User talk:Dr. Persi

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

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• How to write a great article
• Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 10:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Of course I don't mind if you make any additions to articles. I don't own them! I would recommend having a quick look at WP:MEDRS. This is a document prepared by the medical contributors on Wikipedia and sets out to explain the kind of sources that can be useful for medical Wikipedia writing. It also gives some tips about automatically generating references from PubMed identifiers (very useful IMHO).

Let me know if you need any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 11:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing new article Olga Imerslund. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you!! ErikHaugen (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about your username overlapping with Persian Gulf. You probably looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports, which is an automatic output of the COIBot (talk · contribs). It is mainly set up to stop people writing articles about themselves. By its very nature it will throw up loads of false positives. In your case I cannot imagine there is a real problem as long as you write neutral and verifiable content, as you seem to have been doing! JFW | T@lk 09:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your idea about this discussion made by an IP address about the grammatical correction ? In fact (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine the way it is. Persian Gulf is the international name. The only reason any mention of Arabian Gulf is made is due to new onset political pressure exerted by certain Persian Gulf Arab nations. No matter, the article is currently neutral and implies this point in its introduction. I highly doubt any change is needed. I am however not sure exactly what you mean by your question on the talk page, but hope this addresses your concern. OK, have a wonderful day! Dr. Persi (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your editing assistance and mediation on the Cyrus Cylinder article...You seem to be active on Iranian history and on the page in general. I'm concerned that the article doesn't read well, too long and drawling, and also might be placing undue weight on certain issues. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I partly agree that certain claims on the article are not cited, which I left a citation needed tag on. Unfortuantley certain claims seem to be weasle word and as originally stated, the article did have a bit of a one sided presentation. However, I believe everybody is doing their best to create what they percieve to be a bias free versrion, so I am going to practice patience and do what I can without doing too much. My worry is that if I interfere too much they might feel like I am negating their view point and that can lead to people taking sides and a whole mess that is really not appropriate. However I did some changes for instance the phrase "fake translation" conveys the message but would be better served with a more scholarly term such as "false" translation. No matter, hope this helps and I look forward to reading more of your input and others on that page and every other page on Wikipedia :)! Happy hollidays! Dr. Persi (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, as always. GoetheFromm (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Persi, wanna try your hand at addressing Folantin's suggestion at bottom of section here? Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Cylinder_and_human_rights I'll be around the next few days trying to work on determining the prevalence of scholars supporting the notion that the Cylinder is "Charter of Human Rights." GoetheFromm (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors on the History of human rights page (see edit history for that page) indicating that the word "some" is weasel. Many is a judgment of quantity, which is not appropriate for encyclopedic material. Moreover, "some" entails "many" and where as "many" does not entail "some." Thus the word "some" is more appropriate in article. In addition, on this specific issue regarding the human rights question, some has been advocated as the correct usage by editors. The talk and edit record indicates this. Lastly, wouldn't a reference be needed to indicate from a reliable source that "many" believe in order for the word "many" to be included? It feels like POV pushing to put "many." Feedback on this issue? Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a referrence is needed. I am surprised at this. Let me look into it. I just came back from the ER sorry for the delay in response. I will get on it :). Dr. Persi (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you are a member of this group? It would be nice to get in touch by email *** in fact *** (contact) 07:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind seasons greeting and thank you for your tireless efforts. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help here ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is that both names are not mentioned even once in native script. There are countless articles with names in original scripts mentioned despite having only one "official" name. Check this article for instance. I believe that this is a more "informative" approach. happy new year btw. Rafy talk 05:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that article is not a controversial article. Additionally the term khaleej al arab is mentioned in the naming dispute. As well as a mention of it being allocated in the introduction with Arabian Gulf and The Gulf. Sincerely, and happy new year! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant writing Both names in original scripts (Arabic script in both Persian and Arabic). There is also an equally famous naming dispute in the article of Jerusalem as you might know, yet you find the name written in both Hebrew and Arabic scripts. I find it very intriguing how the biblical name is chosen in the Persian version instead of the Islamic one. Rafy talk 05:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is internationally debated and it is equally shared by both sides. Again, I am not extending any authority over any other article, as these are common license type articles with variations given. I believe you can help by changing those articles. Also the problem with having both Persian and Arabic script is that 1)No Persian reader would recognize Khalij-al-Arabia and would dispute it and since we are putting it as "versions" of the name we are automatically approving it as being authentic, which according to the Naming Dispute section is not so. Second, if we put Persian name first, and Arabic name second, at some point an Arab reader would be tempted to change their order and then a Persian or otherwise Reader would change it and the next thing u know u have an edit war on something that really has little significant. Thirdly, majority of the English Encyclopedia readers do not speak or understand Persian or Arabic. Those who understand Persian mostly call it Khalij-fars and those who speak arabic call it khalij-arabia. Lastly, as pointed out the Naming dispute makes no hide of the fact that since 60s arabs have favored the term Khalij-arabia over khalij-alfarsi but you have to also understand to put the arabic language term "khalij-arabi" is not fair to ALL arab speakers. There are many arabs speakers in Non-Persian gulf states such as Egypt(al-masr) where Khalij-al-arabia is not recognized and khalij-al-farsi is still the common name. So for reasons of high probability of edit waring, controversiality of the topic, the fact that the name "al-khalij-arabia" is covered in the naming dispute, and the fact that most users (Persian or otherwise) recognize only Persian Gulf, and that NOT all arabs recognize al-khalij-al-arabia, it is best , nay wise to not delve into "native" name battles.

