User talk:Wikaviani/Archive 3

Legit removal and changes?
this --Wario-Man (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like another example of POV editing from this user. He removed a reliable source (Alireza Shapur Shahbazi) and replaced it with his POV. Quite surprising that this edit has not been reverted until now. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Question
those texts did not provided sources,why u coming back those ? Sasan Hero (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, as i said in my edit summary, you did not provide any explanation for your content removal, this is why i reverted you. Also, maybe you should first check the web in order to see if it's possible to find soures for this content, and, if you cannot find any, then you may remove it. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That bowl has shown didnot belonged to Samanid era ,that is belonged to buyid era ,and text not provided sources ,this is not my duty to find source for articles of other editors ,and my explanation part of my page not work ,so I can't write explain for that,however I am always useful for my reliable information that I wrote yet. Sasan Hero (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani Sasan Hero (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you know for sure that this bowl is not from the Samanid era, then feel free to revert me, but please provide an edit summary in order to explain your action. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This bowl is currently in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection. According to its catalogue entry there, it was "Produced in northeastern Iran, in the province of Khurasan during the Samanid period, … ".  User Sasan Hero's implied assertion that he is not obliged to provide a source to justify his removal of that conent is therefore incorrect.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This bowl is in the Buyid dynasty's page too ,I told that was from Buyid era for that ,but I had search in the net and I saw this bowl from Samanid period excuseme for that ,And for articles I only told thats should better with source provided ,thanks. Sasan Hero (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Buyids never ruled northeastern Iran, i agree with David. Also, apart from consensual content in the lead of Wiki articles, information needs reliable sources.
 * Hey, thanks for your above post and valuable insight. BTW, happy to hear from you, i hope that this Christmas period is full of joy for you and yours, best wishes. take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Arabs
Can you take a look at this discussion, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

 * Thank you very much ! Wish you and you beloved ones the merriest Christmas and a happy new year ! May 2019 be troll free ! Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  18:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks so much :), Take care, – Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A Shaker greeting
Thanks very much for your kind wishes. Happy editing, into 2019 and beyond! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
This, may need your attention. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. The IP's opinion about Zoroastrianism is not shared by most reliable sources. From Encyclopedia Iranica : " Although modern Zoroastrians question whether their religion even allows conversion, Zoroastrianism, as an ethical and essentially monotheistic religion based on a historical figure " I would say that this should be discussed on the article's talk. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
I saw your edit and that user is a problematic one. See this archived report which I submitted a year ago. You can take a deep look at his contributions and see more odd stuff by him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i've interacted with this user months ago : . At that time he was trying to push his odd POV at Azerbaijanis by misrepresenting what the sources say and removing some of them (like Iranica) :, before i added some decisive sources to make him drop the stick : , , . This user dares to claim that today Azerbaijanis are of Turkish origin while all genetic studies deny this, typical Turkish irredentism behaviour. i suggest to give him some more rope before to act decisively and make this stop. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  13:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Every time he touches an article and writes edit summaries like "fixed", "fixes", and "pov"; I'm 99% sure that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT has happened! He changes sourced texts and call it fix! His edit history is full of such edits. Another example: . Honestly I don't understand he's still active on English WP while his account is blocked on German WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, indeed that one is quite disruptive. No worries, sooner or later, an admin will realise how WP:NOTHERE this guy is and then he'll be blocked. Another topic, i would appreciate your insight about this edit. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Caucasus
Britannica has a different definition regarding the boundaries of the continent. They see the north and the south of the mountain range as part of Asia. But that's not mainstream. Also the claim that the majority of the scholars consider the whole region (including the northern part) as part of Asia has no source (even the given source Britannica says otherwise, they say "there is now general agreement (which is not true) on assigning the Caucasus to Asia", they don't mention 'scolars'). Most sources, including Wiikipedia consider the Caucasus as a division line between Europe and Asia. The text that you reversed was a biased text that contradicts this. It was a recent edit by someone that is trying to change the definition of Europe. --Wester (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey and thank you for posting here. If the source says "general agreement instead of "scholars" then we can change the wording of the article accordingly. However, when you say "even the given source Britannica  says otherwise, they say "there is now general agreement (which is not true) ", i just cannot agree with you, you have been editing this encyclopedia for 13 years, you ought to know by now that we go with what reliable sources say. Britannica is not the best source ever, especially for recent events, but it sounds like an acceptable source for the Caucasus topic. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  17:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources are one thing, but in-depth discussion are also necessary. Also internal consistence of Wikipedia is important. Take a look at the articles Europe of Elbrus, which both say that the Caucasus is the border between Europe and Asia. In that article a source is given: https://www.webcitation.org/5kwbxqnne?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html, here's another: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pack/georgia-and-the-caucasus-_b_10240342.html. There a lot more sources that say that the Caucasus is the border. There is also a difference between the region Caucasus (south of the mountain range) and the mountain range itself.


 * Also the language of the sentence I reversed in the article Caucasus is flaw, it indicates that the Greater Caucasus mountain range 'has historically been considered a natural barrier between Eastern Europe and Western Asia, but is today accepted by the majority of scholars as being part of Asia'. First of all they seem to intermix the mountain range and the region. But also the claim that the majority of the scholars say it's Asian is sourceless since the given source (Britannica) does not mention scholars. It says 'general agreement' which is also questionable given the enormous number of sources that question the region's continental identity. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-georgia-in-europe-or-asia.html The sentence is also a recent edit made by User:Seraphim_System, see the history of that page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasus&action=history .I've given a source that say the Caucasus is the border line. So there are plenty of good reasons to reverse the sentence. --Wester (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your point about the "natural barrier", this claim is in the article and i did not revert you for it. The sources you posted above are not supporting the belonging of the Caucasus to Europe (also, Huffpost is clearly not a reliable source). Encarta says : "Modern geographers generally describe the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, part of the Caspian Sea, and the Caucasus Mountains as forming the main boundary between Europe and Asia." this is quite different from "The Caucasus is in Europe", right ? As an aside, if the world "scholars" annoys you, let's then just say what the source says, i.e. : "there is now general agreement on assigning the Caucasus to Asia.", would it be ok for you ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Bogus?
What do you think about that article? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Azeri style


