User talk:In fact/Archive 1

"Persian Gulf"

Hello, In fact. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Name

The article is fine the way it is. Persian Gulf is the international name. The only reason any mention of Arabian Gulf is made is due to new onset political pressure exerted by certain Persian Gulf Arab nations. No matter, the article is currently neutral and implies this point in its introduction. I highly doubt any change is needed. I am however not sure exactly what you mean by your question on the talk page, but hope this addresses your concern. OK, have a wonderful day! Dr. Persi (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I might understand what you implied. Do you mean the verb issue with "is" vs. "are" for the names? Sure, I think you can change the statement "neither of the latter two terms ARE" vs. "neither of the latter two terms IS." Please feel free to make any changes, and I appreciate your input! I am looking forward to reading more of your wonderful contributions. Have a wonderful weekend :)! Dr. Persi (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed ! The only correct name based on all historical and international documents is "Persian Gulf" ! By the way I corrected the grammatical mistake. Thank you. In fact (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

However, I doubt it and undid my edit, because of this answer In fact (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Persi, I checked it. Both of them are acceptable. In fact (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, In fact. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. Although I've denied your rollback permission, you're quite close to getting it - so don't be disappointed at all. The reasons I've denied them are because you've not consistently left a warning note on the talk pages of ips/editors whose edits you may be reverting. That is considered quite important. Therefore, I'd recommend three-four days of proper reverting activity and a re-application; post which, your rollback rights can be granted by any administrator. I'll do that myself if you leave a message on my talk page after three to four days of the proposed activity. With respect to the other message you left on my talk page, I'm in the process of looking over it. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• And you have additional messages on my talk page with respect to your query. Best regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. No I am not disappointed at all. I know I am in the beginning of a very long way which never ends. I also had another request, which was not successful. But I am still hopeful.

• About leaving a warning message for ip editors, I should say I really didn't know that I could do it, since ips are not registered users. Otherwise I would definitely do that.Because I am very sensitive for ip editting (much more than registered users). See I have done it here. To prove it, you should see this message for this revert. Regards, *** in fact *** (contact) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I understand. Like I said, three to four days of proper reversions with warning; and then leave a message on my talk page. I'll grant you the right. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)