Talk:Masoud Alimohammadi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Iran  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Reference #7 is NOT a link to TIME! its Haratz !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 

Political views[edit]

It appears that all websites are quoting a blog site as a source to prove that Mr. Masoud Alimohammadi was a co-signatory of a letter in support of and to Mr. Mosavi. But the Persian source clearly identifies its signers as Professors of Tehran Medical Sciences University and not the Physics department. It appears there is another professor with the same name in Medical University. 22:03, 12 January 2010

There appears to be a continuous effort of vandalism to make look Mr. Alimohammadi was a green supporter by referencing this blog: , or alternatively a green movement website called kalmeh: , which is itself sourcing the above mentioned blog. As I have said above, the blog is referring to an individual with the same name in Tehran medical university and not the physics department. -- (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Professor Alimohammadi's field of expertise[edit]

By looking through the list of publications of Professor Alimohammdi, on his official website at Department of Physics of University of Tehran (here), without any doubt Professor Alimohammadi has been working in the field of Quantum Field Theory (or Gauge Theory) --- notice the publications on the Yang-Mills theory, etc. --- and Quantum Gravity --- notice the publications on dark-energy models. These areas of research commonly fall under the heading of Elementary particle physics. Interestingly, by looking here, we see the following:

"Alimohammadi, Masoud
Professor Elementary Particle Physics, Ph.D., Sharif University of Technology, Iran (1992)"

It follows that it is fair to call Professor Alimohammadi an Elementary-particle physicist.

I take the opportunity and point out that calling Professor Alimohammadi a Nuclear physicist (as some have done, such as BBC earlier yesterday), thereby suggesting that he might have had some expertise in the area of, let us say, nuclear enrichment, is utterly inappropriate (in fact, according to the latest official announcement of the Iranian Atomic Agency, as reported by, I think to remember, Mehr News Agency, Professor Alimohammadi has not had any professional association with this Agency). There is absolutely nothing in the list of publications of Professor Alimohammdi remotely suggestive of any expertise in such or similar area of research. --BF 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar for author:"Masoud Alimohammadi" shows seven research papers, none on them on nuclear science or technology. I also point out that although on his university web page he reports to have published five papers in the journal "Nuclear Physics" the titles of none of them are on the subject of nuclear physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
Just a brief note: the journal Nuclear Physics publishes original papers that are totally unrelated to what one generally understands by nuclear physics. The name of the journal has a historical reason, and its reputation as an outstanding journal has made that despite their very broad scope of publication, they have never attempted to change the name of the journal into something more representative of this broad scope. Here is the specification of the domain of in particular Nuclear Physics B, where one clearly sees such terms as quantum field theory, particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics and gravitation, computer simulations in physics, methods in theoretical physics, field theory and statistical systems and physical mathematics. In short, publishing in the journal Nuclear Physics B does not imply that the publication is even remotely related to what generally is understood by the term nuclear physics. --BF 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed[edit]

From the Assassination section I removed: "Ynetnews noted, that for the major Israeli news outlet, there is no known connection between his participation in nuclear research and the assassination." Reason for removal: The article cited does not say anything about nuclear research, rather connection between sesame and the assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blind quote : It should be noted that currently there is no known connection between his participation in SESAME and the assassination.

SESAME is a nuclear research project so

It should be noted that currently there is no known connection between his participation in SESAME nuclear research project and the assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Sesame is not a nuclear research project. It is an international particle physics initiative with no connection with Iranian nuclear program. You tried to mislead readers by substituting nuclear program (of Iran) for sesame. You are a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A subject this important is bound to raise emotions in the best of us, but please, let's keep WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL during discussions, and refrain from insults. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Particle physic research is obviously part of nuclear research, you can consult Wikipedia to get more information. Do you think that talking about a little (quite invisible) particles will influence reader ? No mater how civil (and rather hot not cold energy).—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