Additionally, I think this article deserves expansion into something greater that doesnt focus on petty nationalistic feelings of Arabs and Persians. I think Arabs and Persians should put the petty difference aside and take care of this body of water before it is filled with Toxins and sunken ships. Naming over some website or on some piece of paper is the least of their concern now! Thanks for your comments. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the link you gave me is on PERSIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA where they can put whatever is COMMON in Persia. If Arab Encyclopedia allows the term "al-khalij-al-farsi" then maybe that debate would work. As you both know the term they allow is Al-khalij-arabia. They also have changed the "naming dispute" for instance maps that clearly show "sinus persicus" meaning pesian gulf are called "al-khalij-arabia." So again this is ENGLISH wikipedia, not arabic or Persian, where each cutlure has its own biases and preferences. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, and I'm talking from a total neutral point of view since I'm neither Persian nor an Arab, that a normal reader might reach this article looking for name or pronunciation in original script. I know that I get really frustrated when going to an article about a non-English personality yet no information is provided about the native name. I completely agree with you that the region has experienced an unfortunate wave of nationalism since the sixties that has altered many names such as the persian gulf and Shatt al-Arab to mention a few, and eventually cost millions of lives. In my opinion, the gulf was doomed to be a petrochemical dump site since the discovery of oil, subsequent wars only made it look a bit more tragic. Rafy talk 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says on your page "you are from Iraq." I also looked at the edit history you originally ONLY added al-khalij-arabia. only after Gothefrom undid ur version, did you also add the Persian version. Also Any person wanting to find out the original version of the name in arabic or Persian has only to click on the links on the side to see the main name. The same way that anybody wishing to see what Persian Gulf is in Vietnamese can click on the link on the left. And yes, it is sad isnt it that such a natural habitat, should be succumbed to this: oil spills, wars, nationalistic "d--ck measuring contests." Also try to look at it this way: The name Persian Gulf is a tribute to the Achaemenid Persians and their cultural signature, and is in no way an attribute to the current Persians. The current regime of Iran is as much Persian, as the janitor in the White house. The point is the same way the "Arabian Sea" is called arabian sea (and not just Indian ocean) and the "Red Sea" is called Red sea (and not blue sea) and the Gulf of Mexico is called gulf of mexico (and not gulf of USA), Persian gulf is called Persian gulf and not Arabian gulf. This in no way retracts from the arab contribution to the Gulf life, neither does it add to the contribution of the Persians. It only signifies the immense signature that the empire of Achamenids has had on the cultural and social life of the Asia, and the Western world's perception of that concept through ages. Nothing more nothing less. A persian defending name of Persian gulf in the name of "homeland honor" is as misguided as an arab "censoring it in name of arab nationalism"; simply said, the Persian gulf does not belong to the Persians or Arabs just as the Arabian Sea does not belong to Arabs or anybody else. They are bodies of water that for better or worse reflect a famouse historical attachement. Dr. Persi (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. I have added the persian name to the arabic article[1], and for the record, it wasn't my intention to remove the persian naming, I had to revert first to add both names, it was just more convenient for me :). By the way I have found a very aggressive tone towards persians in some articles the arabic version and i corrected some as you can see in this Achamenids article where it was claimed that the word Fars means "aggressive and usurper". And in this article about the history of mosul where Persians were called Magis which is very derogatory in arabic, and added a POV template since the whole section had a negative portrait Persians bloodthirsty invaders. Rafy talk 06:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreicate your candor! I also promise to keep the arab reference in the Persian Gulf article. I appreciate your honesty and hope that one day we can actually do something more than just fight for ourselves but for our collective good :)! Once again have a wonderful new year and thank you for your candor and openness. Dr. Persi (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same wishes for you here. Sadly I can't guarantee you that my addition in the Arabic article won't be soon reverted, It's a very sensitive issue to many, and to be honest with you the arabic wiki lacks professionalism and objectivity and people are very easily drawn into stuffing articles with their own thoughts and believes. Rafy talk 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter man, what matters is we are different. I honestly can say same can be said about Persian wiki at times. But we do the best we can. Dr. Persi (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted [2]. Although many of your edits are constructive, here you have removed the word 'propaganda' which I know you don't like and substituted the word 'victory'. That was not only pov, it made a change in the cited text that you simply can't do. If an author writes 'propaganda' you must not change that to 'victory'. And if you are going to change cited text, you should always try to check the original source, which is what I did. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you state that Cyrus Cylinder is a piece of propaganda following "tradition set forth by mesopotamia?" How come now the attack is on Cyrus? I dont remember any source citing it that way. Isnt there a nicer way to state things? Isnt that a bit too much of a focus on one source? In a sense isnt taking one source as the entire source and extrapolating the "quoted text" as fact in itself a POV? That wasnt even clear to BE in the first place a QUOTE. Perhaps whoever wrote it should put it in quotation! I am going to place it in quotation. As you said it is BASED ON A source, so it should be QUOTED to reflect that source, not to make it sound as if it is fact! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also if anybody is known for being POV THINK TANK it is you! Anybody reading your editing history can see a pattern form, and having the Admin status helps. I made the changes, so feel free to come up with additional excuses. I look forward to reading them! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I changed the title of your comment here. How about not injecting your POV on my page? Title shouldnt be a line. I put POV, since that is what you are talking about here. Dr. Persi (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am much calmder now. You bring the worse in me and I am never argumentative Doughweller! I can not quite put my finger on it but something about the WAY you state things irritates me not so much what you want to do. No matter, I added the text "a scholar" to the text and I am sorry for the above text, although I still believe you are a POV think tank :). Have a good new year! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion here, probably caused by my adding 'pov' to the main point I was trying to make. It wasn't a quote, it was a statement backed by cited text. It wasn't meant to be a quote. No, it shouldn't be a quote. Yes, I have a pov, statements ahould accurately reflect the source, and your change did not accurately reflect the source. I'd have done it the other way around, if the source had said victory and someone had changed it to propaganda I'd have reverted them. It still seems to me that it is you that is removing the word propaganda. I've changed the title to more accurately reflect the issue, please don't change it again. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the source. I will find that book and read it! I trust you for now. You must have read the book right? How else would you be able to add "propaganda" in your edit? I like to know if there is anyway I can access that book online? No matter you have no reverted my last edit which means we both agree that is is "a scholar's view" published in 2005. No matter, that is fine with me for now. I have to read more on this. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi,

Since phrase are as follows: Pepsinogen is the main gastric enzyme. and Chymotrypsiongen can also be activated by trypsinogen.

