User talk:Pejman47/Archive3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 25 December 2007

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg

Since it looks like this image is going to be kept, perhaps it should be put back in the articles it was in? I don't know what they are so I can't figure out where to put it. -Nard 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming issue

Hi Pejman. Can you take a look at Talk:Special Operation 85: Hostage Rescue#Organization name issue? The Behnam 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will look in to it, take care. --Pejman47 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was a quick response. Thanks a lot! I wasn't quite sure if this game was made by high school students (since only one source used "high school") but your remark about the two words for "student" clears that up. The Behnam 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome, but it is not made by high school students, it is made by an organizations which works with them. --Pejman47 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I'm not quite sure what that entails, but thanks anyway. The Behnam 06:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA mediation

Sorry, but I have been, and still am, up to my eyeballs in work and sinking fast , so I have not been able to address your statement with the deliberation it requires. The mediator has blanked the page in prep for the next stage anyway, so I'm sure we will have a chance to continue our discussion soon. Welcome back, BTW. -- Avi 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the kind words. I hope you also can come back to wiki with full strength. --Pejman47 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewasher

[1] It seems that we have a whitewashing IP to keep an eye upon. The Behnam 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tashakkur

دوست عزیز از مدالی که دادید سپاسگزارم. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 21:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows: The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Pejman. Can you help out with a possible OR issue at Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi#Deletion of biased/improperly sourced section? There are some Persian language sources that cannot be verified, and your opinion on the matter would also be good to have. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‌ I will look in to it.--Pejman47 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calling that event "not coupe" is a OR opposed to all the RS present and deletion of that paragraph is justified. The only dispute that I know about that event is whether it was a "good" or "bad" event in Iran's history.--Pejman47 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bell

Hi! I just wanted to explain why I undid your edit to Catherine Bell. While the biography section does say that her father is Scottish and mother Iranian, she was born in London, which makes her British born. Enuja (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you 're right, but mine is true too. As I guess she has citizenship of both U.S. and Britain. I changed it a little to represent both of them (first mentioning her mixed ethnicity and then her double nationality).--Pejman47 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the medal.

Dear Pejman,

I am honored to have the medal. You made my day. Thanks :) Persian Magi 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA page

Look at the history on August 9; this WAS the stable version. -- Avi 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi Pejman. Can you please take a look at references 18 and 19 in Ali Montazeri article? I'm wondering if they directly support the claim, if they are proper weight, and I also want to know some basic information so that I can stylistically improve the reference itself (like I did for the other references). Thanks. The Behnam 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Those sources were quotes from Rafsanjani and only suggest that Ayatollah Golpaygani had less than third of the votes, but doesn't give any "interpretation" of it or anything else.

about your request about the sources: one of them has a page in here: Radio Farda and the other is a news website operating from Tehran. --Pejman47 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Opinions

Dear Mr. Pejman: Welcome to Wikipedia yourself. Boastful comments, such as you re-instated are not NPOV, as defined by Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. "Warnings" have no place in polite discussion. --Zeamays 07:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thank you for your message.

However, I have lost interest in defending this nation after they picked a person to lead their experts assembly.

best--Gerash 77 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should always defend your land, regardless of "anything". But anyway I respect your decision to leave the WP. I also toned down your message. take care. --Pejman47 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your help over these months...

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for fighting vandalism and helping with Persian translations. Many thanks! The Behnam 00:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 00:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, cheers. --Pejman47 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MA mediation

recently, when I was reading some article in mainstream media, I noticed that they "sometimes" do add some explanations after or before the "wiped of the map" phrase to alert the reader that the phrase may be result of a mistranslation. for example "politically wiped off the map though he insists that can be accomplished without violence. CNN

the inclusion of some explanation like above was one of the outstanding issues that resulted in edit-wars in past. I have a question: can I add a short explanation to the lead about this? (or even a link to the explanation) can you please re-initiate this topic in mediation.--Pejman47 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be best to initiate it yourself on the RfM page, as it's your own idea :) Daniel 13:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a task with a strict deadline have been assigned to me; and I will busy till this weekend. I will initiate it on Friday. I hope this time we can reach a compromise. --Pejman47 18:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chionites

Please, see my comment on the talk page. If you have any objection, please let me know. Regards. E104421 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA mediation

Hello, Pejman.

