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

I noticed that you reverted Iran's article here but in the process you reverted my edits. I am trying to assume good faith meaning that you wanted to revert to the last edit but accidentally reverted my edits. Well if I am right, I hope you will be more careful next time when reverting to avoid removing previous contributions in the process. Otherwise, why did you remove it? What was wrong with the inline-cited content I added? Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It is POV. There was no "Arabic conquest of Iran", but "Islamic conquest of Iran". Invaders of Iran were Muslims of different ethnicities, from Salman the Persian, who was himself a Persian to other groups. Many Persians themselves became Muslim and helped the fall of Sassanian dynasty. So this is Islamic conquest of Iran. And many other problems. --Wayiran (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to first discuss and then making such changes on articles of countries. For those things that you had placed "fact" tag, you can place them back, but as I viewed they were the most obvious issues, like for Persianity of "Abu mosleme khorasani" and etc. If you think that citing is really necessary, put back the tags, and I will add sources immediately. --Wayiran (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the overwhelming majority were Arabs (mainly from Hijaz and Syria under the direction of an Arab general) with some ethnic minorities and later on Persians joined to conquer near parts of the Far East which is different topic. Following your logic we should change the name of most Wars and conquests where any ethnic group took part? The conquest was launched by Arabs, directed by them and executed by majority Arabs. Well may be that sounds like an OR but the term is used and accepted widely in the academic world. The provided sources clearly employ the term. Anyway, I do not think that the term is the big issue here (It seems both terms are used interchangeably, after googling both expressions ("Arab Conquest" persia vs. "Islamic Conquest" persia) according to Wikipedia search hits method, I found out they have close hits). If you have any issue about the added content you can discuss it in Iran's talk page. Removing sourced material, especially with inline-citations is against Wikipedia rules. You removed the whole content! here and here without explaining the reason in the edit summary nor on the talk page.

You said It's better to first discuss and then making such changes on articles of countries, well that is what I did but I got only personal attacks and almost no one engaged in a constructive discussion repeating "Wikipedia is not a forum" again and again (with the exception of one editor). Furthermore, I do not have to ask for permission to change an article or a section, there is no ownership in Wikipedia and my contribution was supported by reliable sources. It is part of the WP:BB policy.

Now, addressing your last concern, I requested some facts because I have sources that contradict those claims. Let's start by the obvious as you said: the Persianity of Abu Muslim. Most researches mentioned that his origin is unknown, even his name is not confirmed yet. To convince you more a-titre-d'exemple here is a quote by ABD AL-HUSAIN ZARRINKUB (an Iranian Professor) from the Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 4 : "Regarding Abu Muslim, it seems that from the period of his own lifetime he has been somewhat of a mystery; his name and origins have been the occasion of contention among different sects, and from very early times different accounts have described him as an Arab, Turk, Kurd or Persian. Some have associated him with the 'Abbasids through the dubious line of Salit b. 'Abd-Allah. Some have gone so far as to make him a descendant of 'Ali, while other legends have made him Iranian as the descendant of Buzurgmihr. His official name, which appears on a coin, was Abd al-Rahman b. Muslim, though some have averred that this was the name given him by the Imam Ibrahim, his original name being something else..." (it is on page 53 if you want to check). You see some legends made him Iranian. This is an excerpt taken from WP:POV page "A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. " Nevertheless, if you have some reliable sources which confirms his Persianity, you are welcome to add them but without an undue weight or assertion.

Finally, I do not have any POV but want to reinforce NPOV. My goal is balancing that section which is full of POV and undue weights. By the way, I am preparing other additions for the old parts. Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iran. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

I have reported your reverts and the edit war here. Bestofmed (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wayiran, you may wish to place Arvand Rud (in particular its talk page) and 1975 Algiers Agreement on your watch list. This in view of the persistent dubious actions of User:Ev. Kind regards, --BF 10:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, sure. --Wayiran (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the text "misrepresent the sources" in your view? --Wayiran (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is explained at Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Avesta (permanent link). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read that, can you please specify exactly what is your problem with the source? The source supports it very well in my view. Are you saying "Arang" was the name of another river and it is unrelated to this Shattalarab, so it should not be covered in this article? --Wayiran (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Iranica does not support that wording. Only snippets of its articles, read in isolation from the rest of the text, can be misinterpreted to say what you propose to add to our article.

In that talk page, Fullstop and I are saying two things:

• We don't really know if the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta was any actual river at all. If it was a real river, it was one located in eastern Iran, the geographical area in which the events of the Avesta are located. So, if it was a real river, it was not the Tigris, and much less so the Shatt al-Arab.
• It appears that, in the Middle Ages, Persian writers identified (either by error or deliberatedly) the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta with real rivers: sometimes with the Tigris, in other ocasions with the Nile, or with the Orontes. That fact is interesting, and can be included in Wikipedia. But it is related to the Tigris (and the Nile, and the Orontes), not to the Shatt al-Arab; thus, it belongs in the article on the Tigris (and the other rivers).

Best, Ev (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring between you and the other user over the external links in Persian Gulf needs to stop, and pronto. Use the discussion page to express your concerns and seek a consensus. You are well on your way to your 3RR limit, and it is in your best interest to realize that you are not going to overpower the other editor with the sheer volume of your reverts. Discussion, and not being obstinate, is going to achieve a lasting edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Wikipedia isn't a place for patriotic pride. Note that I am willing to block your account for any further revert-warring such as this. Per WP:NAME, if you have any evidence that the term "Zand Persian Empire" has any currency in academic literature, or indeed more currency than "Zand dynasry" present it on the article talkpage. In this case, it seems extremely unlikely, compare

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the way it works isn't that you can force editors to prove to you that your favoured term does not exist, the burden lies with you to prove that it does. Any other behaviour falls under WP:DISRUPT and will result in consequences for your account. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bename Khoda,

Dear Wayiran salam and Norouz Mobarak,

I Wish you and your family the best in this new year. Parvazbato59 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear friend. Happy Nowruz to you and your family. --Wayiran (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Also a happy Nowruz to you and your family. Tajik (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Iran's Merit of Excellence
		For your wonderful hard work, persistence, and continuing brilliance on articles relating to Iranian peoples! This is long overdue, mister! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Be Omide ettehad va yekparchegie hameye mellat-ha va Aghvame Irani. Piruz Bashid. --Wayiran (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm not sure what you said; either it is Persian or very Persianized Pashto! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it means, hope for unification of all Iranian origin countries. --Wayiran (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prayer mat. Since you had some involvement with the Prayer mat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ankimai (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfD to get rid of the Prayer mat REDIR so that the article could be renamed back failed. It's now the subject of a Requested move. Please feel free to add your comments. Bazj (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no wandalism and wrong edits about page of Tabriz any more pls no wandalism and wrong edits about page of Tabriz any more pls no wandalism and wrong edits about page of Tabriz any more pls no wandalism and wrong edits about page of Tabriz any more pls no wandalism and wrong edits about page of Tabriz any more pls is it enough to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pournick (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok? You should sign your comments. What are you talking about? --Wayiran (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...merging Who is a Jew? with Jewish identity - plus I noticed the tag didn't come with a Talk Page discussion first... Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]