Surely it makes sense to use pepsin and trypsin, as I corrected? In the first case, the enzyme is pepsin, not pepsinogen. In the second, is it not the activated enzyme which activates chymotrypsinogen, not the inactivated form? APL92 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha, it is Persi not PEPSI! lol And no it makes perfect sense actually. Zymogens are activated by a subset of enzymes or by their own activated forms. Actually the Enzyme is Pepsinogen, Pepsin is a later by product of the original Pepsinogen :)! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the text you left on the talk page. Actually if i said "chymotrypsinogen is activated by trypsinogen" that is wrong and you should change it to "chymotrypsinogen is activated by trypsin." Feel free to change that but still for sake of completion I BELLIEVE we should leave them as Pepsinogen and Chymotrypsinogen but if you so desire change them! It wont make much of a differnet in the concept anyhow! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you were right on the trypsinogen bit so I changed that. It helps to leave a reason for your edits, so I can see or read it. Pepsinogen though in my view should be left alone but surely chymotrypsinogen is activated by trypsin as you pointed out! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done! And sorry for the misspelling of your name! APL92 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr Persi! When you talk about origin and ethnicity, you should realise that Avicenna, Rumi and many others came from a region where the native inhabitants are called Tajik. Persian is the name of an ethnicity which is formally used for the Persian speaking inhabitants of Iran with today's geographical boundaries. The term Tajik has been applied to Persian muslims of Greater Khorasan and Oxus basin since the 10th century (the time of Avicenna and many more). I don't need to give you any more reference, it's a common sense. Avicenna was a Tajik and Tajiks have been and still are the native inhabitants of the region. So long the term Tajik is formally applied to these people, it should be used for their scientists. It's as simple as that!--Artacoana (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few problems already in the logic. 1) The naming is a modern phenomenon not one present at the time. If that is your assertion then you have to bring sources to support it. 2)Persian in the ancient sense refers to people ascending from or coming under the control of the Persian Empire (the remnant of which today is Iran) but also includes conturies around it. 3) I trust your assertion for Tajik naming but even if so, the source you have provided lacks any verification of the fact that Avicenna actually came from a Tajik background. 4)I agree Tajiks probably are still the inhabitants of the region. I would be careful calling Avicenna "their scientist" because that is a possessive tone and usually implicates POV. If you agree that Tajik is a subset of Persian, then you should have no problem with simply "Persian" instead of "Persian (Tajik)." The latter has a possessive tone to it, which would be fine if there was a source that asserted that assumption. Perhaps if I may suggest, you can mention what you have in in a slightly different way. For instance it is fine for you to say that "Avicenna hailed from a region that is today inhabited by the Tajik population" but it is not fine to call him a Tajik (even though he could very well BE one) but unless you have a source, then really the addition is mute in concept. Why add a subdivision, into a concept without reliable sources, when in fact the subdivision (Tajik) is in essenence (at least by then's standard) the same as simply "Persian." Dr. Persi (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I answer your claims one by one as follows:

1) The modern names are being used as origin and ethnicity. A good example is the German priest Martin Luther who lived in a time when his homeland (today's Germany) was called Holy Roman Empire. He is known as a German priest and not as a Roman. Another good example is Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer who lived during Prussian rule, but he is known as a Polish astronomer today and not Prussian. 2) You are wrong on this. Persian in the ancient sense refers to the inhabitants of the province of Persia, with the capital Parsa and Passargadae, in south of today's Iran. Persian got a broader sense in the medieval times (after Arab invasion in the 7th century). But even then, the center of power and cultural center of most dynasties laid in Greater Khorasan (with capitals Balkh, Herat, Marv and Nishapur), Sistan (with the capital Zaranj, in southwest Afghanistan) and Transoxiana (with Samarkand, Bukhara and Urganj-all in Central Asia). As you see most of these places don't lay in today's Iran. 3) It's a common sense that Avicenna was a Tajik. His mother was from Bukhara and his father from Balkh, Afghanistan. Both cities had only Persian speaking Tajik population of Iranian origin. (I can give you references on this) 4) Repeated point 3. --Artacoana (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempt at explanation but really I have to say nothing more than the fact that your "source" has no relevance to the point you are trying to make. If you alter it again, I will simply ask a more experienced admin to intervene and knowing the laws of wikipedia and common sense that "source should relate to the point that it cites inline" should be enough. Again, you are making points up by yourself. What does "placement" of power in post islamic persia got to do with proving that your source has any credibility on the origin of Avicenna. I believe both you and Ali Wiki are pushing POV on that page and are damaging a great article by your personal agendas. I hope this clarifies a bit. Otherwise I will have to ask a more experienced editor/admin to intervene. Cheerrs! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to threaten me?! AliWiki believes that Avicenna was a Shia so he MUST be a PERSIAN (like most of today's Persians of Iran)! And you insist on this ethnicity of Persian. Well, let me tell you that Wikipedia is not the Iranian books where your regime can fabricate the fact. It's very clear that you're trying to steal the cultural heritage of the region (only because the region is not within your political borders or the people have different religion). Do whatever you want, tell admins. I have sufficient references.--Artacoana (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avicenna. 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. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear here - I've declined the page protection because I'm not going to favor one of these warring parties over the other. The next reversion at that article, regardless of who does it, and I'll block all three of you for WP:3RR violations because you're all over the limit. KrakatoaKatie 04:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr.Persi. Please have a look Here. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie, you clearly did not read what I typed. The original change was made by the other user at which point I DID leave a mediation request on the discussion and I DID NOT revert his edit as I PERSONALLY POINTED OUT that it was a form of "edit warring." I HAVE NO SUPPORT FOR WHAT ALIWIKI OR ARTACOANA SAY as they both seem to be POV machines. He is making a statement using a source THAT SAYS NOTHING!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HIS ASSERTION. You are SUPPOSEDLY an admin. You ever heard of WP:SYN ? Or how about original research? Instead of coming to my page and threatening me to a ban, maybe you should read the stuff I have written including eliciting a request from JFW (admin) and the message I have left both on ARTACOANA page, as well as the message I have left on the discussion page! This is ridiculous! Dr. Persi (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please do not group me with aliwiki or Artacoana. I am not at either's level as I believe judging from your name, neither am I in your educational bracket. Regardless, you are an admin in wikipedia and the IDEA is that you are going to be fair and just supporting Wikipedia rules. I have to admit I am disappointed by the tone of your language but nevertheless if it means it will get some work done, then be it. I will comply, with a grump! Also I am sorry if I sound angry, but I feel a bit infuriated in the way I am treated in this matter, but ya this is now how I often speak but regardless take care and have a good Sunday! Dr. Persi (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could undo this bit of amateuristic editing? One does not put FOUR footnote markers on a trivial statement. I looks awful and is completely unnecessary. —Ruud 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud, I read the article now and it looks professional. I only think we do not need the [verification needed] tag. I have not touched the article since the "issue" to make sure that nobody can say I was pushing my point. I will however, in the next few days cite Goodman sources that do say he was a scientist and such. I trust your choice in edit as I do pretty much every person so far including Khodabande. You guys are doing a great job! This is how an article shoudl be written! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A point: The user Artaco..watever still inserts his unsupported idea "(his fatehr was from afghanestan , etc.)" Not only is it not mentioned in any of his sources, there was no such thing as "asfghanestan" but only a region of the samanid empire in today's afghanestan. So read the EARLY LIFE section. It needs extensive work! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was informed of the above spelling error. I left a response on WQA page since the user Artacoana was offended appaently by the spelling error. Again, just a spelling error, but nontheless, leaving this here so if you read this Artacoana, I would appreciate if you can next time ask me first before making it a WQA issue. Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been notified of the discussion at WP:WQA about you, so I'm letting you know. I've supported you there, I think your spellings above are typos (Afghanestan). Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointless and silly as it is, I left a message on that page. Thanks for the inform, otherwise I would not have even known that it was there. I wonder why the user just didnt ask me instead of trying to go beyond me on such a simple topic, and attack me in that fashion. At any rate, thanks for the heads up! Dr. Persi (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Achaemenid architecture "established the defining style for the Western world" is not only extraordinary, but also not to be found anywhere in the purported sources. I have thus removed it [3]. As we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim like that should only be sourced, if possible, to a doyen of the history of architecture and nothing less, certainly not the relatively lightweight tertiary sources used. However, I note that the claim is nowhere to be found even within those two sources. The fact that the claim appears in two different articles, and a different source is used in each article is even more problematic and I'm having great difficulty assuming good faith here. I sincerely hope this is the first and last occurrence of such false sourcing that I encounter. Best, Athenean (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is right here:

This is how I cited my source in the article:

[ref name=book]Marco Bussagli (2005). Understanding Architecture. I.B.Tauris. p. 211.[/ref]

If you go to the URL I gave in the source, or the link below which is the same book as the author and data mentioned in the above sourcing:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fMfCkY6-9joC&pg=PA211&dq=Achaemenid+architecture&hl=en&ei=-kE7TZqdL8GblgevmsWkBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Achaemenid%20architecture&f=false

On this link please go to the right side of the page number 211, and look under the title "The Parthians and Sassanids" and find this exact quoted text "...From the artistic point of view, Achaemenid architecture-albeit with major adaptation by Greece and Rome-established the defining style of the Western world." This is what the source cites as you can see. How is this then an "extraordinary claim" on my part? So the claim is there to be found. What do you think now? Dr. Persi (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope this is the first and last occurence of such false assumption ;) Dr. Persi (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing that. However, I still feel it is an extraordinary claim. The familiar Greek temple architecture was already in place by the 7th century BC (and perhaps even earlier), long before the interaction with the Persians. As far as I know, the main influence on Greek architecture was Egyptian, not Persian. So if you don't mind, I would like to run this by a few other editors if you can wait a bit. Athenean (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. I dont think it is claiming that it laid the foundation but that in an artistic sense it contributed it. I will work it in the paragraph without citing it so. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a thread here [4]. Let's see what other people say. Architecture is not my specialty, I am unable to comment further. Athenean (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really did not have to open that thread, I was simply going to modify what he said to an agreeable end to what you wanted. No matter, this way at least we can get some exposure on it as well. I think based on his sources on google books and their titles and publishers that he is a solid architectural educator and shouldnt be put up in a "reliable source notice baord." Dr. Persi (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that cultural exchanges took place (and that, at least, seems solidly sourced), however, the way you had implemented this was problematic, as it made it seems like Athens was part of the Iranian plateau and that the Persian language spread there as well. I do not object to the information being included in the article, suitably phrased and placed (perhaps in the history section, or in a "Culture" section), but in its current form in the lead it was highly problematic. After all, Greek culture had a massive influence on all those cultures it encountered (including the Persian one), yet we don't mention that so prominently in the lead of [[Greeks]. Best, Athenean (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. The point is that parts of the culture of athens was adapted from Persia and vice versa. That is what the source suggest. What is your suggestion on wording? Dr. Persi (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I dont think there is an issue to mention that there was a "massive" Greek influence. Again the point here is not competing idealogies but to present an aspect that would give something more to the reader. If your issue with this particular source is that you feel that it undermines the Greek contribution I can reword it. That is fine. But if you intent is to censor it on the grounds that no such statement is also mentioned in a similar Greek article...then I 1)have no contorl over those articles and 2)should not be held hostage in a sense to the stylistic preferences of Wikipedia unless there is a specific law that says you cant disseminate certain information, specially something as positive and benign like this that stresses GreekoPersian bortherhood and communication in what is essentially a humanistic approach not so much a military one. Thoughts? Dr. Persi (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is polished version. I sort of see what you meant. When I typed it up, it was not worded properly making it sound like Greece was implied to be part of the Persian empire so instead such is the edit that applies the message of the source yet satisfies your concern:

Persians also interacted with other ancient civilizations in Europe and Africa. Persian empire extended as far as the limits of the Greek city states, where Persians and Athenians influenced each other in what is essentially a reciprocal cultural exchange.

Excellent, that is much better. Now we're talking. The only thing I would change would be "Persian empire" to "Achaemenid Persian empire" in the second sentence. Regarding the issue of placement, a location in the history section of Persian people would be appropriate (and also maybe in Achaemenid Empire). The WP:LEAD should only be a summary of the article, so this wouldn't really fit. Athenean (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I agree, I have changed it from Persian to Persian Achaemenid. Makes sense, it was meant to be understood in that context but if it is so desired then why not. Who else but I would be so compliant to requests :D? Dr. Persi (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Artemisia's story is very interesting, a detailed description of her exploits seems to be beyond the scope of Persian people. After all, she's not even Persian. A brief mention that she served under Xerxes is sufficient. Perhaps we can include that information somewhere else, but Persian people should be, well, about the Persian people first and foremost. Other than that, your edits to that article seem excellent, and a welcome improvement to what was an unfortunately neglected article. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point was not to make it look like she is Persian but to stress that women in general have a role in the Achaemenid society albeit not Persian. I can see how this can be an issue cuz I believe somebody might be confused enough to think Artemisia was Persian, so I have no contenstation over this change. And thank you :) Dr. Persi (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi in fact. Can you please give me more details as to what is going on with this book. It looks fine to me, but would you mind more details? Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting the author's article to his publisher in 2008. More details could be found in the two links above. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, No need to do so. I just quit the discussion. Thanks anyway. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorood bar shomaa, I see you are editing an article thats needs editing "Iranian nationalism" I thought this might be of use: Ahmad Ashraf, "Iranian Identity" in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Online link [1]. Retrieved December 2010. [5] I would mention something about Abu Muslim, Yaqub Layth, Sarbedaran, Muqanna', Ferdowsi, Shua'abiyah movement and etc..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I do not speak much of Persian, so I assume you are greeting me since i know dorood means hello or such in Persian. Honestly I am not sure what you are asking me. "I see you are editing an article that needs editing 'Iranian nationalism'" makes no sense to me. Furthermore I am not sure exactly what you asking me. I be happy to assist if you can be a bit more specific and explain what you want. I think you are asking that we attend to certain articles of ancient history. If so I am all game. I love ancient Persia, Greece, and Egypt articles. Cheers =]! Dr. Persi (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can you keep an eye on these two: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian_languages_area.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian_languages_area.png I have described why they cannot be vandalized in the talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I am not sure who is the wiki admin there. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. These two are photos from the literature and so I dont even know why whoever uploaded them allowed them to be copryright free. But yes I saw the change and as per literature their distribution makes sense. I will do my best, but hopefully the discussion would prevail. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Persi, Thank you for your kind messages and award, so sorry that it has taken this long to respond.

Been busy with personal issues that came up, which did not let me to even look at wikipedia for a single moment.

I'm back though and I look forward to collaborating with you and others....so what's in the wiki world? GoetheFromm (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you apologize for this edit and summary and undo it yourself? You could have easily checked the book cited by me via Google book search, an engine you seem to be quite familiar with. I never misrepresent a source. Thanks, Ankimai (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to check the book you posted. Again if you look at the sources cited none of them cite the page number in them. There is a book titled "Makka" which is cited three times and the book has information but no detail on where this data is found. On the second source it simply says "Britanica." The phrase exploitation was not understood by me to be an accurate reflection of the facts. I suggest if you want to keep it in that you cite the page number of the source you have used. You did utilize the source right? So then produce the page number. Again this has nothing to do with "appology" or anything personal. I hope you are not taking this personally. We work on the basis of neutrality of POV and can question each other to support that. You seem confident to know that your statement is source supported. Can you please produce the link to Google books that delineates this? If so then I will more than hapilly change it back. So I appreciate that you take it to my talk page as this is the civil way of doing it. So all I ask is the link or reference page to the book and I will more than happily change it myself :)! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, on the second look I see the problem. You see originally the sources that were cited were not sufficient to produce this point, but then you "undid" my change however I did not notice that you added a new source! The very fact that it was an undid made me think that you restated the article back to its original format which was with the two defective sources. I can see now that you did indeed add a source. Very well, I still want you to provide me with the link to the page. I will change "advancement" into "exploitation." Afterall I am fine with changes as long as sources are cited properly. In the future perhaps if you are adding new content like a source it be best not to write it off in edit summary as "UNDID REVISION" because that automatically makes a person assume that you restored the source back to its original status. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is accurate and does state "exploitation." However the wording of the sentence was not ideal either since by the end of that sentence I assumed you meant the city itself whereas the source discusses the route from Euphrate-Tigris-Persian Gulf as being the one in jeopardy. No matter, I fixed your source adding publisher, year, page number and the URL link to the page. In the future, please assume good faith as well. Just because I made a mistake does not mean I have ulterior intenions or that I need to applogize to you! No matter I also recommend that you avoid using "Udid Revision" tag unless you purely re-state the article to a previous version. In my humble opinion, a simple explanation in the edit summary would be far more efficacious. At any rate, this is resovled to me. Feel free to share thoughts. Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Since you are an expert regarding Persian Gulf issues, I need to know your idea about this discussion. Thanks. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is solved. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 09:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just came home and saw this. Been a crazy few days at the hospital. But thanks for asking my opinion and sorry I was not able to contribute earlier. Glad it worked out :) Dr. Persi (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ok. I hope you also agree with the outcome of the discussion. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Persi, Noruz Pirooz to you. I thank you for your invaluable contributions and wish you a year of Goftarnik, Pendarenik, and Kerdarnik. Enjoy your Sizdah Bedar. GoetheFromm (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wish you a happy Nawruz too. We, Assyrians don't celebrate Nawruz but we have something similar at the first of April. -- Rafy talk 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wishes... You just made my day :)--Rafy talk 11:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Persi,

Thanks. Happy Nowruz to you and your family. Wish you all the best. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Persi, I wish you and your happy family a joyous Nowruz. I hope you have a splendid year in front of you. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed seeing a Minor Barnstar you awarded me in January 2011 - many thanks. I post this on your page as it was long enough ago that you might not notice it on mine. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. Dr. Persi (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Persi, I hope you are fine. I know of one article, that I though you may want to use in your very good written articles and sections of articles in wikipedia. The article is Water resource management for Iran's Persepolis complex by Moradi-Jalali, et al. Regards. Xashaiar (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xashaiar, I actually found this a while back and the majority of the section "Water Technologies" in Achaemenid architecture is from this source. I even bought the hard copy for my library. Thanks for the suggestion! I am good and I believe I forgot to say "Happy Nowruz" to you, so here it is late. Have a great week. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the Wikiproject Iran article. [6]

propose to simplify the A, B, C scaling system

Many users have known this issue already. I propose to simply it by over-riding all the control and limits set to assign B. If you agree or disagree, please write your comment on the talkpage there. Currently, it is very hard to assign a B rating to articles and many Iran related articles have a C although users have assigned it a B. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a valid point. This would prevent other users from influencing article quality based on the daily political situations. You know sort of a safeguard against trolls who dislike Persian culture for personal, unjustified reasons but project it as if it is actually related to "quality" issues. I responded on the accompanying page. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your interest in hematology/oncology. Perhaps you can help me with the above BLP. See [7]. Even referring this to another, more appropriate, editor would be greatly appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to read on this. I am frankly not an expert or even know the basics on this issue. Give me some time, if time is allowed, and I will get back to you. Thanks! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you fix this false redirection ? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Let me know if they change it back and we can have one of the admins lock it. Thanks! Dr. Persi (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, indeed ! *** in fact *** ( contact ) 02:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you edited the expressive aphasia page, I thought you might be able to help with the question at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Expressive_aphasia_vs._aphasia. If you can help, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Wshallwshall (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a quick explanation at the link you gave me above. If you require more detail, let me konw. Hope that helps. Dr. Persi (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Persi

At least you could have left some of the issues I actually had a point about and removed what you believed was more my point of view.. that article is a bit in accurate

