User talk:Parvazbato59/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of states with limited recognition

Hi. The text I deleted was originally written by myself (no intention to vandalize). I just had second thoughts about the level of detail needed in the Palestine reference. If you want to keep it that's OK by me, I just want to point out that there was no ill intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.159.133.20 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Please refer to your talk page. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Trique

I've replied to your reversion on the talk page for Trique. -Lingboy (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Trique. I replied to your proposed changes. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

weaknesses of the {{afd}} process

There are various weaknesses of the {{afd}} process.

Those Weaknesses include how rare it is for anyone to acknowledge they changed their mind, or acknowlege that they made an innocent mistake, or lapsed from policy.

As a nominator you have certain responsibilities.

1. In my opinion the potential nominator a responsibility to fairly review articles before they nominate them for deletion. If an article can be fixed, the concerned contributor is not supposed to nominate it for deletion, they are supposed to fix it, or leave a note on the talk page, stating their concern, or apply an editorial tag.
2. In my opinion, if the potential nominator's fair review of an article turns up additional material that may show that the topic does merit coverage, that was not included in the article, they have a responsibility to mention that in their nomination. Many nominators fail to acknowledge this kind of additional material. Many nominators base their nomination on the current state of the article itself, not on the merits of covering the topic. But the deletion policies are clear on this, and those nominators are clearly flouting the policies. We are all supposed to assume good faith. I find it a strain on my ability to assume good faith when nominators continue to fail to own up when their flouting of policies is brought to their attention.
3. In this specific case I thik you had a responsibility to address the use of Shahzada as a disambiguation page. Back in January someone made an ill-advised change to the article. They changed it from a disambiguation page to an article devoted to the princely title. They could have created a Shahzada (disambiguation) page, but they did not do so. Their edits seem well-intentioned, and seem to suggest they simply didn't understand how wikipedia disambiguation pages work. Perhaps you too do not understand wikipedia disambiguation pages? If that is the case, please go and learn about them right away.

When I realize I made a mistake, I own up and say so. I think I should expect all good faith wikipedia contributors to own up and acknowledge when they make mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I responded to all your comments in article Shahzada deletion page, but this is the last time that I responde to your personal attacks. Please review your talk page. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on: Chico Slimani

People keep editing the page saying that he is dead, when he is not. 91.109.74.64 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to say it in your "edit summary" or in discussion page plus give citation. Someone may claim that he is dead. What do you say? Plus, you can't use the words like you used here anywhere in Wikipida articles! If you mention that this persion is not dead, and then make your changes no one has a problem with you edits. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, They're still editing it. 91.109.74.64 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

will be blocked soon. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Still being edited... (by 90.206.252.218) 91.109.74.64 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth semi-protecting the page? ^anemone│_projectors 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, for several days. Makes them tired. What do you think? Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. ^anemone│_projectors 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly stop then editing it. 91.109.74.64 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Its not Vandalism. It was a comment on another person's opinion on a talk page. HIs opinion has nothing to do with the Encyclopedic value of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Article. I will replace my comment on his comment. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disrespecting a user, with such comment is vandalism and will be reverted and if you continue placing such comments on talk pages, you will be blocked. Parvazbato59 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A disrespectful comment is not vandalism, but I think might be another type of wiki violation. But I know its not vandalism, unless they changed the rules. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then I would recommend you to refrain from making disrespectfulcomments because you will be blocked. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of all disrespectful language. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's good! Disrespecting is not a good way of communicating and you can not win an argument by that kind of behavior. Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I filed a report on your revisions to Shahzada. Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• In case you did not bother to follow the report, please do so. However this does not mean that your reverts were legitimate. As I have mentioned the word Shahzada (son of shah) should be linked to its right page, and your report, can not divert the discussion. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I am going to repeat my request that you read the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline. It seems to me they are quite clear. It seems to me that your use of piped links clearly does not comply with the guidelines.

Similarly your instruction to me that I refrain from trying to improve articles during the period when they are being considered for deletion is directly counter to the wikipedia's deletion policy. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, absolutely not. what you are referring to policy of Disambiguation guideline in the talkpage does not support your argument for reverting the edit. Please do not divert from the subject. Any revert from you that breaks the link from "shahzada" to the page shah is unconstructive. Parvazbato59 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting Jiverly Page

There are other pages for mass killers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klebold

• There are several things that you should know:

1. No matter how badly you want an article to be published or created, you can't just revert and go into edit warring! You can't prove that you are right by just clicking on "undo" and think that you are proving your argument! Instead, you need to discuss and talk and that is why we have discussion pages so that you can give your opinion.
2. For an article to be published there are many criterias. It has to be notable, need to have primary, secondary references and, you need to pay attention to WP:ONEEVENT as well.
3. The text that you added, was qualified for speedy delete and one could easily delete your article. So please be patient and make sure the article that you want to create, has the many criteria.

Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada

I left a message re the above at User talk:Geo Swan. – ukexpat (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Parvazbato59 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the result of my AFD nomination is "redirect" and shahzada has already been redirected. So I think this is better and I would like it to remain as a redirect. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

about restructuring on 'Hindu nationalism' page

Hi Parvazbato59, it looks like you have mistaken. I am restructuring the page with referenced content. I am only deleting challenged material and the material that is repeated. You would find that the content which is deleted has been put there in organised form. Please let me know if you have any concerns. We can discuss. I would restrain from deleting the content for some more time. If you are interested please check and let me know your views. Thanks Unspokentruth (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded in your talk page. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I will take extra care in editing to see that I do not delete any relevant material. I am trying to restructure the page and will continue with edits. All referenced material will be taken care of in the restruturing. Even if I remove some irrelevant but referenced material, I would first discuss on the talk page. Thanks Unspokentruth (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for your great contribution Parvazbato59 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WRT this note

Parvazbato59, in many of your comments you have requested your correspondents confine their comments to the issues. That is good advice.

You left a note on the talk page of the administrator who closed Shahzada, drawing their attention to the page's third revision -- a redirection.

Well, I have explained why I changed the page to a disambiguation page. Doing so was necessary because the wikipedia had multiple articles which could normally have been named "shahzada" -- except that that particular article title was already in use. I explained this, yet you haven't responded to this point. If you are not going to accept the administrator's conclusion could you see your way clear to offering substantive civil replies that respond to your correspondents' counterpoints?

Similarly, I pointed out that the first three contributors to the page offered three different redirection targets. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you in changing the redirect to disambiguation page, however, I did not see you seek any advice from an administrator first, in doing so, (on the third revision), like you did this time. So I apologize for any miscommunications we had thus far. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2