User talk:68.5.250.146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Amir Taheri on Wikipedia as you did with this edit. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 21:48, March 12 2007 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Amir Taheri, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 09:12, March 20 2007 (UTC)


Your characterization of other users' edits as "vandalism" is unwarranted and unjustified. Moreover, your summary deletions are themselves advancing non-neutral POV, which is even more unacceptable considering that you have no knowledge or experience in the subject matter that you are editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 22 2007 (UTC)


Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Amir Taheri. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take your own advice

You should take your own advice and refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Amir Taheri. You are the one who began this chirade by summarily deleting the original revisions with a revert, and continually reverting back.

You are guilty of the same alleged violation that you are threatening others with. If you would like to discuss compromise langauge, you should propose something. Likewise, the revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring either. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.17.226 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Amir Taheri, and for the use of sock puppet addresses to continue reverting. The duration of the block will be 24 hours. If you believe that this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|reason here}} to this page and another administrator will review the block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McReynolds article

You have reverted the McReynolds article three times. You were correct that the quote was not in the "Oxford Guide", as I incorrectly claimed. So I went and checked my sources. The quote is most definitely in Henry J. Abraham's "Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton", New and Revised Edition, Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. On what do you base your claim that the quote does not appear there? Magidin 13:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on this in Talk:James Clark McReynolds. I have provided extensive quotes from Abraham to verify that the disputed quote is in fact there, contrary to your statement in your most recent edit; in addition, I have provided quotes from three other sources (The Oxford Companion, Closed Chambers by Ed Lazarus, and Leaving the Bench by Atkinson; full bibliographic details in the talk page on McReynolds) that further dwell on McReynolds's attitude, and justify the charge that he was anti-Semitic. If you have verifiable, adequate sources that claim the contrary, please provide them in that page. Magidin 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again you have removed well sourced facts with the offhand claim that they are "slander", from the James Clark McReynolds article. The extensive quotes and references are in the talk page of that article. If you have any valid references, please provide them and discuss it there before yet again reverting without basis. Waiting a month to see if nobody will notice does not constitute adequate referencing. Magidin 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Taheri

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." You should not add, or even mention, material from unreliable sources in biographies of living persons. Thanks. DrKiernan 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amir Taheri. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

The external link you have repeatedly added is a blog entry. Blogs are not Reliable sources for encyclopedia articles, particularly for biographies of living persons. — Athaenara ✉ 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report

Reported at 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC). — Athaenara ✉ 00:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, As [did here], you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Parthava (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Your recent edit to National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My take on teh editing war with regards to mazandarani language.

I do not know about Amir Taheri. Parthava is a bit rude but his take on Mazandarani language is closer to reality than that of 68.... With all due respect I also do not see anything positive in the envovlement by a Nigerian in such matters as regional lnaguges of Iran. Subjects which requires expertise to the native level. I also do not uderstand why he is so anti-Georgian when he himself (in chat) states that he is a Georgian Mazandarani. But: Mazandarani is not a persian dialect. Though stating that it is unintelligible with standard persian is also a big statement. Intelligibility is a word which has gradual and relative meaning. It should be said mazandarani is a Northwestern Iranian language while standard Persian is a South Western one. I think you should use this phrase as I said. About Gilaki instead of Mazandarani. I have heard this also from another native Mazandarani that they called their language Gilaki before, though it was different than the language of Gilan. I will ask another Mazandarani though. Finanlly I should add that I am not someone who comes to edit on demand. I have my own intellectual integrity. I am not the paid kind of pesudeo-scholar who writes anything for a certain agenda. I only write the truth. I am not much into propaganda. If I can help with editing and clarifying the truth I will, but I wont undo edits by people, only because they are rude or so...--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My last comment to you

This nonsense shows your ignorance. Honestly this level is very high. Ferdowsi e.g. said Cho IRAN nabashed tane man mabad. Nezami Ganjavi said Hame a;am tan esto IRAN del. Safavid Shahs were called Shah-e Iran. In Qajar era Iran was called Iran. Noone said cho Persia nabashad tane man mabad. One more time nonsense and personal attack I will report you. BYE and why don't you register and sign your edits? Anonymous and especially unsigned comments are not accepted in wikipedia. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Babak, don't you think I KNOW that? Again, you are misunderstanding me. All those people you cite are PERSIAN speakers, not ENGLISH speakers. Of course "Iran" is what Persian speakers call the country for centuries, in their own language. But ENGLISH speakers, and the rest of the Western world, called the country "Persia" and the people "Persian" for centuries. So in Persian, it is "Iran" and "Irani." But the same thing in ENGLISH, it was "Persia" and "Persian."

Iran is not the only country which has a different name for itself in its own langauge. In Japan, the Japanese themselves call their country "Nippon" while the rest of the world calls them Japan. In Germany, the Germans themselves call their country "Deutschland" while the rest of the world calls them either Germany or "Allmane."

Do you understand the point? For English speakers to call Persians "Iranian" it is as modern and fake and confusing a term as it would be if the Japanese suddenly demanded everyone in the world call them "Nipponese."

Still in English sources we speak about the IRANIAN languages. This is the accepted English terminology uses in Linguistics. In wikipedia we should use the appropriate name. And honestly this terminology is more appropriate because it distinguishes between the Persian (Farsi) language and other Iranian languages Such as mazandarani, Kurdish, etc... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

- Babak, okay now you are speaking with reason and logic. I understand that recently (mid to late 20th century), many Western sources on many different subjects have converted to substituting the new term "Iranian" for the old term "Persian." However, this distinction is meaningless and is causing great confusion both inside and outside of the linguistics field. For example, is a carpet from Tabriz not a Persian carpet still? Or is it an Iranian carpet? Or is it an "Azeri" carpet? "Persian" is not just Esfahan and Mashad, it is the equal to "Irani"in Persian, which means the total sum of all the culture, history, land, and people of Iran.

Also, the confusion is fuel for foreign-backed seperatists to claim there is no connection between "Persians" and "non-Persians" in Iran. Because to Westerners, the term "Iranian" is not often connected to the term "Persians" even though they mean the same thing in English. This name changing confusion is being abused for political grounds to promote seperation of Iran.

The best way to prevent this is to use, when possible, the original Western and English term "Persian" whenever we speak English and want to say "Irani."

I am an anti-separatist, but the correct terminologies should be used. I believe in the territorial integrity of IRAN, so the correct usage of IRANIAN wont harm my goal. It benefits it. In general Iranians in the usa tend to damage Iranian unity because of their lack of knowledge of Iranian culture, politics etc... One more reason, NOT to accept their terminology.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Mazandarani language. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sign up

Why don't you sin up for an account? Please sign up and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia polices. Happy editing. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)