User talk:07fan

Shatt al-Arab

Hi 07fan. Sorry about being lazy and just reverting all... I was tired of writing the explanations to the anon, and hoped that just adding "respectfully" to my edit summary would magically make what I was thinking clear to any reader. I humbly apologize. —— But it was not intended to be a blind revert. I commented in detail in my talk page :-)
Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep that part then. Thank you for doing all the work :-) And, again, my apologies for not communicating properly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

House of Wisdom‎

Hello Fan07, about the House of Wisdom‎ page, First of all, this page is for the House of Wisdom not for the imperial library nor the Indian one, if you want to refer to the imperial library you can add a link in the (see also)'s section, 2ndly the paragraph should be sorted as a story, we should mention the Khilafa moved from Damascus to Baghdad, then we can mention how al-Mansur built it, 3rdly what ever the source you think it's working, it doesn't, it will say a missing page, and finally don't speared warnings if you are not an efficient for it. Mussav (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the link works now, User:Babakexorramdin fixed it. still you should re/check the links and the sources before spreading warnings, any way I'll try to resort the paragraph by the events. Mussav (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

removed sources? I didn't remove any sources, but you are blind, I just resorted the Paragraph, read before spreading warnings, again if you are not an efficient don't spread warnings. Mussav (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And btw, you cant give me the 3rr warning code, read it rule, it says if I did 3 reverts within 24 hours, obviously I didn't. Mussav (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Offical warning

Your removal of sourced content [1] violates our vandalism policy, and will result in a block if you repeat such actions. Mussav (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mussav (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop

Stop following me like a shadow and get a life, you need to stop attacking me personally. Mussav (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I've got Yahoo. www.kian20_10_1_40@Yahoo.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshire Babakan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab

Hi 07fan.. for the first time, thanks. :) Mussav (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of Turks in Iraq

I'm not sure if your message to me was related to this edit I made, but hopefully you will agree that the edit to the infobox it reverted was highly improper. The number given for Turks in Iraq is indeed implausibly high, and the cited sources are, in my opinion, not reliable. A problem is the definition of "Turk": can the Iraqi Turkmen be counted as Turks or not? I don't know the answer. If you want to make an issue of this, the place to raise it is the talk page of the article. See in particular the discussion at Talk:Turkish people#It really adds up.  --Lambiam 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on History of Bahrain page

Hello, You're nominated the History of Bahrain page to be checked for its neutrality. On the tag you've place on the page it says that an explanation will be provided on the talk page, yet there's nothing there. Please could you explain on the talk page why the page has been nominated. Thank you. Dilmun (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you gave no explanation, so I removed the tag from History_of_Bahrain. In the case of Bahrain, you gave a rationale, but it's too vague for reviewers to check the POV. I saw the case being explained on Village Pump, see my answer to it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_on_POV_tagging. Please feel free to make a more accurate rationale that helps reviewers to locate the POV and then re-add the tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's disputed by who? when? You need to give a bit more information to reviewers, specially if you want them to be unrelated to the topic. For the reference to back the 1783 claim, how is the source "Juan Cole, Sacred Space and Holy War, IB Tauris, 2007" POV? Do you know of any NPOV source to check against it? . Also, please post on Talk:Bahrain a comment saying that you are giving the rationale on the other page, so a reviewer that lands on that page can find the rationale on the other page. If you make a more detailed rationale, your tag will not be removed, and reviewers actually have a chance to help you. Currently, the POV tag will have no effect due to these problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also detailing which "large portions of pre-Islamic history" are you referring to. The message on my talk page, for example, already has more information and would already be more useful to reviewers. Also consider giving suggestions for rewording of exact sentences if the wording is also POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, as you like, I'll leave the tag alone, but you should really make a better rationale or it will get disputed again --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious dispute going on, else there would have been no removals and readditions of the tag, and no one would have felt the need to bring the matter to Village Pump, or felt the need of making a RfC to unstuck the dispute by bringing third party editors. That's why you need to use POV instead of POV-check, which is for when an editor suspects POV and there is no dispute going on about it.

