User talk:علی ویکی - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 2 December 2010 (→Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran ‎ declined speedy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:30, 2 December 2010 by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) (→Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran ‎ declined speedy: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, علی ویکی, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit that you made to the page Woodrow W. Keeble has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remind. I'm sorry for that unwanted edit.علی ویکی (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey - Korea cultural relation

Hello, I leaved a reply to your question in Korean community page as below

The Turk influenced a bit to ancient Korea(고구려, see Goguryeo) as Göktürks, but it doesn't mean Korea culture belongs to the Tükish. Actually, they can be described as radically different. --Naturehead (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Korea was splitted in 3 countries around 6th century, only Goguryeo had a good relationship with Türk, and the country that unified 3 countries to one is Silla, not Goguryeo. So the present Korea culture was almost uninfluenced by Goguryeo culture. And as I know on, Goguryeo is not Türkish country. --Naturehead (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I am not a turk, please notice! Afraasiaab were a Turk Hero and his original Turkic name were Alpertunga (Refer to:Al Kashgari's Diwan) and afraasiaab is not persian name but is muarrab or arabized form of Alpertunga. Ferdowsi, first Persian poet, belived that Turks and Turanians were same(Refer to: Shahnameh of Ferdowsi). Some scholars believed that even Sumerians and Mesopotamia's first civilisations origin were from asianic peoples or Turk related or prototurk peoples, and they derived hundreds similiar prototurkic and Sumerian words; For example Sumerian's god were Tengri and protourks god were Tengring (tangri in todays Turkistan variants or Tanri in Turkish and eastern Turkic languages (refer to Russian scientist Olzhas Suleimenov's AZ-i-IA book or Homel's books)). Persians destroyed middle east most civilisations and after the Achaemenians attacked Mesopotamia, all old civilisations such as babylon, Assyria, Elam ,Akkad and so were cleaned from human history and totly destroyed their culture, their deep civilisation, and killed all their oppressed peoples. This event is known as Purim Genocide in Torah. Greeks referred to persians as berbers and the 300 movie is based on this belief. Old Turks referred to Persians as Tat that its meaning were berber and uncivilised peoples (Refer to: Al Kashgari's Diwan) and Arabs referes as Ajam to Persians in that meaning, even todays. Todays, there are no Persian in world and peoples in Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan that say their selves persian are from mixed race. Persian Iranians that makes max. 25 percent of population of Iran are mostly from Arab, Turk, Greek, Armenian, indian and a little old persian peoples mixing and genetic testing have proved this fact. Tajiks living in Afghanistan and Tjikistan are mostly Turks and Indians that speak persian and genetic testing have proved this fact too. Thus Persian people is a wrong word to refer to that peoples and the correct word is Persian speaking people. 70 percent of todays persian vocabularies are Arabic(mostly entered after Islamic era) and also 10 to 15 percent are Turkic (before and after Islamic era) and Turkic languages, in addition to influencing the vocabularies, affected grammar of persian.Arattaman (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleaaaase answer my question. It's gonna kill me!!!

Salam, how do you do brother? :D

Man tooye "Revision history"e maqaleye hazrate Narjis khatun didam ke zaheran to in tikka ro ezafe kardi ke: "and the grand-daughter of Bardas (The Byzantine regent)."

In kheyli, kheyli, kheyli baram mohemme ke bedunam ino az koja avordi (ke ishoon naveye Bardas boode). Ya'ni referencesh kojast.

"Vaghean" bi sabrane montazere javabetam

Ishalla pir shi nane! :D

P.S. Age ettelaate digei (darbareye pedar va madare ishoon) ham dari lotfan begu. Vali reference kheyli baram mohemme.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.68 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

سلام. از دیدگاه تاریخی نرگس خاتون نوهٔ بارداس و یا تئوفیلوس و یا میخائیل سوم است و در پایگاه حوزه ایشان نوه بارداس معرفی شده. ببینید

