User talk:Kazemita1/Archive 1

Regarding Honorifics
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that MOS and MOSISLAM both contain a lot of very useful information about how to "properly" write text for the type of academic articles that we include in Wikipedia. One item is that we are to specifically avoid using honorifics in front of personal names, especially in article titles, as it is not considered a neutral, encyclopedic tone. This applies to both political and religious figures of all kinds. We don't use "His Grace" or "His Excellency" for nobility, or call the Pope "His Holiness", and so "Shaykh" is also to be avoided.

I've moved Shaykh Abbas Qumi, an article you created, to Abbas Qumi in keeping with those policies, but wanted to explain in more detail here on your talkpage. If you have any questions you can post them here; I'll be watching this page and will respond here. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I normally observe that kind of stuff, but this time I missed it since I was literally translating it.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Solofire
I have issued a level-3 warning in addition to the level-1 that was already there on User talk:Solofire. That's pretty much all that needs to be done. Feel free to add the user to your watch list, and add a level 4 warning if the user continues. If s/he continues, report him at the Vandalism noticeboard, not the generic one. HTH. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

al-Masudi
I gave a somewhat fulller answer to your question at    DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved Convo
(Originally at Talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion)
 * I used to think this protocol was actually written by jews, until I saw this article and I have to say the sources are very much persuading. But I still have some questions in mind as the way jewish people look at gentiles. For example, in the movie Munich the character Steve (Daniel Craig) says: "The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood". Or the fact that some jews would not welcome converts and would rather their children marry "jewish born girls" only. These are just questions tingling my mind and I would appreciate anyone who could shed some light on that matter.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they'd answer it in Refdesk, so I'll give you answers here. I actually watched that film about 30 times while playing Europa Universalis III, I have no idea why. Like I said, we wouldn't write such a thing of course. A, we have no central body since the 300s and B, if we did they wouldn't be that dumb, but you recognise it as not being so, so that's not an issue. =p Well we don't all have the same view on gentiles (goyim), for instance, my father is Protestant with a Catholic upbringing and my mother is Jewish. The thing by Daniel Craig was supposed to be from the most extreme of Zionists who are quite frankly insane.


 * The idea of not marrying goyim... well that's partly from ideas that came from after the Babylonian Exile when you had three groups of people in what was the Kingdom of Judah (before the four sieges by the Babylonians including Nebuchadrezzar). You had some that came back from Babylon, the ones that stayed, and the jerks that fled to Egypt with Ezekiel for no real reason. Well what happened was Cyrus freed everyone and let the Jews in Babylon go home and build a new temple. There was an argument over who would build the new one of the three groups and the Exiles won. They built a new (and very crappy) temple and made all the other guys goyim and said they were not welcome in the Temple etc. The idea of not marrying goyim came about then and was made a law in the Talmud which continued on for a long time, and though it's harsh, it did preserve us as a distinct people (being a Jew isn't just a religious thing you see, we're actually a distinct set of three main ethnic groups (and several small ones) with the same Middle Eastern origins).


 * No one really strictly follows those laws today though except for Ultraorthodox (who are disliked by most other Jews) and the Orthodox to some extent. Most Jews have no ill feelings toward goyim though and intermarriage is pretty common, though we do sometimes have new converts (usually a result of intermarriage) and in most of Judaism (especially Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist) they are welcomed with open arms. The only converts not usually welcomed are Messianic Jews (basically Christians) for obvious reasons. Judaism today is mostly about celebrating life and being good to each other. You will find some who dislike goyim though, either because they are a very close-minded sort of Haredim (and not all haredim are like that of course) or because they are jerks who have missed the point or are just jerks in general who think their people are best (which happens with all peoples of course). There's also the whole chosen people idea of course, which comes from the fact that we wrote the basis for the Bible and Qu'ran (which everyone takes super seriously ofc), we're just a normal group of people though that everyone treats thinks is special in one way or the other. I hope this answers your questions. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response. I am glad we talked about this subject. Shalom (Salam)!Kazemita1 (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. =) Is it ok if I move this bit of the convo to your talk page though? Someone might get upset over it being non-article related discussion and what not. I don't want to move it without your permission though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may remove it all.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Ere we go, removed to your page for future reference. =)

Notability
Hi, in answer to your question about Farsi only sources, they can be used to justify an English language article, as long as they are independent and reliable. When you provide a reference, please make it so that a Farsi reader could confirm it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Dr mosahab111.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Dr mosahab111.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding our mutual dispute on Khomeini article
You talk about one thing (and even though not so persuasive), constantly change the lead of the article (including parts you have never talked or have quitted discussions regarding them silently) in favor of softening his figure (while unfortunately it isn't capable of this process). Apparently you think there is no need to convince me about anything other than having no right to ask for an unbiased fair representation of the subject as you permanently remind me of being a beginner and teach me WP policies. Please revise your attitude. My proposal: beginning from the state of the article at this very moment, any discussed issue or new issues can be put on the table and checked whether a compromise has been or can be reached, remaining committed to the results in our edits. AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe two users (one of them being Admin user) have already told you about the rules in the discussion page. --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moon God Allah
I think it should be completely rewritten with reliable sources. I think the name should be changed to, perhaps to "Allegation that Allah is a moon god" or something similar. Has it been proposed for deletion? Paul B (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I completed your deletion proposal. See Articles for deletion/Moon-God Allah. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright violation
Do not copy non-free-content writing wholesale, as the edit page says.
 * Copyright policy
 * Plagiarism
 * Copyright policy
 * Plagiarism
 * Copyright policy
 * Plagiarism

You've come to the attention of an administrator who deals with copyright violators and plagiarists. I deal with them by taking their editing privileges away entirely, showing them out of the door. You're doing exactly what you're not supposed to do, as I've already explained to you once. Fortunately, you're at the beginning of the road, not far down it as most people that I deal with are. So you get one warning, and one warning only. Write in your own words, or do not write at all. One more theft of someone else's words in lieu of writing proper original encyclopaedic prose of your own, and your editing privileges will be gone. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Admin, Now that you have been so patient with me and did not block me, will you be nice enough and explain to me the source of my violation, say plageiarism, more clearly? I am saying this because I used in-text citation as well as the quotation means, i.e. in my edit [ ]--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that to you, on the administrators' noticeboard. Others have expanded upon it.  Read that explanation.  Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Using quotations from non-free content
Hi. User:Uncle G has asked me to come by to discuss this a bit.

