User talk:Spahbod

.

unblock
I have been autoblocked for reason: "could be willy" for more than 24 hours.--Spahbod 09:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AOL ? --pgk( talk ) 09:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock
I have been autoblocked for reason: "could be willy" for more than 24 hours by CanadianCaesar, i had edited under my ip for a few days, i made a new account and edited then i got autoblocked.

IP address is 213.113.242.74. --Spahbod 09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No not AOL --Spahbod 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, the autoblock will say because this account has recently been used by ... Who has it recently been used by? Since this might be affecting multiple addresses I need that info, the reason on it's own doesn't help much unless I go through every autoblock looking for a matching reason. --pgk( talk ) 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what it says:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Spahbod". The reason given for Spahbod's block is: "could be Willy".

Your IP address is 213.113.242.74.

--Spahbod 09:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I hadn't appreciated that it was your user which had been blocked, I'm not sure what has caused the blocking admin to reach that conclusion, so I'll leave them a message and get them to look into it. --pgk( talk ) 09:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, ok thanks for the help. --Spahbod 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well after seeing canadiancaesars edits, i found out that he blocked me because i sent a message to him why hes moving pages, because the sassanid empire page was gone after he moved it. Then he without discussing the matter with me blocked me for infinite time and wrote this: . His reason was apparently that why i question him moving pages after only 4 edits, if he had looked into the IP he blocked he would see that i had contributed for a few days before i made this account. I really don't understand how the administrative system works around here, but i guess perhaps some users are not welcome?! --Spahbod 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're unblocked. The reason was because you reminded me of a banned user. Sorry for the inconvenience. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, no problem. --Spahbod 05:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Helpful explanation
Sometimes vandalistic people create numerous user accounts and cause all sorts of disruption that requires their many accounts to be blocked. Because your account has little history of Wikipedia editing, and you made a comment that could be perceived as hostile to an administrator who has been repeatedly dealing with such vandals, you were accidentally blocked. —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Tājik 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash
It is already mentioned in the article that "Tajiks" were the Persians. For your information:
 * "... The non-Turkic or non-Turkish-speaking Iranian tribes among the Kizilbash were called Tājiks (meaning "Non-Turks" or "Iranians") by the Turcomans ..."

Instead of vandalizing the article, first READ it. Tājik 12:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is based on the Encyclopaedia of Islam which is an authoritative work! This is an encyclopaedia and not your personal blog! Tājik 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Durud bar shoma
Duste aziz, may i ask why you call yourself SPAHBOD while you correct "Spahsalar" to read SEPAHSALAR ? While i would also definitely pronounce it with an "e" as in English "error", I would consequently also amend your username to contain the "e" it presently lacks! Sounds very odd: SPahbod as SPain or SPongebob???? try SEpahbod, make more sense! --Pantherarosa 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least all of present day Iran pronounces it Sépahbod and Sépah. Even when looking for web entries, you find a lot of different SEPAHBOD (while the odd and abnormal "Spahbod" is found repeatedly in the SAME context only) For sure NOBODY pronounces S and P together as in "SPAIN"!--Pantherarosa 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

line?
Sorry if I offended you for putting a line on top of my posts. I didnt mean it as an insult, and Im surprised that you took it that way. I sometimes use a horizontal line seperator only to make the posts more visible (the posts are crammed into eachother). That's all.--Zereshk 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Parsis are Indian
Parsis are Indian. They do not speak Persian so they are no longer strictly Persian. They have mixed, read Parsi for details. Your edit should apply to other Parsis as well, or maybe you want some specific agenda with Mercury. User: Afghan Historian


