Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

---

---

WELCOME

Hi, sources (the ones I remember at least) are as follows:

-The background map came from this page:

Topographic map

-The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4: From the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by R.N. Frye. Mainly the chapters "Iran Under the Buyids" and "The Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran," though the chapters "The Samanids" and "The Early Ghaznavids" provided some misc. info.

-The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, by Aram Ter-Ghewondyan, translated by Nina Garsoian. Used mostly for the borders of the Armenian states, the Byzantine Empire and the Hamdanid amirates.

-The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz, by C.E. Bosworth.

-A couple of existing maps on wiki:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgia_map_830-1020.gif

For the Georgian states

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:93-vaspurakan908-1021.gif

For the borders of the amirates of Her and Golt'n

-Well over a dozen articles from the Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica; mostly articles about cities to verify who controlled them.

That's what I can remember right now; if I can think of any others I'll let you know.

Ro4444 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what your problem with my map is. There are borders that clearly distinguish the extent of the Buyid amirates in the 10th century, so saying that it doesn't distinguish between the Buyids and non-Buyid Muslim states isn't true.

The only map that is confusing is the old one. The old one is not only considerably less detailed but is grossly inaccurate. The separate shading of Iraq has no purpose, and the borders of the Buyids are works of fiction. The Buyids are falsely shown controlling (Iranian) Azerbaijan, which was actually controlled by the Sallarids and later Rawadids, as well as Tabaristan and Gilan, which were actually controlled by the Ziyarids/Bavandids and Gilites, respectively. Furthermore, the map includes territory within the boundaries of the Buyid amirates that the Buyids conquered in the 970s/980s, but fails to include Kerman and Oman, which were conquered by the Buyids in the 960s, within the boundaries of the Buyid state. The old map also has various anachronisms; for example, Tehran, a city on the old map, was much less prominent than the nearby city of Ray at the time.

My map has more major cities that are accurate for the time period, it has borders that distinguishes the separate states within both the Muslim and Christian worlds, and its borders are far more accurate. I very strongly favor my map over the old one, which is inaccurate, less detailed, and in blatant contradiction of the articles that it is supposed to support. I'll wait for a response from you and won't put up the new map for a day or two but I am going to heavily push for the adoption of the new map.

Ro4444 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buyids were indeed Dailamites; however they never exercised control over Dailam itself. Dailam was from the 8th century A.D. controlled by a local family, the Justanids. The Justanids' control over Dailam was maintained until after the Seljuk period, in the late 11th century. It should also be noted that Dailam comprised the interior districts of what is now Gilan; it did not border the Caspian Sea.

Your link is correct in that 'Adud al-Daula conquered both Tabaristan and Gurgan from the Ziyarid dynasty. However, this did not happen until 980/981 A.D. This conquest was also temporary, lasting less than 20 years and ultimately ending in a Ziyarid restoration in both provinces (998 A.D.). The old Buyid map presents some problems here. Because Tabaristan and Gurgan are included in the possessions of the Buyids, the map can only represent a limited time period (from 981 until 998). However, the Buyids had also conquered Kerman and Oman in the late 960s and held onto both provinces until the 11th century, meaning any map of the Buyids after 967 that does not include these provinces within their possessions is wrong.

Like I said before, this is only one of the map's numerous inaccuracies. The Buyids are clearly shown encroaching on what was actually Hamdanid, Sallarid, Justanid, Rawadid, and probably Samanid territory as well. It also colors differently an area that roughly represents the region of Iraq for little reason and which only serves to confuse the viewer (I remember the original version of that map actually claimed the shaded area corresponded with the conquests of 'Adud al-Daula, something that is very incorrect).

I have slightly modified my own map so that the Buyid amirates are now shaded a different color from the other Muslim states that border it. This should help to clear up any confusion the viewer would have in trying to determine the extent of Buyid possessions in 970 A.D. I haven't uploaded this updated version onto Wikipedia yet, but would this be an acceptable solution for you? If so let me know and I will upload it and replace the original map with it. If not, let me know what additional changes you think are needed for the new map to be suitable and I will consider them.

All factual information was derived from the following source:

• Madelung, Wilferd. "Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran." The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4: The Period From the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs. Ed. R. N. Frye. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

The information regarding the Justanids came from pages 208 and 224. The information regarding the Ziyarids came from pages 215 and 216.

