User talk:Fullstop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A few important notes:

If you leave a comment here that is specific to an article, I will respond on the article's talk page.

If a comment you leave is not specific to an article, I will respond here and not on some other talk page, unless you specifically request otherwise.

On the other hand, if you are coming here to reply to a comment I left on your talk page, I'd prefer it if you replied on your talk page; I add users with whom I've started at least one conversation to my watchlist by default, so I'll notice when you reply.

This way we can avoid having unnecessarily and confusingly halved conversations on both of our talk pages. Thanks for understanding and complying!

Reference: Jimmy Boyd article. As to which photos to post. Please post Jimmy Boyd Rosemary Clooney Frankie Laine Patti Page collage, Jimmy Boyd and Perry Como, and Jimmy Boyd in Spain 2007. Thank You ----


Hollis Caswell[edit]

Thanks for helping, even though you totally screwed my editing when I was in the middle of it. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningview (talkcontribs) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


You have deleted most of the known fact from the article. for example "Bible's statement and refrences,Synonyms..etc". Why did you do that? --User:Shashiranjan18Talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

a) The synonyms are still there. Only this time they are in prose in the second paragraph. b) No reliable-source references have been removed. c) the stuff about the Bible etc is called WP:COATracking, i.e. inserting material that is not related to the subject at hand. Maga Brahmins are not the Magi, even if the names were to derive from a common origin. Whoever wrote that Bible stuff was making that connection himself. Drawing such connections is a form of original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
ps: the Upadhyay citation is incomplete. Do you know what book is being referred to? If so, could you fix it please?

(other discussion moved to article talk)


Hey please have a look and share your opinion on this matter: [1] -- - K a s h Talk | email 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Apadana Hall picture.[edit]

You changed the picture description of Image:Persia.jpg. I wrote that : "Apadana Hall, the battle of lion (sun) and bull (moon) or the symbol of the battle between Mithra and bull." and this is from the book : "Persia: An Archaeological Guide by Sylia A. Matheson." where did you found your description? Thank you. The Unknown 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Matheson is obviously confusing the Mithra/Mihr of Persian mythology with another Mithra(s), very likely the Graeco-Roman Mithras of Mithraism, as suggested by the reference to the "symbol of the battle between Mithra and the bull". See also Tauroctony and Taurobolium. Matheson's equation of the bull with the moon is also indicative of her error: Only in Graeco-Roman Mithraic iconography are they the same: the day/sun/Mithras kills the night/moon/bull. In contrast, in Persian mythology, the two are connected in one legend, but they are certainly not the same (bull=Gavyokdat, moon=Mah). I'm sure you'll agree that its not very likely that Achaemenid-era Persian symbolism is referring to a typical icon of Graeco-Roman Mithras (instead of to a typically Persian story). -- Fullstop 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your right, with the evidence you've shown. But 1 question remains. If the lion is a symbol of Ahriman, then how come it's one of the main Achaemenid symbols of Persia? You could see lions all over Persepolis and on the head of columns and I don' think Darius I the Great had any favor for Ahriman. Do you know anything about this too? Thanks again for the answer. The Unknown 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think thats necessarily contradictory. Even pictures of an "evil" lion like the one from Apadana Hall are visually distinguishable from "good" lion imagery elsewhere, which are clearly representations of power and virility. Such symbolism floats freely between the various divinities in the various cultures. It would not be unthinkable for an artist who sees something he likes produce a similar image for an altogether different god. So for instance, I've seen Ahriman depicted as a lion-headed male figure with a snake wrapped around him (I can't remember where though) which is also the imagery used for Roman Mithras and Zurvan. -- Fullstop 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Any comment you might make at Talk:Mitra would likely be valuable, especially regarding its relationship to the Mithra article. RandomCritic 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I just saw that in the above article you had removed the interwiki to Persian Wikipedia [2]. Why did you do that? Bidabadi 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because its not true. cf: Irani. -- Fullstop 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read that page in Persian wikipedia? It's about Parsis of India (Not about those Zoroastrians who have migrated to india in the last two centuries). Bidabadi 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the langs= line of the infobox. I have no idea why the fa: line vanished, it must have been an accident during cut/paste. It was not my intention to remove it. Sorry for the trouble. -- Fullstop 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, please see Parsi for a slew of edits made by me today based on our discussions. I hope the article is in better shape now, and I've left a few pending questions or issues on the Talk page. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your comments on Parsi talk. All your suggestions and replies seem sound. Please just make changes directly to the article as you see fit. I'll watch the page, but am currently swamped in real life. Will be in touch about Lessing, etc., in due course. (Trying to finish writing a book in next two weeks.) Cheers, --Anthony Krupp 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrian fires[edit]

I would like to start an article about the most sacred/great fires of Zoroastrianism, what do you think the best name for it would be? --K a s h Talk | email 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it would be a good idea, for the beginning, to develop the existing subsection under Fire temple. If you want to only deal with the ancient "Adar xyz" (eg Adar Burzen-Mihr, Adar Farnbag, Adar Gusnasp etc) fire sites, how about "Adaran"?
  • If you want to develop it into a general overview on the Zoroastrian cult use of fire (not restricted to the great fires, but all Zoroastrian use of fire), perhaps under the name "Atash" (Ataš), which is the name of Mary Boyce's article on Zoroastrian fire in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Or alternatively, simply "Zoroastrian fire".
-- Fullstop 10:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I will take note of these. By the way, good job on the Zoroastrianism, we should try to put in-line references and citations and then try and boost it up to featured standard like Hinduism. Thanks, --K a s h Talk | email 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. The "bug" I was mainly concerned with was getting the lede in formation with WP:LEDE, and to minimise or otherwise frame in context the DoF -which should probably go somewhere else to be honest. Its good to have an expert on the subject, as my expertise is limited to the form and writing part. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Zurvan and Zurvanism: wow![edit]

Wow! I created the Zurvanism page 18 months ago. Suddenly, in one day, it grew amazingly!

I just wanted to thank you for your work on this page! - Lawrence King 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea. Yezidism might be related to the ancient Zurvanism. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Over at Rumi, I've posted a question no one has yet answered about a minor edit war. It concerns the terms dervish, darvish, Darwīsh and درویش. I was hoping you could drop by here and explain. Thanks! -Anthony Krupp 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, you must have the wrong guy. I know next to nothing about Islam. But from what I can tell from the edit history of that article, i.e. 8 instances of 'dervish' and 1 instance of 'darvish', and that only the one instance continues to be fiddled with, I'd guess that there must be some subtle difference between the two. My 2 cents. -- Fullstop 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view requested[edit]

Greetings; if you have time and are inclined, please provide comments in the Outside Perspective section of this conduct-related RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 17:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I came here, via the Parsi talk page - noticed that you might have access to photographs of the Udvada Atash-behram .. if you do obtain and post them here, please insert on the Udvada page too. Thanks a ton Sdsouza 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

.. and thanks for looking over the article and making corrections Sdsouza 12:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the Kurds[edit]

Hey. There is a bit in this article that says..

"The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians."

This must be more of a legend than "history"? What do you think? --K a s h Talk | email 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, everything to do with the life of Zoroaster is a matter of legend (is not historically documented). But the snippet you pasted above is particularly "unhistorical": a) Astyages the Median is 500 years after Hystaspes/Zoroaster b) What does a dragon have to do with anything historical? c) The Median name of the last king of the Medes was 'Ishtumegu' d) "Afghanistan" did not exist in 550 BCE.
Anyhow, in the story that I know, in the 67th year of the reign of Vishtasp, while the king was away in Sistan, a band of nomadic tribesmen under "Arjasp the Khyon" (Arejat-aspa) raided the country. During one of these incursions that a Turanian raider named Tur-Baratur killed the 77-year-old Zoroaster in Balkh.
cf: Jackson, A.V. Williams (1899). Zoroaster, the prophet of ancient Iran. New York: Columbia UP.  pp. 130-131. citing Shahnameh 5.92
But to answer your question... I don't think the Shahnameh qualifies as "History". :-)
-- Fullstop 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Meher Baba an Irani[edit]

Fullstop, I agree with your recent change to the Meher Baba site categories. I don't know why some people are so determined to paint Meher Baba as Irani or Parsi. Perhaps they feel it is an embarassment that he was an Indian guru, which promotes some negative stereotypes about Indian gurus. Baba's father was an Irani, but migrated before his marriage. Baba's mother was born in Bombay. Baba was born in Pune. My great-grandfather was born in Germany. Does that make me German? My great grandparents on my mother's side were born in Latvia. Does that make me Latvian? Also Baba said his favorite country was India and his birth home and place of death were India. Anyway, this goes on and on being reverted to Parsi, but I agree with you that he is at most technically Irani and not Parsi, and definitely not Persian except perhaps in an ethnic way. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear clarification on the Meher Baba talk page. It is long overdue. I now understand from your comments that the word "Irani" (and Parsi for the earlier migration) denotes a religious community in India and not a 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' as I had misunderstood. Chris 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A. F. S. Talyarkhan[edit]

Re your move, I think he was known by his initials (and sometimes by his nickname Bobby) and almost never by his first name. Tintin (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder. Tintin (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I appear to be missing something. What is it that you would you like me to respond to? (I'm aware of what you've noted above, but don't understand what you'd like me to do) -- Fullstop 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure that you don't disagree with the move back to AFS. Tintin (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Aaah. I understand now. Well, I do disagree. His being known by his initials does not preclude the article appearing under his proper name. Notwithstanding that A. F. S. Talyarkhan redirects to Ardeshir Talyarkhan, a) initials look like hell in a category, b) there are a heck of a lot of variations of "A. F. S." (with[out] spaces, with[out] periods) that a user can type when searching for a name. -- Fullstop 12:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the first rule followed is that 'the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing"', "even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time". So we have articles like H. G. Wells, W. G. Grace instead of Herbert Wells or William Grace. WP:NAMEPEOPLE#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names specifies that "For abbreviated names (if these are the most used) every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space", so it would be A. F. S. Talyarkhan. So a redirect pointing from Ardeshir to A. F. S. would be the more correct thing to do here. Tintin (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being a nuisance again :) Shall I go ahead ? Tintin (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
sure. btw, is how a *radio* commentator *signed* his name important? Wouldn't it be better to use 'Bobby', the name he used to introduce himself over the air? -- Fullstop 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what he called himself (I wasn't born when he last did commentary on radio) but in cricket literature, AFS is used some three or four times as frequently as Bobby. (While google is not a reliable source for such things, in a search for Talyarkhan and cricket the two names appear in approximately the same ratio.) Tintin (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yasna vs yajna[edit]

Hi, I see that you removed the cognates Yasna and Yajna which I had put up. They were the same thing. Please see this-- Kris ( talk | contribs) 12:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In your edit comment, (and again above) you note that Yasna and Yajna are "the same". They are not. "Cognate" does imply equivalence, but a linguistic relationship, which in this case is a linguistic derivation from an Indo-Iranian word for "worship." It does not even remotely imply that the worship itself is the same, or has the same origin, or the same intent.
If you read what Wikipedia has to say about the term yasna, you might notice that the Zoroastrian *service* is named after a collection of *texts* of the same name. After having determined that the sense of the word 'Yasna' in the two religions is not the same, you could read the "main article" behind the information for the Yasna *service* (which at Yasna is only a stub), which might show you that the purpose of the two procedures is also entirely different.
-- Fullstop 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Fullstop.. Thanks a lot for your kind words at my RFA. I feel humbled and will try to continue on Wikipedia in the same manner. Please do let me know if I can be of any assistance to you whatsoever... -- Lost(talk) 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Page comparison[edit]

Since you are known to be an expert on Zoroastrianism by many on here, perhaps you can help me. I found this page called Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, comparing and contrasting between the two faiths. The page was very biased, full of what I thought was Hindu nationalist POV. I edited it to conform to NPOV standards. I may be wrong in my judgment though. Could you please look at the page before any of my edits and then look at the page from my latest edit and tell me which is more accurate? Afghan Historian 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your work. Most of the false or doubtful information is not mine. However, I did put in that vedic religion initially didnt use idol worship. I got this from Will Duran'ts The Story of Civilization vol 1 - Our Oriental Heritage. He says Hinduism borrowed full idol worship from the Greeks via their influences on Buddhism in northwest India (Pakistan). Like you, I also had my doubts about om and "on", knowing that Om is somewhat unique to Hinduism. But, I wasnt too well read on Zoraostrianism to actually remove the sentence about the similiarity. Afghan Historian 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

little (if anything) about pre-historic Indo-Iranian religion is actually known, but given that no icons have ever been recovered from that period, it is indeed likely that idol worship was not a part of Indo-Iranian religious tradition.
However, the article in question is not on Indo-Iranian religion, or even Vedic religion in general but specifically Hinduism. Although I haven't read Durant, the hypothesis (as you present it) is valid only if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence (and not the Greeks) which of course occurred during Arsacid (in particular the Indo-Parthian) times. Not only is that period not pre-history, Zoroastrianism at this stage used idols/icons too (and had been doing so since at least the 4th century BCE).
Moreover, if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence through the Parthians and Indo-Parthians, then it might be worthwhile to remember that the Parthians were Zoroastrians too. Many "practices" that are today associated with Zoroastrianism are in fact Parthian-era developments, including Fire Temples, Towers of Silence, the Vendidad, etc. Sogdian Buddhism was indeed influenced by Parthian (hellenized) Zoroastrianism, for instance, Śakra was also known as Xwrmzt (probably pronounced Khwaramazd).
The Zoroastrian iconoclastic movement (and the subsequent decline of the temple cults) didn't gain the upper hand until about the 4th century CE, when the shrine cults were outlawed.
For an example of Zoroastrian shrine cults, see Aredvi Sura Anahita and Vahram and read the 'History and Development' section (and also description of Darb-e Mehr lower down) at Fire temple. -- Fullstop 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
ps: Moving to article talk, ok?

I read the new page. It sounds good. Thanks. I confirmed much of your information with some Pakistani Parsis that I met and know, and your correct 100% according to them. Afghan Historian 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Can you please have a look at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Monotheism.3F and comment. Thank you --Rayis 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Parsees v Parsis[edit]

"Parsis" seem to be much more common these days than "Parsees". I am facing a problem that cricket literature talks about "Parsee teams" that toured England in the 1880s while the team that took part in the Bombay Pentangular were "Parsis". What do you normally do in wikipedia when you face problem of two spellings ? Do you use either spelling based on the what the reference talk about, or do you use Parsi everywhere ? Tintin 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When writing from scratch I use -i form, but I don't rewrite the -ee form when I come across it. Unless of course, there both forms are being used in one and the same article, which I then - for consistency - change to the -i form. There is no loss of comfort for the reader since the terms link to one and the same article. I suppose your specific problem could be solved by somehow noting that Parsee is British colonial English for Parsi, or perhaps consistently using the -ee form in cricket articles since cricket is a British game. -- Fullstop 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was looking for an assurance that it is alright to use Parsee. I also added the note as you suggested. Tintin 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am once again bowled over by your vast knowledge of cricket history. -- Fullstop 14:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
ps: the title seems a little ... odd. Shouldn't Parsee be singular? As in "Parsee ... team"? Or is "[The] Parsees" the name of that cricket team?
Thanks but almost everything in the article has come from the Vasant Raiji book. It has nothing to do with what I know :) The title does look odd. Let me check with the person who originally created the article. He probably took it from the Cricketarchive page Tintin 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Parsee cricket team in England in 1886. Tintin 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How to Leave Wikipedia[edit]

Fullstop, this is the old Pashtun User: Afghan Historian here. I was wondering if you knew how to deactivate a wikipedia account? I ask because I need to know how to deactivate or get rid of mine. I'm leaving you see. Thanks. Afghan Historian 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Fullstop. As you might know there is currently two Norouz articles, one at Norouz, the other about the Kurdish celebration of Newroz. I have reviewed the parts and I don't believe it's celebrated different enough to have its own article - it already is apparent in the current Norouz article about the Kurds in Turkey and their struggle. Recently, another article was started regarding how Mazandarani people celebrate Norouz, which was again the same thing. In order to stop this I suggested that we merge, please see the discussion at Talk:Norouz#Merge_2. --Rayis 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism[edit]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll soon comment about it on the talk page. In the mean while, if you think it is not appropriate to have the tag on, feel free to remove it. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your comment[edit]

Please see: Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan page. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lion and Sun[edit]

In the symbolism section, the "edit" links are in a weird place. Do you know how to fix them? The Behnam 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a fundamental problem with the english wikipedia. Both the "[edit]" tag and the images are "floating" right (to use the CSS parlance) which leads to problems when images (or infoboxes and such) are not introduced in the text at precisely the "right" position in the text. What the "right" position is varies depending on the width of the browser's display area. Many other wikis avoid this problem by having the edit tag directly after the name of the section. -- Fullstop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree that CAIS is not a reliable source. It is currently plaguing Iranian women. Absurd claims that Avestan culture had women rulers & the ilk are projected onto the page to a great extent. Should I feel free to take out these projections from the page, since most of them are from CAIS? It is really silly, the articles claim Amazon=Iranian=Avestan. Anyway the source isn't reliable so I'm thinking it is time for the hammer to fall. What do you say? The Behnam 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A statement that does fulfill these criteria should be removed.
  2. "" does not qualify as a legitimate or reliable source in any way whatsoever.
    However, many (most) of the articles on the site are actually "legitimate" insofar that these were all stolen from legitimate sources (often from the Encyclopedia Iranica). Indeed, stealing articles appears to be SSP's strategy to give his own tripe legitmacy.
-- Fullstop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Though it seems the improvements may meet opposition for some reason. The Behnam 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finally telling it like it is. Also, about the Anahita temple, there is a discussion on the talk page here Parthian style. The Behnam 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain yourself from personal attacks and accusations as you did at Talk:Iranian women. This is a very inappropriate breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as WP:AGF. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. *gasp* hahahahahahahahaha. What grace! What irony! What wit! Sheer poetry! How do you do it? Does it take much practice? -- Fullstop 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Frahang-i Pahlavig[edit]

Thank you for your encouragement. I am not an Aramaic scholar, I was just trying to help in a small way. I think your chart was a nice addition. Where did you get the "Malik" pronunciation? In keeping with the other examples - it should be Malkah. (God is sometimes referred to in Aramaic as "Malka d'Alma" or King of the World.) I imagine that if the Aramaic word for king is prounouced "Malik" by some, then the same dialect would pronounce "dog" as "Kalib." My suggested pronunciation is basically from "Jewish Babylonian Aramaic," There are many other dialects and pronunciations - See, Aramaic for more. Good luck with your edits! Guedalia D'Montenegro

Quite right. malik was a mistake (its Arabic/Perso-Arabic), malka(h) is correct. I'm not sure about the -ah termination though. That would imply a long /a/ (ā), which in turn suggests a trailing aleph. Is that how it is written in Aramaic? -- Fullstop 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I wrote "Kalbah" using no standard transliteration form. Kalba(h) is spelled in aramaic with a concluding aleph. I'll have to leave the more grammatical issues for people who know more than I.Guedalia D'Montenegro 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In Imperial Aramaic, "kalb" meant "dog", while "kalbā" (with an aleph) meant "the dog", and I think it might still be the same in Christian Syriac. However, in later Babylonian Aramaic, "kalbā" was used for both (except in phrases meaning "the dog of"). It certainly shouldn't be spelled with an h (even to mean "bitch", for which the word is "klavta"). I suppose the huzvarishn reflects the earlier usage. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Please see Talk:Chariot. 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello. Yea, I did a rewrite last night also, but for some reason Wikipedia wouldnt register all of my edits and I was forced to revert myself. Do you know why that happened?Hajji Piruz 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

nope. But WP servers have been acting up the last few days. Its possible that the edit registered, but the changes weren't synced across the mirrors. -- Fullstop 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. It looks good now. The Behnam 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your ANI report[edit]

Let me do some investigating... I may have an idea here.--Isotope23 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I thought I could find a clear update date for the CAIS site, but the last update I see if from Feb '06, before the new text was posted on the wikipedia article. I was hoping to find an update date on CAIS later than the wikipedia article revision date, but with the previous version of the CAIS article, thus proving that the Wiki article pre-dates the CAIS article. If your articles are being posted externally with a copyright notice, probably your best bet is an email to the Wikimedia foundation informing them that CAIS is posting GDFL content from Wikipedia with no attribution to Wikipedia and a bogus copyright.--Isotope23 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, my article is from November 2006. See history for Aredvi Sura Anahita (also peer review date at Talk:Anahita). -- Fullstop 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the last update logged for CAIS at Internet Archive is from Feb 2006, which is before the version of the article you created. Basically it doesn't prove anything either way. It's unfortunate that IA didn't pick up the update when CAIS changed their version; if they did it would be very easy to sort this out.--Isotope23 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Feb 2006 is simply not possible. I didn't write it before November of that year, and the owner of the site didn't know that the article existed until March 2007 when I rubbed his nose in some really bad OR of his. (cf Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan) -- Fullstop 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That article on the wayback machine is nothing like my WP article. He superceded his OR with my WP content. -- Fullstop 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)<append url here>


A user raised some questions about the tags applied in the "Christianity and Mithraism" section of the Mithraism article. I'm fine with the consolidation of tags, and it's really the better idea, but the user does not perceive the elements of 'recentism' and source synthesis within the article. I'm just letting you know, as you proposed these ideas, so you may have a better understanding on the influence of these elements on this section than I.--C.Logan 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted long section about Mitraism 22 August 2007 and made reference to "Jesus myth hypothesis" page without adding any of the deleted info there. Please consider putting the deleted content back to Wikipedia to one of those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Nice utter vandalism of 'Mithraism and Christianity' section! The church is pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your fixes the non-copyvio version after the recreation. It amazes me that You-Know-Who could actually steal a copyrighted work for his website and then "embellish" it with his own crap about Mithra. Such dishonesty! I don't know much about the topic but if I run into anything on it I'll see what I can also add to the article. Thanks again. The Behnam 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

that modus-operandi is completely consistent with his obsession with/by Mithra. See Kuh-e Khwajeh, Suren Pahlav Clan, old Lion and Sun, ... ad nauseum. There is absolutely no evidence for an independent Iranian cult of Mithra. -- Fullstop 08:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Any idea why Mithra is the point of obsession? The Behnam 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Heaven knows. I suspect he initially got the notion from, which - as far as religion is concerned - is as unscientific as HeWhoShallNotBeNamed was. See edit history 'Arsacid dynasty' for links that are a "glorious" embellishment of the stuff (for chuckles, see also this) -- Fullstop 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm not so sure about deleting the history of these articles, as the current articles do not appear to be copyvios, and it would be complicated to dissect out the copyrighted versions from the page history. I don't have access to Herzfeld, so I can't check that reference. I suggest proposing your edits on the article talk pages or at WikiProject Iran, as I imagine you will get a more informed response from them than from me! DrKiernan 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure there's a copyvio. For the last two deletions: [3] I don't see either "bitterness" or "Ardeshir" on the CAIS page. [4] They could have copied from us rather than the other way around. It's an unclear case. I don't think there's any need for admin intervention, particularly now that the page history is complex, and you are re-writing the page apparently without opposition. If you disagree, I suggest you tag the page for deletion or ask another admin for their opinion, maybe one who is familiar with "Surena"/"ParthianShot". DrKiernan 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's quite alright, thanks for working to improve the 'pedia! DrKiernan 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoroastrianism[edit]

Given your apparent belief that you, as a nonmember, have the right to override the existing text of the project page, and act contrary to the existing rules of the project because you individually disagree with them, I believe that it is reasonable to withdraw from a project which ultimately is only collaborative insofar as it agrees with your existing preconceptions, even when those preconceptions disagree with the explicit text of the project itself. I believe I may now understand why the project has as little support as it apparently does. John Carter 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. -- Fullstop 10:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If you had ever bothered to read the scope section of the project page, you would, as that content has always been there. Thank you for basically definitively proving that you are making your own decisions not on the basis of what is in the best interests of wikipedia, or even in accord with the stated goals of the project, but your own interests. John Carter 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
golly, gee. Thanks for clarifying what is "in the best interests" of wikipedia. Thanks also for the demonstration that knowledge of a subject and involvement in a sphere is not a prerequisite for definining what is in "accord" with that subject/sphere. -- Fullstop 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And thanks to you for demonstrating a complete and utter contempt for the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, including arbitrarily trying to determine what the scope of a group you aren't even a member of is. Like I said before, I now think I know why the Zoroastrianism project has as little input from anyone as it does. John Carter 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Azerbaijan[edit]

Regarding this edit: [5] Category Zoroastrianism also applies, as the name Azerbaijan is believed to have its roots in Zoroastrianism.Hajji Piruz 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. the name 'Azerbaijan' does not have its roots in Zoroastrianism. 'Azerbaijan' means 'Land of Fire' because it is the land of fire.Azerbaijan was named after a person.
  2. even if the name 'Azerbaijan' were to have its "roots" in the religion (!), the cat:Zoroastrianism would not apply for the same reasons that Allahabad is not under cat:Islam. That is, its not relevant to the religion itself.
-- Fullstop 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute this; Azerbaijan is obviously a Turkic deviation from previous incarnations of the name; Âdûrbâdegân was not named after a person; Medea Atropatene predates the Medean client ruler Atropates of Diadochoi age (Post-Achaemenid period) in Greek primary sources. The cities in this jurisdiction were sacred, in particular Ganzacas and the city of Shîz; It was also long believed that these areas constituted the birthplace of prophet Zardûsht, before it was posited that the banks of Amu-Darya/Oxus, probably along the fertile strip of Chorasmia was the most likely birthplace of this enigmatic character.

Therefore, you are only stating an opinion, which I do neither agree with nor consider in retrospect to Greek sources to comply with historicity. True that Atropates made himself independent from the Seleucid overlordship, however being extremely poorly documented, it is more likely that his name, modern cognate found in Âzarbân (Or "Guardian of the Fire") or Âzarbâd, was merely a profession besides being a lesser king; Ardashîr of the Sâsân clan himself was a priest, a hereditary praxis common among the Âzadân nobility engaged in religious matters. The Vâzarangîg clients of the Arsacids themselves were engaged in such practices; It was no unique Sassanian concept and probably finds roots as far as the Medean age.

Furthermore, according to the fragments of the Ardâ Vîrâz, you will also need to further justify your stance; Atropates is here referred to as "Marspendân" meaning "Keeper/Protector of the Sacred Faith". --The Persian Cataphract 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that, in the lead, the article says that it the word derives from Old Persian. This surprised me - I expected Avestan or something like that. In many cases the supposed Old Persian words are unattested, after all. Anyway, I tried to look this up on Iranica but couldn't find an article on the subject. Do you know if the word is truly from Old Persian, and if so, is it unattested or attested? Thanks. The Behnam 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now I suspect that it is unattested in Old Persian, but I don't really know. The Behnam 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That article is in dire need of a rewrite, but to answer your question: yes, "magu" (!) is attested in OP, for instance in the Behistun inscription (the "Magu Smerdis" etc, etc). I have no idea what that maguš in the first sentence of that article comes from. Incidentally, OP magu is unrelated to Gathic mag(h)avan. -- Fullstop 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rattana Pestonji[edit]

Hello Fullstop! I've responded to your comments on Talk:Rattana Pestonji. Thanks for your attention. — WiseKwai 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you too[edit]

for those kind remarks. I have generally provided sources for my edits by adding to the bibliography (for example, the Modi book is invaluable, but since I don't have it to hand I can't add page references). Perhaps I need to add "Middle Persian" in one or two places. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And please see my questions to you in the Pazend talk page. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look[edit]

See Fars Province and Persian language. Is saying "Parsi" instead of "Farsi" really common enough to mention as a legitimate alternative? I can't recall ever seeing it in any serious source, much less frequently enough to be deemed an alternate name. What do you think? Legitimate, or just a mildly anti-Arab exaggeration of the prevalence of a 'pe' variant? The Behnam 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but from what I can see both articles use those words in an appropriate fashion, that is, in either a historical context, or within the nomenclature framework. As far as I can tell, neither article attempts to use the pre-arabic-script form in anything but a historical context. The second article should perhaps consistently use italics when using non-English language words (as it usually does and the first article does consistently), but thats a minor style issue, not one of content.
-- Fullstop 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not just seeing how "Parsi" is an alternative name for the language such that it common enough to be worth mentioning. Most sources I run into (esp. online news) may use "Persian" or "Farsi," but I've yet to see "Parsi." The Behnam 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
hmmm. I appear to have missed something. Which article is actually saying "Parsi" is presently used as alternative name for the language? (please quote so I can search) -- Fullstop 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
From Fars Province... "The native name of the Persian language is Fārsi or Pārsi" (in the lead). From Persian language... "(local names: فارسی [fɒːɾˈsiː] or پارسی [pɒːɾˈsiː]; see Nomenclature)" (right at the beginning). While it may be possible that somebody in Iran calls it "Parsi," it seems a tad misleading to present it as a common usage. I've never heard any source (or a Persian person, even) say "Parsi" in reference to the language. It would not be good for readers to leave thinking that they can refer to Persian language as "Parsi." The Behnam 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Perhaps you ought to put it into the right historical perspective then. It appears to be the work of some xenophobic hick. You might also wish to get User:Jonsafari's, User:Roozbeh's and User:Bobak's opinion on this. These are very savvy guys. -- Fullstop 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll consider passing the issue on to them, though I may just tag or remove the disputed alternate name in the meantime. The Behnam 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the driving argument behind lobbying "Parsi" for removal? The historical context is of great importance, and according to the available vocabulary of the Old Persian and the Middle Persian (Pahlavî-language, refer to the[Concise Pahlavi Dictionary]), integral for tracing historical designations of this area. Ferdôwsî himself referred to the language as Pârsî, and his work is essentially based on the late Sassanian national epic. That the usage of this term also is increasing, due to higher national and cultural awareness and the fact that individuals are realizing that "Fars, Farsi" et al. are derived from Arabic conceptions... You may want to consider stepping aside, Behnam. Since neither of you seem to be fond of CAIS or Shapour Suren-Pahlav, may I remind that the likes of Hagop Kervorkian Prof. Ehsan Yarshater have argued for the usage of "Persian" in official circumstances?