I have e-mailed Daniel asking for a ruling, either way, as to the properness of edits to the lead vis-à-vis the issues under mediation. I hope he replies soon. -- Avi 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and removing text reffering to highy valid sources

I have a question for you, why are always deleting my contributions to the article regarding Jundallah? The last time you deleted/edited the text to its original form, you gave an obscure reason saying that the references where unreliable and affiliated. Mate, I don't know what your defenition of reliability is when the majority of my references where from Amnesty International and other internationally acknoledged sources, whereas your sources are mainly Iranian state run newspapers, which makes your text very subjective (pro Iranian regime propaganda), and your self seem as a spokesman for this regime. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

I'll see what I can do.Tombseye 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA mediation

Hi, Pejman.

No, sorry, it must have gotten lost among other messages. I will hopefully look at your proposal tonight or tomorrow and reply after I have read it. Thank you for once again bringing it to my attention. -- Avi 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk. Is that the proposal to which you were referring? Thanks! -- Avi 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA

I'm sorry, but I spend much more time contemplating the suggestions and my responses to this mediation than I do to simple vandalism reversions and citation updates, as this article so richly deserves. As such, it does take more time, and I need larger bocks of time to answer this than I do the five minutes or so I have when I'm running simulations. I'm sorry that it is going too slowly for you, but as mediator Daniel said: "Mediation is a slow process".

I could snap off answers quickly with less thought for both the subject and the participants, but what would that solve? -- Avi 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ball is in your court, by-the-by, on the mediation page. I responded there yesterday. -- Avi 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hello friends,

can someone also add the Kart Maliks (Kartids). they ruled and kept Khorasan and eevn modern Peshawar Valley independent from Mongols and Ilkhanats. They ruled from 1231-1389 till the Timurids. They were local ruler from Herat, Bamyan, Kabul, Badakhshan, north Kandahar and Ghazna..so a very large house..

--Aspandyar Agha 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

the Kart Maliks were based mainly in Herat but they were also from other part of modern Afghanistan and yesterdays persian Khorasan. They claimed themself as descends of the Ghurids. When the Il-Khanatas took the power of the whole iranian plateau they accpeted them as their neighbours so they were able to rule self in Khorasan. Just Samarkand and Bukhara and maybe Merv was under the il-Khanatas while the mst of the plateau were under their own hands, even modern Pakistan.

Generally we can say they were a sub-ordinated dynasty..but an indenpendent one unlike other dynasties or nations. I just don´t know who to deal with both because both dynasties were ruling in Greater Iran..--Aspandyar Agha 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

It is considered courteous to inform someone should you open a WP:ANI discussion about them. For example, User talk:Omegatron#Courtesy notice and User talk:Omegatron#Courtesy notice 2. Please read the introduction to WP:ANI and remember that inter-editor courtesy and civility are as much polices as any other in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you violated civility, per se, although I would request you read my response and clarify what you meant by WP:COI, but that being pro-active and realizing that dispute resolution techniques do not necessarily mean that you have it "out" for an editor, but that you are requesting help with a situation, goes a long way in ensuring that even editors who have strong disagreements, can do so respectfully. -- Avi 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that based on our previous interactions, I was pretty sure that was not what you meant; but there was no logical explanation other than a misunderstanding of [{WP:COI]]. Which was correct, you meant use of admin privileges, which is not COI. But restoring a locked article under mediation to maintain stability is not considered a misuse. If anything, the unilateral UNLOCK was the misuse. Further, it has been locked for 20 days now, a far cry from six months. Hyperbole does not help anyone. -- Avi 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that i have had 2 incidents of avi when has used his tools in my view in conflict of interest, i would appreciate if someone can recall his sysop status through a community consensus discussion.--יודל 13:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced template

In the article Achaemenid Empire the History of Greater Iran template was placed in the list of Achaemenid kings and leaders. That template is a navigation aid to broader history. In that location it is misplaced. I couldn't find a place in the Achaemenid Empire article where it would both fit and be useful. --Bejnar 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed"

Hi. I have not added it because there has been more discussion on the mediation page regarding that particular construction, some people opposing it for various reasons. If I were to add it notwithstanding the opposition, even if I personally think it is the best construction, I would be as guilty as anyone in contributing to the page destabilization, something I am working very hard to prevent. We need to achieve a consensus on the mediation page through discussion and then we can add it. The page has been somewhat quiet recently, unfortunately. -- Avi 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