Under the United States law that controls Wikipedia (because it is located in the United States), articles and books belong to their authors and/or publishers. They have the right to decide who gets to use them, or parts of them, and how. But because the US government believes that closing off access to those works entirely will shut down intellectual and creative growth, they have an exception called "fair use."

Fair use allows you to take brief excerpts from copyrighted works for the purposes of commentary or criticism. There are four factors in fair use, but I find the ones that are most important for people on Wikipedia to understand are these: (1) the amount of content you use should not be large compared to the size of the original document or of your article, and it should not be the most important part, and (2) you can't use non-free content just because you want to share the same information, but because you want to criticize, comment or build on it in some way. You can see substantial similarity to read more about (1) and transformation (law) to read more about (2).

From the conversation at AN, it sounds as though you are having more issues with (2). It is a common confusion for people who are not familiar with US fair use allowances, but an important one: you should only quote somebody if you have a very good reason. Some good reasons are described at Non-free content: "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Wanting to convey the information, but not having your own words to describe it, is almost never a good reason, and if you've been told that you're overusing quotations, probably something you should avoid altogether. You may want to stick to using quotations in very clear-cut situations.

There are a few external sources that talk about quotations in American writing, including how to paraphrase: "Quoting and Paraphrasing" by the University of Wisconsin (From the subpage "Should I paraphrase or quote?: "In general, use direct quotations only if you have a good reason. Most of your paper should be in your own words."); "Quoting, Paraphrasing and Summarizing" by Purdue University ("Remember that quoting should be done only sparingly; be sure that you have a good reason to include a direct quotation when you decide to do so.")

Importantly, both of those go beyond discussing quotations into how to transform material into a proper paraphrase. This is important because we don't want to encourage you to go in the wrong direction. Paraphrases that follow their sources too closely are also a copyright concern. This is why Uncle G mentions at WP:AN using multiple sources, to help avoid this. Those external documents can provide some good suggestions for avoiding it with the single source, as can Close paraphrasing.

Taking a look at the specific example of Muslim conquest of Persia, the block quote by Kaveh Farrokh, in his book Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, jumps out. I do not see the good reason for using this man's precise words when we could instead explain what happened in our own. For instance:

I know there are other examples within the text, but this is the first I saw and selected just to demonstrate how such information can be shared without using the language of the original.

I hope that this helps. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me thank you for taking your time to write this in-depth explanation. It is clear to me now -after your explanation and that of others in the noticeboard- that as the US Copyright Office indicates, there is no mathematical rule for the amount of material one quotes. Also, as pointed out by you -and the copyright office- it is not very clear as what counts as a violation and what not in the first look and the matter is judgmental in nature. Therefore, one would be "better safe than sorry" to just avoid direct quotes as much as possible. "Stay out of trouble" as they say. :)

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MRG is a tough act to follow, and it sounds like the point is sinking in, but I'll add a couple thoughts. There are times to use a quote. If we were talking about President Kennedy, we wouldn't say that he once admonished citizens to think up ways to help the country, we'd quote his famous saying "Ask not what your country can do got you, ask what you can do for your country.' When the exact words of the quote are relevant to the point, a quote is appropriate. So for example, in Muslim conquest of Persia, the dying exhortation of Umar is appropriate as a quote, and would lose a lot if paraphrased.


 * In contract, the 230 words of Bernard Lewis is virtually the entire content of one section (save the image), so if an example of simply appropriating the words of another to make a point, without the need for those exact words, or building upon the thought in any way. It is far too long, but even shortened, it should be paraphrased, and still referenced.


 * The other point I need to make is that while I love the look of the curly quotes, they are reserved for pull quotes, which is a fairly rare usage in Wikipedia. See Mos.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sphilbrick. So, can I go ahead and remove Bernard Lewis' quote in lieu of violating copyright?--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Richard Dawkins
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further reminder: you have made three qualifying reverts since yesterday. A couple of hours beyond the specified 24 is more likely to be regarded as gaming the system that a ‪get out of jail free card‬. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Electric Catfish 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Hello Kazemita1 and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC) This is a false accusation. --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion (2)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Richard Dawkins. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Javascript code to stop you from logging in
You're the only one who can implement the code in question. Admins can edit your .js pages, but each .js page only works for one skin, and nobody (except presumably people with access to the servers themselves) can know what skin you're using. Go to Special:Mypage/skin.js, and this will automatically take you to the right skin; from there you'll simply need to copy/paste the relevant portions of WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Be careful — if you make a mistake, you might lock yourself out for a significantly longer period of time than you mean. However, because admins are able to edit your .js pages, this can be remedied: if you lock yourself out for too long, simply stay logged out and ask an admin (either by going to WP:AN or by using editprotected on this talk page) to delete the enforcer script. I can't imagine anyone opposing such a request — it has absolutely no effect on anyone except you, so nobody could have any reason to impersonate you and make such a request. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetting
Are you or have you been using the follwing username and IP's?

If you have been using these IP's, please note that you are not allowed to edit in logged-off mode. - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)