Hajji Piruz

Hello. First, the major change in the introduction was brought by the IP address 84.58.200.238 and not by me. I even edited his/her changes and removed the part of its sentence which related Safavids to the Herat of Afghanistan. The edits which were made by that IP, was not a vandalism but in fact it seemed appropriate for me. Wasn't Persian the primary language of Safavids, beside the Azeri language? And weren't they traced back to Tat origin? However, I looked at the history and seemed that in some places User:Ali doostzadeh has reverted sourced information, and the unexplained removal of sources by User:Grandmaster in his last edit. Thanks -Ariana 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thanks for the Barnstar, it was a nice surprise! Shervink 08:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Azerbaijani"/Hajji Piruz. I am warning you to stop vandalizing my user page, as you did here [1]. My next report will go to the relevant Wikipedia admistrative board. I would suggest that instead of vandalizing my page, you pay a little attention to achieving consensus and assuming a good faith. Hopefully changing username from Azerbaijani to Hajji Piruz, aside from attempt to evade ArbCom injunction, should also imply some change in editing attitude towards constructivism as well. Atabek 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're knocking on a dead fish. We have already been through ArbCom, where it has been clarified that User:Tengri happened to be my friend, and we both started editing in first 7 days unaware of all the rules. So, your attempt to vandalize my page and/or accuse me of sockpuppetry now based on 6 months ago, is nothing more than puny try to deal with my edits. It obviously shows that 1) you're unable to AGF; 2) you're not qualified to engage in constructive editing using referenced material but only in edit warring and hunting after people. Keep your POV out of my talk page, please, the topic is closed as far as I am concerned. Atabek 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Evidence of your harassment of my user page, talk page and other pages that I edit is already being compiled. As I told you, you may continue knocking on dead fish, and wasting your own time, but not on my page. Atabek 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which you chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:

• "by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
• "in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
• "users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"

I expect an immediate cessation of harassment activity by yourself. Atabek 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that your problem was related to your cache or something. Try clearing some cache as that has worked for me in the past. Fullstop came right after and incorporated Iranica information anyway, so the sourcing issue is resolved. The Behnam 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, just like I told you, he has gone to yet another admin in the very same day: [2]. Tariq, the reason I tell you this is because you are now familiar with this user, is there any suggestion you can give me on how to handle this situation or can you discuss this issue with the other admins? If you need more information, just ask.Hajji Piruz 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that you both go to Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation; that process seems perfect for this. In the meantime, I'll leave a comment on Atabek's talk page because I believe his allegations are unfounded. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I dont think Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation will work unless there is a third party being directly involved to review whats being said and make a final decision on what remedy should be put in place. Atabek doesnt even have enough respect for me to keep my comments on his talk page, he deletes them and calls them "garbage", so I dont see how he and I could solve anything by ourselves. He is also not completely knowledgeable on all of Wikipedia's policies and rules (as evident by him continuously misunderstanding or misusing these policies and rules). He also contradicts himself, accusing me, then saying he didnt accuse me, then telling me what to edit and what not to edit, and then saying that I dont own anything on Wikipedia, etc... Where can I find someone who can participate directly or is there something else you can suggest?Hajji Piruz 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are third-parties set up for the purpose of reviewing CEM cases; they are listed on the request page. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tariq, I see that you have read Atabeks latest comment, and its a very absurd comment as he is accusing me of "attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions" when I have done no such thing and he has no proof! How am I blackmailing you Atabek, how am I harassing you Atabek, how am I attacking you Atabek? Show us the proof, the evidence, the diff's, something...what you are doing now is personally attacking me, because these false accusations are personal attacks if you cant back them up with evidence. Its you that is doing this to me. You have even tried canvassing to get me in trouble.

Tariq, I'd also appreciate it if you would also make some comments on the mediation page when it comes to that so that the mediator knows other users have seen how Atabek makes false accusations and personal attacks. User:Bushytails has also commented on Atabek's disruptive editing here: [3]

Tariq, his false accusations are personal attacks right? Cant you do anything based on what you've seen here? I will definetly go to mediation though.Hajji Piruz 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

They're not really personal attacks. I might comment on the CEM, but I wish you'd all continue this discussion on your own user talk pages (or wherever else appropriate) instead of cluttering up mine. -- tariqabjotu

Just thought you should know, Atabek canvassing again: [4]Hajji Piruz 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([5]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.Hajji Piruz 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- tariqabjotu 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is why CEM wont work: Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much. [6] In CEM, we're supposed to make our own punishments and come to a conclusion on our own...How can we do that when one user simply makes accusations (wihtout posting the evidence to prove them) and personal attacks? I have asked Thatcher131 if we could possibly re-open the arbcom, if he says no, then I will do a RFC (but which diff's should I show proving that you and I have commented, should I just post the link to this section?).Hajji Piruz 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good call on asking requesting the RfArb be re-opened. The decision was partially intended to resolve this kind of tussling between you, Atabek, and other users involved. Obviously, this has failed (and I'm not putting the blame squarely on Atabek). An RfC may be the best alternative if that does not work out. -- tariq<fon color="gray">abjotu 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as you already noticed I went ahead and made a new Category:Treaties of Iran --only because I saw the already existing Category:Treaties of Persia. I think there should be further discussion until the two are merged. Take care. --Bobak 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have opened the RFC. Cold you please sign your name, as per the two user requirement: [7]. I'm not done yet, I still have to post a lot of evidence showing this users disruptive behavior and refute his allegations against me.Hajji Piruz 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tariq, I'm not sure if you accidently over looked this, but I think you need to sign your name acknowledging that you tried to solve this dispute. Otherwise the RFC wont be accepted. I think you have to sign here: [8].Hajji Piruz 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I did not overlook this. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to sign it. Saying I tried to resolve this dispute is not an endorsement of your summary, per se, but your grievance is completely off base. It looks more like an attack than a complaint. For instance, I have no idea why you are using evidence from the ArbCom case to support your position. That has been dealt with; this is double jeopardy. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood the RFC with comments supporting Atabek. So far, Elsanaturk, who hasnt been active since June 5 all of a sudden appears and his third edit is on the RFC...Please see this: [9] Also, see Elsanaturks comment on the Atabeks summary. Elsanaturk blindly apporves of Atabek and points the finger at me despite the fact that I am the only one who posted evidence. This kind of blind support will only make things worse.

