User talk:علی ویکی

• Welcome!

Hello, علی ویکی, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I escalate an issue?

Can you please advise regarding the user Suenahrme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism He/She is destroying the formatting and posting derogatory information. I have already undo his/her vandals twice. I have also posted a message on his/her talk page asking not to do it again. Can you please advise me on who should be contacted to block the user. Who is the administrator for that page? Xareen (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For showing me how to use my talk page. Xareen (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Woodrow W. Keeble has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remind. I'm sorry for that unwanted edit.علی ویکی (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey - Korea cultural relation

Hello, I leaved a reply to your question in Korean community page as below

The Turk influenced a bit to ancient Korea(고구려, see Goguryeo) as Göktürks, but it doesn't mean Korea culture belongs to the Tükish. Actually, they can be described as radically different. --Naturehead (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Korea was splitted in 3 countries around 6th century, only Goguryeo had a good relationship with Türk, and the country that unified 3 countries to one is Silla, not Goguryeo. So the present Korea culture was almost uninfluenced by Goguryeo culture. And as I know on, Goguryeo is not Türkish country. --Naturehead (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I am not a turk, please notice! Afraasiaab were a Turk Hero and his original Turkic name were Alpertunga (Refer to:Al Kashgari's Diwan) and afraasiaab is not persian name but is muarrab or arabized form of Alpertunga. Ferdowsi, first Persian poet, belived that Turks and Turanians were same(Refer to: Shahnameh of Ferdowsi). Some scholars believed that even Sumerians and Mesopotamia's first civilisations origin were from asianic peoples or Turk related or prototurk peoples, and they derived hundreds similiar prototurkic and Sumerian words; For example Sumerian's god were Tengri and protourks god were Tengring (tangri in todays Turkistan variants or Tanri in Turkish and eastern Turkic languages (refer to Russian scientist Olzhas Suleimenov's AZ-i-IA book or Homel's books)). Persians destroyed middle east most civilisations and after the Achaemenians attacked Mesopotamia, all old civilisations such as babylon, Assyria, Elam ,Akkad and so were cleaned from human history and totly destroyed their culture, their deep civilisation, and killed all their oppressed peoples. This event is known as Purim Genocide in Torah. Greeks referred to persians as berbers and the 300 movie is based on this belief. Old Turks referred to Persians as Tat that its meaning were berber and uncivilised peoples (Refer to: Al Kashgari's Diwan) and Arabs referes as Ajam to Persians in that meaning, even todays. Todays, there are no Persian in world and peoples in Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan that say their selves persian are from mixed race. Persian Iranians that makes max. 25 percent of population of Iran are mostly from Arab, Turk, Greek, Armenian, indian and a little old persian peoples mixing and genetic testing have proved this fact. Tajiks living in Afghanistan and Tjikistan are mostly Turks and Indians that speak persian and genetic testing have proved this fact too. Thus Persian people is a wrong word to refer to that peoples and the correct word is Persian speaking people. 70 percent of todays persian vocabularies are Arabic(mostly entered after Islamic era) and also 10 to 15 percent are Turkic (before and after Islamic era) and Turkic languages, in addition to influencing the vocabularies, affected grammar of persian.Arattaman (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleaaaase answer my question. It's gonna kill me!!!

Salam, how do you do brother? :D

Man tooye "Revision history"e maqaleye hazrate Narjis khatun didam ke zaheran to in tikka ro ezafe kardi ke: "and the grand-daughter of Bardas (The Byzantine regent)."

In kheyli, kheyli, kheyli baram mohemme ke bedunam ino az koja avordi (ke ishoon naveye Bardas boode). Ya'ni referencesh kojast.

