User talk:Alefbe

Welcome!

Hello, Alefbe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Gordafarid 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

demographics of kabul

"Persian-speaking Tajiks make up the largest percentage of the population of the province, followed by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks,"

Can you provide us a reference? If no, than please stop spreading false information.(Ketabtoon (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

The source is given for Kabul itself (45% Tajik, 25% Pashtun), and the majority of people of Kabul Province live in Kabul (more than 80%). Thats enough to show that in the province, Tajiks are more than Pashtuns (even if all rural people are Pashtun). For future edits, discuss it with user:Tajik. Alefbe (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will discuss it with user:Tajik and other useres who are involved. However, for your information I will post this in your discussion page as well.

The population of Kabul province in 2006 was roughly 2,425,067. Here is a quote from Kabul' Provincial Profile - MRRD

"Around 19% of the population of Kabul lives in rural districts while 81% lives in urban areas. Around 51% of the population is male and 49% is female. Pashtu is spoken by around sixty percent of the population and Dari is spoken by around forty percent. A small number of people located in 5 villages speaks Pashaie."

[1]

Lets use the official numbers and percentages in wikipedia (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

hi

I`m so glad to meet u in en.wiki. I`m in wait for u, if u need any help. be happy.--Gordafarid 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Melody Max

In fact, if looks like the AfD tag was removed by an IP on August 2, but it was only off the article for seven minutes before the change was reverted. There was low participation in the AfD, so a single vote to keep would have precluded consensus. If you like, I can undelete the article and relist it on AfD in order to get more comments. Cool Hand Luke 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I am one of the descendants of Seghatoleslam, and I am wondering if you knew anything about him since you corrected the article. I was born in America and i'm searching for info. Azhura (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yousaf Raza Gillani

The full name is Makhdoom Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani (Urdu: مخدوم سيد يوسف رضا گیلانى ). You can also check Makhdoom page. Please stop deleting his full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.237.172 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kofarnihon River

Could you please tell me what source you were using when you decided to move Kofarnihon River to Kofirnihon River on May 14? It would be helpful if in the future you could substantiate such moves on the talk page of the corresponding articles. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right. I checked the official Tajiki spelling (it's Кофарниҳон). I'll move it back. Alefbe (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. "Kofirnihon" probably stems from the Russian "Kofirnigan" (given the usual transliteration standards), but the official Tajik sources (2004 map of Tajikistan, 2006 statistical yearbook for Tajikistan) definitely say Kofarnihon (Кофарниҳон). Best. --Zlerman (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lenin Peak=Avicenna Peak

Please see new comment I have put today on Talk:Lenin Peak. --Zlerman (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

changes to Zeravshan River

Dear Alefbe: you have made a number of systematic changes in the name of Zeravshan River based on Tajik-language sources and conventions. But Zeravshan is also a river in Uzbekistan, where (I think) it is much longer than in Tajikistan and where its name is not spelled Зарафшон. This fact needs to be reflected in the naming conventions you use and in the article itself. Please let me know what you think. --Zlerman (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact meaning of Zarafshan in Persian

All over the Internet the meaning of the Persian name of "our" river Zarafshan is given as "sprayer of gold" or "spreader of gold". I have a suspicion that all these Internet sources have simply copied the translation from Wikipedia and I would like to enlist your knowledge of the Persian language in order to refine the English translation. When I look in Francis Joseph Steingass' A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary on line and copy into the search window the Persian words from the lead sentence in Zeravshan River, I get the transliteration "zar-afshan" (perfect!) and the translation "scattering gold". When I look under "afshan" on its own, I get "dispersing, scattering, diffusing". Now, scattering and dispersing is not really spraying, is it? The Russian translation for "Zeravshan" in ru:wiki actually says "pulverizing gold" -- i.e., making gold dust. This Russian translation sits well with the attribution of the Persian name to the presence of gold sands in the river's upper reaches in the English article. Can you please review the translation of the Persian phrase zar-afshan and tell me what you think it actually means. Sprayer, scatterer, disperser, pulverizer, maker of gold dust? I apologize for the imposition, but I would like to clean this up in the interest of posterity... Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"afshāndan" is the root of the verb. It means spraying liquid or solid particles. "Zar-afshāndan" in Persian literature means "to spray gold coins" (as a gesture of generosity). "Zarafshān" is the adjective ("a" and "ā" are written as "a" and "o" in Tajik spelling) and means something or someone that sprays gold coins (or gold sands, in this case). Alefbe (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Your reference to "a gesture of generosity" is particularly meaningful in this context. So "the sprayer of gold" it is. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits

It is very immature to hunt for edits by other users and revert them. Discuss the objections first. And do not make changes to a subject if it is outside of your scope. -- DJ1AM (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DJ1AM, please follow wikipedia policies when it comes to sources from academic materials. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Elonka 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that rule. Alefbe (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Judæo-Persian

Done. Please keep in mind that there appears to also be an article about Judeo-Shirazi. I'm not sure if it's the same thing (if so, it can be redirected). If not, maybe "Judæo-Shirazi" is a better spelling in order to conform with the new title. As for Template:Persian languages, feel free to move it back if you want. I would personally try to discuss it with Francis Tyers first though. Khoikhoi 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yep

yeah, I do. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Don't move pages to new names using non-standard characters. You moved Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man to Abū Ḥanīfa... please move it to Abu Hanifa instead, as non-standard characters are not employable in Wikipedia article names.

We should keep the forms in the pages. However, people cannot type "ḥ" and "ū", so it is against Wikipedia policy to use them. Ogress _smash! 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We have "REDIRECT"s for that. So, you don't need to worry about the difficulty of typing "ḥ" and "ū". People can still type Abu Hanifa and reach that page. Alefbe (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On removing external links from "Iran"

Alefbe, I find it, to put it mildly, very odd that you come along and remove a whole body of external links by pretending that they were unrelated to the entry. I have just checked, and it seems that you have a history of deleting the things that seem not to be to your personal liking. This page shows one of your predilections. If you are here for political reasons, you are in the wrong place and you will be better off to leave for whence you come. --BF 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Read WP:EL. Links should be directly related to the subject and have some special importance (Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum).For example, for the case of Persian gulf, links that are only related to its name and are not credible (like noname websites or the website of an Iranian student association) are not acceptable. Also, for the case of Iran, random Youtube videos (which lack any particular importance) are not acceptable. Also linking to the songs of Shusha Guppy is not appropriate for that page (there are many Iranian traditional and folklore singers and it's not acceptable to link all their songs as external links of Iran). Alefbe (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Random YouTube videos?! And even if random videos, you have deleted more than links to videos! As for the other page, Persian Golf, I have not inspected the links so that I am not in a position to judge the veracity of your statements (it is however a verifiable fact that your "contribution" to this page also consists solely of removing links). As for Shusha Guppy, she is the only person who is known widely in the West and she is the person who has introduced Iranian folkloric songs to Western audiences; a person like Sima Bina, to name an example, is utterly unknown outside Iran and outside a small community of Iranians mostly living in Germany. But even if you had a valid point, why didn't you substitute the deleted links to Shusha Guppy's songs by alternative links that to your opinion would do the subject matter justice? I am amazed that people like you suddenly appear out of nowhere, and without any real contribution to Wikipedia (some disambiguations here and some redirecting of pages there do not constitute real contributions - don't misconstrue me, I have no claims for myself and for what might pass as my contributions; I am simply annoyed that some people, you included, derive a sense of intellectual satisfaction by roaming Wikipedia and uprooting things without any sense of responsibility for planting something in their place) start destroying all there is without making any attempt to replace the destroyed things with something that would be considered as more valuable. At the same time, your ilk seem to be well-versed in the minutest details of what e.g. external links have to contain and what they have not to contain. I wonder where such knowledge could have come from. --BF 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

About Shusha Guppy's songs, there no point in linking to them in Iran's page (they are not directly related to the page). Of course I didn't substitute those links with new links, because the external links of Iran's page shouldn't be a long list of anything that is merely related to Iran. Shusha Guppy's songs are already linked in her own page. Alefbe (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off, please

The edit warring between you and the other user over the external links in Persian Gulf needs to stop, and pronto. Use the discussion page to express your concerns and seek a consensus. You are well on your way to your 3RR limit, and it is in your best interest to realize that you are not going to overpower the other editor with the sheer volume of your reverts. Discussion, and not being obstinate, is going to achieve a lasting edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the reason for deleting those links (read the above section and see the summary of my edit) and I haven't broken the 3RR. What else do you expect? Also, for future, use better titles for your messages. Alefbe (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi, I don't understand why you keep addding the phrase "American" to the pronunciation guide. It is the single most common pronunciation in the English-speaking world, certainly not limited to Amercians only, and your addition is misleading and incorrect. Unless you can provide information showing that Brits and Aussies use a radically different pronunciation (and I assure you, they don't), it's perfectly fine as-is. Thanks for your consideration. Doc Tropics 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that its British pronunciation is the same? The current reference is for American English. Alefbe (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, please avoid edit warring, a look at your contributions show several reverts recently on various pages. Keep in mind that the three-revert rule does not entitle you to three reverts. Instead, try to achieve a consensus on the relevant talk pages instead. Xashaiar has been warned for civility, but you need to do your part and avoid edit warring, as both are blockable offenses. Thanks, Khoikhoi 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A look at your contributions show that you are not impartial on this issue (this warning and the warning on Fullstop's talk page is just a continuation of a known pattern). Your edits in recent months show that you blindly support users like Wayiran and Xashaiar and you have used your sysop tools in favor of them. If you think that I need a warning or my edits have been inappropriate, ask another sysop to act or comment. I should admit that I was too optimistic about you, before becoming more active in English Wikipedia. I had heard from Iranian Wikipedians that you are very helpful in combatting extreme POV in Iran-related articles, but now (that I've become more active in English Wikipedia), I have seen that the way you use your sysop tools helps users like Wayiran and makes it easier for them to gradually lower the quality of Iran-related articles (they might have good intentions, but most of their edits are just not suitable for an encyclopedia). Alefbe (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Check newest section of Iranian languages talk page