As my false accusations, I justified them with diffs and interpretation of policies. I'm sorry, but your behaviour qualified of driveby-tagging because of not using the tag as a last resort. I added, however, that you had actually made efforts to improve the history of bahrain article, and because that reason alone I didn't recommend to just remove the tag until you provided more a better rationale. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "fact" tag thing was not an example of drive-tagging, and I will remove it. However, you were still doing driveby-tagging. Notice that this is not an insult to you, it's just a description of a conduct that you should avoid on the future because it winds up causing this sort of problems. I tried to be as objective and fair as posible on my comment, knowing that many people would read my comment and would only know about you throught it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, when did I become someone aspiring to be an admin?..... I have worked as a systems admin on RL, that's why I sound like an admin, not because I want to become a wikipedia admin someday...... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had only read until this edit [2], I hadn't seen the RfA part until afer writing above message. Well, haha, if someone proposes me to become an admin, then I'll think about it. For now, I'm not going to think about RfAs since, a) I'm not thinking about making one b)I don't care about whether people thinks I am good at adminship or not (I obviously am, I get paid for it, dammit :D ). I just try to help building the wikipedia. Being an admin forces people to be more careful on content disputes, and the advantage given by having administrative power is somewhat balanced by this fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Qarmatian Mahdi edits

07fan,

You've got no basis to accuse me of falsifying anything, especially given that you’ve just told an enormous whopper on my talk page with your claim that in the book, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, regarding Sanatruq that it "clearly say he was a Parthian". As you know it doesn’t say anything of the sort and I notice that you've not mentioned it again. You want to repeat that claim, or better for you if we don't mention it again?

The source (reference 239, p68 in Farhad Daftary in Mediaeval Isma'ili History and Thought) states that the false Mahdi was captured in the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra, which is what my edits show. Elsewhere Daftary may say he’s from Isfahan also, but that’s doesn’t mean he doesn’t say at this point he’s was captured in Qasr Ibn Hubayra. I don't want to waste both our time with an edit war over this so I think it should go to WP:mediation - I see you've already been banned for disruptive edits so I'd advise such a course in your case.

As for your claim that I’ve “suppressed” information that Sanatruq was Parthian, have you got any evidence of suppression on my part? Its another allegation you’re making without any evidence to back it up. I’ve not included this information on the History of Bahrain page, just as I've not included other information about Sanatruq. However, on the Tylos page I clearly state that Sanatruq was a "Parthian governor". It was me who added this not anyone else.

This is the problem, every time one edits anything relating to Persia one feels one’s walking on eggshells, in case someone takes offence and sees it as part of a vast anti-Persian conspiracy. Most people don’t care one way or the other – what people get irked about is some editors getting excited before they know the facts.

Dilmun (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamia, Syria?

I saw Western Syria just like you and I was really surprised, but I thought about it, wasn't Mari in Syria belong to Mesopotamia? just like Elam from eastern Iran? Mussav (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Khalifa

No need to scan the document; I've come across some secondary sources that say basically the same thing you're saying (primary documents are to be avoided, as you know). I'll add them when I have time. I'll be revising the article every now and then, anyway, because I still consider it a work-in-progress. -- Slacker (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits, such as those you made to Talk:Nasr Al-Madhkur, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. To be specific, you declaring "historical revisionism ( a common Pan-Arabist practice)" is highly inflammatory and not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be careful in making statements that can be interpreted as possible negative bias against a racial group. As discussed on my talk page your edit could easily be interpreted as offensive to arabs. I see that there is another way of looking at it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gulf

Actually people do talk about working in "the Gulf" or the Gulf War. I've no interest in getting into a stupid name dispute. Perhaps it should be called the Gulf. That way the Iranians and Arabs can both be unhappy together. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

As you know Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, and the sources I have met, easily meet their requirements for verifiability, and reliable sources. Removing such content is against policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know that personal experience is considered original research and not allowed. While some Baha'is may lie, as a rule of thumb Baha'is may not lie about their religion, and thus the need to enter a recognized religion is a systematic way of not allow Baha'is to enter institutions of higher education. Note that systematic does not mean all. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming I know people's intent, but as the source states, because of the rule, Baha'is are generally (I changed the word) disallowed from entering. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is official policy, as demonstrated by government documents. The document was reported by Galindo Pohl to the UN, and here are the quotes from the sources.

