User:Hossein.ir/Archive1

Care to comment?
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

hi

 * -) --joker 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the talk page of Hezbollah. I active there for about 1 mounth but I have 3 exams in the next week. Can you help me with protecting it against vandalism and propaganda? --Sa.vakilian 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can. But it takes a lot of time to have eyes on the articles, review new content, visiting links.. But I try to do my best. Hossein.ir 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just look at the history and check the editions have done after my last editions.like this God bless you. --Sa.vakilian 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hossein, thank you for your kind words and the Barnstar. Your encouragement is very much appreciated. Cheers. Kosmopolis 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. --Sa.vakilian 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

soliciting help on neofascism page
i'm just sheer outnumbered. I have a perfectly innocent comment by Professor Juan Cole that keeps constantly getting reverted by Isarig and others. At one time a compromise formulation had been reached and isarig came in and reverted it. I stick it back in when I get a chance. It stays there a couple of hours. Here it is: Best Wishes Will314159 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Likud members of Israel that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.)

Your message
Thanks. Please try to comply with WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't call other people's edit vandalism, as it's against wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.

--Hossein.ir 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Except when it is vandalism. -- Avi 12:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, don't get angry when others call your job vandalism. My edit was obvious, as the content at the top of an article, related to a living person was not appropriate, and should be moved to its own part. Criticizing is different with labeling someone. Hossein.ir 12:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the last three talk archives as well as this one regarding the lead.

For the record:

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by blanking? I'm moving it to appropriate part. Please stop reverting. --Hossein.ir 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length and the current consensus is that it remains in the lead. Discuss on talk before making POV-based changes, please. -- Avi 13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Even when you've discussed this, you can not act according you POV. And please stop labeling living people. This is obviously against wikipedia guidelines.
 * Hossein.ir 13:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not labeled with Category:Anti-Semitic people any longer. And if you mean libeled, I suggest you look carefully at the meaning of the word libel, for quoting his own statements can never be considered libel. Thank you. -- Avi


 * No, you're not quoting him, you're quoting what you call "most western news sources", that is some pro-Israel news sources. Thank you. --Hossein.ir 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Al Jazeera a pro-Israel news outlet?!? -- Avi 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, The New York Times and CNN are rather left-leaning, and are far from "Pro Israeli" outlets. Please research your claims before you make them. -- Avi 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Avi 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the deletion vote
I'm just waiting for the day the administration tires of the edit wars, and just proposes a two English wikipedia solution. I'm sure that linguistically neighboring wikipedians might get a upset about special treatment for this vocal minority, and cause a small fuss. but I'm sure the whole mess would be water under the bridge in no time, and all the wikipedians would thenceforth live in peace forever more. Wait a minute... why does all that sound so familiar? -- Kendrick7

About Avi's comments above
Looks like you're not the only one who's edits have been called "vandalism".

Just thought you might want to know this. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

