User talk:Raamin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Link in Britain

Why did you delete that link to the Farsi Wikipedia? I don't speak Farsi, and you didn't leave an edit summary, so I can't understand the reason for it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In persian, «بریتانیا» may refer to "Britain" OR "Britannia". Now, in persian wikipedia بریتانیا redirects to پادشاهی متحده (United Kingdom).
I saw that in english Wikipedia we have Britain and Britannia (disambiguation), and both could refer to the Term بریتانیا; I thought this could led to confusion, therefore NO link to persian Wikipedia would be better! :P
In persian Wikipedia we have بریتانیا (ابهام‌زدایی)‏; It is THE disambiguation page there.
Now, what should I do? (remember, بریتانیا is a vague term; بریتانیای کبیر is the exact translation for Great Britain; but many persian-speaking people use بریتانیا for Great Britain, actually United Kingdom!) Raamin (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And remember; in persian wikipedia بریتانیا (ابهام‌زدایی)‏ has interwiki link neither to Britain, nor to Britannia (disambiguation). Raamin (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, unfortunately, my lack of Persian still makes it hard for me to understand your reply, but here's what I suggest. First, the fact that you speak both Persian and English tells me that your judgment is probably better than mine in this matter. Second, generally, links to disambiguation pages are considered not useful. Thank you for your explanation. It sounds like you were right to delete, and should you do so again, you'll have no further opposition from me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Movement

130px This user strongly supports the Green Movement of Iran (GMI) جنبش سبز ایران.

Pls put this userbox in your user page if you support Green Movement of Iran and send it to your friends in Wiki.

PLS HELP

با سلام، شما یکی از مدیران ویکی پدیای فارسی هستید، کاربر بهزاد مدرس که گویا از مدیران ویکی پدیای فارسی است طی یک در گیری نوشتاری بین ما و به دلایل کاملا شخصی اش و نه قانونی، دیکتاتور مابانه حساب کاربری من را برای همیشه کاملا بست ظاهرا به مذاقش خوش نیامد! در حالیکه در بحث درگرفته در صفحه بحث ایشان، کاربرانی با من هم عقیده بودند. جالب آنکه جوابیه مرا هم از صفحه بحث خود دیلت کرده تا مبادا کسی ببیند و فقط از آرشیو " ‏۳۰ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۱۰، ساعت ۱۳:۰۰ " قابل دسترسی است. با توجه به اینکه این کار بسیار مغرضانه و دیکتاتور مابانه بوده که شایسته ویکی پدیا به هیچوجه نیست و با توجه به اینکه ویکی پدیای فارسی هیئت داوری ندارد!!! لطفا به من کمک کنید که چه میتوانم بکنم در برابر این اقدام مغرضانه شخصی؟ -کاربر:Pournick

کسی هست جلوی این به اصطلاح مدیر دیکتاتور (بهزاد مدرس) بایستد و حق مارا بستاند؟

این به اصطلاح مدیر (بهزاد مدرس) در کمتر از 14 روز 14 کاربر را بی پایان بسته است!!! بعضی روزها بیش از یک کاربر را بی پایان میبندد!!! ظاهرا دست به خفه کردن صداهای مخالفش خوب است! مثل تمام دیکتاتورها. چه کسی باید به این دیکتاتور بگوید: "ایست" قبل از اینکه خیلی دیر شود؟

White Ribbon

What is French or Italian about that movie? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Producers? You can see the same practice in The Pianist (2002 film) or Dogville; all mentioned countries in Infobox are listed in categories too. Raamin (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a good practice. The producers just work on the movie like anyone else. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On the photograph of Dariush Mehrjoui

Please consult the lower part of this page, where one reads:

نقل مطالب و استفاده از تصاوير با ذكر نام سايت « ايران اكت » بلا مانع مي باشد.

Translation: "Quoting the contents and using the images (my bold) accompanied by naming Iran Act are permitted."

In short, in uploading the image at issue, I had fully complied with the requirements of the website at issue; your tagging of the image for deletion is therefore unwarranted.

