Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 14 March 2009

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Iran

Hello, I have reverted the change you did, back to Alexander the Great. Yes, that is a title and that is the title he is mostly known for in the western world and in English (the language of this version of wikipedia), so that is the title that should be used. Even the Alexander the Macedonian redirects to Alexander the Great. I know that in some countries it is not used, but it is in most of the english-speaking countries. Also, almost every other article on english[REDACTED] that metions him does it as Alexander the Great, so we should use it to avoid confusion. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no general rule and therefore reverting to what a user wishes is fine.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Parthia

Dorood Parthia can use some serious work..But Iranica has good articles on them At one time, I was collecting lots of linguistic materials related to Parthian language, since it is very close to modern Persian and other Iranian languages, specially Zazaki. But I do not have the time I like to contribute to the article, but if you have time, feel free to do so. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i knew of those. i recently have gotten the full text of this book. in the case you, or others, need that i can provide it.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool..Actually you can find more recent books on Old Persian online for free..This might be of use as well --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

yes we have those people there! but we need the old books as well. this is a must. germans have done more sophisticated works.

i (𐎧𐎿𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠) will be starting the draft parthia-edited. if you got time let's do it together very slowly.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The time has come, you can go here, administrators' noticeboard to oppose my ban, I need as many votes as I can get to survive, thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Speedy deletion of Persian literature revolution

A tag has been placed on Persian literature revolution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DougsTech (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Alexander edit

After your last edit, there's no mention that Egypt was under persian rule, when Alexander went in. That could leave the ignorant thinking that Egypt is on the way to Susa, when coming from Macedonia... ;)Smolk (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

that's not my point. i removed the non-sense that was smelling eurocentric. in fact "egypt and burning of arcopolis" are connected and not "entering egypt and taking revenge". but feel free to add "governed by persians" in that article on egypt. but no liberator, no occupation, or anything of this type.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Xashaiar Jan, thanks for all your works in improving Iran related topics. Also I greatly admire your knowledge of the region and Misplaced Pages is definitely better with your presence. Khodaavand Bozorg Yar o Yaavaretaan. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Alexander the Great appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: number of followers

In this edit comment, you asked "what is the number of followers?" The answer (with sources) is: between 129,000 - 200,000. Regards. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks. i found something like that. i do not really believe this. in iran there seems to be much more (yazd, kerman, tehran). this is unsourced i guess.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Encyclopaedias from Iran

I have nominated Encyclopaedias from Iran, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedias from Iran. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Xashaiar (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have marked it for speedy deletion for you. Scapler (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Persians redirect

Dear Xashaiar, I did discuss the matter in the talk page. I think you missed that. I also provided an in-wikipedia reference as to why the redirect was incorrect as standing. I see that you reverted my link without explanation and have not posted in the talk page. Please read my comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Persians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magemirlen (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, tiger

You need to ease up and actually use the discussion page a lot more than you are. You are at your three revert limit for the day, and despite repeated requests to find a consensus for inclusion - or to just actually discuss the multiple problems with the misspelled, grammatically incorrect, and poorly-cited info, you are constantly reverting the article, and I am asking you to please use the discussion page, and only the discussion page. If you revet again, you will be blocked. - Arcayne () 17:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No i have not reverted up to the limit. If there is typo/misspelling please try to correct so that you are constructive. you just remove what you don't like. You have removed sourced materials, which is against[REDACTED] rules.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, Xashaiar. You have reverted three times in the Anti Iranian sentiment article (1, 2, 3), which is your limit in any article in a 24 hour period. I have urged you that discussion is going to be your key to resolving this problem, since you clearly aren't going to force your edit into the article. Please use the discussion page, and voice your advocacy there, and not in the limited space of an edit summary. - Arcayne () 17:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

what? and who has to remind you the same things? you revert like I use my keyboard's escape key!--Xashaiar (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can remind myself, thanks. I am also removing uncited and poorly constructed info. When I suggest discussing the issues, that doesn't I am wanting you to revert and avoid discussion. You don't have to discuss, but fairling to do so means you cannot complain when you get reverted. - Arcayne () 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

what? have you confused[REDACTED] with Pulit?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of your reference to pulpit. - Arcayne () 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

that's why you continue practising what is meant to be done there--Xashaiar (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you are in need of spiritual guidance, my son/daughter? (Seriously, trying to be sly with me isn't the correct tact, as I consider myself pretty good at that. Maybe just stay simple and polite, and we will be fine). - Arcayne () 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

and when are you going to stop making my talk page look artificially long?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here looks about good. I am glad we had this talk. I hope we have reached an understanding. - Arcayne () 19:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though I'm consistently correct

		The Barnstar of Iran's Merit of Excellence
		Even though you're generally wrong, you've done a pretty good job massively editing articles pertaining to Iran and her culture. You're consistent, honest, and intelligent; I have no reason to not have good faith in you. And hey, we're not so distant in culture either, if it wasn't for that Nadir Shah, we'd be speaking Pashto with each other, which unlike a certain other language, is the proud descendant of the Avestan language and therefore the heir to a magnificent Iranic heritage. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your most recent edit to this article. I had removed the "science" info only because it made the sentence awkward and I wasn't sure why science was singled out when philosophy, art, and poetry were equally valid contributions to the Islamic Golden Age. However, the way you added it back in to the sentence I wrote seems perfect! The words still flow smoothly, but the important facts are properly presented. I hope that all our work together will be equally fruitful. Thanks again, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

do not resort to reverting so quickly/often

seriously man, i have no doubt that your intentions are good, but you really shouldn't revert edits by others that often, it gives of a wrong signal.

reverting should be mainly restricted to clear cases of vandalism (such as inserting random text, inserting obscenities or inserting deliberate wrong info), this sort of activity is usually the work of anonymous ip editors. if you disagree with an edit by an other user you should try to improve that edit by a further edit of the material, or (if the edit in question appears at first sight opposed to your own idea of what should be in the article) try to work out a compromise by starting a topic on a talk page (either the articles tp, if you think the input of others is required, or the other editor's tp, if you think you can work out a compromise between the two of you). the majority of your edits should work towards a constructive improvement of an article, reverting things is counter-productive in the long run.

in the article on the ae i inserted a map of the alexandrian realm (because that is after all the first successor of the ae) your reversion removed it again from the article, i removed the map of the ptolemaic realm because (as i said in the edit sum.) there is already a general overview of the diadoch realms, the ptolemaic ream is just one of those and given that

• there is already an overview map of those realms
• the other diadoch realms do not have a map of their own

i do not see why the ptolemaic realm should be given its own map

i did not remove the seleucid realm, i simply changed its caption so that it says what the map in question shows, ie the diadoch realms --!linus (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

as you can see i corrected the captions/links in the infobox --!linus (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed ptolemaic kingdom as a succesor of Achaemenian Empire, because that was established in 305 and Achaemenid ended in 330. Therefore that kingdom does not belong there. You have not explained your unacceptable edit of removing Seleucid Empire. The reason why that should be there is that the list of succesors should follows the change in kingdoms in the homeland.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

actually i did explain it above, but i rephrase it here: the ae is followed by the alexandrian empire, which is very shortlived and is followed in its turn by the various realms of the diadochi, among which are the seleucid and ptolemaic realms. so, as i said above, i did not remove the seleucid empire but placed it in the correct context, the map shows it (along with the other diad. realms), the link i provided deals with its origination out of the power struggle that followed a.the great's dead (along with the origination of the other diad. realms in that same struggle) and provides further links to articles on the various diad. realms. so there.

as an aside:

• the same logic that led you to delete the link/map to the ptol. realm could be used to exclude the s.e. (traditionally held to be founded in 312)
• if i am correct in reading homeland as iran... well this is not an article about iran but about the ae, your logic only stands in the context of an article like this one. the territory of the ae was much greater than iran, its end in the hellenistic conquest and the resulting emergence of several realms out of the former territory of the ae cannot be restricted to a history of iran. in short: the ae is not iran, just as much as (for example) the roman empire is not italy. --!linus (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about? I deleted egypt stuff to show you that you have not been consistent, otherwise deleting seleucid can have one reason which is enough to delete and ptolemaic map.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

slow down there, lets not forget who edited what...i'll just copy/paste some edit sums here:

• infobox edit: inserting map of alexander t.g. realm, removing map of ptolemaic realm (general diadoch map is sufficient) (by me)
• Reverted to revision 276524129 by L!nus; explain why you remove 1. selucid empire 2. egypt dynasty? (by you)
• re-inserting the alexandrian realm, replacing caption of diadochen map (by me)
• removed ptolemaic kingdom, because that was established in 305 and achaemedis ended in 330. therefore that kingdom does not belong here. (by you)

in short:

• i removed the ptolemaic map/link, you reverted that and asked for an explanation
• i gave you an explanation (on this page, see above) but at the same time redid the rest of my edit while leaving the ptol.map for the time being ... that is: improving the article (i.e. adding the alexandrian empire) and also seeking to find a consensus over a contested bit (the ptol. realm)
• you removed the ptol. realm for reasons which are totally different from mine, but that's fine, we both agree the ptol. realm shouldn't be linked in the infobox, it is gone now and i guess that means we are both satisfied... so... end of discussion as far as that topic is concerned.

now, do you still disagree with my changing seleucid to diadochi? --!linus (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say linking to (seleucid and ptolemaic) is better. My reasoning was if you want to keep maps with strictly compatible year of establishments, then none have to be there. But I think we should give link to maps of major ones which I guess are (seleucid and ptolemaic).--Xashaiar (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

the year in which a specific state was established isn't really of that great importance (at least not imo). what is important is that what should be linked to are those entities that succeeded the ae. given that the alexandrian empire was fairly shortlived it seems logical that the eventual successor states of the ae are linked to as well, and these are the diad. realms. selecting one or two or more specific realms, based on whatever grounds, is always going to e a subjective process and takes those specific realms out of the context of the complex and intricate relationships that existed between the diad. realms. therefore, as said above, it is best to link to them as a group, as that includes them all and because the article on the diadochi provides further links to all the different realms. --!linus (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid quick reverting

I noticed during our discussion about Iran's article lately that you turn to revert edits quickly. Only in clear cases such as vandalism (and every revert that does not count in the WP:3RR rule), one can quick-revert. If you have objections, you should state them on the talk page and invite users to discuss them with you. In addition, it is better to built on already existing edits as usually they are not necessary completely wrong in your view of things (tags can be useful too). This way you avoid 3RR and you give a good image to all Wikipedians. Before closing, I want to make something clear. I assure you that I do not have any bad intention toward the article neither I am there to sell a POV. I do not have any problem with anything Iranian nor willing to undermine it. Do not take me for wrong. I have been in Misplaced Pages since 2005 and I have never been in a such heated discussion. I want for it to be over so everybody would be happy. Thank you for your comprehension. Sincerely. Bestofmed (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC).