User talk:Farmanesh

Welcome!

Hello, Farmanesh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Harr o5 10:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia

Hi, after I created Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, I found that you had created Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. I have asked to merge these two articles. I guess that "Confidence-Building", rather than "Confidence Building", is the official name. What do you think of it? Thanks for your contributions. --Neo-Jay 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your merging. And you may add "~~~" as your signature. --Neo-Jay 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of confused

Hey, I am a bit confused. Are you an administrator? If not, then you should avoid adding the protection templates to articles, it is only admins who can do that. You added the protect tag, but the article wasn't protected by the code. If you want some article to be protected, try contacting an administrator and explain to him why you want the article to be protected. Cheers! Baristarim 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or "her". Tony (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info

The page for McWane should only be for info on the operations of the company, not allegations made by others even if there is a source. Thanks for creating the McWane page though.

Online petitions

I reverted your addition of the online petition because it does not qualify as a reliable source. Internet sources such as these must be authoritative in nature, and not a self-published source. Per WP:RS - "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." The petition is based on personal opinions, and there is no indication that any of the voters have a reputable claim to determining the implications of this film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newly industrialized country

Your attitude is not helping. Your edit summary says "Rv per talk", I'm sorry but that's not only wrong, but misleading. Nothing has been agreed in the talk page for you to say "Rv per talk". The whole article is based in those two books by expert authors in the subject. Your unwillingess to go and read those books is just ridiculous. OR says I have to give the references, and the references has always been there for you to read them. Now, go and read them. It is not my duty to make your reading easier. I read the whole book, now, it is your turn.

Newly Industrialized Countries

Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw, 4th Edition 2007 (ISBN 0-32-422472-9)
Geography, An Integrated Approach by David Waugh, 3rd edition (ISBN 0-17-444706-X)

The ISBN codes has been provided in order to help the readers to locate the book in their local libraries. If you don't stop adding the unjustified OR tag, I'm gonna report you for disruptive behavoir, since there is no justficiation to include such a tag. Now, read. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain this, you seem not to get the point. First, I did not selected the countries in that list. Somebody else created the list, and added the references. I did created the table, added the flags and the economical information. After I created the table (not the list), I went to the library and read both books. I wrote down some important information to add it to the article. However, I did not pay attention to the pages, because, pages are not explicitly asked. A work can be cited by just giving the title and the author. Or even better, by just giving the ISBN.

Now, 2 days ago, I asked for a new book. I was reading it, because I wanted to develop the article. I just added the reference and included also the chapter number and the page. However, I don't have to do that, since the title, author and ISBN are enough.

As you can see, I can't provide the pages because I didn't add the first 2 books. I read them, but I didn't pay attention to the pages (I was not reading them to corroborate its content, but just to learn). So, I'm not going to the library just to provide you the page numbers: you can do it. The OR argument is invalid, since the 2 references were enough, and now, the OR argument is just impossible, since I added a new reference. AlexCov

^{( Let's talk! )} 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to add here the reference I ADDED:

Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy by Paweł Bożyk, Chapter 7.3 "Newly Industrialized Countries", p.164. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006. (ISBN 0-75-464638-6)

AlexCov

^{( Let's talk! )} 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

As they told you at the Help Desk consult, if, only if a claim has no references, then it has problems of verifiability. That's not the case in NICs article. If you continue to add tags that are not correct/appropiate you will be reported for disrupting behaviour. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Newly industrialized country, you will be blocked from editing. Cause: Abuse of tags, Improper use of dispute tags.

An admin put a note on User:AlexCovarrubias's talk page not to simply tag others vandal for diagreeing with him[1]. Alex, please act more civil.Farmanesh 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for archive and future, in result of User:AlexCovarrubias uncivil behaviour (like putting the vandal tag above and personal attacks) an admin User:Kafziel left following comment on User:AlexCovarrubias's talk page here:[2]. I also paste it below just in case. Admin:Kafziel writes to User:AlexCovarrubias:

"Please calm down. I've been very patient so far, but if you can't discuss the situation without being rude, I will block you for personal attacks. I don't want to do that, so please stop accusing Farmanesh of wrongdoing. Sarcastic remarks like this do not help. You're not going to win this by attacking him or questioning his motives. You only have two options: provide a page number or accept the fact that there will be dispute tags on the article until someone else provides a page number. There is no other option, and if you continue the personal attacks I will have no choice but to stop you. Kafziel ^Talk 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

A beer for you

It's Miller time!