His Participation in the SESAME project could be mentioned under education or somewhere - but not under assassination! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, particle research can legitimately called "nuclear research" in one sense. The problem is one of interpretation: in English, the word "nuclear" is very imprecisely defined in common usage, and its use often connotes research into nuclear power or nuclear weapons. We can avoid this ambiguity by referring very specifically to the SESAME project by name, as noted in the references cited, rather than the more vague term "nuclear research". MuffledThud (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But please do not use the word nuclear - as MuffledThud wrote it is associated with nuclear power or even worse. And I think it is not worth mention this under assassination. The article does contain nearly no information. Noone would think about a connection between the SESAME project and the assassination—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief technical note: Synchrotron-radiation facilities are not related to nuclear research, as this term is commonly understood. A synchrotron-radiation facility is, put simply, a high-quality light source, to be likened with a perfect and extremely expensive light bulb. The quality (in terms of spectral quality) and intensity of "light" (not necessarily in the visible part of the spectrum) as generated by a synchrotron-radiation facility enables one to study materials (ranging from small pieces of crystalline material to small cultures of biological molecules) on very small scales, i.e. on the molecular and atomic scales (depending on the wavelength of the "light" that one at a given time taps from the radiation facility). When one visits a synchrotron-radiation facility, one is strongly reminded of a middle-eastern bazzar: one sees a large number of experimentalists around a circular region (inside which charged particles are being accelerated to generate radiation) clustered around tens of relatively small experimental set-ups; each of these groups is tapping a bit of the radiation and recording spectroscopic data coming off the samples exposed to synchrotron radiation. In short, the whole thing is quite mundane. --BF 20:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


I created this section, with the view to keep analysis of assassination separate from investigation.-- (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


I added another presstv source containing a possible involvement of the tondar commandos. Some other presstv sources may be obsolete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

POV bias in Analysis section[edit]

I think that the analysis section is not so useful at the moment, due to the point of view bias; it cites the opinions of just 2 people, Meir Javedanfar "an Israeli-Iranian analyst" (basically as far as I can tell some guy who has published a book) and Flynt Leverett, who does indeed seem to be a notable person whose opinion is probably worth quoting here, but who doesn't give nearly as definitive a position on this issue in the reference as the analysis section of this article seems to imply. I haven't been following this too closely, but a glance at some of the sources cited in this article makes it seem to me that there are lots of other speculations floating around about who was behind the assassination besides the "assassinated as part of a covert operation" theory. However, the analysis section currently reflects this theory only, giving this particular theory undue weight. I don't have time/inclination at the moment to read various people's speculations about who assassinated this scientist; but I think that it would improve the article for the analysis section to be more balanced.

Another idea is to merge the analysis section with the investigation section and call the merged section Investigation and Analysis. I think that format could make more sense, because the Investigation section currently contains content besides the official government investigation of the assassination. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

original research[edit]

