User talk:Khorshid

300 Edits
Voting hasn't ended, and any reasonable person would be able to see that. In fact, no one but me has ever sugggested any specific date to the end of the vote. You will recall that you specifically rejected every part of that. The voting hasn't been ended. If you need to discuss this further, feel free. However, you do not get to act until the vote is complete, or consensus is found (anmd not, w don't have consensus yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
 * Voting ended long time ago buddy. Khorshid 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If voting ended, then it ended wit hteh vast majority supporting version #7, which was arcayne's edit. I see youv'e decided to disregard the consensus. Unfortunately, that's against Wikipedia's policies. Please abide by consensus. Thank you. ThuranX 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Khorshid, you are mistaken, voting has not ended. Mardavich clearly stated that the vote would end when "ALL votes cast by ALL the registered users will be counted, and there will be no expectations whatsoever. --Mardavich 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)". I think that expecting the entirety of the English language wiki to weigh in is a tad unreasonable, but I think that more time is needed. After all, it will give all those folks who voted right at the beginning of their Wikipedia careers to build up their edit counts. You may recall that I was the only person who suggested calling an end to the vote, and such was vociferously rejected. So, we wait until a consensus emerges, or we find an alternative, or until we agree on when the voting ends.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the 24th of April. Consensus was reached days ago, for #7. There is no precedents here for continuing this kind of thing. You will never be able to categorise this film as "historical fiction" if that is what you are still pushing for. Khorshid 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel
You said that you were in favour of "Redirect and merge" on that AfD. For procedural purposes, it would make it easier for an admin to to recognise that if you add the word "delete" before that (read: "Delete, redirect and merge"). A change would be appreciated ASAP, as the AfD will close soon, and it would be a shame if you were misunderstood. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian revolution
I replaced what had written in Iran and looked like OR with referenced text. This text is the lead of Iranian revolution. I want to get a wikibreak and you could speak with Leroy if you opposed with it. God bless you.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --  tariq abjotu  14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exciting new article!
Political thought and legacy of Khomeini --Leroy65X 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

a story about a cleric who once approached Khomeini
Salam, It is a very illuminating story. If you have a source we could put it in the Khomeini article or the thought and legacy article. Have a nice day --Leroy65X 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

welcome back
--alidoostzadeh 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah thankfully there is not too much problem in the wiki-world. The outcome of the  armenia-azerbaijan Arbcomm II injunctions was excellent and they will force users (even Iranian ones and Turkish users) to behave!  So as Darius I the great said: "I do not lose my temper".  On the other hand, there is much work to be done.. There are at least 5000+ Persian poets from the classical period and there is much to contribute to Iran related articles in terms of arts, science, literature and etc.  --alidoostzadeh 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for welcoming me back, but i am not here all the time like before. Khorshid 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Khomeini
Is this the book?
 * Author Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza, 1960-
 * Title The Shia revival : how conflicts within Islam will shape the future / Vali Nasr.
 * Imprint New York : Norton, c2006.
 * Edition 1st ed.

Maybe Political and religious thought of Khomeini? --Leroy65X 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats the book. I think the new title is a better choice. Khorshid 09:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent
Before reading User:Khorshid/Misconceptions I thought I had a good understanding of Iran, and was free from bias. But your little summary of Iran has cleared a lot of stuff up. I think it is a very good resources for those who want to know more of Iranian people and the Islamic republic.Bless sins 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Columbia University statement
Since you speak farsi, would you mind translate M. Ahmadinejad's statement in Columbia University and put it in a "Columbia University" section in his article. That would be very kind of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch1981 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz territory
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ahwaz territory. There are question about the truthfulness of the article and whether such a territory exists. Since you contributed to the Ahvaz article, I am hoping that you would consider participating in the Ahwaz territory deletion review to shed some light on whether the Ahwaz territory in fact exists. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War RFC
Please do not threaten me, mentioning WP:3RR is "wikilawyering". Kindly do not add the American flag to the article until the the RFC is over. The related RFC was started a month ago and not everyone has had a chance to contribute, have you considered adding an opinion to it. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd that you speak of wikilawyering, since you just posted a sockpuppet allegation on my userpage with the words:

"Do not revert due to your apparent anti-Iranian prejudice. Please read WP:3RR. You have been engaged in edit warring on that page for quite some time and I am dedicated to making everyone aware of what is going on. You and your friend Ryan cannot gang up on everyone else. This is WP and there are rules. Your bias is obvious. Khorshid (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"


 * To reply to comments here, so others involved in the RfC (as I was) can see your observations, I first saw your commentary this morning. If you feel I am a sockpuppet, after extensive work on other subjects, please bring that up to an administrator. I don't know Ryan.


 * There is a continuing discussion on the US role. Rather than putting US flags into the disputed infobox, you might achieve more in a discussion on the talk page, or, in joining in a RfA on what increasingly looks insoluble.


 * As far as anti-Iranian bias, I've stated before that I considered CAPT Rogers worthy of a court-martial for what the lawyers call "depraved indifference to human life," a criterion for the crime of willful manslaughter. On the other hand, I do not consider releasing floating mines in international waters to be much less indifferent. I do believe in freedom of navigation.


 * There's no question that Saddam was the chief aggressor, but, as in many modern wars, there are many nations that do not remain completely neutral. World War II is usually described as the Axis Powers vs. the Allies, but rarely are more than three Axis powers mentioned. The tripartite pact eventually had other members.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at our edit histories you can see his not my sock, in fact you can see we've never spoken. This is obviously just you making disruptive edits. Instead of trying to canvass your friends into an edit war, why don't you just add an opinion to the RFC like everyone else? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)