Talk:'Adud al-Dawla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Iran (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Spelling[edit]

Is the correct spelling "'Adud al-Daula", or "Adud al-Dowleh"? -- Mikeblas 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's an arabic name, so it should be 'Adud ad-Dawla or Daula (I would choose the first). Dowle(h) is a Persian version, but I wouldn't support the Persian version, since this name is not simply Arabic because of the words in it, but because this is an Arabic grammatical structure as well. --80.98.102.48 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
According Islamic Eniclopaedya was born in Isfahan but deceased in Bagdad. Dates are corrects.--83.33.216.44 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
i reverted to the version that includes both persian name and the arabic. i personally think the arabic version does not exist. the reason being the part "khusraw".--Xashaiar (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Xashaiar.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

I see that there is an edit-war going on about a translation of the subject's name, but there does not appear to be any discussion about this issue going on at the talkpage. As a reminder to all editors, as soon as reverting starts, it is essential, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, to engage in discussion. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries, but try to explain what you're doing, which will be a better way of trying to work through the conflict. Thanks, --Elonka 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just bayrak. REfuses to seek consensus, makes changes absent existing consensus, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Please keep comments focused on the content, and not on the contributor, and keep in mind that it takes two to edit-war. What it looks like to me, a third-party observer, is that Bayrak was attempting to add sourced information, but other people were inexplicably reverting him, without themselves explaining why they were reverting. The burden is therefore on those who were reverting Bayrak, to explain why they were removing sourced information. --Elonka 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Xashiar brought it up here, i concured with him, I asked bayrak REPEATEDLY to come to talk, he declined... as he declines to do in every other article he's been involved with. There was an explanation right here on this talk page for days. I'm not clear why this seems "inexplicable" to you. His behavoir is becoming a problem, not people who ask him again and again to seek consensus, who clean up his awful grammar and english comprehension (i'll provide diffs if asked), revert phrases like "enlisted man" removed from military articles (with edit summaries like "the conscription are over"), revert links to "Persian Gulf War" sent to weird "Second Gulf War" disambiguation pages, spent hundreds of words explaining "Coptic Orthodox" and "Copt" are the same thing (to someone from kuwait, no less, who would have to live under a rock not to know this) just to prevent him from removing a bare reference to the fact that copts live in Kuwait, etc... This is not a two sides of the same coin situation. It just isn't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point me to where there is a discussion about the source that Bayrak was using,[1] or why other editors did not wish to add the translation "(arm [strength] of the state)" to the article? --Elonka 21:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
He never came to talk, so it was impossible to address him directly. However, here's the relevant bit, from further up this talk page: "i reverted to the version that includes both persian name and the arabic. i personally think the arabic version does not exist. the reason being the part "khusraw".--Xashaiar (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xashaiar.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC) " But the real issue here is that bayrak continued to revert and refuesed to come to talk after being repeatedly asked to. He was specifically asked at least twice here (in between an admin explaining the convention for these issues) [[2]]; and at least four times on this related page [[3]]. There are many other examples. I extended an invite to talk this out on talk (as did others). He declined that invitation. And went on reverting. That's a behavioural issue that can't be addressed by explaning the issue with the source he was using, or the other real problems with his attempted unilateral changes. And, in past, when complicated things have been explained to him, it hasn't been clear that his english has been strong enough to grasp them. My last word on this.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bay is out here below you guys --Notedgrant (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arm of the state[edit]

I do not like rolling and spinning as some do therefore Can someone explain to me Why delete this information [4] 'Adud al-Dawla is not his name it is only his title which mean in arabic (arm of the state) --Bayrak (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite true I think your edits should be restored please restore them --Notedgrant (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

protection[edit]

Why is this page edit protected??--Notedgrant (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)