By the way, Behnam. I'll have my eyes watching you. What do you mean by "It wouldn't be good for the readers to be thinking that they can refer to the Persian language as Parsi"? I think Farsi is illegitimate, and insulting to the Iranian intellect. Can you tell me when this term was coined, and if possible cross-reference this to Dekhoda's "Lôghatnâmêh"? Not that I'd expect you to comply, but please do woo my expectations. --The Persian Cataphract 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I went to the bad redirect itself, Namaz (Zoroastrianism), and nominated it for speedy as an obsolete redirect to a redirect. Is that acceptable? I'm not sure if it will work, but I certainly think that 'Namaz' should redirect to Salah. Did you want to delete it, then recreate it as a redirect to Salah or something? The Behnam 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

nah, thats fine. I missed that speedy. And yes, it should redirect to Salah. No, I wouldn't have recreated it. :) -- Fullstop 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
ps: how did you know of my prod? Are you stalking me? :) -- Fullstop 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm stalking you because I want to harass you for being objective and using RS properly. I want cais-soas back! ;-) The Behnam 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No way, José! Next you'll be wanting me to cite the copious publications of the "the most esteemed and gracious and valued and authoritative Professor C... P... of M... University." -- Fullstop 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply regarding Mihrab[edit]

Hi Fullstop, I added my input, I hope it is what you expected. I can mention the Sources for the histroy but I thought that someone should find English sources. --Maha Odeh 06:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mithras is not Mitra[edit]

Of course it is. In Polish Mitra, Mithra and Mithras are described by one word - Mitra. Mithraism is linked to pl:Mitraizm from pl:Mitra not Mithra. The same is on italian Wiki - it:Mithraismo from it:Mitra. Similar situation is many other Wiki versions. Of course it is a little mess with this names, but i think that my interwiki was correct. Voytek s 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Troyes Cathedral[edit]

Bivar does indeed claim on p. 30 of this latest work that: "In church iconography, there is a colourful representation of Gondophares in the stained glass of the cathedral of Troyes in central France."

I have tried to check this on the internet with no success so far. If you know how we might check this claim I would be very grateful.

However, I am glad you questioned me about the passage as it prodded me to reread the Acts of Thomas and there is no mention of Mary or the "twin" in them - only that Thomas (Gk. Diordios = "twin") refers to Jesus as his brother. I have, apparently, combined two stories I read some years ago and did not check them closely enough before I wrote the note. Therefore, I have toned down that passage. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I wrote to Bivar but never received a reply - so now I am not sure what to do about this. I am thinking of posting a query on the Lonely Planet website to see if anyone can check it out for me. Will let you know, of course, if and when I hear anything. Cheers, John Hill 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks yes I'm adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I've asked a WIkiProject Templates (it exists I know!) to help out I'm still awiating a reply. I'd love to have a dot map thing though, Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Hummm, it appears OK on my computer... Regards PHG 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism project[edit]

I just noticed that you and someone else were involved in a discussion about the scope of the Zoroastrianism project, and that neither of you are members of the project? How exactly do the two of you have authority to determine the scope of the project, as you both seem to believe you have. Mithraist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithraist (talkcontribs) 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered here. -- Fullstop 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me on that[edit]

This sort of thing happens rarely. I struck out the warning and apologized to Bobisbob, he can delete it if he wants. BrokenSphereMsg me 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury page thanks Fullstop[edit]

Hi Fullstop, We thank you for your contributions to the Freddie Mercury page. Your new Harvard reference system looks great. The Freddie Mercury page is also a great way to get rock fans out there acquainted with Zoroastrianism. I have already learned some news things about it myself. 03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue...[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded for your many quality contributions to articles related to Zoroastrianism.

Many thanks! The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Awarded for skillfully opposing content sourced to unreliable websites. The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks, that is very nice of you. From someone of your caliber and with your defender skills, 'Defender of the Wiki' means a great deal. Many thanks. -- Fullstop 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Karen-Pahlav clan etc[edit]

Dear Fullstop!

I do not know in which culture you have been educated. Just I think it might be a good idea to take into consideration that clans of Karen and Suren are majorly known in Armenia and Georgia as Kâren-Pahlav and Suren-Pahlav. (C. Toumanoff also mentions the clan of karen as Kâren-Pahlav). A famous historian Shapour Suren-Pahlav as you may see in his name uses both names. The same concerns numnerous families in Caucasus. I belong to one of these families. My great grand fathers beared the name of Karen-Pahlavi, and not simply Karen.

That was the reason why I make my corrections to the corresponding articles.

Best regards,

Alexadnre Tch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Tch. (talkcontribs) 11:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "famous historian" Shapour Suren-Pahlav is User:ParthianShot. -- Fullstop 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I admit this guy might be a bad guy. How does it effect the ancient names? I just tell you facts that I khow about the right version of naming. -- Alexandre Tch. 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While the Karens are real, most of these other families were not ancient,... they took on old names to give themselves credibility. This is actually mentioned with citation in the Seven Parthian clans article.
I wrote the House of Karen article, so yes, I know that the Karens are real. :) And they are a rare instance of where this is so.
While I can sympathize with you with respect to your great-grandfather's name, its not a good idea to start using hyphenation just because one of the branchs of two families had merged. You need to remember that both Karen and Pahlav are names of feudal families. The ones that didn't merge are Karens and those that did are Karen-Pahlavs. "Karen" is more flexible and includes both.
-- Fullstop 12:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! ""Karen" is more flexible and includes both"/ I agree. It just has to be clear. And these facts has to be precised respectively. Othervise we might have numerous articles with no links one to another. Like there had been with Surens.

As for the name of my ancestors, they derived from Mkhargrdzeli, Georgian/Armenian princes. At the same family coming from Karen-Pahlavides were also princes Kamsarakan, Arscharounik, Hetoumides and others. My Mkhargrdzeli ancestors started to live in Caucasus in the early 11th cetnury with Garbaniel Ist of Pahlavi, who is mentioned in both versions: Pahlavi and Karen-Pahlavi.

So I believe there should be some precisions made re. the fact that Karen-Pahlavi refer to Karen. You know Pahlavi itself is quite a common name (meaning Parhian in older times) and there is a lot of Pahlavi who have no relation to any of the 7 clans! -- Alexandre Tch. 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

оговорено и согласовано. :) you added the -Pahlavi thing to the Karen article, so its ok now, right?
>>Othervise we might have numerous articles with no links one to another
You can use redirects for synonyms or alternate spellings. Just use #REDIRECT [[name of article#subsection]]
This way you can also collect short related topics under one common term.
Because Karen-Pahlav is a branch, it should be mentioned. It should not however be confused with the main Karen trunk.
So... you can for example say "The Karenas (including the various branches such as the Karan-Vands and Karen-Pahlevis) claimed descent ...," but you can't say the Karens are the same as the branches. Do you understand what I mean?
-- Fullstop 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok :) I understand! I just doubt that Karen-Vands are not actually Kare-Pahlav-Vands (?!)/ You know my ancestros used soemtimes 10 and more names when they wanted to be maximum close to the fact... and sometimes they just said... Pahlav or Mhargrdzeli-Pahlav. -- Alexandre Tch. 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is normal. All feudal families were somehow related. It was simply good politics. Just like in Europe... Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp-Oldenburg-Romanovsky-Ilyinsky-Danmark-Norge-Battenberg-Nassau-Siegen-[etc etc etc ad nauseum].
-- Fullstop

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Visperad, was selected for DYK![edit]

Updated DYK query On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Visperad, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

About your username: Fullstop[edit]

Hi, I just had come across your username ‘fullstop’ and thinking of whether it is okay with WP:IU guideline (Just see under: ‘Detailed Examples’, 2nd subhead ‘Misleading usernames’). According to Wikipedia, fullstop is a delimiting piece of punctuation that represents the end of a sentence more or less ‘STOP’, ‘END’ or can be ultimate some times. Does this username (fullstop) sound like as if you are an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia? can also be defined as “The end of everything and the beginning of nothing”. But, in general, everyone think about the former one.--Avinesh Jose 09:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with your username, and as an admin I've removed the listing from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. To put it lightly, I offer a sentence: "Please carry on comma Fullstop full stop" :) Nihiltres(t.l) 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy[edit]

Hi, I shall be reporting you to an administrator for your breach of Wikipedia:Civility in a recent edit to my talk page. I shall also be informing them of your uncooperative attitude on the Mithraic Mysteries page. Do not directly contact me again(except if you wish to discuss article content on an article talk page), as I have no wish to talk to you. Thanks. Fennessy 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dhalla picture[edit]

Hi Fullstop. Unfortunately I don't. I got that picture from a friend in Bombay - it was a pretty small print to start out with, and the scanner wasn't that good. I'll try and see if I can track down a better one, but perhaps you might have more luck? -- Arvind 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions[edit]

I have proposed some changes. Otherwise your own suggestion would be welcomed. John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have any further thoughts please keep in touch with the thread. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a good laugh[edit]

... out of the last part of this post of yours: [6] What an analogy!! --Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

accidental 3RR. Sorry.[edit]

I accidentally violated 3RR today.

  • 19:53, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (34,585 bytes) (Fennessey, write your *own* sentences and put them *next to* the existing statements. DO NOT BREAK/interrupt a coherent set of statements from one source!
  • 15:59, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (34,567 bytes) (→Introduction - Indeed, "no explaination was given for altering this sentance. Changed it back." Particularly, since it adds nothing, but instead corrupts a coherent paragraph, as also noted inline
  • 14:21, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (33,980 bytes) (undo part of blanket rv. The rv was also - contra WP:REVERT - not accompanied by an edit comment to justify it.
  • 02:35, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (33,974 bytes) (→Introduction - rv recent corruption and insertion of non-authoritative source; justification/rationale for either of which is *still* not forthcoming) (undo)

Sorry. There is a first time for everything I guess. Sincere apologies to all. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang[edit]

Do you have any other comments to make on the talk page? John Smith's (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip on Citing sources! I learn something new everyday! I will use the method you showed me, going forward!--Mike Searson 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


It's futurebird not firebird. Not a big deal but, it bugs me that it's wrong. futurebird 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Mea maxima culpa. I've fixed it. -- Fullstop 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. futurebird 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Troyes Cathedral[edit]

Hi! Just read your note and, I am sad to say, I have nothing definite to report. I received one reply on the Lonely Planet site which I will include here;

Troyes Cathedral - Representation of Gondphares
Posted: 24-Oct-2007 18:51 in response to: Wynhill in response to: Wynhill
Click to report abuse... Click to reply to this thread Print this Thread
John: I visited Troyes Cathedral recently. Anyone searching for the requested representation will face a couple of problems unless there exists an authoritative guide to location and meaning of the stained glass , such as exists at Chartres, for example, and I could not find such at Troyes. First, Troyes was built in the Gothic style over quite a long period (1208-1500) and is Rayonnant Gothic in style, which means that it is probably the most 'pierced' of all French Gothic cathedrals. That means that the interior effect is kaleidoscopic, with a multitude of windows ON ALL LEVELS, clerestory, triforium, aisle, front wall, and around the ambulatories, and many of these are not easily viewed from floor level in the nave. Special permission might therefore be needed to access and inspect all windows. Second, many of the windows are badly in need of cleaning: there is a build-up of dark scum on the outside surface which prevents sunlight from entering, and thus makes such windows unintelligible to a would-be interpreter. I must say that I had not previously heard of the window you mention: the most famous window in Troyes is undoubtedly the Jesse window, but that is certainly not what you are after.
Best of luck.

I have just been doing some more searching on Google and have come up with what may perhaps be the origin of this reference. On the site: I have found the following text:

"In the Gospel of Matthew , Biblical magi arrive at the court of King Herod in Jerusalem and ask, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? We have observed the rising of his star, and we have come to pay him homage." (Compare to Numbers 24:17.) The word magi is traditionally translated as "wise men," although "astrologer" may be a more accurate translation. The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel . Daniel's magi interpret dreams and other portents. The book was well-known in ancient times for its prophecy concerning the messiah (Daniel 9:24-27), a man who will be sent by god to lead the Jewish people. Neither the names of the magi nor their number are specified in the Bible , but tradition tells us there were three: Balthassar, Melchior , and Caspar . Balthassar is a Greek version of the Babylonian name Belshazzar. This is the name of a king in Daniel. Melchior means “The king is my light” in Aramaic . Caspar is a Latinized version of Gondophares, a Parthian (i.e. Persian) name. The magi are sometimes called kings because of prophecies that kings will do homage to the messiah (Isaiah 60:3, Psalms 72:11)."

So, perhaps we have here a reference to a nativity scene at Troyes which shows the 3 magi, and one of them has been "identified" as Caspar and, from that, with Gondophares? I really don't know. Check out the wikipedia entry at, which says that: "Casper is a male's given name of Persian origin meaning "Master of the Treasure". It is one of the traditional names assigned by folklore to the anonymous Magi mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew account of the Nativity of Jesus."

