Content deleted Content added
→What's your problem?: I'd like a reason that makes sense - not violations of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEFIELD |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:::::::I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV.--[[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar#top|talk]]) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV.--[[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar#top|talk]]) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::No, give me a ''reason'' for your reverts on that [[Persian Empire]] page. You must have one since you were so insistent about the issue. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::No, give me a ''reason'' for your reverts on that [[Persian Empire]] page. You must have one since you were so insistent about the issue. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::The reasons are simple: 1. Usually it is fine to have names in other scripts. 2. Why Persian is relevant here, is because for any Persian name there are many different spellings in other languages but there is only one in Persian language (whether Old, Middle, or New). For example: Pirooz, Pirouz, Peerooz, ... are all based on its Persian version. 3. If there were too many such names in Iranian script, then I would agree that some could be removed. But there were not that many.--[[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar#top|talk]]) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:35, 16 April 2009
Blanked Page
- Why'd you blank the page? I actually wanted to answer your question regarding Central "Asiatic" martial arts styles. Oh, well... The Scythian 07:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Xashaiar, thanks for your feedback, is that support then? Izzedine (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Notice
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Persian language. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- what are you talking about? That sentence I re-added can be sourced. If source is your problem, then say so, this means you should ask me to provide source. If something else is your problem, please be clear enough because your explanation "commentary or your own OR" is irrelevant here. This also means that you should not label unsourced sentences like "apple can be eaten" as WP:OR.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your problem?
Why are you following me around making dubious edits? "Urban land" was nonsense, an oxymoron. There is nothing vandalistic about "After the Arab conquest" - that was the political change. Why be so mealy-mouthed about it? --Folantin (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1. That's indeed vandalism on pages that I watch. Go to the talk page of Iran and read before you edit. That section is about the middle age and not about aftermath. 2. Please do not use my talk page, as your edits concerns talk pages of the articles. 3. And your understanding of language should not be "script-only" as you try to advocate. The situation outside turkic world is a bit different. I hope you use relevant talk pages before you edit.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, why are you following me around? You don't WP:OWN the Iran page and I don't have to get the green light from you before I edit there. The Arab conquest was one of the key events in Iranian history. It should be mentioned in the sub-headings for the benefit of our readers. Also, why are you so insistent on a random sprinkling of Perso-Arabic script for the Sassanid section on the Persian Empire page? Did the Sassanids use this form of writing? No, they didn't. Save it for the linked sub-articles. --Folantin (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- When a matter has been discussed, you "have to" read relevant talk pages. It is not up to you to decide about "key events". I watch many Iran related articles and I am allowed to do so.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to read talk pages before making pretty obvious edits to articles. No matter what your colleagues and you have decided, the Arab conquest was a defining event in Iranian history. You have still not given me any rationale for the random use of Perso-Arabic script in the Sassanid section of the Persian Empire page. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, give me a reason for your reverts on that Persian Empire page. You must have one since you were so insistent about the issue. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The reasons are simple: 1. Usually it is fine to have names in other scripts. 2. Why Persian is relevant here, is because for any Persian name there are many different spellings in other languages but there is only one in Persian language (whether Old, Middle, or New). For example: Pirooz, Pirouz, Peerooz, ... are all based on its Persian version. 3. If there were too many such names in Iranian script, then I would agree that some could be removed. But there were not that many.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, give me a reason for your reverts on that Persian Empire page. You must have one since you were so insistent about the issue. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to read talk pages before making pretty obvious edits to articles. No matter what your colleagues and you have decided, the Arab conquest was a defining event in Iranian history. You have still not given me any rationale for the random use of Perso-Arabic script in the Sassanid section of the Persian Empire page. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- When a matter has been discussed, you "have to" read relevant talk pages. It is not up to you to decide about "key events". I watch many Iran related articles and I am allowed to do so.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, why are you following me around? You don't WP:OWN the Iran page and I don't have to get the green light from you before I edit there. The Arab conquest was one of the key events in Iranian history. It should be mentioned in the sub-headings for the benefit of our readers. Also, why are you so insistent on a random sprinkling of Perso-Arabic script for the Sassanid section on the Persian Empire page? Did the Sassanids use this form of writing? No, they didn't. Save it for the linked sub-articles. --Folantin (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1. That's indeed vandalism on pages that I watch. Go to the talk page of Iran and read before you edit. That section is about the middle age and not about aftermath. 2. Please do not use my talk page, as your edits concerns talk pages of the articles. 3. And your understanding of language should not be "script-only" as you try to advocate. The situation outside turkic world is a bit different. I hope you use relevant talk pages before you edit.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)