 * Regarding your comments parsis are indian, their language does not change their ethnicity. However their mixture with indians are mild and have not changed their ethnicity either. I put it in your own words: read Parsi for details. And i advice you to refrain from accusing me of having an agenda. -- Spahbod 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That Freddy Mercury is a Parsi (not Persian) has been discussed to death at Talk:Freddie Mercury/Archive 1. If you wish to contribute to that talk subject, then you are most welcome to reopen it. Irrespective of whether the Parsis have admixed with locals or not, the fact that they have been in a "foreign" land for over a thousand years is more than sufficient for them to be considered - and more importantly, consider themselves - sons and daughters of that land. Putative origin is only one factor in "ethnicity". I strongly suggest you carefully read the complete article at Parsi (and False friend for good measure) before asserting your POV again. -- Fullstop 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani People
The article was not neutral and it was not fair. Pieces of information were deliberately left out, and the wording was also incorrect and far from neutral.Khosrow II 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice of attempt at external mediation
You are hereby advised that Requests for mediation/Parsi will soon be open. -- Fullstop 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Images in signatures
Hello. I've recently been given a good reason that images in signatures are discouraged: They make image maintenance very difficult. Please do have a read of the guideline, look at the straw pool to get a feel for what the man on the street thinks, and then have a look at the examples given in the later discussion. It really is a bad idea. - brenneman  {L} 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

inflammatory messages
G'day Spahbod,

I appreciate that you are involved in a dispute with at the moment. Sometimes being in a dispute does funny things to otherwise sensible people. For example, they may leave inflammatory and inappropriate comments on general-interest noticeboards, totally ignoring the Wikipedia tradition of being nice to one another. Please try to remain calm, and avoid personal attacks, no matter how infuriating the other fellow is. Sometimes it's nicer to keep hold of the high ground, you know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkGallagher (talk • contribs).


 * Hello. I could not help but notice both this message and your response. Can you point to some specific vandalism (per the policy) by a user so that if there is a problem it can be dealt with? - brenneman  {L} 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

page protection
G'day Spahbod,

thanks for your query. What was happening on Greater and Lesser Tunbs is what we call an edit war. An edit war is usually considered a Bad Thing, and editors who simply revert each other repeatedly risk being blocked. I protected the article because I'd really rather neither you nor ended up blocked for edit warring over this article, at least until you know better. Some things I think you'd do well to keep in mind are: Most of the time when Wikipedia makes us unhappy, it's because we're trying to exert too much control, or because we're forgetting that other editors are people too, or because we're forgetting what we're here for: to work on a long-term project to build an encyclopaedia. Please keep this in mind, and try talking to other editors, instead of just reverting them. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is for forever, not just right now. Whether an article says this or that today is not something we should be getting too upset about, because it can always be changed tomorrow.
 * 2) Wikipedia is just words on a screen. It's not worth getting upset about it.
 * 3) Wikipedia attracts editors with all sorts of viewpoints. There may be many editors out there who disagree with you, and edit articles in a way you don't like. This is normal, and it is not vandalism, or a reason to get upset. Try talking to them; see if you can work out a compromise.

Image Tagging for Image:Map of Iran under Parthian Dynasty.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Map of Iran under Parthian Dynasty.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On the recent edit war regarding Parsi
Greetings. You asked about my reversion, and so I wanted to explain why I did that. I reverted the page to an earlier version simply because it wasn't clear from the series of recent changes (including rvs and rvvs) to which version you and the other editor were reverting. (I think it's always best to state the version to which one is reverting in the edit summary, so that there is no doubt about this.) It simply seemed best to go back to the version that was not contentious before Fullstop's version. That said, I then neglected to re-incorporate the three recent edits by a bot and another user. Thank you for catching those and reintroducing them! I appreciate that. Let me know if I can help in any way with this page, or with discussion. I'll be watching the page in any case. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, please see Parsi talk page for a suggestion. Best, Anthony Krupp 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

