Amir1

Please stop reverting my talk page and writing offensive material anywhere on the Wikipedia. Some of that stuff is already on Mani1's talk page, continue them there if you like, but stop the abuse. That includes calling me a "dictator". I am allowed to remove personal attacks according the Wikipedia policy, and you will get blocked if you continue the abuse. Feel free to follow the case with the Wikipedia managers, but it seems that I don't have anything to discuss with you. It means that I don't like to hear from you. My talk page is only for talking to me. If you wish to talk to other people, use their own talk page. roozbeh 13:40, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

As if I wrote on your page because I enjoy chatting with you!! I came here to English Wikipedia because over in the Persian Wikipedia you were reverting and deleting and blocking. I did not insult you unlike what you claim. Calling you "dictator" is a personal attack? So if due to your behavior I have felt that you are a dictator, how can I express this to you without it being labelled "a personal attack"? Another good example is Mani. I have watched the history of his work, and I can see how frustrated he must be, that you have basically kept an eye on him here in the English Wikipedia, and as soon as he has changed even one word in an article, you have immediately reverted back (often without even comments). So after so many cases, he has started to feel that you are "anti-Iranian" in your behavior. How can he communicate this to you without his communication being labelled "personal attack" by you? According to YOUR interpretation of this Wikipedia rule, one can subjectively decide that any sentence that is less than complimentary and flattery is a "personal attack". Amir 16:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Amir, I came across your complaint on Jimbo's page ang although I offer no opinion whatsoever on your dispute with roozbeh I do want to offer you some advice on how we do things around here. Firstly, everyone has a right to not talk to people if they don't want to. Lot's of people delete stuff from their own talk pages, so you can't really complain about that. Take roozbeh's hint that he doesn't want to speak to you, and stop posting stuff to his talk page. Secondly it's not true that we don't have a compliants procedure here. We do. However I don't know if we can deal with complaints about another wikipedia here on the english version. In fact I'd go as far as saying we can't. So my question to you is this. Has roozbeh abused his admin powers here - on this wikipedia? If so tell me the details and I will try to help you. (I can undelete any pages he's deleted for example) If not then only Jimbo can help, but he's had to evacuate his home recently in the wake of a hurricane so he may not be on wikipedia for a little while. theresa knott 17:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Theresa, thank you for your comments. As I mentioned above, I am not thrilled to chat with Roozbeh either, but then again, I haven't come over here for a warm and fuzzy confabulation with him, I have come here to hopefully settle an issue. You ask me whether he has abused his sysop power here or not. Well, I do not know if he has or hasn't, as I hardly ever use the English Wikipedia. I just came over here in the hopes to straighten him out. As for my note on Jimbo Wales page, I am sorry if this was extra-procedural (someone else already pointed that out to me). I simply went to the admins page, and as I was in a bit of outrage due to Roozbeh's behavior, I think it was natural reaction that I soon found and focused on Jimbo's name and authority. What bothers me most about Roozbeh is that he thinks he can subjectively decide what part of what people write in discussion areas is "personal attack" or "impoliteness" and edit them to his liking. I would not be surprised if he has done that here also, as it seems to be and uncontrollable and intrisic urge in this man to "correct" people. I find this practice to be uncivilized and unacceptable beyond any words can describe. When I revert back to my original posting, he reverts back to force his version of "my words!!!" and since he has full authority over there, he will soon block my IP. In other words, his attitude is "it will be my word or you are out of here". Is this the culture of Wikipedia? -Amir

OK let's see if I can sort some things out. Firstly, I need to try and work out who said what. Roozbeh's talk page has a large number of anon postings. Which of those are you? Also do you have another named account here? Secondly we do have a policy of removing personal attacks. As far as I can tell, Roozbeh was followinig that policy in good faith when he edited your comments. Having said that, I personally consider being called a dictator a critism, somewhat insulting, but not a personal attack and not "name calling". He obviously does though, so IMO you should deal with this by rephrasing rather than reverting. As for the persian wikipedia, I can't help because of language difficulties. Is he the only admin there? Because an appeal to another admin would be your best bet IMO. theresa knott 00:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I created this ID I went back and signed all my previous postings except on Jimbo's page which I will do that also right after this note. Mine are all sighed "Amir" (not Amir1 , but my ID is Amir1 because "Amir" was already taken). It is interesting that he calls people "terrorist/saboteur" and "pest/troll" but if someone tells him his practices are undemocratic he graces people's writing with his grammatically disasterous Persian (not to mention garbage load of Arabic words) and effectively tells people "I will choose your words for you since I have more power than you". As for the other admins over there, well, there are two of them and they are very carefully cherry-picked by Roozbeh -- it's kind of like Bush and the Iraqi Transitional Government. Amir

