not simple vandalism. Considering how hard it is to violate 3RR when more than three editros are involved and taking into account the 4 or 5 people did I think it is best if everybody takes a timeout today. Also, if I would be lenient to ManiF I should be to Aucuman as well as removing disputed tags is far from encouraged and he therefore had soem right in placing them back. Of course, these are all rather subjective criteria which really shouldn't be taken into account when blocking someone for violation 3RR. —Ruud 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Source

Amir, Kash, SC, ManiF,

I have access to an online e-book library. It has some of the books that are listed as reference on Iranian related pages. If any of you are interested, email me, I'll hook you up with the password and all.--Zereshk 02:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

Please see Ruhollah Khomeini - I'd like to see that all my hard work in keeping that article NPOV not go down the drain because of other peoples' POV. For example, the issue of "Imam." This is getting tiresome. SouthernComfort 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Just thought I should note that you are awful close to violating the WP:3RR on Persian Gulf. However, I will not be reverting it back until we can work things out on Talk:Persian Gulf. Thanks — TheKMan 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

What specific Misplaced Pages policy are you referring to? Aucaman 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Just so you know, you are close to violating the WP:3RR on Persian Gulf.

Hello

Hey ManiF, Thanks for the link. I have had a long discussion with Pecher regarding many issues with the article dhimmi. There is a mediation going on for the dhimmi article (see the talk page of the article). Among the issues we discussed, for example, I provided evidences for him that current shia scholars such as Fazel Lankarani do not deem people of the book to be najis, but he seems to be unwilling to accept it. I am frustrated. Shad bashi, --Aminz 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hurriyya notice board

Have you seen this, your name is there? --ManiF 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Cool Cat 09:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inuse

I'm sorry but I believe you have somwhat misunderstood the point of the inuse tag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate MSMSNMSNGR

Dorod!

Man az Micy badam miad bia to yahoo : Iranssn < id man

Huh?

What are you so happy about? :) --Khoikhoi 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't right now - I'm on a different comp. --Khoikhoi 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Geber

My mistake, reverted to the wrong one I think --Kash 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fazel Lankarani

It is sad to see that Pecher asks you again about the source while I have already shown one to him in the mediation page of the "Dhimmi" article. Yes, Here you are: . This is the official website of Lankarani. Pecher already knows about this: Regarding the opinion of other scholars, please read my discussion with Pecher on the mediation page (that was how the discussion proceeded.)

Also you can have a look at :

Thanks, Aminz.

Lewis

I'm not sure what the conflict is about, but how do you know he doesn't mention him there? Do you have the book? Jayjg 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm baffled here, ManiF. I've looked at the book, and it does indeed say exactly what they claim, on page 34. Where on Google book were you looking? Jayjg 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link. Jayjg 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding. Lewis specifically refers to "non-Muslims" on that page, and how their secretions become "ritually clean" upon conversion. Why would other opinions be relevant to deleting that information? Jayjg 19:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As you see on the page, Lewis specifically use the term "Non-Muslims", referring to Khomeini's views. Are you saying that you believe Lewis to be incorrect? Jayjg 19:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I still don't understand. Who is being "misleading", and who is accusing them of being misleading? If you answer those questions, maybe I'll get it. Jayjg 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your last statement, would WP:NPOV demand that all different views on this be heard? Specifically, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.? Jayjg 20:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Msn Id or AOL id

no I do not.--CltFn 03:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Neither, only wikipedia talk page.--CltFn 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moshe

No, what are they?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Shirazi

My great Grandfather dar haqiqat was the uncle of Ayatollah Shirazi, who was called "Seyd Mammad Taher", (also a Marja, who was sent into exile and imprisoned). The only thing I have from him and Ayatollah Shirazi are some old pictures, a bunch of newspaper clips, and the personal angoshtar aqeeq of "Seyd Mammad Taher", which somehow miraculously got passed on to me (instead of one of the other 40 pesar khalehs I have), and which must be around 100 years old I'm thinking.

I know nothing of his beliefs. Everything I do know is from what I've heard from my grandma. And I only visit their (the ayatollah Shirazi) residence once every 3 years or so.--Zereshk 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi ManiF. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm busy, be back later. --Khoikhoi 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC Xebat (Diyako)

Regarding your RFC, that user has been blocked for 1 month because of blatant personal attacks ,, perhaps the issue can be taken to the ArbCom for arbitration now. --ManiF 13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not suprised. It is possible to file a case on arbcom against Diyako but he would be unblocked as soon as arbitration starts.

It might be in the best interest of Diyako as well as all of us to wait a month before we put this to arbitration. Let everything cool a bit perhaps.

--Cool Cat 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

Thanks for reporting this user's behavior, disruption of that kind is blatantly unacceptable. I've given him a final warning, and if he continues trying to incite some sort of 'rebellion', he will be blocked for trolling. --InShaneee 18:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah

I just got here. --Khoikhoi 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Are you an adminstrator? --ManiF 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not at the moment, although that might change in a few days — my candidacy is currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3. What's on your mind? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions?

Just out of curiosity, did you have any specific question you wanted to ask me when you contacted me the other day? Lukas 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Nelson Frye

I revised the article, put an explanation in talk -- and you immediately reverted, saying, "Use talk". That is just plain wrong and misleading. I did use talk. I don't have to get YOUR permission before making edits. Zora 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Messenger

No — just e-mail and my Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)