This dispute will not be solved if non-neutral users are the ones that comment and attempt to flood the article. Is there anyway we can only have neutral third party users discuss the RFC along with Atabek and I?Hajji Piruz 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assume good faith. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should I assume good faith now? He has gone to Dacy69 and asked him to make a comment, just like I had predicted: [10] This is direct evidence that he is trying to flood the page. Hes already canvassing! Please do something.Hajji Piruz 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

He has also gone to Grandmaster, just like I had predicted: [11]

When will the admins say enough is enough? Please do something to stop him from sabotaging the RFC.Hajji Piruz 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Enough of this. I have reported this to ANI. On another note, why have you not been posting on Atabek's talk page? Talk to him and stop using my talk page as a battlefield. -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's my right to ask others to comment on RfC against myself, I did so openly on a talk page. I am not the one who filed RfC, you're. And please, stop taking everything along national lines, you clearly did it just now [12]. Assume good faith finally, and hopefully, we can resolve our differences in a civilized manner without wasting community's resources. Atabek 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because they were taking up way too much space. BTW, I'm curious, are you an ethnic Azerbaijani or a Persian? -- Aivazovsky 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just curious to know what your view the Republic of Azerbaijan is. What do most Iranian Azeris think of it? Do they want to secede from Iran to unite with it or are they content as they are? E-mail me your thoughts via Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

By nationalist do you mean nationalist for Iran or nationalist for the Republic of Azerbaijan? BTW, I shortened the titles. -- Aivazovsky 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I knew that. E-mail me later. -- Aivazovsky 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hajji Piruz, I think you have a bit of a tall order. But I will address your points one by one:

"1. You will never make false accusations against me again."

• I didn't make false accusations, you did edit my user page, do I have to repost the diff again?

"2. You will never canvass trying to tarnish my image again."

• I wasn't canvassing, I explained myself pretty clearly on User:Tariqabjotu's page. And I am not in power to tarnish anyone's image, as I am not the one to judge the tarnishment.

"3. You will never tell me what articles I can and cannot edit."

• I can never tell anyone which article to edit or not, that's not something in my or anyone's control. I only stated a fact that you're only editing Azerbaijan-related articles, with a sole objective of intimidation, provocation and revert warring, which I think is needless. You're only making elephant out of a fly, and further inflaming Azeri-Iranian relations, which is also needless, unless you have specific purpose in doing so.

"4. You will admit that Tengri was your sock puppet (as confirmed by Grandmaster above) and will drop the act that he was just your "friend" and you guys happened to use the same computer."

• I don't need to act. There were other attempts to prove that I had socks afterwards, all of which failed. About Tengri, I spoke truth and explained clearly reasons why Checkuser found myself and Tengri to be using the same IP address 7 days after we came to Wikipedia. If you have proofs otherwise, go ahead, prove me that Tengri and I are the same person :). Come on, we both know, why you were trying to insert that category after 6 months on my user page, and no one else's - the objectives are intimidation and provocation.

"5. You will be respectful to all users you come into contact with and not jump to conclusions."

• So far, I have been respectful to all users, otherwise, I would have had personal attack charges in ArbCom. For further opinion about myself, you can read Ali Doostzadeh's opinion on the RfC that you opened.

"6. You will never misuse and abuse Wikipedia's rules and policies, distorting them to fit your POV again."

• I am sorry, but again, that's something to be decided by people who administer and enforce those rules in Wikipedia.

Overall, as I told you, you need to calm down and assume good faith. Revert warring and aggressive behavior against users based on nationality, summing up everyone with words like "all from Republic of Azerbaijan", won't yield much benefit to you. Aside from proving the fact that you're battling along national lines, you're pretty much alienating a group of people against yourself, and such hatred is needless and unconstructive. Atabek 05:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, inaugurating a pipeline to Armenia exactly on the day of Novruz celebration is indicative of openly hostile approach of Iranian leadership towards Azerbaijan. This is quite relevant and worth mentioning in the article. Atabek 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now well, thanks :) --Brand спойт 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. It would be good to examine the differences in relations across different Bangladeshi administrations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not mean to discourage you from going to ArbCom with Atabek; in fact, I believe it's the best option at this point. However, I would like to caution you, so that you are less shocked later, that you may be disappointed by the outcome. Through the statements I have seen from you, you appear to think you are entirely innocent in this scuffle with Atabek. Wrong. You are just as disruptive and culpable as Atabek, if not more. If you don't begin to realize that soon, your RfArb is unlikely to go well. If and when you do bring this matter to ArbCom, I will make sure to bring forward evidence of your disruptive behavior, as well as that of Atabek... just so you know. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

