User talk:UCaetano/Archive 1

Wikiquette

Hello, Uirauna. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (RobVanden 06:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

So-Called Vandalism Done by me

The so-called vandalism that you accused me of doing on the G.C.C. page was not vandalism whatsoever. The literal translation of "مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج العربية" is "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Arabian Gulf (CCASG)", I had to change the name from "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf", because of one thing, it is simply wrong if you mistakable an organization. Leave aside the debate whether the body of water surrounding the Gulf Countries as well as Iran for now, it is simply wrong and confusing if you change the name of an organization just because you wanting to make trouble. --Salalah4life (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had only changed the translation, I would have no problem with that, and I even encourage you to do so in the article, but changing every instance of "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf" IS vandalism. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Arabs do not recognize the Gulf as the "Persian Gulf", so I find it very odd to find the word "Persian" in every other sentence, in an article about Arabs! Thank you. --Salalah4life (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand you point, but in most of the English-speaking world the gulf is commonly called "Persian Gulf", so we just stick to that. Actually, even the Arabs recognize "Persian Gulf", and if you Google it in any Arab government website, you will have a few hits. If you want to help, you can take a look at the talk page of the Persian Gulf page and get involved in the discussion about the "controversy", but take it easy and be peaceful, there are already way to many trolls changing "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf" and vice versa. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have removed the vandalism warning in your talk page! Uirauna (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Salalah4life (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for this, I see you do some good work re Persian Gulf. (RobVanden 05:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Les Eclaireurs Lighthouse

Thanks for uploading the superior pic of the lighthouse. I've modified the FPC details and linked articles to now include it and meet FP criteria. We'll keep our fingers crossed, but I think it makes a great contribution to Wikipedia. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon Kirke

I understand that you'd already reverted the other guy who changed it to 1950. I have no idea why there are two dates of birth given for Kirke, both of which are wrong. He was born on July 28, 1950. Unfortunately I don't have the official Free biography with me to use as a source - Kirke contributed heavily to the book - so it can stay as it is until I get the confirmation. His official website confirms the date as 1950, but it's a myspace site so probably won't suffice as a reliable source. There are a number of sources with the wrong date and they just copy from one another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. And exactly, that's what I was thinking, but it's difficult to tell if it's HIS page or if it's maintained without his input. I'll look into it and hopefully sort it out soon :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias // discussion 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf Does Not Exist!

Everybody knows that there is no Arabian Gulf in the world. Why do you insist to name the Persian Gulf as a fake name "Arabian Gulf"? Is it your manner to change the international names to whatever you like?

Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bardia666 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanations

Thank you for your notes.

1. You are right that the source is an editorial, but that little bit of info about UAE is still verifiable and could be used per WP:RS. I will, however, try to find another source, to address your concerns. "Persian Gulf being banned in UAE" is a true statement though, you can just take look at the altered map from the Dubai museum, if you have any doubts. But your concerns about verifiability are valid, and I will try to find another source.

2. About the Arabian Gulf page, mentioning the controversial nature of the term when applied to the Persian Gulf is in line with NPOV. Not mentioning it, would actually violate undo weight, as the term is partially significant dude to the controversy surrendering it. I agree that we should not be making the page about the dispute, but putting the term in context is necessary in line with the past mediation/consensus regarding this issues.

3. About Arabian Gulf rugby union team, there has been a history of vandals moving the page to "Persian Gulf rugby union team" and edit-warring there about the name. The name section (which is a disclaimer of sort) was added in order to keep the page stable.

Best regards. --Sina111 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

1. That info is not verifiable, I have googled it and have not found anything. Also, the article is not an editorial, it does not represent the opinion of the newspaper, is just an opinion posted online by a reader. So it still does not qualifies as WP:RS. Keep the tag and if you find any RS please add there.

2. There should be no POV in the disambiguation page, even if it is NPOV. That information does not belong there, any information not used explicitly to differentiate subjects does not belong there. If you want to include any information that needs to be verified (such as a name being used by several countries) you would need to include a citation, and per WP:Disambiguation_pages you should not include citations on disambiguation pages. It does not matter how relevant a point is, it should be included in the article, and not in the disambiguation page.