Looks like we've come to an understanding, and that's all anyone can ask. Thanks for continuing to discuss the problem instead of edit warring. Some people would give you a cup of tea for that, but I think arguments like this one call for a beer. So sit back, relax, and have a cold one!
Kafziel ^Talk 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional power

Hi, how are you. just wanted to mention a few things;

South Asia is not a sub-region of Asia-Pacific. I have edited the Asia-Pacific article, as it was wrong about a few things.
East Asia shouldnt be considered a sub-region of Asia-Pacific. It is a region in its own right.
There is no land area known simply as Pacific.
If Australia is to be included as a regional power it can only be as part of Asia-Pacific or Oceania. I think Oceania might be best. Asia-Pacific is a rather impresise ill-defined region.
There should not be a section about Southeastern Europe. I suggest we put Turkey, Iran and Israel in a section called Southwest Asia; as Middle-East is also ill-defined
Can you find a source saying Saudi Arabia is a regional power? I think most people would agree it is, but i havent found a source explicitly saying it yet.

Cheers Willy turner 02:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, lets bring this discussion to regional power talk page.Farmanesh 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Developed country

Hello Farmanesh. I'd like to ask for your help in the article developed country where a user is using boosterism practises to "talk up" Brazil. I know you're a good contributor and you're certainly in pro of using references. Well, the references of this user are not in English (it is required, suggested but not enforced) and doesn't back up his claims. He's reverting the page so much I can't take it anymore. I'd appreciate your help in mediating with him, because he just won't listen to me. I tried to talk to him and even tried to be friendly but he just doesn't get the point. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have directly talked to him, look at his talk page. That user is adding unsourced information about Brazil and deleting information about Mexico to "talk up" Brazil. So I have been talking to him a lot but he just doesn't understand that he must add sources. I don't think we need a mediator, since this is not an edit war involving POVs. This is just that he wants to add unsourced information, that's all. Just check his talk page. He and his friend passed the article Brazil as a "Good article", and it was removed due to a lot of problems. They are just practicing boosterism. I hope you can help, talk to him, tell him to add sources. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, I will do it now. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please always include edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Your recent minor edit to Policy analysis did not include a summary. Thank you. --Nemilar 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to include an edit summary, particularly in repeated edits of the same article within a short period. But it's often a good idea, especially where you're new to an article or the edits may need justification among regulars.

Thanks for reverting the further attempt by ... a rightwing functionary? ... to create bias in the IRI article. We need to watch it. I've added a little information to bring some balance to it over the past month, and changed "democratic" to "political" at the top. Tony (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to block 206.57.121.14

Hi Farmanesh, I've semi-protected the International Republican Institute article because of 206.57.121.14's problematical edits, however his/her other edits appear to be reasonable, so I would prefer not to block at this stage. I'll leave your report posted at AIV in case another admin disagrees. Hope this is ok.--Addhoc 17:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UTM

Naymz

A tag has been placed on Naymz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note on reverting

Re Iran Air Flight 655, This is not meant to argue whether or not the idea you would like included: despite the US warship being inside Iranian territorial water and having positioned itself directly under international commercial flight lanes at the time of firing.

When you revert it removes any other improvements in the article since the version you are reverting too. The change I made was to correct one word, which was unrelated to the idea you reverted to. This means that I either have to make the correction again or just live with it. Instead of reverting, consider simply adding the idea to a current version. Anynobody 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the point on user's talkpage.Farmanesh (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. If I understood your note correctly, I guess you didn't look close enough to the change I made. I only reverted one part. Please have a look again to the change I made: [3]

As you see, what I intended to change was your addition of "Shot down due to incorrect identification as an Iranian F-14 Tomcat" to the summary table. As I described in the short note, that is one side's story.