For your own sake, you need to read up on wikipedia's policies before you make strange statements
This is an example of nonsense. I will try and assume good faith and believe you did it out of ignorance, as opposed to a bad-faith effort to push a point of view. Please read up on Reliable sources, and especially Reliable sources, as well as Biographies of living persons will go a long way in preventing you for being blocked/banned for disruptive edits. Good luck. -- Avi 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. I've responded you on your talk page. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please follow the link to Advocacy journalism. I believe you are mistaken as to what it means.
 * Secondly, I quote from the very page you brought (emphasis added is my own): The New York Times does not fall into that category.
 * Thirdly, I will call acts of vandalism as such. I am hoping through the links I gave you above, that you will learn what is considered vandalism and what is not considered vandalism, and become a more productive editor here.
 * Fourthly, wikipedia warnings, when properly given, are not considered personal attacks.
 * Fifthly, for your own sake, you are making it more difficult to assume good faith on your part with your accusations. Editors whose purpose is to disrupt the encyclopedia are treated differently than those who have made mistakes, as we all do. Once again, for your own sake, PLEASE read up on how to contribute and take part of Wikipedia and the wikipedia community before more drastic sanctions need to be taken. Thank you. -- Avi 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Posting old 3rrs
Please dont' post a month-old resolved 3rr to the 3rr noticeboard. If you want to make a further comment on it, do so on editor talk pages with a link to the old post. -- M P er el ( talk 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --Hossein.ir 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that's the place to report an ongoing current 3rr. If you have a beef about something that happened a month ago, take it up with the editors involved on their talk pages. Thanks. -- M P er el ( talk 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking information
Please read the archives regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Category:Anti-Semitic people and Category:Anti-Semitism. Further, there is incontrovertible evidence that he denied the extent of the Holocaust. Removal of that category is also considered vandalism. For the record Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've answered on your page. --Hossein.ir 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid edit warring
This is an example of nonsense. What you're doing is very close to Internet trolling. Please note that even when you've reverted less than 4 times a day you may be blocked for trolling and engaging in edit wars. --Hossein.ir 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And blanking consensus information is also considered vandalism. -- Avi 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've answered on your page. But the fact is that it's not consensus. --Hossein.ir 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we should restoreCategory:Anti-Semitic people as well, if you claim no consensus? Regardless, please see Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 7 and Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 7 for discussion of the consensus. -- Avi 18:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen them, and because of this, I say it's not consensus. --Hossein.ir 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's funny, because even Markovich and LifeEnemy agreed with it for the time being -- Avi 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's really funny. What do you mean bey even them? All the discussion was about the fact that he's not related to antisemitism. He's against Zionism, as it's a form of racism. --Hossein.ir 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They were of the belief that there should be no tag. Others (including myself) believed the tag should be Category:Anti-Semitic people. We all compromised on Category:Anti-Semitism. That is what I meant. -- Avi 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're confusing yourself with we all. What you meant, I mean your facts are wrong. As long as I remember, I didn't agree with this. --Hossein.ir 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: voting
I must admit that the pro-Israel cabal is well organized and vocal here at wikipedia. On the other hand, if we each raised up our own crusaders and jihadists to counter them we'd probably end up warring with eachother eventually (jihad bil qalam, but as some say, the pen is mightier than the sword). I agree that the category is unhelpful. The existence of such a category is almost a scandal, and certainly offensive, but sometimes we must simply endure being offended. Keep me apprised of future vote rigging though; surely, we will agree more often than not. -- Kendrick7talk 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find the deletion of facts and concepts from the wikipedia especially disturbing; it reminds me of Nineteen Eighty Four's Ministry of Truth. A mention of funding of Israel by the U.S. has now been deleted twice from Allegations of Israeli apartheid, for no sane reason. (It's point 3 from a paragraph of four points made from a WP:RS on the topic at hand, but it is the only one that keeps disappearing). If nothing else, as a U.S. taxpayer myself, I think this behavior shows a complete lack of gratitude, and that's about the nicest thing I can say. The easiest thing to do if someone claims a fact is beyond the scope of an article is to recreate an article with the expected scope in a way that isn't merely a POV fork. For example, continual deletion of certain facts from the background to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict inspired my authorship of Israel-Lebanon conflict, where the facts I thought were important are now intact. Likewise, U.S. military aid to Israel could be created to work around the deletions from the article you mentioned. In a year, the 2006 conflict will have been forgotten anyway, and it is better than beating your head against a wall. -- Kendrick7talk 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also -- I just stumbled upon these people. They might be helpful. Good luck, and do not feed the trolls! -- Kendrick7talk 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I was going to vote, but it appears Avi withdrew. -- Kendrick7talk 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghadr-110
Hi. Please do not tag articles for speedy deletion if you believe it is original research. This is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe the article is OR, then please go via AFD. Thanks. Proto :: type  10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then please take the article through the AFD process, explaining the rationale for why the article ought to be deleted. Regards, Proto ::  type  20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Shia Islam
Hi there. For reasons explained in the edit summary, I've undone your recent edit to Shia Islam. I just thought I'd drop you a line here to point out one thing: Your edit summary used "RV". This is an abbreviation for a revert, which your edit was not (it was a simple deletion). I hope this helps you in your future contributions to Wikipedia; and of course, if you disagree with my reason for undoing your edit, I'd be happy to discuss in further on that article's talk page. (But I think you'll find that, whatever other English words it may look like, "Shi'ite" is a legitimate term!) -- Perey 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)