May be deleted at any time. It was a clear copyright violation from Radio Free Europe. I encourage you to contact them and request that the image be released under a free licence. - Francis Tyers · 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The fact that it is sometimes wrong does not mean that it is an unreliable source. In fact the fact that it issued an apology makes it a reliable source. An unreliable source would not have issued an apology. AI is a leading human rights NGO that covers the world. It is biased towards human rights, which tends to annoy governments (for example here) who don't like human rights, but that is no excuse to exclude it, providing it is well attributed, which in this case it is. - Francis Tyers · 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

They say reportedly because in many cases it is difficult to confirm. So because they cannot be present at, and witness beatings of Irish political prisoners in UK run northern Irish jails, it does not mean it didn't happen. Or just because they cannot be present at, and witness Muslims being humiliated in secret US jails does not mean it didn't happen. They are a reliable source, and that is that. If you don't believe them, them by all means add to the article official statements of the Iranian government saying that "no protestors were beaten", and that "everyone had a jolly time with sandwiches and lashings of ginger beer". - Francis Tyers · 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you think that:

• The US does not run secret prisons and detain people without trial
• The Israeli Army does not enforce illegal checkpoints in the occupied territories
• There is no discrimination by the Russian police and government against Tajiks in Russia

Please do not be selective and only "accept" sources when they fit your POV. - Francis Tyers · 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reliable source do say reportedly. All the time. Just because you cannot confirm something does not mean you shouldn't report it. This is why they say reportedly instead of stating it as fact. They have a good reputation, which is why they are one of the largest human-rights NGOs in the world (if not the largest). Perhaps you can name another reliable source for human-rights, or perhaps you don't believe in human-rights, or non-governmental organisations making reports on these subjects. If not, then you are entitled to your opinion, but according to all Wikipedia policy, AI is a reliable source and their statements, when properly attributed should be included in articles about human-rights. - Francis Tyers · 13:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is also a good source. Now we have two reports which give two figures, there is an overlap, and we present them both, properly attributed. That is the essence of npov. Glad we could sort this out :) - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've already stated that AI admits and apologises for its mistakes. - Francis Tyers · 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lets review:

• Iranian government says: 330 people arrested
• AI says: hundreds or thousands of people arrested

• Iranian government says: 4 demonstrators killed
• AI says: 20 or more demonstrators killed.

Now, these aren't exactly wildly different, so there is no harm in reporting both. Just as for the Stop the War Coalition marches the numbers who turned out differed between the police, organisers, independent organisations. In some cases, the numbers differed into the hundreds of thousands. We report both sides of the story for NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 13:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem, sorry if I came off a bit strong! :) I'm in the office on a Saturday and the air conditioning isn't working! :) - Francis Tyers · 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I opened Arbcom page. please make your comments. [13]--Dacy69 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 18 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

See [[14]]. You have been accused of being a sockpuppet. The checkuser did not find you guilty. You are innocent! Please do not revenge. Vectorsap 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if you notice out of all involved editors, it seems that you are the only one involved in intimidation, revert warring, wikistalking my every single edit, and, in fact, starting the whole campaign wasting community's time with RfC and ArbCom. As my exchanges show, I do discuss and communicate constructively with all involved editors on all sides. I hope ArbCom makes a note of this for future reference, even though I believe this whole conflict started by yourself (I wasn't the one filing RfC and ArbCom, you were) could be solved in a more constructive manner without community time wasting, if you only assumed good faith and showed full desire for mediation, which you never did. I am still open for discussions if you want constructive editing. Thanks. Atabek 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

Thank You for Your response about the Passport history.

How ever I would like to see a seperate article about it, The Iranian Passports and its history. That's exactly what I talked about.

About Iranian national IQ: I think it should be a seprate section or article to put some light on the issue (???).

Regards :=D

You recently added Zondi as a party to the arbitration case that is about to be opened. From the page history, it appears that this editor was added by another user who then decided that it was not necessary that this editor be a party. I am not able to tell whether you believe that this editor should be a party or whether you were just reverting what you thought was an unauthorized removal. Could you please advise whether you believe this editor is a necessary party to the case and if so why. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Well, the Republic of Azerbaijan did not exist then, but the term Azerbaijani khanates is commonly used by scholars to denote these polities, isn’t it? Imho, "Eastern Southern Caucasus" sounds even more artificial as the term belongs to the relatively recently adopted geopolitical nomenclature. Thanks, Kober^Talk 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for changing that. Also, some people are sticklers that when someone puts a code B down, they want an arbcom link. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

looks good, just got to wait for CU to come along and look at it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam. I saw your edit[15] and These are some good sources for this issue: Converting Persia, Religion and power in Safavid Empire