Aliwiki (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

سلام
واقعا از لطفت ممنونم
مقاله حوزه.نت متاسفانه خیلی دقیق نیست...ا
از نظر تاریخی هم حضرت نرگس نمیتونه نوه تئوفیلوس یا میخائیل سوم باشه، چون نوه نداشتن ودر سنین 29 و 27 سالگی مردن
از نظر سنی فقط میخائیل دوم و بارداس (که به مقام سزاری رسیده بوده) میتونستن نوه داشته باشن...ا
اسیر شدن ایشون هم نمیتونه بعداز کودتای باسیل باشه چون از نظر تاریخی دیره، فقط یک سال قبل از میلاد حضرت صاحبه...ا
خلاصه...! سرتو درد نیارم!ا
بازم ممنون
خداییش فکر نمیکردم تحویل بگیری!ا

اگه چیز جدیدی داشتی خوشحال میشم بدونم

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.68 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

سلام دوباره. من هم شخص بارداس را پدربزرگ نرگس خاتون میدانم. اما متاسفانه منبع انگلیسی ندارم Aliwiki (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

abu bakr

Hi ali wiki. Please keep sunni and shia views about abu bakr in seperate paragraphs since they are conflicting. Thanks. Anas chaaban (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi my friend, I am doing so, the problem is that you are using Sunni's reference for the body of the article and when I am using a Shia reference, you want to put it in Shia section, which is unacceptable for me.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro is now split into 3 parts: general intro, sunni views, and shia views. Please insert shia views with shia references in the shia paragraph without removing the sunni views paragraph. General intro contains references from general references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas chaaban (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by General reference? you are using Sunni's references and call it genera? My references are viewed to be Islamic references (see al-Islam.org). Stop such these behaviour please and try to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannica and princeton are what i meant with general (neutral) ref. If you think these are not neutral then what is? You are also completely removing sunni views that are with references from the paragraph on sunni views while I am leaving shia views but only putting them is a separate paragraph!!! Please leave conflicting views seperated in seperate paragraphs, and leave the intro neutral. Thanks Anas chaaban (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You have misunderstood some points. First, The warning of user Cirt was about another article, and also I answered him here. Second, I confess Idid 4 revert while being aware of 3rr policy. The point was that I discussed the matter on the talk page of the article before reverting, but the other two users continued their previous behavior without discussing on talk page (please check this fact.). User supertouch misused POV policy, while I warned him about this, and I told him if he believes any of my sentence is POV, he must discuss it and delete it from the whole article, not move it to other section. The only problem has occurred on the article is just ownership,and one will understand this easily if have a fast look to the references of this article, the main sources are weblogs, OR of Sunnis book and websites, and they don't accept any other source by saying westerns orientalists are shiite affected . I kindly ask you to have a fair judgement. 24 hours is not long time for blocking and this is not why I am insisting to be unblocked, the reason is that I have always respected Misplaced Pages policies, and I don't like my respectful behavior be marred with blocking. (check my behavior in case of user Cirt warning here and compare it to others who are involved in that discussion.) --Aliwiki (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption to Portal:Islam/Intro

You appear to be involved in disruption and conflict at the page Islam. Please do not make changes to Portal:Islam/Intro, until fully resolved there, first. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. First I'll deal with in Islam page, then in Portal. Thanks for informing.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/علی ویکی for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes for the false accusation. I explained the reasons why I believed it was a sockpuppetry case. I have been editing for a long time in wikipedia, and there were several accounts in which two or more accounts assisted in the discussion, all being sockpuppets. I have lost so much time for such discussions, and at the end sockpuppets confirmed. I thought it was also such a case. Again, please accept my sincere apologizes for making a false accusation and creating a disturbance for you. Cabolitæ (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please stop your disruption at Portal:Islam/Intro, as you have done, again, here . From a quick look at the history of the article Islam, there is still disruption there. Please resolve your issues at that talk page, first. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abu Bakr. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to . Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wiqi - talk 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Uthman ibn Affan. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Then that same rule would be much more appropriately applied to your own edits: , , and , for example. Those in glass houses... Also, if we compare my edits and yours, the bid difference is that I am simply moving your additions to the appropriate place on the page while you are entirely removing mine. I see you are having difficulty remaining objective while overcome by your zealotry. Supertouch (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uthman ibn Affan. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Supertouch (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring at Uthman ibn Affan. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Z10

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).