Check it out. Thanks Azalea pomp (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Persian

I have a linguistics knowledge of Persian. ;) I by no means can converse in Persian. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Borujerdi examples

Thanks for the link to the Borujerdi blog. Am I hearing a front rounded vowels in this dialect like [y] and maybe [œ]? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any other similar links to Persian dialects with audio samples? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources. Persian dialect information is relatively hard to locate at many libraries. I have never found anything on the dialects of Kerman, Yazd, and Bam for example. The older/younger speakers' differences is quite interesting. That would explain why one source I had had forms for older and younger speakers of certain dialects. It seems Tehrani Persian is the prestige dialect of Iran. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of Iran

Ah, I see what you meant. The Izady map found at Columbia lists the Mira source as the primary source: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.jpg

It is not accurate as you have stated. For example, Dezful and Shushtar speak Persian dialects. The Semnani dialects are not included. I can look at the Mira source within the next few days. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the Mira map in front of me now. Izady's map does extend Kurdish more than what is in Mira. Mira's map is detailed in that it shows in which cities Persian is spoken versus the countryside. It shows Kermanshah as Persian with Kurdish surrounding it. It does not show Borujerd as Persian but a lot of areas west of Borujerd as Persian. At the time the map was created, perhaps they did not know the exact dialect of Borujerd. It does not distinguish Semnani or Central Iran dialects, but since those languages/dialects are spoken in "islands", Iranica will be useful for those. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Iranian

On the Iranian languages talk page I included my findings on the Western Iranian branch. Azalea pomp (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tajiks of China

Thanks for the message. I think "Tajiks of China" makes the most sense. They only live in Xinjiang, but I think it is best to identify them according to country, rather than province. To call them "Pamiris" is completely new to me. In Chinese language literature, they are exclusively called Tajiks, and their self-identification would probably be either Tajik or a linguistic identifier, i.e. Wakhi or Sarikoli. The term Pamiri is a term that appeared during the Soviet era and as far as I know has no usage in China and probably not in Afghanistan either, even though in Afghanistan there exists the same groups that in Tajikistan are called Pamiris.

Thanks for the contribution to the article Tajiks of Xinjiang. Is, in your opinion, the title Pamiri people of Xinjiang more appropriate for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.91.28 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Badakhshan

Hi

I've read WP:AMOS, in particular, this:

All Arabic articles should have a lead paragraph which includes the article title, along with the original Arabic script and the strict transliteration in parenthesis, preferably in the lead sentence.

In this case, the article title is Badakhshan, which is the name by which the region is normally known in English texts, not Badakhshān. Mhockey (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Only when the title and the strict transliteration are quite different, mentioning both in the lead is needed (like Cairo and Qāhira) . In other cases (when the difference is onlly between loose translitaraion and strict transliteration, like "Badakhshan" and Badakhshān), citing both versions in the lead is redundant (and sometimes misleading). Alefbe (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in WP:AMOS this is clearly mentioned:

Likewise, if a strict transliteration appears overly repetitious, it should be in place of the page title in the lead paragraph.

I don't think the guidance should only apply when the title and strict transliteration are quite different - that's not what WP:AMOS says. Maybe the difference of view comes down to this: you regard "Badakhshan" as only a loose transliteration, whereas I see it as the normal name in English. I do not think my version is "overly repetitious". It's hardly a long title, such as the example after the passage you quote. The problem with using the strict transliteration as the first word in the lead is that it could give the impression to some readers that Badakhshān is the "correct" form to use in normal English usage, and that would certainly be misleading. Would you suggest starting the Tehran article with Tehrān.....? Mhockey (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The standard and strict transliteration of Persian and Arabic are not quite the same, but the principles are similar and in the cases of Tehran and Badakhshan, I think the lead should start with Tehrān and Badakhshān, respectively. That's how it is done for most of Iranian or Afghan provinces (it should be done for all of them). Alefbe (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of transliteration. It's the issue of whether the lead should start with the article title (which is the usual name in English, where there is one), or a transliteration of the local name. I don't think many editors would agree with you on Tehran, but let's see. I'll put a comment on that article's talk page. Mhockey (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

PerB conversions

Thanks Please explain - I took a look at a number of these changes (and dozens more for ArabDIN) and I didn't see a problem. Is this a matter of different rendering engines for web browsers or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Genius Thanks. This should do the trick. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of Durrani Empire

The map showing the extent of the Durrani Empire (Afgempdur.jpg) doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Firstly, the map is not in English, which makes it difficult to understand it. Such a map has very high chances of misleading the readers instead of guiding them. Also, the map doesn’t tell the actual year(time) of the maximum extent of Durrani Empire.

Secondly, the limits of the influence of the Afghan Empire(vassal states) is shown covering Rajputana(Although Rajputs were unfriendly towards Marathas, Rajputana wasn't in any way a vassal of the Durrani empire), part of present day Maharashtra and even Malwa- the stronghold of Holkars & Gwalior- the stronghold of Scindias(Holkars and Shindes were potent forces even after the Maratha defeat at Panipat). Even though the Marathas had lost the battle of Panipat, there wasn’t any chance that anyone (including Abdali) could come even near present day Maharashtra. After the battle, Abdali quickly retired to Afghanistan and the Sikhs had emerged a potent force in Punjab. Although he attacked Punjab twice after 1761, he didn't make any decisive gains and didn't come south of Punjab. This map doesn’t seem to be made by an expert and I also have doubts over the western extent of the empire. It is extremely inaccurate and is misguiding the users. It seems to be highly biased, violating Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and seems to be made by an Abdali follower. This map needs to be removed from Durrani Empire and Afghanistan. Kindly go through this. Thanks Kesangh (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pahlavi

I realize that since I didn't change them all to the language (quite a few went to Pahlavi Dynasty). But to me the ones I did change seemed to fit that description. The link on the disam page does state that it refers to the language and the speakers of the language. I don't do disamming without thought, trust me. I can be wrong but it doesn't mean I wasn't careful. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking account

There was sufficient suspicion in the eyes of the checkusers and clerks to run a check; at the time, that Self-Image was a sock of NisarKand was not determined either. While at times it is unfortunate that innocent people get caught up in checks, that is part of the process. Checkusers, when asked and when evidence is indicative, need to identify socks and innocents. As you can see from the report, there was sockpuppetry going on; thankfully not you. Of course, had we known that you were innocent before the run we would not have run it, and I apologize for causing you any distress, but the run at the time was justified. If only there were no issues with sockpuppetry and we could obviate the need for checkuser runs completely, we'd all be better off. So, I apologize for the unneeded distress, but at that time, with the information we had, I believe the run was justified. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain more about that "sufficient suspicion in the eyes of the checkusers". I looked at the report by the clerk and in my opinion the report was ridiculous. What was the justification? Is editing pages related to broad subject (like the geography and the history of Iran and Central Asia) a valid justification to check users? Do you justify the same kind of user check for other broad subjects (like checking users, just based on the history of editing France-related pages)? This is ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that the check was improper, you should file a complaint with the m:Ombudsman commission, who is charged with allegations of improper invasion of privacy. -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also register a request for an investigation with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [2]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Shah River

I am sorry, but in English the name of the river is "Shah River". See:

• "Introduction - Drainage Basins - Caspian Sea" Freshwater Fishes of Iran; and
• Campbell, Anthony (2004) "A Visit to Alamut (1966)" The Assassins of Alamut p. 6,

for examples. --Bejnar (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In these cases (when "Rud" is suffix), the common tradition is to consider "Rud" as a part of the name and it's better not to translate it. The few sporadic examples that you mentioned are not enough to change that rule. Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The usage is sometimes, but not often Shahrood, because Shahrood is used as the name for a city unrelated to the river. Shah Rud is more common than Shahrood for the river, but the English remains "Shah River". --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See [3] (compare it with the results for Shah river which are mostly not related to this river). Alefbe (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any ambiguity, compare [4] with [5]. Alefbe (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