I hope that you be able to read persian. issue:[16], [17], [18]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that you now see [19] what I saw [20][21]. The Behnam 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could never figure out why people were so passionate about keeping the awkward "Iranian Median" description when sources said "Persian." The Behnam 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Saw your comment on the Shaddadid talk page. I will soon start expanding it and fixing it up. Wondering if you would like to co-operate.User:Hetoum I 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Sounds good. What is first thing we should start working on. We can refer to minorsky's work and start creating dynasty template, etc... What would you suggest is the best way to go?Hetoum I 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I will start by creating a template for dynasty like for Kingdom of Lori, and I will wait for your response. Hetoum I 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Hetoum_I/Sandbox2 - I have started it. Is it ok so far?, please feel free to add. I also know they ruled in Ani, Dvin, and Ganja - we need to figure out how t break them down.Hetoum I 20:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Mirrori1 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what this edit was about, particularly because you did not use an edit summary, but I have reverted it. Please do not vandalize the administrators' noticeboards. Thank you. Kafziel ^Talk 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hajji Piruz. You are off to such a great start on the article Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

And here we are

On July 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dear Haji Piruz, you may wish to watch the following video: [22]. --BF 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I think the template should stay, because the Safavids are also important for regions outside the boundaries of modern Iran, for example Afghanistan, Iraq, or Azerbaijan. I believe that you misinterprete the template. It is not ment for dynasties that were created outside of modern day Iran, but it is ment as a template for all regions that are historically a part of Greater Iran. The Achaemenids were also founded within the boundaries of modern Iran, but they are important for many other regions. The Qajars, however, do not have a major role in the histories of other nations surrounding Iran. -DerDoc 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not violate my parole in any way shape or form. Atabek finally, after countless false reports has managed to get me blocked. My first block for "violation" of a revert parole was ridiculous, again obtained after canvassing and false reports, and now this?! This is ridiculous. In the mean time, Grandmaster, Atabek, and Dacy69 trade reverts.Hajji Piruz 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thatcher, please check your e-mail. I did not violate my parole, as I only made one revert and in my last edit it clearly still says Azerbaijan (instead it just has the entire name of the republic, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, founded in 1918). The Republic of Azerbaijan came into existence in 1991.

Users should not be able to continuously make false reports and canvass against other users until they get the outcome they desire, this is a form of harrassment.

This is not the first time I have been blocked under misunderstood circumstances. My first block was also done incorrectly as even then I had not violated parole.Hajji Piruz 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm having trouble with this. If this is your first edit, then this is your first revert, and you were discussing it on the talk page so its not a violation. Your third edit may or may not classify as a revert, since you added text and a link to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, but the effect and purpose was to remove the link to Azerbaijan. More importantly this is the kind of stupid business that the arbitration case was meant to address. In this case, an argument about whether a particular geopolitical and ethnic region should be referred to as "Azerbaijan" at a time when "Azerbaijan" did not formally exist as a political entity.

I am tempted to drop my role as admin and edit the article as an editor. I would pick a middle-of the road formulation that pleased no one completely, and I would make sure to report everyone who reverted me on either side. If I was to do that here, I might write, "films that were produced in the region now known as Azerbaijain, which at the time was part of the Russian Empire (1898-1918) and then the ADR (1919-1920)." I think it is reasonable to say that the films were made in Azerbaijan, and also reasonable to say that the films were made in an ethnic region that was part of certain changing political entities. So if both are reasonable, the only unreasonable thing is to argue that only one version is right. There was a whole arbitration case over edit warring over highways articles, whether one should title an article New York Highway 15 or State Route 15 (New York) and the ArbCom ruled that it was disruptive to make a big deal over small things. Here since we are talking about article text rather than the title you have the opportunity to expand the description to something that will satisfy both sides partly and still be correct, rather than taking the unilateral view that only one side (usually "my" side, depending on who "me" is) is correct.

If you were baited or provoked into these edits you still should be blocked for failing to try and resolve the dispute first before making the edits, or seeking outside assistance. You don't have a technical second revert, but you kind of do, and it was all part of the same long pattern. I'm going to ask for an independent review, and I'm going to post this to the talk page as well. Thatcher131 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If someone doesn't comment after a while, use {{unblock}} to get a review. Thatcher131 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

But my point is that there was no Azerbaijan in the Caucasus at that time. Please check your e-mail, I can e-mail any information you would like regarding this issue.

Furthermore, see this [23] Grandmaster gets a warning for breaking his parole?! Grandmaster and Atabek bait people so that they can post more evidence: [24] and [25]

Atabek does this all the time. I was going to post evidence on how he baits people and then posts frivolous evidence with false descriptions.

These guys, along with Dacy69, gang up on me, as well as other users, in order to push their point of view.Hajji Piruz 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is also no such legal entity as New England and yet it has cultural and political significance. I note that in addition to this link provided on the article talk page, I found in Jstor 30 other references to Azerbaijan between 1800 and 1898. (You may not have access to Jstor unless you are at a large university.)

1.-Extracts from a Memrandum on the Country of Azerbaijan. By

K E ~ ~ H E. ABBOTT,EsQ.,H.fi1. Consul-General in Persia. [Communicated by the FOREIGNOPFICE.] THE country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia, the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole, which may be roughly stated to cover an area of about 80,000 square miles, or about the size of Great Britain ; 50,000 square miles are therefore about the extent of the division belonging to Russia, and 30,000 of that which remains to Persia. The R~~ssian division is hounded on the north and north-east by the mountains of Caucasus, extending to the vicinity of Bgkou on the Caspian. On the west it has the provinces of Imeritia, JIingrelia, Gooriel, and Ahkhiska (now belonging to Russia) ; on the east it has the Caspian Sea, and on the south the boundary is marked by the course of the River Arrass(Araxes) to near the 46th parallel of longitude, thence by a conventional line across the plains of Moghan to the district of TLlish, and by the small stream of Astura which flows to the Caspian through the latter country.Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 8, No. 6. (1863 - 1864), pp.

275-279.

It certainly seems that Azerbaijan has been recognized as a culturally distinct region for a long time before 1919. That makes this a content dispute, to be resolved by consensus editing based on reliable sources, with recourse to third opinion, RFC and mediation when necessary. Edit warring over it is just not going to work. Thatcher131 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do not forget that there has been an Azerbaijan for thousands of years, in Iran (see Iranian Azerbaijan). Also check your e-mail. Do not get Azerbaijan in Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan mixed up in your sources. The Republic of Azerbaijan adopted its name from Iranian Azerbaijan.

There are one or two sources that may say that Iranian Azerbaijan extended north of the Aras river, but this is undue weight. One or two sources, out of literally hundreds, starting back from the time of Strabo to the present, which say otherwise, is really nothing.

Also see the Macedonia naming dispute, its very similar to whats going on here.Hajji Piruz 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 clearly states:

"AZERBAIJAN (also spelt ADERBIJAN; the Azerbadegan of medieval writers, the Athropatakan and Atropatene of the ancients), the north-western and most important province of Persia. It is separated from Russian territory on the N. by the river Aras (Araxes), while it has the Caspian Sea, Gilan and Khamseh (Zenjan) on the E., Kurdistan on the S., and Asiatic Turkey on the W."

Thats from 1911, it clearly states that the only Azerbaijan is the one in northern Iran, which has been the only Azerbaijan for thousands of years.

Furthermore, the person you cited was neither a native of the Middle East nor a geographer. Imagine how many geographical mistakes you would make in a foreign country.

Also, it would be easier for me if we took this via e-mail, as I will not be logging into Wikipedia until tomorrow.Hajji Piruz 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hajji Piruz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is now the second time I have been blocked because of false and misleading reports. A)I did not break my parole in any way, B) Atabek, Grandmaster, Dacy69 are trading reverts in order to bait users, especially me, and to push the version they want C) I was only attempting to present the facts as they are. This is really ridiculous. Furthermore, see this [29] Grandmaster gets a warning for breaking his parole?! Grandmaster and Atabek bait people so that they can post more evidence: [30] and [31] Atabek does this all the time. Infact, most of the evidence he has ever posted is because he baits people, then posts frivolous evidence with false descriptions. Atabek has made countless false reports and has canvassed several admins for weeks now and now he finally got what he wanted. Its really ridiculous that a user is allowed to do this habitually with no one attempting to tell him to stop. This is a form of harrassment. It seems as though the only way one can get waht they want on Wikipedia is to outnumber others. These three guys have been ganging up on me for a long time, as well as on other users. If I can get blocked for not breaking parole, then how Grandmaster, Atabek, and Dacy69 get away with what they do? Grandmaster even got a warning even though he had broken his parole and I get blocked when I didnt break my parole? Please someone review what has happened and set things straight.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of your revert parole (one revert per page per week). Bringing up the actions of other editors is irrelevant here, what matters is whether or not your edits were reverts. And they clearly were. — Yamla 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what you want me to "look into"? All those socks were blocked quite some time ago. Adil's ban was not reset, but that's generally at the discretion of the admin who deals with the socks. It's not mandatory, and I certainly see no compelling reason to override their judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The Grey Wolves entry is regularly subject to vandalism, we just have to watch it! Tazmaniacs 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help. I did not know wikipedia has rules like how many times I can revert. I am adding information on Azerbaijani collaboration to free Azerbaijan from Soviets at the moment, and also some communist Azerbaijani figures. I seem to be getting many negative feedback. I looked on Talk page of Azerbaycan article, and saw I am called a sock? What is that mean? I dont understand if it is making fun of me???Azizbekov 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you. I have previously editted Wikipedia without account, so I have learned to make certain edits like adding references or linking from inside and outside. I sill get confused sometime.Azizbekov 23:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to go to talk to talk to Atabek (who apparently disagreed with me) and I clicked on his contribution showing some page related to my user page. I suppose it shows what he does!!! Apparently it is some page about wanting to ban me. How can I stop him from bannin me. Should I talk on that page or his personal talk page. Maybe editing anonymous is better. :((

I do not want trouble and if Atabek has issue with me, I can discuss it, I do not wish to be banned. I am sorry I broke the reverting rule.

Sorry I am asking so much from you, but you have been the only one friendly to me. Azizbekov 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I am sorry I am writing again. I looked over another user I was disagreeing with, Grandmaster, through his contribution, and he wants to ban me too. I can apologize to them if I insulted them. What should I do so he or Atabek will not ban me.Azizbekov 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.Azizbekov 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone has put a tag on this issue saying there are no references [[26]], although I can count four. What do you think?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the user was looking for a reference and/or external links section at the bottom of the article. Is an article required to have this?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Piruz,

Please calm down. I was just concerned that there were no sources mentioned, and that's what ^{[citation needed]} tag is really about. Do you have reliable sources referring to Ottomans as Iranian?Heja Helweda 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright then, I will take the dispute to the Ottoman page. Wish you good luck :)Heja Helweda 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