Ro4444 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I posted this last week. Guess not. Anyway,

There are a few things wrong with that map. The height of Buyid power was a rather short duration, from 983 until 989 AD. During that time, both Gurgan and Tabaristan were under Buyid control. Your map shows Tabaristan as controlled by the Buyids but not Gurgan. On the other hand, the regions near the southwest coast of the Caspian Sea (Gilan and Dailaman) were not in reality controlled by the Buyids, though the map shows that they were.

I also sincerely doubt that the Buyids controlled the coast of Arabia from Basra all the way down to Oman. For sure the Carmathians were never completely subjugated by the Buyids. I would say that Buyid control extended down into modern-day Kuwait, but besides the coast of Oman (I'm not sure how far Buyid influence was felt in the interior of Oman) I would avoid marking any of Arabia as Buyid territory.

Other than that, I don't see much that's wrong with that map. The Persian script used for the cities is too small for me to read so I can't verify the accurateness in some places, and the eastern border between Kerman and Gurgan seems to be a little too far to the east but I can't tell. I'm also a little fuzzy on the extent of Buyid influence in the Jazira, but at least the borders there don't look to be too inaccurate. I will say that I doubt that Bitlis near Lake Van was under Buyid control; I think the Arcrunis or Marwanids controlled that city, but I'm not sure. I'll check that and get back to you.

I would stress that some sort of acknowledgement of the division of the Buyid amirates be recognized. To present the Buyids as a single unitary state would be inaccurate; even with the office of amir al-umara generally designating one of the amirs as having seniority above the others, the Buyid amirates were more often than not effectively independent of one another. In 983 the amirates of Fars and Iraq were both under 'Adud al-Daula while the amirate of Ray was under the control of Mu'ayyad al-Daula, who recognized 'Adud as amir al-umara.

Ro4444 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles linked in the main text once should not be linked again. Please read MoS. All the words you linked are already linked in the main text. Therefore, your edits were redundant and against MoS. And believe me, since I brought this article to FA status, I do know some things about wikilinking. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could correct it and tell me to follow the rule. now if I correct it, then it will be considered as 3 undone in 24 hours rule. Am I right? --Wayiran (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About over- and under-linking.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and tried to do so[1] when I reviewed the article. You should discuss on the talk page and build consensus before changing the image. Movaffaq Bashid.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to revert your addition of Iran and Tehran to that list of commonly known (to English-speakers, anyway) names of geographical locations. In fact, many anglophones wouldn't easily recognise Tehran as the capital of Iran, and would confuse Iran with Iraq. Sounds incredible, I know.

Please raise this on my talk page if you want to discuss it further.

Cheers Tony (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salam, Thanks for your comments. I wanted to nominate them as Good Article but I found some problems[2] and prefer to wait more. You can co-work with Jagged in these articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should this article be the FE of wikiproject Iran: 300 (film)?

I put it there, because it is belong to the wikiproject as you can see in Talk:300 (film), however you can remove it.

• Why there is only one wikiproject for iranian related articles, where for "India wikiproject" there are more than 20 subprojects? I gues wiki project history of Iran is really needed?

When we have a few active wikipedian in this wikiprojects, it's bad idea to make new one. In such cases we make task forces like Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Even some of the most active wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history use task forces. Thus I tried to make two task forces but few people participated and my attempts failed. You can find them in the talk page of the wikiproject.

• Can you introduce me some active Iranian users.

Unfortunately I'm not active in Iran-related articles. You can check history of Iran to find some of them.

• Overall how many Iranian users are active in english wiki (approximately)?

I don't know. May be 20 or more. However they participate in different fields. In fact I'm an active member of wikiproject Islam and you can't find my name except in few articles such as History of Iran.

• Please add me in your yahoo messenger.

I don't work with my messenger for a while. I use google talk.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the most important article here. However it depends on your ability and interest. I suggest reviewing some Featured and good articles such as Islam and Muhammad to find out how do we work here. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A few things regarding your last request:

With the possible exception of the Yazidi Shirvanshahs, who were eventually highly Persianized but were still using Arab names in the late 10th century, all of the dynasties you listed are indeed some form of Iranian. The Hamdanids were Taghlib Arabs, not Iranians.

Regarding your request to change the coloring so that all of the Iranian dynasties (Daylamite, Gilite, Tajik, etc.) are highlighted, the problem is that there is already such a map used on wikipedia, here, which is on the History of Iran page. It's not perfect but it is fairly accurate and if I changed the new map I feel that it would not be serving any different purpose than this old map. If you feel that the new map should still be changed, let me know, I just wanted to point out this preexisting one for you.