 * The article could be quite legit, but right now, it's very poorly sourced (BTW, who are Karim Pimia or Said Fallah'far ?), contains many unsourced claims and is misleading. Example, is really the Goharshad Mosque Azeri style ? No. this Mosque was built some 200 years before Azerbaijanis. same goes for Bibi-Khanym Mosque, Dome of Soltaniyeh (the latter was even completed some 300 years before Azerbaijanis ...) and others. I've not been able to verify this claim of the lead "Landmarks of this style of architecture span from the late 13th century (Ilkhanate) to the appearance of the Safavid Dynasty in the 16th century CE". A correct title could be "Iranian style", but only if reliable sources can be found supporting this. This article should be deleted or better sourced and written. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD nomination
It looks like you're trying to nominate an article for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Azeri style. Since the nomination currently resembles a comment added to a different AfD in the various log views, I recommend completing the nomination using the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, which walks through the various templates and listings required for a proper AfD nomination. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for posting here. I used Twinkle to nominate the article for deletion and when i read WP:AFDHOWTO, it seems that i've already followed those 3 steps, so i don't really understand what else you want me to do. Please let me know if i'm mistaken. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the missing afd2 template (step 2) to Articles for deletion/Azeri style. Twinkle sometimes does not handle AfD nominations correctly, so it's a good idea to confirm that it has actually added the necessary templates. Bakazaka (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'll try to keep your remark in mind for the next time. Wish you a great rest of your day. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh?
Hello W. Did you really mean to rollback Swarm's own post on his talk page. If it is a mistake you might want to reverse it. If I'm missing something then my apologies. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No, i think my account is compromised, trying to change my password. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah rats - I hope things work out in getting it fixed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i think it's ok for now, but i asked for help on your talk. Feel free to move my question here if you prefer. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns page change
Hello wikaviani,

One Question: Why did you revert my change on Pashtuns page (religion section). Please see the talk page (talk) and read it. I had to change it because of a mistake. I have already discussed it with Dough. Casperti (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for posting here. I checked the article's talk page, but i don't see a consensus with . I pinged him here, if he agrees with your edit, then feel free to revert me. Best regaards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. I saw your expertise in Iranian related wiki pages. Do you speak Persian? So you can help me out with the discussion on the talk page on Pashtuns. I have posted this news article Nearly 99% Of Hindus, Sikhs Left Afghanistan in Last Three decades, it has a Farsi speaking video in it. Can you translate it? The confusion on that page is an error. People see the Hindu and Sikhs of Afghanistan and KPK as ethnic Pashtuns/Afghans. While I argue no they are part of the Hindki, they speak the language of the region they are in. Most of them lived in Pashtun areas but because of the war, All of them fled. Can you confirm this on the talk page? Or translate it and confirm the Sikhs and Hindus of Kabul speak Farsi and that the "Pashtun" Hindus/Sikhs have fled those areas completely? (Kandahar, Helmand, Paktia, Farah etc).btw Dough knowledge is low on this, he said to me wait for Afghan or Pashtun experts. But I carried out the references and discussion by myself now. Only today I asked several other Afghan, Persian, Pashtun experts. Thank you in advance, let me know. I am a native Persian speaker as well, but if 1 Persian speaker translates it, it will look unreliable, therefore I need your expertise on that as well Casperti (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for posting here. Yeah, i'm a native Persian speaker. I will take a look at your link and translate it with pleasure. Since i cannot watch a video currently, i'll do that tonight if you don't mind. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. I saw your confirmation and Translation. Many thanks. There is now only one fellow editor left that doesn't agree despite all those sources but he got other intentions maybe I don't know. But I will manage it. Thanks again for your Persian language expertise. Casperti (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Anytime. Feel free to let me know whenever you need so. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Wikaviani. Can you please watch articles related to this topic area? The main article is protected by multiple editors but disruptions on related and less popular articles may remain unnoticed for a long time. See this one, for example. So can you please watch the less popular articles related to the topic? Since you are an active editor with rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights and since the topic area seems to be within your area of interest (considering your old edits), i would like to bring this to your attention to prevent further disruption. Cheers, 18.30.122.50 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you very much for posting here. I've added the 2 articles you linked in your post and will add more related articles to my watchlist. Thank you for letting me know about this. Wish you a great rest of your day. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Iranian diaspora
can you know persian language? i send your refrence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tixthulk (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.asriran.com/fa/news/647282/6-%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC-%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%85%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%AF

طبق اطلاعات دولت در حال حاضر به 6 الی 7 میلیون نفر از ایرانیان مقیم خارج یارانه داده می‌شود.

According to government data, currently 6 to 7 million immigrant Iranians leave.2018 report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tixthulk (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, your source is only supporting a slightly different global figure (6-7 millions instead of 4-5 millions), but it does not give the detailed figures per country, please do not add this to the article without a reliable source. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ok, but infobox is a help to article. pkease cited notes with reliable source in infobox. or add citation needed add to numbers. i know many of these numbers ire true.Tixthulk (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You may think your figures are "true", but on Wikipedia, we just go with what reliable sources state, not with what some editors believe to be "true". Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Bit of an issue at Atropatene
Salam dadash, there seems to be a particular editor |here that is causing trouble at this article, any help or advice you could offer would be appreciated. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, this sounds like another case of POV pushing, the historical Atropatene has very little to do with modern Azerbaijani Republic. Tip : i would suggest you to stop reverting, because you'll get blocked for edit warring, rather, go to the talk page and try to open a discussion about this, in order to show that you're trying to discuss the matter. Don't hesitate if need anything else. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know
The IP that is edit warring with you and Emir of Wikipedia on Ismail al-Jazari is linked to PrinceofFrancia. Per this and this. I felt it was imperative you knew who you were dealing with. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, while i did have an edit war with you on frankish kings before (for which i apologise), that IP is not me. I know nothing about middle eastern history (like i have commented on my page), and am in no position to argue with anyone. I swear by all that is holy that that IP is not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceofFrancia (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

fountain
hi, why have you reverted by edits in the fountain?, regards. 115.133.209.70 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtun population edits
Hi there. I am confused as to why you cannot see the reference provided for the change in pashtun population and thought i'd discuss with you here before attempting to add my changes again. If you check my edit and click on the citation next to the new pashtun population in pakistan (labelled "2"), you will see that it directs you to the website of the CIA World Factbook which provides the updated population of the whole of pakistan following the 2017 census. as was done previously on the article, i factored in the percentage that pashtuns constitute of the population to obtain their total population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.187.69 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for posting here. It seems that you're right, i missed the line where you added the source. I'll self revert. Thank you for letting me know about that. happy editing. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks mate likewise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.187.69 (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Encylopaedia Iranica removal from Urartu page
The reason I removed that section from the Urartu page is because many of the names listed are identified as having Iranian etymologies, some by Eclopaedia Iranica itself! Please see the following:

Dardarsis is Iranian:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dadarsis-old-persian-name-derived-from-darsto-dare-kent-old-persian-p

Tigra is likely Iranian:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Տիգրան

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/تیر

Araxa (sometimes spelled Arakha) is likely Armenian or Iranian:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/արքայ

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Երասխ#Armenian

I don’t know about all the topographical names, although some of those seem to possibly be Semitic or Iranian.

Haldita seems to be a Urartian name.

Preservedmoose (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking the time to come here and explain your edit. However, i confess that i don't see how your above remarks make Encyclopedia Iranica a "questionable" source. This encyclopedia is a good source for many Iranian-related topics and is widely used on Wikipedia. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to read/consider my argument. I didn’t mean that Encylopaedia Iranica as a whole was questionable, just that the passage in question deriving from EI was, especially because it contradicts at least one other page on EI. Obviously I used EI as a source myself, so I appreciate it as a resource as well. Thanks again!