But the factual accuracy of that one is disputed. Maybe we should add a similar tag on the Iranian list as well. :o)Heja Helweda 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Ottoman page does not support that view, read the lead paragraph. So the tag applies.Heja Helweda 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, why is that (my edit about Uzbekistan) vandalism? Is Turkey Iranian b/c of the large Kurdish minority there, or are you claiming that Uzbekistan is founded by Iranians? Also, are you that anon (193.170.48.2 from Wien) who reverted me? Deniz^T_C 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about the History of Iran? Where did this discussion take place? The History of Iran template is relevant at least.Hajji Piruz 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The discussion took place on various talk pages after edit wars involving among others [[User:Anoshirawan}Anoshirawan]] and Beh-nam. See, for example, User talk:Anoshirawan#Please Stop.. See also individual article talk pages and especially edit summaries. The History of Iran template is a perfectly fine template, but that doesn't mean that it is the most useful template on all articles. There might be a lively discussion at Talk:Hotaki dynasty about which history template, if any, is appropriate for that article. However there must be discussion, not edit wars; the Wikipedia policy is express about that. --Bejnar 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added this template because its more logical for Afghanistan. Afghanistan became an official state in 1919 and before that, it was known as Khorasan. Afghanistan is from the region "Greater Iran" and in the 19th century, the Durranis even ruled parts of Khorasan province of iran,bukhara,samarqand...etc. --Anoshirawan 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are not concerned with linguistics here. The Durrani dynasty was independent of Iran as was the earlier Hotaki dynasty. --Bejnar 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is relevant to the history of Iran. The very name Atabegs of Azerbaijan comes from the name of the Iranian region of Azerbaijan. How could it not be relevant when the very name of the dynasty is Iranian.Hajji Piruz 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say that the history of Iran was not relevant to the article, in fact I affirmed it was; what I said was the history template for history of Azerbaijan was more relevant. --Bejnar 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That makes no sense. A) How do you judge which is more important, and B) the Azebaijan in the Caucasus wasnt even in existence until 1918, that template is merely titled History of Azerbaijan, but is more about the history of the region than anything.Hajji Piruz 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. It is about the region. It is about the region that we now call Azerbaijan. It is not about Greater Iran, it is specifically about the region. On the Wikipedia we use the appropriate level of template, not the most general. --Bejnar 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So yes, adding the History of Iran template is appropriate in any article that is about the history of Iran, such as the Atabegs of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Multiple history templates are firmly discouraged, and the History of Azerbaijan is specific to the region. --Bejnar 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So is the history of Iran. You are probably confused about the name Azerbaijan. The name Azerbaijan in "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" refers to Iranian Azerbaijan, not the country now known as Azerbaijan in the Caucasus.

He had possessed Azerbaijan (Iran), Arran, Shirvan, Djibal, Hamedan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Isfahan and Rei

In this case, Azerbaijan is talking about the Iranian region. See Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) also. So in this case, the history of Iran template is relevant.Hajji Piruz 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

No I am not confused, The area of Arran is not the two provinces that are currently in Iran, although at times it may have included them, it is the area known as Arran, or Caucasian Albania which, correspods rather well with where the current Rep. of Azerbaijan is located. Read the article, check out the maps. --Bejnar 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know. Your trying to say that the history of Iran template [27] is not applicable and I'm saying that it is. So both templates should be shown because the Atabegs of Azerbaijan were just as much a part of Iranian history as the history of the republic of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't put work in my mouth. "Multiple history templates are firmly discouraged, and the History of Azerbaijan is specific to the region." This is not about the Republic of Azerbaijan, it is about the region which we have called Azerbaijan for some hundred years, give or take. In English we do NOT call it Arran today, if we did the proper template would be History of Arran. Multiple history templates are firmly discouraged. Use the specific template, not the general. --Bejnar 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is where I get confused. I dont think you know which Azerbaijan we are talking about here. The majority of the territory of the Atabegs was in Iran: He had possessed Azerbaijan (Iran), Arran, Shirvan, Djibal, Hamedan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Isfahan and Rei The underlined ones are the territories that were in Iran. So how is the History of Azerbaijan more relevant than the History of Iran template? You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that the most relevant template should be used but at the same time your saying that the history of Iran template is not relevant...Hajji Piruz 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