Yes but some IDs are reverting, and I can't tell if they are you or someone else. As for the other admins I doubt very much that they consider themselves his puppets. (And would probably consider your remarks above insulting).I still think another admin is your best bet. If you word your request well, appeal to their sense of what's right, tell them they are the only ones with the power to help you, then most people will find it difficult to refuse.

I have to say though that Roozbeh's behaviour here is not as you describe. He has edited out some remarks that he takes as personal attacks, but he has left the bulk of people's critisms about him on his talk page. I'm not saying he hasn't acted differently on the Persian Wikipedia (how would I know?), but here he hasn't done anything wrong. Perhaps things have just got out of hand over there? Arguments get heated, tempers lost people say and do things they shouldn't. Sometimes the best way forward is just to leave things alone until everyone calms down, and then approach the matter later, when the heat has gone. Anyway that's my advise. theresa knott 21:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK Theresa, thank you for caring and trying to help out. I think your suggestion of leaving things alone for a while till they cool down is a good one. I will give it a try. I feel that perhaps I should not have brought this problem over here to the English Wikipedia and I am sorry for the bother. Take care and have fun. -Amir 02:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put the 24-hour block on because it did appear the purpose of the Amir1 account was only to continue personal attacks on User:Roozbeh. Coming here for the purpose of furthering a dispute on another Wikipedia isn't quite identical, but it's close enough not to really matter. That is, it's a completely different purpose from anything to do with building an encyclopedia. You are of course entirely welcome to contribute on en:, but I strongly suggest you do your best to appear calm at all times, as well as being calm at all times - David Gerard 16:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

Your edits at Bahá'í Faith are completely inappropriate and unacceptable. Your point of view of someone else's religion does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please don't do it again. RickK 07:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

And who are you to determine what is appropriate and what is not? --Amir 07:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a sysop who will block you if you do it again. RickK 07:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I know you are a sysop ... DUH !! hehe you think being a sysop means you can determine what is "appropriate" ?!! you are obviously stupid. being sysop means that you have volunteered to help the project, not that you have been given the "right" to determine what is right and what is wrong. In fact, if you were not stupid, you would not talk to a contributor to wikipedia in a tone that would make him leave the project. do yourself and the project a favour and lose your badge. --Amir 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is the fact that I am a co-moderator of soc.religion.bahai in any way AT ALL relevent to the simple fact that _I_ scanned the image of the lotus temple on this page, that _I_ uploaded it, that _I_ know its an architects rendering?

Further, how is it that you think you can get away with POV comments like the one you inserted at the top? Nope. Not gonna happen. TALK TO ME about what you want to accomplish here. If what you want to accomplish is to attack the Baha'i Faith then MAKE SUBSTANTIATED EDITS. Rick Boatright 07:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This User has been blocked for 24 hours for anti-Bahai vandalism. RickK 07:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Have at it

The other sysops somehow feel that your biased edits about the Bahai Faith are appropriate, and they've unblocked you. I still think you're a bigot, but I won't deal with you any more. You seem to have free rein to do whatever you want, so have fun. RickK 21:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, the other sysops didn't say they agree with my edits, the majority were reasonable enough to admit that your block was not right. Also, I despise your calling me a bigot. If you disagree with the pagetop note I was putting in there, why don't you take a look at the long list of my other contributions to the bahai articles? Because of my contributions the articles have started to move out of their sorry state of being a religious promotional leaflet into something gradually resembling an encyclopedia article. Also, although I admit I should have not reacted to your threatening language the way I did, the logic of what I told you is correct. Adminship here is not a license to kill. --Amir 22:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your other edits were all bigotted to, Amir. PaulHammond 17:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

btw - I've mentioned this to you before, earlier in the week, on the Baha'i Faith comment page. What you characterise as an article in a "sorry state" that is (in your never even remotely humble opinion) nothing more than a "religious promotional leaflet" used, in fact, to be a Wikipedia featured article, and has actually been through something of a testing process of meeting standards to outside observation to get to that status. Your comments show contempt for the opinions of other editors, and other readers of that article who eventually voted to give it that status. In my opinion, your attempts to use Wikipedia to vent your personal frustration at the Baha'is have had a detrimental effect on the quality of that article. - PaulHammond 17:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Reorganising Bahai Faith Discussion Archives