 * Thanks for clarifying. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Unacceptable revert
Hi dear Wikaviani! Please undo Shadegan's edit on the page Lurs. He reverted all I did to the page. Even though, he only disagrees with one part of it. Is this acceptable? Taddah (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, i pinged him and aked him for clarification, if he fails to provide legit reasons for his revert, i'll revert ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He has already failed. It's pointless to continue this discussion. Plus I made some edits on the page Laks, and I guess that he might revert them too. Please watch that page too. Also, he has previously had edit wars on that page with other users about the same subject. Best. Taddah (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Laks added to my watchlist as requested. On my end, i'll be patient and will give another oportunity to justify his edit. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at this as well
Please take a look at this, is this acceptable ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.200.152 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Replied on the article's talk page. Your concerns being legit, i adressed them. Thanks and happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your ANI comment
I went ahead and added it back for you and put it inside the closing template. If you'd rather it be removed, feel free to undo my edit. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i did not want to let Nabeezy's comment uncontradicted, since i sincerely think your remark was legit, 3 days is really too soon. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your report
No replies by admins? Restore it if someone or a bot archives it without conclusion. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. BTW, i'm quite baffled by the way things are going on. This case was opened 10 days ago, there is a consensus about this user being nothere, but the situation is just frozen and nobody takes the move to indef him. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, En WP has 1,100+ admins and it seems many of them are either inactive or they barely participate on noticeboard reports/cases. Another point is your report is not a complicated case and any admin with some experience can decide about it. I don't know if bots still archive the reports after 72H inactivity or not. I have decided to restore my future reports (on any board) until I get a clear response from an admin or admins. Because if I don't do it, I only mock myself for sure. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * At AN3, Bots usually archive threads that are older than 3 days, Oshwah told this to me weeks ago, but i don't know if this is true at ANI. I agree with you, when a reprt is filed, one uses some time for it and a response should be given, so i'll also restore the report until an admin deals with it. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The report was archived, i restored it. This 72 hours rule is quite strange, especially while there are so few admins ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I guess bot would archive your restoration in less than 24H if you don't add a new comment to it. Seems bot just check timestamps and archives anything older than 72H. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The bot has archive it again. It just archives reports per last comment timestamp. Older than 72H => archive regardless of your restoration time or the status of report. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Restored it. Frankly, this is a sign of a broken system, we should have more admins for such a huge encyclopedia while many people fail when they go for a RfA ... Someone like you, LouisAragon or Kansas Bear would be an awesome admin, have you ever considered to go for a RfA ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you don't add a new comment to your report, the archiving bot archives it again in 12-24H. I'm not interested in becoming an admin because I'm OK with my current user rights and the way I contribute to this project. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I already added a comment (note to admins) at the end of the report. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Here we go, another "no action taken" and non admin closure, hard to believe it ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That was predictable and I don't know what to say about it. They didn't even warn him. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Maldivian-related articles
Hi, Wikaviani,

I'd just like to point out that we have a user (User:Florian Blaschke) who is going around and editing various Maldivian-related articles, stating that the Maldivian language is a descendant of the Elu Prakrit spoken in Ancient Sri Lanka. I have questioned his reversion of one of my edits, but they haven't responded yet. They have provided no evidence for their editing of a well-established fact and I feel they're simply being disruptive --Theudariks (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're lying. The article stated that before any of my edits and you were the one who tried to change the statement without citing any sources for it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lyra McKee
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Tractor Sazi
Hi, about the argument in Tractor Sazi page, please refer to talk page 1 and talk page 2--90Pluss (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, if these threads are relevant, then you should copy-paste them to Talk:Tractor Sazi F.C.. In any case, new edits to this article should be discussed on the article's talk page, since we had a large number of disruptive users trying to push a nationalistic pro-Azerbaijani agenda in recent times. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani, I have discussed this issue with Migboy123, and also wrote it in the talk page of Tractor Sazi. Please do read them and undo the edits I have did. Regrads,--90Pluss (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some maps which look like WP:OR
Can you verify reliability of these maps? The claimed stats do not make any sense for some regions. e.g. how 20% of Northern Khorasan and 10% of Fars provinces are Azeri while main articles only mention Khorasani Turks and Qashqais?! --Wario-Man (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Will try to find the official results of this poll, these maps seem to have been changed by numerous editors, i would not trust what they claim. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you should go to Persian WP and ask about reliability of these maps. In my opinion, they don't sound legit, e.g. it seems every Turkic group is considered Azeri in the first map. Very POV stuff, more or less. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmm yeah, you're right, i was not able to find the official results of this poll on the web, i will go to the Persian Wiki and ask them about the above maps. The first map was last edited by a certain Sabuhi from Baku ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, i asked for the reliability of the above maps on the Persian Wiki, i'm currently waiting for their answer. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As the Persian Wiki board is not answering to my request, i asked for some assistance. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation for edit
Wish to thank you for your edit of 24 May 2019 on Armenian Genocide article in which you reverted Rtmorphine's ill-considered change of a perfectly good sentence. 'Unhelpful changes' indeed.
 * Hi, You're quite welcome, thanks for the kind message. Wish you a great rest of your day. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your good wishes are very appreciated. Diranakir (talk)

Hey
Hey, thanks for helping out on my talk page. I popped a little protection on your page after you got hit by that vandal too --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome ! thanks for the coutesy message, appreciate it. And thank you for protecting my talk page too. Wish you a great rest of your day. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on Laki language
Hello Wikaviani. I can see that you have previously interacted with user:Shadegan in Talk:Lurs and have confronted the user due to his edits. After I improved the Laki language (almost wholly), Shadegan reverted my justifiable edits twice with no explanation (other than Neutralizing ethnocentric efforts which seems to be his usual argument). Also when looking at Talk:Laki language, it's clear that other users have had problems with his lack of acceptance of reliable sources over a year ago. The user has "only" reverted my changes twice, but it seems like he will continue for a long time. Any chance that action can be taken against his moves and force him to use the talkpage instead? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for posting here. Please correct me if i'm mistaken, as far as i can see, you try to claim that Laki language is a dialect of Kurdish while two other editors, (Shadegan and HistoryofIran) disagree with you, right ? ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  14:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Concerning Shadegan, I've notified the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. My disagreement with HistoryofIran are not about content but about whether it should be called language or dialect and there is move request about that on the talk page (Talk:Laki language, where you are more than welcome to chime in). Shadegan on the other hand reverts and claims that its ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Left a comment on the article's talk about edit-warring. It's better to stop warring and discuss on the talk. I can join the discussion there too. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. But I believe his reverts on Iraqi Lurs and Feylis should be reverted. And I don't expect much discussion from him/her, as I can see that it has been going on since January 2018. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a name change request at Talk:Kurdistan_Province, please take a look and perhaps vote in it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Doushe Cave
Hello, Wikaviani. Thanks for adding source for Doushe Cave image. However, the article is about discovery in Khuzestan, not Louristan, and the image of horseman inside has no any relation to the text. It would be intresting to find the real source. Olvegg (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for posting here. The problem is that the source explicitly supports the claim, thus, according to me, your new tag seems irrelevant. If you still disagree we could continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

QN
Hello Wikaviani. Are you fluent in Persian? I have been searching for sources regarding a topic and probably most of the literature is presented in Persian rather than English. Puduḫepa (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Persian is my mother tongue. If i can help you for anything, i'll be glad to do so. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is about an area within the geography of Iran. I have explained in detail, please check your inbox. Puduḫepa (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of info do you exactly need about the part of the Zagros that is located in Turkey ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any kind of info would be helpful actually. Puduḫepa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take a look for you and i'll ping you here when i'll find some infos, with their translation in English. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I made some researches, in 3 languages : Persian, French and English about your request, however, it's all about how you define the Zagros mountains. To be clear, the vast majority of sources describe these mountains as being mainly located in Iran and for the remaining part in Iraq. The Persian and French Wikis don't mention Turkey as a country where a part of the range is located. The rare sources describing a so called Turkish part for these mountains are, as far as i've seen, unreliable (blogs mostly). Sorry if i cannot bring a positive answer to your request. If you have any question, do not hesitate. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar mate, much appreciated ! Always happy to help ;-)) ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much for the barnstar ! very much appreciated ! Cheers ! ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe misunderstanding?
I apologize if i came out as rude but I admit I easily get offended if someone accuses me of vandalism. I think everyone agrees about hazara linguistics and the title had initially specified it. I've added evidence of cultural influence and linguistics to the wikipedia. It would be nice if you retracted the accusation as my intention was never to cause vandalism but you don't have to. I hope that we can look past this.

Cheers! Foxhound03 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

May be there I reverted recently good edit that you asked about Red Wolves
Hello, I recently reverted dozen new edits without edit summary and one was with references by User_talk:Winterchillz. I don't know Iranian language, but if you know, you may consider this to add back (https://parsfootball.com/fa/20506|title= آمار درخشان گرگ های سرخ آذربایجان) to Tractor Sazi F.C.. I soory, the users make new petty edits so lot and quickly, so I puzzled a bit where is good where is vandalism :) PoetVeches (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for posting here. No worries, i checked the link about FarsFootball, it's a site with infos about Iranian football, and as far as i could see, there was nothing about "Red wolves". Thank you for intervening and reverting the unexpainded changes, this article has become a mess since some POV editors are at it. Please do not hesitate if you need anything else. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  17:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After all, I found good English website actually (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractor_Sazi_F.C.&diff=902847391&oldid=902844964) and added the nickname myself :) PoetVeches (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the source you added is a blog written by Javid Nikpour, therefore not a reliable source. I reverted your edit. Also, please keep in mind that verifiability dos not guarantee inclusion, dsicuss on the article's talk page and achieve consensus before adding this content. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought this is official website copyrighted. Where do you find information that you cannot use copyrighted website? It looks good trusty website by Javid Nikpour (https://www.javidnikpour.com/about/). PoetVeches (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion this source is unreliable because it's a blog or self-published. Also, i would suggest to continue this thread on the article's talk page. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know
My edit to omelette was not vandalism, as your edit summary seems to imply. On the contrary, my edits REVERTED vandalism, but I forgot to check the page history to see if there was any more vandalism. Just wanted to let you know so that nobody gets under the false impression that I am committing vandalism myself.

I have learned my lesson; going forward, I shall check the history of vandalized pages to see if there is any more vandalism beyond the surface. TitanSymphony (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking the time to post here and explain your changes to the article. Firstly, no worries, my edit summary was absolutely not about you but the IP you reverted, precisely. The point was that you reverted partially the disruptive changes made by he IP, so i came up and restored last good version in order to remove the rest of the IP's edit that fell outside your two reverts. Second, just to let you know, in my edit summary, i talked about disruption, not vandalism, as usually, it's better to avoid labelling other editors' contributions as vandalism (except, ofc, clear cut cases of vandalism). If you have any further question or need any help for something on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate, just ask. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Defining an omelette as a "little Amish child" doesn't count as vandalism? I'm slightly confused; how bad do disruptive edits have to be in order to be considered vandalism? Or is it the other way around? TitanSymphony (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies, maybe i was not clear enough and thus, i guess you got me wrong. My above remark in my edit summary was about my revert, not yours. Indeed, that part of the IP edits you mentioned above was vandalism, but the part that was reverted by me (i.e. "place of origin : France") was not vandalism, rather, it was disruptive since the IP reinstated an unconsensual and unsourced content without discussing the matter on the talk. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. TitanSymphony (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite welcome. May i suggest you to use indentation in a thread ? I mean, first editor makes a comment, any reply to this comment should begin with :, a reply to the reply should begin with :: and so on. This makes readability better. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Req
Hello Wikaviani. Could you add this page to your watchlist for some time? We have a grossly tendentious and disruptive editor there—see the revision history. I am very busy with real-life tasks nowadays and it would be nice if someone takes an eye on the the editor's edits. Puduḫepa 07:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, i watch the article now. Just a question, is the editor you're labelling as disruptive ? I don't interact often with him, but as far as i can see, he sounds like a legit editor, or at least, we can assume good faith here. Also, i have to let you know that i'm gonna take some vacations, and while i will still be able to edit Wikipedia during my hollidays, i'll be less active here for the next two/three weeks. Wish you a great rest of your day mate. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

pan-arabist agenda
this Emirate of Arabistan is against all historical facts from Khuzestan Province, History of Khuzestan Province, and Origin of the name Khuzestan.188.158.112.88 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * also . pure agenda to arabify the khuzestan and de-iranify it at the same time. can you and help????188.158.112.88 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi IP user and thank you for posting here. I agree with your concerns, but i'm actually on a Wikibreak and have reduced my Wikipedia activities. However, i'll help you with pleasure when i'll be fully back on Wiki (in about 2 weeks). Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (2019 Iran-U.S. drone incident) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating 2019 Iran-U.S. drone incident.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 13:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for letting me know about this. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

how can i deal with this vandal?
please see and. he removes and reverts my edits and comments and just writes rv & rvv in his edit summary. can you report him? how can i report him by myself?GGBarBar (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for letting me know about this issue. I reverted the troll and posted a warning on his talk page. If he keeps edit-warring and POV-pushing, then i'll report him or, if you want, you can report him yourself here. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for help. i don't know how to submit a report so if you or other user submit me, that would be great. plz keep an eye on that article. that guy could be a sock account because he adds banned users' content. someone like this User:Winterchillz. i bet he has multi accounts because they just edit that article and all have similar agenda.GGBarBar (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, i'm always happy to help. Indeed, this user is probably a sock but i watch the article, just like several other editors. As i said above, if he Continues to make disruptive edits then i'll report him to the relevant noticeboard. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani
So you ignore Russian sources, english sites like Washington Times and books ? You say these sources have no weighting for you? That you do not even take the time to include certain relevant passages shows that you are have no really genuine interest in the subject. Its simply not objective. Sorry, when you are really an authentic person and do not try to contain certain information. But Wikipedia is already losing credibility. Even if the article about Shashlik stays that way, ok. Not objective type of wikipedia policy only accelerates this process, less information diversity = less editor = less global information quality = less relevance. Over time, other platforms and sources of information will emerge which will make Wikipedia irrelevant. I'm sure they are already in the coming --85.212.110.234 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi anonymous user and thank you for taking the time to post here. Firstly, i would suggest you to lower your tone when you interact with other users. Second, i did not ignore the Washington times and the other sources, i explained in my edit-summary that the sources you're talking about are not high quality reliable sources for historical topics (including the Washington times) while you were trying to remove other good sources with your edit(s). Finally, if "other platforms" sound that great to you, then maybe you could go there and edit them instead of Wikipedia which is "losing credibility" and has "not objective policies". That said, if you decide to contribute in a constructive way here, then i'll be glad to discuss with you on the article's talk page. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ted hamiltun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emirate_of_Arabistan#VivereInPace_=_Ted_hamiltun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.104.174 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting read
Recently decided to reopen James R. Russell's Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Other than it being an excellent work, I stumbled across some newer works dealing with the same matter, which I thought were pretty interesting as well. Some excerpts:


 * "There are two very important exceptions to this general pattern of the spread of Zoroastrianism: It is certain that the Armenians and the Georgians (or Iberians) were Zoroastrians before they converted to Christianity. This is not an obvious fact to everyone; on the contrary, it has been (and continues to be) bitterly opposed, especially by Armenian and Georgian scholars, who prefer to think of the pre-Christian religions of the Armenians and Georgians as chiefly “local” or “indigenous” traditions, which accommodated some Iranian elements (Ananikian 1925). They are aided in this interpretation by the fact that the (Christian) Armenian and Georgian sources rarely, if at all, identify the religion of their ancestors before their conversion to Christianity as “Zoroastrianism.” These sources either prefer seemingly neutral terms (such as “the religion of our forefathers”) or polemical ones (“heathenism”), but do not label the reli-gion as “Iranian” or “Zoroastrian.” Where these terms occur, they refer to the religion of the Persians, chiefly of the Persians as enemies of the Christian Armenians. This fact in itself, while undeniable, is not compelling; on the contrary, it seems to be in harmony with the selfidentifications of most of the Iranians; the wide spread of the term “Zoroastrian” is of post-Sasanian date and even “Mazda-worshipping” is mainly used in limited (e.g., imperial and liturgical) contexts. Iranian Zoroastrians seem to have been identified after the Iranian land they came from (Persians, Parthians, Sogdians, etc.), with the Zoroastrian element of their identity selfunderstood."


 * "Historically, the first trace of an Armenian polity is the inclusion of the satrapy of Armina in the Achaemenid Empire."


 * "From the period of Alexander to the downfall and partition of the kingdom(s) of Armenia between Sasanian Persia and the Byzantine Empire, Armenia is usually presented as a battle-zone between the two superpowers of the ancient world (Iran in the East and Greeks and Romans in the West). While this is true politically, it is not a very promising perspective culturally, for Armenia and the Armenians clearly and unequivocally participated in Iranian culture."


 * "Recently, intensive archaeological study of various sites in the eastern half of Georgia has strengthened the case for a very early inclusion of Iberia in the Iranian political and cultural realm (Knauss 2006), and, like the Armenian sources, Georgian historical sources present a variety of evidence for a long period of intimate interaction between Georgian and Iranian culture. In both cases, this interaction continued after the (early) conversion of the kingdoms to Christianity. The conversion of the Iberian king Mirian III (with his realm) is traditionally dated to the year 337 CE. Georgia too was ruled by families with an Iranian ancestry (Persian and Parthian), who participated in the Iranian dynastic network that dominated the eastern half of the ancient world from Alexander to the end of antiquity."

-- Albert de Jong (2015) "Armenian and Georgian Zoroastrianism" in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism; Michael Stausberg, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina; Anna Tessmann (ed). John Wiley And Sons Ltd. pp. 119-128

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your post and for the download link. I will read the PDF with great interest. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Found a better link for Russell. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Wikaviani. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

You should know better
Tagging disputed material is an alternative to edit warring.

You have two editors agreed and one disagreeing to a change.

That does not give you the right to impose your view, let alone remove tags.

I suggest you restore them -Snowded TALK 13:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to impose my view, i try to go with what the mainstream of sources say about this. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You are - two editors interpret the sources one way, another editor differs. The two editors are trying to change the existing article.   You are imposing your view and deleting tags makes it worse.  I suggest you engage properly here. -Snowded TALK 13:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not about the number of editors, it's also about the sources. They widely support the defeat of the French side. But i suggest we keep discussing on the article's talk page, in order to keep the discussion centralized. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Its about interpretation of those sources - and that is for the talk page. What is at issue here is YOUR conduct in removing a tag -Snowded TALK 14:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag since you added it next to several sources that are supporting the outcome. How is a dubious tag helpful when sources are cited just before ? The inclusion of such a tag is needed when we have unsourced claims, otherwise, it's just an attempt to mislead the reader. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No - you changed the existing text to something which is disputed. Rather than edit war with you, I tagged it as disputed which is good practice.  I don't agree with your interpretation or weight given to sources.  It should be left blank or in original form until that is resolved. At the moment it simply reports one disputed outcome and that misleads the reader.   Two editors saying they are right is not enough for consensus - this is 101 Wikipedia practice -Snowded TALK 15:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * When Aldrige and Judge say "departure of the DEFEATED French" how exactly is this disputed ? As i said, you're a veteran editor and i have much respect for you, but i have two remarks. First off, you sound like you just don't want to admit the obvious, i mean what the sources say, in these conditions, achieving a consensus looks like an impossible task. Secondly, let's not speak about behaviors, since you were engaged in edit warring with two users while i just reverted the article to a better sourced version and removed an irrelevant tag placed just next to sources that are contradicting the said tag. A "disputed" tag doesn't indicate that editors have a dispute about the outcome, rather, it indicates that the outcome itself is disputed, which is obviously not the case. I would like to draw your attention on the fact that the version you're trying to reinstate was tagged with a "refimprove" tag since june 2013, this is why i tried to reword it and add sources. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can I remind you that two editors do not constitute a consensus against another editor, not do they have the right to determine that they are right in their interpretation of the sources, or the weight of the material used or referenced. In one change I directly quoted the source but you didn't like that! You are being highly selective in what you are taking from the sources.  I'll leave it to tomorrow to see if you engage - I've tried to help by splitting the issue into two. -Snowded TALK 15:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can remind me that, and i can remind you that you have not addressed my above concern, when Aldrige and Judge say "departure of the DEFEATED French" how is this "selective" or a matter of interpretation when it comes to determine if the French were defeated or not ? Again, it's not a question of achieving a consensus with two editors against another, it's about going with what reliable sources say, nothing less, nothing more. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And they were defeated three times before they withdrew - and they extracted a significant price for doing so which is omitted. Other sources say they withdrew after the defeats.  So there are different interpretations and different emphases possible.  Normally we would agree on the emphasis rather than just have two editors say they know best.  Either way I will put together various quotes and we can talk about that one.   FOr the moment I will focus on my second issue which is addiitonal outcomes so we get the balance right.   -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 16:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy to see that we're progressing. On my end, i don't claim i know better, i'm just interested in history. As i said above, i want to go with what sources say, if you make a proposal, summarizing the outcome in a well-balanced way with relevant cites, i'll support it. Thanks and take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