They started in Arran, the initial capital was Barda and then Nakhchivan. (Some, later, like Qizil Arslan only controlled Shirvan.) They eventually (and temporarily) controlled not only what we now call Azerbaijan, but major parts of Armenia, Turkey and Iraq as well as parts of northwestern Iran. They never controlled eastern or southern Persia. They were independent from and opposed to the Seljuk Empire. The Seljuk Empire held most of Persia. Even when the Seljuk's were reduced to just the Sultanate of Rûm, the Atabegs of Azerbaijan didn't control significant parts of Iran; the Atabeghlik of Salgur did. The Atabegs of Azerbaijan continued to weaken and were eliminated by the Mongols/Taters under the Khans. --Bejnar 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Let me cite what Rangeley said on this subject, with regard to Afghnistan. --Bejnar 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Allow me to put forward this analogy - Afghanistan is a part of Asia, yet it would be improper to use a template for Asia in general on these articles rather than one about Afghanistan. For this reason, your explanation that "Afghanistan didnt exist until..." doesnt hold any weight - it does exist now as a country in Asia, it has its own set of templates, and those are the ones we use." ~Rangeley (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question, my father's people come from Central Asia and originally spoke a Turkic language. I work in New Mexico now. --Bejnar 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thats very interesting. May I ask which country?Hajji Piruz 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Golden Horde and settled in Ruthenia. Then because of a difference of opinion with Uzbeg, switched sides to Lithuania and Poland. Lost our lands to the Russians in 1813 for siding with Napoleon. etc. --Bejnar 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shadows in the Desert- Ancient Persia at War.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hajji Piruz,
in your edit [28] you put the reference <ref name="IranicaPage238"/> into the article Iranian Azeris. But this is only an internal name for a reference, not the ref itself. Therefore this ref (#9) shows as empty in the article. Could you please complete the reference information. -- Túrelio 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I have removed the former ref 9 because it was useless. -- Túrelio 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw that you created the article, would you perhaps like to expand it some more? I have a little problem with finding material on Asuristan. Thanks in advance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:09 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The case in which you were involved in was closed. According to the records, you were placed on revert parole (now called revert limitations), and as such, you are affected by this remedy, which places you on supervised editing. You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with another editor concerning disputes which may arise.

You may view the full decision at the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you reply to this? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

An admin writes in regard of Tajik's ban and the claim that he had created various sockpupets:

• Having receieved additional data from a private source regarding this case, I checked the accounts again. They are all unrelated to each other, and using the new data, it also seems they're all unrelated to Tajik. --Deskana (apples) 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is my comment:

Thatcher had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:

• Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
• Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
• With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
• Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
• 7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
• Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).

Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights.

You should write a short comment here. People have proposed to unban User:Tajik. Only User:Atabek opposes this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.157.34 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

[29] Sorry if I'm being impatient about this (I have to go to bed and I hate cliffhangers), but what exactly has changed? There are still no sources used to establish relevance to the topic (which itself appears ill-defined - I'm not sure how Zereshk could possibly think it appropriate to cite books without using page numbers - that completely disregards WP:V). Anyway, I'm guessing that you were planning to say something on the talk - I look forward to any breakthrough. Sorry if I don't reply for awhile, as I must sleep and then I'm busy, and so on. Cheers. The Behnam 04:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Mutual. Atabek 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What's with duplicating that section across multiple entries? I prohibited User:Khosrow II to just that, specifically, so I'm wandering how you came about to repeat this (i.e. duplicate the exact same section across the same articles, again)? Thx. El_C 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per this report here, I have blocked for 48 hours for violation of your revert parole. I am also banning you from Template:Literature of Azerbaijan for six months. Violations of this ban will be rewarded by further block. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hajji Piruz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. Regarding the block, I had no idea I was breaking my parole. I thought that that was my first revert. Infact, it was my first revert, the previous one was not a revert to anything other version. Check the history please, I only made one revert, and that was the second one, the first one posted by Atabek on the enforcement page was not a revert. I request unblock. Here is the history of the article: [33] I only made ONE revert. It is a content dispute, simple as that. This was a revert: [34] but this one, the first one, was not a revert: [35] As I said above, its a content dispute, I removed certain names because they did not belong under the title of the template. The second time constituted a revert.

Decline reason:

In what way is your first edit, this one, not undoing the actions of another editor? You seem to be removing content which fits quite clearly into the definition given in "What is a revert" on WP:3RR. — Yamla 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do not make undiscussed, POV moves as you did at Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis. You apparently have quite the history of tendentious and POV editing involving Iranian and Azeri topics. Consider this an only warning about making undiscussed, largely POV changes such as you did. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Long rambling rants with lists of links are not appreciated. If you have something to say to me say it concisely. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based on your repeated edit warring [30] and your violation of your revert parole, you are blocked for 1 month. You may contest this block with the {{unblock}} template. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hajji Piruz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Where did I violate my parole?! This is ridiculous! I have not even been around to edit war! I want another admin to look over this case IMMEDIATELY. SwatJester has obviously chosen a side when he made it clear that he wanted me banned and went ahead making unilateral and biased changes to the Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis article, REVERTING CHANGES THAT WERE NEVER EVEN DISPUTED AND SEVERAL MONTHS OLD (HOW THE HECK DID HE EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO REVERT?! Strange...especially because I have never had contact with this admin before, yet he claims to know my history and its hilarious how he magically singled out a certain article.)!

SwatJester even refuses to hear the other side of the story, he has clearly jumped on Grandmasters bandwagon. When I tried explaining my side of the story, he simply removed all of my comments and told me not to comment unless it was concise! What the HECK is going on here?!

Meanwhile, we have other users violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, etc...

Decline reason:

The issue was regarding your page-move of Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis to Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis. There's a clear biased point of view in that article title. The ArbCom ruling indicates that you are "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." A page-move, albeit a controversial one, can be classified under this ruling. The block was appropriate. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!! I DID DISCUSS THE PAGE MOVE ON THE TALK PAGE. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! SEE HERE: [31]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The ruling indicated you were supposed to discuss before making these changes. You started a discussion after. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beyond that, you did not actually discuss anything afterwrds.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A) THE ARBCOM PAROLE DOES NOT STATE WHEN COMMENTS SHOULD BE MADE, IT SIMPLY STATES THAT ALL REVERTS MUST BE EXPLAINED ON THE TALK PAGE! CHECK ALL OF OUR HISTORIES, WE HAVE ALL BEEN COMMENTING AFTER OUR REVERTS, NOT BEFORE! THEN BLOCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US! ALSO, I CLEARLY DISCUSSED THE MOVE, IT WAS NEVER DISPUTED CONTRARY TO WHAT SWATJESTER CLAIMED! I ALSO INSERTED A LONG MESSAGE ON HIS TALK PAGE REGARDING THE ISSUE WHICH HE REMOVED! HOW CAN HE SAY THAT I NEVER DISCUSSED THE REVERT?!

