User talk:Hajji Piruz

Articles I am currently Working on: History of the name Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, Provinces of Iran, Historical provinces of Iran, Kurdish origin sources My sandbox Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Re:Safavids

Hello. First, the major change in the introduction was brought by the IP address 84.58.200.238 and not by me. I even edited his/her changes and removed the part of its sentence which related Safavids to the Herat of Afghanistan. The edits which were made by that IP, was not a vandalism but in fact it seemed appropriate for me. Wasn't Persian the primary language of Safavids, beside the Azeri language? And weren't they traced back to Tat origin? However, I looked at the history and seemed that in some places User:Ali doostzadeh has reverted sourced information, and the unexplained removal of sources by User:Grandmaster in his last edit. Thanks -Ariana 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello and thanks for the Barnstar, it was a nice surprise! Shervink 08:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing my user page

"Azerbaijani"/Hajji Piruz. I am warning you to stop vandalizing my user page, as you did here [1]. My next report will go to the relevant Wikipedia admistrative board. I would suggest that instead of vandalizing my page, you pay a little attention to achieving consensus and assuming a good faith. Hopefully changing username from Azerbaijani to Hajji Piruz, aside from attempt to evade ArbCom injunction, should also imply some change in editing attitude towards constructivism as well. Atabek 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're knocking on a dead fish. We have already been through ArbCom, where it has been clarified that User:Tengri happened to be my friend, and we both started editing in first 7 days unaware of all the rules. So, your attempt to vandalize my page and/or accuse me of sockpuppetry now based on 6 months ago, is nothing more than puny try to deal with my edits. It obviously shows that 1) you're unable to AGF; 2) you're not qualified to engage in constructive editing using referenced material but only in edit warring and hunting after people. Keep your POV out of my talk page, please, the topic is closed as far as I am concerned. Atabek 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of your harassment of my user page, talk page and other pages that I edit is already being compiled. As I told you, you may continue knocking on dead fish, and wasting your own time, but not on my page. Atabek 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which you chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:

"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
"in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
"users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"

I expect an immediate cessation of harassment activity by yourself. Atabek 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aniran

I think that your problem was related to your cache or something. Try clearing some cache as that has worked for me in the past. Fullstop came right after and incorporated Iranica information anyway, so the sourcing issue is resolved. The Behnam 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atabek

Again, just like I told you, he has gone to yet another admin in the very same day: [2]. Tariq, the reason I tell you this is because you are now familiar with this user, is there any suggestion you can give me on how to handle this situation or can you discuss this issue with the other admins? If you need more information, just ask.Hajji Piruz 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you both go to Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation; that process seems perfect for this. In the meantime, I'll leave a comment on Atabek's talk page because I believe his allegations are unfounded. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dont think Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation will work unless there is a third party being directly involved to review whats being said and make a final decision on what remedy should be put in place. Atabek doesnt even have enough respect for me to keep my comments on his talk page, he deletes them and calls them "garbage", so I dont see how he and I could solve anything by ourselves. He is also not completely knowledgeable on all of Wikipedia's policies and rules (as evident by him continuously misunderstanding or misusing these policies and rules). He also contradicts himself, accusing me, then saying he didnt accuse me, then telling me what to edit and what not to edit, and then saying that I dont own anything on Wikipedia, etc... Where can I find someone who can participate directly or is there something else you can suggest?Hajji Piruz 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are third-parties set up for the purpose of reviewing CEM cases; they are listed on the request page. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, I see that you have read Atabeks latest comment, and its a very absurd comment as he is accusing me of "attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions" when I have done no such thing and he has no proof! How am I blackmailing you Atabek, how am I harassing you Atabek, how am I attacking you Atabek? Show us the proof, the evidence, the diff's, something...what you are doing now is personally attacking me, because these false accusations are personal attacks if you cant back them up with evidence. Its you that is doing this to me. You have even tried canvassing to get me in trouble.