3. No problem with that :)

Thank you, have a nice day (or night)! Uirauna (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. That's fine with me, that's why I didn't revert you. I'll look for better sources.

2. I have to disagree with you on this. The controversial nature of the term is what makes the term significant in the first place, that's why the verb "controversially" belongs on the disambiguation pages, which is a short summery of the main article anyways (and hence there is no need for citations), which itself is the long-standing result/consensus of a mediation.

3. Cheers :)

Thanks again. Good day/night to you as well. --Sina111 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Willie Nelson, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed

The map is available on the museum's website, the alternation is self-evident. I have been assuming good faith with you, but I am starting to doubt myself when I see you questioning something so obvious. --Sina111 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sina111, I do not mean to offend. I am not rejecting the argument, I'm just asking for a source. I looked in the museum's website and can't find the map. If you can, please send me a link and I will include the source. As I said, I even messaged the user who took the picture to see if he can provide a reliable source, and I am still waiting on his answer. Do not remove the tag unless it is to replace it with a source. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Uirauna, I don't think something so obvious needs citation, it's just an image caption, and 90% of image captions on Wikipedia are descriptive with no citation. Check this too. --Sina111 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point, it still needs, because the only source for that claim is the picture itself. If I take a picture of a changed map and say Iran (or Brazil, or the UN) did it, I need to provide evidence, since I am accusing that party of doing it. Also, the picture on that blog (and blogs do not count as RS, unless the argument is the oppinion of the blogger) is FROM wikipedia, so it is not a source at all. I have no problem on leaving that map there as long as it can be verified, but currently it can't. I am not discussing the argument per se, but it's verifiability. As I said, I have contacted the user who took that picture, User:Seek equilibrium, asking if he has any source for that, but he hasn't answered. Lets continue the discussion on the talk page of the article, so all other interested parties can participate. Thank you and have a nice day (or night)! Uirauna (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of verifiability, the upholder has provided sufficient information about the map. If you are questioning the upholder, you will need to travel to the museum, and provide counter-evidence, you can't a expect a reporter or author to have a dossier on every map or painting on every museum's wall. Furthermore, I strongly urge you to reconsider your behavior , you are clearly stalking User:xashaiar, and your over-overzealous obsession with this topic, seems to be a part of your WP:WIKIHOUNDING campaign against him. --Sina111 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I? Believe what you wish, I am always going to talk pages and proposing solutions whenever my changes are reverted. As I said, if you have a reliable source other than a photograph of a map uploaded by an user, I'll be happy to add it to the article. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Slavery" issue

Please use historical records, not American movies or Herodotus fairy tales when you talk about slavery in Ancient Persia. Simply, there was no any kind of slavery in Persian history. Hint: Cyrus Cylinder --Orijentolog (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not discuss this in my talk page, but in the article´s talk page. And please read History of slavery in Iran, where you can see that there WAS slavery, even if not widespread. By the way, Herodotus is widely accepted as a historical source, specially because he´s usually the only one available. Uirauna (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Old issue

Hi Uirauna, regarding this edit [1], I fail to understand why you're "beating a dead horse", as we already went over this issue last year [2][3], and reached mutual consent on the subject. The current wording, which I restored after it had been altered by an anonymous user, is the result of a long mediation, and the clarification in question is needed, as the term is partially significant due to its controversial nature, so that significant fact should be noted on the disambiguation page. -- Kurdo777 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Sina11)

Sorry, I need to apologize, been working too much lately and simply forgot about that old discussion! Just checked my watched pages, and ended up changin it without really thinking, I hope you can forgive me! Thank you and have a good night. Uirauna (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your kind reply. :0) --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User Lida Vorig

Hello, I would like to ask advise from you as user named user:Lida Vorig flags all Azerbaijani articles due she is armenian and her anti-Azerbaijanism hate. Where I can complain?--NovaSkola (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK!

