This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mhhossein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
File permission problem with File:Noureddin Afi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Noureddin Afi.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus(Talk)08:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hadith of Persians and belief
Hi,
This deletion certainly occurred ages ago, so I admire you for even finding it! The article was deleted according to an AfD, the chief complaint against it being that it constituted "original research." I will restore the article and place it in your userspace at User:Mhhossein/Hadith of Persians and belief. This will allow you to salvage whatever content you think is useful. According to the content that is present in the article, this Hadith has no formal name. I would humbly suggest that you choose a name that sounds more natural in English, such as "Hadith regarding the Faith of the Persians." I have no idea whether such a name is supported in sources; I only know that the current title of the article sounds awkward in English, and that this poor title was cited in the AfD as among the reasons for deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinking
Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.
I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:
dates
years
commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noureddin, Son of Iran until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Noureddin, Son of Iran
Hi.. it is ok to use sources in Persian/Farsi. If you can find any Persian/Farsi sources with Google. The more sources the better chance it will Keep. We can read it with Google Translate. Thank you. -- GreenC14:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful comment. I will take it into account. The article deserves to be a wikipedia article.Mhhossein (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Musnad and Quraysh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Risalah al-Huquq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The dissertation of Ali ibn Musa al-Rida begins as follows:{{quote|In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Know, when Allah tries a servant
I think you deserve this barnstar for adding much needed information to the ISIS article, particularly the section on ideology and beliefs. Well done! P123ct1 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ideology and beliefs (ISIS article)
I certainly agree that the new section should have greater prominence, but it could only be moved to a main heading near the beginning if it applied to all of ISIS's predecessor organisations (as listed in "Names & name changes"), because although the article calls itself "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", it is just as much about those organisations as it is about ISIS itself. If you feel confident that the "Ideology and beliefs" applies to all of them, I would go ahead and put it right near the beginning as a main section (although I guess some of the wording would have to be altered slightly). I am absolutely no expert on Middle East matters, so that would be for you to judge, but if you feel confident, why not do it and see? (I have chopped up and swapped around bits in this article and the al-Bagdhadi one mercilessly, and never had any complaints! Mind you I only did it when I felt on safe ground.) Even if people do object, at least it would get them thinking and realise how important the question of ideology and beliefs is in this case. To me the ideology is ultimately more important than the historical aspect, for it is that which drives events in all religious wars at all times in history. Personally I think this article is too history-biased as it stands now. If people object and say ideology and belief is for another article, I will support you; there should be at least some mention of it in an article like this. And, of course, now the caliphate has been established, this question of ideology becomes pre-eminently important. Be bold! --P123ct1 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned me in your post on the Talk page as having reverted you. Please can you tell me what that was? I am not conscious of reverting anything. Was it the removal of "even"? The last thing I want to do is edit-war. I have restored your "even" to be on the safe side. I have not touched your new section on women. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Of course I will support you in fighting back against all these reverts. You can report vandals/edit-wars at WP:Edit warring (see top of page), but I always find Wikipedia's Help sections mind-boggling complex, so perhaps it would be best to ask at the main Help desk at WP:HD how to go about it. Bad luck for getting hit by vandals, but good luck! Let me know what I can do to help. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt but the entire background section is still in violation. I've done it myself while adding info so I completely understand how hard it is. Fixing some of the wording is not sufficient. You plagiarized the structure as well. It needs to be removed and completely restructured or else you put Wikipedia in an inappropriate position. Furthermore, the piece used says a lot that could be disputed.Please remove/heavily edit it.
"Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. But be careful not to closely paraphrase; the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. The United States court of appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[1] You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw." - WP:COMPLIC (emphasis added)
Hey! Thanks for reminding this very important issue. The reported materials are rephrased a reworded-combination of wp:rss. The two sections (short-term and long-term) is my own invention and the structure is almost new. I already removed the mentioned parts. However, as you you are an IP, I can't discuss it with you in the article talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I refer you to this exchange I had with Technophant.about adding wikilinks to "BBC News". The wikilinks were deliberate.
"{To Technophant] I have just unwikified all the "BBC News" mentions in the footnotes! I didn't see your summary edit until afterwards just now. I did think there were more wikified ones than I remembered seeing, and now I know why! I thought the first wiki would be enough, but do you feel strongly about this? If so, I can wikify them again. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1, I think it should remain mostly due of the use of inline citations. I know it seems simple, but I also to try presume that the audience may be a gradeschooler how hasn't heard of BBC News and wants to know more. Is there anything in the manual of style about overusing wikilinks in citations? - Technophant (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You have a point. I'd be happy to put the wiki links back in. Not sure about MOS on this - I think it's meant to be only the first time the name appears - but this would be an exception, I think. Nice to know someone thinks about the readers, which is what I try to do as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1 Readers aren't reading the references one at a time, not top to bottom. I do think this is a sensible exception. Keep up the good work! - Technophant (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Re the list on the ISIS Talk page, not quite sure what you mean, but it looks as if I somehow inserted my comment before the end of yours preceding it, though wasn't aware of doing this. Sorry! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)"
You have undone some carefully thought out changes. I have not reverted you, but perhaps you might like to reconsider your reverts. You will notice, if you look, that many references in the footnotes have been highlighted (by others, who put in the footnotes), for exactly the same reason: to help readers unfamiliar with the sites they are looking at. Wikipedia is about helping readers to learn what they are reading about.
You say you used Reflinks to make the changes. Reflinks is a tool that was withdrawn from use on 1st July this year (see Village Pump archived discussion), so I cannot understand how you managed this. Perhaps it has been reinstalled after all the fuss about removing it. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1 I really did not want to change them. AS you know, Reflink did it! and I wonder why it works after the mentioned agreement on removing it. I was not aware of it being withdrawn. So, should I wikifi all the BBCs? Mhhossein (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I have just tested Reflinks myself and was surprised to find that it still works. I didn't seen anything in the discussion to say it had been restored. Can you manage to wikify the BBCs again using Reflinks? I think it is best to have them in. I started to do a straight revert, but it won't work. It might have to be done manually, which is how I did it the first time! --P123ct1 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1: I may do it using the "find and replace" add-on of my browser to wikifi all the "BBC News" phrases. Do you know any other tools similar to Reflink? Mhhossein (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I have tried using the find and replace button on the Wiki edit page, but the search and replace box either sits in the middle hiding some of the text, or if you move it to the side, it keeps disappearing as the page scrolls down for subsequent replaces. Maddening. As for other tools, I was using one where you add in all the details of the citation into one large box (much less fiddly than the "cite web", "cite news", etc boxes) and it comes up with the wikicode which you transfer to the text, but I have lost the link to it. It is very user-friendly. I have asked the Village Pump help desk (which is for technical questions to do with Wikipedia) to give me the link again, because I can't remember where I found it! I will give you the link when I get it from them. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
با تحقیقات زیادم توانستم آمار خوبی از راهپیماییهای روز قدس در سال 2014 را جمعآوری کنم. چون دیدم شما در مقاله روز قدس در ویکی انگلیسی، زحمت ایجاد این بخش را کشیدید، پیشنهاد میکنم از اطلاعاتی که من جمعآوری کردم، برای تکمیل بخش مربوط به سال 2014 استفاده کنید. موفق باشید.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gire 3pich2005 سلام برادر. زبان مادری به انسان احساس آرامش میده. ممنون از همکاری و توجه شما. مطالب خوب و نایابی جمع آوری کرده بودی. به یاری خدا از اونها برای تکمیل این بخش استفاده میکنم. کاش بشود در مقاله قدس مطالب موجود در هر بخش (هر سال) آنقدر بسط داده شود که بازای هرسال یک مقاله دختر ایجاد شود. Mhhossein (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
سلام مجدد. چنین تصمیمی تقریبن غیر ممکنه چون یافتن آرشیوهای اینترنتی خیلی سخته. در ضمن به عقیده بنده که حدود 6 سال است در ویکیپدیا ویرایش میکنم و با نبض دانشنامه و وزن مقالات آن آشنا هستم، لزومی ندارد بیش از این، به این مقاله پرداخته شود چون مخاطبش آنقدر زیاد نیست که ارزش این همه زحمت را داشته باشد. اگر مایل به کار بر روی مقالات فلسطین هستید، مقالات متعددی هستند که میتوانید آنها را گسترش دهید و مخاطبان بیشتری هم دارند. در ضمن، بسیاری از مقالات این حوزه، اصلن در ویکی فارسی ساخته نشدهاند و با توجه به آشنایی خوب شما با زبان انگلیسی و قدرت ترجمه بالایتان، آنجا بسیار بیشتر از ویکی انگلیسی میتوانید مؤثر باشد. انتخاب با خودتان هست. موفق باشید.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gire 3pich2005 بنده مقاله قدس را در بخش " آن دیس دی" در صفحه اصلی قرار دادم. این مقاله دیروز بیش از 8000 بار بازدید داشته است. امروز هم تا الان حدود 1200 بار. اما در روزهای عادی به 30 یا کمتر میرسد. هم چنین بنده در مقاله انگلیسی حمله اخیر اسراییل به غزه شرکت داشته ام و یک پاراگراف به بخش پیش زمینه اضافه نمودم. این بخش خلاصه ای از تحلیل های خبرگزاریها در مورد دلایل سیاسی حمله بود. تمایل من به فعالیت در ویکی انگلیسی است. Mhhossein (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