I was hoping someone would read it and fix use what i said to fix it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.255.188 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is no problem. You can still retreive those comments but you have to add them in the text, with proper citation, following proper article guidelines. Nobody is stopping you from contribution but what you did is inappropriate. I suggest you read on the topics, add back the data, with proper citation. Also you cannot put ideas or suggestions for change on the main page because that is the public page but you may add data to the "Discussion" section! Discussion page is a place where editors can discuss different aspect of an article and come to an agreement, put their ideas up for public assessment, or reflect on their changes. So please reflect changes or opinions in the discussion page not in the main page where it is open to the public, and if you have a reliable source that you have read, then provide the source, cite the text without synthesising, or altering it and you may easily incoroprate it into the text. In such instance, not only would other users not object to changes, but might in fact defend you on the grounds that it is part of a core Wikipedia principle to preserve sourced data in articles. Hope this helps! Thank you!. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there is no misunderstanding in that article.. I tried to explain the rationale for my edit and the great overlap between the two terms.. The other user just left by the way..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I added a tiny bit to it. I mean whatever it is not like anybody reads this stuff. It is good the way it is. I compromise. I am however gone for good minus the edit I made today, since I was going to respond to you anyhow. Dr. Persi (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi welcome back--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As an observer who has been reading some of your contributions, I want to express my sadness about your announcement of leaving Wikipedia. I think you are a highly knowledgeable editor with great writing skills. What you did to the Achaemenid architecture page was more than impressive. It's really sad to see good editors leaving. Wish you came back one day. Best, 84.23.140.55 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that really is like a warm blanket in a cold night! I dont know who you are but thank you for the kind words! I certainly wont add anything new honeslty mostly because I am so busy but I will still maintain certain articles. For instance I will make a couple of edits today. Feel free to let me know if there is anything that I can help you with. Any how, thanks again for the warm words :) Dr. Persi (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to explain why I didn't revert the deletion of this title from Cyrus the Great along with the other changes made by the same editor. The title (assuming my browser's "find" function is working correctly) is not mentioned in the CtG article text, and is also not in the "Cyrus the Great Cylinder" article cited as a reference for the titles. It was first added (misspelled as "King of Aryavrata") on December 2, 2010 by an anon IP – one of a total of two edits made to Wikipedia from that IP. The spelling was corrected and the name linked by another anon IP on January 24, 2011. No explanation accompanied either edit, and the map of Āryāvarta in its article shows it covering a large area east of the Indus and a much smaller portion west of the Indus, so with no references, a questionable provenance of the claim, and an area largely outside Cyrus' domains, the deletion seemed justified. However, I make no claim of expertise in the area, so accept your restoration. I just wanted to make you aware of the background in case it might have any effect on your viewpoint. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extremely quick response. I had absolutely no problem with you reverting my two minor edits; you were quite clear that it was merely because they blocked you from making other reversions which accomplished the same thing, and more. I just felt it was worthwhile pointing out my questions on that one title, since you appear to have a better background in the subject. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source are added as promised in our last talk. Have a great day! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're reverting my edit. You state that Achaemenid Empire is known as Persian Empire. Persian Empire can also refer to the Parthian Empire and the Sassanid Empire. There was a huge discussion about this at Persian Empire almost a year ago. Furthermore, Persian Empire redirects to Achaemenid Empire - why not just use Achaemenid Empire? For the second revert, the name was not removed. It was just moved down, as an epithet is not the official title of Cyrus. As well, I did not remove the Old Persian name, I just put a transliteration in English. I did remove the New Persian name as that is useless. Please look at good articles, such as Darius the Great as an example. I am not watching your page, so please reply on my page or place a {{tb}} on my talkpage. Thanks. warrior4321 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Ya this was my bad. I left a text at your page, although leaving it the way it is now, is my preference, regardless of what happens in Darius the Great page. Thank you! And thank you for your awesome work! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it back right now, but I will work on the Cyrus article soon. These are just preliminary changes. Thank you for understanding my concern. warrior4321 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

warrior4321 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I just want to say that the 2 things that I believe should be changed in the article Cyrus the Great is that
1. That he was the King of Āryāvarta
2. His influence reached till Indus River

