User talk:149.68.55.134

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear 149.68.55.134, I would like to ask you to stop repetitively adding your statement on Zoroaster to all articles dealing with God/Devil/Angel/etc.. Your edits are not in accordance with the wikipedia policy and are therefore being reverted. If you want to add information like this, please do it with a proper reference and at a correct location within an article (you placed most statements right in the beginning of the articles). Including a reference will make it easier for others to verify your edits. Alternatively, start a discussion on whether or not the statement should be included on one of the Talk pages. Cpt. Morgan 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you are providing references now, which is a step ahead. But please add your info at a correct location within an article, not simply at the beginning. Most articles are nicely structured to make them easier to read. Please follow that structure. Even better would be to discuss this topic first, since there appears to be some controversy on the topic of Zoroaster and the first mention of Angels. Cpt. Morgan 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 149.68.55.134). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Kukini 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.Benon 05:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashkenazi Jews

Please do not change quotations again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parthia

Please stop rearranging the first sentence of the article. Per the manual of style, the most common name is presented first (Parthia), followed by the other options in parentheses; Ashkanian is not more common in English than Arsacid, so it should be treated the same. If you want to include it as being Iranian, it would be helpful to have the text in Iranian/Farsi script also, but either way it should be:

Parthia (Iranian: (Iranian script) (Ashkâniân Empire), also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force...

Also, the history of Iran template should be at the top, where it was. siafu 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop just changing the article. If you think there is a good reason for the article to fit your version, at the very least present that reason on the talk page. If you're not willing to discuss it, we can't really move forward, and I'll have to report this as simple vandalism. siafu 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


The difference between your statement, ``Parthia (Iranian: (Iranian script) (Ashkâniân Empire), also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force...``, and mine that says, ``Parthia[1], or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân`` is that my statement calrifies that Parthia was an Iranian, not a foreign dynasty, right from the start. Unless you have a biased view that makes the statement undesirable, you need to know that the statement is factual.

Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, the dynasty of Ashkanian, who reunited Iran and made it into an empire again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so.

From its birth, Iran was called Iran, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called Kingdom of Iran; there is archeological proof of that. There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia. That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty.

Under Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs. Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran. As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, would know the origin of the empire. And, accuracy should supersede the fact that it is merely more convenient for people to call that era of Iran, Parthia. That is absolutely confusing, and above all false. DO NOT CHANGE THE ARTICLE FROM NOW ON PLEASE.

This isn't a question of factual accuracy but style. Read the comments above; take a look at the changes beind made to the article, and please read the manual of style. siafu 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


You have no business to choose accuracy over style. The reasons I gave should supersede your sense of ``style``.

It's starting to appear that you're arguing with someone else? All the information is included in both versions, except, unfortunately, for the actual name for the Parthian empire in Iranian (i.e., not transliterated), so it can't be a matter of accuracy. siafu 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure why we are even discussing this. The difference between your version and mine is that mine states, factually, their real name in their native language, that in turn clarifies misunderstandings. Simply stating ``Iranian for Parthian is Ashkanian`` is insignificant. Clarifying Parthians are Ashkanian IS a matter of accuracy, and it corrects the transliterated blunder.

Simply stating it is fine, and that would be a good addition to the etymology footnote at the bottom. Stating it repeatedly, and overloading the introductory sentence with it, is not so fine. siafu 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


That is EXACTLY the problem, for too long it has been a footnote. As far as I could read, it was stated only once in the beginning. And, as far as I am concerned our discussion is over.

Not to be rude, but wikipedia is not a forum for pushing a political agenda. I've revised the opening paragraph again to indicate that Ashkanian is the Iranian word (what you seem to be pressing for), and fixed the format of the following sentences (i.e., "ancient" shouldn't be capitalized, and (Persia) is a red link whereas (Persia) is not). Since you're unwilling to discuss the matter, I'm referring this to RfC and copying this discussion to the talk page for Parthia. siafu 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbad

Thanks for the very useful edit on Sinbad - a detail perhaps, but a useful one. I realise now what's happened with this name - originally Persian as Sandbad, then becoming Sindibad in Arabic (because you can't have -ndb- (three consonants together) in Arabic, not outside the Maghreb anyway). Somehow it lost the -d- when it came into English, but phonetic changes are fascinating in their own right. Thanks again. Do you have any comment on the meaning of the name? PiCo 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, baad means wind in Persian; however, I do not know the etmology of sand.

Well, thanks, but "something-wind" doesn't seem to make much sense. I wonder if it ultimately comes from some other language? Richard Burton raised the idea that it might be from Sanskrit. Apparently others thought it might be "Sind-abad", the "abad" meaning "abode, place" - but Burton thought that was unlikely. I think I'll take your addition out again, not because I don't value your help, but because I think we still don't know for sure, and an encyclopedia has to be a relaible reference for others. Anyway, thanks again. PiCo 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)