• (In Affolter) "Since the early 1990s, there have been increased efforts to suffocate the Iranian Bahá'ís through more 'silent' means. Most noteworthy is a confidential circular (see Appendix A for a reprint) issued by the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council and signed by President Khamenei in early 1991, which actually organized the methods of oppression used to debilitate the Bahá'ís.2 The memorandum contains specific recommendations on how to block the development and the progress of the Bahá'í Community notonly inside but also outside of Iran, while avoiding the most excessive types of persecutions."
• (In the FDIH document) "The peculiarity of the persecution faced by the Bahá’ís in Iran is its systematic and particularly organized nature, proven by the emergence in early 1993 of a secret official document giving precise instructions for the slow strangulation of the Bahá’í community. Drafted in 199121 by Iran’s Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council at the request of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader and approved by the latter, this memorandum came to light in the 1993 report by the Special Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights22. It sets forth specific guidelines for dealing with “the Bahá’í question” so that Bahá’í “progress and development [be] blocked” 23. The memorandum includes the following instructions:

· “They must be expelled from universities, either in the admission process or during the course of their studies, once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís.” · “Deny them employment if they identify themselves as Bahá’ís.” · “Deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational sector, etc.” · “A plan must be devised to confront and destroy their cultural roots outside the country.” " I can find you more sources quite easily about it being official government policy, and it should stay in the contemporary status section because it's quite germane to the how Baha'is are viewed by the government. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was in 1993, which is the early 1990s. I'll find you more sources in a second. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two more sources stating the same thing:

• The UN document can be found at UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/41, Commission on Human Rights, 49th session, 28 January 1993, Final report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, paragraph 310.
• Buck, Christopher (2003). "Islam and Minorities: The Case of the Bahá'ís". Studies in Contemporary Islam. 5 (1): 83–106. states among other things "Personally endorsed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 25 February 1991 and written by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani, secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council, this document advises government officials, among other things, to expel Bahá’ís from universities, “once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís.”"

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Khamenei was Supreme Leader in 1993. One source identifies him as president at the time, but all of the other sources do agree that he signed it (regardless of his position, President or Supreme Leader), and it was prepared by the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council, and that it is government policy. I'll change the wording to reflect the error. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And here are two more sources (one of which yoo can find on Google Books.

• Religion and International Relations, Ken R. Dark. Published 2000. Page 127
• Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: By J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte [3]

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The government did not leak the document, but it was found by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights while he was in Iran and was published by the UN. Here's another source, from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center:

• "Evidence of a renewed regime focus on the Bahá’í community came in a confidential memo dated February 25, 1991, written by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hashemi Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.332 The memo summarizes the steps taken towards the development of a new government policy on “The Bahá’í Question” before enumerating the actual policy initiatives that resulted from the process. In December of 1990, Ayatollah Khamenei instructed President Rafsanjani to address “the Bahá’í Question,” and the issue was referred to the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR).333 It is clear from the text of the memo that Ayatollah Khamenei was seeking concrete policy proposals “devised in such a way that everyone will understand what should or should not be done.”"

"Memorandum by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hashemi Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, dated 6/12/1369 (February 25, 1991) [hereinafter SCCR Memorandum] [attached as Appendix 7]. The documentalso appears to contain a note from the Supreme Leader (see IRAN’S SECRET BLUEPRINT, supra note 186, at 51). This document was brought to the attention of UN Special Representative Reynaldo Galindo Pohl in 1993"

Also note, that all of these sources are not Baha'i sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-31 List of Turkic states and empires

case page

I, along with another editor, have taken the case. It is now open. Feel free to come over and comment.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

The medcab case is slightly stalling, wondering if you had anything to say (about the Turkish list). I've posed some questions, and drafted an agreement between editors (in part because of the slurs that were made). The case page is here, and the discussion is somewhere at the bottom. Cya. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

07fan, You refused to participate in the mediation and continue to edit the page and remove my contributions according to your POV. This is the last time I warn you. I will take you to the admins. Stop doing this. There is an ongoing mediation and the article has a discussion page.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

07fan has not refused anything. But discussion does need to take place between the two of you. I've said before that the contentious area could be expanded upon to clarify the controversy, since the current presentation tends towards absolutes. Any thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a silence in consensus, but reverts are evidence against consensus, so don't worry too much about it. here is the casepage. Note the agreement everyone has signed; I think that was particularly helpful ("Now wait one second!" is the header; it happened a while ago, when personal attacks were going all around).

That said, I don't want to continue discussion on the case page; I'd much rather it happened on article talk, so please bring any issues you have there (seems to work better that way for me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? 07fan did NOT become a signatory. That was the reason I waited until you asked that we proceed without him. After I followed your recommendation to continue editing the page he came and reverted my additions. As a result an admin protected the page. Why did you think I had requested mediation to begin with. I got the sense with what I was dealing.dealingsNostradamus1 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

07fan, clearly refused mediation by stating that he saw no point in it. Furthermore he did not add himself as a signatory as the rest of us did. Finally he did not even participate and elaborate on his reasons of removing my additions. If this is not a refusal to mediate and demonstrate a good will to resolve the difference I do not know what is. I get the feeling that I have been wasting my time here. Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to communicate ;-)

The message he left on my talk-page after this discussion was:

I am really busy in RL and have been away on business, that's why I haven't had the time to follow up with the mediation. Can you give me an update on the developments of the mediation? I came back today, and first thing I saw was Nostradamus1 removing a bunch of sources, and deleting a notable sub-section. Was there a consensus for such removals? Best Regards.

So assume good faith. If he doesn't sign it, and does not communicate with you, then we have a serious problem. But that has not been established yet. I'll lift the protection, with this notice here that: you two need to sort this out. I have directed 07fan to the case page, and told him about the agreement (He wasn't aware). This is a good opportunity to get discussion underway at the article talk page itself, rather than through the case-page, which seems rather removed.

All that said, I will lift the protection (it was legitimate on another admin's part), but that is not an excuse for you or 07fan to revert-war without discussing the grievance first, or (and this is preferable) limiting yourself to 1RR for the time being. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Let us see whether 07fan is going to agree to mediate now. It's high time for that. I opened the mediation request in the beginning of the month.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

about closing the case

I closed the case as no consensus. The article remains on my watchlist, and I'm still holding him to the agreement (which is just a reminder of NPA). In no way is my closure an endorsement; I don't endorse anyone, nor do I direct traffic or make binding decisions per mediation rules. When pacing is slow, it's very hard to get things moving (I'm fully aware that many editors don't spend their entire waking life on wiki...unlike myself).

As for the IP edits - it's likely Nostradamus1 forgot to log on, or didn't want to bother. This is fine, and I think he's been here long enough to know anyone can geolocate IPs.

All that said, I primarily closed the case to keep people from talking on the casepage instead of on the article's talk page. I apologize that my performance hasn't been all that great - I've been rather busy, too. I'll keep an eye on the personal attacks, and redirect to a better DR solution if things get worse. Anyway: very sorry. But the case is only semi-closed; it's not listed on medcab anymore, but the important bit is that people will discuss things on talk, closer to the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The protection policy doesn't protect pages on any preferred version (see m:The wrong version) with the exception of BLP violations. But I'll see what I can do... (tbh, I'm a bit stuck. There's little recourse left.) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Buyids

Hi 07fan, I just have reverted your Revert in Buyids because you simplify a complex historical matter via putting the word "Iranian" as the origin of the Buyids. Please have a look at the Encyclopaedia Iranica-Article Buyids - the first sentence says dynasty of Daylamite origin ruling over .... The simplification via the word "Iranian" is not only vandalism but also pov. If you do not stop reverting you may become banned. Thanx NPOVfan (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Service Award

This editor is a Burba and is entitled to display this First Book of Wikipedia.

I award you with the First Book of Wikipedia because of your efforts so far on Wikipedia. I am not supposed to give you this award because you should give it to yourself but I felt that your contributions so far shouldn't go unnoticed. Good Luck!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

?

Are you stupid? Have you heard of something called discussion? Muhammad al-Fazari's grandfather was a Sahabi from the Arabic tribe of Fizara. I want you to bring me a source that refute that, not a source that mention he is Persian. As I said before, I can bring hundreds of sources that state Ibn Sina was an Arab. If you don't and you won't because him being an Arab is a fact, I will report your uncivilized racist behavior.

And btw, if it makes you feel better or if it helps you sleep well at night, go ahead and lie. Not just in the mentioned article above but all over Wikipedia, go ahead and lie. You will still be a pathetic racist wikipedian. I just don't get it, why some Persians here in Wikipedia and outside wikipedia hate that fact that some of the great Muslim scholars were Arab. --Lanov (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)