User talk:Mazdakabedi

Hi, There is a discussion here. Thanks. *** in fact *** (contact) 06:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that you are the person calling himself "Mazdakabadi" (I am astonished that you have made reaching you so difficult and confusing --- what are these different names for? Your texts at the points of redirecting are also extremely confusing!). Any way, I have noticed that you have now changed "Al-Afghani" into "Asadabadi". I am one of the people who has repeatedly fought to change Al-Afghani into Asadabadi, but without success, and I expect that you will also encounter problems before long. I am however not here to tell you this, but to tell you that your transliteration into "Sayyid Jamal-al-din Asadabadi" is just wrong on several fronts. I have already discussed the issue here. Briefly, the name MUST become "Sayyed Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi" (please note the hyphenation). "al-din" is absolutely incorrect, because "D" in "Din" is a Shamsi letter (if you are Iranian, then you must have had for several years Arabic in your school curriculum!). Putting hyphenation between "Jamal" and "al" is also incorrect, aside from being non-standard; as I believe you must know (if you are Iranian), the Arabic article "al" (and here "ad" because of the "D" in "Din") is part of (or refers to) "Din", not of "Jamal"! In short, please go back and change "Jamal-al-din Asadabadi" into what it must be, namely "Jamal ad-Din Asadabadi". As for "Sayyid", personally I prefer "Sayyed" above "Sayyid" because "Asadabadi" was Iranian and in Farsi we pronounce "Sayyed" as "Sayyed", and not as "Sayyid" (but I am not insisting on this). I am very sorry, but I feel deeply frustrated by the fact that you have undertaken to do something so far-reaching on an entry that is consulted by an international readership, without giving serious attention to some basic relevant details. Kind regards, --BF 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ps: I placed the above message first on the talk page of "*** in fact ***", being misled by his/her specific signature. --BF 03:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

سلام دوست عزيز. از آن‌جايی که حدس می‌زنم شما هم فارسی‌زبان باشيد جوابتان را به فارسی می‌دهم.

من هم با شما در مورد نوشتن نام به صورت اد-دين موافقم. منتها من برای اين‌که خيلی بحث ايجاد نشود از نوع نگارشی خود مقاله استفاده کردم که در آن به همين‌صورت -ال-دين آمده بود. همين‌طور در مورد «سَيد» که در فارسی به اين صورت تلفظ می‌شود ولی در عربی نه. به‌هر‌حال اسدآبادی شخصيت بين‌المللی‌ای بود و تلفظ اسمش در هر زبانی متفاوت و فکر می‌کنم برای تغييراتی اين‌چنين بايد يک بخش گفت‌و‌گوی جديد باز شود و نظر‌خواهی کرد. اگر مايليد اين بحث را شما شروع کنيد تا من هم در آن شرکت کنم و ببينيم نظر ديگران در اين زمينه چيست.