How to get the attention of other editors? (Jabir ibn Hayyan)
Dear Wikaviani,

I made some bold changes to Jabir ibn Hayyan, with ample discussion on the talk page. I would like to invite as many other editors as possible to participate, but I'm not sure about how to go about that. I tried to 'ping' them (including you), but I have the feeling that this didn't work?

Sincerely, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:ECF2:F683:99E3:4D94 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for posting here. As far as i'm concerned, i received your ping, but i was not interested in reading the WP:TLDR wall of text you wrote on the article's talk page. The Jabir ibn Hayyan article has been significantly reworded quite recently with the contributions of several veteran editors whom you pinged. Coming up and saying "mind your sources" was probably not the best way to draw people's attention. If you really want to discuss this with me, please explain me shortly what your point is. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I primarily wanted to know whether my attempt to ping had worked, so thank you for that. I appreciate that not everyone has the time to read through a long comment like that (I also apologize for the tone, which was quite unintended), but I think that the changes I'm proposing are significant enough to merit a longish discussion. The short version of my point is that the article is chiefly based on unreliable tertiary sources even while largely ignoring the relevant secondary literature. I made some changes to the lead and the infobox to remedy this, on which I would like some feedback, and I am arguing that similar changes should be made throughout the article (which would amount to a rather radical trim). Thank you for your attention, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:ECF2:F683:99E3:4D94 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Tertiary sources are reliable sources (examples : encyclopedia Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam) when they qualify as reliable sources, i.e. author/content/publisher just as secondary sources are reliable when they qualify. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there are two points about this:


 * 1) Tertiary sources should generally be used when "helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources" and when "helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other" (WP:TERTIARY). However, "articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source" (WP:SECONDARY). I argue that in Jabir ibn Hayyan, tertiary sources are used for such claims all over the place, and that those tertiary sources do not refer these claims to a reliable secondary source.


 * 2) As you said, tertiary sources may be used when they are reliable (e.g., Encyclopedia Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam, etc.), but I argue that most of the tertiary sources used in Jabir ibn Hayyan are in fact not reliable, primarily because they themselves do not cite appropriate sources, and secondarily because either their authors are writing outside of their field of expertise, or their subject is too far removed from the subject of the article (i.e., they are not directly about Jabir, or Arabic alchemy, etc.).


 * Since I'm writing all this in the hope of improving Jabir ibn Hayyan, we should probably move this discussion to the talk page of that article. Thank you again for your time, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:ECF2:F683:99E3:4D94 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You may be right about tertiary and secondary sources. However, i would say that Wikipedia has no firm rules : WP:5P5 (this is one of the five pillars), what really matters is that each information can be supported by a reliable source, thus, if for example we don't have enough secondary sources for a given topic, we can use reliable tertiary sources. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're of course completely right. I referred to Wikipedia's "rules" earlier, but I had not then read up yet on Wikipedia's guidelines, and I fully appreciate the wisdom in leaving the final evaluation of sources used to the editors' discretion. Moreover, the different policies and guidelines generally serve the same goals. In this case, you correctly point out that the important thing is that every piece of information can be supported by a reliable source. But this is precisely what is at stake: many claims in Jabir ibn Hayyan are not supported by reliable sources. It's just that the reason for this is that the sources used are non-authorative, irrelevant, or even outright incompetent tertiary sources.


 * But I think there's another problem at play here: I am writing long rants on the general quality of the sources used, while it would likely be far more productive to just propose removals and discuss every source case by case. I actually edited the article and made some important changes, and this bold edit was reverted because "no consensus for this". The person who reverted my edit does not seem very eager to discuss (I think you just taught me why), and I'm not sure how to proceed. Perhaps I should do a few smaller edits in a row, so people can revert what they explicitly disagree with and briefly discuss their reasons? Any tips on that would be welcome.2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:ECF2:F683:99E3:4D94 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i just checked your edit at Jabir's article that has been reverted by another IP. I also quickly checked the talk page and saw your interaction with the IP who reverted you. Maybe, as you said, he reverted you because you made too much changes in your single edit, however, while i get his point when he says "no consensus", he doesn't sound very constructive. I will leave a comment on the article's talk page later today, when i'll find enough time to check your arguments. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikaviani, I don’t think you have bad intentions, and please don’t take this wrong way, but I truly think you do not realize what it is you have been doing on Jabir ibn Hayyan. I was more or less being bullied by the other IP user, who twice reverted my edits, basically without any real argument. As I see it, you reacted to this by casting bully and bullied in the same light, allowing you to use an argument to moderation to preserve the right to edit the article for yourself. You chose what to change and what not, edited the article, and that’s how it is right now: you are consensus.

It is true that from time to time someone (often also an IP user) will come and add or remove something related to Jābir’s ethnicity, ignoring all warnings against this, and this has happened again recently, even two times in a row. However, your comment on the talk page suggests that it was not this, but rather the completely unrelated ‘edit-war’ between me and the other IP user that lead you to ask for the article’s protection from disruptive editing. But a closer look on the matter will reveal that there is no edit war there, only lengthy but well-sourced arguments on the talk page from one IP user, a stonewalling attitude of another IP user, and then you disagreeing with both (or rather, since the other IP user does not actually argue anything, with me). However, rather than patiently engaging with my argument, you have abused your status as an experienced editor to silence it.

Once again, I don’t believe this is intentional, and I get that all those pesky IP users may appear the same after a while, but please reconsider.