? ? ? ("pls revert back again")
"Hes reverting the Mercury page again, pls revert back again, thank you. --Spahbod 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)" 62.47.178.31 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet check results
G'day Spahbod,

thanks for your request. I've asked, a very clever fellow who has the authority to look into this sort of thing, and he says that and  are not using the same ISP; however, they are editing from a similar geographical area, and their editing pattern is suspicious. It could be the same user from two different locations, or possibly they're just friends. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Middle Persian literature link in Persian language article
Hi. Since you asked why I deleted the Middle Persian literature link in Persian language article, I'll tell you. There are 11 'See also' links in the article. The Middle Persian literature link is already on Persian literature and Middle Persian, which are much more relevant to Pahlavi literature than an article about the modern Persian language. This is like wanting to have a Middle English literature link on the (modern) English language article. Don't get me wrong. I think Middle Persian is cool, and I'd love to study Pahlavi literature myself, but the link just isn't relevant enough. –jonsafari 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Achaemenid
Regarding Arabia, you said: there is no border for the start of arabian peninsula, the north part of arabia was under their rule as shown in the map. Arabia is for some reason labeled as including those areas north of Petra and the like. The Arabian peninsula isn't exactly defined, but it certainly doesn't include territories north of both the Gulf of Aqaba and the Persian gulf, as that area can no longer be considered part of the peninsula (not surrounded by water). If you insist on including the name "Arabia," at least link it to "Arabia Petraea," or something other (a new article?) than Arabian Peninsula (to which Arabia redirects), as it's a bit misleading. Maybe instead disambiguate to "parts of northern Arabia?" &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent
Did you vote here? Thanks.--Zereshk 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq info
Please add the info into the article, not write a whole article in an image caption. Judgesurreal777 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, give it more context. Would you then order the WMD sponsors who created the program in order of greatest to least, making it Germany, France, US, Australia, etc? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions
We'll see. We'll try our best anyway to keep it. Even if it gets a 1/3 keep vote, we can claim a "non-consensus" status and still keep it. And even if it does go for deletion, I'll revive it in an enhanced modified form again. Information like this can't be expunged just because some people vote others not to see some facts about Iran.--Zereshk 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical warfare caption
Spahbod, Verifiability states that "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." I have no problem with you citing The Independent, which is reasonably reliable. LA Weekly is a free alternative weekly and is not a reliable source. You can only include information found in reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Please rewrite your caption to only cite reliable sources. TomTheHand 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that TomTheHand is correct regarding LA Weekly as a source. However, the article you cite does have a partial list of its own sources. If you can get a hold of some of those then you would likely have much more robust sources to quote. One last point: regarding this edit summary, an editing conflict is not vandalism. – ClockworkSoul 20:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. :) – ClockworkSoul 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about Iran
Hi!

If you want to save this article, you should improved it. It's clear that it's not a good article and if I had enough time I whould do it myself.But as I told Zereshk before it should improved. This is my opinion: and

Good buy. --Sa.vakilian 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote
Sorry! No offense intended. Really, I didn't have that much of an opinion about the article itself. My invovement was mostly trying to get everyone to play by the rules for the course of the discussion. Happy editing. --InShaneee 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents
Please watch this page and post your public messages on this page so that everybody may have access to it. Thanks --Aminz 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Parsi talk
Greetings; let me ask you to please make comments to me regarding the article Parsi on that article's talk page, so that discussion can be centralized. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spahbod
umm, excuse me, most parsis see themselves as indian. Ask one other than me.

Sohrab Irani 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Make sure you don't violate WP:3RR and don't argue in edit summaries with a banned user or obvious sock puppets like Marvel's, just write "reverting banned user". --ManiF 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, I think reverting an obvious sock puppets of a banned user beyond 3RR is permitted based on WP:3RR. You might want to get a clarification on that though. Use WP:AN to get a clarification from the admins. --ManiF 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mild civility warning
Spreading the wealth, but saying "cluless, ridiculous, and f*****, does truly apply to yourself" is also incivil. I know you were simply repeating someone else's words back to them, but the best way to respond to anything percieved as an attack is with calm disspassionate language. If someone is being a prat, ignore them and concentrate on finding sources that support your desired edits to the article. Everything else is a distraction. - brenneman  {L} 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
Your reverts are infuriating me. I'm going to explain once more why the changes are justified:


 * 1) Rumsfeld: This time I just MOVED Rumsfeld and added more information.
 * 2) Bio-weapons: As I said before, they were not utilized in the war. Plus, if they were to be included they would not be under the "Chemical Weapons" section.
 * 3) Haddad and Alcolac: I added info which you deleted.
 * 4) Ted Koppel: Ted Koppel's opinion is IRRELEVANT unless he presents SPECIFIC FACTS and not generalizations.
 * BNL: Again, none of the factual content removed, just summarized. Plus, I added figures from other nations which were deleted.
 * 1) Military Tech: You removed the Wisconsin Project assessment.

CJK 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent image uploads
I noticed you recently added several images to the Cyrus the Great article. I'd like to see the permission for the recent uploads you've made. I don't know who you talked to, but it would be better if you could elaborate on "permission from [...]," thanks. I'm removing the photos until then. I've put in a lot of effort to ensure that the article is up to par for FA as soon as its peer review is over, and unfree images will simply cause trouble.

As for your comment about not to "revert edits of other users without reason," I reverted the image position to as it was before Amizzoni's edits. The image is placed higher as it interferes with the heading below ("Death"). ♠ SG →Talk 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said the article belonged to be. I noted my efforts to bring the article to what it is now compared to the mess it was before. As for the images, you merely named the domain the image came from. You didn't give the addresses of the actual images, nor did you provide accurate licensing information. Until you provide such information, please do not add those images to any articles. And again, the Cyrus Cylinder image causes an issue with the alignment of the Death heading, and in order to prevent that, either more content must be added (which is not necessary, as Cyrus Cylinder has its own article), or the image must be moved up, thanks. ♠ SG →Talk 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. I see you have completely ignored my above comments, or simply did not understand them. Accurate sourcing does not mean a generic domain. I've reverted your edits again. The least you could have done was spellcheck your edits to the article. ♠ SG →Talk 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as we have both reverted three times successively, do not break the Three-revert rule until this issue has been resolved, thank you. ♠ SG →Talk 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making threats. You are not an administrator, and as such are in no position to make threats about blocking me. I have remained civil in my discussion here, and so I only request that you also do the same. If you are going to report me for "destructive behavior," as you put it, I will await mediation from any parties that you may contact. ♠ SG →Talk 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted any images, as I have no ability to do so. I've merely marked them with the proper tags, as the images you uploaded were tagged with the GNU General Public License, when they clearly are not. In the future, please source your images and tag them accordingly, thank you. ♠ SG →Talk 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have filed an RfC under the "History and Geography" section, which will continue at Talk:Cyrus_the_Great. And in the future, please do not label my edits as vandalism; thanks. ♠ SG →Talk 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any image information; I added a template to the top of the image page. This is the last time I will respond about this on your user talk page, I will continue this conversation at the RfC talk page I mentioned should you wish to proceed with the discussion. ♠ SG →Talk 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:2500 sal4.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:2500 sal4.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ♠ SG →Talk 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cyrus3.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cyrus3.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ♠ SG →Talk 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights on Wikipedia
Hello, please read up fully on Wikipedia:Image use policy and other pages linked from there before uploading any further images. After you have read up on this matter, if you have any questions I will be happy to try to answer them. Wikipedia's policy on non-free images (Images which are not clearly public domain or freely licensed) only allows for their use under specific conditions. I see that you have uploaded other images tagged as GFDL licensed, which I will need to correct. Thank you. KWH 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read and make sure you fully understand the copyright issues before worrying about uploading any further images. To give an example, the BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED at CAIS states that a license is given for use specifically for non-commercial use, without alteration, and with attribution (the copyright statement and the website). That would be a NoncommercialProvided tag, and as you can see, that tag is specifically not permitted.
 * I could try to explain further but it is probably best if you read up on the matter so that you understand it in your own way, and then ask questions. KWH 07:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq WMD
Not clear on what you said as a reason for removing that info, or changing the order. would you let me know, or write it on the talk page? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bahram_Moshiri.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bahram_Moshiri.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of images
I have responded here. KWH 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Halabja
I love your user page, your selected profiles of important historical people are wonderful. It's important for us to communicate without embitterment, and I'm sorry for reverting before contacting you first--as is often the case on Wikipedia, one often hideously misinterprets the motives of another.

I noticed your comment on the talk page, observing that to assert that Iran itself attacked its allies in Halabja is "propaganda". I agree with that completely, but unfortunately that's precisely the same sense I get from the assertion that any Western firms could have possibly exported Sarin or VX to Iraq. I suspect that the idea you wish to include in the article is valid and necessary, but that your wording is a bit coarse: you do mean to indicate that chemicals companies have sold chemicals to Iraq, that Iraq itself later utilized in the production of biological horrors, right?

I think we can both agree that Dupont did not ship nuclear arms to Iraq--doesn't indicating simply "nuclear" next to "Dupont", isolating that association from all fact, itself constitute propaganda? I'm referring to that Independent article not because I consider it to be an unacceptable source, rather because it attempts to imply broader connections than it actually evidences.

By putting the word "nuclear" next to "Dupont", the article is actually stating that Dupont sold industrial equipment and chemicals to Iraq that Iraq in turn utilized in its nuclear program. The article happily excludes the fact that the same chemicals and equipment can be used in non-nuclear pursuits.

"the U.S. immediately pulled out all stops to get first access, to shut down wide dissemination, etc. -- the smart money said that buried in the morass there would be evidence of U.S. (and European) culpability in aiding the Iraqi weapons programs, dating back to before the Gulf War, but covering the period of Hussein's rise and his worst crimes, etc."

This is a bizarre introduction aimed at deceiving those who are unaware of the public nature of Western participation in the Iraqi military-industrial complex. The fact of Western participation is not "buried", it has appeared in newspapers quite publically for decades, occasionally on the front page. Is this not dishonesty, to pretend that Western participation is some diabolically hidden secret, when it has screamed from the front page of Western newspapers for decades?

Do you agree with any of what I've just said? Sorry we got off on the wrong foot--I'm certain we'll find consensus soon enough.DBaba 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ferdowsi_Statue_2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ferdowsi_Statue_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq war Article
Help. Iran-Iraq War is being constantly vandalized. We need an admin to solve the situation. (Opader 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Halabja.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halabja.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

#1
You have indiscriminately reverted my edits from yesterday and today, while simultanously providing only inflammatory edit summaries, which makes it apparant that your reverts are for purely personal reasons. Diffs of your edits:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Fullstop 10:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalizing articles, deleting categories, removing sourced material, being incivil and sending personal attacks repeatedly as you did in the Parsi article talk, is not tolerated, i didn't even have to read your last post in my talk page to know its another attack. Look here its very simple, keep be incivil=block. -- Spahbod  ☼  10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