If you go through the histories and historic maps properly then you will find that King Cyrus has never reached till Indus. And as far as Āryāvarta is concerned then it starts from Indus and spreads over Gangetic Plains. In history it can be clearly seen that there was no influence of King Cyrus on these areas. In fact King Cyrus' kingdom extended till today's Baluchistan province in Pakistan but have never reached till Indus River.Even the maps this article contains proves the same thing.
I have tried to correct this error twice but each time you have reverted those edits. So I would expect this time you to correct those errors.
Bismay Dash (talk)04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time could you please put a proper title (and preferably one that is not in caps). As for your concerns, most sources state that it is not improbable for Cyrus to have reached the Indus. It is known that Cyrus conquered Capisa, which is near the Upper Indus. Could you please tell me which sources state that Cyrus did not reach the Indus? warrior4321 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, aww it is ok he can leave a big title. This is a page that accomodates everybody :). I agree with Warrior however, and that is mainly because there ARE sources stating for it, and no sources stating against it. In absence of a direct negative evidence, even though the supportive evidence is weak, it is still more plausible than the contrary. In short, it is more likely that he did, than he did not have any influence. That is basically what I think, but I am not an authority on this, so for now I favor its inclusion based on available resources and also that I am in consensus with Warrior who seems quite educated in the matter. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please have a look at the Cyrus Cylinder article? I've noticed there are a lot of misleading sources, and more than a few citations cannot back up claims made within the article. Particularly in the "propaganda" portion, citations 48-53. If you could you review them I'd appreciate it a lot, since the whole article seems biased, disorganized, and lacks any real support. And I tried nominating it for deletion because of these reaons but they decided to keep it. Anyway, please have a look.--Xythianos (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. This article has been complex. The honest truth is and I have said it many times before that this article could be written in a more neutral perspective stressing that certain views are that of the British musuem vs. scholars vs. nations (Iran.) Unfortuantely that has not formulated as of yet. I have to say that the title is also problematic calling it "Royal Propaganda." Now I do agree that what the British Muesum has said holds merit and deserves mention but just like any other article there has to be balance between different entities. I also have reservations about changing it because some of the admins are heavily involved in that page as well as being my friends or at least no longer my contedners haha. I will look over it. I will do my best to point out what I think needs to be done to make it more neutral, but I totally agree in an honest assessment this article could become more neutral but the politics of the day and a general disregard for anything Iranian and Persian as "propaganda" is a bit of an issue. I mean we will discuss it on the discussion page. I will look over the sources. Give me a few days please I am so busy but I will do my best. Thank you :) Dr. Persi (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've just recently become active on here and I've noticed that it's really hard getting people to cooperate, but found hope when I saw that you, being more known on here, hold interests in similar areas as me. I fully agree with you, because I've also witnessed a lot of distrust towards Iranians (particularly Persians though) in general on here. And yes, you're very right about it being influenced by the politic atmosphere of today's world (I am getting a strong sense of the whole East vs. West thing on here,) and this really does make it difficult to make any real progress for the Iran project. It's especially difficult with Greek and other European ultra-nationalists reverting your edits constantly! I guess the only way we can get our voice back on here is by getting more educated Iranians (all Iranic people) on here to help us out with it. I really feel as if there isn't a balanced proportion of them, or maybe they're just inactive... And thank you! I'd appreciate it quite a bit if you look over the Cyrus Cylinder page sometime--Xythianos (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi again Dr Persi - not to get into this argument right now, but a lot of scholars talk about propaganda in the Ancient Near East. Anyway, maybe you could comment on Xythianos's edit here [8] - why remove the word 'Persian'? Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you are responding when I chat about this but not when I drop by to say hi. Like I said I need a few days before I can get involved in this. Again the whole "argument" comment is uncessary. We are not dealing with each other but with the article so we will do our best using our sources and our judgment to come to a compromise. I will return in a few days to read the page and give you and Xythianos my two cent. Until then good luck to both of u and hope you can keep it civil as always. As for his edit, I really do not know much about the circumstances surrounding it but again we are NOT here to blame editors, as I am sure you have made plenty of mistakes yourself, but to be a great editor (like yourself) takes time. So we gotta be understanding of starting editors and always extend a warm and understanding regard to them. Afterall we are all learning here, no matter our degrees and amount of knowledge we have. I mean this principle of collective addition is the soul of wikipedia and not the street tactic of ganging and taking sides or attacking each other. (No I am not referring to you or anybody but just saying). So having said that and having cleared that I am not here to side with or against anybody (including you or Xythianis), I will leave my little spiel in a few days and we can then let consensus and sources take over :P. On a side note Dougweller, I am actually quite insulted bro... how come you never respond to my chit chat when I drop by to say hi and instead come and comment when you are following other editors? I have asked "how you are doing" a million times and no respond. Show some love for crying out loud! ;) Anyhow, peace and talk to you guys soon and I do not need to hear from you or other editors on how evil the other are. Honestly I have nothing for or against any of u and I am flattered that Xythianos would ask my view on an article and even more flattered that you would care for my opinion. I think you are an experienced no-BS admin, and Xythianos is a passionate new editor. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment by Xythianos to me. I really appreciate that you are honest and share your experience with me. I tell you the truth my own experience not just here in Wikipedia but in my daily activies and real life has always felt like a confrontation either because of my accent, or my nationality or the pre-conceived notions people sometimes have of me. But trust me when I say that through trial and error I have tried almost all modes of confrontation from citing "justice," denial, avoidance, cooperation with those who think or are like me, and even leaving it alone at times but you know nothing felt more right and more productive than when I followed what I considered to be inalienable and universal rights, ranging from expression, study and literature. Honestly sometimes I had people in my work who did not like me but through my tolerant behavior and believe it or not a change of internal attitude managed to become good friends with me. I guess in the end the question is this: Are we going to turn into those we critize just in order to beat them in their game? If yes, even if we win, can we say we are any better? On the other hand, if we do not play the game, can we ever matter in the scene? So I do not know these are really difficult emotions. In short though we will move by 1)wikipedia principles 2)sources and 3) our notions of what we believe to be correct. If we do this even our most hardcore critics would loosen up allowing us at least enough to bring balance to the table. Having said that I want you to maintain your optimism and to realize that even those ultra-nationalist of other cultures can be friends and as unfortuante and (sadly true) as it is that sometimes all I can do (all anybody can do) is compromise, it is still better than all out confrontation. In other words, never fight a battle you cant win ;). Anyhow, long story short I am gonna do the best I CAN to help you achieve your editting goals granted they are within wikipedia rules and I am gonna do the best I can to cooperate with Dougweller and whoever else has contrary critique on this issue. For now good night and will see you all in a few days. I have a few shifts coming up and I gotta be fresh :D. Cheers Dr. Persi (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have dropped a talkback on this page, but I did respond, I wrote "That's very kind, and the best of you and yours. I'm retired and my wife calls this my community service.For my sins I now also spend time answering email to Wikipedia/the Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 6:41 am, 22 July 2011, last Friday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)" Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). I posted this to your page because you indicated an interest in neurology. Presto54 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"esas son puras mentiras, esa noche yo no andaba allí" was added by your edit, not another user. Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify yourself before typing on my page so I can respond to you. Also that is incorrect. An easy look at the page's history would delineate this point. Dr. Persi (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what happens when you type five ~, instead of four. Never have know why. But your edit [9] was the source of this material. Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) (carefully type four ~)[reply]

Well if that is the case then that was an error on my part. I am not going to doubt your word for it. Alas however the source now is corrected. Thank you also for correcting your name! Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You marked your addition of this image [10] as minor. It is certainly possible that other editors might have a different view about which images, if any, to include, so the edit was not minor. It happens that I agree with you that it is an improvement to the article, but minor edits are those which "could never be the subject of a dispute": see Help:Minor edit. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Greater Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine! Thank you. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cyril Elgood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to French and Moguls

Adolf Fonahn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norwegian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue reverting everything, you risk being blocked. 1. You do not own that article 2. Ever heard of the three revert rule? Debresser (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have erased and censored my writing on the talk page. That is by itself a violation of the rules. I am not the one who is reverting. I am simply stating the facts as per books and cited sources. Perhaps if you show a bit more flexibility it can be worked out easier. Also I am not the one who is typing in foreign languages in the history portion of the page. Also if anybody is OWNING the article it has to be you who is unrelentingly preventing me from stating the most supported and obvious facts. Dr. Persi (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. look better! Debresser (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You revert even before I can make a better text... Please stop! Debresser (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My friend you have changed Persis (Pars) into Persis. I do not understand why you keep reverting my changes. These are not disputed. You must at least cite a reason! Dr. Persi (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reason., take it to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a warning to both Dr. Persi and Debresser that you could be blocked and the page locked from editing if you continue as you are. Take all concerns to the article's talk page, and obtain consensus before proceeding with changes. Risker (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out all day and may be busy tomorrow, but I'll look into this asap. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Achaemenid architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

سلام . من یه مشکلی تو ویکی انگلیسی داشتم، نمی دونم اینجا مطرح کنم یا ایمیل کنم ؟ --بیکار (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you too. I will do all I can to help you with your English language issues. Please tell me what I can do and I will help you translate your concept or message :) (Salam, man dar khedmat shoma hastam. Che chizi ehtiyag darid?)

Dr. Persi (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

beyond any question, have you access to academic journal ? like Cambridge Journals Online ?بیکار (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately no access. Is it good? Dr. Persi (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Iranian sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ferdowsi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

as '''Ferdowsi''' ({{lang|fa|فردوسی}}) ; also spelled as ''Firdausi'' or ''Firdusi''; 940 – 1020 CE), was a highly revered [[Persian people|Persian]] poet. He is the author of the ''[[Shahnameh]]'', * [[Shirzad Aghaee]], ''Imazh-ha-ye mehr va mah dar Shahnama-ye Ferdousi'' (Sun and Moon in the Shahnama of [[Ferdousi]], Spånga, Sweden, 1997. (ISBN 91-630-5369-1) * [[Shirzad Aghaee]], ''Nam-e kasan va ja'i-ha dar Shahnama-ye Ferdousi'' (Personalities and Places in the Shahnama of [[Ferdousi]], Nyköping, Sweden, 1993. (ISBN 91-630-1959-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you or those IPs continue your reverting, I will send a page protection request (a full-protection). Don't you see the open consensus section on talk page? Write your reasons there. --Zyma (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may do what you want. The problem is you do not recognize consensus. Even if you protect the page, you are still one person reverting everybody else's opinion. Isn't that a breach of consensus?