There was a consensus about what was written in the article. Please don't change it without discussion on the talk page.(Sa.vakilian)--Seyyed(t-c) 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your manner will lead to an editorial war. Please discuss in the talk page instead of reverting the editions. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should always use reliable sources, usually the consensus is made about what part(s) of them are going to be on the lead. StandWithUs website is not a source and can not be used in any article.--Pejman47 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand with us especially needs to be kept out because there are other options, with the same information we can use that are less biased. I am strongly against using any propaganda sites on wikipedia. Cheers!--SJP 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

On the Hezbollah I offered a suggestion on what we should do. I believe the suggestion to be reasonable. See you there:)--SJP 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Hello. I have decided to start a poll to get a better idea of what the consensus is on the hezbollah article. The poll is on the Hezbollah articles talk page. Thought you might want to know so you could include yourself in it. Cheers!--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran article

Some of my edits which you undid were legitimate and to the benefit of the article and each one comes with an explanation. For instance in the culture section I removed all non-NPOV text which i thought was necessary because it had a banner above it! If you had actually looked at my editsmost of them needed doing. Two of the references had no text. Why did you restore them? In some cases I rephrased some sentences. I seriously advise you to study edits before redoing themArdeshire Babakan 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran military task force

Salam, What's your idea about making a task force for Iran military task force. Please add your idea here. Thanks--Seyyed(t-c) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran article

I noticed that you undid one of my edits on the Iranian culture section. I thought this was a valid edit seeing that the paragraph only talked about the influences of Iranian culture and didn't contribute to the readers knowledge of Iranian culture. The only way to keep the sentence in the culture section is to actually mention some of the influences with sources. The fact that it is sourced is irrelevant. Until any influences are mentioned with references I will make sure that the text is deleted from the article. Thank you for your time.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we disagree so strongly on the matter I will keep the text in and start a discussion on the talk page. After a month or two we will conclude on the issue; or we could actually mention some of these influences so the reader has a greater understanding of our culture rather than just it's influences. The problem I have with the paragraph is that it is advertisement. you might know that we recently had a problem with advertisement on the Culture section but thankfully the issue was solved by removing the controversial parts of the text. I just don't want the culture section to get that bad again. I hope you will agree.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

Your this revert actually restored the wrong version of User:Moorudd (and his various 85.xxx. IPs [2]) who has already vandalized many other articles, such as Timurid dynasty and Babur, violating WP:POINT. He had altered the genetic section by pruposely misinterpreting a scientific source, claiming that Iranian peoples are closer related to (what he interprets as) Turkic peoples than to their linguistic relatives in the Indian Subcontinent. However, that is not a proof for supposed "Turkic roots" of the Iranian peoples, but actually confirms other genetic tests which reveal that most Iranian peoples belong to West Eurasian populations. That's because the population of Anatolia is not Turkic (in terms of genetics) but is (like the Iranian peoples) related to other West Eurasian populations. Once the articles is unblocked, you should correct that. Thank you.

on what you have provided me [3], I see only reshuffling the text and no change of the context. could you please more specifically note the difference. Please copy and paste the difference sentences, so I can review it. Regards. --Pejman47 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (User:Moorudd) has underlined certain passages in the quote, trying to divert the attention of the reader and giving the wrong impression that "Iranian peoples are Turks". In fact, that's what he has been promoting in various articles. There is no need to underline anything in quote. Besides that, Prof. Cavalli-Sforza's quote needs to be on top because he is the most respected and most important scientist in this field.

Close genetic similarities between the peoples of the Iranian Plateau and Anatolia are not surprising. But claiming that this proves some kind of "Turkish origin" for the Iranian peoples, as the notorious user is trying to say, is totally wrong. "West Eurasian" means that both, Iranian peoples and the population of Anatolia, have a common ancestor along with many people from Europe. But that ancestor was not "Turkic" (= East Asian). It's rather the other way around: the modern-day Turks are predominantly descendants of Iranian and other West Eurasian people while their language is Turkic (= East Asian). see this: [4]

Fan Translations

Please read about how I feel about these, and if you disagree please state your reasons. [5] Newspaper98 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV to Iran Air Flight 655

Please explain how your edit to the article "Iran Air Flight 655" relates to the following:

1. WP:NPOV - absolute and non-negotiable 2. Pertains to the article

If, somehow, you can make a case for this edit, could you PLEASE correct the blatant grammatical errors? --Borisborf (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]