I'm afraid I don't know any Persian beyond the alphabet. I can read location names but beyond that my knowledge of Persian ends. I wish I could speak and read it but I'm terrible with foreign languages so I'm afraid I doubt that will ever happen.

Ro4444 (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wayiran, thank you for your kind message. I have just looked through the references that you had given. I entirely agree with the fact that the differences in Farsi (Persian) and Dari are almost non-existent (this fact has been clearly indicated by a number of individuals on the website of GerardM, such as the first contributor named Anonymous), but somehow I do not comprehend what the discussion is all about. There is nowhere a clear statement of the problem to be found, specifying the ramifications of any changes to the prevailing conventions. I shall participate in the discussions when I know more about the subject matter. Are the proposed changes along the lines of those discussed here [3] and here [4]? With kind regards, --BF 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Currently some talks are going on, on this matter. If it was unsuccessful, I will let you know. It seems that it is the continue of this request. --Wayiran (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wayiran, thank you for your message. I am well aware of the entry on Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi; if you look through its talk page, you will find some extensive pieces of text by me in there. Unfortunately, the entry gets renamed by some who seem to know nothing about history and act solely on their nationalistic fervour (they always refer to some dubious books from which they supposedly have their misguided views, but thus far none has provided the details of even a single book). If I am not mistaken, the person who had the courage to rename the entry to its proper name was User:Iranway (your almost namesake), however it did not take long before this change was reversed. Since I watch the page, I was aware that some days ago you had put the entry on its appropriate name. Incidentally, if interested, you can read the collected letters of Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi here: An introduction, The collection (Iran Digital Library). Lastly, I was recently made aware of the existence of a sample of the handwriting of Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi on the German Wikipedia: [5], Handwriting. If you have the time, you might consider to copy this text to the Enlish Wikipedia and add it to Asadabadi's entry here. With kind regards, --BF 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Wayiran, thank you for your message. Did you ask me about the text in the caption of the letter? If so, "Handgeschriebenes Aufnahmegesuch von al-Afghani an die Loge in Kairo" literary means: Hand-written admission request by al-Afghani to the [Freemason's] Loge in Cairo. The text of which you sent me an appalling English translation (done by Google), contains a bad translation of the letter in Arabic (according to the text of the German Wikipedia, he wrote this letter at the age of 37, while working as a teacher of philosophy in Cairo). My suggestion was only to copy this letter to the English Wikipedia for the purpose of displaying a sample of Asadabadi's hand-writing. Incidentally, as you may have noticed, in the heading of this letter Asadabadi introduced himself as Jamal ad-Din al-Kaboli (and not even al-Afghani, even though Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan - he just had the habit of using whatever name suited the requirements of the time; interestingly, it seems as though his signature in the closing part of the letter contains the words Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi). By the way, the signature on the letter can later be used in a box containing the photograph of Asadabadi. For inspiration, please see: [6]. Lastly, Asadabadi absolutely certainly was from Iran's Hamedan which in earlier times was known as Asadabad; there is no doubt about that. With kind regrads, --BF 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

