User talk:The Behnam/Archive3

MA mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Pejman47 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your note

Hi there! Apart from some paragraphs that have been added by others, I think the information in the article is not POV. It is true that some informations may need more reliable citation. However they are correct. I only tried to collect the view points of all sides of the debate. I was not attacking pourpirar and others. This is an undisputable fact that Pourpirar, Salimi Namin and others are fighting against Iranian culture. I think there is a consensus on this.

You also deleted some statements like this one: "Also, it is worth noting that there exists a huge controversy over the terminology used to describe Iranian contemporary political philosophy".

I provided several sources and links at the end of article that covers these issues. I don`t have time to make inline citations now. For example I provided more than 10 articles that only address the terminology. The articles are all in Persian though. You also deleted some materials from scholars like Ahmad Sadri! I don`t see any reason for such deletions. I hope you ADD some info to the article too and make it better. Thanks any ways. Sina Kardar 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pic that refers to persian people

I want to make it clear for you that all the induviduals on the represent pic for the persian people article are all taken from the article "list of Iranians" if you are not agree with this please check or complain on the "list of Iranians" article.Addfsfsd 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

no i just cant remove something that arte sourced as persian, you must give sourse to prove thath he is not persianAddfsfsd 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran

Sorry to not be able to help right now, but I'm buried under with other projects already. --Leroy65X 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad mediation update

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad --Sefringle^Talk 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Arab women

Thank you for your suggestion regarding the article on Arab women. It definitely needs more work. I'll try working on expanding it, particularly something on women's rights movements.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pahlavi Crown

Dear Behnam, sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately I do not have any specific sources related to the crown, at least none that I can recall right now. But if I find any I will definitely add them. Thanks for drawing my attention to the article. Shervink 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aniran

Hey, I tried to insert the Iranica information, but for some reason, Wikipedia wouldnt register my edits, the diff shows all my edits clearly, but when I pressed save, it didnt show any of it...Check the history to see what I mean. I reverted back to Smackbot for the time being. Try to revert back to my first edit and see what happens this time.Hajji Piruz 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response.Hajji Piruz 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

{{helpme}} On the Ali Montazeri article, I recently improved (I think) a number of references. The problem is that there are references from different pages of the same source. How do I note this without having to make a new reference? If I add the additional page numbers to the formal reference, I lose specificity, but if I make an entirely new formal reference for each page difference, I gain redundancy. Is there some better alternative? The Behnam 05:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's different pages of the same source, you have to make different references for each fact in a sentence. For example, use this formatting:

Apple is a color<ref>Doe, John. Book title. City: Publishing Company. 2007. pp. 45.</ref>.

For more information, see WP:CITE. Miranda 05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in that page, there is no way I could incorporate all of the 'Moin' references into the formal Moin reference I have for page 262? The Behnam 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for that cite, use <ref name="example">Doe, John. Book title. City: Publishing Company. 2007. pp. 45.</ref>. Then on the other sentences, use <ref=example/>. Miranda 05:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But if it is a different page? The Behnam 05:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You could shorten the bibliographic info in subsequent footnotes. So, in the first, you say, <ref name="example">Doe, John. Book title. City: Publishing Company. 2007. pp. 45.</ref>. In the second, you just say, <ref name="example2">Doe, op. cit., pp. 70.</ref> Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That seems a good way to do it without being too repetitive. Thanks all. The Behnam 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:your note

Hi Behnam: I took it from wiki-persian and the source is: "Pasdasht e Haghighat", by Mohsen Rezaee and Abbas Salimi Namin page: 147.

Would you please correct its English mistakes? Thanks. Sina Kardar 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my note on the talk page too. Thanks. Sina Kardar 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GJ

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Given to The Behnam for his struggle against vandalism, as well as contributing to unity between cultures. Keep up the good work. Cyrus111 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Levity

It was intended as a humorous response; no doubt that's why you found it humorous. It's rather disappointing when (obviously successful) attempts at levity are met with accusations of incivility. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Behnam, your most welcome, thanx for your reward as well. I will also thank Mr. Shahram, however where is the award you say he gave me??? Cant find it anywhere :-( (lill help here) Cyrus111

Re:your note

Thanks for the info. Take care. Sina Kardar 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuteness

Hi The Behnam, I've added a question for you over here. Thanks. --TotoBaggins 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the discussion too. Behnam, please follow up there. I expect you to fully defend your deletion of the image. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Behnam so I take you're ok now with the cuteness picture? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuteness --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran leader

I saw the first 2 links in this edit of yours and they both did make a mention of "Ayotollah of Iran". Could you explain your edit more? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. You can reply here and I'll follow up here. There are lots of google sources that mention these terms together. Whats the difference between these terms then? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the minimal amount of time I've spent looking into that term I haven't seen any significant difference, but until the sources themselves make the generalization that I removed it shouldn't be included. From what I've seen the most amount of OR really allowed is basic math (i.e. converting .75 to 75%) and other simple logical deductions. I don't think that readers suffer too much from the exclusion of that particular anyway. The Behnam 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement in concern is:

In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran

So you're saying that none of the 3 refs were refering to the "Sitting Supreme leader" ? This is what the dispute about, i.e. how the Western Media uses the term. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources were making the claim about the Western media's usage. They need to make that specific claim in order to include such a sentence. Simply citing examples of that usage to forward that claim is original research that cannot be used in the article. The Behnam 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you saw my point. What are you confused about? The Behnam 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which of these statements do you not agree with? 1) The sources were talking about the "Ay of Iran". 2) They were talking about the Supreme Leader of Iran. Please reply on the Cuteness matter too on the talk page there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I disagree with either of them. But that doesn't matter. Unless the sources themselves make a claim along the lines of "In Western media the Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to as the Ayatollah of Iran" we cannot make this claim, as this is original research. What more is there to understand? What is the point of this anyway? Why did you bring this up? The Behnam 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. Although I found google sources (a few RS too) mentioning "Supreme leader" and "aY of Iran", I couldnt find anything mentioning the two full terms "Supreme leader of Iran" and "Ay of Iran". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I noticed you left an opinion on the afd for Allegations of Israeli apartheid could you take a look at the afd for Accusations_of_French_genocide_against_Algerians here [[1]] I would appreciate your opinion Bleh999 01:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment

Behnam, I have few concerns about that and few other lines in that section. 1) the argument is that Vedic have no memories of any migration outside of region known to them. Ghandhara was a region know to them. So that argument doesn't really provide any criticism. 2) The argument presented by OIT proponent is very simple - no memory of migration. This was presented in JIES and a whole lot of scholars criticized the article as per Dab. So why doesn't he use those criticism, instead of creating his own analysis. 3) Parpola doesn't mention anywhere that Rigvedic Aryan preserve any memory of any migration or identify SWAT/Ghandhara as Urheimat or homeland. 4) to present any argument from OIT Dab insists on sources acceptable to WP, so how can he present criticism which is not acceptable to WP policies. 5) it starts with "iron age migration", RigVeda is pre iron age. 6) Dab changed the reference for that statement about 4 times. I checked everyone of those publication and I can not find it anywhere. His statement does not pass WP:V test.