I know this may be time-consuming, but would you please be so kind to look into this a bit? Thank you all very much for you consideration. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9563:C0F5:ADFE:EC54 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not offended at all, but i would like to underline that your opinion is just your opinion.
 * Let me see if i got you straight. You have pinged 7 editors at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan, none of them responded, then you came here, asking for my help. I helped you, reinstated your edit about Jabir's religion with a reliable source and i removed the unreliable source about the "founder of chemistry" ( after the other IP reverted you ). Then you decided to edit the article and remove the whole part of the lead that has been written after a consensus, you even reverted a registered editor who reverted your edit. You argued that, according to you, the sources used in the article are unreliable because you guess that they use Wikipedia ... To make it short, this behavior of yours is disruptive and the one who is trying to impose his view about this article's lead is you, not me. You pinged an admin ( Chetsford ) and i will welcome his eye about this, but my opinion is that you are quite lucky because often, editors are warned for lower disruption than in your case. Yes, i asked for page protection to prevent further disruption and you need to know that admins don't just protect pages when someone ask for it, they also review the editing history of an article carefully before deciding to protect it or not and if they protect it, they pick the relevant protection level to apply. If Chetsford disagreed with my request, he would have declined it. Please review our guidelines in order to understand how this encyclopedia works. If you need help for that, just ask. Best regrads. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Kindly note the following:


 * - I did not remove anything that resulted from the last major discussion on the lead (which was about accounting for Jābir’s disputed historicity) and its resulting consensus. The only part of the text that I removed was a literal quotation from a source that I have thoroughly shown to be unreliable. I am completely open for a discussion about reinstating that part of the text, but you have not engaged in any discussion about that at all.


 * - I never reverted anything. AbhiMukh97 reverted my edit after only a few seconds, clearly because I removed quite a bit of code and forgot to add an edit summary, which of course looks like vandalism and was picked up by Twinkle. This is an honest beginner’s mistake. What I did was to make a new edit, this time with edit summary.


 * - You’re right that I can merely guess that the sources I removed have been using Wikipedia. They may as well have not. However, that does not matter to my argument at all, which is primarily that these sources make unsubstantiated claims for which they do not themselves provide any source, and secondarily that these claims are not found in the secondary literature. It is true that I cannot prove the second part here: I can only show that the source used for those very same unsubstantiated claims here on the Wikipedia article (Holmyard’s Makers of Chemistry) is unreliable and being deliberately misinterpreted, which I did. The first part of my argument, however, stands. Of course this is, in a way, an "opinion", but that you think you may suffice by calling it that just goes to show that you do not feel the need to actually engage in any argument.


 * - I’m not saying that you are trying to impose your views, I’m saying that the imposition of your views is the objective result of the short shrift with which you, wrongly, treat me.


 * - I still think that you intended none of this. I think you're honestly trying to help, and that you did indeed help me and the article. Please just take a moment to reflect on what I said.


 * Sincerely, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9563:C0F5:ADFE:EC54 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaken, the article is not semi protected, it's pending changes protected, meaning that you still can edit it but your edit will not be visible by everybody, only to some users who qualify. After your edit, a pending changes reviewer (like me) can accept your revision or not. However, let me inform you that so far, your arguments don't convince me when it comes to the "father of chemistry" claim, since your above rationale, (Holmyard 1931 book being unreliable ???) sounds astonishing to me. Holmyard is, as far as i know, one of the best sources about Jabir. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the article can still be edited under pending review, and I actually think it’s not that bad of an idea given the actual disruptive editing by others. I merely think that it is very unjust that you should accuse me of disruptive editing, while I was precisely the victim of that other IP’s unjustified reverts and baseless accusation of “vandalsim”. Especially considering the fact that I have been nothing but extremely patient with and submissive to that IP’s requests, it just hits very hard to get accused like that.

Let me be clear about the fact that I think it’s perfectly OK to call Jābir “the father of chemistry” in the article. It’s just that there’s a bit of a problem there in the fact that this is a popular title, and that for a variety of reasons, it is hardly used by reliable sources. We must either not cite any sources for it (which would be OK by me, but like you said perhaps inadvisable), or we have to find a reliable source for it.

On another note, I understand why it may sound astonishing to you that I call Holmyard’s 1931 Makers of Chemistry unreliable. What you should know is that this is a so-called ‘vulgarizing’ work, meaning that it is written for a broad, non-scholarly audience, and for this reason completely dispenses with citing any sources. It covers the same range as a tertiary source but isn’t really tertiary because it does not actually cite secondary sources. On another level, it is much like Wikipedia itself in that it’s a good primer for anyone with a broad interest in the subject, but not something that can be reliably cited. For this reason too, you will never find it actually cited in the scholarly literature, although non-expert tertiary sources sometimes do cite Holmyard’s later, more mature, but still ‘vulgarizing’ 1957 work Alchemy (largely because they are unaware of the existence of other tertiary works on the subject that actually do cite sources, like Multhauf's 1966 The Origins of Chemistry or, more recently, Principe's 2013 The Secrets of Alchemy).

In general, Holmyard has been very important for the study of Jābir (we could actually call him “the father of Jābir studies”, if you catch my drift), and he has written a lot of scholarly articles which can today still be used, given due caution. Nevertheless, much of his pioneering work from the 1920s was superseded by Kraus 1930 and Kraus 1942-1943 (notice how Holmyard virtually stopped publishing on Jābir after the appearance of Kraus' 1930 paper “Dschābir ibn Ḥajjān und die Ismāʿīlijja”, in which Kraus single-handedly ended nearly a decade of disputes between Holmyard and Ruska by conclusively showing that most Jābirian works likely date from the late ninth century), and more recently, by Delva 2017.

Anyway, Holmyard’s 'vulgarizing' books should not be cited for the reasons given above. However, my argument does not rely on that. Do you own a copy of Makers of Chemistry? As I explained on the talk page, Holmyard himself notes on p. 37 the use by Zosimos of Panopolis of acetic acid (read, evaporations of wine vinegar) in the production of white lead (a white pigment; this was in fact already recorded by Theophrastus, Vitruvius, Dioscorides, and Pliny the Elder; see p. 169 in the article by Lawrence M. Principe on p. 167ff of | this), while on p. 187 Holmyard attributes the discovery of citric and tartaric acid (read, as isolated and identifiable chemical substances) to Carl Wilhelm Scheele (which you will also find in the lead of the Wikipedia page on Scheele). Yet Jabir ibn Hayyan (ab)uses Holmyard’s very book to imply that Jābir somehow discovered all of these substances, completely ignoring the important subtleties involved between technological use (often ancient) and chemical identification (often much more recent). Jābir's real role in the history of these things has in fact not yet been investigated, just like so many other things with Jābir (see Delva 2017, p. 54), but this had not stopped people from making all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated claims. The same unsubstantiated claims are found in two of the three sources cited for the father of chemistry thing.

So I argue against citing Derewenda and Zahoor. But there is another, much simpler reason, which also includes Warren: in two of the three sources the subject has nothing to do with Jābir, and none of the authors are authorities on the history of alchemy and chemistry, not even remotely. I think it’s bad practice to cite just any old author claiming something which we would like to include in the article. If we cite a source, it needs to be a reliable one, which means a source written by an author who is a subject expert in alchemy at the very least.