با احترام P. Pajouhesh (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Pajouhesh, thank you for your kind response. Very unfortunately, I am going through a very busy period, so that I am not in a position to open any discussion on the subject matter now, or any time soon. However, I can assure you that what I have written above is based on my considerable experience on the subject matter --- I think that by now I have been here in English Wikipedia for some six years; this is over and above the fact that I have given the subject matter under discussion my careful attention (I also am familiar with the relevant literature). I believe that exactly because Asadabadi was an international figure (and we see with our own eyes today that the things he envisaged in his lifetime are becoming reality now -- one of which being the unprecedented friendly and warm relationship that is coming about between Iran and Turkey -- then the Ottoman Empire; with the recent political upheavals in the Middle East, a similar relationship may also come about between Iran and Egypt, also one of the projects of Asadabadi's in his lifetime. Asadabadi did a great deal to bring Iran and Turkey together, but Naser ad-Din Shah did not trust the Ottomans, perhaps rightly; he thought that Ottoman's intention was to marginalize Shi'a Islam, and thereby Iran). Given Asadabadi's significance, a large part of which still latent, it is of utmost importance that we get at least his name right! We owe this both to truth and to people. Consequently, I am absolutely against the transliteration as adopted by you. It is my considered opinion that his name must be written "Sayyed Jamal ad-Din Asasabadi", with the possibility that "Sayyed" be written "Sayyid" (although this is not my preferred option). The fact that only illiterates would pronounce "ad-Din" as "al-Din", and write "al-Din" as "al-din" (with lower-case "d"), is just a compounded disaster for English Wikipedia! It fills me with rage to see "Sayyed Jamal ad-Din Asasabadi" written as "Sayyid Jamal-al-din Asadabadi", for an international audience, with the nonchalance of "به‌هر‌حال اسدآبادی شخصيت بين‌المللی‌ای بود و تلفظ اسمش در هر زبانی متفاوت" --- I feel just unable to convey my rage at seeing such statement as you have made here --- I positively dislike the phrase "به‌هر‌حال", "any way", in the present context. As the people who know better on the subject matter than the rest of the world (Iran's population is roughly just 1% of world's total population and this 1% is responsible to inform the remaining 99% correctly on matters that they know best by the accident of their births), we are not at liberty to be so indifferent to facts as we seem to be. I therefore request you once more kindly to correct the errors that you have introduced. Kind regards, -BF 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Please see this page. -BF 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:BehnamFarid in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you added information to Sami Yusuf, but sourced it to the Arabic Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we can't use content that is sourced to Wikipedia articles, whether that is in English or any other language. It is not a "reliable source". The Wikimedia Foundation has had complaints about improperly sourced material in that article, so we must be particularly careful with it. Since we cannot include biographical detail without a reliable source, I have removed the information you added. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, but blogs are rarely usable, either. See WP:BLPSPS. Somebody has already removed the content; we would need a reliable source to include it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sayyid Jamal-ad-Din Asadabadi. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop reverting and use the talk page. I will be sending the same message to the other editor. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for coming. I always use the Talk page but other side always do what himself believes. I just invite him to discuss in what he add. I'm surely agree with you and tired of this fight. please, Protect that article. Regards. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war. If you have issues with the changes, you can also discuss the problems on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See? He really doesn't want to talk about the article. When anyone invite him to talk, He objects it and does what he believes. He even suspects me! You can judge the condition. It's not his first time. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear friend. I agree with you about what you said. but I have plan to complete these categories in a Month. I just made those for in first step to sorting Iranian writing articles that spread through the Wikipedia. Now, what would I do after this nomination for deletion? Is it possible to stop deletion?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These have been posted on a discussion forum. Please discuss on the deletion discussion forum. Dawynn (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Dhul-Qarnayn. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:IRS. Forums, ask.yahoo, etc. are not acceptable sources by our criteria. Please also read WP:NOR. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts I added are unsourced content? every thing I added has adequate sources.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to read WP:IRS and mentioned a couple of sources you used that aren't acceptable. You need to also read WP:NOR. But now that you ask, your problems are much worse. You have copied from [1] and you can be blocked for WP:COPYRIGHT violations. You also called Pico's edits vandalism, see WP:VANDALISM. That's a misuse of Twinkle and if it happens again you won't be able to use Twinkle. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I even didn't read [2] before! what an unfair warning :( P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm informing you that it is a copyright violation, I'm not blocking you. I am saying that repeatedly inserting it could lead to a block. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God! but I even didn't copy that. I just research and add data with all of my sources linked to the parts. I just wish if I copied that this warning weren't unfair P. Pajouhesh (talk)

On a more positive side, I've just seen your note on Pico's talk page and think is was a positive message showing you want to work with other editors. Shame about using Twinkle that way though. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mazdakabedi. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the article you are looking for --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean that. I meant the article has some POV informations from Bahai believers not an observer's view. This article needs some rewritings.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate where you are coming from. But the "observers' view" would need to be factual and well cited (we don't put our own personal opinions here, after all) - very difficuolt to get right in an encyclopedia article. "Observers" often have a very strong POV of their own, and anyway don't agree among themselves. We have to assume that the believers in a religion are the ones to tell us what they believe (see other articles about religions) - we can after all agree or disagree with those beliefs as we will (it's called freedom of religion). You really have to present the facts (and this article has all the facts, including some that lots of people, even some Baha'is, won't like). Just imagine if we presented Islam from a Christian (or Hindu!) point of view, or Christianity from an Atheist or Jewish angle. Just wouldn't work, would it? Strong criticism of a religion really belongs with the religion of the people making the accusations - for instance Islamophobic rubbish tends to say more about Christian intolerance than it does about Islam. Emotional polemics, in particular, don't belong here - there are plenty of other places for that sort of thing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - if you have a genuine problem with the neutrality of the main Baha'i article then the place to go to is the discussion page for that article. Why not make some specific suggestions for improvements? Who are the "observers" in whose name we should rewrite the article?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I didn't mean it either. I meant that an encyclopedic article have to be on neutralized point of view, not believers neither arch enemies (you linked to political accusations against the Baha'i Faith but there are more about that besides political) which both are POV. We needs NPOV article which it's meaning is clear. Besides, I don't have any problem with you and Baha'is (if you are one of them) so, Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved and after that an admin with neutral (not benefited) point of view will remove the tag. Unfortunately, The way that you remove the tag is going to be an edit fight and it's not good for none of us. Please discuss about this subject on the article's talk page. You can add this tag on Islam if you really believe it's a POV and see what others say.P. Pajouhesh (talk)