The bigger problem I see in that section and few others is that instead of providing criticism from acceptable sources, Dab is adding so much junk that it just obfuscates the issues. WP is to documents argument presented by others; it is not a place to create new arguments. All of material presented by OIT has been published in acceptable source. It has been extensively criticized by mainstream in JIES. Witzel has published detailed criticism of Talageri and Elst. But there is not one word of that criticism added by Dab. The rules should be same for everyone.Sbhushan 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan

Hi, I didn't know why cais-soas.com was blacklisted and when I clicked the link it appeared legit. So when it wouldn't let me save the article (my edits were unrelated to the links) I embedded it in nowiki to let some other editor deal with it. -N 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Refrence

hi, at "winter solstice", you removed a needed citation, that i believe was very valid and reputable. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Celebrations/yalda.htm i am aware that a similarly named website has caused trouble and that by putting that website on the hyperlink blacklist it has also effected this address (which has nothing wrong with it) that is why the nowiki was employed. is there anything i'm missing? why remove the citation?Some thing 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

TB,

I dont know what your agenda is. But you dont have my vote of confidence. All you had to do was to make changes to the article. Deleting it altogether was a terribly bad move to make.--Zereshk 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just what I am not seeing. What is so terrible about Wikipedia lacking this article? It doesn't even have a real topic. You know I've made changes in the past - I got rid of stuff coming from that now-blacklisted website because I knew it wasn't a reliable source. I even endured getting blocked for it - it isn't like I don't care about the quality of articles.

I had been wondering why exactly this article existed and why it seemed so vague. One thing that brought my attention to it was some anon removing the lead altogether. I undid it as vandalism or something, but I couldn't help but think that the anon was right. The concept of "Iranian women" doesn't exist to merit an encyclopedia article.

The trigger for the deletion was when I was looking over the talk page (shortly before the nomination) and saw someone defending the use of pictures not ideal for the article (under my definition) based upon the definition provided in the article. I removed that aspect of the definition (because it made no sense [2] to me, but who are we to define this "topic"?), and then decided that the non-topic article shouldn't be tolerated any further.

BTW, I am not sure why you used WP:NPA as the title here. Were you referring to your suggestion that I have an "agenda"? The Behnam 06:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian women do not exist to merit an encyclopedia article." Are you even serious?!!!--Zereshk 06:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are quoting me from elsewhere, that is a complete misreading. I said "the concept of "Iranian women" doesn't exist to merit an encyclopedia article." So I am not sure where that quote is from. The Behnam 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just checked this page, the deletion page, Talk:Woman, and Sefringle's talk page (the only places I have written about this matter as far as I know) for the quote you provided and I have found nothing. So I'm pretty sure I never said that. The Behnam 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So "the concept of Iranian women doesn't exist". That's not really a difference. That concept was so big that Ebadi got a Nobel Prize for spending her life defending it.--Zereshk 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it is quite different from saying that Iranian women don't exist. Ebadi spent her life defending the concept of Iranian women? Strange; I thought she was notable for defending Iranian women themselves, not the who-knows-where defined concept of "Iranian women." The Behnam 06:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not different. All ayatollahs do agree unanimously that Iranian women exist. They just dont think that it is an important topic i.e. concept that merits much attention or merit. Ebadi challenged that view.--Zereshk 06:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While it isn't clear exactly what in specific you are referring to (this "challenge"), knowing a little bit about Ebadi my guess is that her activism is part of the Persian women's movement, or otherwise oriented towards promoting women's rights in Iran. So I think that the topic you may be thinking of is not "Iranian women" (not a real topic) but perhaps something like "Women's rights in Iran". But of course I'm not sure because not everything about your position is clear to me at this time. The Behnam 06:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So the topic does exist, you agree.--Zereshk 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, nothing about my posts suggests that I think "Iranian women" is a real encyclopedia topic. The Behnam 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate for you then. I'm sure you think similarly of a lot of other things about Iran as well.--Zereshk 10:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

white people

where, if not at white people will we discuss genetics, phylogeny and traits related to light skin? Just because some people have emotional issues with the topic should not prevent us from a detached discussion of the facts. Genetically, it is the light skin that constitutes the 'aberration' form the human norm, and as such deserves in-depth discussion. Like any other genetic trait, it has an origin, a history, and a geographical distribution. Variation in eye and hair colour are clearly associated with the distribution of light skin. That's not saying that dark-haired whites are somehow "less white", but nevertheless, there are central and marginal areas of the trait, and the central happens to also feature variation in hair and eye pigmentation. According to the source I cited, red hair and blue eyes in particular are even directly correlated to light skin genetically. There is no reason why this should not be discussed. I am obviously with you reverting ideological bullshit like that added by Filiusvita (talk · contribs) (and also less blatant tendentiousness), but I maintain that this cannot impede a discussion of the genetic specifics. The bit about the brunettes illustrates the mechanism of sexual selection towards polymorphism. Read the source I linked. We have lots of articles dealing with racism. We have Caucasian race, Aryan race, Social interpretations of race, Stereotypes of whites, White privilege (sociology), Whiteness studies. I see no reason why the article on white people should also discuss this racialist nonsense instead of focussing on the genetic feature itself. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Devadasi

That is not the point. Undue weight is given to one (sensationalist tabloid) source with regards to designating all devadasis as prostitutes. I know of several devadasis who have no such associations. There are no reliable sources (though plenty of unreliable ones) that specifically accuse ALL devadasis of prostutition. Such a claim is, in fact, negated by the bulk of the wikipedia page itself, which indicates that the practice degenarated into prostitution, but never to the saturation point.Monicheewan 03:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah

Information is relevant to article, relevant to the sort of guidelines that determine what goes into an Encyclopedia, relevant to an accurate depiction of Iran, and relevant to World affairs and politics. Leaving it out would be like omitting information about The Iran-Iraq War, or Zoroastrianism. It is an important piece of information. Stop your propaganda edits. This is supposed be an Encyclopedia with relevant, accurate, true, and honest information, not a propaganda outlet for Persian Pride. --Alexander

Oh, so now I promote Persian Pride on Wikipedia? Right. No, we don't put a section about an organization that is partially funded by Iran's government in the main article about the nation. The Behnam 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Even if they kill and kidnap people in a very visible fashion at the order and understanding of that government? And even if it has a major impact on the International Relations and standing of that nation? Should Iran's military proper not have a place on their main page? Hezbollah has an impact and is of note. Other countries known of suspected of supporting Terrorists, or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them have references to those organizations, including links to those groups entries on their main page. Like Ireland, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, ans so on, and in almost every one of these cases the governments involvement is less than in Iran's case with Hezbollah. Why should Iran's page be any different? Is Iran special somehow? In some manner protected from the publishing of an inconvenient truth? I fail to understand your reasoning. I am wary of your intentions. As for obeying Wikipedia's rules, I've yet to do otherwise, and I've no intention of being nasty. As far as cooperation, I'd be happy to cooperate with any other Wikipedia user in the quest to make sure pages have relevant, honest, informative, unbiased information on them. If you mean anything else by cooperate, then no, I don't. I'd be happy to sort the manner out with you via rational, plain, honest discourse, where the only agenda to push is the Truth and Relevancy of the article.Alexander 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Hezbollah is right or wrong is not the issue here - the issue is that Iran is not the appropriate location for that section. I and others have already explained this and I am tired of your baseless claims suggesting that I'm pursuing some sort of agenda. The Behnam 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Yea, you were correct. The vast majority of sources, if not all, say he was Persian.Hajji Piruz 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess some users objected or something, I'm not really sure why Iranian was used even though the facts clearly pointed to his exact ethnicity...there are other articles that still need to be fixed.Hajji Piruz 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Iranian women

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Iranian women, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex

Don't you think the behavior of this guy is simply unacceptable? Shervink 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My response to your advice

Dear Behnam, I absolutely oblige and I am ready for conciliation so that we can move forward. I am concerned that these individuals are not ready for a reasoned discussion, as witnessed by shervink’s recent rant about his self-respect and his announcement that"I think there is simply no room for mediation or discussion"!!!. This is consistent with my long experience in dealing with such characters. They rant, mock, accuse, but never engage in a source-based discussion. Nevertheless, I will wait for such a discussion.

There is a strong case for arguing that the Pahlavies were the main culprits for the annihilation of an entirely astute constitution which was bestowing Iran with a golden opportunity at a critical junction for a socio-economical take-off at the beginning of the last century. Our historical perspectives should allow us to examine the judgment that their regime is responsible for what happened since. Respectfully Yours Artaxerex 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kashmiri People

Thanks for your message to 77.98.28.45 (I wasn't logged in) when I added that reference. There seem to be a lot of People who keep distorting facts and repeatedly vandalize the article. Something needs to be done about them, I've tried to contribute as much as I can, stating references where ever possible. Dardic people are also of Aryan origin and are not Semitic. The problem I think is that, fundamentalist Hindus who seem to think that Kashmiris were only Hindu before Islam came to the valley are trying to dictate their own theories into the article. Rinchen who was among the first Kashmiris to have converted to Islam by the teachings of Saint Bulbul Shah was a Bhuddist priest (later ruler of Kashmir) and a Dard Kashmiri from Ladakh. Kind Regards Abdelchi 00:50, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Behnam, thank you for your advice. I do not mind to adhere to your recommandations so long as I'd be assured that the sourced historical facts about the the Reza Khan and his son will see the light of the day at the end of this process.

On another note, while I am always ready to have an open mind, I am not sure why my behaviour needs modification in this dispute. I have provided source material and Shervink and co. deleted my edits. This, according to the fellow himself, is called vandalism. When you invited me to come back and discuss those points I accepted your invitation. However, the fellow wrote that he will not participate in the discussion, and refused to moderate the tone of my edit if it was needed to do so. Then he asked his gang to participate in a kangroo vote to delete those facts and the gang responded as was expected. Is it not the case that it is this gang that needs to modify its behaviour? Respectfully yours Artaxerex 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My "sudden"(?) sensitivity

Hi Behnam. I'd like to clarify something about this comment of yours [3]. There was no "discussion in progress" as far as I recall, which you claim I have stalled, unless you think that making page-long controversial undiscussed edits, starting an edit war and making personal attacks means discussion. His first act of "discussion", in his words indeed, was to "restore" the article to his version [4][5], and soonafter to add that given the intellectual level of my discourse he strongly doubted that I had the slightest idea of fathoming the importance of his edits [6]! Now please think about it for a moment and tell me who stalled the discussion. There is no "sudden" sensitivity on my part. I am, as any person would be, sensitive to insults and personal attacks directed at me. You seem to place part of the blame on me because I have complained about someone attacking me. I don't think that makes any sense. The responsibility is with the person who attacks, not with the victim. I have, by comparison, been perhaps the most open editor on that page towards Artaxerex's edits (most others seem to have given up hope long ago), and I decided to give it a try again in case he genuinely has understood how wrong his behavior was. But as long as he thinks he has done nothing wrong (above he suggets it is not him who needs a change of behavior), it will be a waste of time to talk to him. That is the reason for my sensitivity. Only then can we start talking about any of his sources and claims. Oh and please do not pick up his notion of "gangs" and "companies" in your posts, you seem to be too reasonable to use such language. Shervink 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay out of Iran-related article disputes

It has been established, by countless editors now, that you are not at all familiar with Iran-related articles to any level and you have simply used your alleged "half-Iranian" status which I call you on, as a front for attacking Iranian editors repeatedly and interfering with their valid edits simply because "you feel like it". I suggest you find another area of specialty.Mehrshad123 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Behnam:

• As I expected one by one of those editors, who shervink claimed had left because of my edits, are coming bank to endorse his RFC. The latest are Mehrshad123 and Rayis.
• Of course, I now realize how pointless was my anger, and the best response to provocative messages would have been to ignore them. Incidently, I wonder if you've noticed my missive on the RFC pages which read:

Behnam, Admitedly my desire to balance the Mohammad Reza Pahalavi and Reza Shah pages got the better of me, and my frustration caused me to react in a deplorable anger towards fellows such as shervink. I thought that the fact that these indivduals were deleting sourced historical facts would justify my anger, particularly when they were calling me various names. However this justification was, of course, left a lot to be desired. I should have focused on the contents, and for this I genuinely apologize. The last thing in the world I'd be eager to do would be to be disrespectful of others, and to those who feel I was disrespectful towards I offer my apology.