ps) Interesting to know that you are the same person as Iranway (I did suspect that somehow). --BF 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You may wish to participate in the on-going discussion here: [7]. --BF 12:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wayiran, I have noticed that you have kindly made inter-wiki links between the entries of the above-mentioned film on the English and Persian Wikipedias. May I hereby request that you kindly correct the erroneous plot description on the Persian Wikipedia? I have just found out that the website of Sureh has a somewhat longer plot description (although a very inaccurate one - I have now informed the Director of Sureh about this through an e-mail, even though experience shows that sending e-mails to Iran is like sending e-mails to a blackhole) which you may wish to read and possibly gain inspiration from in editing the entry on the Persian Wikipedia (in any case, the site offers a rather complete list of all people involved in making the film). Here is the pertinent address: Kāghaz-e bi Khatt, in Persian, Sūreh, [8]. Kind regards, --BF 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Why don't you contribute in Persian wikipedia? --Wayiran (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shahb3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wayiran, personally I do not like that image. Iran has enough cultural heritage to write about and to be rightly proud of that we really do not need to even think of the images like the one you had indicated. After all, we are civilians. Just consider the beauty of the Iranian new-year's table, i.e. Haftsin [9]. You see, the majority of the educated people of the world are familiar with the Greek mythology (at the very least they can name the names of some Greek gods), but to my best knowledge (as attested by a life-long experience) almost no one outside Iran knows about the Iranian mythology, such as the one underlying the Iranian Haftsin. On the cultural level, do you know for instance Shahrokh Moshkin Ghalam? Now, you may like or dislike his political views (I am personally not political, not that I do not have political views), but artistically he is simply an absolute giant; he is absolutely at the top of the international artistic stage. As you can just verify, this person has as yet no Wikipedia entry on his name. I believe that we should concentrate on filling this and similar wide gaps on Wikipedia. Last week I was seriously considering to write a Wikipedia biography for him (i.e. Shahrokh Moshkin Ghalam), but unfortunately all my time was wasted on utterly nonsensical arguments regarding Unruled Paper (film) with people who even have not seen the film (just see how many thousands of words I have spent on the talk page of this film as well as on the talk page of User:Khoikhoi). As for Shahrokh Moshkin Ghalam, you may wish to watch e.g. the following videos: Faryād, Haft Shahr-e Eshgh, Shir-Ali Mardān. Now, I know a little bit about music, dance and choreography, and he is absolutely in the highest firmament of these professions; he is without exaggeration a genius in the true sense of the word. He leads also a wonderful dance group called Nakisā, of which this is the official website: [10]. You may read about him here: [11]. He recently gave an extensive interview to VOA which you can watch here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 - Last. To summarise, I personally do not approve of the images like the one shown on the link provided by you. Incidentally, I recently wrote a Wikipedia entry on the wonderful Mastan Ensemble; you may wish to listen to the heavenly music that this Group is making (the links to which I have provided in the External-links section). With kind regards, --BF 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I've seen you have reverted my edition to the Iran article, by changing the locantion map to the png version. So I ask you why. -Sitenl (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the information on the "constitutionally recognized"languages of Iran. This does not mean that they are the official state language, but it means that they are recognized and are free to speak in. It is not the case with all countries. In countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia for example many native languages were and are banned. This category means that there are language rights in Iran. The separatist organizations- ethnonationalists and their advocates say that the regional languages are banned in Iran. Well the reality is not. Please respect the facts if you are not affiliated to any of the formerly mentioned organisations or have a similar agenda. Thanks--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do not have clear preferences about the color. But naqshe jahan square is nice. It is big and has many sites in one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Perso-Arabic script to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

در رابطه با نظامی گنجوی - دو سال پیش بحثهای شدیدی بین من و چند تا ناتیونالیست از جمهوری آذربایجان بود. چون این بحث دائما به مسئله های قومی دامن میزد بهتر دیدم که اصلا چیزی در رابطه با نژاد پدرش ننویسیم تا هر دو طرف راضی باشند. البته منابع هم بایست درست حسابی باشند برای نمونه به من ای-میل زنید و بگویید از کجا میتوانم آن کتاب شیخ بهائی (نام کتابش چیست) را بجویم.

در مورد نظامی, خارج از ویکیپیدا من یک مقاله مفصل نوشته-ام که به نظرم به طور واضح نشان میدهد که وی ایرانی-تبار بود (مادرش کرد و پدرش هم احتمالا یا کرد یا ایرانی دیگر) و همچنین از لحاظ فرهنگ تنها و تنها ایرانی بود و ربطی به اغوزها ندارد: [[12]] اما در ویکیپیدا چون تا ابدالدهر در این مورد دعوا خواهد بود تصمیم گرفته شد که خیلی به نژاد وی پیله نشود ولی البته به طور واضح نشان میدهد که ادبیات فارسی و مادری کرد و در رابطه با پدرش هم چیزی نگفته است. اما لطفا به من ای-میل بزنید و منبع آن ابیات شیخ بهائی (از کدام کتابش) را به من بفرستید. سپاسگزارم

در رابطه با تفرشی/قومی بودن نظامی البته این ابیات در چند نسخه هست ولی نه در همه نسخها. گویا در کهنترین نسخه نیست. البته الزاما کهنترین نسخه صحیح ترین نیست و این هم موضوعیست که نه میتواند صد در صد ثابت شود و نه رد. زیرا اصولا نیازی نیست که کاتبی نظامی را از تفرش/قم معرفی کند در حالیکه بقول شما خود شیخ بهائی هم این موضوع را تکرار نموده است. در عین حال , هم گنجه و هم قم در آن دوران شهرهای ایرانی-زبان بودند که نام گنجه هم از گنج بر میگردد و مردمان شهرنشین گنجه در آن دوران پارسی بودند و فرهنگ حاکم هم زبان فارسی بود.. راستی اگر میشود به من یک ای-میل بزنید از طریق ویکیپیدا. یعنی ای-میل خود را فعال کنید. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorood bar shomaaa. yek raayaanaameh beh shomaa ferestaandam. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Abu Jafar Mohammad Ibn Mousa Khwarizmi 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster 06:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wayiran,

You are welcome to visit our page. Thank you.Roberto Lyra (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wayiran,

I know you weren't a big fan of the map I put on the Buyids page, and I must confess that I didn't like it too much either. I am working on a new version of the map, and I was wondering if you could help me on a couple things.