Tariq, I'd also appreciate it if you would also make some comments on the mediation page when it comes to that so that the mediator knows other users have seen how Atabek makes false accusations and personal attacks. User:Bushytails has also commented on Atabek's disruptive editing here: [3]

Tariq, his false accusations are personal attacks right? Cant you do anything based on what you've seen here? I will definetly go to mediation though.Hajji Piruz 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not really personal attacks. I might comment on the CEM, but I wish you'd all continue this discussion on your own user talk pages (or wherever else appropriate) instead of cluttering up mine. -- tariqabjotu

Just thought you should know, Atabek canvassing again: [4]Hajji Piruz 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([5]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.Hajji Piruz 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- tariqabjotu 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why CEM wont work: Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much. [6] In CEM, we're supposed to make our own punishments and come to a conclusion on our own...How can we do that when one user simply makes accusations (wihtout posting the evidence to prove them) and personal attacks? I have asked Thatcher131 if we could possibly re-open the arbcom, if he says no, then I will do a RFC (but which diff's should I show proving that you and I have commented, should I just post the link to this section?).Hajji Piruz 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on asking requesting the RfArb be re-opened. The decision was partially intended to resolve this kind of tussling between you, Atabek, and other users involved. Obviously, this has failed (and I'm not putting the blame squarely on Atabek). An RfC may be the best alternative if that does not work out. -- tariq<fon color="gray">abjotu 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Treaties of Iran

Hi, as you already noticed I went ahead and made a new Category:Treaties of Iran --only because I saw the already existing Category:Treaties of Persia. I think there should be further discussion until the two are merged. Take care. --Bobak 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hello, I have opened the RFC. Cold you please sign your name, as per the two user requirement: [7]. I'm not done yet, I still have to post a lot of evidence showing this users disruptive behavior and refute his allegations against me.Hajji Piruz 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, I'm not sure if you accidently over looked this, but I think you need to sign your name acknowledging that you tried to solve this dispute. Otherwise the RFC wont be accepted. I think you have to sign here: [8].Hajji Piruz 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not overlook this. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sign it. Saying I tried to resolve this dispute is not an endorsement of your summary, per se, but your grievance is completely off base. It looks more like an attack than a complaint. For instance, I have no idea why you are using evidence from the ArbCom case to support your position. That has been dealt with; this is double jeopardy. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood the RFC with comments supporting Atabek. So far, Elsanaturk, who hasnt been active since June 5 all of a sudden appears and his third edit is on the RFC...Please see this: [9] Also, see Elsanaturks comment on the Atabeks summary. Elsanaturk blindly apporves of Atabek and points the finger at me despite the fact that I am the only one who posted evidence. This kind of blind support will only make things worse.

This dispute will not be solved if non-neutral users are the ones that comment and attempt to flood the article. Is there anyway we can only have neutral third party users discuss the RFC along with Atabek and I?Hajji Piruz 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I assume good faith now? He has gone to Dacy69 and asked him to make a comment, just like I had predicted: [10] This is direct evidence that he is trying to flood the page. Hes already canvassing! Please do something.Hajji Piruz 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has also gone to Grandmaster, just like I had predicted: [11]

When will the admins say enough is enough? Please do something to stop him from sabotaging the RFC.Hajji Piruz 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. I have reported this to ANI. On another note, why have you not been posting on Atabek's talk page? Talk to him and stop using my talk page as a battlefield. -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's my right to ask others to comment on RfC against myself, I did so openly on a talk page. I am not the one who filed RfC, you're. And please, stop taking everything along national lines, you clearly did it just now [12]. Assume good faith finally, and hopefully, we can resolve our differences in a civilized manner without wasting community's resources. Atabek 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Because they were taking up way too much space. BTW, I'm curious, are you an ethnic Azerbaijani or a Persian? -- Aivazovsky 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious to know what your view the Republic of Azerbaijan is. What do most Iranian Azeris think of it? Do they want to secede from Iran to unite with it or are they content as they are? E-mail me your thoughts via Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By nationalist do you mean nationalist for Iran or nationalist for the Republic of Azerbaijan? BTW, I shortened the titles. -- Aivazovsky 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that. E-mail me later. -- Aivazovsky 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal

Hajji Piruz, I think you have a bit of a tall order. But I will address your points one by one:

"1. You will never make false accusations against me again."

I didn't make false accusations, you did edit my user page, do I have to repost the diff again?

"2. You will never canvass trying to tarnish my image again."

I wasn't canvassing, I explained myself pretty clearly on User:Tariqabjotu's page. And I am not in power to tarnish anyone's image, as I am not the one to judge the tarnishment.

"3. You will never tell me what articles I can and cannot edit."

I can never tell anyone which article to edit or not, that's not something in my or anyone's control. I only stated a fact that you're only editing Azerbaijan-related articles, with a sole objective of intimidation, provocation and revert warring, which I think is needless. You're only making elephant out of a fly, and further inflaming Azeri-Iranian relations, which is also needless, unless you have specific purpose in doing so.

"4. You will admit that Tengri was your sock puppet (as confirmed by Grandmaster above) and will drop the act that he was just your "friend" and you guys happened to use the same computer."

I don't need to act. There were other attempts to prove that I had socks afterwards, all of which failed. About Tengri, I spoke truth and explained clearly reasons why Checkuser found myself and Tengri to be using the same IP address 7 days after we came to Wikipedia. If you have proofs otherwise, go ahead, prove me that Tengri and I are the same person :). Come on, we both know, why you were trying to insert that category after 6 months on my user page, and no one else's - the objectives are intimidation and provocation.

"5. You will be respectful to all users you come into contact with and not jump to conclusions."

So far, I have been respectful to all users, otherwise, I would have had personal attack charges in ArbCom. For further opinion about myself, you can read Ali Doostzadeh's opinion on the RfC that you opened.

"6. You will never misuse and abuse Wikipedia's rules and policies, distorting them to fit your POV again."

I am sorry, but again, that's something to be decided by people who administer and enforce those rules in Wikipedia.

Overall, as I told you, you need to calm down and assume good faith. Revert warring and aggressive behavior against users based on nationality, summing up everyone with words like "all from Republic of Azerbaijan", won't yield much benefit to you. Aside from proving the fact that you're battling along national lines, you're pretty much alienating a group of people against yourself, and such hatred is needless and unconstructive. Atabek 05:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Azerbaijan relations

No, inaugurating a pipeline to Armenia exactly on the day of Novruz celebration is indicative of openly hostile approach of Iranian leadership towards Azerbaijan. This is quite relevant and worth mentioning in the article. Atabek 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Now well, thanks :) --Brand спойт 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Bangladesh

My pleasure. It would be good to examine the differences in relations across different Bangladeshi administrations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending RfArb

I do not mean to discourage you from going to ArbCom with Atabek; in fact, I believe it's the best option at this point. However, I would like to caution you, so that you are less shocked later, that you may be disappointed by the outcome. Through the statements I have seen from you, you appear to think you are entirely innocent in this scuffle with Atabek. Wrong. You are just as disruptive and culpable as Atabek, if not more. If you don't begin to realize that soon, your RfArb is unlikely to go well. If and when you do bring this matter to ArbCom, I will make sure to bring forward evidence of your disruptive behavior, as well as that of Atabek... just so you know. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

May be deleted at any time. It was a clear copyright violation from Radio Free Europe. I encourage you to contact them and request that the image be released under a free licence. - Francis Tyers · 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PanTurk_Grey_Wolves.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:PanTurk_Grey_Wolves.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The fact that it is sometimes wrong does not mean that it is an unreliable source. In fact the fact that it issued an apology makes it a reliable source. An unreliable source would not have issued an apology. AI is a leading human rights NGO that covers the world. It is biased towards human rights, which tends to annoy governments (for example here) who don't like human rights, but that is no excuse to exclude it, providing it is well attributed, which in this case it is. - Francis Tyers · 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They say reportedly because in many cases it is difficult to confirm. So because they cannot be present at, and witness beatings of Irish political prisoners in UK run northern Irish jails, it does not mean it didn't happen. Or just because they cannot be present at, and witness Muslims being humiliated in secret US jails does not mean it didn't happen. They are a reliable source, and that is that. If you don't believe them, them by all means add to the article official statements of the Iranian government saying that "no protestors were beaten", and that "everyone had a jolly time with sandwiches and lashings of ginger beer". - Francis Tyers · 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you think that:

Please do not be selective and only "accept" sources when they fit your POV. - Francis Tyers · 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source do say reportedly. All the time. Just because you cannot confirm something does not mean you shouldn't report it. This is why they say reportedly instead of stating it as fact. They have a good reputation, which is why they are one of the largest human-rights NGOs in the world (if not the largest). Perhaps you can name another reliable source for human-rights, or perhaps you don't believe in human-rights, or non-governmental organisations making reports on these subjects. If not, then you are entitled to your opinion, but according to all Wikipedia policy, AI is a reliable source and their statements, when properly attributed should be included in articles about human-rights. - Francis Tyers · 13:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is also a good source. Now we have two reports which give two figures, there is an overlap, and we present them both, properly attributed. That is the essence of npov. Glad we could sort this out :) - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stated that AI admits and apologises for its mistakes. - Francis Tyers · 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets review:

Iranian government says: 330 people arrested
AI says: hundreds or thousands of people arrested

Iranian government says: 4 demonstrators killed
AI says: 20 or more demonstrators killed.

Now, these aren't exactly wildly different, so there is no harm in reporting both. Just as for the Stop the War Coalition marches the numbers who turned out differed between the police, organisers, independent organisations. In some cases, the numbers differed into the hundreds of thousands. We report both sides of the story for NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 13:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry if I came off a bit strong! :) I'm in the office on a Saturday and the air conditioning isn't working! :) - Francis Tyers · 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom

I opened Arbcom page. please make your comments. [13]--Dacy69 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 18 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have been turned in to the secret police

See [[14]]. You have been accused of being a sockpuppet. The checkuser did not find you guilty. You are innocent! Please do not revenge. Vectorsap 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Actually, if you notice out of all involved editors, it seems that you are the only one involved in intimidation, revert warring, wikistalking my every single edit, and, in fact, starting the whole campaign wasting community's time with RfC and ArbCom. As my exchanges show, I do discuss and communicate constructively with all involved editors on all sides. I hope ArbCom makes a note of this for future reference, even though I believe this whole conflict started by yourself (I wasn't the one filing RfC and ArbCom, you were) could be solved in a more constructive manner without community time wasting, if you only assumed good faith and showed full desire for mediation, which you never did. I am still open for discussions if you want constructive editing. Thanks. Atabek 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Issue: Hajji Piruz ??.

Hi there!

Thank You for Your response about the Passport history.

How ever I would like to see a seperate article about it, The Iranian Passports and its history. That's exactly what I talked about.

About Iranian national IQ: I think it should be a seprate section or article to put some light on the issue (???).

Regards :=D

Arbitration

You recently added Zondi as a party to the arbitration case that is about to be opened. From the page history, it appears that this editor was added by another user who then decided that it was not necessary that this editor be a party. I am not able to tell whether you believe that this editor should be a party or whether you were just reverting what you thought was an unauthorized removal. Could you please advise whether you believe this editor is a necessary party to the case and if so why. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Persian Expedition of 1796

Hello. Well, the Republic of Azerbaijan did not exist then, but the term Azerbaijani khanates is commonly used by scholars to denote these polities, isn’t it? Imho, "Eastern Southern Caucasus" sounds even more artificial as the term belongs to the relatively recently adopted geopolitical nomenclature. Thanks, Kober^Talk 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Checkuser on AdilBaguirov

Thanks for changing that. Also, some people are sticklers that when someone puts a code B down, they want an arbcom link. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks good, just got to wait for CU to come along and look at it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Shia in Iran

Salam. I saw your edit[15] and These are some good sources for this issue: Converting Persia, Religion and power in Safavid Empire

I hope that you be able to read persian. issue:[16], [17], [18]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I'm glad that you now see [19] what I saw [20][21]. The Behnam 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddadids

Saw your comment on the Shaddadid talk page. I will soon start expanding it and fixing it up. Wondering if you would like to co-operate.69.125.210.7 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]