I have proposed to reorganise the Bahai Faith Discussion Archives by topic into separate pages. This should make it easier to follow the discussions. Some of the current very long page could be archived this way too. Your feedback on the suggestion would be appreciated because you are an active contributor to the article. If it has general approval, I could do likewise with the extensive Baha'u'llah discussion archives too. --Occamy 10:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Siyah Chal, picture and caption

You got it wrong. If you look at the page history you will see that it was Geni who introduced the information onto the page and Raul who moved it into the caption. I tried to rearrange the two actively disputed versions (picture at bottom/top) instead of the wrong distinction (nopicture/picture at top), but failed miserably as I did not get the templates right. I explained this on the talk pages. So my edits have nothing whatsoever to do with that bit. I did raise the issue of teh origin of teh picture on teh talk pages, but I am not convinced enough about the origin to transfer it onto the article. Refdoc 11:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not ask anyone for sources. To be honest I did not even notice it in the article as I did not read it this time. I knew that this bit of information is floating around, but I did not see it in the article until you accused me of introducing misinformation. I was pre-occupied with the messed up template and Raul's version which had the picture twice on it. I do though agree, the matter needs sources. Refdoc 11:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahmad Kasravi

Amirjan, You are quoting Kasravi a lot and seem to know a lot about him. There is no wikipedia article on him. Could you start one? This is a serious suggestion. Refdoc 22:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you know, i actually thought about doing that, but then i realized it will take some effort to write a nice article to introduce him. he really deserves a lot of credit and respect. i will write an article about him, give me a few days. --Amir 18:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's interesting that you mention that. Kasvari's book "Bahaism" isn't available in english, but certainly enough summaries of his basic underlying intellectual position are available to expect that we can understand what he wrote. This is, after all the man who said of the great persian poet Hafiz, that his poetry was "an assortment of meaningless words and foolish prattle; in other words, a stream of muddled, incoherent nonsense." You'll note that our friend Amir has used similar language from Kasravi regarding Baha'u'llah. Kasravi's indictment of the Persian national poet Rumi are scarecly less saying: " If there is no good, no evil, and no salvation, according to Rumi, why should people educate their children, build societies, and harbor hope for the future?" and about Omar Khayyam he called him " a kharabati or a nihilist haunter of taverns, and a promoter of toperism and tavernerism."

He didn't like Baha'u'llah either. Big surprize. In general, as far as I can tell, he painted anything that smelled vaugely of sufi with a big black tarry brush. And no one anywhere will deny the sufi leanings of the Baha'i Faith.  :-) It's also no great surprize that after a life of insulting almost every beloved cultural figure in Iran, a gang of thugs finally killed him.

I too would like to see a wikipedia article on Kasravi. He is more than worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Rick Boatright 23:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how can you make such comments about kasravi if you haven't examined any of his works personally? he was amazingly accurate and honest in his works. that same kasravi pointed out the disingenuousness of edward browne in his scholarly works with regard to taking sides in the babi vs. bahai presentation of the facts and he criticized him for doing that. he criticized browne for having a pro-babi slant in his presentations. you have no clue who kasravi was. he also criticized shia islam even though he was born a shia. to this day, his books on shia are banned in islamic iran. he never attacked the bahais personally or on dishonest or hateful grounds.

to the shia claim which says muhammad asked for pen and paper in his death bed to write a will in which he was going to declare Ali to be his successor and he said in arabic "bring me pen and paper i want to write" he said, well, if muhammad was illiterate, how could he ask for pen and paper to write? the mullahs had responded "he wanted it so that he dictates his will and someone else writes it for him", kasravi had then pointed out that the exact sentence in arabic which you guys have been using for many centuries says "bring me pen and paper i want to write" not "bring pen and paper for someone else to write" (there would be a clear distinction in arabic between the two, just as in any other language) and kasravi then wrote: Muhammad was not Bahaullah to have such laughable arabic mistakes. even if he was illiterate, at least he could speak simple sentences correctly.