This Information is original research WP:PRIMARY:"These statements are however at odds with the fact that although Professor Alimohammadi had supported Mr Mir Hossein Mousavi as Presidential Candidate, he was not supportive of the street protests subsequent to the 12th June elections. This fact is evident from Professor Alimohammadi's extensive statements during the open-discussion seminar that he himself had organised and led at Department of Physics of University of Tehran one week before his assassination".Bluestartoday (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! All one needs is knowing Persian and having some 70 minutes of spare time to listen to the audio recording at issue! I know Persian, and have spent twice the time mentioned to listen to the recording twice. No original research is performed thereby! In particular, I have stated absolutely nothing that Professor Alimohammadi himself has not stated in this meeting; in other words, I have not interpreted him. Incidentally, some students present at the meeting in question have taken notes (in particular of what Professor Alimohammadi had been writing down on blackboard) and now published the minutes of the meeting on the Internet (in point of fact, those who have listened to the audio recording will know that at the outset of the seminar some students ask Professor Alimohammadi whether they could publish a report of the meeting in some students' newspapers, and Professor Alimohammadi makes no objection to that). Here is the pertinent website; the name of the blog is Dāneshjoujān-e Ostād Masoud Alimohammadi (Students of Professor Masoud Alimohammadi). Incidentally, what I have written, and now strangely been considered as constituting "original research", it infinitely better and more informed than that ignorant scribbling by Alan Cowell in New York Times. How people can write such utter nonsense (based on absolutely nothing tangible) and then publish it is simply beyond my comprehension! Bluestartoday: the fundamental question to be asked is where this gentleman, Mr Alan Cowell, has got his supposedly infinite wisdom from? Sitting in Paris, he seems to be knowing things having taken place in some corner of Tehran that he possibly cannot have known. In my case, in contrast, every word that I have written can be directly traced back to the explicit statements by Professor Alimohammadi himself. --BF 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY:Do not make analytic or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source, your information:"These statements-NY Times article- are however at odds with the fact that although Professor ..." is original research.Bluestartoday (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I do what I deem correct to do! There was no claim, analytic or otherwise, in my earlier response. Further, if my undertaking leading to what I have written in the main text constitutes "original research", then what do the mental activities, if any, leading to the utterly unfounded claims by Alan Cowell constitute? It should be needless to say that there is no difference between printed material and recorded material: one perceives the former through one's eyes and the latter through one's ears. What I have written in the main text is what one clearly hears by listening to the voice of Professor Alimohammadi. Is Professor Alimohammadi's own words more reliable, or Alan Cowell's scribblings? I must say, I am left with a bitter taste by your reasoning: you seem to be putting infinitely more value on the say-so of a hireling of the NY-Times (to be sure, he doesn't write for free), than the words of the man himself! I emphasise once more, that listening to a recorded voice in no different from reading the transcript of that voice, and as much as reading a published transcript does not amount to performing 'original research' (otherwise, reading the piece by Alan Cowell would also amount to performing 'original research'), listening to a publicly-available tape-recording on no account can amount to what you allege it to be.
I propose that we end this fruitless discussion, here and now. It seems to me that for some reason you prefer the fantastic claims by Alan Cowell (he may be saying things that please you and your taste, which being private matters, are of no interest to me) than the truth as clearly and unequivocally repeatedly stated by Professor Alimohammadi himself during his seminar at issue.
In closing, may I be so rude as to state that I find it highly remarkable that you have joined Wikipedia on 15 January 2010 (i.e. yesterday), with your only two contributions to Wikipedia on this very page?! It comes as very surprising to me that on your arrival you have based your argument on "original research WP:PRIMARY" (your first comment on this page is dated 15 January 2010). You must admit, that something is not right here! I am inclined to think that at the very least you are hiding your real identity by using a secondary username. If so, may I hereby remind you of what one thinks about sock puppetry on Wikipedia? --BF 18:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Bluestartoday: I find your sly removal of the text under discussion as beneath contempt! It is absolutely shameful that on the one hand you bring up a point for discussion, but on the other remove the piece that wanted removed any way. I have no word to express my disgust at such hypocrisy so blatantly at display here! --BF 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear BF, I think it is strongly original research. --Taranet (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Taranet: Good! It is however a fact that the sound recording at issue is available to all, so that the veracity of the statement in my text can be verified by all. The term original research should not be abused, since it concerns subjective creations of the imagination, not the objective facts! To give an example, if I had made a statement about the artistic merits or demerits of a feature film and my statement could not be matched with a similar statement in a published film review of the film somewhere, then possibly the original research argument could be invoked in opposition to my statement. In the case at hand, I have said not one word more than what can be heard by all in the publicly-available tape-recording of Professor Alimohammadi's last public seminar! What could possibly be subjective about what I have written? Further, what is "researchy" about what I have written? I do realise that what Professor Alimohammadi has said in his seminar gives the lie to the fantastic story that Alan Cowell has scribbled for the NY Times, and people seem not to like that. But Wikipedia is not about our political likes and dislikes; it is about what we, as ordinary citizens of this world, have reason to believe to be right. If to be "green" means to close one's eyes to facts as they are, to obfuscate and to lie, then not only am I not "green", but will never be one! Facts are sacred, and political expediency cannot change this most fundamental principle. --BF 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Taranet: I find it unforgivable that you took to remove the text at issue. Worse, you failed to report the removal of this text in your relevant edit summary? What am I to conclude from these less-than-candid acts? Am I to conclude that User:Bluestartoday is the "Sock puppet" of User:Taranet? Even if this is not the case, why have you began to act in such manner? I had a totally different impression from you! You disappointed me! What is your aim actually for acting like this? Suppress facts and promote a story founded in fantasy? --BF 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote it's original research , unreliable weblog reference). As the other users confirm it.--Taranet (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Bluestartoday and Taranet are quite obviously right here, the sentence "[t]hese statements are however at odds with the fact ..." is about as blatantly OR as it gets. BF, you need to back off of this issue, seriously. Fut.Perf. 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Back off on what? Get someone who knows Persian to listen to the tape at issue! These fantastic things that they are trying to attribute to Alimohammdi are not borne out by what Alimohammdi clearly and unequivocally has mentioned in his seminar! I have not related even a fraction of the things that Alimohammdi has said in his last seminar. Yes, Alimohammadi did support Mir Hossein Mousavi as presidential candidate, and yes he was one of the signatories of the letter protesting the unlawful entrance of the security forces into University premises (something any human being with a modicum of humanity in him/her would do --- I certainly would do, even if that would cost me my job and even my personal safety), but many of the things being said about him after his death are simply not supported by his own public statements! In the course of the seminar he makes some suggestions and when confronted with some alternative suggestions by some students, he clearly and unequivocally rejects these suggestions as not being in conformity with his viewpoints (and does so extremely kindly and politely). Given these undeniable facts, what is there to warrant backing off? Unless you intend to intimidate, I simply fail to comprehend your logic! What Alan Cowell says are truly at odds with the sentiments uttered by Alimohammadi, not once, but many times over! (The seminar at issue lasted for over 2 hours.) It seems to me that this Wikipedia entry on Alimohammadi has given rise to a field-day for some to discharge their fantasies in a public place for public consumption.