Dr. Persi (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdowsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I just noticed today the Barnstar you gave me, and i would like to thank you :-). You seem to know the Persian script (which i don't), so maybe we could do a lot together.

About the word Eranshahr, it means Iranian land/Iranian Empire, so you basically can say that you can be born there. By the way, even though Pars (Persis in your case), was the native province of the Sasanians, not all of them were born there though. So for the sake of accuracy it should be removed (if i ever see a source which actually says that they were born there, then i will add it as their birthplace of course). It is also important to use that the term Persis is no longer used by historians in the Sasanian period, so Pars should be used instead, which is also much more accurate.

I am trying to avoid using the terms Persia and Persians, since it is very inaccurate. You can't really call the Sasanian Empire for Persia, since they called their country for Iran and many of their nobles were of non-Persian Iranian origin (Shahrbaraz, Farrukh Hormizd, Muta of Dailam, Hormuzan.. etc. Plus the term Persia is a more Western word, but is at the same time horrible inaccurate.

By the way, trust me, i am not really the right person to be a administrator, and i am not really interested in it either. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You are just the right person. You are motivated and polite. You do not edit war. You are accurate and use appropriate sources. You are passionate about historical facts. I mean that is what Wikipedia wants. It is my pleasure! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is no article about Molla Hossein Vaez Kashefi in the English Wikipedia, but he has a article in the Arabic [11] and Iranian Wikipedia [12]. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I smell a new page brother :D!! Wanna beat me to it? Feel free to change the pages any way you see fit. You additions are always welcomed! Dr. Persi (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sadly i can't read the Persian script, but it seems like that you can, right? if so, then it would be great if you created a article about him. It is your own choice, of course. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries brother. For sure. By the way I found another picture on the link you gave me about Vaez Kashefi. It is about the architecture of his monument. It is much nicer than his tomb (which apparently is only a few feet away from this). I am gonna use this instead of the picture we have now. Please change it back if you feel like it. I leave it to you but it seems this is more architectural and aesthetic. Dr. Persi (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and yeah sure, go ahead :). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khosh amadid again for your message :) Kathovo talk 08:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tomb of Ferdowsi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tus and Pillar

Persepolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oriental Institute

Society for the National Heritage of Iran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Artifact

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rebellion in 1941 does not change the fact that today, the Cyricllic script of the Tajik language is a standardized writing system for the Persian language in Central Asia. Tajikistan became independent in 1991 but has kept the Cyrillic script to this day (despite other former USSR republics changing their script to Latin, like Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan). Your own "rebellion" against the Cyrillic script is not only irrelevant but also unencyclopedic. It is not our duty to judge scripts, it's our job to present facts based on reliable sources. And it is a fact that Persian uses two different scripts: the Arabic script (which is without any question the older and "more original" one), and the Cyrillic script, which is more or a less a dierct transliteratrion of the Perso-Arabic script. Tajiks also use a modified Latin script, that's why the Tajik Wikipedia uses two writing systems: Latin and Cyrillic, but NOT Perso-Arabic! The Tajik spelling needs to stay in the article WITHOUT any POV judgement comments. It is a valid and equal writing system for Persian, and it is the only writing system for the Tajik language officially accepted in Tajikistan. As for the spelling methods of the EI2 and EIr: the EI2 is more important, because a) it uses the standardized method of the German Oriental Society without any modifications and b) because the EIr is based on the EI2 and not vice versa. Switching the sentences, as you did it, destroys the structure of the entire section and makes no sense. Nationalism should have no place in Wikipedia. --Lysozym (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what you do not seem to appreciate is that Ferdowsi is a celebrated Persian language poet. His work only existed in Persian. To try to skew this article to fit a particular view (n this case your view) is unfair. 100+ million only know him by his Persian name vs. 6 or 7 million (which I know for experience excludes my friends whom I talked to about your view points and disagree with but that is a different point). Anyhow. We have to come to a compromise. You have to give some and get some. You cant have it all your way, specially when there is concern for point of views.

Dr. Persi (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies that Ferdowsi was a Persian and that he wrote in Persian. Giving TRANSLITERATIONS of his name in other languages or writing systems does NOT CHANGE THAT. Whether you like it or not: since the mid. 20th century, the Cyrillic alphabet is a STANDARDIZED ALTERNATIVE writing system for Persian in Central Asia. Tajik-Persian literature written in Cyrillic exists since the late 1870 (that means: almost 150 years). For Persian-speakers in Central Asia, the Cyrillic alphabetis as relevant as the Arabic script or even more. It is absolutely natural to also mention the Cyrillic TRANSLITERATION of his name, WITHOUT judging it. It is not our job as neutral Wikipedia authors to judge scripts. Giving the Tajik spelling of Ferdowsi's name in Cyrillic script does not underminde his "Persianness". After all, Ferdowsi is a national poet of Tajikistan and is revered like a saint. --Lysozym (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you for your tone and your use of the bold effect. I am gonna stop arguing. We gotta live together no matter how silly it sounds. I see a path leading only to conflict. I want to see path that leads to cooperation. I have kept your original stuff but you have to also allow me to include my sourced material. Afterall neither of us is in ownership of the page. cheers.

Dr. Persi (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced Wikipedia editor you should know that the lead section of an article serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Where the body of the article has text that is cited to a reliable source or sources, the lead should not have text to the contrary. Your insertion of "and the only South-Western Iranian language" to the lead of the Persian language article at 22:29, 23 April 2014, with this edit did precisely that, it contradicted sourced text in the body of the article. If you disagree with the source cited in the Classification section of that article (and with the sources cited in the Western Iranian languages, Luri language, Kuhmareyi language, and Lari language articles) that establish modern Persian (New Persian) as one language within the southwestern branch of the Western Iranian languages, then the proper place to question those sources is on the talk page of the appropriate article, or in this case, since a fair number of articles would be affected, on the talk page of the main article with notice given on the talk page of each affected article. Since there was no such discussion, I have reverted you edit. If you wish to bring this forward, please do so first at either Talk:Persian language or Talk:Western Iranian languages, with appropriate notice. Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abolhassan Sadighi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2014 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]