Dear Uirauna, I apologize for such a reacting. Can you please explain me where can I recommend removal mentioned article from "Good Article" status? I'm not such a large contributor on English wikipedia, but on Croatian version I'm an author of all large Persian articles. Take a short look at it:

• Achaemenid Empire
• Greek-Persian wars
• Persepolis

So, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, everything works better when we respect other users and avoid conflicts (believe me, I´ve had my share of "not-so-good behavior" as well :) ).

As for the good article, you need to ask for a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. By the way, never claim "I know what I'm talking about", nobody does. Wikipedia has no authors, only editors, so unless you are Herodotus himself or other such person, you have to add references to everything that someone may disagree on a reasonable way.

Also, be careful with reverting, read WP:EW, you have not breached the 3RR, but you could still be blocked for edit warring if some administrator on a bad mood took a look at your changes. Take care and keep editing! Good night. Uirauna (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference your reversion of my whole night work

First of all regarding "the soul of Iran" which is not a book of history rather more like a travel guide dealing with culture and folklore than military history, I did not want to remove it but wanted to keep things accurate and impartial by including the name of the source. One of historians who has extensively covered the war and has a book written for it, is Dilip Hiro, which I am reading now and included him in the article but it seems you completely removed it, thanks. Thanks again. Again thanks, I did not know a credible piece of info can be removed from wikipedia just because some one does not like it. Thanks again by the way. My only question is do you even have access to Dilip Hiro's book or you just deleted my work without even checking it? if you dont have access here it is: http://books.google.ca/books?id=fpOvixp2hsgC&dq=the+longest+war&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=5sHYdCZwaO&sig=EaAWU1gAQLYOuEVYzZGJgWkdhaU&hl=en&ei=SNa4SvzlDsjvlAexgdXVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

By the way you removed my info which had citation and put back the info that does not have citation. Go check again. your reference is on page 84. come back to me when you have read it.

--Orionpilot (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Orionpilot, first please do not be offended by it, your work has not been lost and can be re-added. My point is not about a book or another, but about the general quality of your edits, most of them made no sense. You can include the name of the sources in the references area, unless it is a very important book (and even you seem to see that it is not, not even being a historical book) it should not be mentioned in the article. There are thousands of other books and authors just as important as this one that do not make the cut. Again, as I said, the purpose of my rollback was that the additions could be discussed in the talk page and re-inserted in a way that makes sense. You reverted edits by an ip claiming vandalism, that alone should be a reason to get your changes reverted. I am willing to help you (as I stated from the beginning) add them back, without disrupting the present article (several of your changes made it un-understandable), let's put them on the talk page and then insert them in the article. Uirauna (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very disappointed. Now you are accusing me of something I have not done. It shows alot. If it has been reverted, that was not me. I was waiting for your answer. Anyways I am very heart broken for you to call my work for which I had given citation of a book used as a text book in history departments of universities and put back some thing that did not even have citation. As you said it yourself the book soul of iran should not even have been there but as I said before I did not remove it and wanted it to be removed after a talk on the subject. My work was not senseless. Period. You did not even read it when you deleted it. You even did not check the source and the book. Just like in the section of peculiarity and distinction, you reverted my work without even checking the citation I had given. Now I am having second doubts about wikipedia as whole. Maybe it is not an academic site, just another media outlet that has to defend certain established views at all costs. A site where people accuse eachother, just like you did. I am sorry, but I am very disappointed at the way you did it. Go back check again. Be sincere and impartial and see for your self which does not make sense my work or what you have put up there. As I remember the thing you put back up there says "citation needed" or something to that effect. I provided that citation and updated the info. It is not easy to read a whole text book for an article to clean it up and make it credible, you know. At the top of the article it says: help improve this article. Maybe you should go and remove it since if you do not allow it to be improved then then what is the use of that request. Or maybe improvement means something else I have missed here, some thing more palatable to certain tastes. Sorry for being rude but that is the truth. I just came to edit in this site to uphold truth but right now I am abit angry why even I am doing this, its useless to even argue, and maybe I should just pack up and leave this site. You have deleted my work and then you accused me and threatened me with punishment. Wow. Go ahead delete all my work. Certainly the way you talk you are some kind of a General in hierarchy of wikipedia but: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, not does truth becomes error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained." - Gandhi--Orionpilot (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