I still don't agree that it is anything but "neutral" already - especially when compared to other articles about religions - but let's leave the tag for the moment (at least so far as I am concerned). I would be fascinated to see a rewriting of, say, in the first instance, the lead: in what, from your point of view, would be a more "neutral" point of view. Perhaps you can actually improve the quality of the article? I assume that as you don't have any issues with the Baha'i Faith that you must have studied it at some depth to have been able to form such a strong impression about an article about it. And no - my question about the Islam article was really, do you, yourself feel that it is any more "neutral"? I thought that if you were dispassionate about wanting religious articles to be "neutral" you might wish to look at other articles, and this one in particular, as well. Do YOU think the Islam article could be improved by being re-written from an "outside observer's" point of view?

I do agree that this has gone on quite long enough as a "person to person". There is already a section on the discussion page which I started when I first deleted your tag - perhaps you need to make any further comments there. I think I had better step back anyway, and (as you put it) "see what others say". Best wishes anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pajouhesh, I'm currently blocked on fawiki, so I can't edit there. I noticed that you have changed the university that the 10th poetic meeting was held in, to the Faculty of Engineering of University of Tehran. That's completely false. That meeting was held in Aryamehr University of Technology (now Sharif University of Technology). That poetic meeting was a turning point in Iran's history and many historians believe that the meeting provided the spark for Iranian revolution. Please correct your mistake! Americophile (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear friend. I don't exactly know what is true in this case. As you can see in this changes I just think that the author means that "دانشگاه صنعتی تهران" is "دانشکده فنی دانشگاه تهران"; Because someone said before that "دانشگاه صنعتی تهران" didn't exist. If you believe that the university is "آریامهر" please, hand me by some source for your claim. Thanks. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at "Iran between two revolutions" by "Ervand Abrahamian" and I noticed that the date of meeting is false too. The exact text is:

تا اواخر آبان ۱۳۵۶، فعالیت‌های عمدهٔ مخالفان عبارت بود از: نوشتن نامه، تشکیل گروه‌های جدید، احیای گروه‌های قدیمی و انتشار بیانیه، اعلامیه و روزنامه. اما در اواخر آبان ماه به خیابان‌ها ریختند و مرحلهٔ جدیدی از انقلاب را آغاز کردند. نقطهٔ عطف این مرحله ۲۸ آبان بود. در این روز، پس از برگزاری نه جلسهٔ شب شعر آرام کانون نویسندگان در باشگاه انجمن ایران و آلمان و دانشگاه صنعتی آریامهر (شریف)، پلیس کوشید تا جلسهٔ دهم را که حدود ۱۰٬۰۰۰ دانشجو -ظرفیت کامل محل برگزاری مراسم- در آن شرکت داشتند، برهم بزند. به دنبال این اقدام، ناگهان جمعیتی خشمگین از دانشگاه بیرون ریختند و شعارهای ضد رژیم سر دادند. در جریان درگیری تظاهرکنندگان با پلیس، یک دانشجو کشته، بیش از هفتاد نفر زخمی و حدود یکصد نفر دستگیر شدند. در ده روز بعدی نیز تهران شاهد تظاهرات بیشتر دانشجویی و بسته شدن دانشگاه‌های اصلی شهر در اعتراض به خونریزی ۲۸ آبان بود. همچنین، در طول هفتهٔ بعد، دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های مهم کشور به مناسبت ۱۶ آذر -روز غیر رسمی دانشجو- دست به اعتصاب زدند و تظاهرکنندگان دستگیر شده در ناآرامی‌های گذشته، پس از محاکمه‌های کوتاه در داگاه‌های مدنی، تبرئه شدند. این محاکمه‌ها به مردم نشان داد که ساواک دیگر نمی‌تواند از دادگاه‌های نظامی برای ارعاب مخالفان استفاده کند. بدین ترتیب ثابت شد که سیاست تعدیل نظارت و گسترش فضای باز سیاسی نه یک مسکن سیاسی بلکه محرکی نیرومند بوده‌است.^[1]

You can read about that meeting in Iranian Revolution article on fawiki. Thanks. Americophile (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 623.

It seems that the article still has lots of contradictions and wrong content. I try to improve them after return. Thanks very much. Americophile (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) P. Pajouhesh (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. We should not accept wrong information just for the sake of "consensus". The Encyclopaedia Iranica is an authoritative academic source. This is like claiming that Abraham Lincoln was a Mexican only because this or that source make such a claim. There cannot be a consensus with factually wrong information. This is not a disputed subject among scholars but a disputed subject about Wikipedians who have no understanding of the subject and do not understand the difference between trash found in Google or real academic power sources. Al-Afghani was not an Afghan, period. He only took that name for political and strategic reasons (the same way Lawrence of Arabia was not an Arab!). --Lysozym (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know these. Anyway, If any edit war happened on that subject, it's up to you. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your recent contributions in Abu Musa, but I couldn't find any of the added contents in your reference. Can you please explain about it? ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Mehran, I copied that reference from Persian Wikipedia on the phrase that say about this claim, but I think this reference is the same reference as the second one that I added, which is a book in Persian.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cyrus the great - horns.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't creat this file but i know who did it. I take it from WikiFa that the creator worked on it. But unfortunately He is not active in wikipedia any longer. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The license on WikiFa is invalid - it translates to "The creator (s) died more than 50 years ago" - he did not, he died in 1999. The image is still in copyright. Sadly, other wikipedias are not so good at the copyright checking that you will find on en-wiki and commons.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who is responsible for it's copyright, but the original book is written by Abul Kalam Azad who died in 1958. Anyway, you deleted it.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abu Musa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ' Documents on the Persian Gulf's name: the eternal heritage of ancient time Author:Ajam, Muḥammad.]]'',</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - BilCat (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Faramarz Soleimani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.caroun.com/Literature/Iran/Poets/FaramarzSoleimani/FaramarzSoleimani.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brustopher (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, that clashes continue in many parts of Syria is not an indicator the offensive (this one military operation) is ongoing. Just means the war is ongoing. Also, I don't see what clashes taking place in totally separate provinces of eastern and central Syria have anything to do with this operation (in northwest Syria), which was mostly focused on the provincial border between Hama and Idlib. Second, it was not I that put the expression stalemate, instead it was another editor from before who put it, I simply reinserted it since someone seemed to remove it without explanation. However, I in part agree the expression may not be the most appropriate for the end-result of the offensive, and indecisive might be a better term. Third, again, it was not I who used the expressions pause and restart, instead it was again another editor, and I in fact removed those expressions. This is because, like you said, that editor did not provide any sources to indicate that the limited advance by the Army that took place yesterday was a restart of the offensive. The last confirmed organised operations as part of the northwest offensive took place on 10 November, thus its been almost a month since than. If anything, what took place yesterday is part of a new and separate operation. We cann't lump two military operations into one unless we got sources indicating they are one and the same. EkoGraf (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: They are the same operation from the begining because all of them start in the same period in north, from Alepp in north to Homs in south, from Lattakia in west to Palmyra in east. It's not a matter of territory changes as happend in Alepp. It's about continuation of operations. If you following SOHR from the beginning of this North Offensive you can see every day heavy clashes that some result in territory changes and some don't but it's continued and still don't cool up. So, It's not finished and still continued. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are lumping several different offensives/operations into one and calling it the same operation (without sources to confirm). The Hama/Idlib offensive, Aleppo offensive, Homs offensive and Latakia offensive are all four separate offensives for which we have separate articles. And they did not all start at the same time. Hama/Idlib early October, Aleppo mid-October, Homs early November, Latakia mid-November. At the moment, the Aleppo, Homs and Latakia offensives are still ongoing (as per sources provided). However, there are no sources indicating the Hama/Idlib is ongoing. That there are continues clashes in the area is not an indicator the operation continues. There were continues clashes in that area for the previous four years, and there will be in the coming future still. Its only an indication of usual frontline skirmishes and that the war continues, not that the offensive continues. There were NO territory changes on the Hama/Idlib frontline for more than three weeks before yesterday's limited advance, and no source to state that what happened yesterday is part of the same operation. In any case, I will, for the moment, not make a revert of your revert of me. Instead, I will wait for a few days to see if there are any more advances or sources surface that confirm what is taking place is indeed part of the same offensive, because Wikipedia is based on verifiability. I hope you keep up your diligent work on Wikipedia and that we can make more progressive discussions in the future. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: You made 2 mistake or misunderstanding in your reasoning: 1. Active operation is not equal to Territory changes. There are 3 different situation: Active operation with fast result, Active operation with few result, Stalemate. You think when there's no fast territory change, its the end of operation. but according to SOHR every day from the beginning of these operations in Homs & Hama The Regim try to capture some cities from IS & Jaish al-Fath.

2. This page is not about an operation. It's about a wave that start after a year of Regime retreat. Lattakia operation, Alepp oeration, Dar'a operation, Homs operation... in 2015 are operations but this page is about "Northwestern Syria offensive" and it's not Finished, Paused or even Stalemated. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you seem to be missunderstanding what the subject of this article is. This article is about the "Northwestern Syria offensive". ONE offensive/operation. Not any wave. And as the sourced lead of the article explains, The primary objective is to seal off the northern Hama border with Idlib and "build a buffer-zone around the city of Khan Sheikhoun". Also, the article, per sources, clearly explains this offensive was primarily focused on the Hama/Idlib border and not Daraa, Homs, Latakia, Aleppo, etc., for which we have SEPARATE articles. And SOHR at no point states that the offensive is ongoing. SOHR only reports on continues frontline clashes that were taking place long before the offensive was launched and will take place long after the offensive ends. SOHR at no point states the current clashes in Hama/Idlib are part of a active operation or for that matter of this specific offensive. Saying the offensive is ongoing without providing sources that clearly state that is considered unsourced OR (Original Research). Also, for the second time, it was not me who used the terms paused or stalemated. The wave you are referring to is actually the new phase of the Syrian civil war, which is covered in this section Syrian Civil War#Russian intervention and government offensive (30 September 2015 – mid-November 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are still insisting the offensive is ongoing, than please provide sources that confirm both that and that the current clashes are part of the offensive. For now, sources only confirm that there are clashes, not that they are part of an offensive. If you do provide sources I will gladly reverse my opinion. Cheers. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: I think it's clear that Offensive is not equal to Operation as you did. I used "wave" to interpret the difference between them. I'm not in a position to introduce an new phrase in this matter. As I said, this article isn't about any specific operation. It's about a change in Syrian Civil War Chess Board that The Regime change it's retreat condition with help of massive presence of Iran, Hezbullah, Iraqi Militant and Russian Jets to Offensive. It's not a single operation. It's contain several operations in different areas; Aleppo offensive (October 2015 – present), 2015 Latakia offensive, Palmyra offensive, Homs offensive, Hama offensive. Besides, when clashes are continuing and frontlines are Hot it's the one who claim that it's finished that must shows sources, not the one who says it's still active. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will tell this one last time. This article is NOT about a change in Syrian Civil War Chess Board, this article is about a specific military offensive as the name of the article states (in the Hama/Idlib area) and as the sourced lead of the article describes. This article does not deal in any way with the Aleppo offensive, the Latakia offensive or the Homs offensive for which (stating for the third time) we have totally separate articles. As for your comment that offensive is not equal to operation I will refer you to Wikipedia's definition of the meaning of the word Offensive (military) which states An offensive is a military operation.... And for the third time, clashes taking place that are no different from any others that took place over the previous four years in this conflict is no indication whatsoever that the offensive is ongoing unless there is a source that concretely states these clashes are linked to a specific offensive (or this one in particular). If you do not have a source stating the offensive that was started in early November in the Hama/Idlib area (which is the subject of the article) is still ongoing or that these clashes are part of that offensive than what you are doing is considered unsourced OR by Wikipedia and it is prohibited. I would advise you in all good faith to read WP policy on this issue here Wikipedia:SYNTH. EkoGraf (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: It's funny. I linked some source in my previous comment and you still insisting on your claims. Besides, as I said before when clashes are continuing and frontlines are Hot it's the one who claim that it's finished that must shows sources, not the one who says it's still active. You insisting that the operation is over, finished without any sources that says so. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources you linked [3] talks about events taking place as part of the Homs offensive (November 2015) (for which we have a separate article), and not about any events as part of the Northwest Syria offensive. The second source [4] talks about clashes in the Talbiseh/Rastan pocket, north of Homs, which is unrelated to the Northwest Syria offensive (Hama/Idlib front) and makes no mention of any offensive taking place. The third source [5] does refer to clashes on the Hama/Idlib front, but does not state they are part of an offensive and in fact makes no mention of an ongoing offensive in that area. So, two of the three sources have nothing to do with the Hama/Idlib front, while the third makes no mention of an offensive taking place. EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Of course they didn't. Would you expect they do? SOHR is an event-by-event site and in every report they just talking about recent events on specific provinces. Besides, I'm repeating it again from my previous comment: as I said before when clashes are continuing and frontlines are Hot it's the one who claim that it's finished that must shows sources, not the one who says it's still active. You insisting that the operation is over or finished without any sources that says so. Do you have any reliable sources that says this offensive is over? P. Pajouhesh (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they didn't. So you in fact confirm the sources you presented make no mention of an offensive, thus your claim they are part of an offensive is unsourced. Your constant interpretation of what the sources may imply is considered a violation per WP: OR and WP: Synth which is prohibited. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Unless the sources confirm there is an ongoing offensive we consider it to be done and over. You have obviously not had much interaction with Syrian civil war-related articles. For the most part, there are never sources that declare an offensive to be over, only ones that declare the start of one. Due to this, editors here have an understanding that when a battle/offensive/operation has had no news for a period of 3-4 weeks we consider it to be done and close the said operation article. This had been the established template on which Syria editors have been working on for the past four years. EkoGraf (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: I think jou stuck in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I DIDN'T CREAT THIS PAGE. THIS OFFENSIVE STARTED. THIS OFFENSIVE STILL CONTINUING. THERE'S NO SOURCES THAY SAYS IT'S FINISHED. YOU HAVE NO SOURCE FOR YOUR CLAIM.. If you have any source that says this offensive is finished, go on. But if you don't have, You are the one who do WP:OR. I've Done. Please, Stop replying me. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard everything you said and responded to everything you said in a calm manner. Please refrain from yelling at me which is not in accordance with WP: Civil. And I attempted to bring this discussion to a close two times about 3-4 messages ago but you continued to send me messages. Your sources make no mention of an offensive and your personal interpretations are a violation of WP: Synth. We are done, if you will not engage in any constructive dialogue please do not send me any more messages. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: It's really laughable. I'm sure you heared. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the heads-up on the new article. I was actually thinking of creating it. :) EkoGraf (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mazdakabedi