خیلی عالی است. بنده به دلیل اینکه سواد انگلیسی قابل توجهی ندارم، هیچگاه نتوانستم در اینجا در نوشتن متن مؤثر باشم ولی هزاران ویرایش در خصوص تصاویر و رده و ویرایشات جزئی دارم. البته اسم من در ویکی فارسی، لرزه بر اندامها میاندازد. :) امیدوارم در کارتان موفق باشید و اگر کمکی از من بر میآمد، مطرح کنید. انشالله شرمنده نشوم.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
را شروع کردم ولی به دلیل ضعف در جملهسازی در زبان انگلیسی، قادر نیستم آن را گسترش دهم. از اینرو میخواستم به شما زحمت دهم دانشنامه را در گسترش این مقاله مفید یاری دهید. پیشاپیش ممنون.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
I have attempted to clarify your addition about Salafists and Hamas to this section. It was not very clear how the second sentence related to the first, so I looked at the article and have added some words for clarification. Could you check that this what you meant, please? I would not like to put words in your mouth. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Relief! Thanks. I don't know if it is me, but that article seemed a little muddled to me, i.e. it was not very clearly expressed. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you did not mention Wahhabism in your section on "Ideology and Beliefs" and I wondered if you could briefly describe in this section the relationship between ISIS and this brand of Islamic belief. Gazkthul says in #13, "Wahhabi movement", in Archive 2 of the ISIS Talk page, that ISIS are not Wahhabists, while confusingly, the Wiki article on the Wahhabi movement categorically states that ISIS does subscribe to Wahhabism . The "Wahhabist" reference goes in and out of this article like a yo-yo, i.e. it is the subject of many reverts, some people believing ISIS are Wahhabist and some not. Maybe there is genuine controversy over this, so a few words on the subject in this section for this reason alone I think would be a good idea. Could you contribute a paragraph here, or should I ask Gazkthul to do it? I suppose I could give a resume of what Gazkthul says on this, but I would not be very confident doing so, especially as the Wiki article on the subject contradicts what he says. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:P123ct1Excuse me, for intervention. I think some user confuse Salafism and Wahhabism. While, Wahhabis are Salafi, there are many Salafi groups who are not Wahhabi. The Wahhabi movement article says ISIS follows Wahhabism and provide a reference [1] which does not refer to the issue! I could not fine the reference to Wahhabism in the two sources [2][3] which have been mentioned in the ISIS article to support this claim. I believe ISIS is more similar to early Kharijites and added the issue to the article few weeks ago. --Seyyed(t-c)14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:P123ct1 @ User:Sa.vakilian I found the following sources connecting ISIS to Wahhabia ideology. Take a look at them:
I hope you don't mind my lightly copy-editing your new edits sometimes. I only do it so that the sentences run smoothly and blend in with those before and after. In fact, when I first started copy-editing this article, I went through the whole lot making small changes here and there to make it read more smoothly. The article is very long, so it was a mammoth task! --P123ct1 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:P123ct1 Keep on your good job. You are doing a very admirable task and thank you for that. But, sometimes your changes makes the sentences very close to the original ones in the source and hence the copy right related issues might emerge from those editions. Mhhossein (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein Yes, I remember this point being raised, so will take more care to keep away from the original wording. I didn't know copyright issues could arise, so thanks for the tip. I discovered yesterday that Reflinks was never formally withdrawn; the tool's (non-Wiki) creator had intended to withdraw it, but was persuaded not to. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your considerate review of Islamic calligraphy,
the most troubling part I think is indeed finding reliable references. If you would address which references is unsuitable, I'll try to find it in other references. But my sources are pretty limited. Regarding the lead section, I think I could come up with something.
It is worth mentioning that, some good references such as those encyclopedic ones are used. Besides the problem with references, please address the issue of WP:OR and the possibility of copy right violation in the mentioned cases. Mhhossein (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alteaven:I already checked that source. This web site is counted as a self-published source and as we read in WP:RS:
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
So, try to find her published works, then paste the links here. This way, we'll assure that she is expert in this field and her website will be counted as reliable. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Can't find any. Welp, I'm all out of resources. Let's just hope that there are other wikipedians who might contribute. Though I'm not so entirely positive about that, considering that I'm the only who had worked on it for some time._." Alteaven (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alteaven: Don't lose your hope. I found this, she seems to be an expert so you can use the contents of her website. But know that some of the previous materials may not be replaced be by this source! I mean some of the may not be found in other sources. However, try to do your best! Mhhossein (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I've checked that but I thought that counts as self-published. Right, since she provides definitions of kufic and other styles, It can replace many things cited from the defunct websites. Thanks a lot! I'll edit it ASAPAlteaven (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone today has made an edit to your "Ideology and beliefs", first para. You may want to check they have understood what you meant to say. I think it's all right. (I watch all new edits!) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello & thanks
I have problem in referencing & I didn't get the difference between reference list & footnotes.ofcourse I know I must study wiki rules more.
Being bold is very difficult.
How can I improve that this definition for this word is better?Salman mahdi (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salman mahdi: Salam. Footnotes are more general which might be consisted of references and other noteworthy points in the text.In most of the times to have inline citation we use the footnote. You can be bold when you are familiar with policies and rules! Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know whether you are still watching your contributions to this page, but I see someone has altered your "Ideology and beliefs" section, adding "violent" to the first line, tipping the balance away from what I think you intended. It is in line with other recent changes in the Lead, where even more intemperate language is being used now, clearly flouting NPOV. The two history search tools are not working at the moment, so I don't know who edited this. I would take out "violent" myself, but am up against a 1RR and have other important changes to make after that expires! Perhaps you think how it stands now is okay, but thought I had better notify you in case not. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1: The section was some how stable and neutral they should not have added that! I'll check it ASAP. However, thank you for reminding and for taking care of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: sorry I got it wrong,It was not a message but a notification. With ragards
?
Salam, how can we have an easy access to our friends in our user page? thanks for ur help and just u should be patient and kind until we be professional.( where is its guidance in Wiki?)Salman mahdi (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salman mahdi: Salam brother! you may easily add the link to their userpages in your own user page. Make a section titled "Friends" and then paste the links under this section. By the way, I have not seen such a thing in wikipedia ever! Ask as many questions as you like, all of them will be welcomed. Mhhossein (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen over whether ISIS should be called Sunnis or Kharijites. Yesterday I put "Sunni Islamism" into the second infobox and it was changed to this [4], which at least attempts to indicate there is controversy over this. I have read your interesting essay about Sunnis and Shias on your userpage but am not clear if ISIS call themselves Sunnis. There is no mention of "Sunni" in the "Ideology and belief" section though it does say that whether they are Kharijite is a matter of opinion. I think you wrote most of this section, didn't you? I know very little about this subject, so I wonder if you could add a few words about "Sunni" on the ISIS Talk page [5] and in that section as well, please. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1: The news say that they killed some sunni scholars which shows they are not following sunni Islam and have unique! beliefs and ideologies. According to my findings they are not wahhabis (a section of salafism) but they are Jihadist ( another section of salafism) which put steps forward wahhabism. Kharejites stem from the beginnings of Islam when a group rejected the caliph of the time and devised schemes to terror three of the famous figures (with different beliefs) because they could accept none of them. Just one of the terrors (Terror of Imam Ali) were successful. Now adays, new kharejites terror scholars for not obeying their rules. I'll try to take care of that. Although they are a sort of sunni muslim which have deifferent beliefs. Mhhossein (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: The same person who reverted "Sunni" to "Kharijite" last week has done it again (in the infobox). I reverted him last week and have just done again today. I asked him to come to the Talk page and he has, so could you take a look at what he says, please? His citations are in Arabic. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone has commented on theGA review page that several paragraphs lack citations, and when I look at the article I see this is correct. Could you add some extra sources to the author and background sections? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Good, thank you. I suggest you combine the first 2 paragraphs of the Background section as the second paragraph is continuing the theme of the first and I think the reference (#1) at the end of the second paragraph covers the whole. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You may not have seen Jason from nyc's comment, which appears before yours today. I was trying to move the whole section "Ideology and beliefs (3)" to the end of the Talk page and forgot to delete it when I had done the move, and Jason added his comment to the old section. I have now moved his comment to the section at the end before yours, as he hadn't seen our comments. Sorry about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this means:"The members of the Muhammad family who were expected to participate is no modified in some of the sunni sources while some others mention Fatima, Hasan and Hossein as the participants. Meanwhile, some of the sunni sources are in agreement with shia believe and saying that Ahl al-Kisa, including Ali, participated the occasion." Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadith of Mubahala, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hasan and Fatima. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Serten (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Mhhossein. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak(talk)23:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaza revert