If I didn't understand your point, please feel free to leave me a clarifying message.Farmanesh (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I prefer to keep conversations in one place, so I'm posting this reply both here and your talk page. Respond where you want this conversation to continue.)

You didn't (understand) I'm afraid, you also reverted this edit. My point is if you feel that the cause of the accident was "Civillian airliner shoot-down", simply edit the page accordingly. When you revert, you also undo non-POV related changes too. Anynobody 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. I delibratly left out that change and if you see here [4] it is actually user:Dual Freq who reverted the change you are mentioning. I only made this change as I can see [5]. If it is still not clear I would be happy to talk more.

One caveat, the specific change I made had nothing to do with what I personally think happened there. It is a fact that Iran government has different view on the issue with US government and thats what we refelect in the article, but it is unrelated to what I think.Farmanesh (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm just saying that when editors see the term "RV" in an edit summary, it can tend to cause further reverting by others who only focus on the fact that something was reverted. Rather than revert the statement you feel inaccurate, if you edited to be accurate, it could serve to assuage secondary reversions. Sorry to have been unclear. Anynobody 04:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, now your point makes sense.Farmanesh (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good report on the IP addresses to AIV

Thank you for reporting those two IP addresses. Even though they hadn't been warned, the nature of their edits (apparently posting each other's or some associate's personal information in the course of their vandalism) was severe enough that I blocked them even without the "full set" of warnings. Additionally, the article on the Military of Iran was protected by another admin for 72 hours to prevent further vandalism (though I think they picked the article randomly; they next vandalized Hiroshima before they were blocked). —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

I've reverted your edit at Due Process. At first I thought it was vandalism, because it was a redlink. But, I now see that there really is an article about a typo. But in any event, it's allegedly in the Takings Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause, so it really doesn't seem to belong in the Due Process article, IMHO.Ferrylodge 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf question

You wrote:

(Arcayne) "Right, but all three terms refer to the same body of water, correct?"

(Farmanesh) :No my freind, Red Sea is completly different than Persian Gulf. Red Sea has been called Arabian Gulf in few historical case but it has nothing to do with Persian Gulf. Beside Red Sea mistake, your proposal has the WP:Undue weight problem which has been discussed many times before and again in some extent now."

I thought that we might discuss this here a bit, away from all the insipid incivility that seems to be plaguing the page (likely originating from a single source, but being perpetuated by others). I wanted to clarify that you state that the terms the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf all refer to different bodies of whater? I am not addressing the UNDUE question right now. I am just seeing if the items are all different (if contested) names for the same thing. Geography was never my strong point at university (I took firsts in Politics and History, and a second in Psychology). If you want to respond on my page, you can, but I'll watchlist your page, if you want to respond here instead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I just went a-looking and discovered that the Red Sea is on one side of SA, and the contested name is on the other. Sorry about that.

Can you explain to me your undue argument for not including Arabian Gulf? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message. I guess we are disscusing this activley in the talk page of the article, so I leave it to there.Farmanesh 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf mediation cabal case

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 mediation cabal here. 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) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MaxLogo SU 2C small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MaxLogo SU 2C small.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated on Betacommands page that the image is Public Domain. However you have provided no proof of such a thing. The information on the Image page says that it is a non-free logo. A logo of a school. Nothing about that can lead anyone to conclude that the image is Public Domain. As such the assessment of the bot was correct, and unless more accurate copyright information is provided, the image should be deleted after the stated period of time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ph.D.

