Alefbe

Welcome!

Hello, Alefbe, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Gordafarid 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

demographics of kabul

"Persian-speaking Tajiks make up the largest percentage of the population of the province, followed by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks,"

Can you provide us a reference? If no, than please stop spreading false information.(Ketabtoon (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

The source is given for Kabul itself (45% Tajik, 25% Pashtun), and the majority of people of Kabul Province live in Kabul (more than 80%). Thats enough to show that in the province, Tajiks are more than Pashtuns (even if all rural people are Pashtun). For future edits, discuss it with user:Tajik. Alefbe (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will discuss it with user:Tajik and other useres who are involved. However, for your information I will post this in your discussion page as well.

The population of Kabul province in 2006 was roughly 2,425,067. Here is a quote from Kabul' Provincial Profile - MRRD

"Around 19% of the population of Kabul lives in rural districts while 81% lives in urban areas. Around 51% of the population is male and 49% is female. Pashtu is spoken by around sixty percent of the population and Dari is spoken by around forty percent. A small number of people located in 5 villages speaks Pashaie."

[1]

Lets use the official numbers and percentages in wikipedia (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

hi

I`m so glad to meet u in en.wiki. I`m in wait for u, if u need any help. be happy.--Gordafarid 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Melody Max

In fact, if looks like the AfD tag was removed by an IP on August 2, but it was only off the article for seven minutes before the change was reverted. There was low participation in the AfD, so a single vote to keep would have precluded consensus. If you like, I can undelete the article and relist it on AfD in order to get more comments. Cool Hand Luke 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I am one of the descendants of Seghatoleslam, and I am wondering if you knew anything about him since you corrected the article. I was born in America and i'm searching for info. Azhura (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yousaf Raza Gillani

The full name is Makhdoom Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani (Urdu: مخدوم سيد يوسف رضا گیلانى ). You can also check Makhdoom page. Please stop deleting his full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.237.172 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kofarnihon River

Could you please tell me what source you were using when you decided to move Kofarnihon River to Kofirnihon River on May 14? It would be helpful if in the future you could substantiate such moves on the talk page of the corresponding articles. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right. I checked the official Tajiki spelling (it's Кофарниҳон). I'll move it back. Alefbe (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. "Kofirnihon" probably stems from the Russian "Kofirnigan" (given the usual transliteration standards), but the official Tajik sources (2004 map of Tajikistan, 2006 statistical yearbook for Tajikistan) definitely say Kofarnihon (Кофарниҳон). Best. --Zlerman (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lenin Peak=Avicenna Peak

Please see new comment I have put today on Talk:Lenin Peak. --Zlerman (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

changes to Zeravshan River

Dear Alefbe: you have made a number of systematic changes in the name of Zeravshan River based on Tajik-language sources and conventions. But Zeravshan is also a river in Uzbekistan, where (I think) it is much longer than in Tajikistan and where its name is not spelled Зарафшон. This fact needs to be reflected in the naming conventions you use and in the article itself. Please let me know what you think. --Zlerman (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact meaning of Zarafshan in Persian

All over the Internet the meaning of the Persian name of "our" river Zarafshan is given as "sprayer of gold" or "spreader of gold". I have a suspicion that all these Internet sources have simply copied the translation from Wikipedia and I would like to enlist your knowledge of the Persian language in order to refine the English translation. When I look in Francis Joseph Steingass' A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary on line and copy into the search window the Persian words from the lead sentence in Zeravshan River, I get the transliteration "zar-afshan" (perfect!) and the translation "scattering gold". When I look under "afshan" on its own, I get "dispersing, scattering, diffusing". Now, scattering and dispersing is not really spraying, is it? The Russian translation for "Zeravshan" in ru:wiki actually says "pulverizing gold" -- i.e., making gold dust. This Russian translation sits well with the attribution of the Persian name to the presence of gold sands in the river's upper reaches in the English article. Can you please review the translation of the Persian phrase zar-afshan and tell me what you think it actually means. Sprayer, scatterer, disperser, pulverizer, maker of gold dust? I apologize for the imposition, but I would like to clean this up in the interest of posterity... Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"afshāndan" is the root of the verb. It means spraying liquid or solid particles. "Zar-afshāndan" in Persian literature means "to spray gold coins" (as a gesture of generosity). "Zarafshān" is the adjective ("a" and "ā" are written as "a" and "o" in Tajik spelling) and means something or someone that sprays gold coins (or gold sands, in this case). Alefbe (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Your reference to "a gesture of generosity" is particularly meaningful in this context. So "the sprayer of gold" it is. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits

It is very immature to hunt for edits by other users and revert them. Discuss the objections first. And do not make changes to a subject if it is outside of your scope. -- DJ1AM (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DJ1AM, please follow wikipedia policies when it comes to sources from academic materials. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Elonka 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that rule. Alefbe (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Judæo-Persian

Done. Please keep in mind that there appears to also be an article about Judeo-Shirazi. I'm not sure if it's the same thing (if so, it can be redirected). If not, maybe "Judæo-Shirazi" is a better spelling in order to conform with the new title. As for Template:Persian languages, feel free to move it back if you want. I would personally try to discuss it with Francis Tyers first though. Khoikhoi 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yep

yeah, I do. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Don't move pages to new names using non-standard characters. You moved Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man to Abū Ḥanīfa... please move it to Abu Hanifa instead, as non-standard characters are not employable in Wikipedia article names.

We should keep the forms in the pages. However, people cannot type "ḥ" and "ū", so it is against Wikipedia policy to use them. Ogress _smash! 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We have "REDIRECT"s for that. So, you don't need to worry about the difficulty of typing "ḥ" and "ū". People can still type Abu Hanifa and reach that page. Alefbe (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On removing external links from "Iran"

Alefbe, I find it, to put it mildly, very odd that you come along and remove a whole body of external links by pretending that they were unrelated to the entry. I have just checked, and it seems that you have a history of deleting the things that seem not to be to your personal liking. This page shows one of your predilections. If you are here for political reasons, you are in the wrong place and you will be better off to leave for whence you come. --BF 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Read WP:EL. Links should be directly related to the subject and have some special importance (Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum).For example, for the case of Persian gulf, links that are only related to its name and are not credible (like noname websites or the website of an Iranian student association) are not acceptable. Also, for the case of Iran, random Youtube videos (which lack any particular importance) are not acceptable. Also linking to the songs of Shusha Guppy is not appropriate for that page (there are many Iranian traditional and folklore singers and it's not acceptable to link all their songs as external links of Iran). Alefbe (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Random YouTube videos?! And even if random videos, you have deleted more than links to videos! As for the other page, Persian Golf, I have not inspected the links so that I am not in a position to judge the veracity of your statements (it is however a verifiable fact that your "contribution" to this page also consists solely of removing links). As for Shusha Guppy, she is the only person who is known widely in the West and she is the person who has introduced Iranian folkloric songs to Western audiences; a person like Sima Bina, to name an example, is utterly unknown outside Iran and outside a small community of Iranians mostly living in Germany. But even if you had a valid point, why didn't you substitute the deleted links to Shusha Guppy's songs by alternative links that to your opinion would do the subject matter justice? I am amazed that people like you suddenly appear out of nowhere, and without any real contribution to Wikipedia (some disambiguations here and some redirecting of pages there do not constitute real contributions - don't misconstrue me, I have no claims for myself and for what might pass as my contributions; I am simply annoyed that some people, you included, derive a sense of intellectual satisfaction by roaming Wikipedia and uprooting things without any sense of responsibility for planting something in their place) start destroying all there is without making any attempt to replace the destroyed things with something that would be considered as more valuable. At the same time, your ilk seem to be well-versed in the minutest details of what e.g. external links have to contain and what they have not to contain. I wonder where such knowledge could have come from. --BF 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

About Shusha Guppy's songs, there no point in linking to them in Iran's page (they are not directly related to the page). Of course I didn't substitute those links with new links, because the external links of Iran's page shouldn't be a long list of anything that is merely related to Iran. Shusha Guppy's songs are already linked in her own page. Alefbe (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off, please

The edit warring between you and the other user over the external links in Persian Gulf needs to stop, and pronto. Use the discussion page to express your concerns and seek a consensus. You are well on your way to your 3RR limit, and it is in your best interest to realize that you are not going to overpower the other editor with the sheer volume of your reverts. Discussion, and not being obstinate, is going to achieve a lasting edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the reason for deleting those links (read the above section and see the summary of my edit) and I haven't broken the 3RR. What else do you expect? Also, for future, use better titles for your messages. Alefbe (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi, I don't understand why you keep addding the phrase "American" to the pronunciation guide. It is the single most common pronunciation in the English-speaking world, certainly not limited to Amercians only, and your addition is misleading and incorrect. Unless you can provide information showing that Brits and Aussies use a radically different pronunciation (and I assure you, they don't), it's perfectly fine as-is. Thanks for your consideration. Doc Tropics 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that its British pronunciation is the same? The current reference is for American English. Alefbe (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, please avoid edit warring, a look at your contributions show several reverts recently on various pages. Keep in mind that the three-revert rule does not entitle you to three reverts. Instead, try to achieve a consensus on the relevant talk pages instead. Xashaiar has been warned for civility, but you need to do your part and avoid edit warring, as both are blockable offenses. Thanks, Khoikhoi 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A look at your contributions show that you are not impartial on this issue (this warning and the warning on Fullstop's talk page is just a continuation of a known pattern). Your edits in recent months show that you blindly support users like Wayiran and Xashaiar and you have used your sysop tools in favor of them. If you think that I need a warning or my edits have been inappropriate, ask another sysop to act or comment. I should admit that I was too optimistic about you, before becoming more active in English Wikipedia. I had heard from Iranian Wikipedians that you are very helpful in combatting extreme POV in Iran-related articles, but now (that I've become more active in English Wikipedia), I have seen that the way you use your sysop tools helps users like Wayiran and makes it easier for them to gradually lower the quality of Iran-related articles (they might have good intentions, but most of their edits are just not suitable for an encyclopedia). Alefbe (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Check newest section of Iranian languages talk page

Check it out. Thanks Azalea pomp (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Persian

I have a linguistics knowledge of Persian. ;) I by no means can converse in Persian. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Borujerdi examples

Thanks for the link to the Borujerdi blog. Am I hearing a front rounded vowels in this dialect like [y] and maybe [œ]? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any other similar links to Persian dialects with audio samples? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources. Persian dialect information is relatively hard to locate at many libraries. I have never found anything on the dialects of Kerman, Yazd, and Bam for example. The older/younger speakers' differences is quite interesting. That would explain why one source I had had forms for older and younger speakers of certain dialects. It seems Tehrani Persian is the prestige dialect of Iran. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of Iran

Ah, I see what you meant. The Izady map found at Columbia lists the Mira source as the primary source: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.jpg

It is not accurate as you have stated. For example, Dezful and Shushtar speak Persian dialects. The Semnani dialects are not included. I can look at the Mira source within the next few days. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the Mira map in front of me now. Izady's map does extend Kurdish more than what is in Mira. Mira's map is detailed in that it shows in which cities Persian is spoken versus the countryside. It shows Kermanshah as Persian with Kurdish surrounding it. It does not show Borujerd as Persian but a lot of areas west of Borujerd as Persian. At the time the map was created, perhaps they did not know the exact dialect of Borujerd. It does not distinguish Semnani or Central Iran dialects, but since those languages/dialects are spoken in "islands", Iranica will be useful for those. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Iranian

On the Iranian languages talk page I included my findings on the Western Iranian branch. Azalea pomp (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tajiks of China

Thanks for the message. I think "Tajiks of China" makes the most sense. They only live in Xinjiang, but I think it is best to identify them according to country, rather than province. To call them "Pamiris" is completely new to me. In Chinese language literature, they are exclusively called Tajiks, and their self-identification would probably be either Tajik or a linguistic identifier, i.e. Wakhi or Sarikoli. The term Pamiri is a term that appeared during the Soviet era and as far as I know has no usage in China and probably not in Afghanistan either, even though in Afghanistan there exists the same groups that in Tajikistan are called Pamiris.

Thanks for the contribution to the article Tajiks of Xinjiang. Is, in your opinion, the title Pamiri people of Xinjiang more appropriate for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.91.28 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Badakhshan

Hi

I've read WP:AMOS, in particular, this:

All Arabic articles should have a lead paragraph which includes the article title, along with the original Arabic script and the strict transliteration in parenthesis, preferably in the lead sentence.

In this case, the article title is Badakhshan, which is the name by which the region is normally known in English texts, not Badakhshān. Mhockey (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Only when the title and the strict transliteration are quite different, mentioning both in the lead is needed (like Cairo and Qāhira) . In other cases (when the difference is onlly between loose translitaraion and strict transliteration, like "Badakhshan" and Badakhshān), citing both versions in the lead is redundant (and sometimes misleading). Alefbe (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in WP:AMOS this is clearly mentioned:

Likewise, if a strict transliteration appears overly repetitious, it should be in place of the page title in the lead paragraph.

I don't think the guidance should only apply when the title and strict transliteration are quite different - that's not what WP:AMOS says. Maybe the difference of view comes down to this: you regard "Badakhshan" as only a loose transliteration, whereas I see it as the normal name in English. I do not think my version is "overly repetitious". It's hardly a long title, such as the example after the passage you quote. The problem with using the strict transliteration as the first word in the lead is that it could give the impression to some readers that Badakhshān is the "correct" form to use in normal English usage, and that would certainly be misleading. Would you suggest starting the Tehran article with Tehrān.....? Mhockey (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The standard and strict transliteration of Persian and Arabic are not quite the same, but the principles are similar and in the cases of Tehran and Badakhshan, I think the lead should start with Tehrān and Badakhshān, respectively. That's how it is done for most of Iranian or Afghan provinces (it should be done for all of them). Alefbe (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of transliteration. It's the issue of whether the lead should start with the article title (which is the usual name in English, where there is one), or a transliteration of the local name. I don't think many editors would agree with you on Tehran, but let's see. I'll put a comment on that article's talk page. Mhockey (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

PerB conversions

Thanks Please explain - I took a look at a number of these changes (and dozens more for ArabDIN) and I didn't see a problem. Is this a matter of different rendering engines for web browsers or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Genius Thanks. This should do the trick. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of Durrani Empire

The map showing the extent of the Durrani Empire (Afgempdur.jpg) doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Firstly, the map is not in English, which makes it difficult to understand it. Such a map has very high chances of misleading the readers instead of guiding them. Also, the map doesn’t tell the actual year(time) of the maximum extent of Durrani Empire.

Secondly, the limits of the influence of the Afghan Empire(vassal states) is shown covering Rajputana(Although Rajputs were unfriendly towards Marathas, Rajputana wasn't in any way a vassal of the Durrani empire), part of present day Maharashtra and even Malwa- the stronghold of Holkars & Gwalior- the stronghold of Scindias(Holkars and Shindes were potent forces even after the Maratha defeat at Panipat). Even though the Marathas had lost the battle of Panipat, there wasn’t any chance that anyone (including Abdali) could come even near present day Maharashtra. After the battle, Abdali quickly retired to Afghanistan and the Sikhs had emerged a potent force in Punjab. Although he attacked Punjab twice after 1761, he didn't make any decisive gains and didn't come south of Punjab. This map doesn’t seem to be made by an expert and I also have doubts over the western extent of the empire. It is extremely inaccurate and is misguiding the users. It seems to be highly biased, violating Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and seems to be made by an Abdali follower. This map needs to be removed from Durrani Empire and Afghanistan. Kindly go through this. Thanks Kesangh (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pahlavi

I realize that since I didn't change them all to the language (quite a few went to Pahlavi Dynasty). But to me the ones I did change seemed to fit that description. The link on the disam page does state that it refers to the language and the speakers of the language. I don't do disamming without thought, trust me. I can be wrong but it doesn't mean I wasn't careful. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking account

There was sufficient suspicion in the eyes of the checkusers and clerks to run a check; at the time, that Self-Image was a sock of NisarKand was not determined either. While at times it is unfortunate that innocent people get caught up in checks, that is part of the process. Checkusers, when asked and when evidence is indicative, need to identify socks and innocents. As you can see from the report, there was sockpuppetry going on; thankfully not you. Of course, had we known that you were innocent before the run we would not have run it, and I apologize for causing you any distress, but the run at the time was justified. If only there were no issues with sockpuppetry and we could obviate the need for checkuser runs completely, we'd all be better off. So, I apologize for the unneeded distress, but at that time, with the information we had, I believe the run was justified. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain more about that "sufficient suspicion in the eyes of the checkusers". I looked at the report by the clerk and in my opinion the report was ridiculous. What was the justification? Is editing pages related to broad subject (like the geography and the history of Iran and Central Asia) a valid justification to check users? Do you justify the same kind of user check for other broad subjects (like checking users, just based on the history of editing France-related pages)? This is ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that the check was improper, you should file a complaint with the m:Ombudsman commission, who is charged with allegations of improper invasion of privacy. -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also register a request for an investigation with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [2]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Shah River

I am sorry, but in English the name of the river is "Shah River". See:

• "Introduction - Drainage Basins - Caspian Sea" Freshwater Fishes of Iran; and
• Campbell, Anthony (2004) "A Visit to Alamut (1966)" The Assassins of Alamut p. 6,

for examples. --Bejnar (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In these cases (when "Rud" is suffix), the common tradition is to consider "Rud" as a part of the name and it's better not to translate it. The few sporadic examples that you mentioned are not enough to change that rule. Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The usage is sometimes, but not often Shahrood, because Shahrood is used as the name for a city unrelated to the river. Shah Rud is more common than Shahrood for the river, but the English remains "Shah River". --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See [3] (compare it with the results for Shah river which are mostly not related to this river). Alefbe (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any ambiguity, compare [4] with [5]. Alefbe (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

75 to 121 in the first comparison. 8 to 32 in your last comparison. The numbers are inconclusive, and both sets contain repeats, and as you mention a number of false drops for "Shah River". The fact remains that Shahrood River is redundant, Shah River has significant academic usage and it's usage clearly distinguishes it from the city, whose etymology appears to be quite different. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the name of the river is Shahrood (not Shah). The original meaning of rood (in Persian) is not much relevant to this discussion. Grad also means city or town or settlement, in slavic languages, but this doesn't justify changing Kaliningrad to city of Kalinin or Kalinin city (or saying that city of Kaliningrad is redundant [6]). Alefbe (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also check academic papers for the similar case of Sefid-Rud (266 and 466, compared to only 14 for "sefid river"). Alefbe (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look in Google search at the entries for "شاه رود " (Shah Rud) in Farsi, there are about 262 entries. That would suggest that Shahrood is just a contraction. --Bejnar (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the river is Shah-Rud and it's written in Persian as شاهرود (it can be also be spelled as شاه‌رود). The spelling شاه رود is not the standard Persian spelling. Also I should mention that among those few entries that you saw, about half of them are totally irrelevant to this subject (for example in some of them, it's "shah ravad" meaning "king goes", as a part of a sentence). Alefbe (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

شاهرود primarily refers to the city and the sharestan. --Bejnar (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It refers to both. Alefbe (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving to non-English names

Before you go changing Iranian names to non-English versions, please obtain some discussion from others, not me, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

About Sefid-Rud I've already explained it above and in its talk page. In English texts, Sefid-Rud is much more common than Sefid River. Also you should note that the guideline is about using the most common name in English texts, not translating different parts of a compound name into English. Alefbe (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kahrizak detention center

Some of the edit reverts that you have made are problematic. They address general events and occurrences relating to those arrested after the election and not necessarily to events inside Kahrizak. These are more relevant in a post-election aftermath wiki entry than here. The point of the edits made to your contribution was to make sure that what you had written was relevant to Kahrizak itself. Please go back and take a look at the entry before you changed it and see if you don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.195 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You had removed most of the English sources. If you think some of the information (and the cited sources) are not relevant, discuss it in details in its talk page. Also, it's better to create a user account. Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please take a look at the discussion page there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.195 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Habban

The edit summary you gave for the removal of the PROD tag did not explain anything. I had proposed it for deletion according to the policy of WP:DICT. The article says nothing about the actual bagpipes than it does about the word. Therefore, the information should be transferred to Wikitionary, and the article should be deleted. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 02:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of that page is not just about the origin of the word. It's about a special type of bagpipe. Alefbe (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it only talked about the origin of the word. I said it only talks about the term itself, and not about the bagpipes at all. Every line in that article talks only about the term. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me?

Do you still contest to the prod tag? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Alefbe (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that the article talks about more than the term? Can you even bring me one sentence from there that does not speak about the term, but speaks about the bagpipes? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I may expand it later. But, anyway, if you want to insist on deleting the page, you should go to WP:AfD. Alefbe (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC

Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, I have put a tag for a transwiki, which should be done automatically Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me, why you have reverted my edits? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I didn't find it constructive. That page has encyclopedic content and it shouldn't be deleted. Alefbe (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was being transwikied into Wikitionary, it wasn't being deleted at the moment. I can see that you are expanding the article right now. If that can solve the problem, then that would be awesome. Considering the number of edits you are making, perhaps you might want to put a {{under construction}} template. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Alefbe, I came in to this discussion at the request of the other user, and consequently investigated the topic a little. I've made some comments on my talk page, which might be useful in further development of the article; the reply was directed at Warrior4321, but I thought that you might be interested.

In the interests of not splitting conversations over multiple pages, however, I suggest that further discussion takes place on Talk:Habban.

My comments are in User talk:Chzz#Template Removal.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page created. Please continue discussion over there. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Amir Kror Suri

Hi. Could you please also take a look at Talk:Amir Kror Suri? Thank you. Tajik (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

UN population data

Thanks for the tip, I'll use that as my source from now on. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nimrooz

User:ketabtoon keeps removing Persian from this article [7] and adds Pashto while the term Nimrooz has no meaning in the Pashto language and this word comes from the Persian language.--Inuit18 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1385 could = 2007

some months of 1385 are in 2007, so it could be census of 2007, which month of 1385 was that census?

The data is for Nov. 2006 (Aban, 1385). Alefbe (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BRD

Bold, Revert, Discuss. Once you blanked the page, you are not supposed to put it back. You and Folantin are participating in an edit war. You cannot blank a page because you think it "sucks". That is edit warring and vandalism. I suggest you stop now and restore it before this goes to ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "blanking" doesn't apply to the removal of a mixture of irrelevant and duplicate material from a page, when it is already discussed in its talk page. Also, If you look at other opinions in that talk page, you see that only you insist on restoring the old version of that page (me, Folantin, and others have some disagreements about the final version of the page, but we all agree that the current version is better than the old version of the page). About ANI, you can always go to ANI, but keep in mind that ANI is not relevant to disputes on the content of pages. Alefbe (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying it is irrelevant or duplicate is not a justification and people have been blocked as POV warriors for clinging to such claims. Fault in text is not justification for violating Wikipedia policies. This is not a content dispute. This is you violating policies and edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing two reverts in one day (where one of them is reverting Dekimasu's edition and the other one is reverting to Folantin-Dekimasu's edition) is not called edit warring, specially when both of them are discussed in the talk page. Anyway, you can go to ANI if you prefer. Alefbe (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by definition is vandalism. Reducing a page from 60k to less than 1k is blanking. Reverting back to blanking is more vandalism. Those are blockable offenses. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

"I am amused that many users who haven't been previously involved in any Iran-related page (or any page related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia) all of a sudden have become interested in this topic."

Yes, it's odd. The page has been marked for clean-up since March but as soon as editors with some knowledge of the subject try to do something about the situation, the page gets fully protected in the "crappy old version". At least part of the explanation may lie here (look at the names in Pool A). Wikipedia is becoming a social networking site rather than an encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you see his ANI case, it seems that a few admins did not want to ban him because of the work he has done. Warrior4321 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persian Empire. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the 3RR rule. Why didn't you give warning to those users who all of a sudden became interested in that content dispute and participated in edit-warring? Alefbe (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've already participated in the discussion and have presented my arguments there. You should have given warning to users like Durova who all of a sudden participate in edit-warring and admit that they have "No idea whether this is misinformation or not". Alefbe (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's amazing how many of the newcomers to that page are associated with WP:DYK and WP:GAN. Just like Ottava Rima. It couldn't be that Wikipedia is more about who you know than what you know nowadays. Example, here's Ottava's support vote from Nuclear Warfare's recently successful request for adminship: [8] ""Support - He was invaluable in dozens of DYK and quite a few GAs that I have put together. Ottava Rima". Again, spot the references to DYK on this user talk page. --Folantin (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And WP:Wikicup is apparently a competition to see which user can get the most points by acquiring DYKs, GAs, Featured Pictures and so on. Check the names in Pool A. --Folantin (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aryan

The article is not about the word Aryan. It is about the concept Aryan. That includes the history of the word and also the ideas and the motifs that have become attached to it. The swastika became the central symbol associated with the Aryan concept, and there are innumerable sources for that, dating back to Burnouf, Muller etc in the 19th cventury, Wilson in the early 20th and so on. Denying that is just pointless. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what? Do you have any reliable source to show that specific necklace is related to the Aryan concept or ancient Indo-Iranian culture? Sources about the relationship of swastika and the ancient Indo-Aryan culture have nothing to do with that necklace, unless you can provide a credible source to show that the necklace is related to the ancient Indo-Aryan culture (or at least the ancient Indo-Iranian culture). Alefbe (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is related to ancient Iranian culture because it is an ancient Iranian necklace. Anyway, the Article is about the concept Aryan in its totality, not just Iran. Your argument is, as I said, incomprehensible. The question "sources for what?" has already been answered. I don't have to waste my time explaining what you can read for yourself in the Swastika article. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you cannot attach every swastika-shape object that you find to the Indo-Aryan swastika and the ancient Indo-Aryan culture. Also, you should note that an ancient necklace from Iran is not necessarily related to the ancient Indo-Iranian culture (for example, read about Elamites, Cassites and Caspians which had nothing to do with the ancient Indo-Iranian culture). So, to relate these kind of things together, you need credible sources, and you cannot rely on your own original research and speculation. Alefbe (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's wholly untrue. Images do no have to follow rules about "original research" in the same way as text. They can be legitimately used to illustrate effectively, or even be user-created. It does not matter whether this necklace is in fact Indo-Iranian rather than Elamite. It matters that the connection was made between artefacts from areas of Indo-Iranian (and Hittite) influence and the swastika motif. In fact swaktika patterns have now been identified in the probably pre-II IVC culture, but that's beside the point. The article discusses the relationship between artefacts and theories, leading to the adoption of motifs as symbols of ethnicity. The question is what image is best suited to illustrate that connection. Paul B (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[9] Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"the Tajik language"

Oh, and I forgot to point out internal stylistic logic as an argumen. Look at how "Tajik" is used throughout the article itself, that neither "Tajik Persian" nor "Tajiki" have "language" attached and consider that the following sentence is a very obvious tautology: "The Tajik language is a modern variety of the Persian language."

Peter ^Isotalo 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation is not exactly the same as a word like "German" or "English" (it's more like "Quebec French"). "the Tajik language" here means "language of Tajiks" and it's a little meaningless to use "Tajik" alone to refer to this language (you can also compare the term to "Berber languages" in this regard). Alefbe (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

page moves

Please start a requested move discussion, the name had included "International" since Feb 2008, so if you wish to change the name and it has been reverted you should then open up a requested move discussion, not just keep moving it. nableezy - 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Alefbe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at International al-Quds Day. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alefbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

My response is very similar to that I gave to Paradoxic: You were still edit warring. Please use the time blocked to read up on edit warring and dispute resolution, and remember to discuss changes–in a wider forum if necessary–if you can't reach a consensus between you. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reason for Unblock: User:Paradoxic had violated 3RR yesterday and I reported him. User:Rjanag first said that it's not clear whether there was really 4 reverts or not. When I showed him again and I pointed to the continuation of Paradoxic's revert, Rjanag said that 3RR is just a guideline and Paradoxic's edits are not vandalism. Then I reminded him again that 3RR is not about vandalism and he should enforce it no matter if Paradoxic's edits are vandalism or not. Rjanag talked again about his own standards [10] and I told him that his approach is really against the 3RR policy and if he thinks intervention is not needed, he should ask comments from other admins. Then he blocked me. So, the only thing that changed Rjanag's opinion (from non-inrevention to blocking me) was my last edit about asking opinion of other admins. Alefbe (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the thing that changed my opinion is that after I declined the report both of you went on to revert one another more—a total of four reverts in 30 minutes. You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (and, by the way, you were always free to ask other admins for comment; you think I blocked you because I was afraid of other admins? Admins are great people, I hang with them all the time.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy is clear about this. Users shouldn't insist on edit-warring and shouldn't break 3RR. User:paradoxic broke that rule yesterday and I reported him yesterday and you refused to intervene. Since I reported him first, Paradoxic continued his reverts and had 4-5 more reverts (other than his early 4 reverts) and I reminded you about it and you once again refused to intervene (saying that 3RR is just a guideline and based on you own standards, you don't think blocking or even giving warning to Paradoxic is necessary). Then I told you that your approach is against the 3RR policy and you blocked me. Do you expect that I don't revert that page at all? (when you don't even take action against someone who has already broke 3RR and has continued his revert by some 4-5 more reverts)? Your original refuse of taking action was wrong and your later action was worse. By the way, comments such as "You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got." doesn't make it look better. Alefbe (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"I reported him first" never gives you the right to continue edit-warring. Just because reverted "more" than you, doesn't mean you're special or you can play a trump card against them. 3RR is not an entitlement, and if you make it clear that you're going to act like an edit warrior then you will be treated like an edit warrior. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "reporting first". The fact is that he has violated 3RR and I haven't. Indeed, I hadn't edited in that page for more than 24 hours, until I saw that Paradoxic has continued his edit-warring and violating 3RR and reverting edits other users and you have refused to take any action and you insist on doing so, saying that his edits are not vandalism and 3RR is just a guideline and based on your own standards, you don't need to enforce it, and then I reverted Paradoxic's edits (and even then I didn't break 3RR and I tried to avoid the edit war by asking admins to intervene). Alefbe (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Again: whether you broke 3RR doesn't matter. You still edit warred. 3RR is only one kind of edit warring, and you can be blocked without breaking it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You refused to intervene when Paradoxic was reverting edits of 4 other users and broke 3RR (by continuing reverting to his own version, more than 7-8 times). But when I reverted him, you blocked me for edit-warring. If all admins take your approach, to push a POV it would be enough to use a single purpose account to edit-war in a page and revert it to your own version, 10 times per day (without being stopped), and be sure that if others revert you once or twice (after seeing that admins refuse to stop you), they would be blocked for edit-warring. This is really ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Asking another admin to hastily comment in you favor doesn't make your mistake look better. I don't care about not editing for 24 hours (anyway, I won't have time to edit tomorrow), but I'm really disappointed by this type of admin behavior. Alefbe (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in that message did I ask the admin to comment "in my favor"; I just said, since he had looked at one, he should also have a look at the other. Would you prefer to have had your unblock request ignored all day? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR is described as a bright line and I think that the fact that this was a content dispute and not vandalism is irrelevant - or rather that 3RR is meant to apply to content disputes, we have other ways of dealing with vandalism. So if the other editor had been warned and exceeded it and I had seen this at that point, I would probably have blocked the other editor. Unfortunately you continued also. My own policy for mysefl is to stop at two. That's what I've told other editors in this position. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's better not to rush to revert, but when admins clearly refuse to stop someone who has broken 3RR and continues reverting, it's not meaningful to ask others not to revert even once or twice. The reason of that edit war was because User:Rjanag failed to do his job as as an admin and when he was asked to ask opinion of other admins about the issue, he blocked me and wrote comments such as "You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got." Alefbe (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't have asked the opinion of other admins yourself. You do have an "edit" button, you know. You also were given an opportunity to provide better diffs to demonstrate Paradoxical's edit warring, and you did not; you just said "it's obvious". It wasn't obvious to me, not until you guys started up again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, after writing that comment in ANI (asking you to get opinion of other admins if you insist on not intervening), I was going to ask opinion of other admins, but I realized that you have blocked me. Alefbe (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well, after looking again at the history, it is clearer that Paradoxic had broken 3RR, and perhaps could have been blocked earlier, although I still believe this could have been handled better at the talk page than through admin tools (I have worked on hot-topic articles like this, such as July 2009 Urumqi riots, and in those cases have frequently come across stubborn editors but been able to deal with them through overwhelming talkpage consensus, and either not need to have them blocked or just report them for blocking after they go against overwhelming consensus—here, I don't see any strong consensus on the talk page for or against Paradoxic's edits, there seem to be two camps, so there should have been more discussion from all parties). I won't unblock either of you because, regardless of what happened before, in the end you both did edit war even though there were other options available (such as getting third parties' attention before reverting); but for now I am at least watching the article a little more closely to see if Paradoxic returns to problem editing after his block expires. Really, though, regarding the disputed content neither one of you should be changing it directly; there is plenty of space on the talk page to look for a consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know all the details of this and maybe Alefbe shouldn't have crossed the line with his latest edits to the article. But he has a previously clean block log, showing he is not by nature a disruptive editor. I see no particular reason why he shouldn't be unblocked early as long as he promises to avoid violating 3RR on the page again. --Folantin (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated 3RR at all and this block is not about violating 3RR. If there is an edit-war on be my part, User:Rjanag is directly responsible for it (by refusing to stop User:Paradoxic who had broken 3RR). Anyway, I don't have time to edit today and I don't care about not editing. What really disappoints me here is Rjanag's inappropriate behavior and the way he has handled this issue. Alefbe (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only person responsible for your actions is yourself. Regardless of what happened before, you always have a choice of whether or not to click the edit button. You had the opportunity to request outside input, but instead you hit that revert button twice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to justify your mistake. Alefbe (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hi; About you changes in pages containg Azerbaijan: First of all I had changed the pages after very first discussions in Tabriz discussion page when Alborz accepting my opinion. After initiating of further discussions by Alborz the procedure stoped. However for right now you may notice nutral opinion as well! Thank you.--Microinjection (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There page was there for years and you moved the page without discussion in its talk page. Alefbe (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason of the discussion, for which you have involved some how, was moving the pages. By the original word which were used in creating of the pages were Azerbaijan.--Microinjection (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think whole of the discussion was about changing Azarbaijan to Azerbaijan (base on judging which one is the correct word). Right now the discussion is done and concluded. Before present modifications, you have reverted whole of the pre-discussion modifications (you wrote there is an ongoing discussion on Tabriz page). When the discussion is concluded it is time to changing the pages according to discussion results.--Microinjection (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Komur river

The name Komur comes from the map, NJ 38-7 Tabriz, Iran; Azerbaijan; Armenia Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000, U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency. It enters the Aji Chay just north of Tabriz, and just before the Sian Chay enters the Aji Chay. It is also listed in the Geonames database here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you realized that it's Mehran River? and if it's Mehran River, how did you conclude that "komur" the most common name of it in English publications [11] (while searching over books shows otherwise)? Alefbe (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

[12] Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary block

In addition to refusing to participate in discussion about the name, you've gone and started doing massive reverts across a bunch of articles. Again, I am willing to have a discussion, but it's really inappropriate of you to just ignore the discussion and then go start edit warring somewhere else. I'll unblock you once you assure me that you're not going to do a revert-war across 80 articles while a discussion is ongoing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with the context of this issue: Rjanag has systematically changed the common English spelling of "Turfan" in all Wikipedia pages (without any consensus). I mentioned this issue in ANI and Talk:Turpan. Then I undid some of Rjanag's systematic spelling changes and Rjanag blocked me. This is a clear example of misusing admin toold to advance one's own preferences. Alefbe (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I only blocked you for 30 minutes to prevent widespread rollback warring, and this is only because you deliberately refused to participate in a discussion and insisted on doing massive rollbacks even though I tried to start a discussion. Like I said, I will unblock you immediately if you agree not to make contentious rollbacks on 80 articles while there is a discussion that is [trying to] happen. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those rollbacks were just undoing your undiscussed systematic spelling changes. You cannot systematically change common English spelling of a name in all Wikipedia pages and then except others to first get your approval before undoing your edits. Anyway, you should also know that you shouldn't use your admin tools in an issue which is directly related to you. Alefbe (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I changed the spelling because no one had objected in a month and there was no stronger consensus for the old spelling than there was for the new. I already said that I'm willing to discuss this now that you have objected, but you have refused to participate in the discussion or to seek an outside opinion. And I know the rules for admin tools, but like I said at ANI I was IARing to avoid a large rollback war across multiple articles. And again, I will unblock you, but you have to assure me that you will follow the same Wikipedia guidelines that you insist on me following: specifically, that you will attempt to have a discussion before making massive project-wide changes that you now know are controversial. (When I made the changes they weren't controversial, as no one had expressed an objection to the new name. When you made them, however, you knew that at least one editor, me, had objected to such a change.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you unblock me or not. You have misused your admin tools and your recent edits have been disruptive and you should be held responsible for that. Alefbe (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're unblocked. Gimmetrow 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My IP is still autoblocked. Alefbe (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock is lifted. No comment on the issue or the block, but I would strongly urge everyone to come to some kind of consensus before changing it in any way. If you want one spelling to be consistently used on Wikipedia, the only way to do this is by establishing consensus somewhere so that you can refer to it. Anything else escalates into slow (and lame) edit warring. Amalthea 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: What does happen to Rjanag's disruptive systematic spelling change? Alefbe (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're unblocked. Do you want to discuss what the article should be named? Gimmetrow 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have discussed it (in its talk page) and have mentioned that "Turfan" is the most common English spelling of the name and should be the title of that page. But, the main thing is that Rjanag's systematic change of common English spelling of the name (in all Wikipedia pages and without any consensus) is just disruptive, no matter what the title of that page is. Alefbe (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't discussed it; you left a drive-by remark and then refused to ever respond to any of mine. Discussion goes two ways, not one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the autoblock number? I tried to search for it but I can't find it, and I can't clear the autoblock without it. Or has Gimmetrow already removed the autoblock? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

the first Iranian state

Dear Alefbe, The first Iranian state in the territroy of contemporary Iran was indeed the Median empire. Their empire was indeed much more important that the lemaite, which was in fact a local kingdom. Medians united Iranian tribes and natives living there. they were a major player in the region too. Achamenidian empire had an Iranian core but in fact was a multinational empire, while the Median empire was truely Iranian. Please do not remove the Median empire from the box. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The language of people and those states doesn't matter much. Medes didn't unify Iran and in Iranian history, their state isn't much more important than Elamites. Even the last Shah (who wanted to emphasize on continuity of "Imperial state of Iran") didn't include the pre-Achaemenid period. Emphasizing on Medes, instead of others like Elamites (just because Medes were Iranian-speaking) is some sort of original research (specially when even local sources don't emphasize on that). Alefbe (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alefbe. The last Shah's opinion of the matters does not matter much. But where is tyour staement based on that the Medes didnt unify Iran? I do not think that it is a form of original research, because all Iranian sources, notably school books, also regard the Median empire as the first Iranian state. However, I do understand that your country pursues a defamation and unhistorification of Iranian history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian in Tajikistan

I think you should read closely this press article [13]. Yes, Russian is not co-official anymore but the bill says nothing about its status as a "language for interethnic communication". Moreover, this status is granted by the constitution. So, President would have to change the constitution to really "get rid" of Russian ... and he hasn't done it yet. I think we should be careful and not making changes without consulting. I'm putting my edit back and I think it would be very polite from you to let me know before reverting it again.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the RFL-RL report that I cited. It clearly says "A new law on official languages has gone into effect in Tajikistan that removes Russian as the "language for interethnic communication," RFE/RL's Tajik Service reports." Alefbe (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I read it but my source contradicts yours. Plus, I studied law and I know that, theorically, you can't just change the Constitution with a law. You need to reform the constitution itself because it is superior to the law. Maybe things are different in Central Asia but I'm not so sure.

So before starting a pathetic "edit war", I think we should let the infobox as it was before 2009-10-07 and look for the original document. If you read Persian tajik, it will be probably easy (Personnaly, I don't). If you don't let's try to find it in Russian (which would be quite ironical), and put into Google translator, unless you speak the language already ... of courseMitch1981 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the local newsreport after passing the bill [14]: Alefbe (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Дар тарҳи нав забони русӣ ҳамчун забони муоширати байни миллатҳо зикр нашудааст ва Шодӣ Шабдолов, раиси Ҳизби коммунистӣ аз ин норозигӣ кард."

Translation: "In the new law, the Russian language has not mentioned as the "inter-ethnic language" and Shodi Shabdolov, chairman the communist party, expressed his disappointment."

I got your point but the Constitution still states that Russian is the language for interethnic communication (article 2 : Русский язык является языком межнационального общения). You can find the text of the Constitution on the official website of the president (). And again a constitution is the "fundamental law" of the country, so it is superior to any ordinary law.

I think you should check this website : http://www.pagef30.com/2009/10/8-october-2009-tajik-now-only-official.html#comment-form. Apparently, the law doesn't specifically mention that Russian is being dropped, but that's the effect of the bill which will now mean that government documents will only be in Tajik. OK it's the same thing ... but officially, Russian is still the language for interethnic communication.Mitch1981 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for further news. Alefbe (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's better to wait.

By the way, since you seem to be Tajik could you tell me more about the whole business ? Why does President Rahmon want to drop Russian language so much ? As far as I know, Russia is becoming a big power again (though not as big as it used to be). So, what's the point of taking distances with such a powerful ally ? Plus, many Tajiks emigrate to Russia in search of better economic opportunities and send money back to the country, don't they ? If they lack proficiency in Russian, won't it be a problem ?Mitch1981 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not from Tajikistan. Alefbe (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration

Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration, and I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact. The request is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Content of Category:Afghanistan Tribes Page

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Afghan_tribes has been emptied of content. Suddenly there are no tribes in Afghanistan. Only a few days ago they existed. What happened? Did the tribes of Afghanistan travel to another country? True, the tribes are also part of the ethnic groups but they have not stopped being tribes!

Perhaps they never existed? Countrystudies (http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/54.htm) must be in error as it considers tribes? Same for Illinois Institute of Technology (http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/EthnicityAndTribe.html) and the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/17686). What about the BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-4/singh.html)? We must tell Harper's Magazine and the CIA (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90005046) that there are no tribes in Afghanistan before it is too late.

Let know your thoughts on this matter. id447@yahoo.com

Id447 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We have [Category:Pashtun tribes] and [Category:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan]. These two categories are enough for what you need and categorizing topics such as Tajik people or Hazara people as "Afghan tribe" is simply wrong (ambiguous and misleading). Alefbe (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first read about the tribes of Afghanistan, I was unsure of who was being referred to. I went to Wikipedia to understand who they were and their impact on the NATO occupation of Afghanistan. Perhaps this current issue is too important a subject for Wikipedia to illuminate?

From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Bold added by id447

Focus on content

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Id447 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your argument? and what do you try to justify? Alefbe (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the choices! Option 1: If you can convince me with facts that there are no tribes in Afghanistan, then we are in agreement and those facts can be added to a page in Wikipedia.

Option 2: We are unable to agree if there are tribes in Afghanistan. You show that there are no tribes in Afghanistan and I show that there is and both arguments are included in a page covering the controversy. Neither of us delete the others statements on this matter.

Option 3: You agree that there are tribes in Afghanistan such as Pashtun, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aimaq, Baluch tribes and will not delete such entries. Of course these tribes are not only in Afghanistan. Tribes are also ethnic groups but a group organized as a tribe should be more organized than a non-tribal ethnic group. See http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/index.htm for documentation.

As editors, we should expose the reader to facts even if they are contradictory. There are various ways to expose the reader to the facts we have found. Categories, list, or editing or creating a new page are all available.

Id447 (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing [Category:Afghan tribes] with [Category:Tribes in Afghanistan]. There is no need to have [Category:Afghan tribes], but we can have [Category:Tribes in Afghanistan] and we already have [Category:Pashtun tribes]. Anyway, inclusion of page like Turkmen people or Hazara people in [Category:Afghan tribes], as you did (or even inclusion in [Category:Tribes in Afghanistan]) is simply wrong, because they are about ethnic groups, not tribes (it's as absurd as categorizing African American or Spanish American as "American tribes"). Alefbe (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to why Turkmen people can not be considered tribal.

Id447 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some Turkmen tribes, belonging to this ethnic group, but Turkmen people is the name of the ethnic group, not a tribe. There is a difference between a tribe and an ethnic group that includes that tribe. Alefbe (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and discussed Rjanag's conduct with him directly and at an AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Refugee populations in Iran and Pakistan

One more time. Your link have not any word about soviet war. Probably those refugee populations are a result of another war?--Skrod (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Turko-Persian tradition and Samad Behrangi

Hi, Alefbe. Why don't you discuss your ideas in the talk/discussion pages before reverting? Best, E104421 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is already mentioned in the summary of my edit. Also other editors have discussed it earlier. If you have something new to say, discuss it the talk page of those pages. Alefbe (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the most contributing editors of these articles. You can see my comments from the talk pages of these articles. However, i haven't seen any of yours. Best. E104421 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seem them. If you have something new to say or if my edit summary isn't clear or you disagree with it, discuss it in the corresponding talk pages. Alefbe (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian

Hello. I noticed the edit war on the page Indo-Iranian and I left a comment on SorenShadow's talk page asking him to stop and explaining briefly what the term Indo-Iranian implies and why saying Indian and Iranian is wrong.Kalifo (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On Jamshid Kashani

Dear Alefbe, if you have the time for, you might like to have a look into Ulugh Beg Observatory, where a totally wrong impression is given of the role of Jamshid Kashani in the building and running of the Observatory. In fact, were it not for the accurate calculation of sine of 1 degree by Kashani, Ulugh Beg would not be able to compile the Zij named after, which he did after the death of Kashani. I have as yet to extend the biography of Kashani with the technical details underlying his calculation of sine of 1 degree accurate to 17 decimal digits (I have already sorted out the technical details, only need to write the piece in a way that suits the readership of Wikipedia). Have you seen this entry, by the way? With kind regards, --BF 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm not much familiar with the history of that observatory. Alefbe (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Avicenna

Hi, I might be on a long break soon.. please keep an eye on the article. thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on this: List of languages by number of native speakers. I have added some sourced information. --Np4 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your good work

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for your excellent contributions to Iran related topics and also fighting off vandalism. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Alefbe (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eye

Can you keep an eye on this: List of languages by number of native speakers. I have added some sourced information. --Np4 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Green Movement

This user strongly supports the Green Movement of Iran (GMI) جنبش سبز ایران.

Pls put this userbox in your user page if you support Green Movement of Iran and send it to your friends in Wiki.

Fereydoun Farkhzad article - Please refrain from enforcing your political leanings on Wikipedia

Hi Alefbe: Subject says all.

PS: Do you think it is appropriate to adevertise "Islamic Democracy"/"Green Movement" on Wikipedia?

Thanks--Mehrshad123 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't change sourced information. The cited source clearly talks about Farrokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government and its relation to his murder and you try to hide it. Alefbe (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No one doubts Farokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government, however his main target was Islam as a religion, more than the government - The sources provided in the article suggest that he may have been murdered by an arab hit squad operating in Europe.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi can you r.v. this vandals work [15] --66.92.168.124 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC) He has vandalized Nezami, Khaqani, Shabistari, Qatran Tabrizi and some other Iran related articles.

Report this [16] and this [17] to Moreschi. --66.92.168.124 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed everything but cannot edit Nezami Ganjavi.. would appreciate your help in r.v. the vandal.--66.92.168.124 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your insist on "EDIT WAR"

As i seen in this page, You have a long history of dispute and edit war, You can also remove this page, like your other older usernames, But i just left you a message to "stop pushing nonsense materials in the pages or even deleting sourced information", like you who remind this to anyone else --Parthava (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see , the name calling and insisting in returning the personal POV of Parthava , is out of Wikipedidan roles . I advise Alefbe to report this behavior if it continues . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Zayandeh Rud

I beg to disagree. Placing the article under Zāyandé-Rūd is not helpful as that name is not used in English. The most common English name for the river is Zayandeh. --Bejnar (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. This shows that discussing it with you is useless (the common name of something in English is its common name in English texts, not necessarily your preferred way of translating that name). If you insist on moving the page, use the proper procedure for the page move and invite other opinions. Alefbe (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

even if it is based on texas university you yourself know that map is wrong as well

we shouldnt use wrong references even if it is from a university os somewhere. look at to west azerbaijan .it shows it is totally kurs' land, so where is the turks? i dont wandalize the map I show the right one! متعصبانه به مردم مارک وندالیزم نزنید!، خودتان هم می دانید که این نقشه درست و بیطرفانه است اگر اندک مطالعه ای داشته باشید در این زمینه. به نظر شما کدام قسمت از این نقشه غلط یا مغرضانه است؟ بگوئید تا بلافاصله اصلاح کنم. Pournick (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In pages where that map is too irrelevant or too erroneous, you can remove it, but don't replace it with a made-up map. Alefbe (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information

You might like to have a look here. --BF 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

image of Iran ethnicity map.png

According to description and source of image's page, it is persia2099's own work! I couldnt find anything about uni of Texas! the map is his/her own work without reliable refrences! also it has a plain differences (especially in part of West Azerbaijan!) from The image of CIA which he had put below of his own created referenceless! image. یکبار دیکر میگویم اگر قسمتی از نقشه به نظر شما غلط است بگوئید تا اصلاح کنم من قصد گرفتن زمینهای پدری هیچ قومیتی را ندارم حتی روی یه تیکه نقشه! That map was made up as well! Regards, Pournick (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may interrupt. The map by Persia.... was a distortion of the original map and is already reverted!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again

I had a look to the web page you've sent it to me. look at [18] or [19] or[20] and[21]. In some of them Urmia and other Turk cities belong to Turkish area, in some other same cities! belong to kurdish area! all are published by uni of Texas, shows that they themselves dont know anything about the demography of Azerbaijan and Iran. so these maps are not reliable. but I'll try to correct some mistakes of my map according to this one [22] which looks more reliable and detailed than others. Regards, Pournick (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You can remove a map if it's too erroneous, but don't replace it with a made-up map. Wikipedia is not the right place for original research. Alefbe (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Khwarizmi

Hi can you take care off the issue...you can put Iranian peoples instead of Persian if there is a fuss. However the user is simply distorting sources. Thanks. I don't have time to deal with such users right now--Hichimichi (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Names in languages of Iran

Alefbe, why are you deleting the name of tehran in different languages of Iran. I do not think that France is a good example. That country similar to Turkey has traditionally a fascistic approach to its native languages. You can see multilingualism in many countriy's banknote's for example and that's not a bad thing. And may I know what is your fixation with Iranian pages. I am Iranian and it is natural for me to be interested in that, but as I know you are froma country very hostile to Iran and the Iranian nation. You can get accused pursuing an agenda.If I may give you an advise, Please.....!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Although sometimes I find your comments amusing, they are not always funny. If you want others to take your comments seriously, try to write them in a more reasonable fashion. Alefbe (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand anything you say. Is it your newest method of hit and run? I just brought an argument and asked you about your motives, but you talk nonsense mr. Alefbet!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani

Can you please take a look at the recent edits done by Ahmad Shahi. Most of his sources are books written in the 19th century.[23]--Inuit18 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Persian wikipedia - please look here

Could you Please look here: [24]. I have done the argumentation.. he can't add a khabargozaari without any methodology to the article. These might also be good for English wikipedia if you feel free to add them.. --RustamDastani (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the change from Surkh-Rod District --> Surkh-Rōd District ?

Greetings, what's the benefit of moving the main name of the article to a diacritic-marked version? Only the smallest minority of printed materials add the diacritics in the Latin-script rendering of these names, and I really don't see the benefit of making the article title the diacritic version. Does that imply that it somehow reduces confusion? Is someone going to say "oh, Surkh-Rōd, this Surkh-Rod was really throwing me without the line."

I'd submit that diacritics, unless totally necessary, cause more confusion than they solve, for the dubious benefit of being "correct". I wouldn't mind seeing every diacritic-marked title rendered into its most-common English spelling. Thoughts? Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see similar situation for Japanese names. Unless a special spelling is quite common in English texts, standard transliteration should be followed as a rule. Alefbe (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What's "special" about spelling it "Surkh-Rod"? If you google "Surkh-Rod" there are tons of media and government articles using that spelling, and very, very, very few using "Surkh-Rōd". As a reductio ad absurdum, if we're transliteraing "accurately", why not label every foreign name in IPA? I again submit max benefit would come from using the most commonly used spelling in English, not attempting to add diacritics to distinguish subtleties of vowels. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

using diacritics doesn't prevent you from finding google links which don't use diacritics (you can try it). Mentioning IPA is quite irrelevant here (the important thing here distinguishing different vowels in the original language, not transcripting the exact pronunciation). You may oppose it, but that's the way people do it in cataloguing books or in writing encyclopedic entries (see britannica[25] for example). Alefbe (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kermanshah

I think you should check this out [26] that even Mani1 who put this refrence said that although it is from ministry of interior but it is just a copyright of the pages of fa.wikipedia and no longer is reliable and even removed in here [27].

if you search other cities like maku and Khoy in here you see even in those cities was said that major language are persian. (see this and this). this informations are definitely wrong. and my refrence is from Iran chamber society and is not a nameless website. with regard Bahramm 2 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? There is no doubt that Persian language is (and has been) mother tongue of a large percentage of Kermanshahis and they even have their own Persian accent. Also that website doesn't show any major mistake for Kermanshah province (mistakes in pages related to West Azarbaijan is not directly relevant here). Alefbe (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, there was also a study about the languages (and other cultural issues) in Kermanshah and other provincial capitals in 1999. It shows 54% Persian speakers among those who are born in Kermanshah (for Sanandaj it shows more than 90% kurdish and for Tabriz, it shows 97% Azerbaijani language). Alefbe (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to say that without a reliable source you shouldn't change any thing. if you say there is no doubt that persian (with kermanshahi accent) is major language then you should put your source but not that one which has a lot of mistake. even in the page of kermanshah you can see this sentence:

مردم کُرد در تعريف امروزي از اقوام ايراني‌تبار هستند و بسياري از کردها خود را يکي از نوادگان مادها ناميده‌اند.که اين نظريه از سوي زبان‌شناسان و بر پايه شواهد دقيق زبان‌شناختي رد شده‌است.شواهد زبان‌شناسي نشان مي‌دهد که اسلاف مردماني که بعداً خود را کرد ناميدند در مناطقي جنوبي‌تر از مادها سکونت داشتند.

that was defenitly a copyright of preview edits of this page in fa.wikipedia. so we shouldn't use this copy-vio websites even if it was from interior ministery. for now my source is more reliable but when you put that study about the languages source you can change the information. i'm no going to change the page until we reach to a result.thanks Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish dialects

Kurdish dialects redirects to itself. Where are you going with it? Woogee (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's always good if you wait for a second. Alefbe (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alefbe Deletions without discussions from bunch of articles

• You are deleting content across-the-board on several articles without pre discussion .

For example :Article Sur (Pashtun)

and article Ghurid Dynasty

• More deletions this time from article Amir Kror Suri
• Entire categorys disappear for example Category:Afghan tribes not only do you remove it from here , an entire category disappears ??

You dont discuss before deleting referenced content
further you refuse to participate in discussion by providing cogent responses , except stating your own will
you are also co-ordinating with other like minded users like innuit and scythian1 to delete
Instead of edit warring
and removing massive quantums of content from , so many articles
why dont you participate reasonably
Intothefire (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't repeat the same comment in several places. Also, before writing more comments, read the response to previous comments. Alefbe (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tabaristan

On the Tabaristan article, you have reverted the edits by Parthava several times, and it has become frequent in the last days. I have protected the article at its last revision for one week, and I ask that you discuss the disagreement on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indentation

Standard practice is to just indent one more with each new comment, despite what WP:INDENT says. That's a crap essay no one follows. There's actually no guideline about indentation so you can just do whatever you want. It is, however, bad practice to keep changing someone else's indentation after they made clear they don't want that.--Atlan (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on your preferred way of indentation, then you should add "@Intothefire" (or something like that) to avoid confusion. Alefbe (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. A counterpoint is that if I leave my comment at the same indentation as yours, the careless reader might mistake your comment as part of mine. It happens, especially in long threads. That's the reason I add an indent, anyway.--Atlan (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Iran

You must provide acceptable reasons for any reversion you make in Wikipedia, otherwise you are breaching basic regulations. Any edition that is supported by the none-blocked citations should not be reverted. Remember that information about the History of Iran are constantly updated and this will naturally ensue Wiki editions. Thank you.Armaiti (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Irani

I'm not sure I understand why you made Irani into a disambiguation page. Other than the city in Brazil, Irani does not refer to people of Iran or Iranian people, no? Thanks -- warrior4321 04:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Its most common usage is to refer to people of Iran (specially when it's used in middle-eastern countries). It also refers to several local ethnic groups in different countries (for example Iranis of Uzbekistan). Alefbe (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:Iran population&gdp.JPG

To respond to your old question: i am not sure it is better to use GDP at constant US dollar prices. The reason is simple: Exchange rates reflect inflation and purchasing power changes.

Ahmed shahi

I have reported User:Ahmed shahi on the WP:ANI. In that discussion, he mentioned your name and accused you of POV pushing. I think you should be notified about this. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dorood

لطفا مواظب شاعرهای مشهور پارسی باشید مانند مولانا/نظامی.. من چند روزی رفتم تعطیلی سپاسگزارم —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavannariman (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

request

فیتیله زبان را پایین کشیدمی تا با محرمان سخن گفتمی.اگر دوست دارد می‌شود برای مدیریت در ویکی‌پدیای فارسی نامزد شوید؟به شدت به مدیر نیازمندیمAmir (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for that. Alefbe (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK,anytime that change your mind tell me,ThanksAmir (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Islamic conquest of Afghanistan . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nozar Azadi

Hi, I see you contributed to the article on Nozar Azadi which is under threat of deletion for lack of citations. Would you be able to find some Persian-language citations (newspapers, books, magazine articles) ABOUT Nozar Azadi to list in the article? It is clear that Azadi is well-known but we currently do not have written evidence to prove it. It would be great if you could help! Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why undid my edits?

Hi you undid my edits in several article [28] [29] [30] [31], and i don't know why?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because in all those edits, you have included maps which are either dubious and erroneous (like replacing a cited and reliable map with an erroneous map fabricated by a vandal user [32]), or are not directly relevant to the page [33] or maps based on some "original research" [34]. Alefbe (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I write about them in article talk page. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics

We use the common English name; the common English name has no diacritics. There is massive consensus on this, see WP:PLACE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Parsi

Hi,

I changed the redirect to Dari language (Zoroastrian). Also, it's probably not a good idea to leave discussions stranded on rd talk pages, so I'll move it to the same article. At least, I think this is probably the best place for it. Please let me know if you think otherwise.

Also, you might want to review Parsi (disambiguation) and Western Iranian languages. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumi

Can you look at the article please? These people do not understand weight...--96.255.251.165 (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hazara people and Pata Khazana

Are you reverting these pages on the order of another editor? You failed to explain why you're removing my edits. Can you explain what is the problem with the edits that I made to these?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nasir al-Din Tusi and Sharvanshahs

Seems to be two articles that get vandlized..can you keep an eye?--96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see [[35]] and here:[36][37]..incase of future vandalisms..--108.18.145.11 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move from Sattareh Farmanfarmaian to Sattareh Farman Farmaian

Many years ago you moved an article and I'm thinking it should be moved back. Please comment at Talk:Sattareh Farmanfarmaian#Proposed move to Sattareh Farman Farmaian. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:37, 8 November 2015 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alefbe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)