In regards to your revert of my edit. I would advise you to look more carefully and see that I actually updated the OCHA figure with a more recent/newer one (you reverted to an outdated/older one); added a newer source for the 70% civilians Ministry figure (which you removed); moved about a few sources (from places that one source instead of three was enough) but did not remove the said sources from the article altogether. The only thing that comes to my mind when you said sourced material is the OCHA women/children breakdown that I removed from the infobox. I removed it because it has no place in the infobox. The infobox is there only for the number of civilian and combatant dead. The breakdown among children and women is already talked about (with the said source) in the main body of the article and in multiple paragraphs, not just one. Hope this clears it up. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's not the place, since it the infobox is already crowded with the different causalities figures. There is analysis of age and gender demographics further in the causalities section. “WarKosign”09:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I decided per the standard template of infobox figures in 90 percent of war articles on Wikipedia. Its ether the number of killed combatants or civilians in the boxes. Plus, what WarKosign said. The infobox was already overcrowded with multiple casualty estimates and a detailed analysis of the fatalities was already done in the casualties section so putting them in the infobox as well was redundant. EkoGraf (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not understanding you. Other side? You mean the Israeli side in the infobox? No breakdown among women and children there. Only civilians and soldiers. EkoGraf (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh you meant him. The Thai person was extensively discussed some months ago and multiple editors wanted to distinguish him from the other Israelis in the infobox because he was a foreign citizen. If you want I will shorten it to just 1 Thai. EkoGraf (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You said you sometimes did not get pinged when your name is mentioned in the Talk page. I looked into this as I was puzzled, and the WP Help Desk said users must be careful to sign any comment which includes the pinged name, otherwise the pinging doesn't work. They spotted that I had not signed my message where I had pinged you in the Talk page, which is why you never had notification that time! They also said that getting notifications/being pinged depends on how "Preferences" are set up. If you go to "Preferences" and click on "Notifications", there is a section headed "Notify me about these events". There is a column for "Web" and one for "Email". If you want to get notifications on screen for the various events, just tick in the "Web" column all the ones you want to get notifications of. I have ticked all mine so I can't go wrong! Hope this helps. (You may know it already!) ~ P-123 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
WOW! Another practical point, Thank you for that. By the way, I checked my "Notifications" in "Preferences" and mine is almost ticked for all of them. Thank you for your helpful tip. Mhhossein (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Our exchange
Sorry, I only meant where are you based. I knew you were Iranian! If you don't reply, I will know you prefer not to disclose. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I am English and Anglican (Church of England) by religion. It has been interesting working on a page with Muslim editors. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: May Allah bless you and us with mercy. I was surprised by your tireless efforts. That's why I nominated you. You are working very much and it shows that you are interested, I hope you win the award. May I ask you to copy edit other pages too? Mhhossein (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Which other pages do you suggest? I have had a lot of free time this year, but may not next year. You seem to have been very active since you joined! ~ P-123 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: That's kind of you. I contributed in some articles and created some other. Thanks God, I made a GA. I'm going to ask you help me with The Fourteen Infallibles. We tried to promote it to the Featured List level but the language is not fascinating as the reviewers say. Fortunately as a native speaker of English, your role is very beneficial. Is it OK with you? Mhhossein (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I will see what I can do, but should perhaps tell you that I am not very well at the moment, so my efforts may be rather limited. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have had a quick look at the article and the comments on it and am afraid I will not be able to deal with the tables at all, except for some of the wording in them. I know nothing about that kind of layout in Wikipedia! My knowledge of wikitext is still quite basic and am still puzzled by a lot of it. But I can certainly do the rest. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have got as far as "Family Tree", but I am afraid I don't understand the last sentence beginning "As for Fatimah...". What does this mean exactly? If you explain in your own words, I will probably be able to deal with that sentence. By the way, I have changed "Shiite" to "Shia" to keep consistent with the first mention of "Shia", as I did in the ISIS article. The rest I will look at tomorrow. If I have misunderstood anything in that first part, please let me know and I will adjust the wording wherever necessary. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: No problem if you can't deal with the layout, wikitext and codes by now. Enhancing the wording of the article is another important issue at which you seem to be skillful and your recent editions in The Fourteen Infallibles shows this. Thanks for accepting my request, you are doing it very well and again thank you. I don't know which of the editors have written that, but I reckon in this sentence they wanted to explain why Lady Fatimah (s.a) was mentioned as one of the infallibles while she was not niether Imam nor prophet. In fact the sentence says:"As for Fatimah, she is regarded as infallible because she was a link between prophethood and Imamah, both of which are infallible". The last part which starts with " as well as by her association ..." is some how vague to me but it might be trying to mention another reason for attribution of infallibility to her eminence, may be the other reason is the narrations from Imams.Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I have just looked at the article again. If I had known there was going to be such a massive rewrite, eliminating so much of it, I might not have agreed to copy-edit it! I expect it was out of your hands, so there are no hard feeelings. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Reading the article as it is now, I understand less about the Fourteen Infallibles and the concepts of Ismah and Imamah than I did when I read it the first time! I think it may have been condensed too much, but I am no judge of that. I only speak as an uninformed reader. I am not sure a prohibition can be incumbent upon someone. I have never heard that before. It is quoted in Google, but only twice and from a very strange-sounding translation. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: I had removed the copy-ed request tag after you did the, but again some one from the "Guild of Copy Editors" is doing such editions. Like you, I had not known that some one is going to make such a rewrite. Please help in maintaining the former structure Mhhossein (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
How can I do that? Remember I am on very shaky ground here, as I know so little about the subject. Muhammad, Fatima, Islam and that is about it! The rest I picked up from the article and looking at some of the wikilinks. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
As a native speaker of English and former copy editor of the article, your role is might be crucial here and as you know he is expected to perform only copy edition. I believe that you were skilful in using plain English which made the article understandable for most of the non-native speakers. But, the current procedure is altering the tone of the article which is a harmful issue. Mhhossein (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be two problems here. The first is the English, which I could copy-edit easily and get the tone right. The second is the subject matter, and as I said, I think it may have been cut down too much, as a lot of information has been lost and the uninformed reader is left a little confused, as I was. I will copy-ed what is there now, and if you want to restore some passages or do some rewrites, I will happily look at them and copy-edit them again. It would be rash of me to restore some of the deleted text passages, as I wouldn't know what I was doing! How does that sound? ~ P-123 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC).
I should have looked at the article first! You have already restored parts of the old version! I will check it and copy-edit it where needed. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Three things:.
What is "lutf"? Is it an Arabic word? The article says it is a "special grace". Is there a more specific meaning than that? It might be helpful for readers to know. It could be explained in one phrase, I think.
I couldn't understand this sentence: "Islamic scholar Wilferd Madelung claims that the purification of Ahl al-Bayt—the family of the Prophet Muhammad—has been guaranteed in The verse of purification in the Quran." I added "the family of the Prophet Muhammad, as that is what the wikilink for Ahl al-Bayt says, but maybe what I have put is wrong. How can purification be guaranteed? I think "guaranteed" may be the wrong word here, but I don't know.
I couldn't understand this sentence: "According to Hamid Algar, this ascription is encountered as early as the first half of the second century in the Islamic calendar." I put "attribution" instead of "ascription", but I think I may be wrong. What does "ascription" mean here?
I haven't looked at the Family Tree yet, but I will. When you answer my queries I can do something with those three parts I didn't understand. This is more fun than ISIS! There is too much stress involved in editing ISIS now. The editors are so quarrelsome! I was very surprised to read your comment to Greg that you like editing the ISIS page now! ~ P-123 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello @P-123: Sorry for the delay and thanks you for your cooperation and help. I checked mass rewritings and assuming the editor's good faith, I restored most of the deleted materials. If you look at the article talk page you'll see that two editors are involved in a discussion trying to solve some problems. However we can have similar discussions there. Regarding the three majot problems you mentioned, I should say that:
I think Lutf (Arabic: لطف) means endowment or some thing like this. When I say this characteristic is lutf of God, it means that this characteristic is an endowment by God. Am I clear?
He means that according to the verse of purification in the Quran we can be sure that God has purified the Ahl al-Bayt (Maybe!)
Attribution is a good substitute for ascription.