Is there any reason you redirected this from the main Doctor of Philosophy page to PhD candicacy? The use of the term is explained at the top. PhD candicy doesn't even exist in a number of countries so the change in redirect doesn't really make sense to me and I reverted it Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:University of Maryland school of public policy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:University of Maryland school of public policy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

It seems like a pretty straightforward edit war to me. The editors involved were still undoing all or a part of each other's edits while the talkpage discussion was going on. Protection is not a good thing, but it seems to me that there are still issues that need to be resolved, considering how people started reverting each other just days after protection expiration. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to leave the article protected indefinitely. I only chose that expiry option because I was unsure when the article should be unprotected. If there's some progress on mediation, then I'll unprotect. If the article's gone through a month without progress, then I'll unprotect then, too. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BWSEAL.GIF

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BWSEAL.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi! If you want to do maps of a countries subdivions, go to the gData website, then select "administrative divisions", "roads", "railways", or anything else you want on the map, then, select a country from the list, you'll have to download a ZIP file, then, extract the file(s) with the file extension ".shp" and upload it to MapSharer where you can edit the map. When you finished, download the map as an EPS, and convert it to SVG, best using Ghostscript and GSview. Then, edit the map to meet your needs using Inkscape. If you need further help, or if you want me to make a map for you as an example, just ask :-) --escondites 08:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried this? escondites 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle power article

Hello, I've made a topic on the discussion page of the middle power article regarding Russia as a middle power, and I'd like your input since you're the one who reverted my change. Thanks! 99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iran Air Flight 655. 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help with vandalism issue

Hi Farmanesh: I would like to ask your help because I am not familiar with the process of asking for protection of a page that is being vandalized. The Magdi Allam page has been vandalized several times, because some anonymous users do not like the fact that he converted from Islam to Roman Catholocism, and now falsely change the article to claim that he was a Christian Coptic. I have addressed these false claims on the Discussion Page of Magdi Allam. But that will not be enough. The page needs protection. How can I get the page protected? If you could explain in detail what must be done (assume no knowledge on my part) or do it yourself - I would be vert grateful. Thanks in advance. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If there is Wikipedia:Vandalism going on you can report here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

If you need page protection you can report here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I suggest you to make sure you have tried to talk with those who you disagree with before doing the above. best, Farmanesh (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect 'budget-maximizing' model

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'budget-maximizing' model, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'budget-maximizing' model is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'budget-maximizing' model, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daryaayeh Fars (Persian Gulf)

Hi can you enable your E-mail account. Since you have been active on the issue. I have several large .pdf files I would like to share with you. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Mai Initiative

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chiang Mai Initiative, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mof.go.jp/english/if/regional_financial_cooperation.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Power

Hi. I removed the map because it does not tally with the countries listed. For example, Russia is listed as a potential Middle Power on the list, but not shown on the map. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I am happy for the data to remain in table format, but the map is misleading and showing incorrect data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the topic on the talk page.

Ethnic and cultural disputes noticeboard

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Arabistan.2C_Iranian_Arabs_and_Racism_in_the_Middle_East. you've been named a possible party to the edit disputes, Although you're the first one to have actually engaged me in a civil manner, albit without relation to the previous discussion made in the article which is quite a disappointment. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and POV

The article of Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli and Ravand Institute is constantly being changed by some IP addresses over the last few days. Is there any suggestion on how to make it semi-protected in order to restrain it from persistent vandalism and insertion of POV. Theunusualguest (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masoumeh Ebtekar

I've made a RfC on the Masoumeh Ebtekar edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Youth Employment Network

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Travelbird (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the US Constitution listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Typo in the US Constitution. Since you had some involvement with the Typo in the US Constitution redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Spinning Spark 10:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Competent authority

The article Competent authority has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Dissident Aggressor 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidence Rate

I noticed your recent creation of this article and its addition to the IR dab page. Did you have any plans to expand it in the near future beyond a simple dictionary definition? Also, do you have any references for this topic? -- Fyrael (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

People analytics page

Question, why did you direct People Analytics to IranPoll? If I put "people analytics" into Google, I get the following definition:

People Analytics is the use of people-related data to optimize business outcomes (and solve business problems) at the individual, team or organizational levels. This is a pretty expansive definition, but we think People Analytics is a real 'category,' with applications across all parts of the modern enterprise.

Which makes it seem like the preferred page is some kind of data science-related article. Banedon (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Nomination of Rajeev Venkayya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajeev Venkayya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Venkayya until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Izno (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elevator economics

The article Elevator economics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Aside from a passing ref in the single source provided I don’t find any other examples of usage, so this term is not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]