With kind regards, --BF 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Such permissions are vague and insufficient for using a GFDL template or similar templates. In short, this kind of permission is incompatible with GFDL. Raamin (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to comprehend your logic; the site clearly and unequivocally states that people are permitted to use their material as specified, and I have not deviated from their stated condition. Moreover, I fail to comprehend the basis for your use of the terms "vague" and "insufficient" --- to my best judgement, these qualifications do not apply here; clearly, they have followed what is common practice with all websites (take e.g. this website; the mere symbol "©" at the bottom of the page, concise as it is, suffices to indicate that all the material on the website at issue are copyrighted; no such symbol is found on the website of Iran Act, this over and above the fact that they have expressed their permission explicitly - see my previous text hereabove). Be it as it may, I do not wish to discuss or pursue this matter any longer and therefore have requested User:Stifle to look into it and pass a judgement as to the validity of my copyright statement; if desired, you could raise your concerns with him. --BF 02:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I must concur with Raamin. The permission is given for use of the image, but does not grant permission to make derivative works from it. This is insufficient for Wikipedia use. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a brief note: the Persian word estefādeh (استفاده) - (Arabic: استفادة), meaning utilize, making use of, taking advantage of, does cover also the action of making derivative works. This on the strength of the definition of Dehkhoda Dictionary, of which I am, as an aside, a senior guest editor.
To Raamin: With reference to what you have written on the talk page of User:Stifle, what is being done or not being done at fa.Wikipedia cannot overwrite the meaning of Persian words, specifically as they are understood within legal contexts. In your writing to User:Stifle, you have interpreted estefādeh in a way that suits your argument, thereby endowing this word with a meaning that has no place, none whatsoever, within the Persian vocabulary. Explicitly, you wrote:
"Quoting texts" and "using images" don't include permission for "remixing" and "modifying", or permission for "commercial distribution".
Your above interpretation is in absolute contravention of the most authoritative definitions of the word estefādeh, given above. Truly, I am dumbfounded by the liberty that you have taken in interpreting such fundamental word as estefādeh. In my previous message I had indicated that I would not interfere with the issue at hand, but your misinterpretation of the word estefādeh left me with no choice but to write this comment. Delete the image if you so wish, but do not make false statements to cover your action with a veneer of legality. Please consult Dehkhoda Dictionary before responding to my comment. And of course re-read the Persian statement on the website of Iran Act, given above. For completeness, the word بلا مانع means without restriction; this in conjunction with the word استفاده, leaves no place for any doubt as to the correctness of my copyright statement and that indeed there is no legal restriction on having the image at issue on en.Wikipedia. --BF 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The term "use" (استفاده) is open for interpretation and not compatible with a license like CC-BY-SA. Please read this for more information. Raamin (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree in the strongest possible terms with the premise that استفاده, to be strictly distinguished from "use", were open to interpretation! I urge you once more to consult a good Persian dictionary, preferably Dehkhoda's (as an example, the Persian equivalent of the term sexual abuse is استفادۀ جنسی, showing how all-embracing the word estefādeh is; please consult the meanings that I gave for this word in my previous message). You should take into account that I am arguing on the basis of a legal statement written in Persian, quoted above, that uses two key words of استفاده and بلا مانع. Your reference, therefore, to this is not justified --- my argument is neither based on the English word use nor on a legal statement written in English. Please consult any friend or relative who is working in the legal profession for advice; my argument is legally perfectly sound. Lastly, the onus is on Iran Act to tighten their legal statements, if they deem that their rights are being infringed; it is not our task (certainly not mine) to play devil's advocate by intentionally bending the meanings of استفاده and بلا مانع. --BF 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not attempting to interpret Persian/Farsi; I can only base my opinion on the translations provided to me. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That is why I gave both the original statement and its translation into English. In the light of the above arguments, perhaps I should modify the translation so as to highlight the significance of the two words estefādeh and belā-mānę, بلا مانع, in the copyright statement at issue. --BF 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- Obviously another admin is more then welcome to revert me but after being asked to take a look at this and conferring with a few who speak the language to make sure I decided to delete the image for a lack of qualifying license. I've replaced the image on the page for now with one from commons though it will likely want to be cropped to better display the director on his own. The unfortunate thing is that the statement on the page just does not give us the right to use it freely even though it is possible that is their intention. If you can contact the site perhaps and see if they are willing to email us a permission (permissions-en@lists.wikimedia.org )? It is perfectly fine if it is in Farsi or Arabic and I believe we have email templates in both languages as well. If that is the case please feel free to let me know I will be to go look for the email in our queue to confirm. James (T C) 02:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamesofur: First, I strongly believe that you should not have removed the image before reaching a consensus here (why otherwise would I waste -- that is correct, waste -- my time here if all we needed was your sudden arrival from a non-Persian-speaking part of the world on the advise of someone who must have felt incapable of arguing for himself in this place). Second, with reference to your statement "after ... conferring with a few who speak the language", I should be most grateful if you would kindly provide me with the language qualifications of those with whom you have conferred. I ask this because of your geographic location and my certain knowledge of the fact that a large section of the Iranian-American community do not know even the rudiments of the Persian language, despite their possible claims to the contrary, and this is confirmed by the fact that those whom you have conferred with must have advised you that estefādeh, استفاده, and belā-mānę, بلا مانع, had different meanings than I have indicated above. Stated differently, one cannot say 2+2=5 and at the same time claim to be a mathematician; the simplicity of "نقل مطالب و استفاده از تصاوير با ذكر نام سايت « ايران اكت » بلا مانع مي باشد." is on a par with that of 2+2. For illustration, this tv documentary, made in the USA, shows that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian-Americans interviewed are even incapable of locating Iran on a world map! (There is a similar documentary showing a similar trend as regards the Iranian flag, another one concerning images of the Iranian leaders --- one interviewee even identifying the image of Mohammad Mosaddegh with that of Ali Khamenei, yet another one regarding the number of provinces into which Iran is divided, etc. --- all revealing a similar trend.) Lastly, I may write to the site at issue, but in the meantime wish to have the original image restored by you, preferably forthwith. Kind regards, --BF 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC).
Regarding who I spoke to, none of them were American and each of them were faWiki admins. I sincerely apologize if you think I wasted your time here, that was not my intent. I deleted the image because it appeared to be a copyright violation and it is easy to restore if we get permission. I personally do not think it would be right for me to restore it right now because I still feel that the image is in violation as we currently have it. If another admin disagrees I am more then willing for them to restore it (and will not see it as wheel waring or a problem). I do encourage you to contact the website and I sincerely hope that you are able to get the requisite permission because I feel the picture would indeed be better. I will also be happy to ping some other admins to take a look and give me a 2nd opinion. James (T C) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Jamesodur: although I appreciate your kind gesture of apologising, regrettably I cannot accept it. Despite your remarks, what you have done is not an acceptable practice. You mention that you "spoke to" "faWiki admins", yet clearly I have been conspicuously left out of what may have constituted your `speaking' with "faWiki admins". This, despite the undeniable fact that I am a main party to the issue at hand! I do not know where you have conducted your said `speaking', as a quick inspection of some relevant talk pages (this talk page, your talk page and mine) reveals that these discussions have not been carried out in the open --- they must have been carried out through private e-mails and suchlike. Is this an acceptable practice? I can simply not hide my absolute disgust at practices like these: First User:Raamin tags for removal an image uploaded by me, then, failing to rationalise his action, contacts you through a back-channel (for, amongst others, I have failed to establish how you came to do what you have done - who did notify you and where?), and you remove the image at issue, responding to my objection to your particular action by claiming (I use the word `claim' purposely, without meaning to offend, for you have left me with no means of verifying your statement) to have spoken to some nameless "faWiki admins". Why haven't I been party to the `speaking' that you write about, and why have you not conducted this `speaking' in the open?! What happened to User:Raamin, who instigated the whole trouble? I repeat what I have stated earlier: I demand that the original image be restored and all subsequent relevant actions be undertaken in the open and according to proper procedures (amongst others, those "faWiki admins" should, after providing their names, clarify why they have apparently such a difficulty in understanding a plain Farsi sentence). I have no problem if in the end the image will have to be removed; I have immense problem however when people decide to operate outside the general framework laid out for Wikipedia editors. --BF 22:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no. I was not brought here by User:Raamin, I was brought here by a 3rd party who asked me to look at the image and this page. If any of those I talked to want to come forward they may but I will not force them to and at least one of the admins does not wish to come forward because they were quick explicit when I talked to them that if they did so that you would attack them, as you have. The decision was mine and no one else's, the question of the farsi statement is whether it gives a usable license, my opinion after talking to others who speak the language natively was that no it did not. I am sorry but I see no reason to subject others to the abuse that you continually used to attack anyone who disagrees with you. I am happy for any admin to reverse my decision and will ask others of their opinion of this page and if they feel it warrants it will reverse myself but I will continue to do so privately because there is no legitimate reason to subject them to your abuse. That is what I'm here for. James (T C) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Jamesodur: This is a new and regrettable twist in your