Also, see: where it says:

"None of these names is obviously Persian or is generally agreed to carry any ascertainable meaning, although Caspar is also sometimes given as Gaspar, a variant of the Persian Jasper — "Master of the Treasure" — from which the name of the mineral jasper is derived. One candidate for the origin of the name Caspar appears in the Acts of Thomas as Gondophares (AD 21 – c.AD 47), i.e., Gudapharasa (from which 'Caspar' derives via the contrived corruption 'Gaspar'). This Gondophares declared independence from the Arsacids to become the first Indo-Parthian king and who was allegedly visited by Thomas the Apostle. Christian legend may have chosen Gondofarr simply because he was an eastern king living in the right time period.
In contrast, the Syrian Christians name the Magi Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas. These names have a far greater likelihood of being originally Persian, though that does not, of course, guarantee their authenticity. The first name Larvandad is a combination of Lar, which is in southern part of Iran, and vand or vandad which is a common suffix in Middle Persian meaning "related to" or "located in". Vand is also present in the names of such Iranian locations as Damavand, Nahavand, Alvand, and such names and titles as Varjavand and Vandidad. Alternatively, it might be a combination of Larvand meaning "the region of Lar" and Dad meaning "given by". The latter suffix can also be seen in such Iranian names as "Tirdad", "Mehrdad", "Bamdad" or such previously Iranian locations as "Bagdad" ("God Given") presently called Baghdad in Iraq. Thus the name simply means "born in", or "given by", Lar. The second name, Hormisdas, is a variation of the Persian name Hormoz which was Hormazd and Hormazda in Middle Persian. The name referred to the angel of the first day of each month whose name had been given by the supreme God (of Zoroastrianism) who, in Old Persian, was called "Ahuramazda" or "Ormazd". The third name, Gushnasaph, was a common name used in Old and Middle Persian. In Modern Persian, it is Gushnasp or Gushtasp. The name is a combination of Gushn meaning "full of manly qualities" or "full of desire or energy" for something and Asp, Modern Persian Asb, which means horse. Horses were of great importance for the Iranians and many Iranian names, including the presently used Lohrasp, Jamasp, Garshasp, and Gushtasp, contain the suffix. As a result, the second name might mean something like "as energetic and virile as a horse" or "full of desire for having horses". Alternatively, Gushn is also recorded to have meant "many". Thus the name might simply mean "the Owner of Many Horses".

Sorry to be so long-winded and also that I have nothing more definite to say. I am considering changing the wording in the article on Troyes to include Bivar's claim with a qualification that it seems likely that this is just a speculation based on the possible connection between the traditional names of one of the "magi" of the nativity story, "Caspar" or "Gushnasaph" with Gondophares. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for getting me to follow up on this again - it is an interesting mystery. Cheers, John Hill 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Actually, yeah. It was present in the text before it was removed by HolyMuslimWarrior here. I'd heard it before, so I re-added the statement with a sufficient citation. Why do you ask?--C.Logan 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the deal?[edit]

Why the animosity, the lack of good faith, the weird comments, etc? I am puzzled. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Tournesol.png thanks for your time. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I don't know as I've ever run into you before here on Wikipedia, but I appreciate your comments over here. It's good to get some level-headed people in there to discuss the whole WP:NOR and its relation to images. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixteen Lands of Ahura Mazda[edit]


01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly visit this link-

I just created and added this map of the sixteen lands described in the Fargard I. Could yopu please give a proper reasoning as to in which way it is not connected with the article? ---


01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pahlavas[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Pahlavas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Pahlavas. Swarm Internationale (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. PLEASE delete it. Its rot, all I succeeded in doing was making it slightly less than utter rot. :) -- Fullstop 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your own rule[edit]

I don't need to follow your "own" rule. Leaving comment on the opponent's talk page is faster way to get an answer. You erased the Kanji of the criminal's name intentionally. My reason is very simple. --Appletrees (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't erase the Kanji "intentionally." To assume so is bad faith. What I did do was remove the inappropriate interwikis, and in the process forgot to re-add the kanji.
Secondly, even if it was removed, you could have re-added it yourself.
Third, by using revert, you also removed other edits which had nothing to do with the kanji names.
Fourth, while reinstating my edits, I re-added the Kanji names, but you reverted anyway, meaning you again didn't bother to check the edit.
You are really very rude. If I ask you to write on your own page to avoid the back-and-forth, then, even if you don't agree, its not very courteous of you to respond with "I don't need to follow your own rule." -- Fullstop 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to point out about your absurd comment; "You're very rude."
Look who's talking? Did I say to you like 'fucking' as you did to me? Using the inappropriate slur is certainly "bad faith" How would I know you're going to put the kanji back? In the light of the previous edit summary, you implies the whole incidents are hoax. That's why I assume you 'intentionally' erased the interwiki info and kanji. If there isn't uncreated but important info on an article, sometimes, interwiki links are used instead. I've seen many examples of that case on the Japanese related articles.
Regarding your suggestion on the sticking one user page, I have to say like "I don't like the scarlet alarming color" and am very annoyed at seeing the notice bar whatever news my visitors bring.--Appletrees (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, I didn't say "fu*ing," either to you or to any one else. It is not part of my vocabulary.
"How would I know you're going to put the kanji back?" You need to READ, not assume. If you had read, you would also see that I did not use the f* word.
Again, "In the light of the previous edit summary, you implies the whole incidents are hoax" you are assuming. I don't care if the contest really happened or it was just a big propaganda story in the Japanese papers. I see a problem. I fix it. I'm a wikifairy. In the contest article the problem was contradiction.
-- Fullstop 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you left the exact thought on the related talk page. How can you judge my valid revert as "rudeness" and "not valid" as justifying your usage of the 'fucking'? You're very uncivil. Your definition on the "contraction" is just your POV and your assumption. I only reflected the past edits by you and put the revision to the edit with their original name. Newspaper companies have to be discrete and honest on truth, but the Japanese company could produce it for mere an entertainment? That is your thought not from people. --Appletrees (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, where is the f* word? I didn't say it, so I don't have to "justify" it. Again, YOU ARE NOT READING! At least you should *READ*!
  • Second, its "contradiction", not "contraction," and refers to
    • the {{contradict}} tag placed at the top of the article on July 1st
    • my resolution and removal of that tag on Dec. 4
    • and for which there is a discussion on talk.
    • To even *think* I have a "POV" (what you really mean is bias) or that that I am only "assuming" a contradiction can only be because YOU ARE NOT READING!
  • Third, like I said before, I don't *care* if the Japanese newspapers instrumentalized the affair or not. I don't *care* if it really happened or not. I used the sources that were there. I am not Japanese or Chinese or Korean or whatever. I am not an apologist or a nationalist or have any other kind of agenda. I am a Wikipedian. I *READ* and dispassionately regurgitate what I read. I am very sorry if you cannot understand this or cannot respect the principles of Wikipedia.
  • Fourth, you had *no* reason to revert, and you are still arguing with me instead of checking your facts. If you don't want to say sorry thats one thing, but at least *check* your facts!
-- Fullstop 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, You didn't say to me "fucking" but use "freaking" instead. I read your summary so quickly and that is my fault. However, it doesn't change my perception toward your edit. Freaking is so civil language? I don't think so. You ERASED the valid information regarding the criminal's original name. Non-English speakers adapt alphabet spellings from country to country if they translate or transliterate their native language into English. If the kanji are not given on the article, how do readers know which Japanese are "the criminals" That's why I made the VALID revert you edit. Besides, what is 'instrumentalized'? I can't understand what you're saying.--Appletrees (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Freakin'" is either used instead of "very", or when you are upset about something. It is not a bad word. For example: "I'm so freakin' tired" (== "very") or "My girlfriend talks too much on the freakin' telephone" (==upset).
  • No, I didn't "erase" the "valid" information regarding the name. I forgot to re-add them after taking out the inappropriate interwikis (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Linking to Japanese Wikipedia)
  • Anyway, so what? You could have just re-added it it yourself. Which would have been polite and saved everyone a lot of time.
  • And, reverts are for vandalism etc (see WP:REVERT policy), not for reverting edits just because you don't like it. So, not valid.
  • Secondly, I *did* re-add it myself. But you reverted anyway. No excuse because you did not read! So, again, not valid.
  • "Instrumentalize" means to (mis)use something. For example, the way newspapers used a war story for propaganda effect. They "instrumentalize" horrors of war to show how "great" their soldiers are. Do you understand what I mean?
-- Fullstop 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. This is so wasting my time to hear your unreasonable complaint. So you keep denying to acknowledge your mistake as erasing the info first. If you had been cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history, you can't accuse me of reverting it without any reason. That is it. You can re-add your wordings without erasing the critical info. --Appletrees (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My "unreasonable" complaint? What is my complaint? That you didn't read? That you violated every point in WP:REVERT#Do not twice?
No, I am not denying having made the mistake in the first place. I have already said this three times.
But you should have fixed it yourself! Improve articles! Don't destroy the work of others. And do not assume that other people are being destructive.
I should not have to be "cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history."
I should not be assuming that people are poor judges, because that would be bad faith in others.
I should be able to *expect* that people will *think* and *read* and work together to make Wikipedia a good place and a good resource.
I should not expect bad things. I should not expect editors to revert. Reverts are evil! They destroy goodwill.
If you have goodwill, then you should now fix the article yourself. Or at least say sorry!
-- Fullstop 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration[edit]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR plea[edit]

Fullstop, please stop snark-baiting Jossi. I've very much appreciated what you had to say in the discussion, but the credibility of your words are diminished with the silliness. I completely understand how frustrating it can be in something like this -- and no this isn't my business -- but as a relative newcomer to this discussion the snark b/w you & Jossi seems really pointless. I don't mean to cause offense and, again, I've thought you made uncommon good sense with your substantive points. So I'd like it if we could maintain the high ground on those .... Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you cause no offense at all. :) Point noted. But I will continue (though with a more judicious choice of words) to point out any attempts to change the subject. Its a symptom of denial, which is in turn a principle cause for the ring-a-roses. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
One "judicious" approach that has worked for me (well, sometimes worked; sometimes there's just no hope at all) has been to say something like, "Okay, I hear that point; but my question is X" or "Okay, but that point is somewhat orthoganal to the original issue of X" etc. In other words to acknowledge their point but persistently return to my original point. I'm sure you've been down all this road before, if you've been on this page a while, anyway, but I'm working on my own peaceful-editing skills and trying to spread a little oil on the troubled NOR waters. I definitely share the frustration. --Lquilter (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
d'accord. I highly appreciate the feedback. But its going to be awfully hard to spread oil on the troubled NOR waters when one party is not saying anything; As far as the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crew goes, there are no troubles, leave alone troubled waters.
The "[what] you write above go against your own arguments" is just the sort of inane one-liner thats typical for the routine, that usually runs like this: User A say "foo"; user B says "no, not foo because..."; user C says "foo" and user A says "exactly."
When pressed for a reason, its one of three that are repeated ad-nauseum with no trace of logic a) "its been there since <some day in the remote past>"; b) its required (!) for notability; c) it's to prevent OR from primary sources. Well dang, how about preventing OR from all sources? How about explaining in NOTE why WP insists on academic recognition of a subject to keep people from writing about their pets? Nah, those are points IDIDNTHEARTHATs don't want to hear.
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good summary. Thanks for you comments on this issue and the RFC and RFA issues, and your email comments. I'm trying to figure out how to approach these guys. I really think my credibility is damaged quite a bit at this point, since it's easy for those not familiar with the dispute to take Dreadstar's allegations in the RFC out of context, and I appreciate your comments so we can separate the issue of me from the issues of NOR. When all this first happened, I was pretty upset, but after a bit of time, I'm more concerned with how to make additional progress given my diminished credibility. There has been a fair amount of new blood entering the discussion, and at least now the Arbcom is aware of the issue. I'm hoping that everyone, including me, will be more careful about justifying every single edit or reversion, because it can come back to haunt you out of context. COGDEN 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Olive branch

May I extend to you this olive branch, Fullstop? Yes, we are all frustrated a bit with this, but I am sure that it we can overcome the frustration by making proposals to move forward, rather than beating the same dead horse... Let's do that, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine! I'm shutting up already. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than saying this and that does not work, it would be much appreciated of you make some proposals that are actionable. Otherwise, these debates are purely theoretical (and get to become quite tedious) and do not moves us forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Hey, just FYI, I got home late last night and running late already this morning, so have yet to post a reply concerning the nutshell. If I get in at a decent hour I will try to look things over and respond. I have been thinking that chucking the “Other options” section might be a good idea, as it really is already covered in a roundabout way within V, but need time to write out an argument for doing so that makes sense. Brimba (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

what?! you have a real life?! Oh, my! ;)
I don't see what 'other options' has to do with policy either.
The really simple reason why it does not belong in article policy is that its all about non-article thingies.
A less obvious reason is that policy is WP:NOT a directory (either).
-- Fullstop (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just added a recommendation to the NOR talk page for eliminating the “Other options” section. I combined both your reasoning and mine. It seems such a no-brainer; for that reason alone someone will be offended at the suggestion.
Yes, I do have a RL that interferes greatly with my WP endeavors. It’s a cruel universe, but I have learned to adapt a best as I can : ) Brimba (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm optimistic; "no-brainer" might not find that "reason" either. But I suppose we'll see the proof in the pudding soon enough.
Honest: Even though I've referred to the policy often enough, I don't remember ever having read that section before you pointed it out. I wonder why. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
hey, it worked! :) Kudos. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Archive box collapsible}}[edit]

Regarding this: Is this still a current issue? [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The limit has been raised to 500, but I need to do some digging to determine what the status quo is now, or if a permanent solution has been come up with.
As far as {{Archive box}} and {{Archive box collapsible}} go, we should probably encourage (auto-archived) pages to use an index page if they have more than N archives. MiszaBot can deal with this already, the talk pages just need to be appropriately configured.
Alternatively, perhaps MiszaBot could be modified to update the archive list in archive boxes themselves.
Please give me a few days to ask around. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No hurry, I'll check back occasionally, or you can contact me if you figure out. Regards, [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Adamic language[edit]

Concerning your comment,

I'll look into it next week. Right now, I wonder if this article fails WP:NOTE by recycling an existing term to mean something new. And, even so, does it really need its own article? There is already a section under 'Divine language', and which has virtually the same content (and all the same problems) that this article has. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you think to propose that the article be deleted. I do not know if this would qualify for speedy deletion, I fear Dbachman would object. The point is this: I care very much about Wikipedia policies and recognize (as Dbachman seems not to) that there is something very wrong with this article. However, I do not know enough about the topic itself to know what the solution is. It is evident to me that you do. So if you care as much about the integrity of Wikipedia, I hope you will act - either by nominating this article for deletion, or by reorganizing it and at least partially rewriting it. I will back you up either way but given your knowledge I have to defer to your judgment and willingness to act. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help![edit]