"Vaghean" bi sabrane montazere javabetam

Ishalla pir shi nane! :D

P.S. Age ettelaate digei (darbareye pedar va madare ishoon) ham dari lotfan begu. Vali reference kheyli baram mohemme.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.68 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 

سلام. از دیدگاه تاریخی نرگس خاتون نوهٔ بارداس و یا تئوفیلوس و یا میخائیل سوم است و در پایگاه حوزه ایشان نوه بارداس معرفی شده. ببینید

[1] Aliwiki (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

سلام
واقعا از لطفت ممنونم
مقاله حوزه.نت متاسفانه خیلی دقیق نیست...ا
از نظر تاریخی هم حضرت نرگس نمیتونه نوه تئوفیلوس یا میخائیل سوم باشه، چون نوه نداشتن ودر سنین 29 و 27 سالگی مردن
از نظر سنی فقط میخائیل دوم و بارداس (که به مقام سزاری رسیده بوده) میتونستن نوه داشته باشن...ا
اسیر شدن ایشون هم نمیتونه بعداز کودتای باسیل باشه چون از نظر تاریخی دیره، فقط یک سال قبل از میلاد حضرت صاحبه...ا
خلاصه...! سرتو درد نیارم!ا
بازم ممنون
خداییش فکر نمیکردم تحویل بگیری!ا

اگه چیز جدیدی داشتی خوشحال میشم بدونم

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.68 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

سلام دوباره. من هم شخص بارداس را پدربزرگ نرگس خاتون میدانم. اما متاسفانه منبع انگلیسی ندارم Aliwiki (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

abu bakr

Hi ali wiki. Please keep sunni and shia views about abu bakr in seperate paragraphs since they are conflicting. Thanks. Anas chaaban (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi my friend, I am doing so, the problem is that you are using Sunni's reference for the body of the article and when I am using a Shia reference, you want to put it in Shia section, which is unacceptable for me.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro is now split into 3 parts: general intro, sunni views, and shia views. Please insert shia views with shia references in the shia paragraph without removing the sunni views paragraph. General intro contains references from general references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas chaaban (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by General reference? you are using Sunni's references and call it genera? My references are viewed to be Islamic references (see al-Islam.org). Stop such these behaviour please and try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannica and princeton are what i meant with general (neutral) ref. If you think these are not neutral then what is? You are also completely removing sunni views that are with references from the paragraph on sunni views while I am leaving shia views but only putting them is a separate paragraph!!! Please leave conflicting views seperated in seperate paragraphs, and leave the intro neutral. Thanks Anas chaaban (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You have misunderstood some points. First, The warning of user Cirt was about another article, and also I answered him here. Second, I confess Idid 4 revert while being aware of 3rr policy. The point was that I discussed the matter on the talk page of the article before reverting, but the other two users continued their previous behavior without discussing on talk page (please check this fact.). User supertouch misused POV policy, while I warned him about this, and I told him if he believes any of my sentence is POV, he must discuss it and delete it from the whole article, not move it to other section. The only problem has occurred on the article is just ownership,and one will understand this easily if have a fast look to the references of this article, the main sources are weblogs, OR of Sunnis book and websites, and they don't accept any other source by saying westerns orientalists are shiite affected [2]. I kindly ask you to have a fair judgement. 24 hours is not long time for blocking and this is not why I am insisting to be unblocked, the reason is that I have always respected Wikipedia policies, and I don't like my respectful behavior be marred with blocking. (check my behavior in case of user Cirt warning here and compare it to others who are involved in that discussion.) --Aliwiki (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption to Portal:Islam/Intro

• You appear to be involved in disruption and conflict at the page Islam. Please do not make changes to Portal:Islam/Intro, until fully resolved there, first. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. First I'll deal with in Islam page, then in Portal. Thanks for informing.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علی ویکی for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes for the false accusation. I explained the reasons why I believed it was a sockpuppetry case. I have been editing for a long time in wikipedia, and there were several accounts in which two or more accounts assisted in the discussion, all being sockpuppets. I have lost so much time for such discussions, and at the end sockpuppets confirmed. I thought it was also such a case. Again, please accept my sincere apologizes for making a false accusation and creating a disturbance for you. Cabolitæ (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