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

Request reason:

at 20:36, after making this comment on talk page, I restored the edit of user supertouch here, and before it I infromed him about his false behavior and here. Then user Ewpfpod did this edit without paying any attention to the talk page and I warned him here and reverted his edit. Now who is guilty? Have a look to these edit summaries could be helpful (also the editor didn't pay attention to talk page), ,

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Sandstein 07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Let me outline the reasons for which I placed this block:

You were just barely avoiding 3RR, which you are aware of because Cirt warned you a few weeks ago, at which time you were also warned about edit warring in general. 4 reverts within 28 hours and 3 minutes is close enough that I would lean towards block rather than not.
No other editor had made more than 2 reverts within that timeframe (Supertouch has now given his third revert, which I'm none too happy about, but even if it were within 24h, it would not be a 3RR violation).
You made no attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Rather, you template warned one for WP:OWN (which is in fact a rather useless action - WP:TEMPLAR), and your attempt to talk on the other's talk page was more of a warning than civil attempt to discuss the issue - there was no expected give on your part in it, only take. Granted, the other editors had this issue as well, and I'm going to leave a warning on Supertouch's talk page for it.
You were edit warring against two different users. When an editor edit wars to give a minority point of view, it makes the other issues I've mentioned just stick out all the worse.

Either I or an administrator will likely be willing to unblock you if you can respond and address these issues and show contrition (see WP:GAB). However, if you refuse to admit any fault on your end or refuse to stop edit warring, you will not be unblocked. Keep in mind we're not worried about what the other editors did wrong (I've already said I thought the one could have handled it better - but his level of fault didn't rise to the same level, as explained). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

None of what you say detracts from the fact that you were edit-warring. You are also continuing to fail to fully take WP:NOTTHEM onboard. You accuse others of "ownership", but you yourself show signs of the same tendency, seeming to think you can instruct others what to do in the article, and accusing others who disagree with you of "vandalism", even though there appears no reason to doubt that they were acting in good faith. It is certainly true that others have not behaved impeccably, and it is also true that you have expressed your view both on the article's talk page and on at least one user's talk page, but neither of those facts makes it alright to persist in repeatedly imposing your own version of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Ogre's displeasure with my revert, while I respect that, let's keep in mind that I violated no policy in so doing. As for WikiAli's claim that he utilized the talk page of the article in question, well one paragraph claiming his edits are historically objective is is not at all sufficient if not deceptive. True I only commented on the talk page after WikiAli initiated his edit war, but to me, his edits were a violation of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, especially undue as well as simply not being introductory material. True I should have expressed this on the talk page earlier. Also, the ease with which WikiAli accuses other user's of policy violations seems borderline policy violation in itself. If you look at my comments on the talk page of the Uthman article you see some of the deceptive means WikiAli utilizes to get his point across. Claiming the Bodley material is neutral, for example when he simply found it on Shia propaganda site which he neglected to mention is an example of that deception. Claiming the material he has added belongs in the lede because it is of a historical nature is also misleading, because it is nothing but his own POV.Supertouch (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Qutaybah

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Misplaced Pages (most entries have by them to indicate this, see e.g. ).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Misplaced Pages articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi friend. I am thankful for your useful information.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 part II

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aisha. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullain /c 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

حال و احوال

سلام آقا علی تو ویکیفا که خبری اطت نیست مگر اینجا بتونیم پیدات کنیم. خلاصه وقت کردی یه سری هم به ما بزن :)--Arash (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

thoughts?

I've not made my mind up on this AfD, but thought it might interest you -- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The 500 Most Influential Muslims--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

I know you have cast me as the villain in your drama, but I thought I would make a final effort to communicate. It is possible to make improvements to the article, and that is our goal, but it requires us to work together. If you would make a specific suggestion for improvement on the talkpage, focused on a single item in the body of the article, then all the editors involved can discuss it and come to agreement. Simply adding masses of disputed text to the article will not work.

If you pick one subject that you feel should be included, make a specific suggestion, and provide sources, then there can useful discussion leading to improvement in the article. For example, if you feel that the article should include information that Aisha once had 600 Muslims beheaded, make that suggestion on the talkpage. Tell us what text you think should be added and why, then give your sources and references. You're not being persecuted and there is no cabal; this is how editors work together on controversial subjects. Good luck to you, Doc Tropics 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran ‎ declined speedy

No more disparagement than any other "Racism in . . ." article. Well referenced and in neutral tone. You might want to try WP:AFD.21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)