User talk:CreazySuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ali-Akbar Saidi Sirjani

Thanks for the compliment. I suspect you find some of my edits anti-Iran, but they aren't intended to be. If you have an article on the Iran-Iraq war and don't mention prominently that the war ended with a couple hundred thousand people dead but no change in the borders or regimes, or that for most of the war Iran was on the offensive, you're missing two of the most important issues. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq War

Any problems with this? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

sure, add the KSA stuff
it sound like the Iraqis voluntarily retreated, put down their guns like good boys, and left Iran, when they were defeated and driven out of Khoramshahr by force, and some even argue that the Iraqi forces never really fully retreated into Iraq at any point, and that they held on to many boarder villages and Iranian lands.
and sure, it should say they were pushed back militarily and should include the word almost in
"For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces began to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered almost all the area lost to Iraq earlier in the war." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More arguing about Mossadeq and the Coup

"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This is a false/loaded statment, do you have another source for this beside Avrahamian? Does Vali Nasr make a similar claim? --CreazySuit (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't have another quote about the election. That and the fact that it is a controversial subject is why I preceded the statement with "According to Ervand Abrahamian ...". Abrahamian is a reputable scholar and his book Iran between two revolutions is a major work of Iranian history. You can't just assert that it is "false." --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(I will paste this in the Mossadeq talk page)

see Mossadeq talk page --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khalkhali

No, I don't have any info on that. why don't you put what you have in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote in survey over whether to have article title Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

  • 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
  • Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

[edit] Arguements

[edit] Tanker War

You have reverted my edit again, though I have written you a message in the talk page here and you did not reply, please reply in the talk page. Imad marie (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus will never be reached if editors don't reply in the talk pages. I left you another message here. Imad marie (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit, I ask you to be more active and more negotiating in the talk pages so that we can reach consensus. Imad marie (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerk

Yes, I've been a real big jerk to Ali, and I'm sure that my comments were found offensive by you. My sincere apologies. A review of my contributions that don't involve fights with Ali are much different, and I encourage you to take a look at them. I disagree with Ali on so many levels about reliable sources and what's valuable content that my frustration has degraded into nothing more than insults and reverts, which doesn't help anyone. I'll leave cooler-headed people to deal with his motives, and will remove the Iran article from my watchlist. He has faced enough resistance on the Scythians article to allow me to avoid most fights with him there, but the article is important to me though I have few contributions to it. That's where it stands, and I would have rather approached the situation differently. Ali is a religious nationalist -- truth isn't known to live among such mindsets. Countering such persuasions with vulgar language isn't an effective defense of facts. TeamZissou (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Captions and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images

You could parse "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article" as 'use captions to explain how the image could be relevant for reasons that aren't related to the subject of the image'. But it doesn't seem sensible to me. John Nevard (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

suggestion --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, it should have stayed on my user page. I moved it there when I wasn't tired and not thinking clearly.

I was a fool. Chastise me with scorpions, stake me out in the desert sun. Give me a root canal.

I screwed up. It was put out too early. Does this make you happy? I assume you have never made a mistake? I'm trying to fix the problems, while dealing with other real-world responsibilities.

The reality is that you put so many tags on the article that it was hard to read in edit mode. When there was a FACT tag after each sentence in a paragraph, do you think I fail to get the idea that you are unhappy?

Assume good faith for a change, and that I'm trying to clean up my own errors without getting continuing complaints. Try some WP:CIVILITY when there is an UNDERCONSTRUCTION tag on it. If you have sources that disprove statements made, please offer them. Just complaining doesn't accomplish anything.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UNDERCONSTRUCTION vs. INUSE

May I suggest you look at the definition of the two? Indeed, INUSE is meant for a period of hours, although I suspect a reasonable criterion is to give additional time as long as the editor is actively editing and saving. UNDERCONSTRUCTION is defined to cover a longer period of time.

From the UNDERCONSTRUCTION expansion:

This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.

Recognizing that you are unhappy with the article, I am working on it as fast as I can, given that I have responsibilities other than Wikipedia. I have apologized for making the error of putting it out too early. I have asked for time, within the scope of UNDERCONSTRUCTION, to improve it. How do you see it as helpful to be making frequent complaints?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Assadabadi

fight over al-Afghani. How about we keep al-Afghani but put in the lead something like, "even though he is known throughout the Muslim world as al-Afghani, scholars agree he was an Iranian Shia born in Asadabad"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

If it were inappropriate to speak of peoples' POV, there would not be POV tags and both a general NPOV tag and a specific NPOV noticeboard. Shall we take this matter to the noticeboard? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: do you want to take this to the NPOV noticeboard? I'm not going to discuss this further except on article pages or a procedural page such as the NPOV noticeboard.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll flatly deny associating anyone with a POV based on their nationality. It is, however, POV to insist that every issue be viewed through the viewpoint of an ideology or a country, as distinct from the characteristics of individuals espousing that viewpoint.
We are not communicating here, and, again, I suggest that you take this to the Iran-Iraq War talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Perhaps it might be informative to look at the way several people are working together, from different backgrounds, on the Soviet support for Iran deletion discussion, with the intention of finding a better way to organize several articles. After some initial clarifications, no one in that group is making accusations, but instead trying to solve a problem. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of al-Qādisiyyah and Donald Rumsfeld graphics

There's no problem for having this particular discussion based on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah on my talk page, although if there will be several participants, it might make sense to move it to the Talk:Iran-Iraq War page. I have no particular opinions on this specific graphic or battle; I don't claim intimate knowledge of the subject.

In a broader sense, it is worth considering WP:UNDUE. It's been pointed out that Iran may well have 7,000 years of history to draw from. Really, I think having a classic Persian image, and a note about Persian civilization, is useful for people that have no background in the length of the culture on one side.

It could be asked, however, how much value there is in putting in a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, when the time span of the events with which Rumsfeld was concerned is perhaps a thousandth of the history of Persia, and even a small fraction of the time of existence of the United States. There is a possible POV question of showing Rumsfeld to draw attention to U.S. involvement, but not also having pictures of officials from Iraq's main arms suppliers, the Soviet Union and France. If no such pictures are available, perhaps none should be used, or those available could be in the country-specific articles. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanker war

Exactly why are you objecting to my having a page,User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Tanker War in my userspace, that is experimenting with the concept of the tanker war? No consensus, or even any other opinion but mine, is necessary to have something in a sandbox. If you don't like what's in my userspace, don't go there.

Shall we discuss this with an admin? I'd be delighted to do so!

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested source

I had hoped not to write every sub-page by myself. Since you seem to be knowledgeable on Israel, why don't you write the sub-page?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fazeri

Regarding your tag, I proposed renaming the article to status of Azerbaijani language in Iran, which is why I added the material on history of treatment of Azeri language in Iran. There is plenty more material which I have, will be added after the decision on the topic. Atabek (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

How do you say "running fridges rule" in Kurdish? Runningfridgesrule (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning for 3RR

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 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. Ursasapien (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging established users with warning templates is a violation of incivility.--CreazySuit (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is the height of civility to attempt to warn an editor when their behavior may be close to sanctions. It would be incivil, IMO, to simply report you without a warning. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re PMOI

Saw your message, and you're right. NCRI is next on the list for cleanup. As far as the PMOI article goes, I reverted back to BoogaLouie's version. His is the most NPOV, and he's corrected a lot of sources and spelling errors. I think we can safely work from his version. Good luck! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanksُ

thanks for this edit. All the edits by that user are anti-Persian. See older pages. --Iranway (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Boohoohoo. I guess removing all the peacock (6 thousand years of continuous history! greatest civilization evar! islamic mathematicians were persian!) is really anti-Persian. Get a clue, bud. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
and thanks from me too for your vote of confidence on my RFA. I really appreciated all the support and will try not to disappoint.--Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)