• Please stop your disruption at Portal:Islam/Intro, as you have done, again, here [3]. From a quick look at the history of the article Islam, there is still disruption there. Please resolve your issues at that talk page, first. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abu Bakr. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to [4]. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wiqi - talk 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Uthman ibn Affan. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Then that same rule would be much more appropriately applied to your own edits: [5], [6], [7] and [8], for example. Those in glass houses... Also, if we compare my edits and yours, the bid difference is that I am simply moving your additions to the appropriate place on the page while you are entirely removing mine. I see you are having difficulty remaining objective while overcome by your zealotry. Supertouch (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uthman ibn Affan. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Supertouch (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring at Uthman ibn Affan. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

علی ویکی (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

at 20:36, after making this comment on talk page, I restored the edit of user supertouch here, and before it I infromed him about his false behavior [9] and here. Then user Ewpfpod did this edit without paying any attention to the talk page and I warned him here and reverted his edit. Now who is guilty? Have a look to these edit summaries could be helpful [10] (also the editor didn't pay attention to talk page), [11], [12]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM and try again.  Sandstein  07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Let me outline the reasons for which I placed this block:

1. You were just barely avoiding 3RR, which you are aware of because Cirt warned you a few weeks ago, at which time you were also warned about edit warring in general. 4 reverts within 28 hours and 3 minutes is close enough that I would lean towards block rather than not.
2. No other editor had made more than 2 reverts within that timeframe (Supertouch has now given his third revert, which I'm none too happy about, but even if it were within 24h, it would not be a 3RR violation).
3. You made no attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Rather, you template warned one for WP:OWN [13] (which is in fact a rather useless action - WP:TEMPLAR), and your attempt to talk on the other's talk page [14] was more of a warning than civil attempt to discuss the issue - there was no expected give on your part in it, only take. Granted, the other editors had this issue as well, and I'm going to leave a warning on Supertouch's talk page for it.
4. You were edit warring against two different users. When an editor edit wars to give a minority point of view, it makes the other issues I've mentioned just stick out all the worse.

Either I or an administrator will likely be willing to unblock you if you can respond and address these issues and show contrition (see WP:GAB). However, if you refuse to admit any fault on your end or refuse to stop edit warring, you will not be unblocked. Keep in mind we're not worried about what the other editors did wrong (I've already said I thought the one could have handled it better - but his level of fault didn't rise to the same level, as explained). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

علی ویکی (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks for your comment. You have misunderstood some points. First, The warning of user Cirt was about another article, and also I answered him here. Second, I confess Idid 4 revert while being aware of 3rr policy. The point was that I discussed the matter on the talk page of the article before reverting, but the other two users continued their previous behavior without discussing on talk page (please check this fact.). User supertouch misused POV policy, while I warned him about this, and I told him if he believes any of my sentence is POV, he must discuss it and delete it from the whole article, not move it to other section. The only problem has occurred on the article is just ownership,and one will understand this easily if have a fast look to the references of this article, the main sources are weblogs, OR of Sunnis book and websites, and they don't accept any other source by saying westerns orientalists are shiite affected [15]. I kindly ask you to have a fair judgement. 24 hours is not long time for blocking and this is not why I am insisting to be unblocked, the reason is that I have always respected Wikipedia policies, and I don't like my respectful behavior be marred with blocking. (check my behavior in case of user Cirt warning here and compare it to others who are involved in that discussion.)

Decline reason:

None of what you say detracts from the fact that you were edit-warring. You are also continuing to fail to fully take WP:NOTTHEM onboard. You accuse others of "ownership", but you yourself show signs of the same tendency, seeming to think you can instruct others what to do in the article, and accusing others who disagree with you of "vandalism", even though there appears no reason to doubt that they were acting in good faith. It is certainly true that others have not behaved impeccably, and it is also true that you have expressed your view both on the article's talk page and on at least one user's talk page, but neither of those facts makes it alright to persist in repeatedly imposing your own version of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Regarding Ogre's displeasure with my revert, while I respect that, let's keep in mind that I violated no policy in so doing. As for WikiAli's claim that he utilized the talk page of the article in question, well one paragraph claiming his edits are historically objective is is not at all sufficient if not deceptive. True I only commented on the talk page after WikiAli initiated his edit war, but to me, his edits were a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially undue as well as simply not being introductory material. True I should have expressed this on the talk page earlier. Also, the ease with which WikiAli accuses other user's of policy violations seems borderline policy violation in itself. If you look at my comments on the talk page of the Uthman article you see some of the deceptive means WikiAli utilizes to get his point across. Claiming the Bodley material is neutral, for example when he simply found it on Shia propaganda site which he neglected to mention is an example of that deception. Claiming the material he has added belongs in the lede because it is of a historical nature is also misleading, because it is nothing but his own POV.Supertouch (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Qutaybah

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [16]).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi friend. I am thankful for your useful information.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 part II

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aisha. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

حال و احوال

سلام آقا علی تو ویکیفا که خبری اطت نیست مگر اینجا بتونیم پیدات کنیم. خلاصه وقت کردی یه سری هم به ما بزن :)--Arash (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

مخلصم آرش جان خیلی خوشحال شدم که هنوز یادم اوطرف زندست.. یک سری کار مهم هست که باید اینجا انجام بدم, تمام بشه ایشااله زود میام اونطرف.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

thoughts?

I've not made my mind up on this AfD, but thought it might interest you -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 500 Most Influential Muslims--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aisha. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you have cast me as the villain in your drama, but I thought I would make a final effort to communicate. It is possible to make improvements to the article, and that is our goal, but it requires us to work together. If you would make a specific suggestion for improvement on the talkpage, focused on a single item in the body of the article, then all the editors involved can discuss it and come to agreement. Simply adding masses of disputed text to the article will not work.

If you pick one subject that you feel should be included, make a specific suggestion, and provide sources, then there can useful discussion leading to improvement in the article. For example, if you feel that the article should include information that Aisha once had 600 Muslims beheaded, make that suggestion on the talkpage. Tell us what text you think should be added and why, then give your sources and references. You're not being persecuted and there is no cabal; this is how editors work together on controversial subjects. Good luck to you, Doc Tropics 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali! Please avoid adding/modifying anything to Aisha article before adding anything I have initiated discussion for analyzing material & resources there are at present in the article. I think based on logic of main article & lead nobody will have to worry about lead in near future. For more detail please refer Talk:Aisha--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad and Doc Tropics, thanks to both of you. Hope we can improve the article together.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, علی ویکی. You have new messages at Doc Tropics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Ali! Thanks for your cooperation (& understanding WP policies & working accordingly), hopefully, now you must have understood that how easy it's for everybody if you work according to rules. I'll be on wiki-break this weekend (fri-sat-sun) and will be active by minimum capacity during next two weeks (due to Muharram activities in my real life). If you are active meanwhile can you have watch on article Aisha, it's talk & temp and ANI entry related to IK. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mohammad, thank you. Don't worry, I'll do so during your absence.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, happy editing. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran ‎ declined speedy

No more disparagement than any other "Racism in . . ." article. Well referenced and in neutral tone. You might want to try WP:AFD.21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, علی ویکی. You have new messages at Dlohcierekim's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Progress!

Thanks for your participation at Talk:Aisha and all the material you have added there. I have read much, but not yet all, of what you posted. I see several items that we can expect to include, after we work out the details of the where the information should appear and how to phrase it. FaizHaider's suggestion that we call one "The Story of the Hungry Goat" made me laugh, but some of the details you brought to light there are important: I think we should include the information about Aisha gathering the peoples' stories and reports so that "The Story of the Hungry Goat" and "The Story of the Deleted Verses" make more sense to the reader. I'll try to add more responses on the talkpage tomorrow, but there are several points being discussed, so feel free to start a new section if something gets missed. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much my friend. There is no deadline, so we shouldn't be worried. My job for Aisha will be providing references, and you and Faizhaidar can read good contents with your perfect English. Thank again.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Uesrbox + language usage

May I recommend use of Wikipedia:Babel userboxes on your userpage so you can identify to the rest of us how proficient you are in English and also which languages are your strongest? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your recommendation. I know Persian, English, and Italian languages.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

فهرست شاهان ایران List of kings of Persia

سلام علی جان. علت حذف براکت ها از جانب بنده اعتراض یکی از کاربران خارجی به این همه لینک قرمز رنگ بود. همان طور که خودت دیدی این فهرست ها را اکثراً خود من در طول یکی دو سال گذشته نوشته ام. واقعاً قصد دارم که در فرصتی مناسب مقاله های مربوط را بنویسم. ولی اولاً در یکی دو کوشش اولم دیدم که متأسفانه مقاله هایم به سرعت حذف شد. علی الخصوص وقتی که از فرمت پیشنهادی خود ویکی استفاده کردم این اتفاق سریعتر افتاد. این مشکل با کمال تأسف در قسمت پارسی ویکی بدتر بود. به طوریکه مقاله هایی که در بخش انگلیسی نوشتم و باقی ماند، ترجمه اش در بخش پارسی به سرعت حذف شد!! در ثانی چون مشغله من زیاد است و فرصت کافی برای این کار نداشته ام، فعلاً این کار معطل مانده است. برای همین و برای کاهش حجم مقاله فهرست شاهان ایران و نیز رفع اعتراض مذکور براکت ها را حذف کردم. با این حال اگر شما و دوستان دیگر موافق با برگردنداندن لینک های غیر فعال هستید، من مشکلی با این کار ندارم. موفق باشید و پیروز. Maziargh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Adding more rebuttals to "Criticism of Twelver Shiism"

Greetings, I completely agree that the Criticisim article should include any rebuttals made from the Shia side, or if no explicit rebuttals are made, at least clearly explain why the Shia practice said criticised custom/belief, in order to make the Shia side clear. The article prior to deletion had clear rebuttals in two sections, but I agree it should be possible to add them to all sections. If you are in support of restoring the article for improvement, I'd appreciate it if you'd post such below my discussion on the Admin's board. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam

In the articles Five Pillars of Islam and Islam you are removing 6 major sources and replacing information without proper sources. The quotes you present in the articles are from an unreliable source. The 5 pillars are 1. shahadah, 2. Salah, 3. Sawm, 4. Zakat, 5. Hajj [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Please don't remove this very important information. If Shias believe in more pillars that may be addressed after this, in the end. The way you present the information is very confusing, readers cannot follow it.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You are the subject of an ANI posting

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Five Pillars of Islam. Thank you. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, علی ویکی. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lead for Kurdish people

Lead already contains information about Iranian classification of Kurdish language. Furthermore, this information is included in multiple places throughout the remaining sections of the page, such as Kurdish language section, where this is information is far more suitable. Wikipedia has a strict policy against redundancy in its Content guidelines. Please refer to guidelines. The additional information included in the new lead that Kurds are indigenous to the Middle East is verified by multiple credible sources, three of which are cited in the page's lead. A Google search for this information turns up several thousand results. Removing relevant information that include citations/references is against Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your participation.

Again, the information is still redundant. The information about which I am considering redundant is contained in the lead itself. The lead already mentions that the linguistic relation of the languages spoken by the Kurdish people as Iranian and this does not need to mentioned twice in the same lead of the article. Furthermore, this is also not appropriate as the opener of the lead of an article about the Kurdish people since it is specifically about the language of the Kurdish people, and does not take other aspects into consideration. Again, please refer to Wikipedia's policy against redundancy in the content section of the guidelines. Sharisna (talk) 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's Ethnicity

I don't understand why you undid my edit on Rumi's ethnicity. Rumi came from a region (Balkh) with a native population "Tajiks"; although all these people were called "Persian" at the time, but today they are called "Tajik" (even though they are part of Persian people, but that's what they are called today). Both ethnicities Persian and Tajik must be used to avoid confusion; otherwise it looks as if their cultural heritage is being stolen. Artacoana 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the Rumi's talk page, our decision is based on sources' contents.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the required sources and I explained who Tajiks are. People like Rumi and Avicenna came from people who are called "Tajik" today (even though they were called Persians at that time). It's not self-interpretation, it's a common sense. It's more obvious that your edits are in biased way and looks as if you are stealing the cultural heritage of the people whom Rumi came from.--Artacoana (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ali aziz, when you use ethnicity and origin, then you should use a term which doesn't create confusion. Today Tajiks of Afghanistan and Tajikistan are called Tajik and not Persian. Even though they are part of Persian people, but the term Tajik is applied formally to refer to these people. A good example is the German priest Martin Luther who lived in a time when his homeland (today's Germany) was called Holy Roman Empire. He is known as a German priest and not as a Roman. Another good example is Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer who lived during Prussian rule, but he is known as a Polish astronomer and not Prussian. When you say Rumi or Avicenna were ethnically Persian, then most people (not everyone knows the history of Persian empire) think they must have originated from Iran (with today's geographic boundaries). I have seen many Iranians who do believe that Rumi and Avicenna only belongs to Iran, as a result of this confusion. Furthermore, since the eleventh century, the term Tajik has been applied by the Turks to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan (Encyclopaedia Iranica: TAJIK i. THE ETHNONYM: ORIGINS AND APPLICATION). Therefore, both terms of "Persian" and "Tajik" should be used to refer to these people to avoid confusion. This is a common sense and I've added references to the definition of Tajik. Further sources are not needed.--Artacoana (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, علی ویکی. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2011

An image or media file has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of these images will be considered vandalism, and shall be treated as such. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Marcus Qwertyus 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avicenna. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear here - I've declined the page protection because I'm not going to favor one of these warring parties over the other. The next reversion at that article, regardless of who does it, and I'll block all three of you for WP:3RR violations because you're all over the limit. KrakatoaKatie 04:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please pay more attention. My edits on Avicenna are related to two disticnt subject. See the talk page to verify.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Leakingisgood

hey sorry for calling your edit stupid. i just feel bad -leakingisgood

This was on your userpage. He seems to be lost. Marcus Qwertyus 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Avicenna has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Avicenna, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Yourself (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit, so I'm revising the change so that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] refers to the US administration point of view and not a statement of fact.
The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Current wording

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union." --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

Hope you will find this one is a true improvement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fathites and whatnot

Hello, just following up on your comments from WP:ISLAM. I dug into it, and found out that Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Aftah was a (highly disuputed) alleged son of Abdullah al-Aftah ibn Ja'far al-Sadiq. Of that minority that supported Abdullah's imamate (made an article for them, Fathites), apparently an even smaller minority believed that Abdullah had a child somewhere carrying on the imamate, though pretty much everyone else thought the kid was made-up. I added a ref to the article so it can be preserved, and I also added to the Succession template for Ja'far al-Sadiq to indicate that it was actually a three way split between his sons Abdullah, Musa, and Ismail for the succession. I recognise the Fathites didn't get far, but I think it's worth noting as a defunct schism. I'll add the same infobox for Abdullah and Muhammad, identifying them as the imams of ever-shrinking factions. On that note, any reason I shouldn't move Abdullah al-Aftah ibn Ja'far al-Sadiq to Abdullah al-Aftah since there's nobody of similar name to distinguish him from? The "ibn" just adds a lot of bulk. Just thought you might find all this interesting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nowruz

Jashn-e Nowruz Shomaa Piruz Baad. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Iranian scientist

Independent of my more recent change regarding the fringe idea of Persian origin, it has been explained to you earlier that the category Iranian scientist is the parent category of Persian chemist, and thus redundant. Why are you reverting it, is it not clear to you ? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n&action=historysubmit&diff=434426070&oldid=434328813 Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not independent, but dependent to your recent changes.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Independent, just like I removed it from Alhazen which is painfully over-categorized. Next time, pls read the edit summary. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent deletions

Hi Ali Wiki

You recently deleted some hard researched info from the page Amu Darya. I maintain and keep watch on that page. When I saw the deletions and that too without any justified reasons given I was about to report the user for wanton vandalism. Then I noticed it was you and you have such a long history of contributions to Wikipedia. I am stunned. Why would you remove such hard researched material.

I myself put that info after months of research on Amu Darya in addition to references to Amu Darya in the Ahadith and in Hebrew literature. It was 3-4 months of hard work.

I will consider it as an unintentional mistake and wont report it, but please be considerate of the hard work of others just as you have yourself contributed to wikipedia. Take care.

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi, well about thise deletions, I request that you leave them be and not delete them. It is helpful in many ways. I hope you undertsand brother. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much dear brother, and I will always need your critical opinion and valuable insight if you ever come across any of my edits. Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You brother, I have no doubt that the help of an experienced member such as yourself will prove useful. I highly appreciate your offer. Likewise, if you want our support on an edit, please keep us in mind. Wslm--Jawz shiachat (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, علی ویکی. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Jawz shiachat (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice

I've resisted the 1987 Mecca page for a move. Since you participated in the last discussion, I'm hereby notifying you of the new discussion at Talk:1987_Mecca_riot#.2F.2A_Requested_move_.2A.2F. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Kara-Khitan Khanate

I reverted your move and edits to Kara-Khitan Khanate. I'm aware that the modern transcription uses a Q in place of the K, but the fact is that the vast majority of scholarly literature still uses the old transcription, and according to wikipedia policies that's what we need to use. siafu (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AdamRce

The user AdamRce is not an admin, i have raised concerns about him leaving warnings on peoples pages, in such a way that it may make people think he is an admin, but dont let him fool you. Anyone can leave warnings on anyone's pages. And anyone can put icons on the top of there pages like he did. Hope i clarified some confusing things that go on at wikipedia.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your infos.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alarm

Hi Ali Wiki. That user attacked again Wiki's neutrality with POV pushin edits. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.

Iranian coup supporters

Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates"; "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah." They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.

Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic." Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations." Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.

Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet threat."government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not edit war: Iranian_Kurdistan

If your edits are reverted then take it to the talk pages to get consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Hello علی ویکی. Please see WP:AN3#User:علی ویکی reported by User:Orartu (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wa-Alaykum As-Salaam

It will be a honor bro. Let me know if there are any specific article, which you want me to contribute. At this time I am working on Dr. Naik's page (criticism section). He said few things about Imam Hussain (AS) and the Battle of Karbala, which I don't agree with. So Insha'allah, soon you'll be able to see my content on his page.Salman A Shah (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, علی ویکی. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ali

Could you please also explain on Talk:Ali] why you believe that is OR? At least some of his work appears to be cited, although perhaps those are citations to primary sources. One of the key concerns is distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, which I'm a bit unclear on regarding Islamic texts. I guess what I'm saying is that if that is OR, then I totally agree it should come out, but there seems to be disagreement about what is or isn't OR. Thanks. 210.148.191.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure friend.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in 1953 Iran coup article

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Salam dear Ali,

Would you please take a look at Moon-God Allah? I think it is a clear case of POV Fork and should be deleted. All sources are Christian unreliable sources and the argument is readily flawed. The article is nominated for deletion in WikiFa by me, but I don't have the required experience to do it here. Best regards, Taha (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Twelvers

Sorry, but this, "And hope Suenahrme also stop his childish behaviour and join us," is probably not the best way to start an invitation to collaborate. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• You know what, Alwiki, in hindsight "childish behavior" is probably the right term, as long as you apply it to both sides. They are both acting like petulant children, asking for the "right" version of the article and for the other editor to be blocked. I wish you patience and fortitude. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Shaykh Tabarsi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oghuz and Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Novruz in Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Novruz in Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Salam

Well, we believe that all of Shia Imams are martyred; few by sword and others are poisoned. If this literally means Assassination, should'nt we add all of Imams in this category ? We could even add some sentences in this page that according to Shia beliefs, all of Imams are martyed! What are your thoughts about it?

Knowing guy (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your activity

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see [[23]] and here:[24][25]..incase of future vandalisms..--108.18.145.11 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shiism

Hi Ali,

I found two sources that find Muta and Misyar similarly criticizable and I would like to include them in the article. Since I saw you in the discussion I would like you to attend this discussion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, how are you? I added a picture to the article Fatimah. Can you add your comments here in the talk-page. Can you please type your view on it here?- Zabranos (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)