Thanks a lot for your help on Mandarin Mix-Up. It was very small when I started with it but Ive made it at least a little better. Im new here so all help is appreciated. Thanks again! KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks to you too for improving the 'pedia! :) Happy editing. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Jung Chang[edit]

I have opened one up to gain further comments on the matter under dispute on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've split the talk at the relevant point so that reviewers can jump to it directly. Hope thats ok. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess you don't need to regurgitate what you've said already. :) John Smith's (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Superior Orders[edit]

Thanks for the advice. I've posted on the portal. Your help is much appreciated, especially since I'm a complete newbie. :-)--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome! (in both senses ;-). Thanks to you too for improving the 'pedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I've changed the common.css to now read

/* suppress missing interwiki image links where #ifexist cannot be used due to high number of requests */
/* use restricted to rail icon management pages */
/* see .hidden-redlink on */
.check-icon {
   display: none; 

but I haven't changed the style to a more general one due to the past discussion on such a generally-available style option. If others support it being more general, however, I'll have no issue with the style being renamed to suit (ideally renamed to the same as meta uses). --AlisonW (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I'll answer your question as posted at the Consensus talk page here, since I've been answering it for other people there and don't want to appear trollish at the talk page. I reverted Kim's addition because (a) I didn't think that the addition to an already too long page added enough to justify the bulk, and (2) I think that we need more stability in our policy pages. Throughout the day there have been discussions with varying opinions. I don't object to improving our policy pages, but lately there has been too much instability without a clear direction or consensus, not just here but in many places. Kim's recent involvement in this topic is a spill-over from a discussion at Policies and guidelines, where I have also objected to unilateral changes to policy without adequate discussion. I would be happy to talk to you further about my concerns. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] (note the date) That must be some spillover! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare you refer to my editing as "destructive"? I demand an official apology. (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


See User talk:STBotI#Error: invalid time. --Geniac (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On External links[edit]

Dear Fullstop, External links are convenient by the fact that without having read the entire Wikipedia entry, or without having gone through the list of references, one can see what other sources say about the subject matter of the entry. In this particular case, Encyclopaedia Iranica is not just another source, but often the most authoritative source. There is however one very specific reason which necessitates citing Encyclopaedia Iranica separately: as you may be aware, this encyclopaedia uses a very special font, which, if not present in one's fonts' file, gives rise to an almost unreadable text on one's screen. As you may have noticed, when citing Encyclopaedia Iranica, I also make an internal link to the Wikipedia entry concerning Encyclopaedia Iranica. Somewhere in this entry (the second link in External links), one reads about the above-mentioned special font. In short, just making a link to an entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica is simply not helpful or sufficient for a large group of people who may be even very learned but not familiar with the technical details of the way in which texts are constructed on their computer screens. If you consider the entry on Hazin Lahiji, you will notice that in this entry I explicitly inform the readers about the existence of the above-mentioned special font adopted by Encyclopaedia Iranica (see References herein). Perhaps this should be done everywhere where one cites Encyclopaedia Iranica, as many people may not get as far as noticing the above-mentioned second External link in the entry on this encyclopaedia. Kind regards, --BF 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fullstop, let us not prolong the discussion beyond what is reasonable. Therefore please do what you deem to be best for Wikipedia. To my best judgement, however, there is a fundamental difference between a reference cited from inside an article and a reference given as "further reading" or "external link". When one cites inside one's text, one refers to a specific point that is being employed in one's argument (the reference at issue is therefore cited in the direct vicinity of the location of one's corresponding argument) and the reader is told, implicitly, to consult the cited source or sources for details. On the other hand, sources in "further reading" and "external links" may treat the subject matter under discussion from a different or a wider perspective (which in general they do); these therefore solely help advance and/or deepen the knowledge of the reader — even in the absence of "further reading" and "external links" the (Wikipedia) entry is supposed to be complete and well-documented. From this perspective, I believe that a source can occur in the list of "References" as well as under "Further reading" and "External links". I would not have insisted on this viewpoint, were it not for the fact that entries of Encyclopaedia Iranica are almost unreadable for those who do not realise that files of this Encyclopaedia are typeset by a very unconventional font (please see my previous message). Now, you may argue that my viewpoint is in conflict with some Wikipedia guidelines (and you certainly do), to which I would respond by saying that these guidelines are in need of modification. Even if you disagree with this verdict, I hope that I have provided you with sufficient amount of information whereby you may judge my additions of yesterday not as whimsical but as consistent and systematic. With kind regards, --BF 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Zartosht Bahram[edit]

I started this article a while back, but do not have some of the books. Only recently I was able to obtain an old print edition of Zartosht Nama. Feel free to help out.[[8]] --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cold Fusion[edit]

You may be interested in the following: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. You are more than welcome to add in comments! seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hazaj meter[edit]

Updated DYK query On 4 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hazaj meter, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Toni Ann Gisondi[edit]

I trimmed the quote for the reference down to a single sentence, does it look ok now? Im not sure there is enough for an article about her. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this should be put back. If she is in the is documentary, its one more. I am actually an inclusionist. [1]

Even if she wasn't in the documentary, one could use that source to state "Toni Ann Gisondi continues to be invited to Annie and orphan reunions."
I don't get your use of the quote= parameter though. That information is completely irrelevant (and its also neither an explanatory note, nor an in-depth quote corresponding to a summary). Its the rule -- and not the exception -- that citations back up what they are being cited for. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ "'Life After Tomorrow' Signing to Feature Special Appearances". Retrieved 2008-03-21. ... original Broadway cast member Robyn Finn, and Rosanne Sorrentino and Toni Ann Gisondi from the Annie film. 

Speedy deletion of Template:Citation/doc/draft[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Citation/doc/draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

citations in cold fusion article[edit]

Dear Fullstop, some time ago, you propose to fix the references in the cold fusion article once we had a final version. We now have one : Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion/Draft. Could you have a look at it ? thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll tackle it first thing tomorrow. I'm glad to hear that you folks have sorted things out. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I did my best to complete the refs, as you requested. Note that some references apply to the whole paragraph: it seems unnecessary to me to cite the page numbers for each sentence. So, many refs don't need more information. I've also asked for help from other editors, but I don't expect much progress from the current version. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see that you put a lot of effort in the article : thanks very much for your help. I'll work on the missing page number as soon as possible. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the requests for page numbers when there are difficult to find, or not relevant. I don't think we need them in most details. Let me know if you think otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin D. Weiss[edit]

I've done some work on the article. I'd appreciate it if you reviewed. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. If you would return to the AfD with a "keep" we could probably get it closed. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Khajeh[edit]

The spelling "Mount Khajeh" is intentional, that is how it is referred to in English language sources. See, for example, "Khajeh mountain, biggest unbaked mud architecture of Parthian era" and "About Iran:Sistan & Baluchistan: ZABOL". I would not have put "Mount Khwaja" as an alternate because that is part of the name of a mountain on the Afghan-India border. I tried to find the version that I moved, but the history only goes back to "10:28, 16 July 2007 DrKiernan (Talk | contribs) (3,369 bytes) (create)". It appears that when I moved the page on 13 July 2007 that it contained a copyvio and was deleted and then recreated by DrKiernan. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick note to say that I liked your post on WT:NOR re the application of WP:N. Smile.png Jakew (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Review the Facts[edit]

User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008 Beam 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't recall the circumstances at the moment, so please file a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. MBisanz talk 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

name change to Aliza_Shvarts_abortion_art_controversy[edit]

I made a clarification of what I meant, and Neil seems to agree. Can you look at [Talk:Aliza_Shvarts_abortion_art_controversy] and comment if you think that my proposal is acceptable? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On Farrokhroo Parsa[edit]

Dear Fullstop, I should like to let you know that I am deeply unhappy by the way you have "edited" the above-mentioned article. Firstly, you have thrown away all the footnotes. Why? I see no logical reason for this culling. Secondly, you have introduced unforgivable inaccuracies into the text. You say for instance that Dr Parsa's niece in an "interview" has unequivocally rejected the suggested that Dr Parsa were a Baha'i. There has simply not been any "interview"! The reference that I had given, and still remains there, is Ms Roya Parsa's personal webpage and the remark in question is just somewhere in the corner of the page. I wrote to Ms Roya Parsa and asked her explicitly to check my text and correct it for inaccuracies. Although she very formally acknowledged receipt of my letter, she never wrote to me that I had been inaccurate, neither has she to my best knowledge undertaken to edit the page in the course of the past weeks. Further, by removing the footnotes, you have thrown out so much relevant information that I have just not the patience to recount --- that would require that I reproduce all these footnotes here. For instance, although there is denial on the part of individual Bahai's that Dr Parsa was not a Baha'i, in one of the footnotes I had given an analysis of the text of her last letter to her children. Here I had indicated that a particular wording in Dr Parsa's letter identically coincides with the wording that one encounters in the Baha'i texts. The chance of someone writing those particular words without a prior knowledge of the Baha'i literature is practically zero. This is highly significant, and for reasons entirely incomprehensible to me you have just decided to remove them altogether. The fact is that although individual Baha'is deny that Dr Parsa was a Baha'i, or that she may even have grown up in a Baha'i family, I have never seen a formal statement by a Baha'i institution confirming the truth of these denials. My discussion of Amir-Abbas Hoveyda was significant, in particular because the Wikipedia entry of him is very brief on the subject matter at issue and the little that is written there is highly inaccurate; the references that they give concerning this issue are also utterly irrelevant (well, I should remove these shortcomings from Hoveyda's biography, but until such time, the discussion in Dr Parsa's biography remains highly relevant). As I just indicated, I do not wish to itemise what kind of damage your editing has brought to the entry, but I can be brief by saying that it has been considerable. So, may I hereby request you to be kind enough and restore the entry to its original form? Of course, you are most welcome to edit the text, but not in the way that you have done today. Unless you read Farsi, you cannot have read all the documents that I have read on the subject matter (insofar as I am aware, there is almost nothing to be read in any other language concerning Dr Parsa), so I wonder why you have decided to remove all the references? Unless you read Farsi, you cannot have done the removing through having made an informed judgement concerning their suitability. Some editing! I had backed up all my statements (excluding one for which I had seen a document in the past but was not able to find its whereabouts at the time of writing) by appropriate references, and, paradoxically, having removed all these references, you have subsequently flagged all the statements with "reference needed"! With kind regards, --BF 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

ps) I notice that you have also removed the reference to Azali Babis. Why? At least once in the past I have witnessed that a person who on his personal talk page declared himself a Baha'i was inexcusably removing references to Azali Babis in a Wikipedia entry. I have not read your personal page, so I do not know your motivation for your action. --BF 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See my remarks on the relevant talk page. Not only is her religion is irrelevant to what she was notable for, please do everyone a favor and keep the OR and essaying off the 'pedia. If you want to add 2+2 together and/or otherwise come up with your own conclusions, then publish them in a peer-reviewed publication, after which we can publish them here. Until such time, your ideas remain unpublished conclusions and not permissible since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Even then, her religious affiliation would be at most only worthy of a sentence or two.
Footnotes are not a place for essays either. Stick to the subject, which in this case is a biography of a person.
Further, if there is relevant material in other sources then refer to it! A relevant source is a source on/about the topic under discussion.
Finally, "See also" sections (and we have been through this before) are a placeholder for links/sources to be integrated into the article. If they are not somehow directly integrate-able, then they do not belong in a See also.
With respect to your 'ps)': I do not appreciate your implications that I have personal reasons for editing the way I do. I am not of the league you are accustomed to. I do not have an agenda, but even if I did, I would not abuse Wikipedia as a soapbox for it.
Sorry about the blog not being an interview. I will correct that right away.
-- Fullstop (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already responded to your remarks on the talk page. I dislike your tone, which is disrespectful and patronising. The conclusions to which you refer were not what you call "own conclusions"; they are historical facts which you happen to be unfamiliar with. I apologise for the implication, but the fact remains that you have deleted the reference to Azali Babis without any good reason. The reference to which I referred makes a case that parents of Dr Parsa may have been Azali Babis. Lastly, I request you again to revert the text, however should that not happen before long, I shall myself effect the necessary reversal. --BF 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

... if I didn't say so already, for defending my user page in my absence. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jimmy Boyd Rosemary Clooney Frankie Laine Patti Paige 1953.jpg[edit]

This is a rather sticky situation. I think the best thing to do here would be to point the user in the direction of Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, and let the OTRS volunteers deal with it- in situations like this, it is best to go through the slightly more 'official' routes. J Milburn (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lake Mary Preparatory School[edit]

Thank you for reverting the Lake Mary Preparatory School page to it original state ("before it became an attack site") We feel that the page contained slanderous and untrue statements about our company and would like to request the it be closed to user Jstupple7, who is posting the attack content. Thank you Gator454 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist and will deal with the problem should it reoccur. I do however think that the article is lacking. It minimally needs something on the number of students, student-teacher ratio, extra-curricular offerings etc, and a description of what makes the school notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Anne Louise Hassing[edit]

Notes and References sections were added to the Anne Louise Hassing article. CactusWriter (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Fork[edit]

Which naming convention deals with this? I can find nothing on WP:NC except the standard "use common names", which, annoyingly, I can't figure out because of the city. USGS maps show it as simply "Spanish Fork" with no "River". --NE2 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that "Spanish Fork (Utah)" sounds like the city (i.e. "Spanish Fork, Utah"), and a place for a river is only meaningful when there are multiple rivers of the same name, the option was either "Spanish Fork (river)" or "Spanish Fork River." I chose the latter only because of the 'Canyon' precedent, but "Fork River" sounds odd too, so if you prefer something else, just go with it. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem; we have for instance Green River, Utah (a city) and Green River (Utah) (a river). Generally the city, state format refers to communities and parentheses don't. --NE2 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanna Frederick[edit]

Updated DYK query On 26 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tanna Frederick, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

National High School Center[edit]

If you feel that the entry for National High School Center needs to be edited to stay on Wikipedia, please feel free to edit! Highschoolimprovement (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Fullstop,

A small request, I am trying to use other articles as a guideline to try and see how I can improve the Kayani Mughals article, but came across Kambojas which appears to be almost full of OR. If it is my incorrect understanding, can you help me (v briefly lol) understand why it isn't so?