With your reason you could delete the other picture and the whole section, too. Do you have another one? -- JCIV (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok

Ok sorry ! Polylepsis (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PRC picture

thank you very much to advice. so when can we finish to discuss about this pic? i do not understand his opinion,　too nonsens... i think it's ok to go back into the article now. what do you think about it?, and what should we do?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, UCaetano. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop Your Vandalism

Your vandalism on page Iran-Iraq war was reverted. Stop destroying the pages on wikipedia. If you like Saddam so much you can make a dedicated page for him some where else on the net not here on wikipedia. If you keep doing your vandalism, I will report you to the administrators of the site and recommend you to be banned.--119.154.3.238 (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Last Warning for YOU

Stop vandalizing the Iran-Iraq war page. First you use the username: Aiman1979, to completely destroy the article to make it favourable to your beloved leader Saddam and then you keep blocking the reversion necessary to undo your damage to the article. This is a shameless behaviour of yours. Stop harassing the readers and good editors. Stop using fictitious user names to destroy the body of work. You seem to have a long history of sophisticated vandalism on wikipedia, but your time is up now. This is your last warning. Stop your fascistic vandalism or else.--119.154.4.248 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

How are you? An estimate from 1991 should not be cited to indicate the number of the victims today. Tens of thousands of people have died from injuries and exposure since that estimate was published in 1991. A more accurate and up-to-date estimate, was already cited in the article anyways. But I also added two more sources. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1991 source is a very relevant one, even if outdated. We should rewrite it in something like "in 1991 xxx estimated the number of deaths in yyy [source], but the actual number is higher since the long term effects still causes death to this day, with kkkk estimating the tpotal number in zzz". That way we make it more explicit the long term effects of the attacks. Also, by WP:BRD, when your change is reverted, don't just revert it back, to avoid edit warring. Please discuss it before. Also, my talk page is not the place for such type of discussion. Use the talk page of the article, so other editors can participate as well. What do you think abou the compromise above? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not against your proposal per se, but I really don't see why it's necessary to give any weight to outdated facts from 20 years ago. We have three up-to-date sources reporting the most recent estimates of the victims. Wikipedia policy dictates that, as long as more accurate and up-to-date information is available, there is no need to give any weight to outdated facts and numbers. Please see WP:RS, it clearly states "some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research". Thanks. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The deal is, the 1991 estimate is not outdated, it is a time slice of the number of deaths, just like the current estimates. The purpose of my suggestion is to actually include a new information into the article: how deadly the weapons are over time to those attacked, and how you can't just account for the dead at the date of the attack. I got this idea from the hiroshima and nagasaki articles, that inclube both deaths at the time of the bombings as well as total deaths. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Hi, please take a look: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Scythian77_editwarring_and_POV-pushing_at_Iran-Iraq_War. Please do not revert any more, too: their changes will most likely be undone soon by others. MIaceK (woof!) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the help, it's hard to mantain a one man battel against this kind of behavior. I'll stay back and watch for a while. Uirauna (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope they eventually get sanctioned this time, pending on the thread I opened. I had similar experience in July, 2010. This time the page was merely protected due to 'edit warring'. By now it should be clear to even the most legalistic sysop, that some users have an agenda they want to push into the article, in direct violation of WP:OR.MIaceK (woof!) 16:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"arabian gulf"

Uirauna;you are right but please stop deleting my edit as you see in my last edit i am in fact correcting it and i will remove all unnecessary maps and sentences i will make it as brief as possible Maahmaah (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for bringing this to a discussion! Sorry if I ended up reverting your corrections, I got myself confused. Take a look at the article's talk page at Talk:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute. I've started a discussion to improve the article and bring it to a good standard. We all know that Persian Gulf is the most common name for that body of water, and there is no need to place too much information, only to describe why other parties (such as the Arab states) insist on calling it by a different name. Anyway, lets move this dicussion to the article's talk page. Thank you and have a nice day! Uirauna (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Uirauna;

My edits on the "Persian Gulf naming dispute" page are not vandalism just because you say so.