arguments, which is unquestionably libellous. The fact is that my editing at fa.Wikipedia borders on zero so that even if your statement were true in some metaphysical sense, I have never been in any position to "attack" a fa.Wikipedia editor/administrator. Mind you, the argument is not about just some Wikipedia editors, but about Wikipedia editors who are supposedly knowledgeable enough as regards Persian language to advise you on the issue at hand (you explicitly refer to them as "faAdmins"). I therefore hereby demand that you retract your above libellous statement directed at me. (Please stay within the confines of the present discussions and do not take recourse to a variation of the same theme of accusing me, of having verbally attacked Y if not X.) Those who have something against me, should be courageous enough to come forward and express themselves in person, instead of hiding behind you and delegate you to spread their hostile and libellous remarks on their behalf on the pages of Wikipedia. Why should you at all volunteer to be a messenger of third parties in a matter that you know nothing about first-hand? It is just outrageous that I can be so unceremoniously accused of all manner of unwholesome things by some men in dark suits standing in the dark! What possibly could justify such outrageous behaviour on Wikipedia? I close this writing by quoting Rumi in the language that one only hopes, without having illusions about, that faAdmins might be able to comprehend:
--BF 21:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. On reflection, I recalled that over one year ago I had a "civility" warning by User:Meisam on my personal talk page on fa.Wikipedia. As the following show, at the time User:Raamin was a party to this together with User:Meisam and that the "civility" warning was utterly unwarranted: Having received a response by User:Raamin to a personal message of mine to User:Meisam, I wrote this to User:Raamin in the same location: "Raamin, this message is/was not addressed to you; this is not even your talk page! Please opine on matters when your opinion is asked for. --BF ‏۳ مارس ۲۰۰۹، ساعت ۰۳:۰۵ (UTC)". And this is User:Raamin's response: "Please be civil! I am not a noob here. Raamin ب ‏۳ مارس ۲۰۰۹، ساعت ۰۳:۱۰ (UTC)", just before User:Meisam issuing the following "civility" warning on my fa.Wikipedia talk page: "You got final warning for your uncivil behavior and personal attack here. Comment on content, NOT on the contributor. -- میثم ‎ ψ ‏ ‏۳ مارس ۲۰۰۹، ساعت ۰۸:۳۷ (UTC)". (All these happened on 3 March 2009.) Does my short message to User:Raamin truly constitute an "uncivil behavior" and a "personal attack"? (Any impartial observer would immediately see that my message contains no comment "on the contributor", whoever this contributor may be, but one on the act of meddling by User:Raamin --- clearly a verb, or a verb form, cannot be the object of a sentence, which strongly suggests that there is a serious language problem somewhere, even if that is being denied.) Now, please be the judge: Is not accusing me of "attack" just an unworthy charade? I would call it a puerile act were it not that the nature of accusation is so serious. --BF 21:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that the deletion does conform to our site policies. Essentially, we need a concrete statement from the site that they release the image under a specific free license, rather than just a general statement that allows us to use it under some unspecified conditions. We have a detailed page at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission that explains how to get confirmation from the site, if they really do want to release their image under a free license. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Carl: I greatly appreciate your very useful comment. However, if you read my above arguments once more, you will realise that nowhere have I disputed the condition/requirement that you mention in your statement. My point has been, and remains to be, that the Persian text that I have quoted is in full compliance with your above-mentioned condition. If you look at the counter argument (most explicitly by User:Raamin), it states that the word estefādeh, استفاده, were ambiguous. As I have argued extensively on this page, this is not the case, as evidenced by the definitions of this word by the most authoritative dictionary in the Persian language (in almost all respects, the status of this dictionary is comparable with the OED). Further, the word belā-mānę, بلا مانع, is a very key word here, as in any legal statement; its literal meaning is without restriction (belā, بلا, means without, free of, and mānę, مانع, means restriction, hindrance and impediment) and when it is used in a legal document, it removes all conceivable restrictions on what it has bearing on. Stated differently, the owners of the website at issue could not possibly have made their intention clearer in Persian without turning their statement into an unprofessional banality. Please consult some reputed academic in the field of Persian language and/or Iranian law and ask for clarification (consider for instance Iraj Bashiri, Hamid Dabashi, and a host of other equally qualified individuals in the field --- sending them a brief e-mail would suffice). You might put this statement
to a legal advisor of Wikipedia and ask for the equivalent of it in English, acceptable to, say, American courts. I hereby underline what I has written previously on this page with regard to the above statement, emphasising once more that the sole requirement in this legal statement is that the site Iran Act, « ايران اكت », be mentioned as the source of the photograph. With kind regards, --BF 21:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC).
PS: I repeat what I have written earlier on this page, and below in my response to User:Chzz's comment, that I was intending to write to the website at issue. And I had done so, were it not that User:Jamesofur so inconsiderately has removed the image, without any prior warning to me and on account of his private and behind-closed-doors conversations with some anonymous faAdmins. --BF 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


BF,

Please do not make demands from other Wikipedians. We are all volunteers, and we need to work together, to help build this wonderful Encyclopaedia in a collegiate atmosphere.

Instead of arguing over the deletion, why not simply write to the iranact.com, explain the issue, and ask them to kindly forward explicit permission in the format shown in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

The Image use policy states;

If a source does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, the source must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it is not the case, it is to be assumed that it is not unless verification or permission from the copyright holder is obtained.

It does not matter if the language is English, Farsi or Klingon - if it does not have explicit permission, we cannot use it.

 Chzz  ►  06:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chzz: In the meantime you have replaced the "Raamin" in the opening of your message by "BF", so I am confused. Be it as it may, if you re-read my above comments, you will realise that I was about to contact the website at issue, but before I even got the chance to do so, User:Jamesofur came along (totally out of the blue), after having had behind-the-doors agreements with some anonymous faAdmins who are said to be fearful of me (for a charade created by two faAdmins over one year ago, one of whom User:Meisam and the other User:Raamin on whose en.Wikipedia talk page we are now communicating --- please consult the postscript to my latest message to User:Jamesofur hereabove), and deleted the image. Given these very facts, it is undignified to me to do anything before the image is restored to its original state, conform my earlier request from User:Jamesofur. I hereby also ask you just to be the judge in a matter where I have been the partly taking the matter most seriously (as evidenced by my extensive comments on this page), against a party of anonymous faAdmins who conduct their business through a proxy who clearly has no independent input of his own in the matter, nonetheless, and despite his stated claim to impartiality, has been extremely partial throughout (to begin with, he removed the image without having the courtesy of notifying me in advance --- mind you, at the time the image at issue was being discussed on this very page). It has now become clear to me that regrettably User:Jamesofur has seriously misjudged the earnest with which I have been addressing him. I will leave this matter here and now (I have already wasted too much of my valuable time on a matter in which the parties seem to have not the slightest regard for seriousness and the efforts that I have so selflessly invested in the matter, most evident by the blatant reproduction by User:Jamesofur of an unfounded allegation by some anonymous faAdmins against me on this page, as though people's dignity is a commodity to be used when one's arguments fail). Kind regards, --BF 21:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cobra (manga), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BS 11 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Zetman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BS11 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mohammad Hassan Mohebbi.jpg

If you take that interpretation, you should nominate {{Do not move to Commons}} for deletion along with all of the images that use it. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find unwatermarked images. Send me a link to the unwatermarked ones and I'll happily delete them (or a link to another non-Iranian source that proves their non-Iranian origin), but I've not seen any evidence that they're originally sourced from Getty. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said here, original size for these 2 images are 4149x2460 px and 3000x2010 px (large files), and you should buy the originals, If you want them! I didn't buy these; other customers, such as newspapers, magazines etc. buy these images from AFP, Getty images and the like and use them. It is very unlikely to find the original images in the web for free. But for copyright purposes: Getty images provides detailed informations about these images in question; you can see the name of photographers and the cration date and sources. These two images are not created in Iran, not created by Iranian entities and thus copyrighted in the US. Raamin (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Kianoush Rostami.jpg and File:Ali Mazaheri.jpg are both deleted; thank you for walking me through their website, which I simply didn't understand very well. Could you reply either here or at my talk page, but not both? Your responses both here and there made it harder to follow the conversation because I couldn't easily be sure if I'd seen everything. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I copied my reply to your talk page, because I noticed the warning above your talk page after I replied here. :) Raamin (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Part of the confusion for me was the fact that you were adding links to diffs and referring to them as if what you said in them wasn't here, so I ended up coming back to the page that I was trying to read :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Tehran Stock Exchange, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Gulbenk (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Anime airdates

So I'm planning to start an RfC on this matter so that a proper consensus can be reached. Is this a good idea? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop falsifying sources. http://www.shingeki.tv/onair/ still says April 6, even if it also says "25:58". WP:V and WP:RS trump MOS:DATE which is continually being misinterpreted here. Also, there was no reason for you to replace my secondary source with a primary one, particularly when I use it elsewhere on the page to support other information it discusses.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Starting this RfC would be good to avoid long discussions that would eventually pop up here and there for such cases.
@Ryulong: There was really nothing wrong with my source; it reports the airdates on different stations (primary source of such information would be the stations themselves), this makes it a primary source? If you want a secondary source with the exact airtime that satisfies you, here is an example. Logically, April 6, 25:58 is not recommended, April 7, 1:58 would be the correct information for English Wikipedia. Raamin (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranian presidential election, 2013

Hi! We have an edit war in the article Iranian presidential election, 2013. One user says that all candidates will be in inbox but some others and me think different. Please add your comment to the article talk. Thanks. Tabarez (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Foreign titles

Don't make edits when you don't know what you're doing. Film Fan 20:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

For French titles, and various other languages, you only capitalise proper nouns, regardless of how some other website may capitalise it, okay? Film Fan 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Some websites capitalise, some don't. For consistency, here at Wikipedia, in French titles we only capitalise proper nouns, because that's the official rule. Check the Wikipedia page (or IMDB page) for any other French film, and you will see the same. Film Fan 21:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not an acceptable answer. I showed you 3 reliable sources for this naming issue. IMDb is not a WP:RS. Either you show the guidline in English Wikipedia that clearly supports your claim (the official rule you wrote), or you accept the naming style used in sources I provided and stop reverting. Raamin (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dreamliner 2012

You should post back at ANI, making your evidence and what outcome you want much clearer. GiantSnowman 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to provide evidence of the disruption. GiantSnowman 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Revert, warn, and report to WP:AIV. I have issued a final warning, please let me know if it happens again. GiantSnowman 15:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Hajime no Ippo episodes

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of Hajime no Ippo episodes, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Fighting Spirit (manga). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Merger done. Thanks.--Cattus talk 11:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Kadokawa Corporation

Just because those 9 companies were "merged" into Kadokawa Corporation does not mean they are defunct. That would be like saying Mountain Dew ceased to exist in 1964 when Pepsi acquired it. The only difference is that they're called brand companies now, but this is merely a title given to them to differentiate between them and the other subsidiaries still under Kadokawa Corporation. In no place does "brand company" appear in the title of any of the nine companies, and as such things like "ASCII Media Works Brand Company" makes no sense. Using the previous example again, this would be like bolding "Mountain Dew Soft Drink Brand" in the lead of Mountain Dew.-- 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I saw your note on my talk page. What would you say to this revision?-- 00:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this is ok. The article body needs update as well. :) Raamin (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Marvel Disk Wars IS an outsourced production

You need to know sir what outsourcing is. It's when a company like Marvel commissions an animation studio like Toei Animation to animate a program. In this case Marvel pays Toei to have Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers animated by them, thus it's an outsourced production. Because a foreign studio is producing a show for a foreign party. Therefore it should be in the Outsourced section and not the main decades section which is for animated productions done by Toei themselves and NOT commissioned by other companies. The explanation for outsourcing was also clearly explained on the page itself. I suggest next time that you read the page more thoroughly before editing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct. Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers [not Marvel Disk Heroes] isn't an outsourced production; it is a co-production by Teoi Toei Animation, Walt Disney Japan, and Bandai (all 3 are Japanese companies) and it's intended for Japanese market. Please read this text carefully; it's the official press release. In the press release, you will find this: "The three companies will collaborate in creating a fully localized Japanese series." Raamin (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I stand corrected, I was unaware that it was made by the Japanese departments of those companies concerned, especially since Marvel and Disney are American companies first and full most. Oh and by the way it's "Toei" Animation, not "Teoi" Animation.
Error fixed. Thanks. Raamin (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anime International Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gonzo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher

This is a neutral request for comments regarding the inclusion of Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher at Template talk:Avengers#Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Animation Partnership

Regarding the Marvel Animation article, partnership is a form of business, an unincorporated one, but still a form of business. I post this in my edit summary reversing edits based on your misassumption. This they are "units" of Marvel Animation. Unit is (in this case) a general term used for any divided part of a business. So your edit summary statement of "These partnerships are not units of a specific company; they are a "Production Committee" common in anime projects. We don't know how much each member has invested." is basically false. Each partnership is a unit of each specific company regardless if they have a "Production Committee" or not. Spshu (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We agree to disagree on this topic, and how we interpret a 'unit' of a company. Raamin (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing for you to disagree with. It is a fact. Spshu (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Hajime no Ippo episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers

Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers doesn't NOT meet notability as primary sources cannot be used to meet notability. You are the NOT discussion your reversion of the redirect. And just claiming that something is notable doesn't make it so, I suggest that you actually read WP:notability. Spshu (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Disk Wars: The Avengers is, like any other television anime series that has aired or is airing, notable, and should have its own article. You are not allowed to blank the page repeatedly, without any proper discussion beforehand; this could be interpreted as vandalism. Please read WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. If you believe that the subject is not notable, you are allowed to start a deletion discussion. Raamin (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, just because a show has aired or is airing doesn't make it notable. Spshu (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. You can start a deletion discussion, if you insist. Raamin (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you insisted, since you are attempting to impose your own notability standard. Spshu (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This is something that is generally accepted; not just my own view. With your interpretation of notability guidelines, easily half of anime and manga articles would be deleted. Raamin (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anime/manga infobox

Don't put "scheduled" in the "end date" parameter for this infobox. When the parameter is empty, it automatically adds "ongoing" to the infobox display.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this trend, and "scheduled" is only added to series that haven't even started yet. Ongoing is somehow not a correct term for future projects. Raamin (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Economy of Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. De728631 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion about your edits had been started at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard but I have now moved it to Talk:Economy of Iran. Please use that page to discuss your objections with the IP's sources instead of reverting. De728631 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)