I agree with you, working here is less stressful. As a Muslim I enjoy editing such pages (religious ones). I had been one of the major editor of the article and I hope we can make it a featured one. By the way, I did not say that I like editing in ISIS, I meant "English Wikipedia" in whole. In fact I like editing here more than editing the "Persian Wikipedia". Mhhossein (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of going to the Talk page? So obvious! I think the best translation for "lutf" would be "gift" of God. Theologically that would be the correct word in English. Is it all right to put for Ahl al-Bayt "the family of the Prophet Muhammad"? Religious pages are soothing, aren't they? (Though I am not religious!) ~ P-123 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123:However some changes are better to be discussed at talk page, aren't they? Yeah, Gift would make a good translation. Ahl al-Bayt means family member but in religious texts it refers to the family of the prophet. It might be interesting to know that Shia Muslims believe that Ahl al-Bayt is consisted of Ali(a.s), lady Fatimah (a.s), Hasan(a.s), hossein(a.s) and they use Quranic verse of purification beside some narrations to prove it, while Sunni muslims don't accept it and believe that the wives of prophet are also regarded as Ahl al-Bayt. Religious pages give me better motivation for editing and I think this way more people will get familiar with the religion. Being religious means to respect God completely in every situations, nothing more! Mhhossein (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The same editor is back and I am not happy with the way he is changing the wording. He seems the sort of editor (from his edit summaries - and from the Talk page!) who will revert any changes made to his wording, and as I don't want to edit-war over grammar (!), I think I had better not do any more. For example, he has: "Shias also believe that the Fourteen Infallibles are superior to the rest of creation, even the major prophets other than Muhammad." It is already clear that Muhammad is one of the Infallibles, so why add "other than Muhammad"? I also do not agree with his reason for including semi-colons in the list. Commas are fine, here; readers can count up to 14! (I cannot understand why "include" at the beginning was there (which he has correctly changed to "are") as I am sure I altered this to "are" much earlier on.) The editor has only started recopy-editing, so I expect there will be other changes. He is clearly not a collaborative editor, going by his comments in the Talk page. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123:I support your editions in the article, As a more experienced copy-editor. But, you'd better reflect your arguments in the article talk page. There we can solve the problems. I suggest you to participate the discussion. Bapehu seem to respond to queries in a reasonable way and nothing will be done without consensus so you should not be anxious about the stressful discussions between the editors. Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have commented on the Talk page which I think explains things from my point of view, and said that I have copy-edited as far as I am able. I still couldn't do anything with the Ahl al-Bayt sentence! Now other editors have the chance to come in with their changes! ~ P-123 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123: Thank you very much. I noticed your comments and answered them. Also I made two sections for the two problems you mentioned. Please keep on copy-editing the article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As I mentioned I have not been at all well recently and I'm afraid I won't be able to do any more copy-editing at the moment, except of the most basic kind. I am sorry about this. Please ask the editors to go ahead with their changes. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123: Is there any problem? Could you please tell me that? you were doing your job well and I can't accept your apology, however you are free to do every thing you like! Mhhossein (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is a big problem. I am physically unwell. I mentioned it when I first started copy-editing this article. I have been struggling for days and have been editing and contributing to the ISIS Talk page with great difficulty. In any case, I do not see how I can help with this article further, as I have copy-edited it to the best of my ability, given my lack of knowledge of the subject matter. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: OK Thanks for your valuable efforts in this article. Is your physical (or emotional?) problem to the involvement in ISIS Talk page? You're pushing yourself too hard! Mhhossein (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a physical (stress-induced) problem that long preceded my editing in ISIS. I used copy-editing in ISIS as a distraction from it, but the discord there has been in recent months on the Talk page has not helped! Things were a lot calmer editing in ISIS earlier this year, around the time you added your sections on ideology and beliefs and women human rights abuse. It used to be fun then, but not any more, I fear! Wherever I turn there seems to be trouble! ~ P-123 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: I wish you regain your health in the near future. There's a Quranic verse which says :" now surely by God's remembrance are the hearts set at rest." This verse makes my heart calmer because it makes me remember that a unique loveable power is protecting me and he can reduce my pain. You'd better try to eliminate the source of stress. Is there any thing I can do for that? Btw, May I ask why did you opt ISIS for this aim? lots of other articles are here. Mhhossein (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind message, and for the offer of help, but there isn't, I'm afraid. I think I came to ISIS via editing the al-Baghdadi page, but don't know why I went to that page either! Possibly because I was intrigued by al-Baghdadi; I like unusual people. But I went there some time before ISIL announced the caliphate and when that happened it was like watching future history unfold, fascinating. I liked the community of editors in ISIS at that time, but it has changed out of all recognition now. Before that I worked solo copy-editing uncontentious articles that were badly written. What drew you to ISIL? ~ P-123 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: You're welcome. Yeah, things are stressful in ISIS. I came to ISIS to help, as a neutral Wikipedian, in making a real image of this group so that people from furthest points of the world could know who they are! As a Muslim, it was important for me to let the readers recognize the differences between such groups and other Muslims. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey @David O. Johnson: Thanks for your attention. But the fact is that I've nominated both of the pages in one discussion. It is possible to nominate mutiple articles at the same time for deletion. So, You may see that both of the pages are nominated at here. Mhhossein (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of 'Hadith of Virtures of Persian People'
Hello Mhhossein, I have just posted this tag on the above mentioned article. The tag advises I also contact the author, so I am. I put the reason on the tag as:
There are hundreds, if not thousands of different topics in Hadith. This article is pushing a POV. Please consider for deletion.
Hey @Mbcap: Welcome to Wikipedia! There might be even hundreds of thousands of topics in Hadith, but those hadiths which are notable deserve to stay as a stand alone article in Wikipedia! I should tell you that POV-related problems are not good reason for deletion and they have to be discussed in the article talk page. Please get to know about deletion policy before tagging the articles. Thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy reply Mhhossein. My apologies for doing that, I shall read the deletion policy. I have moved the discussion to the article talk page. Mbcap (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The history of the critical content was that, some months ago I was breaking consensus on a particular issue, another editor was edit warring so as to reduce the critical content of both the lead and the rest of the article. P-123 was the editor with the smarts to notice a couple of the significant departures of content. I was presented by the same editor [the edit warring one] as being the only one that that wanted critical content to remain in the lead. Discussion on the inclusion of critical content was then conducted from a position within which there was significantly reduced content. It took me a while to get my head together in the situation but, in the context of some welcome support, I produced and presented a record of the edit warring. There was a resulting conflict in the threads concerned but, despite efforts, the article has not been the same since. GregKaye✍♪16:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I have already written quite extensively to mention various points. The main thing that I am pleased about is that the terrorism content is not on its own. If the Islamic content is at the top great but also as last word in the lead has advantages. I have some old Iranian and Iraqi friends. Good people. GregKaye✍♪19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: Thanks for appreciating your friends, that's kind of you. Is there any point hidden inside your first message to me that I didn't get? Btw, how do you justify the advantage of those mentioned Islamic contents being at the end? Mhhossein (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing hidden on my part here. I have in the past gone out of my way to send cryptic messages to editors so as to ensure that P-123 was presented in the way that s/he preferred but, in other cases, I attempt to be as straightforward as possible. GregKaye✍♪15:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
ISIS restructure
Thank you for adding your voice to the discussion on the new ordering for the article. There are only three editors who think the characteristics section should go before the criticisms for clearly logical reasons as befits an encyclopaedia, or any account of the subject for that matter, but I fear the prominent editors on the page are no longer trying to write an encyclopaedia at all. As you will have read I have been outspoken about this, but the opposition has discounted everything I have said and I don't think anything can be done to stop the way the article is going. It is acquiring the stamp of two editors and the old editors have dropped away one by one. I am grateful for your support although I don't think our views will carry any weight. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Since I wrote the above, Legacypac has subjected the article to some more major restructuring and dropping of passages without consulting editors first. This is major WP:OWN, in my view. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1: Every thing must be based on the rules. According to the rules, consensus is an important factor for editing the articles. I'll do my best to maintain a real figure of encyclopedia! You detect and present the problems, then I'll express my ideas. Mhhossein (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I took an interest in the title of the Hadith when I saw it as I have strong opinions on the benefits of Patriotism as more important than Nationalism. Perhaps, last time I spoke too much about my views on religion but I can still recognise a beautiful text .
You asked about this, thanks. Basically I disagree too much with the way the article has been going recently. I don't think it has good encylopaedic content now, or rather the content is fine but the presentation of it is not neutral. It is showing what I see as ant-ISIL bias in the Lead and I do not agree with not stating facts as facts, as I have often said on the Talk page. There seems to be a reluctance to be straightforward; there are too many qualifiers throughout the article like "self-declared" and "caliphate"s and "Islamic State"s in inverted commas, which again to me shows anti-ISIL bias. However, Gregkaye and Legacypac strongly disagree with my views and I have no support from other editors. There is a clear difference of view on how WP:NPOV should be interpreted and I am losing the battle. There are at least two discussions on the Talk page about this. I am not happy about text not being properly backed up by citations either; you will have seen some of my misgivings on that on the Talk page as well. I am regarded as too pedantic, but I think accurate citations are important. This has no connection with my being taken to AN/I by Gregkaye, by the way, which happened after I put up that notice about copy-editing. I don't know if you have looked at the AN/I. There is a link to it on the Talk page. As you probably know, Gregkaye and I have gone from being very good colleagues to very bad ones. I cannot say much about it as it would be unfair on Gregkaye. But you would probably find the AN/I content enlightening. Again, I cannot comment on the AN/I for the same reason. I am not used to belligerence and aggression and so am finding the going pretty hard in the AN/I. I have no problem defending myself but it is currently a war of attrition between us. I really cannot say any more, for fear of Gregkaye saying I am canvassing your support, and that might be added to the AN/I as a charge against me. . P-123 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@P-123: That was a question for me! once you two talking as friends, I saw your talks on disputes existing between yourselves and again talking as friends. I could not realize what's on. It is not a war so that one determines winner or loser, we are all here to make an encyclopedia by "stating facts as facts". You could have requested for comments (RFC) when ever things got complicated, instead of trying to solve the problem by your self. Definitely the text must be backed by proper citations and I can remember the discussion on "No nation recognizes..." if you mean this. Even this case could be solved by RFC. I'm sorry that you've been brought to a war like AN/I. As I have always said, I used to enjoy editing with you and you are of the people whose editions are countable and I can trust them. This is while we did not always hold same opinions about issues of this article! However,I wish you don't face such struggles in real life in the new year. Btw, I was not aware of that AN/I topic and read some parts of it just now. Mhhossein (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I never thought of an RfC/U. I hate confrontations but Greg thought an AN/I was the only solution to solve our differences; I even suggested an AN/I myself. It is such a pity it has come to this as we were good friends at one time. If you want to say anything at AN/I please do and if you can think of a solution please put it up there. Legacypac has proposed one solution which might work. Thanks for your good wishes and I send you mine for the new year. P-123 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a new thread on the Talk page, #Barn door POV pushing in the lead, opened by a new editor whose views on the article are exactly the same as mine. P-123 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 as you know and as you have stated here, the AN/I was your suggestion which by your opinion was to "clear the air". The recent catalyst was content on the public thread discussing whether ISIL could be allowed to be categorised as a nation state. I now consider your content on that thread as defamatory to all who do not hold similar views to you. I raised this twice with you privately and at the second visit responded more forcefully and directly. Since this time you have raised multiple threads left and right with one admin and one suspected admin even starting a thread in the early hours of Christmas Day. I have now presented an AN/I with content that I think is fairly presented.
