User talk:Hajji Piruz/archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WWI and Iran[edit]

Sorry! I do not know you. Hope this question is not far fetch. Is there an Iranian historian which tells the WWI (in English)? I know that there were revolutionary movements at that time but I do not have much detail. I used to have a book (in Turkish) but lost it. Do not know where. Thanks. --OttomanReference 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swietochowski[edit]

Well, not exactly. The quote is taken from a different source, it's true, but it is completely identical to the one already provided in the article. Just read it - it's the same thing. Which is why I don't see why it has to be there. You might want to check the talk page, too. Parishan 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe I'm not looking where I'm supposed to, but what is see is two pieces of writing: one talking about the northern part of Azerbaijan, known as Caucasian Albania and later Arran; and another one talking about the Azerbaijan Republic which was also known as Caucasian Albania and later Arran. The rest matches almost entirely. If I understand correctly, both are talking about the same locale and just paraphrase each other in the beginning. They cannot possibly be different. The reason why I chose the first quote over the second is because the first one is more detailed and informative and comes directly from a notable source related to the region rather than from a short encyclopædic article. Parishan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism by country[edit]

Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam[edit]

User:Artaxerex and others are distributing claims mainly by the US strategist Terrill, indicating that Iranian leaders (Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza shah etc) were fascinated by European fascism!! and the good economic and diplomatic relation between Iran and Germany was due to their sympathy with Nazi ideologs!! They claim that Shah wanted to make a center in Iran for Nazis to control the Jews of middle east!!! Yes! these claims are really funny! but very dangerous!

Please note that in the context of the good relation between Iran and Germany, Iranian diplomat Abdol Hossein Sardari at the time of Reza shah, managed to save Iranian Jews in Paris and also many other Jews. He had also support from Iranian regime of the time. Dear User:Azerbaijani, no matter what you think about Pahlavi regime or Islamic regime in Iran, please do not let these baseless claims to be propagated in wikipedia. These guys are not accusing a single person of supporting Nazi regime. They are indeed accusing Iran of being a state sponsor of racism and fascism. Please keep an eye on these guys. Thanks. Sina Kardar 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Shah article for example! See my comments on the talk page and also the previous revisions. Frankly, Reza Shah was an ordinary nationalist like Arab and Turkish and French nationalists. But Nazi nationalists were not just nationalists. They wanted to clean the world from other races by killing them. All Max Planck Institutes and German scientists of the time were working on these issues and many experiments have been done on humans just like they were animals. That`s a very different story. Ba sepaas. Sina Kardar 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Empire[edit]

As they are changing the sassaind map I als o made one for the roman empire. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is missing an "n" in "I[n]vaded".--0rrAvenger 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad[edit]

There is no group known as "Holocaust believers", just as there is no group known as "World War II believers". Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call people who believe in the gravity "gravity believers". As for the conference, it's irrelevant if a couple of people who don't deny the Holocaust attended, it still was a Holocaust denial conference, as is copiously attested by references. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sources said it was a Holocaust denial conference:

There are plenty more besides that. There is no such group as "Holocaust believers", just as there is no such group as "Apollo Moon landings believers", and it would helpful if you actually read the articles and sections you were editing. Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language sources tend to be Western. Are you saying that the Council on American-Islamic Relations has "Western bias"? Jayjg (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of speakers were Holocaust deniers, and Holocaust deniers typically lie about their Holocaust denial; it's a facet of their activities noted in all the scholarly sources. That's why so many reliable sources described it as a Holocaust denial conference. There is no such group as "Holocaust believers", so how could they have attended? Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say the conference was about Holocaust denial - because it was. There are lots more reliable sources where those came from. The plumbers and electricians and failed politicians who attended aren't qualified to actually discuss the history of the Holocaust in any meaningful way; their "contribution" to the discussion is little more than some goose-stepping and stiff-armed salutes, along with some religious tracts poorly disguised as science. I'm still not getting what you mean by "Holocaust believers", no such group exists. Could you provide some reliable sources which refer to "Holocaust believers"? They sound similar to "Gravity believers". Jayjg (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kush as a satrap[edit]

hi. i was wondering, when was kush conquered by the persians and made into a satrap. I can't find any sources backing this up. Can you enlighten me as to when/how this happened. The only people ever to conquer Kush to my knowledge were the ancient egyptians. thnx in advance. Scott Free 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my fellow friend![edit]

We haven't seen eye to eye recently, so heres to make up for it, Roman Provinces under Roman rule bordering or close to Sassanid Empire, from this following website:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unrv.com/images/provinces.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.unrv.com/roman-empire-map.php&h=545&w=900&sz=95&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=0KmkZOsCdjfq-M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRoman%2Bempire%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

These are in North Africa:

Cyrenaica Aegyptus

These are very close to or bordering the Sassanid / Persian empire.