#2
I'm sorry, but I've always been civil, even when you haven't. Since you have not addressed the concers expressed in my comment above, you leave me no option but to repeat:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Fullstop 10:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop
If you have a problem with his behavior, report it to WP:AN, WP:AN/I or WP:PAIN. Attacking the user and reverting every edit you see of theirs is NOT the way to go. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood but retribution is just not a good idea. You don't get a "pass" because someone else did the same thing. Doesn't work that way. Just be careful. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. TomTheHand 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
Please do not place new reports in the Open Reports section. Reports go in Open Reports only after someone has responded to the report. In addition please be careful to not mess up the page layout. Paul Cyr 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blank or delete large portions of articles.
Thanks for your edits to Cyrus the Great, unfortunately, you blanked out large portions of the article. If you are going to be involved in the article, as you wished, I suggest you participate in the discussions about the article. Had you paid more attention, you would have noticed the article is currently undergoing a peer review at Peer review/Cyrus the Great/archive1. ♠ SG →Talk 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was the last straw. I explained to you why I changed the categories, and I explained to you why I added more to the article. This message serves as your notification for my request for arbitration. Please add your statement under the following headline: Requests_for_arbitration. ♠ SG →Talk 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Excuse me? Would you please do your research? Look at the data. All the contributions I have made are to do with Software, Linux, free and open standards; and other bits and bobs I am interested in. Fullstop does not make edits to any articles the such as far as I can tell. Also, as I state clearly on my Userpage, this is a new occurrence of an account, my old one being User:Moitio. On that account I joined in April 05 and as of 18th of July the account is obsolete. Also if you did your research further, you'd notice this page: User talk:86.3.165.183. If you do a ping for that IP address, you'll find that I live in Stockport, UK. I highly doubt that is where Fullstop lives. Please leave it to the Checkusers to determine the scokpuppets before you accuse.

You are very quick to jump to conclusions. This latest accusation leaves me puzzled as to your intentions. I don't see why you are doing this, and I express concern for Fullstop's ability to edit the Wikipedia. You need to stop responding to me with accusations and talk to me in a civil manner. And before you accuse me of incivility, stop. I want you to talk to me this time. --T. Moitie [ talk ] 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of Halabja
I have accepted a mediation case concerning the chemical bombing of Halabja. In the request for mediation, you were listed as one of the disputing editors. I am currently soliciting views from editors concerning the dispute here. Thank you. Rohirok 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Halabja2www.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halabja2www.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hafez Fixed.jpg
Hello, can you provide some information on the taking of the picture as Carnildo suggested at Images and media for deletion/2006 July 28? I would imagine that you know about what time you visited the area, and what sort of camera you used. Thanks, KWH 10:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

KwH please delete all images i uploaded, i really don't care anymore. Thank you, -- Spahbod  ☼  12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion
Your account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked account: User:Darkred. Please see Blocking policy if you'd like to know more about this policy, and the record of the indef block on Darkred and where you admit to being this user (as well as the general Requests for arbitration page where you don't deny it in your statement.) ~Kylu ( u | t )  10:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kylu, i did not know Inshaneee had permanently blocked me when i made this account, all i remember from darkred was the 2 weeks block, and after i made this account i did not use darkred, so that takes sockpuppet question out of question. Regarding block evasion like i said and even told inshanee himself that i didn't know about the permanent block when i made this account, however i do not really care at this point and not going to try to get unblocked. Furthermore even tho i am not going to edit in wikipedia any longer, i would ask any admin that reads this to please take care of the matter with User:SG and User:Fullstop, which is in artibition page and administrator notice board. The evidence i put there is quite clear. I am not going to visit this talk page anymore, so i am gonna make this my last post, trust me by blocking every good user you will end up with nothing more than a few little men who will ultimately destroy wikipedia with thier small minded intentions. Thank you very much, -- Spahbod  ☼  12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Spahbod, threats of physical violence aren't just forgotten when you make a new account. T. Moitie [ talk ] 12:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear, I had no intention of getting anyone indefinitely blocked. I merely wanted Spahbod to realize what his actions were doing to the Cyrus article and Wikipedia as a whole. I didn't even know his previous account had been blocked. ♠ SG →Talk 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Halabja_from_far.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halabja_from_far.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On Unruled Paper (film)
You may wish to participate in the on-going discussion here:. --BF 12:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Bahram Moshiri"
A page you created, Bahram Moshiri, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it serves only to attack some entity. Please do not continue to create attack pages, as you will be blocked from editing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pars Gold 2.jpg


The file File:Pars Gold 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)