Re. the above:
"straightforward": would that the situation with 'SIL be straightforward. It is not.
"stating facts as facts" this is true. In any case like this it is important to specify which content any editor such as yourself wants to state, in Wikipedia's voice, as a fact. We can only present established facts as facts. This, in my view, is not sophistry.
"Greg thought an AN/I was the only solution to solve our differences", no - I have been "BEGGING" repeatedly and consistently for you to stop making uncited accusations. I have challenged you to take on what I consider to be really basic Wikipedia principles with cited evidence to back it up and, as far as I know, you have not contested any of the actual content that I have presented to you. It was with a heavy heart that I raised the AN/I but honestly I saw no other option. You were deleting any content that I put on your talk page. The content on my talk page speaks for itself.
With all else having failed "one solution that might work" would be to let be. There has been what has seemed to me to be a horrendous prelude to this regrettable AN/I but it, at least, offers one option for resolution. After this I am done. This, as I see it, was my last stand on issues raised. You can raise whatever IBAN or other proceeding that you like. GregKaye15:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Shi'ism
Hi Mhhossein,
Knowing that you are a Muslim from Shia background I thought I would mention that I had found category templates appropriate to be placed at the bottom of articles. They are found at Category:Anti-Shi'ism which contains Category:Violence against Shia Muslims. I have added the first of the templates to the 'SIL article. This is just in case categorisations are in your interests.
P-123 is topic banned from ISIL and interaction banned from Gregkeye. Therefore they can't talk about either so your question is problematic as they can't respond. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac: WOW! Can't they be contacted through their talk pages any way? I mean just ISIL related topics are banned or they will answer none of the messages? Mhhossein (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
They were also blocked completely from editing but that expired now so they can edit again. Just can't interact with or about the other editor or talk about or edit anything around ISIL. Best wishes are fine and they have full use of their talk page, but I'd avoid asking about bans etc because they can't talk about that really. I know it was an honest mistake on your part to post what you did, but many editors seem to be watching their talk page so be careful. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mhhossein. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Fourteen Infallibles - copy-editing
I have started copy-editing the article again, and as I did before, I have asked some questions about passages that did not make sense so I could then copy-edit them. An IP has just left a message on the Talk page where I did this to say that I should not copy-edit the article, although I have explained the background. All my WP activities are being watched very closely now! ~ P-123 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'll try to clarify the vague points and thanks for your attention. An IP? Why should you not edit that article? I don't see any reason! Mhhossein (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Mhhossein. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dating Arba'een. Thank you.
Hi Mhhossein, I am currently working on Draft:List of states by official designation given to Daesh, ISIL, ISIS and wondered if you could find any relevant government reference to the use of Daesh / daash or any other relevant reverence. Reference can be in Persian or whatever but a relevant English reference would be preferred. I think that this type of article should have been produced some time ago but I guess I got to thinking about it in conjunction with the recent request move at talk:ISIL. Cheers GregKaye17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: Hey Greg! That's a good Idea. I'll help you with this for sure. I should tell you that almost 99 percent of government references call it Daesh (Persian: داعش). I'll provide you wih references. Mhhossein (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I went through the English language media in the region and was surprised at the lack of DAESH use but not surprised they don't use Islamic State. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Legacypac:(Why did you escape the outdent?) But Iran, Iraq and some other countries use Daesh, the Arabic acronym, in their media, maybe they are not in English! That term does not describe the region well and that's why said "so called...". We're located in the western part of Asia. Moreover, the supreme leader of Iranadvises not to use that term. According to him, there's no reason to name the areas of Asia based on the fact that some part is far from Europe, some other is near to it and some other is located at the middle! Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note
I have just started editing Wikipedia and I noticed some of the articles like ISIL have explicitly cited the Koran and taken verses out of context and being anti-islamic and justifying rape .In accordance with wikipedias neutral policy, can you please remove those verses?Muhammad atta al-salam (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DAESH article is getting out of control. It is full of Copyright vio now. Put it beside the POV pushing texts. It is very bad written and I'll do some thing for it. Thanks for reminding. By the way, you can find possible Copy right violations using this tool. Mhhossein (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources for Al-Hilli
Hello Mhhossein, seen as you have made a sizable contribution to Shia related topics, I thought you may be able to lend me some assistance. Do you know of any reliable non-partisan sources on Al-Hilli. So far I can only find Shia sources which are full of praise and Sunni sources which completely discount him and his contribution, so it is slightly difficult to get a neutral account of him. There is the brill sources but there must be other accounts as he made a big contribution to his field in his time. If you can let me know of any other good reliable source, I would be grateful. Regards Mbcap (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap: Which al-Hilli do you mean? Do you mean Al-Hilli who is known as Allame al-Hilli or the other ones such as Muhaqqeq al-Hilli? Do you look for the sources like this?--Seyyed(t-c)18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Mhhoseein and Sa.vakilian. Yes I meant the Al-Hilli who wrote Minhaj Al-Karama. The book you have linked to, has limited information but nonetheless is useful. I just made a passing question, in case you or Mhhossein were aware of any established famous works on Al-Hilli's life. I shall keep looking. Mbcap (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There is another work by Al-Hilli's on Shia theology which is more important among Shias: "The Eleventh chapter"[13] You see, today Shias rarely refer to Minhaj al-Keramah and usually use "The Eleventh chapter"[14].--Seyyed(t-c)04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for the help. I will read the Iranica text when time permits. In regards to the book by Al-Hilli, it is probably the case that the latter book is more famous as you would know more about the issue than myself. The reason I stated Minhaj Al-Karama is because that work is cited on most by orientalists. Mbcap (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted you to know that I am trying to construct a new intro to Hadith of Golden Chain. I did not delete any of the text, I moved it to the "Background" section. It's a good article and important subject, I just thought it would be better if the intro was more concise and was based on academic scholars who are easily verified for Wikipedia. I still need to correct the citations, and will do so shortly. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ism schism: That's a good idea, we may discuss your suggestions at the talk page. Can you help with enhancing it up to GA level? The previous nomination failed because the reviewer had the same idea as you. Mhhossein (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. I'll try to help the article improve with more references as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am working on al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in my sandbox, and it seems you are experienced user about Islamic topic. would you help me for copy-edit of this article? M.Sakhaie 10:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Sorry because I'm not a professional speaker of English. Instead, I would ask @P-123: to help with copy editing the draft. He is a native speaker and a very professional and patient copy editor. It seems that you are going to replace it with the existing article replace the existing article of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya with it! Mhhossein (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy to copy-edit the article once it is in the mainspace and not in the sandbox. It would need to be "moved" properly, not copy-and-pasted into the mainspace, but I am not sure what the procedure is for this. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
P-123: It seems that the draft by M.Sakhaie is going to be the new article, it is like performing a major rewriting in the previous article. So, why shouldn't it be copy pasted? Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You accused me of posting copyright material which is false .The content is taken from this this website is not copyright protected.All the other sources are specified to support the claim, the content is not derived from any of the other sources other than the provided.If you wanna still argue the claims are repeated and echoed in all the sources many of them aren't even copyrght protected.Might wanna check all sources before revertingHand snoojy (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you see the wikilink? I meant the comments were like that, one inside another inside another and so on! "Syndrome" is rather a lazy word, as it isn't really a "syndrome". Only a medical condition can be said to be a "syndrome". ~ P-123 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
More content of the article don't have any sources. A few of them have, but their accuracy is controversial. Because of that the notability of the article is imprecise. According to Wikipedia:Notability, Only being one of the TV channels (or being famous) does not mean that is notable. So it should be deleted.
