User talk:Behmod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Azeris
It doens't make sense. Most sources state that Azeris are a Turkic people because they speak a Turkic language. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight we can't give the other theories the same amount of weight. Khoikhoi 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] e-mail
Can you please enable your e-mail address so other editors can e-mail you? Merci aziz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.83.34 (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Hey
Yea, I'll get to it, but so far people are ignoring it. I'll make a post right now.Azerbaijani 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 300 Edits
Thanks for editing the 300 (film article). I recently removed your edit, replacing with that which was there before. The edits prior to yours kept arguing that "several" MPs wanted the film banned. Closer inspection of the actual article cited, clearly shows that only four were in favor of it. No mention of the other 286 MPs who did not sign on or care about the film. I offered the use of "a few," but people didn't seem to like that, and yet no one offered a better article that showed a change in that number. I decided to be specific, so as to allow the reader to make up their mind about whether 4/290 is a few, some or several. Hope that helps explain my edit. Cheers! Arcayne 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Behmod! I wanted to point out that you need to clean up the wording of the statement you reverted to remove NPOV statements.Otherwise, it will seesaw backand forth. Arcayne 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Something else to consider, buddy - does the review address some new point of historical inaccuracy, or does it reinforce those historical inaccuracies already noted? I ask this because we need to keep the size of the article down. If this is better than another citation in the article speaking against the movie's inaccuracies, then you should replace it with yours. If it is not, then you should remove it for the sake of bevity and avoiding repetitiveness. Arcayne 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry if you felt I was being unduly harsh, Behmod; that was certainly not my intention. I read throught he citation, and there wasn't anything new addressed in the comment. Had it been better than what was there, I would have replaced it with the one you added, but it didn't. It wasn't so much repeating the same quote as it was repeating the same problems with the accuracy and note as well as the other ones.
- I don't want to discourage you, as I think you are trying to be conscientious (some people just rant and are unproductive, etc.). I would like to make a sugguestion to you - something to seek out. I have noticed that some people are contesting Touraj Daryaee's text as not being in keeping with the original account of Herodotus. I don't expect you to know Herodotus (I centainly didn't, untilI read the article) or or have read his accounting of the Battle of Thermopylae. I am concerned that when (or if) the comments are removed that there won't be anything to balance it out. Try to find a comment from an Near-Eastern (or Persian) scholar who has commented about 300, and how Herodotus was biased. No one else is looking for this, and I think it's going to get ugly when Daryaee's comments are found to not be as strong as we all thought. You can get a jump on the article by finding an alternative.
- Of course, you don't have to do this, as it was just a suggestion. Let me know if I can help. Arcayne 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember Dr. Farrokh while I did my undergrad at Stanford. His work is solid and consistent. An excellent possible substitute, Behmod. Great work! I don't know what's keeping your otherwise occupied, but if I end up adding the text, I will cite you as the person who found it. :) Cheers! Arcayne 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Azerbaijan (Iran)
You must engage in talk page discussion rather than reverting just hours after I unprotected the article. There hasn't been any talk page discussion in weeks. I'm going to unprotect the article again and block editors who revert from now; the article should not be in chronic protection because of a few unreasonable edit warriors. Use the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