• I am attempting to show the internal division of the Buyid amirates as of 970 CE/359 AH. I have had trouble figuring out whether 'Adud al-Daula of Fars or Rukn al-Daula of Jibal controlled the town of Yazd during this time. Usually any mentions of Yazd during the Buyid era are made in relation to the Kakuyid dynasty, which established its control over the town shortly before the Seljuk invasion of Iran in the early 11th century, about a half century after the time I am talking about. Since the Kakuyids' domains were almost exclusively located in the Jibal region, I figured that Rukn al-Daula controlled the town in 970, but on the other hand Yazd is sometimes mentioned as being an administrative dependency of Fars, which would mean that it was controlled by 'Adud al-Daula. Would you happen to know anything about who controlled the town in the late 10th century?

• A single source, iranica.com, mentions that Rukn al-Daula took the district of Arrajan in 949 after securing his son's position in Shiraz. If Arrajan was controlled by the amir of Jibal, the route between Fars and Iraq would have been blocked. Yet it seems clear that 'Adud al-Daula controlled this region by the end of his reign. Do you know if Rukn al-Daula did in fact take control of Arrajan, and if so, when did 'Adud al-Daula reclaim it?

• In your opinion, should the Buyids be shown to exercise any control over the region of the Great Desert between Jibal and Khurasan? I am somewhat unclear over where to place the border between the Samanid and Buyid amirates; on the one hand, the current map has the border being in the middle of the desert, but if the desert wasn't effectively controlled by either dynasty, this is a somewhat inaccurate representation. If the Buyids should not be shown controlling parts of the desert, can you inform me of the approximate boundaries of the desert?

Any and all help on these would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Ro4444 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check them in Persian sources during the next few days. --Wayiran (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wayiran! Thanks for replying on the discussion forum of Muslim conquest of Egypt. I would like to move the article to Muslim invasion of Egypt. I believe this is a more neutral title, and it's in accordance with the names of other articles concerning the history of Egypt, such as French invasion of Egypt, Byzantine alliance and invasion of Egypt, French Invasion of Egypt (1798), Crusader invasions of Egypt etc. What do you think? --Bomba999 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayiran, I currently have a problem with a user here, who seems eager to do anything when trying to halt the creation of this article User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, even going as far as to propose a topic ban on me on old accusations that are now false, if you could respond on my page, I appreciate it. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Hi again, I have contacted like 10 people (there is a possibility I will be flooded my new messages), if I get banned you can say goodbye to new creations for Cyrus's battles. Therefore, for now, if you can monitor the situation, and I will give you updates on it soon. I just need you to be ready when the day of the possible debate to keep me alive or not comes. I thank you for your support.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Don't worry, I won't send anymore messages to other users, I appreciate the advice though, best regards.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The time has come, you can go here, administrators' noticeboard to oppose my ban, thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Why should I oppose your ban?????? I should first see what have you done, and who is right. Then I can decide. Last time also I told you don't send the same message to many users, this is against the rules of Wikipedia. --Wayiran (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Iran animation.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In addition to the "form letter" above, I just wanted to note that another editor had tagged this with copyright concerns and listed at the copyright problems board, but since we don't handle images there, I have moved it to WP:PUI for proper investigation. If you would like to offer input, you'll find the conversation at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 17#Image:Iran animation.gif. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Iran animation.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edit. Persian is neither an official language, nor it is spoken by a majority of the population. So, there's no reason to add that. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now busy with Alhazen, Persian gulf, khwarizmi, Jamāl-al-dīn Asadābādī, persia or iran.

Dear Wayiran, thank you for your kind message. I have now activated my Wikipedia e-mail. Incidentally, I am not away; I am only not as active as I used to be once. My total absence for a period was due to the fact that for a while I was banned from Wikipedia because of having said to some Wikipedian that I would sue him legally if he kept editing an entry about whose subject matter he knew nothing (even by his own admission!). Kind regards, --BF 05:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]