FURTHERMORE, LET ME REMIND YOU OF A DACY69, WHO WAS NOT BLOCKED EVEN THOSE HIS COMMENTS WERE NO MORE THAN A SENTENCE LONG AND DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?!

I DID NOT VIOLATE MY PAROLE AND THIS IS CLEAR, HOW CAN YOU TWO, TWO ADMINISTRATORS, STILL BE SO INSISTENT THAT I BROKE IT WHEN I HAVE FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINE COMPLETELY AND AM WITHIN THE ARBCOM RULES?!

DACY69 WAS BLOCKED AN THEN UNBLOCKED: [32]

I HAVE NOT VIOLATED MY PAROLE! PLEASE UNBLOCK ME.Hajji Piruz 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't shout. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, at this point I feel as if my comments will not be taken into consideration unless I use caps lock. Now that I have your attention, and I hope you read my comments, please unblock me. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is what the Arbcom parole states:

This means that you may revert only once per article per week except to revert obvious vandalism. Furthermore, you must explain your reasonings for content reverts on the associated talk page.[33]

No where does it say that I have to comment before a revert, it says to explain the reasoning for the revert.

So again, please unblock me, I have not violated my parole.Hajji Piruz 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You reverted more than once, you reverted on the move and you reverted on the text as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That constitues ONE REVERT:

There is no violation here. Consecutive reverts are treated as one single revert. -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[34]

How many times are you going to change your story?

First you said that I edit warred, and I showed that it is impossible for me to have edit warred as I have barely been around and you said that I had violated my parole without stating how. When I made it clear that I had not violated my parole, the story then changed to that I had violated the revert parole stating that I had to explain prior to reverting. I showed that this was not so, then the story changed to me not having discussed the revert, and again, I clearly showed that I did discuss the revert. Now your saying that I made two reverts? Well I just clearly showed, that as another administrator stated, two consecutive reverts are counted as one revert, and one of those was a page move!

You are biased and you have shown your bias. UNBLOCK ME! This is unjust and you know it. YOU ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR AND YOU MUST BE NEUTRAL, YET YOU HAVE TAKEN SIDES! You clearly stated on your talk page that you want me banned [35], and you refused to listen to any of my comments, instead removing them [36].Hajji Piruz 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

i saw u added the "Achaemenid Provinces" infobox to this article. i couldnt figure out if u or someone else added all the Persian categories to this article, but what i have to say applies to both. while this title is associated with Achaemenid's, its not only used there, so the article shouldnt be included in cats pertaining to Persia, and shouldnt contain Persian infoboxes. the article is about a title, its not a province so it shouldnt have that infobox nor be in those Persian cats. instead it should be in title cats. the "sub-national" and "satrap" cats are the only appropriate ones. im telling u this, instead of just changing the article myself, to avoid an edit-war. let me know what u think. we could bring this to WikiProject:Iran if we cant reach an agreement. 4.230.153.214 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir, I'd like to use the image in the Macedonian Wikipedia article on Persia, which tightly follows the English Wikipedia. Please let me know if it is ok. Thank you, Crnorizec (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
• Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

• In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.

• In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aghai mohtaram, please make your contribution on the Shamakhi Dancers article. There is lack of sources there in the page. Do you have any idea of that subject? All the best. --Arkankipcak 10:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know the original Pesian names of the following Persian saints from the court of Shapur II martyred by Shapur II. In orthodox church we use only their Greek translations. Can you translate them back into Persian from English?

As is often the case in church hymns, there is a play on the meanings of these Persian saints' names here. Acindynus means "unimperilled"; Pegasius is derived from pegazo--"to gush forth"; Aphthonius is derived from aphthonos-"abundant"; Elpidephorus means "hope-bearing"; Anempodistus means "unhindered." These are all Greek translations of their Persian names.

It is important to me becase my two twin boys were born on their day (in Orthodox church we celebrate their memory Nov 15) and so they appear to be heavenly patrons of my children. You can read more about these Persian saints at: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints/270

--Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi, could you please participate in the discussion [on the infobox for ibn sina]; thanks.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:1862 Perthes Map of Russia.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1862 Perthes Map of Russia.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:1862 Perthes Map of Russia.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:1864 Johnson Map of Turkey, Persia & Arabia ( Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ).JPG is now available as Commons:File:1864 Johnson Map of Turkey, Persia & Arabia ( Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ).JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Beeshoney (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hajji Piruz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 415 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Dabir Azam Hosna - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:The Russo-British Pact in 1905.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The link from Indus strapy goes to Taxila satrapy. Taxilla was in the Gandhara containing satrapy (7th). Can I remove the link on Indus strapy and place it on Gandhara?

(Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC))Reply

The article List of Iranic states and empires has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Longstanding unaddressed concerns about improper synthesis. No reference to any secondary source's list, or any scholar making connections between these states and empires.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shrigley (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply