Please use the discussion page for the AfD debate for related posts; your absurd demand that I "accept defeat" is more relevant at that talk page than at my personal talk page. Thanks! The Behnam04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about breaking up your edit with my topical responses. Someone else had done that to me, and I have not yet seen anything forbidding it, though I understand why you object. Per your request, I'll move all of my points below your response. Is it possible that you comply with my request above? Your comment did not make sense on my page since it directly addressed article content, and I would prefer that you move it to the page. Thanks!!!! The Behnam21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, subject with multiple independent sources, high ranking in the Shiite hierarchies and verifiable... all that is enough to pass WP:BIO regardless of what we think about the person ourselves or about what they stand for. That makes me wonder if some nominators research before nominating for deletion or just go by counting rhyme. But maybe I overreact little do to all bad faith nomination going on in the last days Alf photoman00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Agha Nader. There is some discussion on Talk:Anti-Iranianism about future directions for the article, and some such as GabrielF (who put it up for deletion) are proposing some major changes. You may be interested in taking part in the discussions. Cheers. --70.48.243.5401:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know that policy, but I do know that WP isn't censored. I insist that you have too much time on your hands and lack a sense of humour. I'm glad I don't know people like you in real life. Hopefully your lame attempt will fail, because I have no intention of changing this username. Malakaville07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't leave me anymore messages on my userpage and spare me the patronizing attitude. I'm not changing my username, but if they say I have to, then you have to as well for reasons I've outlined there. Malakaville12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you notify me if you bring it to ANI? I would like to participate in the discussion, especially in advancing the compromise, if you do take it to ANI. The Behnam03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't want to, that's fine. Just so you know, I don't make avoidance or non-avoidance a part of my editing approach, so don't freak out if I happen to participate in something that you are involved in. The Behnam03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me you started the ANI. I was actually thinking about doing the same thing myself today, but I hesitated, not because of a lack of evidence, but rather because of an overwhelming amount of evidence. Your initial report is a good start, and it is good you linked to the other discussions from those users who haven't been on for awhile, but were considering ArbCom. I'll be checking over things and contributing new findings as I locate them. It is about time this happened. Seeing that "proud" comment was sort of the last straw. It may be good to look at previous AFDs for articles that were part of Patchouli's POV OR network for research purposes. The Behnam03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't had the time to do it. If you do it, count on me to provide some evidence against his sneaky vandalism and participate in arbcom discussions, Barnetj15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI of Patchouli isn't drawing any discussion, perhaps because that admin said it should go to RFC. Barnetj seems more inclined to ArbCom. In any case, I think we may need to start something for it outside of the ANI page. Do you think it best to go RFC or ArbCom? The Behnam03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear things up, if you see the version of the page I was looking at, the video clips section was defunct [1]. You managed to fix the section, thanks. The Behnam02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems you fixed it in your 'revert', yet acted like my removal of the defunct section made no sense. Kind of odd. The Behnam02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that huge interview shouldn't be added. I thought that the template simply hadn't been made yet, so they should add the section after the template is made. Next time I'll actually look into it. The "mere puppet" appears to be based off of the title of the video on its post, but perhaps we can give a more neutral description of the interview. The full title is "A mere puppet? You judge for yourself." Any ideas? I'd hate to just number the videos but a neutral description should be used. I am wondering what the topic of the section is. Maybe something to do with 'the blue-eyed people'? I don't see anything else about that video standing out, topic-wise. The Behnam15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the video in question is actually quite useless and incoherent. It is just an example of HIM (lol!) answering a dumb question poorly. I'm going to solve the neutrality problem by simply removing it from the template. The Behnam01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was really quite no-value-added. I'm wondering why we have a template linking to those youtube videos anyway. It is kind of odd since external links usually go under the external links section. Also interesting is that Patchouli made that template. Anyway, the neutrality problem is gone for now. The Behnam01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. The only problem is the new title. It isn't very descriptive considering that a few other videos in that template are from the same interview and have topical titled. What may be the best solution is finding a link to the whole interview so that we do not need to topically judge them. Tell me what you think of this. Thanks. The Behnam03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it escapes me why I used the word "support", I was referring to your 3RR report against me which did not go through for the same reasons my most recent one against Mardavich wouldn't. I don't mean to speak ill of your contribs, Nowruz or otherwise. It just happens to be that the two 3RR reports were invalid for similar reasons. Cheers. The Behnam17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I removed a picture of Nader Shah's Sword from its article because it contradicted that in the external link. However this picture is still used in Nader Shah's article.
The problem is that I can't figure out which one is best. They clearly depict a different sword. If you know anything about the issue I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. The Behnam14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are not too many sources on his sword. Only one website is refernced. I am not even sure such an article should exist. Maybe it would be best to incorporate it the Nader Shah article. Since there is only one source, we should use the sword it depicts and not the one in the postcard. Agha Nader16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
For some reason I cannot figure what postcard you are referring to, but I think that we should remove the images for now. I actually have a different idea. Supposedly there is a mural depicting Mohammad Shah Qajar with this sword, so if we can get a picture of that mural it may be more appropriate. I'll start looking around, and perhaps ask some other editors (like Zereshk) who generally have a lot of pictures from Iran. Do you think this is a good idea? The Behnam16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see [2], I referred to it as the postcard picture because it says "Old Iranian postcards and magazines." Do you have any source other than the sole one provided in the article? How can we be sure such a sword existed? After all I am sure Shah Ismail, Shah Abbas, et al. has swords, but are they notable? Is not it OR to find a painting with Mohammad Shah Qajar and say it is Nader Shah's Sword? Agha Nader16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
No it is not OR. It is from the external link at that article, which shows a very different sword from the postcard picture and also mentions the mural. Anyway, it was just an idea to use the mural to depict it. At this point it seems we should probably remove all of the pictures until authenticity can be confirmed. I'll do that for now. The Behnam17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I notice that you reinserted a text on Farrokh with the comment "no reasons have been provided to not include Farrokh that aren't I DONT LIKE IT arguments." It's admittedly difficult to find anything on the talk page due to the multiple, simultaneous threads on identical topics, so I thought I'ld direct you to this diff with my own criticisms of the article. These are not, I think you'll agree, "I DONT LIKE IT arguments," but rather address the substance of the article and its flaws. In addition, the text which you inserted, which appears originally to have been added by Azerbaijani yesterday, is quite poorly written (for example, the East is presumably not "portrayed as backward in his article"), and does not employ standard citation styles, so that its recycling looks more like an act of obstinacy than a genuine attempt to improve the article. Best, --Javits200014:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite aware of your edit. I read this edit [3], and I agree with some of your points. The problem is that your edit is a critique of Farrokh's article. Not one of your criticisms bar the information from the article to be provided. Please cite a policy or guideline, and not just your anaylsis of the article. Furthermore if you think the edit I added is flawed, you can help fix it. I hope you are aware that whole texts are not supposed to be reverted because they have grammatical errors. If you think there are parts of the text that are not in the article you can correct it. Agha Nader16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Hmm. While there is probably a relevant size-related criterion, it may also help to note that inclusion of Farrokh, especially to the extent you included him, can be considered undue weight. The Behnam16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why it is undue weight? He is given the same amount of "size" as Daryaee. Furthermore, his article provides different information than Daryaee, and has different views. Agha Nader16:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
It places undue weight on certain criticisms. I may be able to add more to this, but anyway, bring it up at the talk page so others can be involved too. Cheers. The Behnam17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make accusations about other editors on the 300 page. It is considered uncivil and skirts the edge of stalking. Please exercise AGF. Consider this a warning about being more civil and AGF. Arcayne03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get real! You accused me of having a "merry little band". You have told me to use my "noggin". You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche", this is tantamount to racism. Please reference a statement I made that is uncivil. Agha Nader03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
the post-Persian psyche thing was certainly not directed at you. I don't even know if you are Persian/Iranian or not. I was referring to those people editing in about how the film "is a great lie about Iran," - that anyone could get their president to comment about an action movie clearly says that there are some ego issues in play. That is observation, not racism. I can disagree with this viewpoint without being prejudiced. As for the merry little band, it seems that you are in very close contact with several of the other editors in the piece, particularly those who have worked on other wiki-projects before. I knew that by addressing my comments to all, I wouldn't have to answer them singly over and over again.
Noggin is another word for head, which I asked you to use, as you were asking a question that seemed far below what I think is your intelligence. You are a smart person; it does you little credit to act like you are not. After all, I list you on my User List of Interesting Wikipedians, right alongside The Benham. I didn't want you to feel left out. :)
Sometimes I think that you might not be aware of the effect that your argument style is viewed by others. You certainly come across as very aggressive and not very polite - at least, this is how you are perceived by many editors within the 300 article. Perhaps you could take a moment and look at what you are about to post, and ask yourself how you would react if someone used those words on you. I am pretty sure you would be unhappy with the impact they would have on you. I know that I have certainly felt uncomfortable with your tone and behavior upon occasion. Maybe think about what i had to say here. Arcayne08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does this mean "That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy"? Please clarify. Please tell me, what is your tone in this comment? Agha Nader00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Pretty much a deadpan B-sharp.
That more than a few people think their is POV-editing going on is neither new nor unsubstantiated. That others seem very concerned about how this movie about the ancient world affects modern Iran (not even called Persia anymore, assisting hte disconnect futher),which is odd, considering that most folk outside of Iran don't really seem to have a problem with this movie. If you are Iranian, I can understand how you might be offended by this film. However, that is precisely why you shouldn't be editing in the film; your own bias is sure to creep out. And do I think some of the vandalizing editors and the POV-pushing editors were posting to simply make themselves feel better, ergo the mommy comment. That you read this and internalized it to mean that I was speaking to you is akin to somebody watching Jody Foster in a movie and deciding that she's telling you to kill Englebert Humperdinck.
That the Iranian government - with all it should be concentrating on concerning world affairs, decides to all but declare war on a single movie addresses pointedly the idea that if a single action movie can affect your self-worth as a country bad enough, your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits. Now, since I do not know your ethnicity and or nationality and do not want to know, I cannot see why you would choose to make this all about you. You might want to consider my remarks and take a wikibreak from 300. It seems to be upsetting you too much. Arcayne(cast a spell)01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", what do you mean? Please explain why it is my problem. Agha Nader01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Again, you are presuming i am speaking of you personally. Please reread the post a bit more carefully. The 'you' I am referring to is Iran, the country, not you the person. Maybe you might to reread things before forwarding them on. Arcayne(cast a spell)12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to believe you were directing your comment to the nation of Iran? If this is the case, my talk page is not the place to post comments directed to the Islamic Republic. Only post relevant comments please. Agha Nader15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Regarding this edit [4], I remind you to please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Your sarcasm and tone is not conducive to cooperation and detracts from the collaborative environment. Cheers. The Behnam04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, tone is quite subjective. What do you think my tone was? I feel my tone was appropriate for the context of the discussion, given the personal attacks I have cited. I have once responded to Arcayne "You accused me of having a "merry little band". You have told me to use my "noggin". You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche", this is tantamount to racism. Please reference a statement I made that is uncivil." Please cite a sentence that was sarcastic. Sarcasm is objective, so you shouldn't have much trouble (assuming I was sarcastic). I completely agree with you though, sarcasm "is not conducive to cooperation and detracts from the collaborative environment." I was not sarcastic though. If you are referring to the title I addressed you as "'Interesting Wikipedian'", you have Arcayne to blame, since he coined the term. I assumed you would not mind me referring to you as "'Interesting Wikipedian'" since you did not object to Arcayne using it. Agha Nader04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Please read WP:EQ. It states "Don't ignore questions." User Arcayne has ignored my question several times already. I can provide diffs if you wish. By bolding my question I hoped he would see it and respond to it. Not answering it would be in violation of [WP:EQ]. Bold format is not uncivil, while CAPS can be. I am sure you have noticed that I rarely use the bold format, but I think it is appropriate in this case. Do not you agree? Agha Nader19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
According to your actions and comments, it would be alright to remove your last comment. You seem to believe that useing bold text is "uncivil", and "shouts". I base this on you removing several of my edits because they were in bold text. Furthermore, you removed Khorshid's edit because it was in bold text. Would it be fair to remove your comment since you "shout" your user name? Agha Nader19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Regarding the above statement, it might be worthwhile to review false analogy. Regarding your recent request at WP:AN/I, please also review WP:POINT. If you're having a problem you can't get over with another user, the dispute resolution process is designed to assist in helping you. I've found sometimes tho, that the best way to resolve what appears to be an unresolvable conflict, is to just walk away. That's why I recommended WP:NAM earlier. Cheers, Tomertalk20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne pretty clearly has his username bold as part of his signature personalization, something that no rational person would interpret as "shouting", whereas bolding might be perceived as shouting when used in text for anything other than specific word or phrasal emphasis. I'm not saying I agree, per se, with Arcayne's removal of your remarks on the basis that he perceived them to be incivil shouting, just that you proposing to remove his remarks because his signature is in bold letters is ludicrous. The one does not follow from the other. Call it non sequitur if it makes you happier to do so, but I'll stick with false analogy for now. Comparing his signature to discussion text does not track—the two are irrevocably unrelated. Cheers, Tomertalk21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let's ensure that we have all our facts straight to begin with - something I've always found to be a useful tool in editing. Khorshid's posts were not removed (thought I'd point that out to the rest of the audience, who weren't privy to the fun elsewhere), but de-bolded. As for the removal of your posts in my talk page, I've rather explained it to you three different ways. Allow me to be succint - if you are concerned with the appearance of my signature, you might wish to avoid posting in those areas where I am sure to be, and avoid making remarks which are sure to prompt a response. You needn't respond to this - I might post a response yet again. :) Arcayne(cast a spell)22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would be warranted under Arcayne's logic: "May [sic] talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." Agha Nader22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Hello, in the past you've expressed strong opinions about the wording of the lead to 300 (film). Six numbered options have now been presented at talk, here; could you please visit and weigh in as to which are acceptable, and which you would prefer? Thanks, --Javits200012:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this revert by you [5]. This has been discussed at the talk page here. If you want, respond at the talk page, but dont revert again. Thanks. --- Melca17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I agree. And yes the article has similar problems. What some of the people who put the OR in don't seem to realize is that OR actually discredits and disvalues the concept that they are trying to support by detracting from the quality of the article. I just asked you about it because it seemed funny and I didn't know if you remembered that you had added it. Anyway, further help with that article is always invited. Also, perhaps you could take a look at ShiaChat.com? I did a little and put some tags, but I think it needs major reworking, and its notability may also need to be evaluated. The Behnam02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about there lacking many words, though one I see immediately "What makes ShiaChat.com specifically fair". Perhaps I'll find a different template to use; I think there is one for 'fan-like' tone. As far as the restaurant goes, I've heard about it but haven't made my way over yet. Its opening was delayed a bit but it is up now. I haven't heard anything about it being good or bad from those who went. You been yet? The Behnam02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam agha, my advice when dealing with admins who have a prejudice or racism towards Iranians, like User:TShilo12 (Tomer) is to simply ignore them and do not continue the discussion, but seek help elsewhere from admins who do not harbour hostility towards Iranians. Otherwise they may try to find an excuse to get you angry and then block you. Its not worth it. Unfortunately such hostility to Iranians (and Muslims) can be at a high level here, but there are also many good admins for every bad admin. I never bother to argue with admins who have anti-Iranian POV, its pointless. Hopefully one day WP will have a policy to prevent people who have such racist bias (and who even admit such racism as in this case!) from becoming or remaining admins.
Anyway the best course of action is to open an RFC for 300 (film) and to talk to admins when they try to push their POV. Remember, we have plenty of sources on our side, so they are clearly in the wrong. If RfC doesn't work, we go to ArbCom since their continued POV pushing is unacceptable on WP. We'll wait and see what they do, if they continue pushing for this "historical fiction" nonsense, then we take the next step. Khorshid03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not let go of this situation? Neither of you seem capable of having a civil discussion, and to be honest, your re-addition of your comment that Arcayne removed is borderline harassive. I would highly suggest that both of you move on; there's clearly not going to be any kind of correspondence between you two that would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you and Arcayne don't get along, but it would be a good idea to just leave it be. If he wants to remove a comment you left on his page, let him. It will always be there. He can't erase the history. Nothing productive is coming from this, please just let it go. I will ask him to do the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He provided no rational reason for removing an answer to his question. Clearly because he did not think the answer existed. Just because a discussion takes place at his talk does not mean he can control it. He has a tendency to bastardize other peoples comments and edits; he should be told it is frowned upon. I think I am being forced to "leave it be" anyway. Agha Nader16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. You have been asked to stop introducing tendentious commentary into my user talk page. Please consider this a warning and stop. -Arcayne(cast a spell)16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on how it is vandalism. In response to a similar accusation, user Dmcdevit responded "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil, see WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not". Agha Nader16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
I know, but even if he removes it, it will still be there. I can go to the history and find the first time you wrote your comment. I'm sure if you've ever been warned or blocked for something that I can go back in your history and find it. Nothing is ever hidden from people completely. If someone just glances over a talk page and doesn't see any warnings, true, they may think differently, but it isn't as bad as looking at the history and seeing a private edit war over the insertion of a comment on a user talk page. It doesn't speak highly for either of you. I'm just trying to help separate the two of you before something happens that brings you both down. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Arcayne asked "As well, if you could cite a Wikipedia policy that excuses stalking behavior under the pretense of monitoring so-called edits." This user should read WP:STALK. ArbCom decision referred to in WP:STALK states
"It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy."
See my comments on the talk please. Black (the main source used) has been discredited. Plus, look at the alleged statement from the Nazi official about a "pan-Islamic state from Casablanca to Tehran"! Come on, that is total bullshit. Iran under Reza Shah was 100% secular, Reza Shah was not an observant Muslim, and more important, Iran is predominantly Shi'a so being part of a "pan-Islamic" state makes no sense. Plus, Morocco (where Casablanca is located) is not a very religious country and it is non-Arab (they are Berber), so why the hell would Moroccans want to be part of such a state??? It really makes no sense. Like I said, either better sources should be provided or they should not be presented as facts. I think the allegations are too contentious. Khorshid23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't go the race route. I know Miskin is not being graceful here - and he has been counseled about that before - but the very last thing we need is a race debate in the article. If that happens, an RfC will occur,and likely ArbCom will step in. No one will happy with those results, as I have seen from prior decisions coming from them. I know you and I have our issues, but we will have to learn to be bigger than those issues, and you need to be bigger than Miskin's baiting. I will also talk to him about that; I'm not singling you out. -Arcayne(cast a spell)01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make threats on my talk page. Miskin has admitted to disenfranchising users based on their race. If you do not like it, then tell him to stop doing it. I call 'em as I see 'em. Agha Nader02:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making threats on your talk page, Agha. I am stating that discussion areas that turn into ugly racial things always end up as RfC's or worse. Just take a look at the RfC and ArbCom archives to see how that plays out. Practically everyone who makes even defensive remarks in response to the racism end up on edit parole or worse. Something akin to that happened with Mardavich not too long ago.
I am just asking you that, if you cannot let it go, then you could perhaps take your anger to his talk page rather than the article diuscussion area, or even an RfC for user conduct. It certainly has nothing to do with the article, and therefore doesn't belong in the article Discussion page. You might even want to note that Miskin has not commented since then. Anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter. Perhaps you could assume good faith and presume that he might regret having said that and is looking for way to withdraw without looking as foolish as his own statements.