I hope this apology would allow us to return to the content in dispute -- and to do so in a civil manner, reaching a Wikipedia defined concensus. I hope also that you, Behnam, would play the role of a mediator. I hope you would show us the best way to present the important sourced facts in an NPOV style. Respectfully yours Artaxerex 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since I am not familiar with the RFC procedures I thought to ask you a couple of questions and I hope you will kindly provide the answers for me. Here are my questions: 1. Can a group of editors vote to ban someone in an RFC? 2. If they can, would it be for a short or a long period? 3. What would be the best procedure for a`banned editor to edit the pages after the ban is lifted. 4. In general, is my understanding correct that the statement 'wikipedia is not a democracy' means that a majority cannot delete the sourced materials?

Respectfully Yours' Artaxerex 23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. The last question: what is the "referee list" that Mehrshad123 talks about in the following email to shervink, and are there any referees from shervink group im that list?

Hello Shervin; I left a note on "TheBehnam"'s discussion page regarding his repeated interference in edits and disputes related to Iran-related articles. I do not believe he is Iranian at all because he has repeatedly shown that he has little to no knowledge on Iran-related topics and he simply interferes in valid edits by Iranian editors because "he feels like it", as opposed to having any knowledge of the topic.

I am quite concerned that he is being called to "mediate" content disputes on Iran-related articles when he has absolutely no knowledge in this area and if you know he we can remove his name from the referee list I will be glad to start a petition.Mehrshad123 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shervink"

Your contribution at the Kashmiri people article

Thanks for getting back to me. The problem is that a person's opinion is straying into Original Research. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a place for established facts, not opinions or original research. You might want to consult WP:OR. Cheers, Dogru144 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Referee List

• Thank you for your prompt response. In fact, looking back at this saga, I realize that it was mostly the provocative tone of Mehrshad123, with its suggestive racial undertones, that made me really frustrated and angry with this group. For example, when he wrote :"OK and apparently you are Greek using a misspelled Persian shah's name (who fought with Greece) for your account which is bizarre on its own." in here ([7]), or when he stated that you are "alleging" that you are "half-Iranian"!! and somehow your not blue-blooded status disqualifies you of having any educated opinion on Iran!! This kind of statements boils my blood.

This attitude is also clear from his message to Shervink about you; "I do not believe he is Iranian at all because he has repeatedly shown that he has little to no knowledge on Iran-related topics and he simply interferes in valid edits by Iranian editors because "he feels like it", as opposed to having any knowledge of the topic." According to this logic if somebody has little or no knowledge on Iran-related topics he would not be Iranian, and of course, the judgment of "a little or no' would depend on how much of that knowledge corresponds to this group's version of facts!! To my way of thinking the question of nationality is totally irrelevant, am I disqualified of having any information about the US, because I am not American?!!. None of the people in this group disassociated themselves from these types of comments. Furthermore they invited each others to various plots to veto the facts which was unpleasant to them.

I may be ranting, but this was the main reason for my anger when I called them racists. My summer holidays are fast coming to their end and my hopes to balance the two articles during this time are dashed.

Best Regards Artaxerex 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Message from Laserpointer35

Sorry to post a message here, i'm new to this, didnt know how to contact you. Just wanted to know if you like to work on few iran related articles for wiki or outside wiki, if youre intersted, please let me know, thanks. Koosha Hashemi k35@btinternet dot com

Thank you

• Thank you very much for the information. I am rather clumsy in finding this kind of information, and I find the search for these policies somewhat cumbersome. I am sure that a great majority of Iranians, including me, would be thrilled to have you as a fellow Iranian of full standing, and I am sure that they will be embarrassed enormously if somebody suggests otherwise. Best regards, Artaxerex 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw your contribution to the RFC, and would like to thank you for your neutral stand. I appreciate any suggestions as how to present some of those diputed contents in the body of the article after the termination of this Saga. Of course, I welcome any comments by shervink, and other editors who support him in order that we would be able to balance those disputed points.

Category Links

Oops! Thanks for fixing that at Iranian women and explaining my mistake. I'd better go move the categories I've just added to "see to" to the bottom of the Women in India article as well. --Moonriddengirl 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The Behnam 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Crescent Rising

Thanks. While I didn't create that one, I'd have properly put it with a lowercase "r" as well. I am not yet fully familiar with naming conventions. Slowly figuring this massive project out. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI...

User:Hayden5650 is quite certainly User:Nordic Crusader. No "maybe" about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not he, and I sincerely regret divulging on-wiki who I know off-wiki --Hayden5650 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, checkuser evidence is not in the least bit vague here. On at least five occasions, you and Nordic Crusader used the same IP within minutes of each other; either you are playing musical chairs at the same computer or you're the same human being. Has nothing to do with any divulging you may regret; I'm not aware of those statements. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll look further into the nature of Nordic Crusader's block to see if it is appropriate to extend the block. Hayden has certainly had his share of disruption so far, and knowing that he was Nordic Crusader adds more to this. The Behnam 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Discussion

Dear Behnam, Thanks to your sagacious advices,I am glad that the discussion on MRP has restarted. I know that you are a busy man, but I am looking forward to have your advice. I’d like to ask you please keep an eye on this discussion. I am pledging to be very civil, and to stick to the disputed content. I am hoping that at least some version of the facts from the spoken words of the Monarch registered on various video interviews can be presented in an NPOV manner. 24.81.86.124 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Not that I know of. JFD 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is on the main checkuser page. Outstanding request 1.5 (for the moment). JFD 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think all it means is that someone forgot to remove the {{checkuser requests to be listed}} template when it was listed on the main checkuser page. JFD 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cut & paste it to WP:SSP, be my guest.

I've got crank fatigue for the moment and don't feel like dealing with it.

JFD 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KarenAER

Has reported me for 3RR. here I got no warnings and was using the talk page and consensus for the reverts, and changes. A few days or so ago I was going to report him/her for being uncivil. I have collected many instances of this, but after reading the process to report a user I gave up. There has to be two users who agree, so I didn't feel right canvassing others. I guess I got caught up in the moment, and am now being retaliated against. <sigh> - Jeeny ^Talk 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't post that to you expecting you to do anything about the report. As I did revert, for different reasons. Although it may have seemed as I was asking you to do something. Like I said, I got caught up in the moment and became frustrated, but of course that does not absolve me. It was more to do about Karen's behavior than anything else, which is very frustrating. I'll sit out, and take whatever is to come. Thanks. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG lol which one? I'm afraid I'll mess something up with others edits. I'm so confused. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I just hope I didn't mess anything else up on the page. I'm just going to take what is decided in the report. I feel a bit sneaky doing this anyway. Again, thanks! 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help and comments. I really appreciate it much! - Jeeny ^Talk 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• I really am grateful for all your excellent comments. I wish I knew how to offer you a banner that would say: "You Are the Finest" Artaxerex 02:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

White people

I thank you for everything. I am going to take the white people off my watch list, because I obviously cannot keep my word to stay civil. I'm going to trust that the good out-way the bad. There is no need for me at that article, as I find it hard to control my emotions and that is a bad sign, and I should heed my better judgment. Emotion often gets in the way of better judgment, for me anyway. Good luck, and stay cool. I don't know you, but know you are fair, and are of good character. That gives me comfort. Adieus, dear The Behnam. Please, if perchance, and there always is, if you see me on that article please feel free to smack me on my talk page. I will need it. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Semitic

Behnam, I am really very surprised that you think you need to teach me about such obvious things. When I say that Iranians are not semitic, I mean that both their languages and their culture are quite distinct from those of the semitic people. This has nothing to do with race. Shervink 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comments

Thanks for your comments. Reviewing the history of the topic its just more talking in circles and the particular article is a mess. Perhaps it should either be deleted entirely or rewritten. Let me know if you need help with keeping it honest. Feel free to discuss other topics as well. Thomas Paine1776 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Step 2 in WP:DR

Greetings Behnam, I suggested to leave the discussion for couple of months to cool things a bit off. But apprently SG argued that it would be of no use. You did promise to provide a neutral suggestion which I am anxiously awaiting for, hopping that it will help this thing to move forward. All the best Artaxerex 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice again, as it is very helpful. With my vacations ending I'll be back to work on Monday, but I will try to spend as much time as possible on this issue. I have invested too much time to let it collapse. I will be posting some more sources to see if I can satisfy shervink and if he still finds these new sources unreliable I think it would be justified for me to go back to edit. It's shame that they never tried any compromise, because I was ready to tone down many of these issues. All the best wishes Artaxerex 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand what's happening at White people

I think I may have some insight as to what motivates Muntuwandi: it was made clear early on the editors on the article "whites" somehow wasn't synonymous with "Caucasoids", which was my original understanding before I came to the article. It was also made clear (the intro says it) that "white" is based on skin pigmentation. Putting two and two together, if white is based on skin pigmentation only, then something is also wrong with the article (as Muntuwandi pointed out at some point, albinos from any race would then be "white"), and a myriad other counterintuitive items. In fact, the closest I've come to understand this concept of "white" is if it is defined to limit itself to "light-skinned Caucasoids", but it seems everybody on the article is reluctant to make the obvious connection to the fact that "white" is at least a near-synonym for Caucasoids, and at least one editor flatly denies the existence of a "Caucasoid race". Please understand me if I say that at this point, this seem to me more and more like a slice of life from "Alice in Wonderland" :) While I don't necessarily agree with everything Muntuwandi has done, I think I understand his position that somehow, the term as it is used in the article needs to be more firmly buttressed in anthropological and sociological concerns, as it now feels at times like a piece of racial ideology, unsupported by evidence (except the most empirical one). Not sure I totally made sense to you, I'm just hoping I did and that I -or we- can make other editors understand these concerns, which I feel are fundamental to the article.--Ramdrake 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration started

Greetings. Please have a look at this, since you are listed as an involved party on this request. Shervink 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About Artaxerex

Hi. You might be interested to know that it seems Artaxerex has been editing this article with four different user names (Arteban, Arteban1, Artaban, and Vazgen), as well as the IP adress he sometimes uses on other pages. Just have a look at the history of the articles and at the edits. Vazgen has even been warned by another editor regarding this. His behavior is thus not limited to the particular topic of modern Iranian history, and has not stopped after the RfC. Shervink 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actress/Actor

LOL. I'm laughing out loud, I scared my cats. I'm sorry. lol. The userbox is a generic one, not to disparage. lololol. Because it saves time and face, I guess if it's a woman or man. Although now-a-days the professionals prefer actor, comedian, etc. Not gender specific. :) I'm sorry for laughing. I'm not laughing at you, just the situation. It may be a natural stress relief response. I don't know why I found that so funny. Some things just hit me at the right or wrong time as funny (more so on the internet than in real life). I don't know why. I actually have tears running down my cheek. LOL. I'm a kook. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Artaxerex

Greetings. Regarding the sockpuppetry, I'm quite confident that those usernames are in fact Artaxerex, though of course you can never be absolutely sure without a checkuser. I am not sure however, whether it is a good idea to request the checkuser simultaneously with the ArbCom request. I don't want to confuse people by creating a mess after all, but I'd appreciate your view on this: Do you think it is a good idea to request a checkuser right now? Regarding his uncivil behavior, I was referring mostly to this and this. He says that "Aryamehrism has survived to this century", and defines it as "talking softly in a liberal tone, and act despotic without any shame". Well, there is no doubt whom he means by that statement. In the other post he calls my statements disgusting and myself anti-semitic. Regardless of what the subject matter of the discussion is, the use of such insults and labels is uncivil behavior. Shervink 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested the CU [8], please have a look if you like. Regards. Shervink 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, on the ArbCom page he again denies having resorted to sockpuppetry, although he had previously acknowledged it to get me back to discussion. Do you still think this guy can be trusted?! Shervink 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your comment on ArbCom. Thanks. Shervink 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see my response here. I don't mind if you remove your comment from ArbCom, it's your choice. Shervink 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, do you think that these [9][10] are the statements of someone abiding by WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility and WP:BATTLE? Shervink 08:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Seriously, what should I do about this guy? I'm sick and tired of being insulted everytime I log in to wikipedia. What are these [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] if not personal attacks? I have seen people blocked for far less than this, and there is no question he has not observed his pledge to be civil. I'd really like to know what you think about this. Shervink 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the slap

Thanks. Too late. Thanks for the well wishes. I wish you well too. I love you, even if you are a person. lol :-( Jeeny 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny

Why did Jeeny leave exactly. I have looked it up and I think someone vandled her page... and she thinks that someone is me. look at her history she says she thinks it was me. If you have any way of contacting her please tell her it wasn't me who vandaled her page. Seth71 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. It just shocked me though that she thought I was the vandel, but I don't see where it was vandeled though. Seth71 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's confirmed Artaxerex is a Sockpuppet

• Behnam, it appears that the great spy works of shervink was fruitful and Vazgen, who shares my IP (with 15 other people) is my sockpuppet!! so you can go ahead and ban me for six month or for ever. Thank you and fairwell.
• Congratulation to you shervink. You can now go ahead and talk about your glorious Aryan race, and raise the banner of your heroic Aryamehr Shah! and fascism!
• Nevertheless, and forevermore, I want to assure everybody that if you fail to banish me, I will continue to fight against all those racist and facsist remarks with reason and based on valid sources as I have always done so.

Artaxerex 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Did you see the outcome of the RFCU for muntuwandi? [18] Ruled as unnecessary. That should warrant some sort of block on him, let alone the constant unrelenting addition of uncited, POV information to articles. --देसीफ्राल 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it may have been a 'throwaway account', doesn't seem to have edited in a couple of days. Someone did float the idea the other day, though, that it may be worth having a proper RFCU run on Muntuwandi and Ramdrake, the two seem very closely entwined with their edits and comments which often verge on being downright abusive. --देसीफ्राल 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep an eye on it. As for the Muntu/Ramdrake puppetry, I hadn't really looked into it with regards to edit histories, but you're right, Ramdrake does defend Muntuwandi too much. Anyway, happy editing! --देसीफ्राल 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Ramdrake and Mutuwandi are not the same. Don't waste your time. sorry, I couldn't resist as this is so wrong. I'm not alive anymore - Jeeny ^Talk 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ghost of Jeeny has run an otherworldly checkuser called "common sense." Spooky. The Behnam 05:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Boo! I'm here to haunt you until your break. Ramdrake is from earth, Mutuwandi is maybe from Pluto. Although, there isn't anything wrong with that. Of course, I can see all beyond the grave. ghost of Jeeny

Creepy. How does one get a restraining order from someone who floats through walls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You okay, bud?

Just dropping a line to see how you are holding up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm alright. Though some of the articles are a bit frustrating, I'm trying to make some progress before the end of the month. How are you doing? The Behnam 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Working the Potter wikiproject pages. For the most part, it's a no-brainer, but sometimes I get a thorny issue to consider. good stuff to accompany summer workloads. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds cool. I suppose there are no Persian hordes to fight on those articles... though I'm open to the possibility of witch activists. The Behnam 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but there are clowns like the ones who peddled the anti-semitism and commie angle of the books here. However, taking their arguments apart is easy, and not likely to become a massive cattle call for Persians to come to the aid of wiki-barbarians at the gates of Persian pride. 300 was a good training ground for learning what to do and an object lesson in what things to not do. I learned a lot from it (mostly, not to give them an inch). Anyway, hope your Summer is superfine. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's alive

It's alive! and badder than ever, but still restricting my contributions for now. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19

Hello again. A little while ago there was a user called User:KarenAE who came to the White people article shortly after Lukas19 left it. This person had a very similar editing and arguing style. I reported thei person for sockpuppetry. Though nothing came of this KarenAE was told that he was behaving in a very similar manner to someone who was blocked and should therefore attempt to be more consensual. Take a look at User talk:KarenAE's talk page. Now we seem to have a user called User:KarenAER who seems to have the same tactics as Lukas19 and is already attempting to start RfCs etc.[19] against editors who do not agree with their POV. What do you think? All the best. Alun 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny

Thanks for your note, but I thought that it was abundantly clear from the note I left on her talk page that I knew she was manipulated into it. I even left my e-mail addres for her if she wanted a safe space to talk about it (where we could be free to say anything knowing it would not b used against us). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I struck out Phral's words on Jeeny's talk page

Not because he took them back, but because this is plain trolling to me. You're of course free to disagree as much as you want and I'll respect that, but I've come to have very little tolerance for this kind of behaviour lately.--Ramdrake 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do that, from now on, thanks.--Ramdrake 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I did delete it, but then reverted myself. It just shows what we're up against. :) I've allowed others to discuss the death penalty on my userpage before, even though I'm against it. No reason I have to censor Phral's views on a user talk page (mine). He has a right to his views, but not in the articles. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily a Hitler fanatic or anything, certainly not a troll, but I think it is stupid and offensive just to write someone off as 'bad' and 'evil' because that's what everyone says. Yes, he killed some Jews, but if it wasn't for that clouding everyone's judgement, they would remember him for his many great accomplishments and achievements. It's not until you do your own research without the pressure of anti-nazi propaganda that you can truly form an honest opinion on Hitler and National Socialism. --Phral 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

wow.

Wow. Thanks for telling me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Are you OK? Thinking of you. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see my response on my talk. Fourdee and Phral may be the same. Fourdee is blocked, Phral hasn't edited since. <shrug> - Jeeny ^Talk 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Is that it? =( - Jeeny ^Talk 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Europe people

As soon as you can, please comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

x

Talk:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

Thanks for your help! I was in the process of erasing inflammatory messages too. -F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem - that whole thing was headed in the wrong direction. The Behnam 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Case

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that, as a part of informal mediation, I have asked everyone involved to make a statement. Would you mind making a statement at the article's talk page? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding

Thanks for reminding.Overthrow is a much better word. Because it is common knowledge that the Islamic Republic has to be overthrown. However,it is not that amuzing.193.219.246.250 18:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I left another warning in his talk page. If he continues, we can report it ANI and request that ip be blocked. Although I know that it doesn't change anything, this place is an excellent terrorist/racist/separatist magnet:); if he goes another one will continue his path in another way in others artilces...

And by the way thanks for watching some articles of Iran. Cheers.--Pejman47 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

FYI: [20] KarenAER 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what is the story here? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. I've responded on the ANI. Cheers, The Behnam 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has become far more clear. Sorry for the interruption... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ping

I've sent you an email via the special:emailuser feature. Picaroon (t) 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On Tang-e Bolaghi

Dear The Behnam, you may consider to play a more constructive role instead of asserting "looks like ..." and subsequently remove half of the text. The text you had removed in not due to me, although I have moderated its language; compare with [21] which shows the text when I came in. If the text is unreliable, then you will have played a constructive role by substituting it by a reliable one instead of just removing it. Let me be clear: I am not pursuing any political agenda, neither here nor anywhere else; I defend truth, even if that goes against whatever personal interests I may have. Please go through the "external links", the ones due to CHN (I have thus far had no time to read all of them), and construct a reliable text out of them. There is no doubt that archaeological sites will be inundated by the Sivand Dam; whether there will be 130 or 147 of them, I do not know. Please also have a look in [22] and compare it with the text before I arrived: [23]. To leave you in no doubt, Iran is dear to me, and I am not here to discredit Iran or the regime of Iran. I have even written two e-mails, one to CHN (the person I wrote to is Ms Soudabeh Sadigh at foreigndesk@chn.ir) and one to the official website of Pasargadae World Heritage Site (at info@pasargadae.org), both of which (certainly the first one, as the e-mail address indicates) are in Iran, asking them to inspect the text and correct its shortcomings (from Ms Soudabeh Sadigh, who is the author of at least some of the CHN news reports, I further requested to place more photographs in the photo gallery). Kind regards, --BF 08:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Behnam, thanks for your note. As I mentioned to you earlier, at this very moment I have no reason to believe that the data in the entry on Tang-e Bolaghi are either correct or incorrect (I mainly built on what was already there, since 2005, adding only the information about the 7000-years old skeleton), however I am in no doubt that inundation of the sites is real and no hype. From this perspective, please do not hesitate to place any marks, indicating that citation is required, that you believe to be necessary in that article (deleting that last paragraph is not justified on account of the fact that at the very least it contains some directly verifiable facts). Unfortunately, at this very moment I am not in a position to make a study of all the available documents --- that will come later; for the coming month I will be too busy to do any substantial work on Wikipedia, so in the meantime please do not hesitate to improve the entry on Tang-e Bolaghi. One last thing, if you know any academics and/or experts around you, please encourage them to spend some of their leisure time on improving the Iran-related Wikipedia entries (that is what I do when I write to friends and colleagues); in general the extant entries are of a very inferior quality; I am not aware of a single Iran-related entry ever having been a featured article, which is a shame. Kind regards, --BF 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One further comment, what is much debated about is not whether archaeological sites will be inundated (it is beyond any doubt that they will and no one denies this fact), but about whether Pasargadae will be endangered as a result of the increase in the level of the underground water --- the authorities say that this will not be the case, but many are not convinced that this reflects reality; there are even some who claim that building the Sivand Dam amounts to a macabre plan to destroy Iran's link to its non-Islamic past. I have no particular views on any of these claims and counter-claims. I can however tell of my own personal experience that directly after the revolution there was a call on the national radio (I heard it with my own ears) begging people to go and prevent a bunch of fanatics who had been seen to drive in heavy bulldozers towards Persepolis to destroy "one of the main reminders to Iran's links to Shahs"; fortunately, some brave men did answer to this call and saved Persepolis. This just shows why there is considerable amount of scepticism concerning the very idea behind building the Sivand Dam. --BF 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Behnam, please feel free to incorporate whatever you deem to be the correct information. Be mindful however that you derive your information form a variety of sources; CHN is one source which may not be entirely neutral on the issue. Now as for Pasargadae and the increase in the level of the underground water, some conservatism is always healthy, since the monument in question is unique and irreplaceable; any mistake on the part of the proponents of the Dam can in principle turn out to have been disastrous. It is in the nature of things that we cannot foresee all consequences of what we do today, so that erring on the side of caution is preferable to making irreversible mistakes. Take the genetic modification of plants; if one leaves such changes to take place solely by market forces, then we may discover it far too late that we may have damaged the source of our food, with catastrophic consequences for the entire humanity. Governments can pursue ill-conceived plans, and not because of some conspiracy (at least not always), but almost always because of short-sightedness in the broadest sense of the word; after all government advisers approach problems mainly from their restricted perspectives (they are hand-picked so that they most likely think in the way their advisees think). And of course, humans being what they are, they often persist in their mistakes with the sole purpose of saving face, and governments show this human trait very often and in the most pronounced forms (they do not wish to be conceived as weak). To summarise, please in your text give all extant points of view a fair exposition, even if you may not subscribe to some of them. Kind regards, --BF 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Behnam, two sites in the External Links section relate to groups that are sceptical about the Sivand Dam, one is "International Committe to Save the Archaeological Sites of Pasargad" (I have linked to both the English and the Persian pages), and "Sivand" (the last but one link); the latter link is somewhat confusing, but contains some very useful links --- I have seen links to people's pages in Iran who are vehemently opposed to the Dam. If you have not done it so far, please watch the film by Mohammad and Negar Salehi-Zadeh on YouTube. It is truly heart-rending to see that beautiful field disappearing below water. Although I am not certain, I have the strongest feeling that Rah-e Shahi will also disappear below water, the thought of which gives me nightmares. Kind regards, --BF 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Dear The Behnam, with reference to the links that you have placed in the talk page of Tang-e Bolaghi, just wished to draw your attention to the other CHN links on the latter page itself. Further, since you are on a fact-finding mission, you may also wish to consult what I have placed (since sometimes ago) on the talk page of Sadegh Hedayat. Kind regards, --BF 07:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Kind regards, --BF 08:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Behnam, this afternoon I had an e-mail from the person whose four photographs I have placed in the photo gallery of Tang-e Bolaghi, giving me the permission to display her photographs in conjunction with the entry on Tang-e Bolaghi. She further directed me to what she had written in her bolg sometimes ago about the inundation plan of Tang-e Bolaghi. The appropriate page is here: [24]. As you see, there are real people living inside Iran who are truly worried about this inundation plan (it is therefore not a case of people living outside Iran making noise). It appears that the archaeological finds in Tang-e Bolaghi date back to 12,000 years ago. Etc., etc. It makes it all the more important to improve the Wikipedia entry on Tang-e Bolaghi to such an extent that sooner than later it becomes a featured article. In the case that you are part of any working groups on Wikipedia, perhaps you may wish to bring the significance of Tang-e Bolaghi to their attention. Kind regards, --BF 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Accent

Hey man I took at a look at the article and yes, it could do with quite some work. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment and accents aren't my specialty. I've added the article to my watchlist though, so if some free time suddenly comes up, I'll give it a look... - Francis Tyers · 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Vonones 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

err...

err..., I prod'ed (rather than redirect) because there is a bad redirect pointing to that page. -- Fullstop 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm also very busy. I will definetly be involved in the talk page whenever I have time to log on. Thanks for coming to me about the issue.Hajji Piruz 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

White people

Just want to make sure you know that the OR comment wasn't meant to be taken personally - it was a general comment on the discussion, which I thought was getting off-track. I didn't (or didn't intend/mean to) question your good faith, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism

It is not vandalism, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsinto (talk • contribs)

Smile

Jeeny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just to let you know I'm thinking of you and hope you're doing/feeling well. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No further contact, please

I have asked you once to stop leaving messages on my talk page, and am asking again. you have chosen to meddle in a dispute which was not your business, and which neither editor in the dispute asked you to mediate. Until such time as you are asked to intervene, I am asking you to back off. Further, you are aware (or should be, since you linked to the diff of my post about it) that I am under a great deal of stress, what with the hospitalization of my partner. To further antagonize me, knowing that, seems like harassment to me. Further messaging me on my page (and feel free to reply here) will be treated as harassment. I'm quite serious--in my current stressed out state, that orange message bar is an annoyance I don't need to deal with. Jeffpw 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you apologized for your mistake [25] instead of further digging in your heels, I'll not pursue this one further, though any further violations (if I notice them, obviously) will be noted and attempts toward policy compliance will continue, yada yada. I actually didn't know about that personal issue until signing on today (where did I link it??), but regardless you should realize that you oughtn't cite personal problems as a way to try silencing compliance measures as "harassment" - I assure you that my aim is not to harass. BTW, If the orange message bar is too stressful, have you considered a wikibreak? WP can be a rough place you know. If the orange bar was bothering me I'd probably take a break - communication between editors is a fundamental part of the collaborative process.

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear of your life's current difficulties. Hopefully things will change. Cheers. The Behnam 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern for my Wiki well-being is noted, however I assure you if I am in need of advice or support I have others I would turn to before listening to you. I have edited on pages with you before--I didn't care for you then, and I do not care for you now. Since you have blogged this as a "case closed" on your "local news" subpage, I suggest we stay out of each other's way from this point further. Cheers, Jeffpw 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember now when we previously met. I was new and made some rather poor but well-meaning edits (mistakes, if you will), and you bit me. Now I understand what you did as a violation of WP:AGF:

• Calling me a vandal [26], you warn me for the same edits that User:Kendrick7 had already warned me for [27].
• I freak out and protest to being called a vandal and a POV editor - [28][29][30]
• Fortunately, you removed your bogus warning upon realizing that you were wrong [31], without resistance.

Biting newbies is bad. It makes them afraid to edit (see this, for example). I sincerely hope that you come to respect and abide by NPA, AGF, and other conduct policies in the future. Cheers. The Behnam 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam/Local news

Hi. A have a few concerns about this subpage you are keeping. General consensus is against editors keeping this sort of "evidence" of past misdeeds of others hanging around. It tends to create rather a negative atmosphere and lead to a feeling that those listed are under scrutiny in some way. Dwelling on past perceived misdeeds is rarely helpful to better relations in future. Such pages have occasionally been found exceptable where they are drafts to pending attempts to seek redress (for example WP:RFC or WP:RFARB but if, as it appears, you are not contemplating such proceedings anytime soon in relation to those users, I think it would be best deleted. You can request one of your userpages be deleted by tagging it with {{db-user}}. If the conduct of those editors listed bothers you so much, its probably best to just to avoid them - as I see one has asked you to do above. WjBscribe 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is inappropriate about it. Any of the material may be used in some future pursuit of compliance. I haven't acted upon much of it because I am not exactly sure what to do - some of the harassment has been quite severe but I don't know where to go.

A "negative atmosphere" is what is created by the violations themselves, not by logging them. It really isn't my problem if the users mentioned feel uncomfortable that record and discussion of their violations, which they censor from their own talk pages, is available in my own log. If the sense of "scrutiny" assures future compliance, even better - no time wasted with strange formal processes and all of that. It should be understood that none are exempt from NPA, AGF, etc.

I have tried to be fair about it - I've only looked at the more recent contribs from the users, as I believe it unfair to judge by older ones that may reflect a lack of maturity that has since changed. Essentially it is an application of the golden rule - I would not like others to characterize me by stuff I did thousands of edits ago. Note: Mehrshad's aren't all recent in the sense of 'time' because he only comes on occasion. When he is here, I've noticed a general tendency to make all sorts of attacks upon me, questioning my ethnicity and implying that I have to be "Iranian" in his eyes to edit Iran-related articles. I don't appreciate this harassment.

As for the page itself, it was inspired by User:TShilo12/RFC, while the title I took from User:Slrubenstein/Local news.

Anyway, the record is a good way to keep track of these things, especially since I tend to forget the specifics if I don't keep track. I've got to go for now, but more on this later. Regards, The Behnam 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to butt in like this, but I think I'd have to second WJB's request above. There were some threads on WP:AN about this kind of thing some time back, and the consensus was that it shouldn't be done except for purposes of immediate preparation of RfCs or similar processes. Why not just take it offline and store whatever you need to store on your computer? Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is the problem with it? A "negative atmosphere" - meaning that the misbehaving user doesn't like that his misbehavior is being noted? A "feeling that those listed are under scrutiny in some way" - well, "scrutiny" is accurate, but such scrutiny cannot possibly be bad. If it encourages the user to stop misbehaving, then the problem is solved by the page - in this sense the page is beneficial to the project.

Anyway, if I do have to move it to my computer in compliance with the hiding of evidence of violation, is there any Wiki-like editor I can use? One of the reasons I put it here is that it is easier organizing and viewing, etc. I am still hesistant though, as there is no just reason to delete this page. In fact, to do so encourages exhausting/time-consuming formal processes because the user in question does not realize that violations are being noted, and thus thinks that he can get away with them. Why not softly encourage the user to shape up?

If the evidence on such a page is bogus, then it shouldn't bother the other user anyway, because such evidence could never hope to succeed in a formal event.

So, this page is better viewed as positive than negative. Of course, you say that a consensus has been established against my position already, so I will seek this and challenge it unless something comes up that makes me change my mind. The Behnam 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

unreliable sources

I know... I immediately took that source away cyrus111 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)