From what I understand, it's ok to put a reference of someone elses published research, but you cannot put in your on deduced research in the article? --Merc cyclone (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sky burial and Towers of Silence[edit]

What's the connection? Hmmm... maybe they are both ways in which two different cultures dispose of corpses through sun and scavenging birds. So, now people won't read the other becaue they're interested in one, but at least they conform to a stuffy rule about text being worked in! What does it hurt? Were those pages unduly crowded in your estimation?--Hraefen Talk 05:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, you mean "people" interested in the macabre "might be interested."
Seriously though, just both having birds is not any reason to link them. Everything else -- before, in-between, after -- is different. A see also between them is just as unencyclopedic as a see also between them and Alfred Hitchcock and Edgar Allen Poe.
"People might be interested" is never a good reason. Otherwise we may as well have lighthouses and the leaning tower of Pisa as a "see also" for towers of silence. All towers, and "people might be interested" in towers.
Chief Seattle was wrong. Not "everything is connected." :) -- Fullstop (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Both are ways in which two different cultures dispose of corpses through sun and scavenging birds. The practices are not common practices by any means. You really think that these similarities (which are not very common practices) form a link as specious and mundane as that between Poe and Hitchcock, the Eiffel Tower and any old lighthouse? Come on. Great rhetorical flourishes, but do you really believe that? So, do you just not like see also sections period, or what? Or should editors now start providing citations for why two pages are related enough in subject matter to warrant having a simple little link toward the bottom of the page? A link that doesn't clutter or distract. I just think you're being a little too... hmmm... fastidious (to be charitable) in your application of the see also guidelines.--Hraefen Talk 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Zend Avesta[edit]

I have read about another English Zend Avesta translation that is said to include the complete texts, and I commented about it on talk:Avesta. Someone else there said the Darmester (sp?) & Mills translation is the only complete English one, but I was wondering if the Muncherjee Hormusjee Cama (the one I read about) one is also complete and should be listed on the Avesta page under translations.--Dchmelik (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Nicely done. Much appreciated by all, potential even, readers. :) 3rdAlcove (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fire Temple of Baku[edit]

I see that you removed the bit about fires being turned on and off for tourists. As one of those tourists visiting Atashgah, I saw it happen in November 2007. It was pretty startling when the caretakers gestured that they could turn on the fire for me . . . and then did. Of course, that sort of personal knowledge is verboten to use as a citation in Wikipedia. I am quite sure that Elliot's book contains that detail, however, not having it in front of me, I can't check. --Friejose (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and sneaky suggestion :) --Friejose (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lake Mary Prep site administrator

Please re-instate the ban on Jstupple7 for editing this page. This user is posting slanderous information about our school. We would like the article referring to Steven Rex Clark taken off immediately. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lake Mary Preparatory School[edit]

Please do not allow jstupple7 to edit this page. He is posting slanderous edits. We would like the sentence and link referring to Steven Rex Clark to be permanently removed. Thank you (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the sentence which read "over $1 million" to the sum ($422,000) as reported by the source that was being cited (Columbus Dispatch). As it stands now, the statement regarding Clark is not libelous. Everyone is welcome to contribute content, and this applies equally to everyone, you and Jstupple7 included.
In fact, I encourage you to write something about the school; the article is so spare that it is only through new content (as distinguished from censorship) that the article can improve. Besides, every coin has two sides; Jstupple7 has provided his view and you ought to take the opportunity to provide yours.
Judging from the school's page there is quite a bit one can say. The one sentence about Clark will be relatively insignificant when you have a lot of other material. If you need help getting your text onto Wikipedia, then by all means leave me a note right here. I will then try to help you as best as a I can. -- Fullstop (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunnish kingdoms[edit]

Hi, Fullstop. Regarding to your proposal at the Talk:Hephthalite, i would support your second proposal "redirect all the articles (Kidarites, Alchon, Hephthalite, Chionatae etc) to a unified "Hunnish kingdoms", where a unified history can be presented, and where the (numismatically attested) individual kingdoms can then have subsections". In addition to that we may also list the terminology differences in the Huns (disambiguation) page under a Hunnish kingdoms disambiguation section. Count me to the ones supporting your second option. Best. E104421 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

*nod* But you ought to post this at the article's talk page. It might encourage others to respond as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I see you made my revision more concise, but I think your changes also obfuscated some interesting details. I'd try to re-include them, but since you mentioned some misunderstanding in your edit summary, I thought I should ask you first if there was something you considered inaccurate in my last revision. --Anonymous44 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the problems at Talk:Angra Mainyu#Misunderstanding "in present-day...." -- Fullstop (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy[edit]

I attempted a step-by-step explanation of the diagram situation on the Solar energy talk page. I'd appreciate any feedback. Mrshaba (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Canvassing. Oh well. Apteva (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Mrshaba is not canvassing. Mrshaba is merely telling me that he has responded to my October 8 requests[a][b] for an explanation of the diagram situation. These requests were made on the article's talk page itself. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bromide paper (formerly Bromide (Photography))[edit]


Thank you for making the recent changes to this page, it really needed it. I don't know whether you read my comments on the article's talk page - basically, I was planning to redirect to Photographic paper, which I'm sporadically cleaning up. I finally found a reference for the Japanese culture content; I was about to suggest deletion. Good work on the clean-up, thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates[edit]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Splitsection}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Bromide paper). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 19:55 22 October 2008 (UTC).

My rant[edit]

Thanks. I regret having lost my cool with respect to Tony, and am planning to stay far, far away from any more discussions on this matter (on WP at least) but I do greatly appreciate your comments. I still also plan on working to implement an improved autoformatting feature, based on the discussions on bugzilla, so although I'm not going to discuss it here anymore, I haven't lost interest in the matter. Again, thanks. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fire temple of Baku[edit]

Dear fullstop, the Fire temple of Naku does not deserve at all to be called a Hindu temple. It has a Sassanid architecture and it typically looks like Zoroastrian prayerhouses of that time. It is for example similar to that of Niasar in Iran. The fact that Hindu's userped it for a short time after a Hindu merchant allegedly restored it (sic!) and used it as a Hindu temple does not make it a Hindu temple at all. Above all it is not used as a Hindu temple today. So you may have all rights to protest against it being zoroastrian but at the same time I am more right not seeing it as a Hindu temple. I think it will be fair enough not to label it as Hindu if we do not call it as Zoroastrian either. My edits were aimed to make a neutral edition.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

fullstop, I have had known you as a calm and rational person but your manner of talk here make me think otherwise. You are a knowledgeable person but your views on Zoroastrianism and the Iranian World (note the connection) are not necessarily universally accepted. You can push this Indian theory with all force and do not listen to the logic. I have not delted the Hindu/ Indian sources. I only made it neutral. You might have an argument that my arguments are OR, but nevertheless you fail to adress certain important issues. The sources say that the building has served in the 18th century as a Hindu temple. Nothing can prove that it has not been a zoroastrian construction prior to that date. Moreover no Hindu idols are there plus most important of all ?IT DOES NOT SERVE AS A HINDU TEMPLE ANY MORE. you are free to mention the sources that it served once as such, but you cannot call it a Hindu temple NOW. Indeed I said this regardless of things which you say they are OR but are so obvious. Azerbaijan rep. lies in the Zoroastrian realm, and has never been a Hindu society. The building resembles those of other Sassanian buildings espcially those in the Caucasus. But it does not look those of Hindus. Plus see this funny source below. It seems that the pushers of the Hindu POV do not know the history of this region. How could you then revert my edits to these Indian edits who cite sources whith no accurate knowledge of History. with all due respect, this article is nonsense Tha uthor does not even know the history. He says that this was built after the fall of Shirvanshahs and at the begining of Iranian-Russian wars. He forgets that there were hundred years in between. Shirvan Shahs fell in the 16th century to the Safavid Empire. Safavid empire existed untill the 18th century. A brief invasion of Afghans was averted by nader Shah in the same century. Iranian-Russian wars began in the 19th century. Yet at one place the artcile says that this building was built in the 18th, at another place in the 19th century. This artcile is a mess. No I do not see Hindutva everywhere, nor this word belongs to my general working vocabulary. What I do observe however -regardless of this article- is that Hindus/Indians have a distorted veiw on the reality of the Iranian World. This is also true about how the Parsis of India (themselves of Iranian origin) view these issues. I guess you know that many of them even say that Aryans came from the Indian subcontinenet!!!!!!!!!!! Ok enough about that. I hope you will temper your mood and do not offend me again--Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

Since this is posted at two places, I've restricted my response here to the sweeping generalizations about people/ethnicities/religious beliefs/nationalities made above. The topic-related response is at the topic talk page.
  1. Since my (so said) rationality is (by definition) the opposite of fanaticism, I can only rejoice that my "views" are "not necessarily universally accepted". Yay! Given the agenda-driven fools I normally have to deal with on Wikipedia, "not necessarily universally accepted" is a seal of approval.
  2. My being rational also precludes me giving weight to half-truths and conjectural speculations like "building X looks like building Y hence building X has the same purpose as building Y". Being rational also precludes sweeping claims like "Hindus/Indians[/Parsis of India] have a distorted view on the reality of the Iranian World" or "Hindus dispute ...". Being rational also precludes the notion that words are pronounced a certain way and no other, or written a certain way and no other, or have a certain meaning and no other. All these irrational certainties are pure WP:FANATICism, and don't belong in an encyclopedia.
  3. The "observation" that "Hindus/Indians have a distorted view on the reality of the Iranian World" is exactly the same sort of myopic chauvinism that has been recently attributed to Hindu nationalists ("Hindutva"). Nationalists -- and this includes both Hindu and Iranian partisans -- do not have the necessary detachment to have any knowledge about their own worlds. Agendas, national or otherwise, will always be the domain of the ignorant. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Name for Fire Temple of Baku article[edit]


I gather from your comment on the move of the Fire temple of Baku article to Atashgah Museum that you are not in agreement with that move, and may have been frustrated. I believe the proper name for the article is Fire temple of Baku. It may be a museum today (I have no idea actually), but I think that is the standard name for the structure. For example, a Google search of "Atashgah museum" produces zero hits, but "Fire temple of Baku" produces 451. Would you oppose moving it back? Regards. Ecphora (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The choice of Atashgah+museum simply follows the inane argument that "it isn't a temple now", ergo (so the argument) the complex should not be represented as such.
Atashgah + museum is not really far out:
  • Ateshgah+museum returns 521 hits.
  • Referring to it as a museum is also how it appears in government and NGO usage.
  • The "standard" name (and toponym) for the complex is "Ateshgah" or "Ateshgyakh", or as an adjectival form Ateshgah temple.
  • "Baku Atashgah OR Ateshgah OR Ateshgyakh OR Atashgyakh" returns more than 4300 hits.
Incidentally, the name in the UNESCO World Heritage nomination is "Temple of Ateshgyakh". -- Fullstop (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the argument that "it's now a temple now" is wrong. There are lots of ancient "temples" so called despite the fact that they haven't been temples for centuries (and many are musuems). I like the UNESCO name better, it seems more authoritative. How about using that? Ecphora (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I like it too. But actually we have a toss-up between
Or we can side-step the muddle and simply call it "Ateshgyakh, Baku". What do you think? -- Fullstop (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)ps: In any case, its rather clear that it isn't officially "Atashgah"-anything.
Sorry, I have been busy and unable to respond. I like "Temple of Ateshgyakh" and "Ateshgyakh fire-temple" best. The latter may be a little redundant, I suppose, but it may provide the most useful information. I don't like calling it a "museum." Regards, Ecphora (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MajorActor is Goldenhawk is Maleabroad[edit]

We know have more in the cabinet to compare habits in future, when I saw that an IP I blocked just before for done Maleabroad edits, it turned out that he was used by MajorActor's lot and Goldenhawk ages ago.... didn't know he was that versatile. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

CSS attribute selectors[edit]

You recently gave the following CSS example on WP:RD/C#Irritating animated ad that won't go away:

*[src*="doubleclick"], *[href*="doubleclick"] { display: none !important; }

However, according to the W3C explanation of attribute selectors, there is not such thing as "*=", which you apparently use as a "contains the substring" operator. Is this some IE-proprietary thing, or some Mozilla-only thing, or is the W3C page just out of date? I'm trying to teach myself some more advanced CSS, and I'm curious about exactly how and where I can use this new feature you introduced to me! Thanks. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

this is CSS 3, see "6.3.2. Substring matching attribute selectors" of the CSS 3 spec. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Avestan Language[edit]

With regard to your latest edit on Avestan language, Omniglot mentions that the Avestan script was devised in the 3rd century CE to write down the Avesta. On this basis, I changed the extinction from 7th century BCE to 7th century CE, since it is likely that the language would have survived atleast till the arab invasion of Persia. ­ Kris (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the rest of that edit. Sscript not-equals language. Avestan script was devised in the 3rd century CE. By that time Avestan language was extinct (in the sense of extinct language). Avestan language has no attested continuation into any Middle-Iranian form, i.e. it ceased to be a living language by the middle period, which formally begins ca. 300 BCE.
After its extinction, the only people who could understand the words were the specially-trained theologians (herbads). But even then, understanding the words of a ceremonial, liturgical language like Avestan (or e.g. Coptic) does not imply that conversations are carried out in it. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Heads up[edit]

My bad... I coppied them from the Template:db. I'll add a reason next time.OsirisV (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember not to accidentally recreate articles when requesting for deletion via TW.[edit]

Picked it up on patrol. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moo? I don't get it. Did TW end up tagging a page that was already gone? -- Fullstop (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota)[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up! I've just started gathering the information, and plan to work on it throughout the day. I appreciate your help! - Gr0ff (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Zurovec[edit]

Done writing up his information page. Thankyou for your understanding. If you don't mind adjusting/fixing my reference links.

~~majinsnake~~ 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talkcontribs)


Your suggestion my citation does not meet the standards is nuts. See the Wikipedia citation below, which has stood forever here.

I'm not a prude, I could care less about this citation. I submit my citation is VASTLY better than this and frankly has a better and more credible citation than this one does. I humbly submit you withdraw your endorsement to purge my citation, and support efforts to let it stand.

--Dbvanhorn (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Felching is a sexual practice in which semen or other fluids are sucked out of the vagina or anus of a partner. The acts of sucking the semen and then passing it, mouth to mouth or open mouth kissing, is referred to as "snowballing"; although the latter is typically associated with semen ejaculated into a mouth from fellatio.

Felching can also mean the licking or sucking of another person's anus, similar to the act of a rimjob (analingus) [1].

[edit] References

  1. ^ shrimping - Dictionary of sexual terms

Just in case you missed this[edit]

Majinsnake (talk · contribs) tried to leave you a message ([9]). Icewedge (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform[edit]

Hi Fullstop, thanks for improving the article, however European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform is the name under FP6, under FP7 the name is HFC (Hydrogen and Fuel Cell). Cheers Mion (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at article talk. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi! I thought you'd like to know that I finally remembered to update {{date}} with the code we've been developing. I only made a couple of tweaks to your sandbox code before deploying it, mainly to enforce a rigorous cutoff at 1582 as we discussed. Sorry it's taken so long for me to get round to doing this. Happymelon 16:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

foin, foin. I've updated the doc accordingly. -- Fullstop (talk)

Atashgah of Baku[edit]

Dear fullstop I am now working on a proposal which will solve the issue of Atashgah's and everyone will be happy at the end. If you have any thoughts and suggestion, please share it with me.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Full Stop

Thanks very much for your advice, I really wanted to heed it and thought it was really helpful. Unfortunately, one of your colleagues doesn't believe that Rua Red deserves it's own space at the moment, apparently it's just advertising, I don't think so, but that irrelevant.

But thanks for your help.

WWW x —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterWritesWriting (talkcontribs) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to your sandbox, and fixed it up a bit to get you going. The page can be moved back when its ready. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really kind of you, you didn't have to do that. I'll get some help filling in the details and keep running it past you until it's fit for publication. You're a very good person, thank you. --WriterWritesWriting (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tag[edit]

I just want to enquire about your tag on the first page I wrote about a software I use. Would it help if I put more references in it because I've put so many peer-reviewed published journal article on it. Tegu01 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


  • Using two highly specialised words in the first paragraph of an explanation so that a person trying to find out about a subject needs a dictionary (a German Dictionary at that) to know what you are talking about can be summed up in one simple word.
  • This info that you have placed under the heading of Christian tradition has nothing or little to do with Christian tradition.
  • I cannot understand why you changed the pic for one that requires a considerable knowledge of tradition to comprehend, and which is in itself a poor reproduction. You mention 12th century in the caption. What has 12th century got to do with that particular pic?
  • At least the previous edit (although the unnamed editor made the error of thinking this was about the Biblical Magi) was readable. The article no longer is. Can you either fix it or revert it? Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not only does a reader not require a dictionary to follow links, if you have a better suggestion to express the idea of a "wanderwort", then by all means make it. Cf WP:SOFIXIT.
  • Yes, I'm quite aware that the material under the heading of Christian tradition has little to do with Christian tradition. The material there is all that the article previously had on that subject, which goes to show how bad it was. So fix it.
  • I don't follow "requires a considerable knowledge of tradition to comprehend." The caption is in simple English, and there is no prerequisite knowledge required to understand what it says. But if you can make it better, fix it (such a fix would presumably not make things worse by regurgitating stereotypes without providing a context and without making it clear that it should not be taken seriously - and that includes "yellow robe" craziness).
  • The previous version was muddled junk, and readability is not a valid reason to retain errors. If you find the prose difficult to read, then fix it.
    Incidentally, both the edit you refer to, as well as dozens previously (evident for example in the previous "external links" cruft) are empirical evidence of what people were thinking of when they visit the article. That readers muddle Mageans and the Biblical Magi is not their fault, and it is naive to assume that the average reader will be thinking of anything but the Biblical Magi when they visit an article titled "Magi". The muddling problem will persist as long as "Magi" is not about what readers will always assume it should be about. The muddling is not limited to "Magi" either; the OR at Biblical Magi includes numerous allusions to non-Christian contexts, including even "citation" of medieval Zoroastrian literature.
btw, thanks for using bullet points. I wish everyone did that. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Clearly! (on first, second, and parenthetical sentence. :) )
May update the sock page someday, although I think now that he is effectively banned, we can revert him on sight without having to gather up reams of evidence. Nice to see you still around and on the case! Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar search rescue.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
You deserve this barnstar. Computer97 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you like it? Computer97 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Other Barnstar[edit]

Redirect Barnstar Hires.png The Redirect Barnstar
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! This is for that page you redirected (the same one you rescued). Computer97 (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC) ~~~~

Did you like that other barnstar I gave you? Computer97 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Thanks. That's very nice of you. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) You deserved them. Computer97 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Template for co-ordinates[edit]

Fullstop, thanks for your advice on co-ordinates etc. I have, however, already created a template (Latlongmap) which incorporates the Geohack coords with an overview map. I've started to put this into a number of articles (such as 49th meridian east). I'd be happy if you could suggest any ways of improving it though. Bazonka (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

nifty! That's much better than what I had in mind. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Parsis[edit]

I have done as you requested. Glad to have helped. You can do it yourself. Simply add:


to the bottom of User:Fullstop/monobook.js. Press 'Save'. Then clear your cache according to the instructions. Go to a page that you want to edit and press the 'edit this page' tab (as you usually do). Then you will see commands like 'Delink dates to dmy' below 'What links here' and 'Email this user'. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks also for the .js tip. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Oh put the whip down.[10] You've posted a nearly 1000 word manifesto against the PSTS in a thread reminding editors to stop edit warring. Attacking me for "fillibustering" the thread - or worse, Kenosis, who'd left two or three sentences at most there, is absurd. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. You obviously did not get the point of that so-called manifesto, otherwise you wouldn't call it that, since it isn't that. Perhaps you didn't read it?
You may, at your discretion, consider 'filibustering' to be blocking things from moving forwards, either through reverts (the subject of the thread), or pointless remarks. The length of the pointless (or POINTy) remarks is irrelevant to the fact that they have no contributory content. If you want to be taken seriously, then say something that can be taken seriously. Nonsensical comments about volcanoes and needing a drink do not fall into that category. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NOR PSTS discussion[edit]

I really hate to get involved in discussions like this that have gone well out of bounds of WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc., but I feel PSTS is important enough to wade through this mire of a talk page. I'm responding here to get some clarification from you, if you could, since you seem to be keeping better track of what's going on that's relevant. You wrote, "You may (or may not) have a point. It may (or may not) have already been addressed in the last longer comment in the section above this one. I.e. the one before Kenosis and Professor marginalia attempted to hijack the discussion." Can you point me to the specific sections on the talk page (maybe which editors as well if it's the typical quagmire that's too common to that talk page)? --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for not linking. The comment I was referring to was this one. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NP. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be careful not to undermine your excellent case by over-playing it. --Philcha (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Epistula ad Carpianum[edit]

Thank you very much for your work in this article. Can you do the same in the article Vladimir N. Beneshevich? Do you have time for it? I know well this article has some errors. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good piece of work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist crisis[edit]

Thanks for whacking that together a while ago. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

n.p. And thanks to you too for the oodles and oodles of good work. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam[edit]

{{cleanup|[[Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam]]}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadi (talkcontribs) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, that article is impossible to cleanup without deconstructing the Ahmadi WP:SOAPBOX. Best I could do at present was tag it with {{OR}}, {{speculation}} and {{unreliablesources}}. Let me know when you've junked the unscientific rot in favor of content that conforms to Wikipedia policy. Good luck. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vladimir N. Beneshevich[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vladimir N. Beneshevich, 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.

Dravecky 13:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Please check this page : The name of "Suren" is in "Pahlavi script".---> Middle Persian . —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.z (talkcontribs) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bilingual lexicography, Reinhard Hartmann[edit]

I am puzzled by the way the first draft of my new page on 'bilingual lexicography' was challenged and removed before I could even continue and modify it, as I had intended. However, the changes that have been made (integrating the information back into the page on 'Lexicography') seem to make some sense. However, I am annoyed by the way my page on myself ('Reinhard Hartmann') has been modified by someone else in a manner that makes no apparent sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhard Hartmann (talkcontribs) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well,... the article on 'bilingual lexicography' consisted of (in its entirety) the following phrase: "The branch of lexicography concerned with the production and use of the bilingual dictionary."
That would be fine in a dictionary, or where space is at a premium, but not in an encyclopedia, or where the lemma is not on the same line as the definition. All by itself, the phrase you wrote didn't make much sense, which might explain why someone tagged it for deletion.
The article you wrote on yourself did not meet editorial/stylistic conventions either. You had originally posted a CV-like enumeration of items. The article has since been A) "wikified", B) provides at least one reference that establishes notability C) tones down the hyperbole. See also Wikipedia's manual of style.
Articles (especially biographies of living people) also require reliable sources, from which one might verify that what the article says hasn't been made up. For academics still living, that could for example be the foreword from a Festschrift (or some other similar laudatio).
I recommend that you do write that article on 'bilingual lexicography', but -- since it will be your first -- work on it in your sandbox, and then copy it over when it is ready. The advantage is that you will not be under pressure there, will be free to experiment, and also, more experienced editors can help you along with inline notes. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinhard Hartmann[edit]

I've been addressing your request for more documentary evidence, but have not been able to add two suitable illustrations, which I have on my computer as separate text documents: an extract from one of my publications and a photograph of some relevant people. Why is the usual 'copy & paste' not working? R.H. Reinhard Hartmann (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply cite the work in which you are referred to, just as you cited Burchfield. (Incidentally, Falla is citing/quoting Burchfield). For the photograph you need to use "Upload file", which appears in the "toolbox" in the left column of most pages. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting a redirect[edit]

Thank you for correcting the redirect from "counselling psychology" to the article on counseling psychology, after the misleading redirect to psychotherapy. I think the confusion arose from the fact that Wikipedia employs both U.K. and U.S. spellings. Looking at the talk page for the article on counseling psychology, I see that there are other Wikipedians who think as I do on how the term "counselling psychology" is NOT synonymous with "psychotherapy". I read your piece on redirects at Wikipedia: Village Pump. It rather concerns me that so much computer software these days, not just Wikipedia, seems to be ran by bots - it is not as good as having human agents work these devices! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my article[edit]


Request you to please share why the article written by me was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampurnalahiri (talkcontribs)

"On Demand ERP" now merely redirects to Enterprise resource planning. There is no need to have two articles deal with the same subject. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spider 2200 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I see you've reverted something of his recently - I'm told he is a problem, any comments on him? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he definitely is "a problem" when -- after being told that he is in error -- he not only repeats it, but he actually co-opts the existing citation as if in "support" of his junk.
This guy is just begging to be hung out to dry. His edit history shows several repeats of other editors' attempts to insert rot. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've had trouble with this user too. Looks like he's gone now but there has been some suspiciously "sockish" activity of the same kind on Iranian history pages recently. Maybe it's worth all of us keeping an eye out for it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone in the same mould? [11]. Worth keeping an eye on those pages and this new user (might be above board, but you never know). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

edits to Template:Given name[edit]

I think your edits to the template {{given name}} have broken the categorization of pages with this template. For example Victor Emmanuel just has the given name template and has no category. I did a test revert on your edits and satisfied myself that previously they were categorized correctly under Category:Given names. If you could fix this that would be graeat. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Fullstop, this a reminder to avoid following other users around via their contributions. I noticed that you've never edited Samanids or the talk page before, yet you've recently made a response to Xashaiar concerning the dispute there. This can prove an annoyance to users if done repeatedly, and can also be considered a violation of WP:STALK. This is not exactly a warning, and I don't want to have to warn you. Therefore, please avoid similar actions in the future. Xashaiar has been warned for civility already. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a reminder to not do something that I didn't do. I didn't "follow other users around", nor is there any reason to suppose that I did. I had another reason to be at the article, and although I am not obliged to tell anyone why I was there, I will tell you if you ask. It has nothing to do with anyone who has said anything in that talk section, or even on that talk page.
Moreover, a solitary caution to an editor does not constitute WP:STALK, just as your "not exactly a warning" does not do so. No one in his right mind should have any reason to suppose that a solitary comment at any one talk page constitutes stalking. I would thus like to know how you could be made to believe that "not exactly a warning" was necessary. Moreover, since your "not exactly a warning" stems from misguided assumptions, I will not heed "please avoid similar actions". My actions are entirely honorable, and in the interests of this encyclopedia, and will pass any independent review that you may wish to expose them to. Feel free to post to AN/I if you think otherwise.
I'm immensely gratified to hear some people are paranoid about being followed. The question is why. Again: I don't need a reminder to not do something that I didn't do. You may wish to review (or ask for review) whether the "not exactly a warning" was warranted. As I noted above, I will not heed "please avoid similar actions" since not only are your assumptions false (and fail AGF too), but my actions will withstand any scrutiny that you or anyone else wish to expose them to. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
ps: why is it that you presumed that I was "stalking", but another editor who -- although also never having edited -- did not receive the same attention? In short: why did you not presume that he/she was "stalking" too? An answer would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting[edit]

Hi there,

As a proponent, I wanted to respond to your well reasoned points on the date formatting poll. I don't want to do it in the article as your "vote" should stand there, so I will do it here. There is a responses section and I am happy if you comment back there, but I thought in the first instance best to do it here.

I don't expect to change your mind but I'd like to address a few points that I think you perceive wrongly. I've indented your original; I've removed some vertical spacing etc for brevity but not changed your words.

Proponents for date formatting allege that date-formatting is necessary to extract meta-data. That is false.
Meta-data has nothing whatsoever to do with date-formatting.
Meta-data is not a property of markup. If dates with markup have meta-data, and – as is implied – dates without markup do not have meta-data, then (it follows that) meta-data must be a property of markup. The implied ability to auto-generate meaningful content from markup would be, uh, pretty miraculous.

The metadata is simply to be saing "this is a date". That is nonobvious, as you imply— in my opinion (and I think yours) a parser cannot be relied upon to work out if a bit of text that looks like a date is in fact a date. So simply marking it up as "this is a date" is a start. I would call that metadata, markup IS metadata, in my opinion. I guess maybe the distinction is like writing HTML underline tag or emphasis tag: one just says "put it in this font" (not metadata) another "this is important to say" (metadata), which may be rendered any number of ways (a speech browser might change its tone, for example).

The meta-data instrinsic to dates has nothing to do with how how dates are written or formatted. Regardless of whether a date was formatted by hand, or with [[ ]], or {{#formatdate}}, the information that can be culled from that date will always remain the same. For example, that "12 April 2009" is a Sunday, that it is the 102nd day of the year, and so on.

Absolutely, totally agree.

Proponents for date formatting allege that "date markup has been identified" (?) "as central to the development of new features".
Those "features" have not been developed yet. We can't be expected to vote on vaporware.
Wikipedia is not a giant sandbox. If proponents want to develop new features, then they are welcome to do it elsewhere first, and then come back here for feedback.

But that is exactly what is being suggested. We know there's trouble with the existing way of doing things, we ask whether people support trying to sort something out about it: whether it is even worth bothering to try to come up with a concrete proposal. It's not asking to vote on vaporware, but on the "general concept".

Date-markup has existed for "almost six years now". Nothing whatsoever has been done with it in that time.