@Mhhossein:, I thought that during the process to delete the article, i have not done properly Some steps and this process had not been completed. There was a problem that I could not guess. Any way, It seems that the problem is solved, but I do not know how is solved.ThanksSamaneh-davoudi (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ●MehranDebate● 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ●MehranDebate● 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ●MehranDebate● 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ●MehranDebate● 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Virtues of Persia People until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mbcap (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a voting going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. We need more participation. The issues can't remain without a resolution. Please, check it out. Closure of the discussion has started. (refresh) Please, hurry. 78.149.193.255 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus to move, but supporters are divided on including or omitting years (a time period) in the title. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, nowadays we have to wait one month or two for an administrator or someone else to close a discussion, even with relisting. --George Ho (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well... I also meant rationales. Usually, non-admins have closed discussions that have unilateral consensus. --George Ho (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: I did not want to do it by my self and I wished to do it through a request here. But I saw a sentence there saying that: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." That's why, I did the job!. By the way, which part of WP:RMCI does not encourage me to close the proposal? Mhhossein (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Munifi3nt: That articles date back to some months ago and I like to work on similar fields. Has the title won any awards or has it been reviewed or criticized? Mhhossein (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, except Ayatollah Khamenei. I think he had some comment on the book. In addition it is published many times. Is it OK if I put it into the main encyclopaedia?
@Munifi3nt: No problem if you include them in the article using reliable sources. You may refer to the comment by the Iran's supreme leader. Bty, there's a quick DYK guide here. It's not that hard! feel free to let me know about your possible problems with nominating a DYK hook. Mhhossein (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hadith of Golden Chain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey to Heading 270 Degrees until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ism schism (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried discussing your concerns about the content with the user whose subpage it is? That is why your request was declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it usual to nominate polemical subpages in user space for miscellaneous deletion? That depends on what you mean by usual. It isn't usual for a user to have a polemical subpage. It isn't that uncommon, when such subpages exist, for someone to nominate them for deletion. An alternative would be to ask a question at the Help Desk, but they would probably tell you that you can nominate the page for deletion. You could go to WP:ANI, but they would tell you to nominate the page for deletion, and that there is no case at this point for admin action such as a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article One Woman's War: Da (Mother) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Poltair -- Poltair (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Javad Ramezani (جواد رمضانی) is a prolific sockpuppetteer trying to get his name into Wikipedia (see SPI). He started by pretending to be a great singer, but has moved on to pretending to be an ethologist, and inserting his name alongside that of Konrad Lorenz with edits like [15]] in articles about geese and animal behavior. He uses too many IP addresses for a range-block to be possible, and if his target is semi-protected he moves on to another.
I notice that he is doing the same on fa-wiki at fa:رفتارشناسی جانوران, and I am letting you know so that fa-wiki admins can be alerted. A search for his name may find other instances, and would be worth repeating from time to time, because he is very persistent.
The master account User:جواد رمضانی شوراب is blocked on fa-wiki with reason "حساب ایجادشده برای خرابکاری: فرد آمده است که اسم خود را در مقالههای ویکیپدیا وارد کند", and globally locked, and some of his other accounts like User:Javadramezanishorab are blocked on fa-wiki, so they know something about him already.
Dear JohnCD, thanks for letting me know about this. I'll reflect your concern in fa-wiki so that he is stopped there. FYI, I conducted a search using google and I understood that there's an Iranian singer named Javad Ramezani who does not to be famous (It's the first time I'm hearing his name). Moreover, I found a weblog about him. The pictures on both sites are almost similar which suggests that 'Javad Rmaeziani' is the young singer who claims to be interested in ethology.
Thanks. The picture he posted here was this one which looks about 14 years old, though his stated year of birth is 1994. Your picture could be the same person, grown up. Anyway, I wish he would grow up mentally: here is his latest batch, only a few minutes ago. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I request you to arrange the page of I. K. A. Howard Ph.D. Lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh, died in March 2013. He deserves to be included in this encyclopedia. I could not find him at EN:WP. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sonia Sevilla: سلام. عکس فعلی شایستگی بیشتری برای ماندن در اینفوباکس دارد. در ویکی پدیا ملاک اجماع است که فکر میکنم در اینجا اجماع بر عکس اردبیل است. اگر توانستید عکس بهتری تهیه بفرمایید، بنده از آن حمایت میکنم. Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
با کسب اجازه از صاحبخانه، واقعا دلیل این کار شما را بنده متوجه نمیشوم، اصرار بر قرار گرفتن یک عکس از عزاداری محرم از شهر نیشابور به هر قیمتی. شما 1000تا عکس از این شهر توی ویکی کامانز آپلود کردین، تماما دوست دارین توی مقالات مرتبط به کار ببرید. برای مراسم عزاداری شما اگر عکس بهتری نسبت به اردبیل میخواهید باید عکسی باشدکه ابهت، جمعیت، گستردگی، شکوه این مراسم را بهتر به دنیا نشان دهد. نه عکسی که شما میگذارید با 6 نفر آدم. قبلا نیز یادم هست که مراسم عزاداری اردبیل رابه قمه زنی شبیه می کردید، گرچه توی این عکس یک قمه دست کسی نبود، یعنی قمهزنی در انزار عمومی ممنوع هست
شما نیز گستردگی جمعیت عزاداران حسینی را در معدود شهرهای دنیا میتوانید بیابید، در ایران بجز زنجان، اردبیل، کرمان، یزد و فک کنم کاشان و آران و بیدگل کمتر بتوان جمعیتی با گستردگی زیاد پیدا کرد.
اصرار من بر «نیشابور» نیست (هرچند ممکن است از نگاه کاربران ایرانی -آذری ، ایران فقط زنجان و اردبیل و مشهد باشه!). اصرار من بر این است که هیچ لزومی ندارد گستردگی و جمعیت زیاد را به رخ بکشید. این یعنی تبلیغ. محرم حج که نیست که شما بر تعداد افراد شرکت کنندش تاکید دارید. تعصب مذهبی هیچ جایی تو ویکیپدیا نداره. --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Samak: شما هم میتونید هزاران عکس بازگذاری کنید. اگه "دید" ویژه عکاسیتون خوب میشه، حتی از یک روستا هم میتونید هزاران عکس بگیرید. ایران هم فقط بخش شمالغربی اش و تبریز و اینا نیست. --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
شما یک ذره به پیشنهاد من احترام نگذاشتید اون وقت به من میگید اصرار میکنم؟ تمام سخن من این است « با توجه به دیدگاه کنونی عمومی غربیها نسبت به اسلام؛عکسی بهتر است که جمیعت عزاداران را "آرام" نشان بدهد. این دسته های عزاداری در خیابان ها فقط بخشی از مراسم عزاداری است. عکس من هم همین ویژگی را نشان می دهد بعلاوه با حضور یک نیروی امنیتی. در ضمن، اگر واقعاً میخاهید عزاداری محرم را نشان بدهید، عکس اصلی باید از کربلا باشه. چون کربلا اصل قضیه است، هرچند در شهرهای دیگه هم عزاداری باشکوه برگزار بشه، اصل رویداد برمیگرده به کربلا و اهمیتش. --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sonia Sevilla: اتفاقا باید با انبوه جمعیت باشد تا بیگانگان با بزرگی این رخداد آشنا شوند. اگر از کربلا یا نجف عکس بهتری داشتین پیشنهاد دهید بنده استقبال میکنم، امسال از شهرمان کسی برای اربعین راهی کربلا شد حتما بهش میسپارم از جمعیت 20 میلیونی کربلا که یکی از List of largest peaceful gatherings in history تجمعات مسالمتآمیز جهان هست عکسی بگذارد. برای شما نیز باید پیامی که اینجا گذاشته اید باید تاسف خورد.
افراطگرایان شیعه؟ شما مردمی را که برای عزاداری آمدهاند افراطی مینامید؟ یا شما مردم اردبیل را افراطی مینامید؟ واقعا از دید اهل تسنن و شما که جزوی از آن هستین این عکس نشانه افراط هست. فقط تاسف میخورم.SaməkTalk12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mhhossein. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
WP has to rely on quality sources that have been published by recognized, peer-reviewed presses and journals. These presses and journals select experts in their field and check their work. It is reasonable to assume that they are more likely to be accurate than the editors at WP, whose expertise is generally less and whose work is not peer-reviewed by experts. You or I may know a lot about certain subject, but would anyone really recognize us as more expert in a field than the authors whose work we might contest? We may be very certain of what we say, but why should other editors believe us over recognized experts in the field.
In any case, this is established policy. If an editor wants to work on articles here, he or she must adhere to it.
The good news is that generally, I have found, valid points can be supported by responsible sources. Sometimes it takes a bit of hunting.
@Clean Copy: Thanks for the clarification. But if you think that editors can cite to an apparently reliable source even if it has reported obviously wrong points, please once again refer to WP:RS. Imagine a reliable source, which for any reasons, say a week in consisted of 10 days. Do you write that in WP articles? --Mhhosseintalk05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
From [[WP:TRUTH}}:
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Clean Copytalk03:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Again and again you are missing the point that reliability is defined within context. One reliable source may be unreliable for a specific area. Good luck. --Mhhosseintalk03:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists GA review
Hey there! It is not required, but I always prefer articles to be up to last least B-class if there are active WikiProjects that can review them. MiHist has a very active assessment department and would be able to work with you to get it to a solid B-class article in no time (if it isn't already). Let me know if you decide to go that route, and I will get the review for GA started right after! Kees08 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This is about the dispute that was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard over the article on Ali Khamenei. The filing party had removed a section from the article because he found it incomprehensible. I also thought that it was incomprehensible. You had said that an entire section should not be removed from an article because of a simple resolvable issue. An issue is not simple and resolvable if you do not discuss it collaboratively. I assumed that there was a language problem, that your command of English was not sufficient to permit detailed discussion of what you had written. Since you say that there is no language problem and that you can contribute to the English Wikipedia well, you should have been willing to discuss your edits, at least if your objective is to improve the encyclopedia. I had to close the request for dispute resolution because you did not appear to be willing to discuss. I see that the section has been removed. Please do not add sections to articles unless you are willing to discuss them in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon: Thanks for commenting and the intervention. This was not the first article I edited and he was not the first opposing editor I saw! I don't say the section did not need to be copyedited, but this was the first time I saw that a whole section was removed for such issues! This behavior on his part signaled something negative and the TP discussion regarding this topic and other cases, showed me that he was not seeking reasons to avoid the section, be it comprehensible or not, let alone his personal attacks. I don't need to prove, but you may see my "collaborative" behavior on other TPs and articles. Thanks again. --Mhhosseintalk19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein - You don't seem to understand. The section did not need to be copy-edited. The section was incomprehensible, and needed either to be removed or completely rewritten. You mention personal attacks, but I have not seen any personal attacks. Do not claim that there have been personal attacks when there have not been. I do not know whether you have been willing to discuss your edits on other articles, but you were not being constructive or cooperative about the article on Ali Khamenei. Your addition was incomprehensible, and you were not discussing it reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: 1- You yourself mentioned his "comments on the editor". 2- You failed to see that I was not the original editor of the section. 3- You failed to see his making fun of me on the TP which removed the collegial atmosphere and made "being constructive or cooperative about the article on Ali Khamenei" almost impossible (see his response to my using of "please show us"). 3- Please don't say "The section was incomprehensible" and that it "did not need to be copy-edited" since this is not the article I'm editing. At least, we could ask GOCE editors for help. 4- Your immature closure of the DRN even worsened every thing, because I had written that I would be answering at your request, meaning that I was ready to cooperate and discuss. Now, how much did we move forward after the DRN? Zero meters! --Mhhosseintalk05:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I thought that we can achieve to unique solution to write about free thinking seat during the DRN, but it was just recommended me to edit on wikipedia in my native language!Saff V. (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V. - It does not matter which of you originally wrote the paragraph. As it was written, it made very little sense. It needed either to be removed or to be rewritten. The need to rework the paragraph was not simple and resolvable if you would not discuss it in good faith. If you want to add a paragraph about Free Thinking Seats, discuss it on the article talk page. That is what article talk pages are for. If you are unable to discuss the paragraph in English, then perhaps you should edit in another language. If you want to add a paragraph, then be ready to discuss it in English, and do not refer to "software movement", which makes no sense. If a native Anglophone says that something makes no sense in English, it might be better to start over than to try to copy-edit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon: Thanks for the comment. But please note that your repetitive referring to language problem is suggesting me your biased approach toward the case, given my recorded contributions, DYKs and GAs which you are amazingly ignoring. I'm going to consider it as a personal attack, if it's repeated. If the major problem stems from the "software movement" term, then labeling the whole section as "incomprehensible" is unfair and removing the section for this reason is weird. There could be some misunderstandings regarding "software movement" which could be resolved. Moreover, you amazingly ignored that they discussed in a manner making mockery of us. If they had taken a soft language, things would be much different. I have to repeat that your intervention and the subsequent immature closure of the DRN worsened the case without resolving anything, considering the very fact that I had shown my willingness to respond at the request of the admins or volunteer editors. In other words, you did every thing but resolving the dispute! --Mhhosseintalk12:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V. - I don't understand what you are saying. Your statements are convoluted and hard to understand, just as the original section, that has been removed, was impossible to understand. It appears to me that the other editor tried to discuss that section, and that you did not discuss constructively. It is true that I didn't resolve the dispute, but I didn't see a willingness to resolve the dispute by discussion. Please explain, in English, what you are trying to say. If you want to go forward, please explain how you want to go forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Things are becoming much more interesting! Your language problem is very serious, if you don't understand my comments. Then please ask others with an enhanced level of the English language to explain them. If you have problems with understanding such level of English, you can't be editing in a collaborative Encyclopedia where users from around the world are editing and having contributions. Said that, you don't seem to be a good candidate to resolve disputes at the DRN, where those international users may be involved. --Mhhosseintalk20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: is correct. He is also a great and needed contributor at DRN. Please accept his
@Mhhossein: Robert McClenon is correct. Robert is also a great and needed contributor at DRN. Please accept his advice and stop adding incomprehensible text into articles without genuine attempts at discussion. Thanks. Dr.K. 21:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Original comment was modified to avoid any misunderstanding. Dr.K.01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Robert, I pinged you above, to make you aware of my comment, but my advice was meant for Mhhossein, after I saw his/her negative comments directed at you. I meant that you are correct, and also a great and needed contributor at DRN. I also said to Mhhossein to accept your advice and stop adding incomprehensible text into articles without [making] genuine attempts at discussion. I hope this clears this up. Dr.K.00:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Dr.K. - I understood that. I understood. I was at least willing to give him credit for his sarcastic insult being clear, although his article prose was not. Maybe he should stick to sentences with one verb. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough. If he has difficulty understanding editor's comment, then he certainly is not a good candidate for DRN and so on. --Mhhosseintalk05:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein - It shouldn't matter to you whether Robert is my legal first name. It shouldn't matter to you whether Robert is my christened name. If I use that name, it is my name, not just being so-called. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: This seemingly puzzling comment makes perfect sense if editing/reading behind a translation plugin (e.g. Chrome's translate), in which case your given name may translate to the Persian equivelant of "famed", "shining", etc.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. It ought to recognize common first names and transliterate them rather than translating them. Many less common names which are simply coined may also be unrecognized and so untranslated and presumably transliterated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. How can I have any positive comments for you? Your record during this dispute, and other incidents, speaks for itself, and it is certainly not positive at all. My criticisms of your actions are in response to your continuing attacks toward me and other editors. Even now, you call Robert McClenon, a respected, veteran editor, quote: so called "Robert", and you insist on your unfair criticism of him, instead of respecting his considered opinion. How can I be positive in the face of such bungling? If you want respect you have to behave in a respectable manner. Dr.K.05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, every thing stemed from your harsh behavior at TP, whether you accept it or not. For example, just see how negative you acted when I said "show us", i.e. show us the WP editors. There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc. I suggest you to review your comments once more. I also believe that "your record during this dispute, and other incidents, speaks for itself". My advice for you is to use a softer language, next time, if you really aim to resolve the disputes by discussion. I'm able to receive "criticisms" but expect you to be so, too. --Mhhosseintalk05:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr.K. didn't accuse you of running a possibly shared account - he politely requested you cease the use of the Royal we or Nosism which is generally inappropriate in English unless you represent a group or alternatively are royalty.Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, questions about a shared account are not the same as questions about sockpuppetry. Many new editors who represent a group will in good faith use the first person plural pronoun because they really are using a shared account, and do not yet know that corporate accounts are not permitted. Use of a shared account can be a good-faith mistake until corrected. Sockpuppetry is a different matter. However, in this case I agree that the use of the first person plural pronoun may have been a linguistic error. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Icewhiz for your scholarly, and much-needed, reality-check against these baseless accusations. @Mhhossein: If you want to be respected and be taken seriously, please demonstrate that you understand your errors and false accusations. Please retract your allegations that I called your account "shared". Also please retract your unfair PA against veteran and respected editor Robert McClenon for calling him quote: so called "Robert". That's simply not the way to gain respect in this collaborative project. In the process, can you also please apologise to Icewhiz, and myself, for insinuating that we are sockpuppets? Thank you. Dr.K.11:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, you blatantly accused me from the beginning and destroyed the collegial atmosphere. That "scholarly, and much-needed, reality-check" was an attempt to merely support you, like before. It's very very interesting that he ignored your referring to shared accounts. Did not you accuse me of possibly having a shared account? I don't want respect from you who don't know how to treat others on TP pages.
How did you miss this one really? "...your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?" --Mhhosseintalk17:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify, as my "warning" is misquoted here with emphasis which I did not intend. The meaning of my comment was not intended to be limited in scope to the ANI thread, it was meant to be a warning against any further personal attacks anywhere against users who participated in that thread. Saying you're not to make negative comments up to an arbitrary break in time but then you're free to run amok and say whatever you want afterwards is absurd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thanks for the "much-needed, reality-check" against the misquoting. "Stop your usual nonsense," he told me in his edit summary when he made another ad hominen comment and made a false conclusion. You can add "I know you have limited understanding of English" and "[it] is beyond your current level of English (or honesty) to understand" to the list, let alone other pages. The reality is clarified now, thanks to your comment. --Mhhosseintalk16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: As a clarification, I agree that the warning against further personal attacks was unlimited and not confined to that thread. Normally, I wouldn't have mentioned the false SPI allegations here either. However, recently, this user referred to Robert McClenon as "so-called Robert", and I told him that this was uncalled for, and asked him/her to retract it or apologise for it. I then added the SPI case, as another example of Mhhossein's unfair allegations against other editors, thinking that while there was a restriction on further PAs, there was no moratorium on apologies. But, since this has become contested, I take the point. Dr.K.18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Mhhossein's comment above) That being said, @Dr.K.: and @Icewhiz:, repeatedly haranguing someone because they use unusually quirky English (such as the "royal we") is kind of unnecessarily rude. Especially when you know you're talking to someone who is not a native English speaker. You may know that English itself is unusual in being a language with only one form of both "we" and "you"; many others have multiple forms for singular vs. plural, familiar vs. formal, male vs. female vs. neuter, and on and on. If Mhhossein or anyone refer to themselves or others in an unusual plural form, let it go. You probably understood what they meant, and it's definitely not an accusation of sockpuppetry or indication of shared account use. Just, enough of this.
And that being said, Mhhossein, the edit you keep trying to restore is incomprehensible. I'm not saying that as an ad hominem, I'm saying that because English is my mother tongue and the language in which I am university educated and which I have spoken nearly exclusively for coming up on half a century, and I cannot decipher what you wrote. It looks like you've got three editors with native or professional English proficiency (four including myself) telling you that your English needs improvement and suggesting improvements; you should take this as an indication that your skill in English is perhaps not as good as you think it is. If I told you to scron the garfleblag, and then I get angry and aggressive and I keep demanding that you scron the garfleblag, first of all no garfleblaggn are getting scrun, and also you're going to get upset with me for just expecting that you know what I'm talking about. It's not a personal attack to ask you to define "software movement" because it's a term without a logical meaning in English, and as it turns out after you finally provided a link to a definition after arguing about it for 6 days, it doesn't even mean something close to what a native English speaker might intuit. Clearly, a native English speaker expects software to mean, well, software, and "movement" in English has several meanings.
The problem here, Mhhhossein, is your own participation in the discussion. Dr.K. tried to point out specific parts of your edits and very clearly summarize the problems and suggest improvements, and you responded with "sorry that I don't have enough time reading these wall of texts." If you don't "have time" to work out the issues with your edits when others point them out to you, then you can either accept whatever changes they make, or else not edit the article. You can't refuse to participate and then insist on using your edit anyway. That is edit warring, this page is under a discretionary sanctions alert, and if you continue you will be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thank you again for the the comment. He shouldn't have used those "unnecessarily rude" comments and I shouldn't have said that I did not have time. Just see how many times he called my comments silly. I was really annoyed by his haranguing, on the contrary I was really affected by your "I'm saying that because English is my mother tongue ... coming up on half a century." I admit your comment on my level of English language, but the last "misquoting" case showed that I was not that bad and dr.k. was probably wrong.
I'm not going to add the text, unless I found more reliable sources and there's a consensus over it. I'm not saying that I was innocent, but be sure that things would be much more different, if they had used a better language. It's not a personal attack to ask one to define "software movement", but calling someone's comment "silly" and saying "Stop your usual nonsense" is probably personal attack. You were really fair on the different areas, including the block warning. But I did not notice warning or comment against Dr.k.'s continued annoying behavior after the ANI case. Thank you again for the comments, I'll certainly take your advice. --Mhhosseintalk17:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Please see in this reply by Mhhossein to you, how s/he sarcastically uses my own phrase "much-needed reality check" using the quote template. I used that phrase in my reply to Icewhiz in this thread. I find such use of my phrases to be just another indication of Mhhossein's continuing aggressive attitude toward myself and other editors. By the way, I was not trying to "harangue" Mhhossein about his use of the first person plural; given this user's inability to get the idea that the proposed edit was incomprehensible, I wanted to ascertain that that was not just another of his tactics in the discussion. I wanted to eliminate the possibility that he was attempting to indicate that he was speaking on behalf of the rest of the wiki so as to inflate his position in the discussion. I also wanted to inform him that such use is not proper in the English language, and politely explained to Mhhossein why. Did he get my advice onboard? No. Icewhiz, an eloquent and clueful editor, came here to explain to Mhhossein that I did not accuse him of operating a shared account. At no time did he harangue Mhhossein. Dr.K.23:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: "false SPI allegations", "Mhhossein's unfair allegations", "Mhhossein's continuing aggressive attitude toward myself" and etc. I think that's enough! Did you just notice that I was careful enough and said "dr.k. was probably wrong" while I could...? --Mhhosseintalk19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's our first project-wide update. I hope you enjoy it...
Reboot
The WikiProject reboot has been a success: the new re-envisioned project is up and running, with new members, ongoing discussions about automation, design, and upkeep; maintained task queques; and updates to members, like this, the very first one!
As you know, there's a proposal to delete all portals. It started out looking pretty dismal for portals, with primarily posts supporting their demise. It turned out that the proposer didn't post a deletion notice on the very pages being nominated for deletion (a requirement for all deletion discussions). Once that was done, a flood of opposition came in and has apparently turned the tide.
RfCs generally run for 30 days. It started April 8th, and so it has about 14 more days to run its course.
The more work we can do during that time on the portals, the stronger the reasons for keeping them will be. And the more prepared we will be for any MfDs that follow the closing of the RfC.
You may be wondering why we asked for AWB experience in the member-sign-up list.
We are gearing up to do maintenance runs on the entire set of portals, and the more people we have who can use AWB, the better.
But we're not quite ready to start this yet.
To be able to use AWB on the portals, we first need to know what the end result needs to be. Like on the news sections, do we comment out the out-of-date ones, or do we place the code to activate the newsbot on those pages? That would require an assessment of WikiNews and its news generating performance (areas covered, volume in each area), etc.
Another area we're gearing up for, to do passes with AWB, are upgrades to the intro sections of portals. Many of these have static (copied/pasted) excerpts that go stale over time.
We need everybody's help on this. It's a big chore for one persons. But, many hands make light work. Please help chip away at this chore as much as you can. A little each day, form all of us, will get this done pretty quick.
Familiarize yourself with the portal system
In addition to browsing the portals in the 2 lists mentioned in the section above, you should take a look at the portal name space itself and what is in it.
In addition to the automation efforts mentioned above, we will be looking into how to automate the selection and display of alternating excerpts, and alternating pictures, for the various portal sections.
This new template is fantastic. I've added it to the intro sections of the portals on Australian cities (eg P:PER) and it works brilliantly. My compliments to its creators. It can probably also be used in other sections of many portals (eg "Selected article" and "Selected biography"), and, for that reason, will probably make the task of maintaining portals a great deal easier. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a comment in the the April 26 section of the RfC explaining what we are up to. I liked the excerpt above so much, that I went back to my RfC posting, and inserted it.
When there, be sure to notice the consultation link.
We're trying to get a prototypical single-page portal developed in time to show the RfC closers before they make their final decision. You can help. It's Portal:Humanism. So far, we've applied selective transclusion (automation) to excerpts, and have made the following sections without subpages: intro, selected article, selected biography, categories, related portals, wikiprojects, things to do, and wikimedia. Eight down, 4 to go, plus 2 formatting subpages (not sure we can migrate those). Automating every section, would also be nice.
Main objectives
Our main objectives currently, are:
Replace static excerpts with selective transclusions, so that the excerpts always stay fresh (that is, match the source content). We are now doing this on the portal base page as much as possible, to reduce the number of subpages that are needed. See #2...
Migrate the functions of subpages to the portal base pages. There are around 150,000 subpages in portal space. We aim to make these obsolete by using templates and other calls from the portal base pages.
Improve portal design to make portals self-update. Semi-dynamic sections update from a static list, as used in {{Transclude random excerpt}}. Fully-dynamic sections would update from a list maintained elsewhere on Wikipedia, like a category. We haven't found a way to do this yet, other than to create a bot (which we will probably need to do).
Maintenance pass #1: Upgrading the intro section
The intro section of many portals transcludes an "Intro" subpage that has an excerpt in it.
We're replacing that with a selective transclusion directly in the intro section, bypassing the subpage. Though, there's a little more to it...
Maintenance pass #2: Obsoleting the Wikimedia subpages
One of the sections on many portals links to sister projects on the subject. This needlessly takes a subpage. The subpage can be made obsolete by using the template {{Wikimedia for portals}} directly on the portal base page.
This has been done for several hundred portals so far.
Thanks for the link, but it does not say what you meant. Read it more carefully, plz: "ARBPIA3 covers the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, not just the Palestinians in particular." Does the article fall within Arab-Israeli or Palestinians-Israel conflict? --Mhhosseintalk18:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.
Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun
This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.
More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two.
Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)
The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.
Thank you, you
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.
Why reread that mess, you ask?
To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...
Thank yous all around
I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).
Sockpuppet, and reverting his work
It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.
This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.
The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:
Associated Wikimedia – {{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}}
Categories – {{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}
Automatic article alerts is up and running
Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.
Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.
Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?
Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.
Deletion discussion survivors
Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:
All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