and unlike what you think, the thugs didn't kill him because he had criticized so many people and institutions and traditoins, he was killed by some islamic lunatics as a result of a Fatwa issued by the Shia cleriks because of his influence in the society, not the least of which was direct and untenable attack to the root of Shiism and bringing the whole thing under a big question mark.

that's the kasravi that we love. his assassination was a big loss for iran. --Amir 18:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree that his assasination was a huge loss for Iran. Only one of Kasravi's books is available in english On Islam and Shi'ism, which my local library has, and I have read through, although I have no idea how good the translation is. As to the gang of thugs, the beloved cultural figure I had in mind was Ali... since Kasravi rejects the entire basis for Shia. That would, generally, make you a less than popular figure in Iran. It's -worse- than attempting to prove that George Washington faked the election and bought his way into the presidency, or that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but was some sort of magician... because AMERICANS do not have a traiditon of killing people who attack our national heros and our religious figures. Moslems do. This is very sad. Freedom of speech is a good thing. Kasravi was an important figure in the Iranian enlightenment. Saddly, apparently, Iran still rejects the idea of being enlightened. This is, of course, a constant tension in American politics too, but once again, we have a distinct tradition against shooting breaking out over politics. I really ment it. It would be a REALLY GOOD THING if you wrote a Kasravi article. I would be happy to help with editing _without_ attempting to put a Baha'i bias on it at all. The wiki NEEDS an article on Kasravi, if only to take one more step against the gangs of thugs. (You _are_ using an alias here aren't you? ) Rick Boatright 23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving vs Deleting

The preferred way of dealing with bulky user talk pages is to archive it into subpages /subpage rather than deleting. Refdoc 17:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Turanian Society

Hi Amir, the current discussion on the name is largely doubled up with the - currently very short - entry on Turan itself. I do propose to keep the "origin of the name" explanation there. Have a look at my edit. Refdoc 10:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it is incorrect. Turan is not an ancient Persian/Iranian name for Turkistan. The mapping of Turan to "the Turks" was done either by Firdawsi or the raw material he used to compose his Shahnama, because at the time of Firdawsi various Turkic nomads were constantly attacking and raiding Khorasan. But the original (ancient) Iranian epic stories are much much older than Firdawsi's time. In the Iranian national epics, the wars of "Iran vs. Turan" is about the "good and evil" and even though they have an ostensibly external presentation, they are actually about the forces within us. So given the geopolitics of the time of the Shahnama, they decided to map the "Turanians" onto the Turks. But the name "Turan" is completely an Iranian name and it is named after Tur who was one of the three sons of King Fereydoun who divided his "worldwide" kingdom between his three sons. Also all the Turanian heros in the Shahnama (and in the original ancient epics) have names that are etymologically Iranian not Turkic. Nevertheless, the name Turan has no authentic Turkish origin. It is made in contrast to the name Iran. --Amir 10:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aye, I have no problem with this. Thing is only that now (for a few hudnred years) - since Ferdowsi - , that Turan is used to signify Turkestan. And quite commonly names/words develop their own life - even if their ethymology is quite contrary to the original use and meaning. So my suggestion remains - Accept that Turanian Society is called after Turan, signifying for the founders of the society the Turkish areas north east of Iran and then move on into the Turan article and explain in detail the ethymology and its current use. I have no problem with what you wrote. I just think articles flow better if there are no major doublettes and particularly if necessary explanation and dispute is kept onto one page rather than spread everywhere. A downside of the spreading onto every page is that pages often get co-opted by "parties" who jealously guard and revert war over them and after a while you will find two or more articles about the smae subject with different POV, instead of one who explains the lot, searching an NPOV. Refdoc 12:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS.: I have added some of what you wrote here to the Turanarticle. Incidentally that article describes quite nicely how the name made it into 19th century politics and racial/linguistic theories... Refdoc 12:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith page protection

While the Baha'i Faith page is protected, it is a good time for contributors to settle currently contentious issues through constructive and rational NPOV debate. So much time is wasted through edit wars yet--over the scale of months--they have little impact on the overall page. We should all use this time-out opportunity. Cheers. Occamy 12:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amir come back?

Hey where are you? I could use your npov help on the baha'i pages Wjhonson 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)