Yeah, that's rather stupid, and also shows what a cock-up the existing markup is. There is no point, in my opinion, just marking up 1752 like that, it means nothing; you want to mark it up as <date>1752<date> or whatever. I don't care the syntax either of the markup itself or of the stuff in between: certainly I wouldn't expect people to have to write 1752 AD in the Gregorian calendar at 3 in the afternoon on the 103rd day or whatever.

Proponents for date formatting presuppose that automation depends on dates being marked up. This is false.
It is not difficult to find all instances of a certain date. From those 80 million hits, of which only a minute fraction are marked up, it should be obvious that one does not need to markup a date to find references to it.

I disagree, you are coming at it from the wrong direction. You have also to find 12/04/09 and 12-04-2009 and 2009-04-12 and all other forms. You also won't catch things like "the day after" which *can* be done with markup; and you won't work out whether 12/04/09 means 1909 or 2009.

It is not at all difficult for software to "find" dates in text. Special markup is neither necessary nor desirable. Every reasonably-competent programmer can put together a routine to parse a text for dates. Such a routine is not significantly more complex than a routine that searches for any other combination of words.

I just simply disagree, and I would say that I am a more than reasonably competent programmer. I can write you the grammar, sure, once you decide what you want-- and I think that comes to the crux of many opinions both ways-- is it easy or difficult to write a parser to do this? It's easy to write a bad parser, that's for sure.

Proponents have alleged that (server-side) "[d]ate autoformatting allows greater consistency". This is false.
Automated date formatting ala [[ ]] or {{#formatdate}} does not facilitate greater consistency than what can be accomplished if editors were to write out their dates by hand.

I have no opinion on this since I am not sure what consistency is claimed here. The main thing is the user's consistency. If it allows dates to be presented consistently to the user, then I'm all for it. Look at the nonsense with template:cite, it tells you to put dates in one format in the date field, and a different format in the accessdate field. That accessdate thing, UTC format whatever it is called, is great for a bot (which I presume is how it came about) but no real person ever uses dates that way except when forced to (as part of their job etc).

Articles have a whole gamut of consistency issues. Consistency is not just limited to date formatting style, but also includes citation style, ndash/mdash style, era style, and ENGVAR style.
MOS has guidelines for all these issues, and there is no reason whatsoever why date formatting should warrant special treatment.

I don't think anyone is claiming special treatment. There is the convert template, for example; I use that because I know it gives me consistent measures and also because it's markup that a translator can take that and know that e.g. "100 pounds" means weight not money. In fact I think the whole date thing could be quite happily handled by the convert template if it had a feature NOT to spit out the original value. e.g. {{convert|2009-04-13|date|DMY}} or {{convert|2009-14-03|date|userpreference}}. This may be ugly and I'd prefer something more concise, but it COULD be done that way; I am just making the general point that dates are no different from other units of measure-- and in that sense agreeing with you.

In fact I am coming round to maybe thinking I should change my vote to neutral as I am quite strong on putting it under the umbrella of convert (if not into that template itself, which is hard enough to get to grips with as it is, at least into an analagous one).

Editors are obliged to work cooperatively. This means that – before they begin editing an article – they also take the time to determine where the content that they wish to add should go. This means that they also honor the style already in use in an article. Not just citation style, dash style, era style, and ENGVAR style, etc, but date style as well.

Yep, agree. Unfortunately that is not in fact often the case-- particularly, I think, if there are both US and UK editors on an article. I the vast majority of it is good faith and people just don't think when they write out a date. I work for a US/UK firm so I always write, say, 12-Apr-09; you may not like that style but at least it is unambiguous as to what is day and month. Most UK colleagues do the same, with variations, VERY FEW US colleagues bother to think and there have been genuine problems discovering what day they meant.

It is not the task of servers to ensure consistency within articles. What server-side date-formatting automation does do is allow editors to disregard existing date-formatting conventions. Proponents for date markup sell this as an argument for "more choices". But what they really want is a license to say "what do I care what dateformat, engvar, era, citation style is in use? I'm going to use my preferred one, and the technology should sort it out!" Needless to say, that is outrageously inconsiderate, and – from a technical point of view – myopic.

No no no. The "more choices" argument means more choices for the READER. Editors come second. I know there are silly arguments about IP readers etc but sheesh has nobody heard of cookies? And I know that a lot may be used in shared institutions (schools, libraries, web cafés etc) but hey the admin can set the style, just as they set preferences for all kinds of other things on the machines they administer.

And, personally, I don't want to OBLIGE editors to have to use date formatting, any more than they have to use template:convert. I do want them to have the ABILITY to use it. In a sense to me (and I think a lot of others, especially opposers) it is a non-argument since I think a template could do this just fine, and THEN a bot can easily go through and pick out dates for whatever purpose. Either the template stands or falls i.e. is accepted and incremetally used more, or totally disregarded, but either way nobody gets hurt.

I've omitted your summary as it is, er, a summary so nothing more to comment on.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that excellent response. Would it be all right if I responded (later today) via e-mail? That way we could interleave our responses without having to repeat each other. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ps: I've sent mail "live"[nudge!]

sure it is trewy "at" live "dot" co "dot" uk. Thanks for appreciating it is well reasoned, certainly yours was. SimonTrew (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


I think you I might not have been clear enough in my initial comment. I know what an ISSN is and disagree with you that it is "useless" in citations. Can you please respond to my clarifications and example in Template talk:Cite journal#ISSNs are useful, independent of DOIs? Thanks! --Karnesky (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I just saw your description of NOR for the first time -- your post from April 7, I think. Just wanted to say it was excellent. You're right: basically all we need is one sentence. In a perfect world, anyway. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eastern oriented[edit]

Fullstop, your extreme POV-pushing toward eastern Iran in almost all Iranian related edits of yours is unacceptable to me. Please consider a central approach. Thanks.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fascinating". Responded at article talk. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Persian/Iranian Religions[edit]

Why did you revert the move? Warrior4321talkContribs 23:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the article talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

101 Names of God[edit]


This is regarding the deletion tag that you have placed on the 101 Names of God. The 101 Names of God is a prayer, so can't the prayer duplicate itself on External Links? Perhaps, you could put it in the AFD's section, so other users can have a say in it as well? If it is not too much trouble, would you mind replying on my talk page.
Thanks. Warrior4321Contact Me 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


In the section on Clement of Alexandria under the lemna sramanae the footnotes 10 and 11 have been switched.

Eddy Daniels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddydaniels (talkcontribs) 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry[edit]

Thank you for your comprehensive analysis of the problems in the Church and State section. Would you be willing to take a look at the rest of the article, and do a similar analsys? I think there are similar problems throughout the article, but I get strong resistance whenever I try to correct them. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, would you take a quick look at Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article? It is an attempt to rewrite the article without the OR and argumentative language. I need a detached third party to review it and point out any problems that I might not have seen. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your edits in "Han Dynasty"[edit]

By saying that there is a geographical error made in Han Dynasty, are you suggesting that the Arsacid Empire was not based in Parthia, where the Arsacid rulers hailed from and used as the initial base to expand their empire? If so, that's an argument I've never heard before. Does any scholar make this claim? If so I'd be interested to hear this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, why erase the comment about the Arsacid Empire being a Persian one? I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to understand your argument, because I was under the impression that the Arsacid Empire is considered a continuation of the Persian Empire.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
#1. The Arsacids came from Parthia all right, which is why the Arsacid empire is also called the Parthian empire.
#2. See #1. -- Fullstop (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
? Ok. But now you seem to be contradicting yourself; correct me if I'm wrong. Why bother removing the terms "Parthia" and "Persia" from Han Dynasty and Economy of the Han Dynasty if they are in fact not erroneous terms? I just don't see the reason.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. The Parthian Empire is so called because its dynasts were Parthians. The Persian Empires are so called because its two dynasties were Persians. The Median Empire is so called because its dynasts were Medians. And so on and so forth. Nothing remarkable or contradictory there. Each of these is a chronologically distinct entity, with their "home" places being several hundred miles apart.
With respect to "Parthia": the Han articles couldn't make up their minds if they were using "Parthia" as (#1) an abbreviation of "Parthian Empire", or (#2) in the sense of Parthia proper. If the former, then it would not do to treat the Parthian Empire as being a subset of another tribe's empire. If the latter, then it would not do to transplant the homeland of the Arsacids into a vassalary 1,000 miles away. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you very much for clarifying. I knew you must have had a reason; at the time, it just totally escaped me. Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

good job[edit]

thanks for removing that reference from several articles. I tried to argue with the person who added that, but he/she kept adding it. I hope he/she is not going to re-add it again.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI: That idea is not from Syme (1995, posthumous publication), but from Rawlinson (1873). It was discarded in 1944. -- Fullstop (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please address the following issues[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content and references from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Names of God, without reaching a consensus for the removal and mentioning it in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and leads to editwarring, and has been reverted. Please make use of the talk page to reach the consesus prior to reverting. Thank you. Wikidas© 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Go game the system somewhere else. You have not addressed the issues noted on the talk page. You insist on inserting unsourced content. You have no consensus to violate WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. So blog off with your WP:CONS bullshit. You have 24 hours to fix/address your junk, or it vanishes per Wikipedia policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Faravahar-Gold.svg WikiProject Zoroastrianism Award
You are the first person to receive this award, and you whole-heartledy deserve this!

Persian Warrior----Contact Me! 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation/core two issues[edit]

It wasn't clear to me how the changes discussed in Template talk:Citation/core #Use of cite element interacted with those discussed in Template talk:Citation/core #fix for URL= issues, so to play it safe for now I removed the {{editprotected}} template from the latter. Please feel free to put it back in again, if you have checked everything out and have a unified patch for both issues. Eubulides (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea since -- after the present sandbox is implemented -- changes to make_link don't require changes to core. But I missed that titlelink-not-url discussion altogether. I've responded there. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Amir Kror Suri[edit]

What's your opinion? Alefbe (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI for Catholicism and Freemasonry article[edit]

Just so you know, we have followed your suggestion, and the above article has been moved and redirected... The material is now at Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title has been redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry. Unfortunately, I did not know that there was a set proceedure for requesting moves, and I did it manually... I don't think anyone at the page objects, but if my error will cause a problem, please feel free to undue my move and set the proper proceedure in motion. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Its fine, and you followed procedure just fine, regardless of what the odd paper shuffler might think is necessary. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


This is an act of vandalism per the Blanking guideline. There was no consensus to perform this blanking, and 5 people have already stated that the page should not be reduced. There is no legitimate ability for you to claim that you have any standing to perform this action. If you continue, you will be reported for edit warring and vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blog off per V/RS/OR. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You have made many blatant violations of NPOV, V, and other policies along with WP:CIVIL and NPA. Your derogatory comments about people's intelligence are very blockworthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You know where to go if you think you have a case. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree with Ottava here. Removing others comments on a talk page discussion is disruptive. Tiptoety talk 18:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
He did not remove anyone's comments. Ottava is reffering to some removal of content on the article. Warrior4321 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more clear. I was talking about this. Tiptoety talk 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What? I merely moved my own comment two comments further up since it was an ec and so as to not interrupt what Folantin said. That action is also noted in my edit comment "mv/rm my own (ec) that's now off-topic". Where's the problem? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education[edit]

I think this is notable, so I stubified it. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call, and well done. Thanks. I should be prepared to do that more often. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


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

Gereon Goldmann[edit]

Thank you for your great work on that page. Should it not fit to add couple of words on G.G. intensive call on prayer and Communion ? Olnnu (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Do you see anything wrong in the sentence that Peter Isolato has changed [13]? Is it really hard to see that the previous sentence is less ambiguous? Do you see anything wrong in its grammar? Alefbe (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lion and Sun[edit]

I need your help dude. I have materials to complete the article. Could you help me in copy-editing the article and improving the grammar? Many sentences are not written in natural language. There are some long quotes that should be re-written in our own words. I have enough materials to make a comprehensive article. However, I need times to add them, since I am busy these days with real life--WIMYV? (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vishtaspa[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vishtaspa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talkcontribs) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

??? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, don't worry, this Request is so bizarre it has little chance of being accepted by the Arbs. This is just Ottava's way of avoiding being sanctioned (see WP:ANI. --Folantin (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fullstop. Pleased to meet you!  :) Antandrus (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Rfar[edit]

After talking to Warrior4321, I decided to remove you from the Rfar. Your point wasn't a major facet and the issue is not a content issue but a long term behavioral issue of which you were not a party of. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism[edit]

Prior to your request I have added some examples of WP:SYNTH in Albanian nationalism article. I have made a file on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:Synth_on_Albanian_nationalism. Hope I did a good job on showing SYNTH on the lead of the article! Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism[edit]

Regarding this, Original research,points made and especially "Practice of Archaeology under dictatorship" contains this "However these ideologies have survived largely intact" page 19 its actually a much harsher reality as archeologists that dont comply to this ideology dont get a job .The article is referenced albanian nationalism a fact that is state sponsored as sources in the article point out.I would have to guess as to wherever else Anna has complained. Megistias (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My material is verifiable, Anna has a personal issue against me,

Diff on my talk page.First contact with Anna she tells me that i spread Propaganda and that i hate Albanians ."You, my friend, are very active in this "Albanians are not Illyrians" propaganda. I would say, you have real hate toward Albanians".

  • On Albanian nationalism talk page

diff on Albanian nationalism,Anna writes."I would not be surprised if it would write "All Albanians are pigs, and they should all burn in hell!".Megistias (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On kosovo there are many refrences in the section Albanian_nationalism#Influence_on_movement_toward_Kosovan_secessionism .But they seem to be invisible to Anna.Megistias (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to fil your page but i have further linked the sources in teh article and added more refs -that were already in .Megistias (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


WikiProject Zoroastrianism Notice![edit]


You are receiving this notice because you are on the Participants list for WikiProject Zoroastrianism, or you are a strong contributor to Zoroastrianism related articles. If you wish not to receive anymore updates concerning this WikiProject, then please leave a message here.

This message is related to the opening of the new IRC channel #wikipedia-en-zoro. We have registered this channel for help and information concerning Zoroastrianism and for help related to edits, content, sources etc. If you wish to enter this channel, there are 2 ways: For those with a IRC client, they can simply click the following link: #wikipedia-en-zoro connect For those who want to access IRC on their browser, they can go to the channel by clicking here.

Recently, most of the participants were put to Inactive Participants to only maintain the active participants. If you are still active, please move your name back up to the Active Participants section right here.

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Fullstop! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2,884 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Fali Sam Nariman - Find sources: "Fali Sam Nariman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Today[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Today has been nominated for merging with Template:Date. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 271° 20' 45" NET 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

False etymology > Folk Etymology[edit]

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license[edit]

Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaldā, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arsacid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)