Arabia Petraea Judaea Syria Mesopotamia (over half as much was either Sassanid ruled or at the least no-mans land, if you know what I mean. Roman rule was very de jure and not de facto) Assyria (Yeah, go Assyrians!) Armenia

The following are in Asia Minor

Pontus Cappadocia Cilicia Cyprus Bythinia Galatia Lycia Asia

Hope that helps. Tourskin 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that the names of the provinces would have changed as the Byzantines went from Roman orientated to Greek orientate under Heraclius but I don't think there would have been a change in how the territories were governed. Let me find some more sources if I can. Tourskin 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they would not have been the same. However, the Themata system brought in by Heraclius may or may not have been the same. Heres a better map:

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/end%20and%20legacy/invasions.jpg 

which puts the dates at circa 250 AD, closer to the wars that Rome was to fight soon or was fighting. The names show Palestina instead of Judea (which is what the Romans called it anyways so thats more accurate) and some of the names have changed. The provinces do seem to be the same.

Heres another confirming: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/maps/romanempire.jpg Okay this ones better, its in 275 AD: http://www.vlib.us/medieval/graphics/0275.gif More or less the same provinces, a few differences like a new beginning with O, close to the Persian empire but I Can't read it. Tourskin 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.Tourskin 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi. Let me give you a friendly reminder as well: don't forget you are on revert parole on ArbCom and I don’t want you to get blocked, therefore I look forward to cooperation in editing pages.--Zondi 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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 which gains a consensus among editors.

Dacy69[edit]

Dacy69 made 3 reverts in two days on the same article, I think thats why his parole was as long as it was.Azerbaijani 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right (My mistake, I got confused), but he still made a partial revert by removing information added by another user.Azerbaijani 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that was a partial revert was it not? I got blocked for something even less than that. The first edit this user made after being unblocked was to remove sourced information (from Encyclopaedia Britannica), he then tried to justify his revert by making a POV and OR comment. How is my reporting him a stretch?Azerbaijani 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He removes one word from an article and you want him blocked. Seriously; that's grasping at straws. You two have been far from friendly with each other and now you're looking for an excuse to get him blocked. -- tariqabjotu 16:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet once reverted that article, even though I also dispute things in there, so why is it that I can be patient and talk things out while he couldnt? It was a revert plane and simple, he could have waited to remove that piece of sourced information, but chose not to. As you know, we have all been in an Arbcom. User Dacey has also reported people for violation of their paroles and etc... I just reported a violation. Even one word can be described as a revert. Many articles have disputed based on a simple word or two. Is there a policy tha ta revert must be lengthy? If I were to make reverts but they were just one word reverts, would I not be blocked as well? This is not about Dacey and I or about how we feel for each other (I have never personally attacked anyone on Wiki, I've always been about the edits, never about the user him or herself, so I dont see why you think that I may be reporting him out of dislike, when clearly he violated his parole). I got blocked once simply for changing two words. This is why I think based on equality, he should have the same punishment as I did.Azerbaijani 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a revert plane and simple [sic]; he removed one word, with explanation on the talk page. There does not seem to be any evidence that he intended to revert someone's edit; he just made (what he thought was) a correction. I'm not changing my mind on this; I have looked at the article history again and I don't see any way this could be considered a revert. -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, here are the edits for which I got blocked: [1] and [2]
As you can see, I didnt even break 1rr, but I still got blocked for 31 hours. So I dont understand why Dacy69 gets away with this. At the least could you talk to the admins about having me removed from this list: [3]
I just dont understand why the same rules dont apply to him as they did to me.Azerbaijani 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly states: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.Azerbaijani 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't undo an edit to a page; he removed a word. You're missing the intended meaning of the policy. -- tariqabjotu 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that if I reinsert the term Iranian, then I will not have reverted the article, and thus will still have a revert if I need to make one? I'm just trying to understand the rules because now you've got me all confused about what I can and cannot do when it comes to reverting.Azerbaijani 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; you're clearly aware that Dacy just removed that word. That would be an obvious revert. -- tariqabjotu 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well now I'm really confused. So if I make an edit, and someone removes it, thats not considered a revert, but if I undo their removal, than thats a revert?Azerbaijani 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking as this may be, your persistent comments here are not going to change my mind. -- tariqabjotu 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hajji_Piruz/archive_2&oldid=1065845606"