Incidentally, Fut.Perf., if my memory is not failing (and it is not failing), you are constitutionally against me, and you have let that be known for more than once at earlier similar occasions (I vividly remember that you once even deleted a message left for me by someone else on my talk page - the message detailed your professional background and how you habitually engage in crusades against individuals of certain background. To be sure, through that message, that you were quick to delete, I know who you are in real life.). I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you did not get involved in the present arguments. My trust in you as an impartial person is nil, for reasons that need no further explaining. Therefore, please let the matter be looked into by others. Thank you! --BF 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring (for now) the attack in this last paragraph, I'll just explain once more the problem about the OR: the problem is not with reporting the mere fact that Alimohammadi "was not supportive of the street protests". That may well be sourceable. The problem is with using this statement as an argument about something else, the hypothesis expressed in the NYTimes article, claiming that "[t]hese statements are however at odds with the fact ...". In what sense was this even a valid argument? Why would A.'s non-supportive stance towards the opposition be "at odds with" either the hypothesis that he was in fact killed by someone from the opposition, or with the hypothesis that he was killed by someone else in order to blame it on the opposition? Either of these seems a non-sequitur. But in any case, even if we agreed it was a valid argument, it would still be OR, as long as no reliable published source has actually proposed it as an argument to refute the NYTimes idea. As it stands now, the whole link between the two statements is merely B.F.'s personal assessment, and as such a classic case of WP:SYNTH. Fut.Perf. 11:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Fut.Perf.: I see your point, however the implication of the sentence, quoted in and quoted from the article by Alan Cowell, is that Alimohammadi was not "one of them", so "they" killed him firstly to get rid of an opposition figure (this is implicit in the quoted sentence) and, secondly, to accuse the opposition of killing him and in consequence crack down on the opposition. From the statements in the tape recording it appears that he cannot have been an individual for the state to want to get rid of: In the seminar, he unequivocally condemns violence from all sides, condemns crossing some "red lines" (such as insulting certain individuals), etc. He explicitly refers to respecting the Constitution, the Supreme Leader, etc. Above all, one should not forget that Alimohammadi had been officially a member of Basij until around 2002. One should also not forget that he was really one of the best field theorists inside Iran, someone who in addition had been both admired and loved by students and colleagues alike (those who know Persian can testify to how kindly and respectfully he talks with students); in the meantime I have understood that his courses at university had been the most popular with the students. My sentence "These statements are however at odds with ..." reflected all these facts, following the quotation "They did it themselves but blame it on opposition groups so that they can easily begin issuing death sentences for protesters. I think this means there could be more violence against the opposition.", which for all the reasons that I just mentioned, make no sense. "They" would not kill one of their star scientists just to give themselves a reason to crack down on the opposition. The fact is that in the seminar at issue Alimohammadi was saying exactly what of late almost all establishment people in Iran are saying in one way or another (read e.g. the Editorials of Jomhuri-ye Eslami, which is one of the most conservative newspapers published in Iran --- some political convergence has already been reached in Iran, which does not get reported in the Western media, and the remaining differences are mostly those which concern the implementation of certain ideas --- even Keyhan newspaper advocates talking with the opposition, however only after the opposition have explicitly renounced their earlier claims about the election results). Alimohammadi's statements significantly revolved around "mutual respect", "talking to one another and listening to one another", etc. I have even read that Alimohammadi could have been assassinated because he might have been mistaken with someone else, someone who had been seen to beat protesters in some past demonstrations in Tehran.
As for "the attack", it was not meant as an attack, so that I apologise for the offence. I only meant to remind you of your past actions which gave me reason to believe that you could have ulterior reasons for participating in the present discussion. --BF 04:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
I take your explanation, but it doesn't really matter. Whether or not you and I agree on your line of argumentation, it can't go into the article as long as it's not cited to a reliable source. Unfortunately, I see no acknowledgment in the above that you have understood this point. But if you have, fine, we can drop it here and now. Fut.Perf. 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As for "reliable source", these were/are my sources, cited in the main page (now deleted):
"The audio recording of the first 66 minutes of this seminar, held on 6 January 2010, can be listened to here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7. The minutes of this meeting have now been published, in Persian, in the bolg Dāneshjoujān-e Ostād Masoud Alimohammadi (Students of Professor Masoud Alimohammadi), dated Wednesday, January 13, 2010."
Can there be a more reliable source than the word of the man himself from his own mouth? As I have argued above, there is no difference between an audio recording and the transcript of an audio recording, as long as they are publicly available so that they can be inspected for reliability. --BF 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
I'm afraid you still didn't get the point. Please look again at what Stifle is saying below. We don't just need a reliable source for the claim that he said A. We need a reliable source explicitly proposing the argument that his saying A is a reason to conclude B. Fut.Perf. 09:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself, quite apart from the fact that you are projecting your own problem onto others: you clearly are the person who does not get the point. I did not draw any conclusion, I made an almost verbatim quotation of what Alimohammadi has said, repeatedly, in his seminar. Correspondingly, there was no claim of he saying A; he unequivocally did say A. Stifle's comment is utterly general and non-committal; there never was any discussion of A, B and C therefore P, Q and R. Any way, this is just meaningless discussion back-and-forth: you have no desire to understand, in your usual manner, and I have no desire to discuss the matter any further. You achieved your goal! This biography is hijacked any way, by people who are not loath to lie and falsify history for the sake of advancing their narrow and narrow-minded political interests. --BF 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been asked by BF to attend here and comment, and would point out that it's fine to summarize what an audio recording says, but we can't draw conclusions from it. We can say "Mr. Alimohammadi said A, B and C", but not "Because Mr. Alimohammadi said A, B, and C, therefore P, Q, and R". Stifle (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good source[edit]