Sorry for this edit. I had not realised that you had just rearranged the things. To me it looked like you had deleted the text. I apologise for my mistake.
F4d3d123 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the category "Anti-transsexualism feminists" for renaming or deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#NEW_NOMINATIONS I've only found one use of the phrase as a category of feminists outside of Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an attack. It's a category that documented in Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended to make a subjective and disparaging categorization of its subject, and isn't compatible with categorization policy and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. we have "Category:Anti-prostitution feminists" as well. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User, If you repeat act like this I will report your act on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardModern Sciences (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be so happy if you do it right now. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I will report in both wikis your vandalismModern Sciences (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you even don't know what vandalism is, Dear Friend. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mazdakabedi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mazdakabedi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short version of my regular sermon: when you are reverted you should NEVER revert back, even if you are sure to be right, but discuss the matter on the article talk page. (WP:BRD) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mazdakabedi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your citation because they’re poorly sourced, please translate your source title into English, everybody do that, why you can’t? And I’m sure that most people on English Wikipedia can’t read that language. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you recent edit on the template, you changed the title and url of the reference, but you didn’t change the publisher name, and in the translated title you simply changed the numbers. This is not the way to do it. I checked with Google Translate and the title is totally different. If you have a new source, please create a new citation and replace the old citation entirely. If you insist to use the old citation code, change all the related parameters applicable (date, title, trans-title, url, publisher/work, access-date), don’t be lazy. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]