As for the text I removed: you put a ‘citation needed’ tag on it, but this is insufficient: it is a literal quote, which would actually amount to plagiarism if quoted without reference, and it really is better not to keep a quote which we know to originate in a badly incompetent source.

Sincerely, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9563:C0F5:ADFE:EC54 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I also added an entirely new proposal to Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan, which I think should solve our problem. Given the event of the last few days, I will not immediately and boldly edit the article, but wait for discussion first. Would you have a look at it? 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9866:263:4E06:54B4 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I realize that my comment about POV pushing offended you, my sincere apologies, since it was not my goal at all. You must understand that we meet a huge amount of disruptive trolls on this encyclopedia ((mainly brand new accounts and anon users), thus, when an anon user shows the slightest behavior that can be labelled as disruptive, veteran users usually consider him/her as a troll, this is, indeed, not the case with you and i understand it only now, my bad. Please understand that we try to keep the quality of this encyclopedia, but sometimes, as human beings, we are mistaken, like me about you. I read your proposal on the article's talk page, i concur with it, please feel free to edit the article, i will review your edit and accept it. the only condition is that your edit has to be in accordance with the proposal i just read on the article's talk. Again, please accept my apologies. I wish you a great rest of your day. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your magnanimity. I felt encouraged to propose yet another change at the talk page, on which I would like your opinion. Many thanks, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9866:263:4E06:54B4 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, i'm gonna take a look at your proposal. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

'Macrolanguage' and Azeri
Hi Wikaviani,

There is no such thing as a 'macrolanguage' in linguistics. It's merely a bookkeeping device for ISO. In fact, they're not even creating macrolanguages anymore. Basically, if an ISO 639-2 code corresponds to more than one ISO 639-3 code, then the -2 code may be classified as a -3 code as well, and called a 'macrolanguage' in that context. This was because a few year ago their DBs weren't up to keeping track of them all. But now that their DBs are adequate, there's no longer a need for 'macrolanguages'. (Whether they'll retired the existing ones I don't know.) Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with the language itself, just the timing of when someone happened to split up an ISO language code. There are many many similar situations that aren't called macrolanguages just because no-one changed the ISO codes during the relevant time period, or because the language doesn't happen to have a -2 code (which is under a different jurisdiction than the -3 codes). If we use the term 'macrolanguage' in a language article, then readers may get the impression that there is some sort of 'macrolanguage' relationship between the varieties, one which languages that are not labeled 'macrolanguages' don't share. But the relationship is purely an ISO coding one, nothing linguistic.

It's kind of like precomposed letter-diacritic combinations in Unicode. Unicode isn't accepting precomposed combinations any more, because fonts and word processing has gotten to the point where they're not needed. The existing ones wouldn't be accepted if they were resubmitted. So the difference is just the timing of when the letter was submitted to Unicode, and has nothing to do with the letter itself. Thus we wouldn't want to describe ȁ as a "Precomposed letter" and a̋ as not, as if that were somehow relevant to the nature of those letters, except in a narrow discussion of Unicode support. "Macrolanguage" is only relevant in the context of ISO support, which is beside the point in that section of the Azeri article. Personally, I wouldn't mention it anywhere in the article at all, as it's irrelevant to the language. If people follow the ISO links form the info box, they'll find a description there. If you think the issue is important, I'd make a separate section on ISO coverage of Azeri, and wouldn't use the word 'classify' in that context at all, since it's a coding issue and has nothing directly to do with linguistic classification. I think the point could be made in a less misleading way by noting that the -1 code is 'az', the -2 code is 'aze' (also used inclusively as a -3 code), and that there are two corresponding -3 codes, azj and azb. Here on WP we've included two other codes as being part of the greater Azeri language, but they're not included in the 'macrolanguage', perhaps because they're not ethnically Azeri or something. Persian is similar, but language codes that are split up in the future won't be encoded this way.

— kwami (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for the time you spent posting here your explanations. Sorry, i did not know about that and i thought you were confusing some computer language with Azerbaijani language, my bad. Gonna self-revert, my sincere apologies. Wish you a great rest of your day. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathnawi
Mathnawi in arabic is the general name of a poetic form, so Mathnawi should Redirect to Mathnawi (poetic form)108.31.95.44 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking the time to explain your edit. I suggest you to write edit summaries for your edits in order to help others to better understand your contributions. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that the Mathnavi (which should be Masnavi) was incorrectly directing to the Mathnawi (poetic form) page. The authors refer the poetic form as Mathnawi in general, and a few incorrectly directed pages to Masnavi are corrected, too.108.31.95.44 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Qanats
You might be interested in this discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about that. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

German on Ras el hanout
The audio description clearly says

Description Deutsch: In Deutschland übliche Aussprache von Ras-el Hanout

Which means "the usual pronunciation of Ras-el Hanout [sic] in German", so it's definitely German. If you listen to the audio, it doesn't match the IPA pronunciation shown beside it in the article text. This is confusing to readers. The audio, being in German, also doesn't correspond properly to either the English (language of this article) or Arabic (language of origin) pronunciations. I can see few ways that this helps, but I can see many ways that this misleads. I suggest we keep the German audio removed from this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:3799:101:B12D:3FCB:6FA8:76BD (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, thanks for your explanations. I agree with your above arguments and self reverted to your version of the article. Thanks again and happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Djalal Akhbari concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Djalal Akhbari, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Djalal Akhbari


Hello, Wikaviani. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Djalal Akhbari".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Interstellarity (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Battle of Sar-i-Pul
Hey Wikaviani,

Why did you remove my additions with regards to the Moghul participation in the Battle of Sar-i-Pul? It is true that it is not referenced in the article itself, but nothing in the entire article is referenced directly and I did give a source in the comment explaining the edit.

- NotYetRegistered
 * Hi, thank you for posting here and sorry for the delay responding. If i remember well, i reverted your edit because of the misleading edit summary. You said "Include more references to Moghul participation in battle" while i was not able to find out what reference you added. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

 * Many thanks, happy hollidays to you as well my friend ;-)) ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you too! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:darkred; border-width:3px; text-align:center; padding:3px; height:262px; width:800px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Hello, Wikaviani! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}


 * Thank you very much, much appreciated. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Shab-e Yalda!
Khirurg (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i hope you had a happy Shab e Yalda too. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Hey, thank you very much for the greetings and kind words. I wish you and your loved ones a merry Christmas and hope that 2020 will be full of joy for you all. Take care my friend. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Wikaviani, Thanks so much for your kind wishes too, Hope you and yours have a fantastic new year, Thanks and you take too my friend, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you very much for your kind wishes. I hope that 2020 will be a great year for you and your family. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A Shaker greeting
Apologies - I'm a bit late with my cards this year. :-)

Happy editing into 2020, and beyond! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind wishes my friend and no worries for the delay. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)