Please use Dr Ahmad Shirzad's articles and interviews, who was a member of 6th Iran Parliament (Consultative Assembly of Iran), professor of physics in Isfahan university and Masoud Alimohammadi's friend. This is an interview, an article (translated from persian) --Taranet (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just hype, and by Rooz of all publications! (Many believe, and for good reasons, that Rooz is directly financed by the Rafsanjani family.) Professor Shirzad has written a personal account of the issue (in Persian), which can be read e.g. here. The latter piece is very balanced and contains almost everything one needs to know about Professor Alimohammadi the person (his beliefs, aspirations, political outlook, etc.). In contrast, this Rooz article, is just a piece contrived by Rooz on things Professor Shirzad may or may not have said. --BF 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Other wiki users can read Rooz article and understand what Professor Shirzad may or may not have said. I am just listing Ahmad Shirzad, (who is a Good source) articles here for use. In addition, we are not in the position to dismiss usability of well-known and credible Iranian newspapers.--Taranet (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Taranet: I have a very low opinion of Rooz. They talk nicely, insofar as talking goes, but they are no liberals. If you ever succeed in getting a comment of yours that does not support their agenda published with them, then you will get a prize from me. They serve a master, not the public. Incidentally, my deep-rooted dislike and distrust of Rooz should not be misconstrued as my opposition to citing it! My point is that Rooz is not a reliable news agency, but a propaganda machine of the Rafsanjanis (this is incidentally not a secret); it is to Rafsanjani's clan what Fox News Channel is to Rupert Murdock's clan. Right now I have no time, otherwise I would spell out the fundamental problems in Rooz's so-called interview with Professor Shirzad. Just read the questions and the corresponding answers, and you will notice an unmistakable mismatch between them. The piece is heavily doctored. Let me close by telling you that I equally dislike and distrust Press TV. --BF 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok you go ahead and use Shirzad's other articles!--Taranet (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This (dated Thursday, 21 January 2010) is to be read. --BF 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of obiturary[edit]

Some one has deleted the photograph of the pamphlet obituary without giving any reason or discussing it. The strange thing is the deletion does not even show up on history so it seems to have been permanently removed by a super-admin. The photograph had been uploaded by the owner and was of a public obituary. Why delete it?-- (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Trial in Iran for "Confessed Murderer"?[edit]

At this article it says that Majid Jamali Fashi is on trial in Iran now as the "confessed murderer". Seems unusual that no mention of these events is found in this wikipedia article: [[1]] Jimhoward72 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Masoud Alimohammadi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)