Grammatically speaking, the "arabian gulf" should not be capitalized, as it is not a proper name. The term is not an alternative name for that geographic area, rather, it is a dreamed-up name and incorrect. If the Americans woke up one morning and thought "hey, let's call it the Gulf of the USA instead of the Gulf of Mexico", should the rest of the world follow suit? and also capitalize the term??

Again going grammatical, and for the sake of comparison, proper names such as the United States of America or the Indian Ocean, etc. should be capitalized, but names like "sldfiun asuypnvvf oawui" or "iweu 74ggyaj hguays9jknh" need not be capitalized.

Please note that your undoing of my edit (a grammatical correction) IS vandalism and such actions are not worthy of the academic environment of a global encyclopedia. Ergo, please refrain from such or face exclusion. I will revert my last edit hoping that the above makes sense and that you will not turn this into an edit war.

Thanks for understanding.

Kamran the Great (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kamran, there is no such thing as a correct name for a geographical feature. Anyone can call it whatever they want. What is there is a "most common name", such as (in English) the Persian Gulf. Still, anyone can call it the Arabian Gulf, and when we refer to it, it should be capitalized. If you still insist on this point, please abide to WP rules (such as WP:BRD) and take the issue to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Also, please try to be civil. I´ll warn you only one more time. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

you say "there is no such thing as a correct name for a geographical feature. Anyone can call it whatever they want" SURELY, you cannot be serious !!!! Have you ever thought of the consequences of such a fantasy? Different people suddenly making up a name and start calling things whatever they want?? no one would know what the other was talking about!! "so, what's your take on the war between JNVGTY and KJ4LMN currently going on at the site of THYFGT? come on, you know what i'm talking about!! i just decided to call them whatever i want"!! and oh, by the way : thanks for the warning ... and the laughs :)) Kamran the Great (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, I´ll ignore your offensive behaviour for now. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Uirauna;

you keep calling my edits "disruptive"; i have been trying to start a dialog with you where one of us may convince the other, but you refuse to engage.

My original argument still stands, in that there are grammatical rules in English, as in any other language; one of which is that proper names need to be capitalized.

I will welcome any plausible explanation as to why made-up fictitious names should be capitalized, as you say.

Note i am NOT trying to be "disruptive" as you put it, but Wikipedia being a website of an educational nature, i am editing articles to be grammatically correct.

I urge you to engage in constructive discussion, rather than a diruptive edit war ... i am sure i do not need to remind you that you may be banned as a consequence of editing war.

Grammatically Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The former consensus on all pages regarding "Arabian Gulf" is that it should be capitalized. Your explanation is worth nothing, please slease show me your sources, that "Arabian Gulf" is not a proper noum. Just like Gulf os Basra (the name Turkey uses to call the Persian Gulf) is capitallized, Persian Gulf should be as well. It is the name for a geographical feature, even if used by a small group. There is no such thing as "as it is not the most widely used name it is not a name thus should not be cappitalized". Please stop your disruptive edits, or I´ll report you to and administrator. If you think I´m being disruptive, please do the same. Uirauna (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

well, i just couldn't leave this unanswered as i first thought i should. a few points i'd like to make :

1- re. "your explanation is worth nothing"  : ummm, excuse me?? i asked you (quite politely, as a matter of fact) to engage in a discussion, and that's your response?

2- re. "the former consensus on all pages ..." : ummm, "former consensus"??? exactly what "former consensus"? and what makes such a consensus correct?

3- re. "as it is not the most widely used name it is not a name thus should not be cappitalized" : i never said anything about "most widely used", my grammatic argument is that it should not be capitalized as it is not a proper noun, not because it isn't the most widely used.

4- re. "it is the name for a geographical feature" : no it is not. please see Persian Gulf naming dispute for United Nations directives if interested.

I have always tried to keep our "discussion" civil, but in light of the tone of your comments, i will just leave it here and wish you the best.

Disappointedly Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran - Iraq war March 2011

Hello Uirauna. I saw your warning to 27.32.51.171. While he's breaking a bunch of rules, I don't know if you could call it vandalism. Unless I'm missing something, he does seem to know his meat and potatoes on the topic. It's just that he's turning the infobox into a whole article. Even without his edits I think the infobox is already too wordy. He came to me on my talk and I suggested he add his info into the body of the article, not the info box. What would you say to that? I won't be around much the next few days but you're welcome to comment on my Anglo Saxon talk page. SlightSmile 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I understand now. SlightSmile 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi There

I have read your comments. I think "vandalism" is a bit of an overreaction, considering the action. Also, I don't see what the big deal is with having that extra information in the summary box. Just leave it.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.51.171 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a zero-tolerance policy on uncivil behavior and name calling. "Dickhead", "revisionist", "Anglo Saxon" and "You have no say in this matter if you're not an Iranian" have no room on wikipedia. I´m glad you controlled yourself. About the page, it is a big deal. WP is not a collection of every information on a topic, but a structured piece of selected and relevant information on a topic. The summary is a SUMMARY, not a big description of the event. Just leave it out. Also, you don´t seem to understand WP rules very well. I recommend you create an user to start with (not mandatory, but will help to keep track of your discussions as well as be more respected by most users) and read WP:five pillars, and again be civil, avoid wp:edit warring and respect wp:3rr and wp:brd. Also, sign your posts by place a sequence of four ~ signs in the end of your post, a signature will be included. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

First of all, I'm not sure why you are acting like you're the boss of WP..!? "I have Zero tolerance". Who do you think you are..!?

There's a saying, that when someone doesn't want you talk about a specific content or they don't like your ideas, they get technical on you. In your case, you are preventing me from presenting the facts (in which I happen to know a great deal about, and references have been provided to that effect on the topic). You keep inserting an important false fact that there was a "tactical Iranian failure", when there actually was not. You made that term up. Every time I delete you replace that term and then present yourself as the Lord of WP. You do not own WP, and DO NOT accuse me of vandalism my friend.

Iran defended its territory against an invasion from multiple fronts marvellously. When the war ended in 1988, Iran had to leave Iraqi territory. SO.....The results of THE WAR were NOT a "tactical Iranian failure".

Please be mindful that this is a very sensitive subject to the Iranian nation and people. So don't try to false enter information on this topic.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.51.171 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am not acting like I´m the boss here, as I said, I have a zero tolerance stance agaist vandalism and bad behaviour. That does not mean that I just do as I please. I warn and report wrongdoers, but according to WP rules, I have no saying on what happens. Second, I am not preventing you from presenting the facts, I am just objecting to the way you are presenting. Once you are reverted, you are free to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, so a consensus can be reached. Your are not doing that, you are edit warring and trying to push your POV. Please read the rules and you´ll understand why other users are doing the same as I do. It doesn´t matter how much you know about, that is completely irrelevant and outside the purpose of WP. Also, my talk page is not the place to discuss this issue, take it to the talk page of the article. And again, please read WP:five pillars, and again be civil, avoid wp:edit warring and respect wp:3rr and wp:brd. Also, sign your posts by place a sequence of four ~ signs in the end of your post, a signature will be included. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I see someone has created this section already.

I'm just cutting and pasting what is already in the discussion page of teh Iran-Iraq War article:

---

Hi

As it stands, it's your word against the word of several. I have written a detailed explanation based on facts. You provide no facts and point to so called past "consensus". There is no consensus on that issue, since it never occurred.

So, unless you can provide a logical reason as to why it (the fictitious phrase "tactical Iranian failure") should stand, please STOP accusing people of Vandalism. If you resort to this word so liberally, you need to read up on what constitutes 'vandalism' in WP. I have read it several times; it certainly does not describe what has occurred here.

Unless someone else objects to the entry "Tactical Iranian Failure", I think what you are doing is in fact vandalism..!? The assertion that there was a "tactical Iranian failure" is actually wrong. What does it actualy mean? Once you explain it, you will note that it can not apply to a side defending itself from several fronts.

Regards

Rob

---

Also, see previous explanation on that page for further details.

it seems we have a consensus.

Cheers

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Must've missed the memo...

• (Block log); 09:38 . . Sandstein (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Robvanden (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: And indef block; no indication to believe that the problems will cease when the block expires)

tl;dr: He gawn for pretty much good. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I started editing the page, left for lunch, came back, submitted it and then saw the indef block. Thanks for the help anyway. Just a question: if it´s not too much to ask can you give me some feedback on the way I handled the situation? Anything I should have done differemtly? Tks! Uirauna (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

misdirected warning?

Are you sure you sent this warning to the right place? Monty₈₄₅ 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right, sorry, tried to revert the same vandalism as you and something got wrong! Uirauna (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert to Katie

You marked this edit as vandalism. However, I believe the edit summary is wrong. I think it was good faith; either

• bigheadedness
• editing test

You ought to explain that revert to the editor in question, especially because they're new and the person might be a little confused. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 00:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia and google

The number of wikipedia languages which refer to name of Persian gulf proves the importance of Persian gulf name rather than arabi...n gulf. The google result about name of Persian Gulf is related to out-of-sense arabian gulf claim. Alborzagros (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i added this to the talk page, please consider changing the misinformation on the pages

"The vast size of the Persian empire, and its extraordinary ethnocultural diversity across its realm,[4] would prove to be its undoing as the delegation of power to local governments eventually weakened the king's central authority, causing much energy and resources to be wasted in attempts to subdue local rebellions.[1] This was the reason why when Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) invaded Persia in 334 B.C.E. he was faced by a disunified realm under a weak monarch, ripe for destruction." This paragraph almost echoes every idea that the Classical and Hellenic historians had about the persian empire. The most authoritative books on Achaemenid history however point to a different reality

Pierre Briant's book "The Persian Empire from Cyrus to Alexander" P.196 explicitly points out to "rejecting the greek interpretation where diversity led the greeks to beat the Persians or as a cause of persian downfall" P.873 of the same book mentions the fact that "the acceptance of diversity actually strengthened the empire" if you read the same book you'll also come across the idea of decadence and weak central authority which as a myth had been the focal point of Achaemenid history in much of 18th-20th century, the idea itself had come from over reliance on greek authors.

Now if you consult the book Ancient Persia written by Josef Wiesenhofer, you'll find the same conclusions. Idea of decadence and myth of diversity causing weakness to the role of the great king has all been discussed and rejected by Achaemenid specialists. follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 27 October 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Uirauna! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. Can you please clarify the reasoning for your edit here? You edit summary states "WP Manual of style says it should be no caps" which contradicts the edit you made. Location (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! I see what I did there. Sorry about that, was too sleepy to be editing WP! I hope you can forgive me. Uirauna (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what have i removed, it has been a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.199.226 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Support for Iran

Hello Uirauna ,

On the Iran Iraq War page, you said that supporters don't belong in the belligerents section and that giving weapons does not count as direct support, yet on the Soviet war in Afghanistan page, it states the support that the United States, Pakistan, the UK, China, and Saudi Arabia gave the self-styled "Mujahideen" in the belligerents, and the support given to the Afghan insurgents was far less than the support the Soviet Union, France, and the United States (particularly through its proxies) gave Iraq. Yes, countries gave support to Iran, but the support was far less. The support Iran did receive came mostly from clandestine means or Syria and North Korea. Iran did not have the proper maintenance or technical to use the armor that they bought from Syria or North Korea. Support from Libya or China is exaggerated, Libya gave only Scud missiles for Iran to retaliate after Iraq started the war of the cities. China did not even give as much armor as Syria or North Korea, and the equipment they gave too, could not be maintained. Neither the United States or Israel anything past spare parts for planes and anti-tank missiles, and the Soviet Union's contribution was no more than that of China's. Please fix it and add Soviet, French, and US support for Iraq, because otherwise people reading it will wonder how the heck Iraq's number of weapons was so much more than Iran's in the end of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immykant (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)