75 to 121 in the first comparison. 8 to 32 in your last comparison. The numbers are inconclusive, and both sets contain repeats, and as you mention a number of false drops for "Shah River". The fact remains that Shahrood River is redundant, Shah River has significant academic usage and it's usage clearly distinguishes it from the city, whose etymology appears to be quite different. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the name of the river is Shahrood (not Shah). The original meaning of rood (in Persian) is not much relevant to this discussion. Grad also means city or town or settlement, in slavic languages, but this doesn't justify changing Kaliningrad to city of Kalinin or Kalinin city (or saying that city of Kaliningrad is redundant [6]). Alefbe (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also check academic papers for the similar case of Sefid-Rud (266 and 466, compared to only 14 for "sefid river"). Alefbe (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look in Google search at the entries for "شاه رود " (Shah Rud) in Farsi, there are about 262 entries. That would suggest that Shahrood is just a contraction. --Bejnar (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the river is Shah-Rud and it's written in Persian as شاهرود (it can be also be spelled as شاه‌رود). The spelling شاه رود is not the standard Persian spelling. Also I should mention that among those few entries that you saw, about half of them are totally irrelevant to this subject (for example in some of them, it's "shah ravad" meaning "king goes", as a part of a sentence). Alefbe (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

شاهرود primarily refers to the city and the sharestan. --Bejnar (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It refers to both. Alefbe (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving to non-English names

Before you go changing Iranian names to non-English versions, please obtain some discussion from others, not me, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

About Sefid-Rud I've already explained it above and in its talk page. In English texts, Sefid-Rud is much more common than Sefid River. Also you should note that the guideline is about using the most common name in English texts, not translating different parts of a compound name into English. Alefbe (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kahrizak detention center

Some of the edit reverts that you have made are problematic. They address general events and occurrences relating to those arrested after the election and not necessarily to events inside Kahrizak. These are more relevant in a post-election aftermath wiki entry than here. The point of the edits made to your contribution was to make sure that what you had written was relevant to Kahrizak itself. Please go back and take a look at the entry before you changed it and see if you don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.195 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You had removed most of the English sources. If you think some of the information (and the cited sources) are not relevant, discuss it in details in its talk page. Also, it's better to create a user account. Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please take a look at the discussion page there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.195 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Habban

The edit summary you gave for the removal of the PROD tag did not explain anything. I had proposed it for deletion according to the policy of WP:DICT. The article says nothing about the actual bagpipes than it does about the word. Therefore, the information should be transferred to Wikitionary, and the article should be deleted. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 02:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of that page is not just about the origin of the word. It's about a special type of bagpipe. Alefbe (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it only talked about the origin of the word. I said it only talks about the term itself, and not about the bagpipes at all. Every line in that article talks only about the term. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me?

Do you still contest to the prod tag? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Alefbe (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that the article talks about more than the term? Can you even bring me one sentence from there that does not speak about the term, but speaks about the bagpipes? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I may expand it later. But, anyway, if you want to insist on deleting the page, you should go to WP:AfD. Alefbe (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC

Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, I have put a tag for a transwiki, which should be done automatically Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me, why you have reverted my edits? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I didn't find it constructive. That page has encyclopedic content and it shouldn't be deleted. Alefbe (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was being transwikied into Wikitionary, it wasn't being deleted at the moment. I can see that you are expanding the article right now. If that can solve the problem, then that would be awesome. Considering the number of edits you are making, perhaps you might want to put a {{under construction}} template. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Alefbe, I came in to this discussion at the request of the other user, and consequently investigated the topic a little. I've made some comments on my talk page, which might be useful in further development of the article; the reply was directed at Warrior4321, but I thought that you might be interested.

In the interests of not splitting conversations over multiple pages, however, I suggest that further discussion takes place on Talk:Habban.

My comments are in User talk:Chzz#Template Removal.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page created. Please continue discussion over there. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Amir Kror Suri

Hi. Could you please also take a look at Talk:Amir Kror Suri? Thank you. Tajik (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

UN population data

Thanks for the tip, I'll use that as my source from now on. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nimrooz

User:ketabtoon keeps removing Persian from this article [7] and adds Pashto while the term Nimrooz has no meaning in the Pashto language and this word comes from the Persian language.--Inuit18 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1385 could = 2007

some months of 1385 are in 2007, so it could be census of 2007, which month of 1385 was that census?

The data is for Nov. 2006 (Aban, 1385). Alefbe (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BRD

Bold, Revert, Discuss. Once you blanked the page, you are not supposed to put it back. You and Folantin are participating in an edit war. You cannot blank a page because you think it "sucks". That is edit warring and vandalism. I suggest you stop now and restore it before this goes to ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "blanking" doesn't apply to the removal of a mixture of irrelevant and duplicate material from a page, when it is already discussed in its talk page. Also, If you look at other opinions in that talk page, you see that only you insist on restoring the old version of that page (me, Folantin, and others have some disagreements about the final version of the page, but we all agree that the current version is better than the old version of the page). About ANI, you can always go to ANI, but keep in mind that ANI is not relevant to disputes on the content of pages. Alefbe (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying it is irrelevant or duplicate is not a justification and people have been blocked as POV warriors for clinging to such claims. Fault in text is not justification for violating Wikipedia policies. This is not a content dispute. This is you violating policies and edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing two reverts in one day (where one of them is reverting Dekimasu's edition and the other one is reverting to Folantin-Dekimasu's edition) is not called edit warring, specially when both of them are discussed in the talk page. Anyway, you can go to ANI if you prefer. Alefbe (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by definition is vandalism. Reducing a page from 60k to less than 1k is blanking. Reverting back to blanking is more vandalism. Those are blockable offenses. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

"I am amused that many users who haven't been previously involved in any Iran-related page (or any page related to the history of Middle East and Central Asia) all of a sudden have become interested in this topic."

Yes, it's odd. The page has been marked for clean-up since March but as soon as editors with some knowledge of the subject try to do something about the situation, the page gets fully protected in the "crappy old version". At least part of the explanation may lie here (look at the names in Pool A). Wikipedia is becoming a social networking site rather than an encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you see his ANI case, it seems that a few admins did not want to ban him because of the work he has done. Warrior4321 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persian Empire. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the 3RR rule. Why didn't you give warning to those users who all of a sudden became interested in that content dispute and participated in edit-warring? Alefbe (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've already participated in the discussion and have presented my arguments there. You should have given warning to users like Durova who all of a sudden participate in edit-warring and admit that they have "No idea whether this is misinformation or not". Alefbe (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's amazing how many of the newcomers to that page are associated with WP:DYK and WP:GAN. Just like Ottava Rima. It couldn't be that Wikipedia is more about who you know than what you know nowadays. Example, here's Ottava's support vote from Nuclear Warfare's recently successful request for adminship: [8] ""Support - He was invaluable in dozens of DYK and quite a few GAs that I have put together. Ottava Rima". Again, spot the references to DYK on this user talk page. --Folantin (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And WP:Wikicup is apparently a competition to see which user can get the most points by acquiring DYKs, GAs, Featured Pictures and so on. Check the names in Pool A. --Folantin (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aryan

The article is not about the word Aryan. It is about the concept Aryan. That includes the history of the word and also the ideas and the motifs that have become attached to it. The swastika became the central symbol associated with the Aryan concept, and there are innumerable sources for that, dating back to Burnouf, Muller etc in the 19th cventury, Wilson in the early 20th and so on. Denying that is just pointless. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what? Do you have any reliable source to show that specific necklace is related to the Aryan concept or ancient Indo-Iranian culture? Sources about the relationship of swastika and the ancient Indo-Aryan culture have nothing to do with that necklace, unless you can provide a credible source to show that the necklace is related to the ancient Indo-Aryan culture (or at least the ancient Indo-Iranian culture). Alefbe (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is related to ancient Iranian culture because it is an ancient Iranian necklace. Anyway, the Article is about the concept Aryan in its totality, not just Iran. Your argument is, as I said, incomprehensible. The question "sources for what?" has already been answered. I don't have to waste my time explaining what you can read for yourself in the Swastika article. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you cannot attach every swastika-shape object that you find to the Indo-Aryan swastika and the ancient Indo-Aryan culture. Also, you should note that an ancient necklace from Iran is not necessarily related to the ancient Indo-Iranian culture (for example, read about Elamites, Cassites and Caspians which had nothing to do with the ancient Indo-Iranian culture). So, to relate these kind of things together, you need credible sources, and you cannot rely on your own original research and speculation. Alefbe (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's wholly untrue. Images do no have to follow rules about "original research" in the same way as text. They can be legitimately used to illustrate effectively, or even be user-created. It does not matter whether this necklace is in fact Indo-Iranian rather than Elamite. It matters that the connection was made between artefacts from areas of Indo-Iranian (and Hittite) influence and the swastika motif. In fact swaktika patterns have now been identified in the probably pre-II IVC culture, but that's beside the point. The article discusses the relationship between artefacts and theories, leading to the adoption of motifs as symbols of ethnicity. The question is what image is best suited to illustrate that connection. Paul B (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[9] Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"the Tajik language"

Oh, and I forgot to point out internal stylistic logic as an argumen. Look at how "Tajik" is used throughout the article itself, that neither "Tajik Persian" nor "Tajiki" have "language" attached and consider that the following sentence is a very obvious tautology: "The Tajik language is a modern variety of the Persian language."

Peter ^Isotalo 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation is not exactly the same as a word like "German" or "English" (it's more like "Quebec French"). "the Tajik language" here means "language of Tajiks" and it's a little meaningless to use "Tajik" alone to refer to this language (you can also compare the term to "Berber languages" in this regard). Alefbe (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

page moves

Please start a requested move discussion, the name had included "International" since Feb 2008, so if you wish to change the name and it has been reverted you should then open up a requested move discussion, not just keep moving it. nableezy - 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Alefbe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at International al-Quds Day. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alefbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

My response is very similar to that I gave to Paradoxic: You were still edit warring. Please use the time blocked to read up on edit warring and dispute resolution, and remember to discuss changes–in a wider forum if necessary–if you can't reach a consensus between you. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reason for Unblock: User:Paradoxic had violated 3RR yesterday and I reported him. User:Rjanag first said that it's not clear whether there was really 4 reverts or not. When I showed him again and I pointed to the continuation of Paradoxic's revert, Rjanag said that 3RR is just a guideline and Paradoxic's edits are not vandalism. Then I reminded him again that 3RR is not about vandalism and he should enforce it no matter if Paradoxic's edits are vandalism or not. Rjanag talked again about his own standards [10] and I told him that his approach is really against the 3RR policy and if he thinks intervention is not needed, he should ask comments from other admins. Then he blocked me. So, the only thing that changed Rjanag's opinion (from non-inrevention to blocking me) was my last edit about asking opinion of other admins. Alefbe (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the thing that changed my opinion is that after I declined the report both of you went on to revert one another more—a total of four reverts in 30 minutes. You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (and, by the way, you were always free to ask other admins for comment; you think I blocked you because I was afraid of other admins? Admins are great people, I hang with them all the time.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy is clear about this. Users shouldn't insist on edit-warring and shouldn't break 3RR. User:paradoxic broke that rule yesterday and I reported him yesterday and you refused to intervene. Since I reported him first, Paradoxic continued his reverts and had 4-5 more reverts (other than his early 4 reverts) and I reminded you about it and you once again refused to intervene (saying that 3RR is just a guideline and based on you own standards, you don't think blocking or even giving warning to Paradoxic is necessary). Then I told you that your approach is against the 3RR policy and you blocked me. Do you expect that I don't revert that page at all? (when you don't even take action against someone who has already broke 3RR and has continued his revert by some 4-5 more reverts)? Your original refuse of taking action was wrong and your later action was worse. By the way, comments such as "You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got." doesn't make it look better. Alefbe (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"I reported him first" never gives you the right to continue edit-warring. Just because reverted "more" than you, doesn't mean you're special or you can play a trump card against them. 3RR is not an entitlement, and if you make it clear that you're going to act like an edit warrior then you will be treated like an edit warrior. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "reporting first". The fact is that he has violated 3RR and I haven't. Indeed, I hadn't edited in that page for more than 24 hours, until I saw that Paradoxic has continued his edit-warring and violating 3RR and reverting edits other users and you have refused to take any action and you insist on doing so, saying that his edits are not vandalism and 3RR is just a guideline and based on your own standards, you don't need to enforce it, and then I reverted Paradoxic's edits (and even then I didn't break 3RR and I tried to avoid the edit war by asking admins to intervene). Alefbe (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Again: whether you broke 3RR doesn't matter. You still edit warred. 3RR is only one kind of edit warring, and you can be blocked without breaking it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You refused to intervene when Paradoxic was reverting edits of 4 other users and broke 3RR (by continuing reverting to his own version, more than 7-8 times). But when I reverted him, you blocked me for edit-warring. If all admins take your approach, to push a POV it would be enough to use a single purpose account to edit-war in a page and revert it to your own version, 10 times per day (without being stopped), and be sure that if others revert you once or twice (after seeing that admins refuse to stop you), they would be blocked for edit-warring. This is really ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Asking another admin to hastily comment in you favor doesn't make your mistake look better. I don't care about not editing for 24 hours (anyway, I won't have time to edit tomorrow), but I'm really disappointed by this type of admin behavior. Alefbe (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in that message did I ask the admin to comment "in my favor"; I just said, since he had looked at one, he should also have a look at the other. Would you prefer to have had your unblock request ignored all day? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR is described as a bright line and I think that the fact that this was a content dispute and not vandalism is irrelevant - or rather that 3RR is meant to apply to content disputes, we have other ways of dealing with vandalism. So if the other editor had been warned and exceeded it and I had seen this at that point, I would probably have blocked the other editor. Unfortunately you continued also. My own policy for mysefl is to stop at two. That's what I've told other editors in this position. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's better not to rush to revert, but when admins clearly refuse to stop someone who has broken 3RR and continues reverting, it's not meaningful to ask others not to revert even once or twice. The reason of that edit war was because User:Rjanag failed to do his job as as an admin and when he was asked to ask opinion of other admins about the issue, he blocked me and wrote comments such as "You wanted more blocks, and that's what you got." Alefbe (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't have asked the opinion of other admins yourself. You do have an "edit" button, you know. You also were given an opportunity to provide better diffs to demonstrate Paradoxical's edit warring, and you did not; you just said "it's obvious". It wasn't obvious to me, not until you guys started up again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, after writing that comment in ANI (asking you to get opinion of other admins if you insist on not intervening), I was going to ask opinion of other admins, but I realized that you have blocked me. Alefbe (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well, after looking again at the history, it is clearer that Paradoxic had broken 3RR, and perhaps could have been blocked earlier, although I still believe this could have been handled better at the talk page than through admin tools (I have worked on hot-topic articles like this, such as July 2009 Urumqi riots, and in those cases have frequently come across stubborn editors but been able to deal with them through overwhelming talkpage consensus, and either not need to have them blocked or just report them for blocking after they go against overwhelming consensus—here, I don't see any strong consensus on the talk page for or against Paradoxic's edits, there seem to be two camps, so there should have been more discussion from all parties). I won't unblock either of you because, regardless of what happened before, in the end you both did edit war even though there were other options available (such as getting third parties' attention before reverting); but for now I am at least watching the article a little more closely to see if Paradoxic returns to problem editing after his block expires. Really, though, regarding the disputed content neither one of you should be changing it directly; there is plenty of space on the talk page to look for a consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know all the details of this and maybe Alefbe shouldn't have crossed the line with his latest edits to the article. But he has a previously clean block log, showing he is not by nature a disruptive editor. I see no particular reason why he shouldn't be unblocked early as long as he promises to avoid violating 3RR on the page again. --Folantin (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated 3RR at all and this block is not about violating 3RR. If there is an edit-war on be my part, User:Rjanag is directly responsible for it (by refusing to stop User:Paradoxic who had broken 3RR). Anyway, I don't have time to edit today and I don't care about not editing. What really disappoints me here is Rjanag's inappropriate behavior and the way he has handled this issue. Alefbe (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only person responsible for your actions is yourself. Regardless of what happened before, you always have a choice of whether or not to click the edit button. You had the opportunity to request outside input, but instead you hit that revert button twice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to justify your mistake. Alefbe (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hi; About you changes in pages containg Azerbaijan: First of all I had changed the pages after very first discussions in Tabriz discussion page when Alborz accepting my opinion. After initiating of further discussions by Alborz the procedure stoped. However for right now you may notice nutral opinion as well! Thank you.--Microinjection (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There page was there for years and you moved the page without discussion in its talk page. Alefbe (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason of the discussion, for which you have involved some how, was moving the pages. By the original word which were used in creating of the pages were Azerbaijan.--Microinjection (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think whole of the discussion was about changing Azarbaijan to Azerbaijan (base on judging which one is the correct word). Right now the discussion is done and concluded. Before present modifications, you have reverted whole of the pre-discussion modifications (you wrote there is an ongoing discussion on Tabriz page). When the discussion is concluded it is time to changing the pages according to discussion results.--Microinjection (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Komur river

The name Komur comes from the map, NJ 38-7 Tabriz, Iran; Azerbaijan; Armenia Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000, U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency. It enters the Aji Chay just north of Tabriz, and just before the Sian Chay enters the Aji Chay. It is also listed in the Geonames database here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you realized that it's Mehran River? and if it's Mehran River, how did you conclude that "komur" the most common name of it in English publications [11] (while searching over books shows otherwise)? Alefbe (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

[12] Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary block

In addition to refusing to participate in discussion about the name, you've gone and started doing massive reverts across a bunch of articles. Again, I am willing to have a discussion, but it's really inappropriate of you to just ignore the discussion and then go start edit warring somewhere else. I'll unblock you once you assure me that you're not going to do a revert-war across 80 articles while a discussion is ongoing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with the context of this issue: Rjanag has systematically change the common English spelling of "Turfan" in all Wikipedia pages (without any consensus). I have mentioned this issue in ANI and Talk:Turpan. Then I undid some of Rjanag's systematic spelling changes and Rjanag blocked me. This is a clear example of misusing admin toold to advance one's own preferences. Alefbe (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)