I do not engage in conversation on talk pages that you censor, bastardize, delete, and adulterate, on grounds of the comments being "contentious". --Agha Nader16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nader. No i dont. Do you in turn have a reliable secondary source which states that the parliament gave him the title "The Great"? If not that whole line should be removed. Dont you think ? Also since you reverted my edit i am waiting for a response to my last post at the Mohammad Reza Shah talk page regarding his denial of Oriana's book. --- Melca06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please replay to this comment at the Reza Shah talk page and not my talk page since other people are following the discussion there. thanks. --- Melca21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. The reason I did that is that I had replied on April 7th [7] on the article's talk page, yet you said you are "waiting for a response" on April 11th. --Agha Nader21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam. Taqriban ta 1 amh dige in maqale mored barresi qarar migire. Man yek negah kolli andakhtam. Taqriban hame chizesh khube joz darbargiri. Yani dar in maqale chizi darbare shive hokmrani nader neveshte nashode. Be har hal ta vaqt darid in eyb ra raf konid. Baraye ettela bishtar az shive "review" in safahat ra ham bekhanid:[8] and [9]. Agar vaqt dashtid be ma dar ebhbude maqle Rumi komak konid ta fail nashavad.--Sa.vakilian(t-c)05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durud. Sepas gozaram keh komak mikoni. Amah, daghighan nemidoonam shive hokmrani nader chi hast. Agar mitooni ye khoorde bishtar tarif konid. Agha Nader18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I'm too busy. But there are too many books about this issue in English. Also I prefer to describe the situation of Iran before and after of his kingdom. I think Tajic can help you with it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c)08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi, if you read all the major biographies of Nader Shah, you'd know that he was adopted by the Afshar tribe when he was a kid, he wasn't an Afshar or Turk himself, he was Khorasani. so that source is making wrong conclusions about Nader's origin based on the origins of the tribe he was adopted into.
Please sign your comment with four tildes. The article does not say he was of Afshar birth, even though you seem to think it say that (your edit summary: "all the sources say he was adoptd by the Afshar, he wasn't an Afshar by birth, so this source is making wrong conlcusions about his origins"). The article says "Nader Shah was of Turkic decent. He was a member the Turkic tribe, Afshar, of northern Persia." Nader Shah was of Turkic decent, if you have a source that says he wasn't we can include that material in the article. The article just says he was a member of the Afshar tribe. Anyway, if you have a source that disputes it (i.e. "all the major biographies") please cite it.--Agha Nader22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aziz man, chera lajbaazi mikoni, Nader Shah turk nabodeh, aslan Turkman bodeh, vaa tavasot Afsharha adopt shodeh, oon tikeh tou ghesmat origins hast baa source, aslan nabayad dobareh tekrar bsheh.
I wonder if you can help me with the above mentioned person.
He's probably stalking your web page, since he accused you of it, but I've had problems with this guy, and it looks like you have too. Would you please contact me? I need some help here. I met him on the Mukhtar Mai page (the Pakistan woman who has won a lot of human rights awards after a gang rape for creating an non-violence and education center), where he informed me that writing about her agency was "advertisement". I just laughed at him (and two other guys - along with calling them sexists, for which they called me sexist and racist, lol), and said that its a non-profit, and non-profits don't advertise, or if you call that advertising, all writing is. Anyways, he figured out my work. I left the UN to found a WTO related NGO, and he started attacking my page RTV-Right to Vanish and he got the two other guys who were attacking me to bang my site, and then he recommended it for deletion. It is in the process of being deleted, as it is apparently very easy to get people in that frame of mind here.
The site was a Wikiproject and is very technical in a new area, so it wasn't easy for me to substantiate.
Anyways, this Mr. B, stalked me all over the board, and removed every link I've made for the past year.
He really has issues with women, and I'm not surprised to find he's attacked you so viciously, including claiming you stalk him. I'm sure he's stalked you, because he stalked me. I've never seen anything like it, and I've been posting on Wikipedia for about 2 years (to his 4 months).
I am sick right now, having an operation next week, and I'm under a lot of stress, and I got upset about this, and this little creep has managed to get a huge mob against me.
The only bright point is when I went to the UN and had a few economists post about the site. The gang bang quit for a few hours. But Mr. B is still posting trash about me, and the organization, and I'm banned (because I spammed my Wikiproject people to ask for support).
I don't know if you would please mind, but would you please go over to this website, including the AfD? I have to write this as a sock, but it is obvious who I am. I don't care. But I can see that this guy has harassed you too, and I would appreciate it if you'd go over there to the website. I could use some help from someone who knows this guys antics. He got all his little friends to join in.
I read that you know him IRL. What is he, 15? He seems to spend every waking moment on Wiki. I mean, I haven't been here for months. I just went on to fix the MMWO Wiki input, to help them, as I might go to Pakistan and help them to set up some things this summer. The reaction I got from younger men from that region, some of them in the U.S. (and mind you, I spend lots of time in the middle east, but I am usually in professional situations, so I get lots of respect), was phenomenal. I called them on it, and they just started calling *me* racist and sexist (which is pretty funny, considering my work and background).
Thanks so much in advance.
I will bet you anything he's got your page watched, and he'll read this. He's really a freak!
He's really, really childish (and has been called that several times in the past month - he's calling me names on my professional page, and saying "what kind of an organization this is". Its just amazing.
Re: edit. Not sure why you reverted the inapropriate references. You added the content here origionaly so I'm sure you based what was written on actual cited sources. A proper references actualy points to source data, not to the root of a domain. perhaps reviewing Wikipedia:Citing sources before reinserting links that lack Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Hu1203:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will add the references, check to see if I have done it properly. Improving material is usually preferred over just removing material, that is why I reverted your edit.--Agha Nader16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took another short look at this article and tagged a couple of things; it also could use a copyedit (maybe ask the League of Copyeditors?) I haven't been doing much work at WP:GAC lately, but you're welcome to renominate it once you think it's ready again. Chubbles17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. If you have the time, please have a look at this [10]. Since you have been contributing to the article in the past, I wonder if you have any comments. Shervink15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I have started a RFC/USER discussion concerning Artaxerex here. If you agree with the RFC, as a person who has tried and not succeded to solve the dispute you should certify the basis for the dispute by adding your name to the list under Users certifying the basis for this dispute, so that the RFC is accepted. Shervink10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all sourced from Axworthy. I've given references to each of the chapters from his biography which I compressed to form each section. The only claims I can see which need citing in more detail - since they are likely to be argued over - are Nader's ethnicity and his date of birth - and I've done that. Cheers. --Folantin18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remind user Aschoeff that personal attacks and incivility is not tolerated on Wikipedia. He has attacked me here [11]. He said "...you are disingenuous. I do not trust your intentions. I believe you are Evil." --Agha Nader06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find yourself in disagreement with anything on the article, and you find yourself getting reverted, please take the time to avail yourself of the Discussion page to voice your concern, and not via an edit summary. thanks in advance. - Arcayne(cast a spell)11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very, very close to getting reported for edit-warring and POV-pushing (look both of those terms up before even thinking of reverting again, c'oz' you know I will report you). Note that my last two reverts strongly urged you to discuss your edits. If you can cite anywhere in the film or credits where they referred to ANYONE as Iranian, then we can consider using it. If you cannot cite that, then we are done here, - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. I did not edit war at all. I clarified material, and you reverted it--without discussing in the talk, mind you. Moreover, when El Greco proposed a compromise, I accepted. However, you reverted his edit (without discussing in the talk). So, tell me, how is it that you are not the edit warrior and I am? You unilaterally reverted edits by several people. I did not. --Agha Nader (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are unclear as to the definition of edit-warring; please feel free to check it out. Adding the same edit, repeatedly and without discussion is precisely edit-warring, Agha. El Greco is a spiffy guy, and is always trying to make peace - one of the many things I consider cool about the editor - but the compromise is not in keeping with the accuracy of the article. I removed edits contrary to that, replacing the pre-existing (and accurate) version.
I have offered you the clear and friendly opportunity to point where in the film that Xerxes or his army are called Iranians, or are noted as being from Iran. In fact, I submitted that you only had to find a single reference to 'Iran' or 'Iranians' anywhere in the film or credits. As we both know this doesn't happen, Wikipedia doesn't allow for you to synthesize a connection between ancient Persians and modern-day Iranians.
Understand that I am not suggesting that they are not connected, but only pointing out that your doing so isn't allowed int he fashion you chose. You and I have had our difficulties in the past, but understand that my revert is not based upon this. I have no idea how or even if you've matured as an editor in the intervening time since our last contact. I will say, however, that you need to be very, very clear and be able to support your position, and not allow your personal feelings to color and cloud your editorial judgment, as they will be your downfall.
Agha Nader, the Persian Gulf article was subject to heated debates and edit-wars for months, before a compromise was reached by all sides of the conflict, and the article has been stable since, please don't just rewrite the article's lead without a consensus. I see where you're coming from, but WP:Lead is NOT a policy, ao it's NOT biding, it's just a guideline, and in this case, it was decided by a broad consensus to leave out all translations and varieties of the name to the name section in order to reach compromise that was satisfying to all parties. AlexanderPar (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that "the Persian Gulf article was subject to heated debates and edit-wars for months." Unfortunately, the debates were dominated by incivility, and other breaches of Wikipedia policy. For instance, some of the editors clearly had an intent other than improving Wikipedia. Some actually admitted to trying to preserve the Persian Gulf as the true name of the waterway. However noble the cause, it obviously is not the job of Wikipedia. But seriously, read WP:CONSENSUS. It states, "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." Even if WP:LEAD is "just a guideline," it is 'established practice.' I really hope you understand. There is no need to compromise the quality of Wikipedia to appease some fanatics. I understand their argument. I am actually rather sympathetic to it since I think the Persian Gulf is the correct name. But by no means will I project my views onto Wikipedia. I will not let others do it either. They wish to banish the Arabian Gulf as even a term used by some Arabs. They want to mislead readers to think the Persian Gulf is the only name used (when all evidence points otherwise). You are a smart person. You have made good edits to the Nader Shah article. Surely, you can see why the old compromise is not valid. --Agha Nader (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise has a broad consensus, that's what makes it valid. I think you're misreading [[WP:CONSENSUS] which explicitly says "as documented within policies" and WP:lead is not a policy. Even if WP:Lead was a policy, some may argue that Arabian Gulf is not a common name in English, and not covered by WP:lead, so things are not as clear cut as you seem to believe. Please understand that my intention is not to try and banish the Arabic name, as the naming issue is already discussed in detail within the article's body. The main issue and concern here is taking the controversy to the lead, which will just make the article unstable and volatile with both sides trying to add and remove their POVs to the lead. Trust me, it will be a never-ending source of edit-waring and hostility. I am just trying to keep the article stable and peaceful. AlexanderPar (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism as you did here when this is a content dispute. In addition, if you revert once more, you will have reached your 3RR limit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reprinting the exact message I posted on Observer's page:
This is for both of you (bc i know that Nader will find this message); please leave the questions/accusations/etc of sockpuppetry off the article discussion page. If wither of you feel the other is a sock, go to WP:SPP or WP:RFCU, and let an admin make the accusations. Nether of you are in that happy place of being blameless here, and it would be best for you both to just file reports - there is no harm in filing them if you truly feel that sockpuppetry is going on. If you are just making the accusations to snipe at the other, I have to let you know that admins take an exceptionally dim view of that sort of behavior, almost more than sockpuppetry. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quaint. You seem angry that I read the post about me on his talk page (you have expressed this on wikialerts). Why is that?
Simple. I wasn't so much angry as amused that you accuse me of stalking you and then seem to make comments where I happen to post them in another user's talk space. I hope that clarifies matters for you. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following me to an article that you do not edit, and harassing me there (Persian Gulf), is a world of difference from me commenting on a section labeled "Agha Nader" on Observer's talk. --Agha Nader18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I can see your point with this, Agha Nader. But I can also understand why Arcayne would have an interest in observing your behavior. Because of all of this, you and I both have the pleasure of each other's name sectioned in our respective talk pages... ObserverToSee18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is where I think the disconnect happens for you, Nader. You see my pointing out and request that you cease being uncivil and making personal attacks as "harassing". You seem unable to recognize that your own actions are often perceived as being far different than what you claim they actually intended. Surely you realize that if someone used the same wording that you do, directing some of your own comments back at you, that you would not feel as if you had been attacked. There is never a reason for personal attacks. not against a vandal or a sockpuppet, or someone who simply dares to disagree with your viewpoint or edits. Never. Until you realize that, your editing life here in Wikipedia is going to seem to you to be a long series of unhappy and unfortunate events. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only you who has a disconnect. For you have attacked me, and I have not attacked you. It is you who has called me a nationalist. I have never made nationalistic edits, yet you insult me. I hope soon enough your attitude will improve. --Agha Nader19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same wish for you, Agha. You apparently are capable of performing good edits; it would be unfortunate if your behavior led to some unfortunate occurrences. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? What "unfortunate occurrences"? I do not need your threats on my talk page. I consider your message here just another part of the problem. Please measure your response carefully as I have decided over these last few days to value WP:DNFT. Have a good day.--Agha Nader23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a marvelous policy to follow, Nader. Apparently, my comments were not so 'incoherent' that you were unable to realize that I was pointing out that being uncivil and making attacks could negatively affect your editing. It was an observation, not at all a threat. Perhaps you need to sit down and have a cup of tea. I am not your enemy. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the first to suspect Observer is a sock. Indeed, he was bluntly asked by Ahwaz [12]. Observer responded to Ahwaz's inquiry "I’m not surprised by the seemingly usual suspicion and insinuation that I’ve edited under other names and the complement that I seem well versed in WikiPedia editing and rules." How quaint that Observer took it as an attack when I asked ("By the way, are you a sockpuppet?) and as a complement when Ahwaz asked. I pray utility had no part in Observer's reaction.--Agha Nader07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very beneficial for you to read everything carefully before jumping to any conclusions. Categorizing my response to Ahwaz as taking a complement for his asking me if I have edited under other names before is grasping at straws. Telling me that I seemed well versed, is a complement when I'm very new to WikiPedia. This is let alone the fact that your particular question to me was not construed as an attack on me by myself but by others. I'm happy, however, that you seem to have finally started reading the entire discussion. ObserverToSee08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another attempt at humor? Did you read what I wrote? I certainly did see your tone and subsequent accusations as incivility. What have you "exposed" (summary comment) here by the way? If in fact you are assuming good faith, you are misleading here by saying "It's good that you no longer claim it to be a personal attack". Even if merited, there was no "claim" by me that this was a personal attack. Why do you need to resort to this distortion? [[User:|ObserverToSee]] 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You assert that you never claimed I made a personal attack. Whether your assertion is factual is another matter. More importantly, you do not think it was a personal attack. Finally I find it interesting that Arcayne got involved in this issue given his blunt statement to Sia34: "So who were you before this account (or what is your primary account name)?" --Agha Nader (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fact easily confirmed by following the discussions in chronological order. Up until my post above on December 4 where you have now chosen to respond to, I had not "claimed", as you noted, that you had directed personal attacks at me. Since that time, however, and your subsequent actions, I find it hard not to view the incivility as a personal attack. Your claim to have me "exposed" as well as tagging me as a single purpose account amounts to labeling me and my opinion as irrelevant and unworthy of participation in the discussions at hand. In fact, since your labeling me as such, you had not responded to any of my inquiries until now. I am, however, curious as to why you would rekindle this discussion as a "recap", per your summary comment, at this time after so long.... ObserverToSee (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to 'have you exposed.' Please cite the location and context you are referring to. So let me get this straight. You never claimed I made a personal attack against you. But then you complained saying that I attacked you when I asked you if you had another account. But then you claimed that you did not claim that I attacked you. And now you are claiming that I attacked you. Ignoring the inconsistency in your argument, I advise you to improve your behavior. Please refrain from making ill-considered insinuations such as "I find it hard not to view the incivility as a personal attack." There is no doubt in anyone's mind that you are a single purpose account. I have not labeled you "as irrelevant and unworthy of participation in the discussions at hand." Please provide a location of me doing such I thing. User Arcayne, whose "12,000+ edits pretty much puts [him] in good stead," once said: "I would strongly urge you to find some route to the discussion which allows you to remain professional and polite. The alternative would be unpleasant, especially considering that your account seems to be a Single-Purpose Account."[13]--Agha Nader (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at your own summary comment for this, since you need a citation from your own talk page [14]. I think this is fairly straight. I've urged you to read discussions carefully, if you decide to do so, you'll see that everything I've said is totally accurate. To return the favor, please cite where I responded to you that you attacked me when you asked me if I had another account before December 4. Forgive me if I don't see your continue insistence that I'm a single purpose account as a kind gesture. I am always reading and enjoying WikiPedia, I have not had the urge to participate with any discussions except for the Persian Gulf primarily. I do not have any other accounts. Is this something that needs to be pointed out as a negative point against me? Why have you come back to this after so long? ObserverToSee (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Have I made this account to do only one thing? No. Regardless of how it is right now or how you wish to push the issue. Why do you ignore my questions? ObserverToSee (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have an imperfect understanding of SPA. I can count the number of non-Persian Gulf edits you have made on one hand. One should not be ashamed of being a SPA. However, one should not deny it. If you see it as a "negative point", that is your problem, not mine. Ultimately, you have inconsistently accused me of incivility and personal attacks. Why have you not made a single edit since January 4, yet notice an edit on my talk page hours after it's made?--Agha Nader (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely wish you continued growth in maturity and clarity of thought moving forward. I saw your post with "ObserverToSee - recap" and decided to respond as a courtesy as I always try to respond anytime I feel I'm addressed. I have no desire to be spoken down to or lectured about a need to improve my behavior. I welcome constructive criticism, however, when I encounter it. I do not feel that I've received any benefit from this exchange in any way. I don't expect answers to any of the questions I've posed at this point nor satisfaction to my curiosity as to why this was rekindled. Best of luck and success to you. ObserverToSee (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have made only five edits to articles!This is not normal for hard working Wikipedians. It is not as though you you haven't had time. You came in November. You have made more edits to my talk page than all your edits in all articles. I suggest that focus your energy on improving Wikipedia, not making ill-considered insinuations.--Agha Nader (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why more distortions of the truth? I've been here since June of 2007 not November. I've made many more posts to the Persian Gulf talk page than here. I don't understand your apparent need to gain pleasure from such distortions of fact. Never have I once claimed to be a "hard working Wikipedian", why speak down to me about it? Nothing I've said is an "ill-considered insinuation". All of it is easily confirmed if one takes care to stay with accurate facts. I urge you again to read things carefully. Why have you manipulated my signature above [15], BTW? I continue to wish you nothing but success and best of luck. ObserverToSee (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not insinuate that I distort the truth. I will not tolerate incivility. I stated "You have made only five edits to articles!" That is the truth. You have made other edits to discussion pages. By the way, discussion pages aren't articles. Perhaps this link will help you see your edits to articles [16]. It is good that you have taken my advice and are actually trying to contribute to Wikipedia by editing articles instead of making edits to my talk page. I apologize about your signature, as you can see it was a typo (I accidentally dragged the bold button [17]). Your characterization of my action as manipulation assume bad faith, and is telling of your attitude. I further advise you to be productive and actually make edits to articles. You reacted defensively to a simple question asking you if you have another account. Now you have ignored other questions: "Why have you not made a single edit since January 4, yet notice an edit on my talk page hours after it's made?" The United States Navy once said "Your identity is not known and your intentions are unclear. Request you alter course immediately to remain clear."--Agha Nader (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered you as to why I've responded to you since you rekindled this discussion thread on your talk page after months and why I don't usually edit articles. Perhaps you need to read more carefully? Would you rather have me ignore you as you did to me? This is not an "insinuation", it's a fact. I'm not "insinuating" anything about you, I'm outright pointing out your distortions for you. You choose to ignore them. I never reacted defensively when you asked me if I had an another account. Perhaps you can provide a citation. I misunderstood what you meant as my contributions to "articles". I didn't realize that contributions to discussions in talk pages about articles was inferior contribution and less productive, if thats what you're insinuating, I would disagree with that thought. My response to your quote from the Navy can't be anything but LoL! More attempts at humor? Or are you assuming bad faith as you "insinuated" about me? Perhaps now you can provide some answers to my questions? Among many unanswered; why did you rekindle this? ObserverToSee (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Single user accounts "may also indicate sock puppetry" [18]. ObserverToSee, "your reputation as well as your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors" [19]. You are a SPA. Unfortunately your incivility here and edit history r lack there of is alarming. "Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are." [20]. I will assume you are being honest: if you 'laughed out loud' at the quote, does that not make it humorous?--Agha Nader (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I'm not sure why you are so suspicious toward me. Is it only because I disagree with your point of view about the Persian Gulf? Do you feel this way about anyone who disagrees with you? You say I'm showing incivility toward you, when in fact, I have been nothing but civil given your approach, and have tried to go out of my way to remain civil. And I intend to remain so. Looking at your own interactions with me, you'll see a good degree of incivility from you which is undeniable. You have not answered my questions and continuously ignore them. Why have you rekindled this?
While on the humor subject, your quote reminded me of this old joke:
US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.
CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.
CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!
US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!
CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.
Perhaps your suspicions are making a lighthouse more than what it really is. :-)
You said: "I'm not sure why you are so suspicious toward me." Official Wikipedia policy said: Single user accounts "may also indicate sock puppetry" [21]. --Agha Nader (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very enlightening answer and slightly robotic. How about showing civility and answering my questions as I have for you? Among many unanswered, why have you rekindled this discussion thread? Another question, why don't you show the same level of suspicion toward other editors who could also be tagged as a SPA based on your narrow interpretation of the definition? Why didn't you tag them as such? Why just me? I hope you had a good day yesterday and will have one today! ObserverToSee (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that you admit I have a "narrow interpretation of the definition." If I had a broad interpretation, I would consider more people to be SPA's, but I do not. Clearly you seem to see that you are a SPA, even if you do not say it out loud. Why haven't you answered the question "Why have you not made a single edit since January 4, yet notice an edit on my talk page hours after it's made?"--Agha Nader (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clever change of subject. I do not agree that I'm a SPA. I'm a person. You suspect I am a sock puppet. Why not go and do a check and confirm once and for all? I'm puzzled by your refusal to answer my questions since you've stated that you have been civil. I have already answered you as to why I responded to your "recap" and addressing me. I urge you again to read carefully. As I already answered above, I do not regularly edit or respond to subjects unless I am addressed or I find a subject where I feel I have worthwhile input. The Persian Gulf happens to be one. I have not seen anything anywhere where that is prohibited. Do these answer your questions? I'm still waiting for your answers... ObserverToSee (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify on what you mean by: "Why not go and do a check and confirm once and for all?" My question was not why you responded, but why you responded so quickly (within an hour) given that you had not made a single edit since January 4.--Agha Nader (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there means to check to see if a user is a sock on WikiPedia? You see yourself as an experienced editor, I imagine you know how to go about doing that. Wouldn't that be a more civil approach than to tag an editor's edits or claim to "expose" an editor? Or to simply ignore an editor's legitimate questions? This is a thread about me, correct? Would not not expect me to see it when it's responded to? As I said, I'm always enjoying WikiPedia. Almost every day. Don't you? I'm sounding like a broken record with this; why did you rekindle this? What about my other questions? ObserverToSee (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense are you an editor here? You do not edit articles. You only edit talk pages. In those discussions, like this one, you have proved to be uncivil. So what have you contributed? Do not feel compelled to answer these questions since the answers are well known. I consider your message here just another part of the problem. Please measure your response carefully as I have decided over these last few days to value WP:DNFT. Have a good day.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have pasted below a conversation that was edited and censored by Arcayne [22]. I guess he did not like facing the answer I gave to his question (the ArbCom quote). I provide the conversation in whole and uncensored.--Agha Nader04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of stalking, as it is considered acceptable to monitor users who seem to be making bad faith edits. It seems that you have made several bad faith edits in which made personal attacks against me and fellow editors. Furthermore you have deleted some of my edits, and those of Khorshid's in several talk pages. As you must know by now, ill-considered accusations are not tolerated on WP. Cheers. Agha Nader03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure what edits of yours and Khorshid's I have deleted, Agha. Perhaps you could provide me Diffs for this (excluding your uncivil remarks to me on my Talk Page which, which were removed as per the instructions of the text box at the top of this page).
Perhaps you could point out these edits that - in your opinion - are bad faith edits. Just provide the Diffs please. As well, if you could cite a Wikipedia policy that excuses stalking behavior under the pretense of monitoring so-called edits. I eagerly await your response, Nader. Arcayne(cast a spell)03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You bastardized Khorshid's edit in this edit [23]. And you admit to removing a comment I made on this talk page because it was in bold. Various users have called this "silly". You have called me a "Petulant, vengeful children", which is a bad faith edit. In this discussion [24] you have sniped me, and Dmcdevit admonished you: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to your accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind." As you can see you have made many bad faith edits. You said I "work to undo edits that that challenges [my] nationalist view". The accusations go on and on. Including the accusation of stalking. You accused me of having a "merry little band", You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Obviously these are bad faith edits. Even though I have not edited on other article that you edit, you say I stalk you. This will not be tolerated. Cheers. Agha Nader17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Gosh, so many accusations, and yet, so few diffs. Let's look at these individually (for the sake of the viewing audience), shall we?
The first instance is when I removed a bold-text formatting to comments that were unmistably uncivil. When the editor chose to renew them, I didn't argue the point, as other editors did it for me.
The comment I removed from you on my talk page is entirely within my purview, Agha; had you sinply followed the instructions at the top of my Talk Page (wherein I state the at rude or uncivil posts will be delected immediately), it would not have been removed. I am not the only editor to do this. Consider yourself fortunate that my tolerance for rudeness is as high as it is, as I could have simply decided that you had nothing constructive to offer, and simply write you off as strident noise. I allow your posts to remain on my page, because I keep hoping you will finally grasp the concept of good faith far better than it would appear you have done to date.
I have not called you a "vengeful" or "petulant child", Agha; the reason you did not present a diff for this accusation is that you could not find a single instance of when I referred to you - or anyone else - as such.
The last diff you offer is a statement to request a review of a block of a highly skilled editor. You were the one who submitted the 3RR complaint, so naturally, your motivations are going to come into question. As you have had some issues with assuming good faith, and had violated the Assumption of Good Faith to the point where I could not excuse bad conduct, the comment was warranted.
(no Diff provided) "work to undo edits that that challenges [my] nationalist view". Did I say tht about you? Did I accuse you of posessing a "frail post-Persian psyche"? I think not, and your failure to provide a Diff indicating such means you know how weak that accusation is. I don't even know what nationality or ethnicity you are, and quite honestly don't care. To assume that I base my edits on ethnicity is ferociously bad faith, but as usual, I will fogive you your insult. If you didn't make mistakes, how would you ever learn?
(again, no Diff provided) As for the "merry little band comment", that was intended for those editors who appeared to have almost extra-sensorally addressed and supported each other's edits, leading a great many editors to wonder if the effort was coordinated outside of normal channels say, by private email. I am not saying that this is necessarily true,Agha - I merely reflected upon what other editors had observed.
Lastly, you yourself have admitted to following my edits around. You say you are making sure that my edits aren't tendentious (or some such thing), again an assumption of bad faith and a contentious remark. My properly identifying this behavior as stalking is an observation, not a contention.
So, all these bad faith edits you say I make about you, and all you have are three diffs? Please feel free to respond with better examples of how I have personally insulted you. Be advised, though, that when you do so, I will have prepared a fairly comprehensive list of your contentious, bad faith remarks. I am guessing my list will be somewhat longer than yours. -Arcayne(cast a spell)17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. User Arcayne has changed the header of this section, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see [25]. His edit summary was "May talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is another example of a adulteration of my edits. This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me, which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies. This is another bad faith edit. Agha Nader19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
To quote imaginary character Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You might want to revisit the article on bad faith edits. You come to my page, makes scads of either unsupported or nonexistent accusations, add a header called stalking, and expect me to simply expect me to accept its implied accusation? I think not. Now, I am going to politely ask to simply go away now. You've already had one RfC blow up in your face, and you are within a feltch-monkey's whisker of being on the recieving end of one yourself. Take the hint and kindly go find someone else to pester for mentoring. I think we're done here Arcayne(cast a spell)21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Arcayne asked "As well, if you could cite a Wikipedia policy that excuses stalking behavior under the pretense of monitoring so-called edits." This user should read WP:STALK. ArbCom decision referred to in WP:STALK states
"It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy."
Your edit here was an unacceptable personal attack. You will retract and apologize for the comment, or I will escalate the matter. It was precisely the wrong button to push with me, and you had best believe that I will escalate the matter if an apology is not immediately forthcoming. Owing to whatever time difference there is between myself and you, i will allow you 12 hours, after which time, i will see you blocked or gone. Do not think to test my resolve in this matter, Nader. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prejudice comments by Arcayne
"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", [26]
Arcayne later claimed he was talking to the Iranian government, but could not explain why he was talking to the Iranian government on my talk page. You will see further examples of him saying he was referring to other people when he is attacking me.
Accusing me of being a "nationalist" is also a personal attack. You stated: "I say unfortunate because, when he isn't pushing a nationalist point of view, he can perform very good edits. Where his nationalism comes into play, he becomes somewhat narrow-visioned"
Finally, I you provide no reason that those sources are unreliable (except that they have spelling mistakes). Given your past history of prejudice towards Iranians, I believe your dismissal of those sources is based on prejudice. My criticism was against your argument (that it is based on racism) I did make a personal comment (much less an attack). You should apologize for your prejudice comments.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as you are willing to remove/conceal my responses to your allegations, I think perhaps you are going to be waiting quite a long time for your apology, as I've never made a racist comment to, about or anywhere in the vicinity of the Iranian people.
Because, quite frankly, my patience has run out. After about a month of uncivil behavior, Agha Nader decided to post that I was a racist. I have offered him the opportunity to retract his statement and apologize within the next 12 hours. If an apology is not forthcoming, I will escalate the matter. I have tolerated the incivility in the 300 and Persian Gulf articles, and even went along with him submitting wikiquette complaint based on a failed RfC he could not file over 6 months ago. You seem to be able to reach him in a way that I never have. As an admin, you can perhaps advise him that the shit will indeed hit the fan if that apology doesn't arrive in the alloted time. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to Arcayne's complaint on my talk page [27]. Also, I filled the wikiuette report because it was the next step in dispute resolution. I was unable to report a RfC because it not reached that step yet. However, as you will see on my talk page, Arcayne has made prejudice comments in the past. I merely pointed out his most recent one.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to visit Nader's page and see that response, FayssalF, and maybe take a look at the wikiquette complaint as well. Pay particular attention to the diffs he lists, so as to see the context of the comments he attributes to myself and others. I'e made it clear in my reply to his response that further accusations do not constitute an apology, and that the clock is still ticking. Actually, it isn't, as he is aware of the personal attack and apparently isn't considering apologizing. I will allow the full remaining time. He may come to realize that it will only escalate if an apology is not forthcoming. - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys. Thanks for letting me know about that. Well, first, let me tell you both that i've just seen 'the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstars' (Arcayne's userpage) and 'the Original Barnstar' (Agha Nader's userpage). This means that you both are an asset for Wikipedia and it's a pity that things are not working great for you. It is true that Nader should have avoided the accusation of racism at your talk page. We just don't fix problems that way. There are plenty of ways to sort issues out and both of you know a lot about that. On the other hand, setting an ultimatum for an apology is inappropriate itself. So what i am suggesting is that you go through formal mediation. If you think that would be a waste of time than you must forget about dealing w/ eachother for at least a period of time until everyone cools down. You may also consider a short break from editing those articles and let third parties help you instead (Wikipedia:Third opinion). But before that let's delete User:Agha Nader/RFC/User:Arcayne. I hope this would restore some of good faith assumption to the table for the time being. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, too. Will Nader also be withdrawing the wikiquette alert he created based out of that report, as no sense deleting the barn door without also deleting the horse that escaped? How about that apology for the accusation for racism, sitting on the 300 page, as well as its removal/striking-through? I set a time limit on the apology, as these sorts of accusations, untended take on a life of their own. If I choose to vigorously defend myself from the disgusting charge of racism, it is because any reasonable and innocent person would do so. So, I ask, is Nader prepared to remove the wikiquette complaint himself as well as offer an apology and retraction of his accusation? - Arcayne(cast a spell)01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it up to you, Fayssal, if you think User:Arcayne/busywork 2 should be deleted. I just thought it would be good to bring it up. Arycane, your recent post on the Persian Gulf discussion was well put. Maybe you would like to incorporate WP:TRUTH into your argument. I think some editors believe that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to promote 'the truth,' and therefore believe the Arabian Gulf should not be included. It is important to point out to them that our main goal is to provide, without bias, the main views (even if they are wrong).--Agha Nader (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that for me, Nader - as you don't really get to determine what is on my user pages. As for anything else you might have to say to or about me, it will be completely ignored without a retraction of your wikiquette alert and your accusation of racism with apology. Consider this your very last chance to do so. You will not like what happens next if you refuse to do so. It is not a threat, it is an expectation of your reaction to my next activity in regards to you. For your sake, you very much want to seriously consider doing as I ask. This really is your last chance; believe that I will take the next step, and am offering you the opportunity out of civility. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fayssal, I will retract the wikiquette alert if you think it is the right thing to do. However, I recommend that you look over it first [29] and consider my complaints. Also, Arcayne has filed an ANI [30]. --Agha Nader (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked to remove the wikiquette alert numerous times by myself, which you chose to ignore. Apparently, you chose to wait and see if I would file a complaint. It does not go without notice that your sudden acquiescence to the idea of removal comes an hour after the AN/I report was filed and only five minutes after you posted your reply, which sounded not the least bit conciliatory. If you remove the wikiquette alert and apologize for the accusation of racism, that will put you back on the path. I think I've made that clear. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you want the wikiquette alert to be retracted. However, I am not sure it is the right thing to do. I filed the alert for a reason. I wanted the community to become aware of your behavior, which I perceive to be a problem. If you think your behavior has been good, then you have nothing to fear.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I called you a thief or a child-molester, and you are innocent, you would have no problem with the accusation? Please. I wanted the community to be more aware of your behavior, which i know to be a problem with myself and others. You have already been told that your behavior isn't good, and have been notified accordingly. It is my singular hope that you will learn from it, and not cause yourself further problems. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:300 (film), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I encourage you to please review WP:CIVIL and attempt to maintain civility when communicating with other editors at all times. Remember, this is a collaborative project, so insults and incivility help no one. Thank you.Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you could keep your distance from and try hard not to refer to my edits in Talk:Persian Gulf, please. You have a fairly long road to go before you can convince me that you know how to be more polite, and I would prefer not be colored with the same brush that you have earned in the Persian Gulf article. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a right bag of ripe that descended into before I (and others) showed up. Due to actually talking to people, and not treating them the way that others have noted you have, we might be fairly close to solutions. Until you do the things asked of you, you haven't earned the right to class your responses alongside mine. make an effort to do the right thing, and you will find a world of difference. Until then, just stay away. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make uncivil comments either. Such as saying I 'look silly.' I have removed your last two comments that I believe were uncivil and ill-considered insinuations. You are more than welcome to leave civil and productive comments on my page.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your latest comment where you made another ill-considered accussation: "You cannot be seen to be wrong or chastised by people." Please remain civil and refrain from such accussations. Also, do not stalk me. There is an ArbCom ruling against wikistalking. I am referring to your comment "I will now be watching."--Agha Nader (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And watching I will be. As I think you once said, about 6 months ago in the 300 article when i asked why you were stalking my edits, you said you were doing so because bad faith gave you the right to. I am exercising my right, considering the bad faith you have demonstrated. If you behave, I will likely grow bored and remove you from observation. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! in Iranian folklore, you mentioned that the Ashura can not be considered as a folklore ceremony and counting it as "folklore" is offensive. I'm a Shia myself and respect it so much. I don't think the interpretation of ordinary people of the Imam Hussein martyrdom is offensive... the folk show their respect for him in their own way: In Iraq, they make a "boat" for Hazrat Ali-e-Akbar and decorate it with candle lights, but in Iran, they don't do it but use "Taziyeh" and other ways of showing respect, I'm sure they have their own way of mourning for this great persons. By mentioning the way of local folkloric mourning I'm showing how many people respect their religious Heros.Don't you think it's better not to delete it?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the martyrdom of Ashura folklore can be offensive. Religious beliefs are rarely called folklore. Anyhow, you can include Ashura in Iranian folklore if you have a source that says Ashura is a folklore. --Agha Nader (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ashura itself is not a folklore : it's beyond that and more than a mere folklore; but the view of ordinary people about that and the ceremonies that they practice is a folkloric matter. The holy God ( Allah Taala) is a good example : that's a reality so great to be understood by humans , but they view him by their own points of view ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that we agree that Ashura is not a folklore. Like I said before, it is generally offensive to label religious beliefs as folklore. I do not find Ashura offensive at all. Calling it folklore can be offensive because the term connotes fiction. Ultimately, I opposed its inclusion because it had not source.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't listening to him, nader. Can you please cite that Ashura is not fiction? And let's be honest, I provided a source that clearly demonstrated an instance where a religious observance (and how is giving more weight to religious stuff neutral??) took on a folkloric quality. So there is a source connecting Ashura to folkloric activity. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source was a desperate attempt to relate Ashura to folklore. Verily, it was not about Ashura, but a single family's tradition of not cutting a tree. It is not our place to label the martyrdom of Imam Hossein as fiction. Similarly, it is not my place to prove it is non-fiction due to the burden of proof being on your shoulders. However, the martyrdom of Imam Hossein can be discussed at his article (and it is a historical fact, universally accepted by scholars, that he died at Karbala). --Agha Nader (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, WP:PROVEIT; prove that Hossein Imam wasn't a fictional story? When contested, it is up to you - not me - to prove that your viewpoint is valid. I certainly hope those scholars youmentioned are neutral. Cheers! - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to waste my time to educate you about the Battle of Karbala. I have no incentive to "prove that Hossein Imam [sic] wasn't a fictional story." For I am not interested in adding any material (into any article) thats claims "that Hossein Imam [sic] wasn't a fictional story." Surely, you can purchase a few books or borrow some from school to learn about it. Unfortunately, I cannot take time out of my schedule to give you lessons. However, if I have more time in the future, I may be able to help you expand your knowledge of history. I wish you luck.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know a discussion over the inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead of Persian Gulf has been opened over at the meditation cabalhere. You are welcome to add your viewpoint to the discussion; as mediator, I look forward to a speedy conclusion to the case, and your input will help. CloudNine (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-[reply]
By the way, this is in regards to your failure to grasp talk page protocol. If you feel you need help in understanding how this protocol is used, please feel free to ask for help or consult an admin. Cheers! - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the very last time, I do not make 'ill-considered' comments, assumptions or edits. I consider myself rather well-educated, so perhaps you might wish to consider that accusing other of ill-consideration is in itself uncivil. Perhaps I find the fact that your interpretation of wiki policies seems to differ with virtually all of the millions of editors in WP (and I am including vandals and sockpuppets in that number), and that you appear to be the only one unaware of that observation. Perhaps you would find that a great many editors do not revert you, disagree with you or simply avoid you if you but took a bit more time to expand your definitively narrow point of view and tone down your ego. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only claim your accusations and insinuations are ill-considered out of good faith. For I cannot believe that you would violate WP:NPA after deliberation. I believe your violations are aberattions of the good behavior you have exhibited. Thats why I call them "ill-considered."--Agha Nader (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand now. As you kept using the phrase, I was unsure of your repeated (and often inaccurate) usage of the phrase. My edits and observations are neutral observations based upon your past behavior. I know that you are capable of good editing; I just find it oncongruous with your behavior around me. Several administrators have told you time and again to be more civil, to cease the personal attacks and derogatory remarks, and to - rather specifically - stop posting comments to me. You have had some troubles following these admonitions, and your refusal to accept responsibility for your incivility has prompted others (myself included) to watch over your edits, helping to rein you in when you are a bit too aggressive in your edits or behavior in regards to others. I can understand how you might chafe at that oversight, but you of course understand that it is appropriate considering your past bad behavior - and there is little need to look over six months ago to find it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is your prerogative, although your usage of that phrase "ill-considered" rather reminds me of that little fellow Vizzini in the film, the Princess Bride, who kept using the word 'inconceivable' in every situation, and often incorrectly. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior needs improvement. I do not think I am the problem since you are uncivil to other editors. You stated "When I 'demand' something from you, you will know it, because it will usually be followed by you either getting blocked or creating a poopy in your quaking trousers" [31]. --Agha Nader (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this once, nader. While I appreciate the christmas tree thing (and the only reason I haven't done the same for you is that I don't wish to risk offending your religious sensibilities by placing a template about Christmas on your page, as you seem a bit more of a fundamental islamist) temperamental sort, I think you and I would be very much better off avoiding each other. While I don't think you are the very worst editor I've ever had to deal with, you are close enough to that distinction that I imagine our relationship will end with your being banned from Wikipedia at some eventual point for incivility or personal attacks. Why this will happen is clear, at least to me. You are entirely willing to accuse people of actions which you yourself are guilty of. Every edit you present of perceived slights against yourself are almost always bookended by your own behavior doing precisely the same thing.
Take the instance you just used in your post. First, you could not have found the edit unless you are stalking my edits. Secondly, you don't look at the context in which the comment was given (in the noted conversation, how someone repeatedly characterized my requests as "demands" which prompted me properly defining when the user would know what a demand from me would feel like - I do not suffer fools or semanticists gladly). See you only saw how "mean" my edit was, and not the text surrounding it. this was precisely the same problem with your 'RfC-turned-wikiquette' alert. Even were it not 6 months old, they would have looked at the edits around it and seen your bad behavior both before an afterwards. Had you filed it six months ago,i am almost positive it would have backfired, resulting in you being blocked. i think you know this, nader, which is why you didn't file it until our more recent clash in 300.
I do not think you and I can work in articles cooperatively, as our behavior is always going to upset the other. I am certainly not going to change my behavior, and I am sure you see no reason to change yours. I think you are going to be better off just leaving me and my posts be. Don;t respond to them and don;t be uncivil around them. If you think that's going o be a problem for you, please let me know, and I will take the Persian Gulf article, leaving the Iranian folklore for you. After all, I was a part of the Persian Gulf article before you even joined Wikipedia. that seems fair to me. - Arcayne(cast a spell)10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to interjectmy opinion here. Arcayne, you are once again WP:ABF. Far from stalking you, Agha probably saw your post to me because he has my page watchlisted (and I his). We once briefly corresponded about my userpage and Empress Farah (and an entirely civil interaction it was). You seem to often mischaracterize people's actions and comments. Please try to assume good faith of the users you interact with. And please, try a less confrontational approach. You seem to be in dispute with many different editors, judging from your talk page. I find it difficult to believe that they are all evildoers. People here often disagree; that doesn't automatically make those one disagrees with bad and wrong. Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, right. Thanks for your input, Jeffpw. When I truly feel the burning desire to receive your interpretation of my behavior, I will likely look elsewhere that to you. Your talk page tends to read like a who's who of complaints from good editors and admins, and your behavior there has pretty much eliminated the possibility that I would confuse you for an editor who isn't a creep.. Quite literally, you have nothing I would wish to hear, much less consider. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Arcayne does seem to have this problem with other editors. Even when I sent him a Christmass card, he called me a "fundamental islamist." Arcayne, why are you so ready to attack other editors? One day you say I am a 'POV-pusher' (I am not sure which POV), another day you say I am a 'nationalist,' and today you tell me I am a "fundamental islamist." Can't I just be a neutral editor? Or is that too much good faith to assume? By the way, you have provided no evidence or editting pattern that proves 'POV-pushing.'--Agha Nader (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, apparently, you weren't really reading my post, and again chose to focus on the wrong thing. You are Muslim, yes? You are a fundamentalist, yes? Do Muslims celebrate Christmas? No? Considering our past interactions, I am pretty certain that, had I sent you a Christmas card in return, you would have found fault with that. I am not attacking "other editors." You have to be fairly awful in my eyes to warrent closer observation. People like you do. Jeffpw has people who watch his edits. I know it upsets you that you are being monitored. Sorry.
You know what? I gave you a way out with my last post. Since you seem to be obsessing over the labels that people give you, I will simply strike through the one you find so disparaging, substitute something neutral. As for the rest of it? It's game on. have a splendid holiday. Enjoy it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't, from my experience of you. And any person with any cultural sensitivity would know that the term has a lot of negative connotations. It seems a subtle personal attack to me. I'm glad he had the sense to strike it. I only hope he apologizes, too.Jeffpw (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne, you seem to be saying that my contributions are being monitored for violations of policy. If so, I would suggest you provide the diffs that show that or retract that comment, because it seems as if you're trying to make it look like I am a bad faith contributor. I suggest you don't go down that road, as it seems like verging on a personal attack on my character. I doubt seriously that anybody with actual power bothers to look at my contributions with anything approaching concern. Indeed, why should they? Would the administrative community lift somebody's block with the proviso that I mentor them if I were considered a "rogue editor"? Hardly. Perhaps you meant to say that my talk page is monitored, as indeed it is, by several admins. You learned that yesterday, I believe, when an admin warned you for your intemperate posting on my page.
In looking through your contribution history before replying here, I notice you have a tendency of accusing others of incivility and personal attacks, while at the same time engaging in them yourself. I suggest you work on that. It only serves to make the editing experience less productive for everyone. Jeffpw (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jeffpw: Golly, where on earth did you arrive at the idea that I would consider any suggestion you have to make? I've looked over your history, too (can you say 'hello pot, meet kettle'), When you are ready to admit to the log in your eye, then (and only then) should you actively consider pointing to the splinter in mine.
And I am presuming you were in a hurry, but maybe you forgot what prompted that comment. Honestly, using your admin friends to fight your battles seems well, a little disingenuine. As does asking a question and then removing its answer. Like I said, were I to believe that youhad anything of value to add in the way of advice, I would take it. unfortunately, you haven't really shown yourself worthy of that to me.
Hi, thanks. I think it's reasonable at the moment but I can certainly think of ways to improve it in some areas. I'll get back to this article after the holidays and do a bit of work on it - if you don't mind holding off nominating it for GA until early January. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your comments on my Afsharid Map, i have always been interested by the post-Islamic persia, and India, i have also been interested in map creations...
so i created a link, to preserve most maps that i have created
I was looking at this user's contributions and block-log, and I must say that I am surprised that he has not faced any community sanctions yet. Has anyone tried creating a Wikipedia:Request_for_comments about him? His behavior is worthy of wide- spread notice from the community, he is rude and combative, and from what I can see he has has been stalking you around Wikipedia and even calling you a "fundamentalist". This is more than enough for a RFC case on behavior. What do you think? --Sia34 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sia34, I am proud of your efforts to resolve the dispute at the Persian Gulf article. I think we share the same motives, even though you are more reluctant than I to include the term Arabian Gulf into the lead. Some users try to deal with the dispute based on the validity of the term Arabian Gulf. I believe that is a big mistake. I have always preferred the term Persian Gulf over the term Arabian Gulf, but this dispute has educated me even further. Users such as pejman.azadi and others have tried to keep the term Arabian Gulf out of the lead. They hoped to support their arguments by proving that the term Arabian Gulf is fraudulent. I think you know my stance on the effectiveness of that method already. In their endeavor they solidified my belief that the Persian Gulf is the proper name. As well, they soldified my belief that the Arabian Gulf should not be left out of the lead. The actions of some users seem to be akin to censoring the term Arabian Gulf at worst, and taking sides with the term Persian Gulf at best. I must thank you for your part in providing sources for your claims. I have learned some new things from your sources--specifically the Gary Sick one. As you may know, efforts where made in the past by some users (I was not among them) to include the Arabian Gulf in the lead. Their efforts failed, and thus the neutrality and WP:LEAD were underminded. When I sought to change that, I did not know that I would face trouble from User:Arcayne. Some users believe that they have a role to prevent nationalism from changing the neutrality of Wikipedia. That may be a noble (and possibly futile), but it can confuse some users. These users often think they are combating nationalism by taking a stance that is against these so-called nationalists. They defend any thing that seems to be negative of a country if it comes under attack by "nationalists." As you know, Arcayne has disagreed with me in the past. I also believe you know my stance on his actions. I retracted a wikiquette complaint I had made about him in efforts to settle the disputes [33]. Several editors have already talked to Arcayne about what I precieve to be his bad behavior. I will say though, that your behavior seems to be perfectly acceptable. You are a most civil and polite editor.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a bit more work on this and had a fellow editor check it for grammar etc. There's probably a lot more I could add to the article, but I think it's good enough for GA status. If you want to put it up as a Good Article candidate then go right ahead. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good idea to add some internal links such as Mahmud and Ashraf Abdali as well as some templates such as history of Iran.--Seyyed(t-c)05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 July 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Nader Shah. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you live in the US, you would know that he created some of the biggest hits this country has seen over the past couple years. DJ Khaled is one of hip-hop music's BIGGEST producers. Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty. We Takin' Over Music Video, and you can basically look up all his singles that are listed on his page and look them up on youtube.com, and you will find the videos for them. He is also featured in many other hip-hop singles, one being "Speedin" by Rick Ross featuring R. Kelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5nthon5a (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that YOUTUBE VIDEO was one of the biggest songs of 2007 in the United States, which DJ Khaled produced it. I've seen how troublesome you have been on here in the past, with all your racial problems, and other things. Stop giving people a hard time. Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your frustration has caused you to make personal attacks. Perhaps your frustration is caused by the fact that you cannot find a source for your claims. However, that does not entitle you to attack me. Please do not violate WP:NPA or WP:CIV, as they are Wikipedia policies. Finally, your understanding of reliable sources seems to be misguided. You ought to review WP:RS.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Report me all you want, I didn't do anything wrong. I showed you a link to one of the biggest songs of 2007 in the USA, as well as told you many songs he was on. And I am not making personal attacks, I just saw some of the discussion on this talk page in the past, and I have seen how you have been giving other people a lot of trouble because of many different things, like you are giving me now. The reliable source page is to not put false information onto people's pages. How could I show you a fake video when it clearly shows DJ Khaled in the We Takin' Over youtube video I showed you? Please explain. Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite aware that he exists and 'produces' music. I am largely concerned with his notability, which is quite different from being famous. After reviewing WP:N, I did not notice a clause where if a person has a video on YouTube or is "on the Billboard Hot Rap Charts" he merits an article. Ultimately, I haven't the faintest interest in discussing this now since the article has not been nominated for deletion (yet). I encourage you to contribute to the article. For it is there where your energy can be best used--not on this talk page.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Agha Nader, in response to your question, no, I no longer do any major work on Wikipedia, for the reason indicated on my talk page. I visit Wikipedia now and then only to see how things fare; my edits are now restricted to very minor things, which I do on account of wishing to be a socially responsible person. I left Wikipedia with great sadness, in particular by the fact that my planned project, just before my leaving Wikipedia, was to write a proper biography for Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda, whose present Wikipedia entry is one of the worst entries I know of — and this while he was a man letters and the world of the Persian literature is immensely indebted to him; he complied the equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary for the Persian language (his Dictionary project gave rise to a great deal of scholarly activities in other areas of learning, but that is too long a story to recount in this short note). I had already done my research work and had intended to type this biography during the last Christmas holidays, but sadly it was not to be. Rests me to mention that I had over ten other Wikipedia articles in pipeline, mostly in the area of my professional expertise, but some "editors" felt that they had to remove a worthless photograph, uploaded by me, even if that would lead to my leaving Wikipedia. It seems to me that idiocy is like a bottomless pit. Kind regards, --BF 12:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am concerned about us butting heads again, I am honored that you would ask. I will take a closer look over the weekend. At first blush, it seems like a nice beginning. You might want to try and find a n image of him. As there aren't that many out there, the Fair Use rationale will likely be a breeze (as its notable and a nonfree image doesn't appear to be out there). As well, you might want to try and find more information about his life outside of politics. For example, there was major disagreement over the Ronald Reagan article over whether the article should be more about the man and less about the Presidency. The decision is still out on which viewpoint is better represented there, but I am of the opinion that the article should always be about the actual person first and what they did second. What they did catches one's attention, but who they are holds that attention. Would you agree? - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salam. Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately at present I'm in active in wikipedia. God willing I'll come back on March. Regards--Seyyed(t-c)04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to see you back Sa.vakilian. I agree, Arcayne. Thanks for the advice. I have been trying to find a picture of him and have been unsuccessful so far. I will keep looking.--Agha Nader (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't pass again thanks to another lousy review. Frankly, I always expected something like this to happen because I know from previous experience that the GA process is broken and I could give you examples of articles with glaring problems which have passed with flying colours in the not too distant past. Personally, I wouldn't bother re-submitting this article since the whole process is a lottery, but you'd be well within your rights to complain if you want to. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You improved the article greatly, and it deserved to become a GA. I suspect that the subject of the article may influence the nomination process. It seems that some subjects are destined to become GA regardless of their lack of quality and some are doomed to fail the GA process despite their quality. I will address the criticism listed in the coming months. As well, I plan on making some additions. Perhaps it will be worth re-submitting then. Although it would be nice for it to achieve good article status, that is not paramount. If I had only wished to get an article good article status I would find an article with a subject that is popular and already in great shape and then nominate it. --Agha Nader (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems that some subjects are destined to become GA regardless of their lack of quality and some are doomed to fail the GA process despite their quality". That's probably true and may explain some of the strange comments too. Personally, I don't think it violates NPOV to call the commander of what was probably the biggest army in the world at the time "powerful"! "Although it would be nice for it to achieve good article status, that is not paramount". Yes, the important thing is we have a vastly improved article on a major historical figure. We should be writing with the needs of the encyclopaedia's readers in mind not GA reviewers. A lot of projects simply ignore GA now and have their own "A" rating for top-quality articles. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I'll do that tomorrow. In the mean time, please check the ongoing discussion on Talk:Persian Gulf, Arcayne is claiming that you opposed proposal #5 of the PG mediation on grounds that it violated WP:Lead, when from what I can see, you actually endorsed the proposal #5 saying "I support his proposal while having some suggestions. Basically, his proposal does not violate WP:LEAD"...... Can you please clarify your position on this? A comment on Talk:Persian Gulf would be appreciated. AlexanderPar (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to Turkey like 20 times, and I know that about a third of all ministers of the Turkish Parliament are Kurdish, so I know first-hand that that's not true. Kurds have exactly the same rights as Turks. Onur (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, it still seems like that needs a bit more percolating. :) Or at least, a more specific citation addressing how it targets Iranians. I came to ask for your assistance with the other editor in the 9/11 discrimination section on the discussion page . The citation that notes the attack appears to have been a anti-Muslim-based attack, and not specifically anti-Iranian one. I've tried pointing this out a few times, but seem to not be making any headway. Could you help explain how the cite says something different than he wants it to? - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the editor is unwilling to understand the difference between what he thinks and what he can prove. Thanks for lending a hand anyway, Agha Nader. Have a good day. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no excuse for ignoring WP:OR. If they believe anti-Iranian sentiments exist (and I believe they do) shouldn't they be interested in making the article credible instead of based on OR and POV? Also, if an editor cannot find a source calling an incident anti-Iranian discrimination, isn't that an indication that it might not be anti-Iranian discrimination, and that we should look for another example?--Agha Nader (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a saying amongst Christians, and though I am guessing you are not one, you maybe have heard the the expression: you are preaching to the choir. I agree that anti-Iranian sentiment does exist outside of Iran; I know people who still think America should have nuked Iran when the hostages were taken in the 70's. That past, followed by a pretty aggressive recent history and Ahmadinejad's really clumsy remarks have made the likelihood of anti-Iranian sentiment a pretty sure thing, much like Bush has alienated some former allies through his grossly inappropriate actions.
I think that the example that Babak keeps hanging onto isn't an example of anti-Iranian heritage. I am sure, however, that there are instances of it out there. The people in the article have to stop looking at the gross examples of Not Without My Daughter and providing film reviews. The movie was based on a book; I'd like to hear more about the reaction from the Iranian community about Mahmoody's book. How about Nafisi's book, Reading Lolita in Tehran? That is an excellent book that doesn't paint Iran or the the Revolution in a very good light. I am concerned that if all the examples are confined to instances in the West, then the article is going to become skewed as another anti-West diatribe. From what I understood, Iran is not much liked by many of its own neighbors. Some comment about that would be more balanced. Anti-Iranian sentiment isn't a western creation.
Sorry, I am venting a little bit.
Something else I wanted to ask you about: in the article discussion, you noted 1 the usage in the 3rd century BC of the instance of Iran being used to denote a geographic area. While I realize the point is moot for that article, I was curious as to whether that usage was used from that point forward, or if it was just one noted instance of the usage. Let me know, and you can reply on my UserTalk page, if you wish. - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this post in the Persian Gulf talk section (I had to clean up the formatting a lot). I have been told its soapboxing and contains a list of terrorist organizations at the bottom. As my knowledge of the Middle East is imperfect, perhaps you could read this with a neutral eye and give me your take on it? I am not convinced its soapboxing, as it seems to present info fairly straighforwardly, and doesn't seem to fit any other of the criteria for the NOT category. Let me know what you think. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe you would like to assist me in citing the material parts of the post so we can include it as part of the argument. As well, you can help me by telling me which parts are just just crazy crap (linkspam and actual soapy bits) so we can make sure to only add the good stuff. I've put the post on this page, so you should feel free to add citations as you wish. I will work it from my end as well, but I am guessing that you might have better access to the sources needed than I do. If you will be unwilling or unable to help, I understand, but I think it would be nice if we could find a way to work together towards a cohesive solution. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources of Western scholars using the term are helpful. With full respect to Khoikhoi, I do not agree with his interpretation. We should not keep important information hidden because a sock introduced it. This project has the primary goal of making important and pertinent information available without charge, not punishing socks. The punishment of a sock cannot take precedent over improving the encyclopedia. I will be reviewing User:Arcayne/busywork_3 and I will try to check some of the source to see if they are accurate.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to chalk it up to an edit conflict, but the only thing I see in the diff is this being added:
When CNN's Larry King asked Ahmadinejad "does Israel remain Israel" in his version of the Middle East, Ahmadinejad suggested that throughout the Palestinian territories free elections for all be conducted under the supervision of international organizations. Ahmadinejad suggested that "..we must allow free elections to happen in Palestine under the supervision of the United Nations. And the Palestinian people, the displaced Palestinian people, or whoever considers Palestine its land, can participate in free elections. And then whatever happens as a result could happen."
Good catch by Dweller there. Had you not been watching the silent mediation, it might have gone unnoticed. I've altered the text accordingly, though in retrospect, I should have asked if you or Dweller wanted it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted the change. It's funny that a sentence that attracted the attention of so many editors and took so long to form would have a blatant grammatical error.--Agha Nader (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your post on my talk page. I'm very curious though as to why the edit history log of my talk page shows May 10 for your edit but your edit has May 7 as the date stamp. Is there some kind of a glitch on my talk page? I didn't notice your post until May 10! Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nader_Shah_Jewels_3_-_edited.png){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
