User talk:Fullstop

A few important notes: If you leave a comment here that is specific to an article, I will respond on the article's talk page. If a comment you leave is not specific to an article, I will respond here and not on some other talk page, unless you specifically request otherwise. On the other hand, if you are coming here to reply to a comment I left on your talk page, I'd prefer it if you replied on your talk page; I add users with whom I've started at least one conversation to my watchlist by default, so I'll notice when you reply. This way we can avoid having unnecessarily and confusingly halved conversations on both of our talk pages. Thanks for understanding and complying!

Reference: Jimmy Boyd article. As to which photos to post. Please post Jimmy Boyd Rosemary Clooney Frankie Laine Patti Page collage, Jimmy Boyd and Perry Como, and Jimmy Boyd in Spain 2007. Thank You ----

---

Thanks for helping, even though you totally screwed my editing when I was in the middle of it. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningview (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted most of the known fact from the article. for example "Bible's statement and refrences,Synonyms..etc". Why did you do that? --User:Shashiranjan18^{Talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)} [reply]

a) The synonyms are still there. Only this time they are in prose in the second paragraph. b) No reliable-source references have been removed. c) the stuff about the Bible etc is called WP:COATracking, i.e. inserting material that is not related to the subject at hand. Maga Brahmins are not the Magi, even if the names were to derive from a common origin. Whoever wrote that Bible stuff was making that connection himself. Drawing such connections is a form of original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps: the Upadhyay citation is incomplete. Do you know what book is being referred to? If so, could you fix it please?

(other discussion moved to article talk)

Hey please have a look and share your opinion on this matter: [1] -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the picture description of Image:Persia.jpg. I wrote that : "Apadana Hall, the battle of lion (sun) and bull (moon) or the symbol of the battle between Mithra and bull." and this is from the book : "Persia: An Archaeological Guide by Sylia A. Matheson." where did you found your description? Thank you. The Unknown 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matheson is obviously confusing the Mithra/Mihr of Persian mythology with another Mithra(s), very likely the Graeco-Roman Mithras of Mithraism, as suggested by the reference to the "symbol of the battle between Mithra and the bull". See also Tauroctony and Taurobolium. Matheson's equation of the bull with the moon is also indicative of her error: Only in Graeco-Roman Mithraic iconography are they the same: the day/sun/Mithras kills the night/moon/bull. In contrast, in Persian mythology, the two are connected in one legend, but they are certainly not the same (bull=Gavyokdat, moon=Mah). I'm sure you'll agree that its not very likely that Achaemenid-era Persian symbolism is referring to a typical icon of Graeco-Roman Mithras (instead of to a typically Persian story). -- Fullstop 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right, with the evidence you've shown. But 1 question remains. If the lion is a symbol of Ahriman, then how come it's one of the main Achaemenid symbols of Persia? You could see lions all over Persepolis and on the head of columns and I don' think Darius I the Great had any favor for Ahriman. Do you know anything about this too? Thanks again for the answer. The Unknown 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think thats necessarily contradictory. Even pictures of an "evil" lion like the one from Apadana Hall are visually distinguishable from "good" lion imagery elsewhere, which are clearly representations of power and virility. Such symbolism floats freely between the various divinities in the various cultures. It would not be unthinkable for an artist who sees something he likes produce a similar image for an altogether different god. So for instance, I've seen Ahriman depicted as a lion-headed male figure with a snake wrapped around him (I can't remember where though) which is also the imagery used for Roman Mithras and Zurvan. -- Fullstop 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment you might make at Talk:Mitra would likely be valuable, especially regarding its relationship to the Mithra article. RandomCritic 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that in the above article you had removed the interwiki to Persian Wikipedia [2]. Why did you do that? Bidabadi 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because its not true. cf: Irani. -- Fullstop 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that page in Persian wikipedia? It's about Parsis of India (Not about those Zoroastrians who have migrated to india in the last two centuries). Bidabadi 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the langs= line of the infobox. I have no idea why the fa: line vanished, it must have been an accident during cut/paste. It was not my intention to remove it. Sorry for the trouble. -- Fullstop 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please see Parsi for a slew of edits made by me today based on our discussions. I hope the article is in better shape now, and I've left a few pending questions or issues on the Talk page. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your comments on Parsi talk. All your suggestions and replies seem sound. Please just make changes directly to the article as you see fit. I'll watch the page, but am currently swamped in real life. Will be in touch about Lessing, etc., in due course. (Trying to finish writing a book in next two weeks.) Cheers, --Anthony Krupp 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start an article about the most sacred/great fires of Zoroastrianism, what do you think the best name for it would be? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it would be a good idea, for the beginning, to develop the existing subsection under Fire temple. If you want to only deal with the ancient "Adar xyz" (eg Adar Burzen-Mihr, Adar Farnbag, Adar Gusnasp etc) fire sites, how about "Adaran"?
• If you want to develop it into a general overview on the Zoroastrian cult use of fire (not restricted to the great fires, but all Zoroastrian use of fire), perhaps under the name "Atash" (Ataš), which is the name of Mary Boyce's article on Zoroastrian fire in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Or alternatively, simply "Zoroastrian fire".

-- Fullstop 10:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will take note of these. By the way, good job on the Zoroastrianism, we should try to put in-line references and citations and then try and boost it up to featured standard like Hinduism. Thanks, --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazdayasna

Thats fine. The "bug" I was mainly concerned with was getting the lede in formation with WP:LEDE, and to minimise or otherwise frame in context the DoF -which should probably go somewhere else to be honest. Its good to have an expert on the subject, as my expertise is limited to the form and writing part. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I created the Zurvanism page 18 months ago. Suddenly, in one day, it grew amazingly!

I just wanted to thank you for your work on this page! - Lawrence King 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea. Yezidism might be related to the ancient Zurvanism. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Rumi, I've posted a question no one has yet answered about a minor edit war. It concerns the terms dervish, darvish, Darwīsh and درویش. I was hoping you could drop by here and explain. Thanks! -Anthony Krupp 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, you must have the wrong guy. I know next to nothing about Islam. But from what I can tell from the edit history of that article, i.e. 8 instances of 'dervish' and 1 instance of 'darvish', and that only the one instance continues to be fiddled with, I'd guess that there must be some subtle difference between the two. My 2 cents. -- Fullstop 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings; if you have time and are inclined, please provide comments in the Outside Perspective section of this conduct-related RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 17:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came here, via the Parsi talk page - noticed that you might have access to photographs of the Udvada Atash-behram .. if you do obtain and post them here, please insert on the Udvada page too. Thanks a ton Sdsouza 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. and thanks for looking over the article and making corrections Sdsouza 12:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. There is a bit in this article that says..

"The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians."

This must be more of a legend than "history"? What do you think? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything to do with the life of Zoroaster is a matter of legend (is not historically documented). But the snippet you pasted above is particularly "unhistorical": a) Astyages the Median is 500 years after Hystaspes/Zoroaster b) What does a dragon have to do with anything historical? c) The Median name of the last king of the Medes was 'Ishtumegu' d) "Afghanistan" did not exist in 550 BCE.

Anyhow, in the story that I know, in the 67th year of the reign of Vishtasp, while the king was away in Sistan, a band of nomadic tribesmen under "Arjasp the Khyon" (Arejat-aspa) raided the country. During one of these incursions that a Turanian raider named Tur-Baratur killed the 77-year-old Zoroaster in Balkh.

cf: Jackson, A.V. Williams (1899). Zoroaster, the prophet of ancient Iran. New York: Columbia UP. pp. 130-131. citing Shahnameh 5.92

But to answer your question... I don't think the Shahnameh qualifies as "History". :-)

-- Fullstop 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fullstop, I agree with your recent change to the Meher Baba site categories. I don't know why some people are so determined to paint Meher Baba as Irani or Parsi. Perhaps they feel it is an embarassment that he was an Indian guru, which promotes some negative stereotypes about Indian gurus. Baba's father was an Irani, but migrated before his marriage. Baba's mother was born in Bombay. Baba was born in Pune. My great-grandfather was born in Germany. Does that make me German? My great grandparents on my mother's side were born in Latvia. Does that make me Latvian? Also Baba said his favorite country was India and his birth home and place of death were India. Anyway, this goes on and on being reverted to Parsi, but I agree with you that he is at most technically Irani and not Parsi, and definitely not Persian except perhaps in an ethnic way. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear clarification on the Meher Baba talk page. It is long overdue. I now understand from your comments that the word "Irani" (and Parsi for the earlier migration) denotes a religious community in India and not a 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' as I had misunderstood. Chris 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your move, I think he was known by his initials (and sometimes by his nickname Bobby) and almost never by his first name. Tintin (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. Tintin (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be missing something. What is it that you would you like me to respond to? (I'm aware of what you've noted above, but don't understand what you'd like me to do) -- Fullstop 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to be sure that you don't disagree with the move back to AFS. Tintin (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah. I understand now. Well, I do disagree. His being known by his initials does not preclude the article appearing under his proper name. Notwithstanding that A. F. S. Talyarkhan redirects to Ardeshir Talyarkhan, a) initials look like hell in a category, b) there are a heck of a lot of variations of "A. F. S." (with[out] spaces, with[out] periods) that a user can type when searching for a name. -- Fullstop 12:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the first rule followed is that 'the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing"', "even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time". So we have articles like H. G. Wells, W. G. Grace instead of Herbert Wells or William Grace. WP:NAMEPEOPLE#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names specifies that "For abbreviated names (if these are the most used) every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space", so it would be A. F. S. Talyarkhan. So a redirect pointing from Ardeshir to A. F. S. would be the more correct thing to do here. Tintin (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a nuisance again :) Shall I go ahead ? Tintin (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure. btw, is how a *radio* commentator *signed* his name important? Wouldn't it be better to use 'Bobby', the name he used to introduce himself over the air? -- Fullstop 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he called himself (I wasn't born when he last did commentary on radio) but in cricket literature, AFS is used some three or four times as frequently as Bobby. (While google is not a reliable source for such things, in a search for Talyarkhan and cricket the two names appear in approximately the same ratio.) Tintin (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you removed the cognates Yasna and Yajna which I had put up. They were the same thing. Please see this-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 12:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit comment, (and again above) you note that Yasna and Yajna are "the same". They are not. "Cognate" does imply equivalence, but a linguistic relationship, which in this case is a linguistic derivation from an Indo-Iranian word for "worship." It does not even remotely imply that the worship itself is the same, or has the same origin, or the same intent.

If you read what Wikipedia has to say about the term yasna, you might notice that the Zoroastrian *service* is named after a collection of *texts* of the same name. After having determined that the sense of the word 'Yasna' in the two religions is not the same, you could read the "main article" behind the information for the Yasna *service* (which at Yasna is only a stub), which might show you that the purpose of the two procedures is also entirely different.

-- Fullstop 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fullstop.. Thanks a lot for your kind words at my RFA. I feel humbled and will try to continue on Wikipedia in the same manner. Please do let me know if I can be of any assistance to you whatsoever... -- Lost^(talk) 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are known to be an expert on Zoroastrianism by many on here, perhaps you can help me. I found this page called Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, comparing and contrasting between the two faiths. The page was very biased, full of what I thought was Hindu nationalist POV. I edited it to conform to NPOV standards. I may be wrong in my judgment though. Could you please look at the page before any of my edits and then look at the page from my latest edit and tell me which is more accurate? Afghan Historian 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your work. Most of the false or doubtful information is not mine. However, I did put in that vedic religion initially didnt use idol worship. I got this from Will Duran'ts The Story of Civilization vol 1 - Our Oriental Heritage. He says Hinduism borrowed full idol worship from the Greeks via their influences on Buddhism in northwest India (Pakistan). Like you, I also had my doubts about om and "on", knowing that Om is somewhat unique to Hinduism. But, I wasnt too well read on Zoraostrianism to actually remove the sentence about the similiarity. Afghan Historian 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

little (if anything) about pre-historic Indo-Iranian religion is actually known, but given that no icons have ever been recovered from that period, it is indeed likely that idol worship was not a part of Indo-Iranian religious tradition.

However, the article in question is not on Indo-Iranian religion, or even Vedic religion in general but specifically Hinduism. Although I haven't read Durant, the hypothesis (as you present it) is valid only if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence (and not the Greeks) which of course occurred during Arsacid (in particular the Indo-Parthian) times. Not only is that period not pre-history, Zoroastrianism at this stage used idols/icons too (and had been doing so since at least the 4th century BCE).

Moreover, if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence through the Parthians and Indo-Parthians, then it might be worthwhile to remember that the Parthians were Zoroastrians too. Many "practices" that are today associated with Zoroastrianism are in fact Parthian-era developments, including Fire Temples, Towers of Silence, the Vendidad, etc. Sogdian Buddhism was indeed influenced by Parthian (hellenized) Zoroastrianism, for instance, Śakra was also known as Xwrmzt (probably pronounced Khwaramazd).

The Zoroastrian iconoclastic movement (and the subsequent decline of the temple cults) didn't gain the upper hand until about the 4th century CE, when the shrine cults were outlawed.

For an example of Zoroastrian shrine cults, see Aredvi Sura Anahita and Vahram and read the 'History and Development' section (and also description of Darb-e Mehr lower down) at Fire temple. -- Fullstop 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Moving to article talk, ok?

I read the new page. It sounds good. Thanks. I confirmed much of your information with some Pakistani Parsis that I met and know, and your correct 100% according to them. Afghan Historian 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Monotheism.3F and comment. Thank you --Rayis 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Parsis" seem to be much more common these days than "Parsees". I am facing a problem that cricket literature talks about "Parsee teams" that toured England in the 1880s while the team that took part in the Bombay Pentangular were "Parsis". What do you normally do in wikipedia when you face problem of two spellings ? Do you use either spelling based on the what the reference talk about, or do you use Parsi everywhere ? Tintin 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When writing from scratch I use -i form, but I don't rewrite the -ee form when I come across it. Unless of course, there both forms are being used in one and the same article, which I then - for consistency - change to the -i form. There is no loss of comfort for the reader since the terms link to one and the same article. I suppose your specific problem could be solved by somehow noting that Parsee is British colonial English for Parsi, or perhaps consistently using the -ee form in cricket articles since cricket is a British game. -- Fullstop 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was looking for an assurance that it is alright to use Parsee. I also added the note as you suggested. Tintin 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again bowled over by your vast knowledge of cricket history. -- Fullstop 14:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: the title seems a little ... odd. Shouldn't Parsee be singular? As in "Parsee ... team"? Or is "[The] Parsees" the name of that cricket team?

Thanks but almost everything in the article has come from the Vasant Raiji book. It has nothing to do with what I know :) The title does look odd. Let me check with the person who originally created the article. He probably took it from the Cricketarchive page Tintin 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Parsee cricket team in England in 1886. Tintin 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fullstop, this is the old Pashtun User: Afghan Historian here. I was wondering if you knew how to deactivate a wikipedia account? I ask because I need to know how to deactivate or get rid of mine. I'm leaving you see. Thanks. Afghan Historian 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fullstop. As you might know there is currently two Norouz articles, one at Norouz, the other about the Kurdish celebration of Newroz. I have reviewed the parts and I don't believe it's celebrated different enough to have its own article - it already is apparent in the current Norouz article about the Kurds in Turkey and their struggle. Recently, another article was started regarding how Mazandarani people celebrate Norouz, which was again the same thing. In order to stop this I suggested that we merge, please see the discussion at Talk:Norouz#Merge_2. --Rayis 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll soon comment about it on the talk page. In the mean while, if you think it is not appropriate to have the tag on, feel free to remove it. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan page. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the symbolism section, the "edit" links are in a weird place. Do you know how to fix them? The Behnam 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fundamental problem with the english wikipedia. Both the "[edit]" tag and the images are "floating" right (to use the CSS parlance) which leads to problems when images (or infoboxes and such) are not introduced in the text at precisely the "right" position in the text. What the "right" position is varies depending on the width of the browser's display area. Many other wikis avoid this problem by having the edit tag directly after the name of the section. -- Fullstop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that CAIS is not a reliable source. It is currently plaguing Iranian women. Absurd claims that Avestan culture had women rulers & the ilk are projected onto the page to a great extent. Should I feel free to take out these projections from the page, since most of them are from CAIS? It is really silly, the articles claim Amazon=Iranian=Avestan. Anyway the source isn't reliable so I'm thinking it is time for the hammer to fall. What do you say? The Behnam 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A statement that does fulfill these criteria should be removed.
2. "cais-soas.com" does not qualify as a legitimate or reliable source in any way whatsoever.
   However, many (most) of the articles on the site are actually "legitimate" insofar that these were all stolen from legitimate sources (often from the Encyclopedia Iranica). Indeed, stealing articles appears to be SSP's strategy to give his own tripe legitmacy.

-- Fullstop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Though it seems the improvements may meet opposition for some reason. The Behnam 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally telling it like it is. Also, about the Anahita temple, there is a discussion on the talk page here Parthian style. The Behnam 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain yourself from personal attacks and accusations as you did at Talk:Iranian women. This is a very inappropriate breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as WP:AGF. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. *gasp* hahahahahahahahaha. What grace! What irony! What wit! Sheer poetry! How do you do it? Does it take much practice? -- Fullstop 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement. I am not an Aramaic scholar, I was just trying to help in a small way. I think your chart was a nice addition. Where did you get the "Malik" pronunciation? In keeping with the other examples - it should be Malkah. (God is sometimes referred to in Aramaic as "Malka d'Alma" or King of the World.) I imagine that if the Aramaic word for king is prounouced "Malik" by some, then the same dialect would pronounce "dog" as "Kalib." My suggested pronunciation is basically from "Jewish Babylonian Aramaic," There are many other dialects and pronunciations - See, Aramaic for more. Good luck with your edits! Guedalia D'Montenegro

Quite right. malik was a mistake (its Arabic/Perso-Arabic), malka(h) is correct. I'm not sure about the -ah termination though. That would imply a long /a/ (ā), which in turn suggests a trailing aleph. Is that how it is written in Aramaic? -- Fullstop 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I wrote "Kalbah" using no standard transliteration form. Kalba(h) is spelled in aramaic with a concluding aleph. I'll have to leave the more grammatical issues for people who know more than I.Guedalia D'Montenegro 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Imperial Aramaic, "kalb" meant "dog", while "kalbā" (with an aleph) meant "the dog", and I think it might still be the same in Christian Syriac. However, in later Babylonian Aramaic, "kalbā" was used for both (except in phrases meaning "the dog of"). It certainly shouldn't be spelled with an h (even to mean "bitch", for which the word is "klavta"). I suppose the huzvarishn reflects the earlier usage. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Chariot. 82.14.73.161 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yea, I did a rewrite last night also, but for some reason Wikipedia wouldnt register all of my edits and I was forced to revert myself. Do you know why that happened?Hajji Piruz 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nope. But WP servers have been acting up the last few days. Its possible that the edit registered, but the changes weren't synced across the mirrors. -- Fullstop 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite. It looks good now. The Behnam 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do some investigating... I may have an idea here.--Isotope23 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I thought I could find a clear update date for the CAIS site, but the last update I see if from Feb '06, before the new text was posted on the wikipedia article. I was hoping to find an update date on CAIS later than the wikipedia article revision date, but with the previous version of the CAIS article, thus proving that the Wiki article pre-dates the CAIS article. If your articles are being posted externally with a copyright notice, probably your best bet is an email to the Wikimedia foundation informing them that CAIS is posting GDFL content from Wikipedia with no attribution to Wikipedia and a bogus copyright.--Isotope23 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, my article is from November 2006. See history for Aredvi Sura Anahita (also peer review date at Talk:Anahita). -- Fullstop 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the last update logged for CAIS at Internet Archive is from Feb 2006, which is before the version of the article you created. Basically it doesn't prove anything either way. It's unfortunate that IA didn't pick up the update when CAIS changed their version; if they did it would be very easy to sort this out.--Isotope23 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2006 is simply not possible. I didn't write it before November of that year, and the owner of the site didn't know that the article existed until March 2007 when I rubbed his nose in some really bad OR of his. (cf Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan) -- Fullstop 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article on the wayback machine is nothing like my WP article. He superceded his OR with my WP content. -- Fullstop 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/20060202101002/<append url here>

A user raised some questions about the tags applied in the "Christianity and Mithraism" section of the Mithraism article. I'm fine with the consolidation of tags, and it's really the better idea, but the user does not perceive the elements of 'recentism' and source synthesis within the article. I'm just letting you know, as you proposed these ideas, so you may have a better understanding on the influence of these elements on this section than I.--C.Logan 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted long section about Mitraism 22 August 2007 and made reference to "Jesus myth hypothesis" page without adding any of the deleted info there. Please consider putting the deleted content back to Wikipedia to one of those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.103 (talk) 04:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Nice utter vandalism of 'Mithraism and Christianity' section! The church is pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.25.68 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes the non-copyvio version after the recreation. It amazes me that You-Know-Who could actually steal a copyrighted work for his website and then "embellish" it with his own crap about Mithra. Such dishonesty! I don't know much about the topic but if I run into anything on it I'll see what I can also add to the article. Thanks again. The Behnam 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that modus-operandi is completely consistent with his obsession with/by Mithra. See Kuh-e Khwajeh, Suren Pahlav Clan, old Lion and Sun, ... ad nauseum. There is absolutely no evidence for an independent Iranian cult of Mithra. -- Fullstop 08:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why Mithra is the point of obsession? The Behnam 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven knows. I suspect he initially got the notion from parthia.com, which - as far as religion is concerned - is as unscientific as HeWhoShallNotBeNamed was. See edit history 'Arsacid dynasty' for links that are a "glorious" embellishment of the parthia.com stuff (for chuckles, see also this) -- Fullstop 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about deleting the history of these articles, as the current articles do not appear to be copyvios, and it would be complicated to dissect out the copyrighted versions from the page history. I don't have access to Herzfeld, so I can't check that reference. I suggest proposing your edits on the article talk pages or at WikiProject Iran, as I imagine you will get a more informed response from them than from me! DrKiernan 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure there's a copyvio. For the last two deletions: [3] I don't see either "bitterness" or "Ardeshir" on the CAIS page. [4] They could have copied from us rather than the other way around. It's an unclear case. I don't think there's any need for admin intervention, particularly now that the page history is complex, and you are re-writing the page apparently without opposition. If you disagree, I suggest you tag the page for deletion or ask another admin for their opinion, maybe one who is familiar with "Surena"/"ParthianShot". DrKiernan 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright, thanks for working to improve the 'pedia! DrKiernan 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent belief that you, as a nonmember, have the right to override the existing text of the project page, and act contrary to the existing rules of the project because you individually disagree with them, I believe that it is reasonable to withdraw from a project which ultimately is only collaborative insofar as it agrees with your existing preconceptions, even when those preconceptions disagree with the explicit text of the project itself. I believe I may now understand why the project has as little support as it apparently does. John Carter 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. -- Fullstop 10:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever bothered to read the scope section of the project page, you would, as that content has always been there. Thank you for basically definitively proving that you are making your own decisions not on the basis of what is in the best interests of wikipedia, or even in accord with the stated goals of the project, but your own interests. John Carter 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

golly, gee. Thanks for clarifying what is "in the best interests" of wikipedia. Thanks also for the demonstration that knowledge of a subject and involvement in a sphere is not a prerequisite for definining what is in "accord" with that subject/sphere. -- Fullstop 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you for demonstrating a complete and utter contempt for the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, including arbitrarily trying to determine what the scope of a group you aren't even a member of is. Like I said before, I now think I know why the Zoroastrianism project has as little input from anyone as it does. John Carter 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: [5] Category Zoroastrianism also applies, as the name Azerbaijan is believed to have its roots in Zoroastrianism.Hajji Piruz 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. the name 'Azerbaijan' does not have its roots in Zoroastrianism. 'Azerbaijan' means 'Land of Fire' because it is the land of fire.^{Azerbaijan was named after a person.}
2. even if the name 'Azerbaijan' were to have its "roots" in the religion (!), the cat:Zoroastrianism would not apply for the same reasons that Allahabad is not under cat:Islam. That is, its not relevant to the religion itself.

-- Fullstop 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this; Azerbaijan is obviously a Turkic deviation from previous incarnations of the name; Âdûrbâdegân was not named after a person; Medea Atropatene predates the Medean client ruler Atropates of Diadochoi age (Post-Achaemenid period) in Greek primary sources. The cities in this jurisdiction were sacred, in particular Ganzacas and the city of Shîz; It was also long believed that these areas constituted the birthplace of prophet Zardûsht, before it was posited that the banks of Amu-Darya/Oxus, probably along the fertile strip of Chorasmia was the most likely birthplace of this enigmatic character.

Therefore, you are only stating an opinion, which I do neither agree with nor consider in retrospect to Greek sources to comply with historicity. True that Atropates made himself independent from the Seleucid overlordship, however being extremely poorly documented, it is more likely that his name, modern cognate found in Âzarbân (Or "Guardian of the Fire") or Âzarbâd, was merely a profession besides being a lesser king; Ardashîr of the Sâsân clan himself was a priest, a hereditary praxis common among the Âzadân nobility engaged in religious matters. The Vâzarangîg clients of the Arsacids themselves were engaged in such practices; It was no unique Sassanian concept and probably finds roots as far as the Medean age.

Furthermore, according to the fragments of the Ardâ Vîrâz, you will also need to further justify your stance; Atropates is here referred to as "Marspendân" meaning "Keeper/Protector of the Sacred Faith". --The Persian Cataphract 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, in the lead, the article says that it the word derives from Old Persian. This surprised me - I expected Avestan or something like that. In many cases the supposed Old Persian words are unattested, after all. Anyway, I tried to look this up on Iranica but couldn't find an article on the subject. Do you know if the word is truly from Old Persian, and if so, is it unattested or attested? Thanks. The Behnam 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I suspect that it is unattested in Old Persian, but I don't really know. The Behnam 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is in dire need of a rewrite, but to answer your question: yes, "magu" (!) is attested in OP, for instance in the Behistun inscription (the "Magu Smerdis" etc, etc). I have no idea what that maguš in the first sentence of that article comes from. Incidentally, OP magu is unrelated to Gathic mag(h)avan. -- Fullstop 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fullstop! I've responded to your comments on Talk:Rattana Pestonji. Thanks for your attention. — WiseKwai 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for those kind remarks. I have generally provided sources for my edits by adding to the bibliography (for example, the Modi book is invaluable, but since I don't have it to hand I can't add page references). Perhaps I need to add "Middle Persian" in one or two places. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please see my questions to you in the Pazend talk page. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fars Province and Persian language. Is saying "Parsi" instead of "Farsi" really common enough to mention as a legitimate alternative? I can't recall ever seeing it in any serious source, much less frequently enough to be deemed an alternate name. What do you think? Legitimate, or just a mildly anti-Arab exaggeration of the prevalence of a 'pe' variant? The Behnam 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but from what I can see both articles use those words in an appropriate fashion, that is, in either a historical context, or within the nomenclature framework. As far as I can tell, neither article attempts to use the pre-arabic-script form in anything but a historical context. The second article should perhaps consistently use italics when using non-English language words (as it usually does and the first article does consistently), but thats a minor style issue, not one of content.

-- Fullstop 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just seeing how "Parsi" is an alternative name for the language such that it common enough to be worth mentioning. Most sources I run into (esp. online news) may use "Persian" or "Farsi," but I've yet to see "Parsi." The Behnam 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. I appear to have missed something. Which article is actually saying "Parsi" is presently used as alternative name for the language? (please quote so I can search) -- Fullstop 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Fars Province... "The native name of the Persian language is Fārsi or Pārsi" (in the lead). From Persian language... "(local names: فارسی [fɒːɾˈsiː] or پارسی [pɒːɾˈsiː]; see Nomenclature)" (right at the beginning). While it may be possible that somebody in Iran calls it "Parsi," it seems a tad misleading to present it as a common usage. I've never heard any source (or a Persian person, even) say "Parsi" in reference to the language. It would not be good for readers to leave thinking that they can refer to Persian language as "Parsi." The Behnam 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Perhaps you ought to put it into the right historical perspective then. It appears to be the work of some xenophobic hick. You might also wish to get User:Jonsafari's, User:Roozbeh's and User:Bobak's opinion on this. These are very savvy guys. -- Fullstop 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider passing the issue on to them, though I may just tag or remove the disputed alternate name in the meantime. The Behnam 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the driving argument behind lobbying "Parsi" for removal? The historical context is of great importance, and according to the available vocabulary of the Old Persian and the Middle Persian (Pahlavî-language, refer to the http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/[Concise Pahlavi Dictionary]), integral for tracing historical designations of this area. Ferdôwsî himself referred to the language as Pârsî, and his work is essentially based on the late Sassanian national epic. That the usage of this term also is increasing, due to higher national and cultural awareness and the fact that individuals are realizing that "Fars, Farsi" et al. are derived from Arabic conceptions... You may want to consider stepping aside, Behnam. Since neither of you seem to be fond of CAIS or Shapour Suren-Pahlav, may I remind that the likes of Hagop Kervorkian Prof. Ehsan Yarshater have argued for the usage of "Persian" in official circumstances?

By the way, Behnam. I'll have my eyes watching you. What do you mean by "It wouldn't be good for the readers to be thinking that they can refer to the Persian language as Parsi"? I think Farsi is illegitimate, and insulting to the Iranian intellect. Can you tell me when this term was coined, and if possible cross-reference this to Dekhoda's "Lôghatnâmêh"? Not that I'd expect you to comply, but please do woo my expectations. --The Persian Cataphract 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the bad redirect itself, Namaz (Zoroastrianism), and nominated it for speedy as an obsolete redirect to a redirect. Is that acceptable? I'm not sure if it will work, but I certainly think that 'Namaz' should redirect to Salah. Did you want to delete it, then recreate it as a redirect to Salah or something? The Behnam 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nah, thats fine. I missed that speedy. And yes, it should redirect to Salah. No, I wouldn't have recreated it. :) -- Fullstop 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: how did you know of my prod? Are you stalking me? :) -- Fullstop 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm stalking you because I want to harass you for being objective and using RS properly. I want cais-soas back! ;-) The Behnam 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way, José! Next you'll be wanting me to cite the copious publications of the "the most esteemed and gracious and valued and authoritative Professor C... P... of M... University." -- Fullstop 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fullstop, I added my input, I hope it is what you expected. I can mention the Sources for the histroy but I thought that someone should find English sources. --Maha Odeh 06:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. In Polish Mitra, Mithra and Mithras are described by one word - Mitra. Mithraism is linked to pl:Mitraizm from pl:Mitra not Mithra. The same is on italian Wiki - it:Mithraismo from it:Mitra. Similar situation is many other Wiki versions. Of course it is a little mess with this names, but i think that my interwiki was correct. Voytek s 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bivar does indeed claim on p. 30 of this latest work that: "In church iconography, there is a colourful representation of Gondophares in the stained glass of the cathedral of Troyes in central France."

I have tried to check this on the internet with no success so far. If you know how we might check this claim I would be very grateful.

However, I am glad you questioned me about the passage as it prodded me to reread the Acts of Thomas and there is no mention of Mary or the "twin" in them - only that Thomas (Gk. Diordios = "twin") refers to Jesus as his brother. I have, apparently, combined two stories I read some years ago and did not check them closely enough before I wrote the note. Therefore, I have toned down that passage. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I wrote to Bivar but never received a reply - so now I am not sure what to do about this. I am thinking of posting a query on the Lonely Planet website to see if anyone can check it out for me. Will let you know, of course, if and when I hear anything. Cheers, John Hill 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes I'm adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I've asked a WIkiProject Templates (it exists I know!) to help out I'm still awiating a reply. I'd love to have a dot map thing though, Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm, it appears OK on my computer... Regards PHG 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you and someone else were involved in a discussion about the scope of the Zoroastrianism project, and that neither of you are members of the project? How exactly do the two of you have authority to determine the scope of the project, as you both seem to believe you have. Mithraist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithraist (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. -- Fullstop 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing happens rarely. I struck out the warning and apologized to Bobisbob, he can delete it if he wants. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fullstop, We thank you for your contributions to the Freddie Mercury page. Your new Harvard reference system looks great. The Freddie Mercury page is also a great way to get rock fans out there acquainted with Zoroastrianism. I have already learned some news things about it myself.138.67.44.41 03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded for your many quality contributions to articles related to Zoroastrianism. Many thanks! The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded for skillfully opposing content sourced to unreliable websites. The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that is very nice of you. From someone of your caliber and with your defender skills, 'Defender of the Wiki' means a great deal. Many thanks. -- Fullstop 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fullstop!

I do not know in which culture you have been educated. Just I think it might be a good idea to take into consideration that clans of Karen and Suren are majorly known in Armenia and Georgia as Kâren-Pahlav and Suren-Pahlav. (C. Toumanoff also mentions the clan of karen as Kâren-Pahlav). A famous historian Shapour Suren-Pahlav as you may see in his name uses both names. The same concerns numnerous families in Caucasus. I belong to one of these families. My great grand fathers beared the name of Karen-Pahlavi, and not simply Karen.

That was the reason why I make my corrections to the corresponding articles.

Best regards,

Alexadnre Tch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Tch. (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "famous historian" Shapour Suren-Pahlav is User:ParthianShot. -- Fullstop 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit this guy might be a bad guy. How does it effect the ancient names? I just tell you facts that I khow about the right version of naming. -- Alexandre Tch. 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Karens are real, most of these other families were not ancient,... they took on old names to give themselves credibility. This is actually mentioned with citation in the Seven Parthian clans article.

I wrote the House of Karen article, so yes, I know that the Karens are real. :) And they are a rare instance of where this is so.

While I can sympathize with you with respect to your great-grandfather's name, its not a good idea to start using hyphenation just because one of the branchs of two families had merged. You need to remember that both Karen and Pahlav are names of feudal families. The ones that didn't merge are Karens and those that did are Karen-Pahlavs. "Karen" is more flexible and includes both.

-- Fullstop 12:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer! ""Karen" is more flexible and includes both"/ I agree. It just has to be clear. And these facts has to be precised respectively. Othervise we might have numerous articles with no links one to another. Like there had been with Surens.

As for the name of my ancestors, they derived from Mkhargrdzeli, Georgian/Armenian princes. At the same family coming from Karen-Pahlavides were also princes Kamsarakan, Arscharounik, Hetoumides and others. My Mkhargrdzeli ancestors started to live in Caucasus in the early 11th cetnury with Garbaniel Ist of Pahlavi, who is mentioned in both versions: Pahlavi and Karen-Pahlavi.

So I believe there should be some precisions made re. the fact that Karen-Pahlavi refer to Karen. You know Pahlavi itself is quite a common name (meaning Parhian in older times) and there is a lot of Pahlavi who have no relation to any of the 7 clans! -- Alexandre Tch. 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

оговорено и согласовано. :) you added the -Pahlavi thing to the Karen article, so its ok now, right?

>>Othervise we might have numerous articles with no links one to another

You can use redirects for synonyms or alternate spellings. Just use #REDIRECT [[name of article#subsection]]

This way you can also collect short related topics under one common term.

Because Karen-Pahlav is a branch, it should be mentioned. It should not however be confused with the main Karen trunk.

So... you can for example say "The Karenas (including the various branches such as the Karan-Vands and Karen-Pahlevis) claimed descent ...," but you can't say the Karens are the same as the branches. Do you understand what I mean?

-- Fullstop 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) I understand! I just doubt that Karen-Vands are not actually Kare-Pahlav-Vands (?!)/ You know my ancestros used soemtimes 10 and more names when they wanted to be maximum close to the fact... and sometimes they just said... Pahlav or Mhargrdzeli-Pahlav. -- Alexandre Tch. 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is normal. All feudal families were somehow related. It was simply good politics. Just like in Europe... Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp-Oldenburg-Romanovsky-Ilyinsky-Danmark-Norge-Battenberg-Nassau-Siegen-[etc etc etc ad nauseum].

-- Fullstop

On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Visperad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just had come across your username ‘fullstop’ and thinking of whether it is okay with WP:IU guideline (Just see under: ‘Detailed Examples’, 2nd subhead ‘Misleading usernames’). According to Wikipedia, fullstop is a delimiting piece of punctuation that represents the end of a sentence more or less ‘STOP’, ‘END’ or can be ultimate some times. Does this username (fullstop) sound like as if you are an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia?...it can also be defined as “The end of everything and the beginning of nothing”. But, in general, everyone think about the former one.--Avinesh Jose 09:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with your username, and as an admin I've removed the listing from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. To put it lightly, I offer a sentence: "Please carry on comma Fullstop full stop" :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I shall be reporting you to an administrator for your breach of Wikipedia:Civility in a recent edit to my talk page. I shall also be informing them of your uncooperative attitude on the Mithraic Mysteries page. Do not directly contact me again(except if you wish to discuss article content on an article talk page), as I have no wish to talk to you. Thanks. Fennessy 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fullstop. Unfortunately I don't. I got that picture from a friend in Bombay - it was a pretty small print to start out with, and the scanner wasn't that good. I'll try and see if I can track down a better one, but perhaps you might have more luck? -- Arvind 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed some changes. Otherwise your own suggestion would be welcomed. John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any further thoughts please keep in touch with the thread. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... out of the last part of this post of yours: [6] What an analogy!! --Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally violated 3RR today.

• 19:53, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (34,585 bytes) (Fennessey, write your *own* sentences and put them *next to* the existing statements. DO NOT BREAK/interrupt a coherent set of statements from one source!
• 15:59, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (34,567 bytes) (→Introduction - Indeed, "no explaination was given for altering this sentance. Changed it back." Particularly, since it adds nothing, but instead corrupts a coherent paragraph, as also noted inline
• 14:21, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (33,980 bytes) (undo part of blanket rv. The rv was also - contra WP:REVERT - not accompanied by an edit comment to justify it.
• 02:35, 26 November 2007 Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (33,974 bytes) (→Introduction - rv recent corruption and insertion of non-authoritative source; justification/rationale for either of which is *still* not forthcoming) (undo)

Sorry. There is a first time for everything I guess. Sincere apologies to all. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other comments to make on the talk page? John Smith's (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on Citing sources! I learn something new everyday! I will use the method you showed me, going forward!--Mike Searson 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's futurebird not firebird. Not a big deal but, it bugs me that it's wrong. futurebird 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about that. Mea maxima culpa. I've fixed it. -- Fullstop 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. futurebird 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just read your note and, I am sad to say, I have nothing definite to report. I received one reply on the Lonely Planet site which I will include here;

Troyes Cathedral - Representation of Gondphares

Posted: 24-Oct-2007 18:51 in response to: Wynhill in response to: Wynhill

Click to report abuse... Click to reply to this thread Print this Thread

John: I visited Troyes Cathedral recently. Anyone searching for the requested representation will face a couple of problems unless there exists an authoritative guide to location and meaning of the stained glass , such as exists at Chartres, for example, and I could not find such at Troyes. First, Troyes was built in the Gothic style over quite a long period (1208-1500) and is Rayonnant Gothic in style, which means that it is probably the most 'pierced' of all French Gothic cathedrals. That means that the interior effect is kaleidoscopic, with a multitude of windows ON ALL LEVELS, clerestory, triforium, aisle, front wall, and around the ambulatories, and many of these are not easily viewed from floor level in the nave. Special permission might therefore be needed to access and inspect all windows. Second, many of the windows are badly in need of cleaning: there is a build-up of dark scum on the outside surface which prevents sunlight from entering, and thus makes such windows unintelligible to a would-be interpreter. I must say that I had not previously heard of the window you mention: the most famous window in Troyes is undoubtedly the Jesse window, but that is certainly not what you are after.

Best of luck.

I have just been doing some more searching on Google and have come up with what may perhaps be the origin of this reference. On the site: http://bernard.of.clairvaux.en.dark-legion.org/ I have found the following text:

"In the Gospel of Matthew , Biblical magi arrive at the court of King Herod in Jerusalem and ask, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? We have observed the rising of his star, and we have come to pay him homage." (Compare to Numbers 24:17.) The word magi is traditionally translated as "wise men," although "astrologer" may be a more accurate translation. The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel . Daniel's magi interpret dreams and other portents. The book was well-known in ancient times for its prophecy concerning the messiah (Daniel 9:24-27), a man who will be sent by god to lead the Jewish people. Neither the names of the magi nor their number are specified in the Bible , but tradition tells us there were three: Balthassar, Melchior , and Caspar . Balthassar is a Greek version of the Babylonian name Belshazzar. This is the name of a king in Daniel. Melchior means “The king is my light” in Aramaic . Caspar is a Latinized version of Gondophares, a Parthian (i.e. Persian) name. The magi are sometimes called kings because of prophecies that kings will do homage to the messiah (Isaiah 60:3, Psalms 72:11)."

So, perhaps we have here a reference to a nativity scene at Troyes which shows the 3 magi, and one of them has been "identified" as Caspar and, from that, with Gondophares? I really don't know. Check out the wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_%28name%29, which says that: "Casper is a male's given name of Persian origin meaning "Master of the Treasure". It is one of the traditional names assigned by folklore to the anonymous Magi mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew account of the Nativity of Jesus."

Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi#Traditional_names_for_the_Three_Magi where it says:

"None of these names is obviously Persian or is generally agreed to carry any ascertainable meaning, although Caspar is also sometimes given as Gaspar, a variant of the Persian Jasper — "Master of the Treasure" — from which the name of the mineral jasper is derived. One candidate for the origin of the name Caspar appears in the Acts of Thomas as Gondophares (AD 21 – c.AD 47), i.e., Gudapharasa (from which 'Caspar' derives via the contrived corruption 'Gaspar'). This Gondophares declared independence from the Arsacids to become the first Indo-Parthian king and who was allegedly visited by Thomas the Apostle. Christian legend may have chosen Gondofarr simply because he was an eastern king living in the right time period.

In contrast, the Syrian Christians name the Magi Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas. These names have a far greater likelihood of being originally Persian, though that does not, of course, guarantee their authenticity. The first name Larvandad is a combination of Lar, which is in southern part of Iran, and vand or vandad which is a common suffix in Middle Persian meaning "related to" or "located in". Vand is also present in the names of such Iranian locations as Damavand, Nahavand, Alvand, and such names and titles as Varjavand and Vandidad. Alternatively, it might be a combination of Larvand meaning "the region of Lar" and Dad meaning "given by". The latter suffix can also be seen in such Iranian names as "Tirdad", "Mehrdad", "Bamdad" or such previously Iranian locations as "Bagdad" ("God Given") presently called Baghdad in Iraq. Thus the name simply means "born in", or "given by", Lar. The second name, Hormisdas, is a variation of the Persian name Hormoz which was Hormazd and Hormazda in Middle Persian. The name referred to the angel of the first day of each month whose name had been given by the supreme God (of Zoroastrianism) who, in Old Persian, was called "Ahuramazda" or "Ormazd". The third name, Gushnasaph, was a common name used in Old and Middle Persian. In Modern Persian, it is Gushnasp or Gushtasp. The name is a combination of Gushn meaning "full of manly qualities" or "full of desire or energy" for something and Asp, Modern Persian Asb, which means horse. Horses were of great importance for the Iranians and many Iranian names, including the presently used Lohrasp, Jamasp, Garshasp, and Gushtasp, contain the suffix. As a result, the second name might mean something like "as energetic and virile as a horse" or "full of desire for having horses". Alternatively, Gushn is also recorded to have meant "many". Thus the name might simply mean "the Owner of Many Horses".

Sorry to be so long-winded and also that I have nothing more definite to say. I am considering changing the wording in the article on Troyes to include Bivar's claim with a qualification that it seems likely that this is just a speculation based on the possible connection between the traditional names of one of the "magi" of the nativity story, "Caspar" or "Gushnasaph" with Gondophares. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for getting me to follow up on this again - it is an interesting mystery. Cheers, John Hill 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah. It was present in the text before it was removed by HolyMuslimWarrior here. I'd heard it before, so I re-added the statement with a sufficient citation. Why do you ask?--C.Logan 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the animosity, the lack of good faith, the weird comments, etc? I am puzzled. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your time. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know as I've ever run into you before here on Wikipedia, but I appreciate your comments over here. It's good to get some level-headed people in there to discuss the whole WP:NOR and its relation to images. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vendidad#Sixteen%20Lands%20Created%20by%20Ahura%20Mazda-

01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly visit this link- http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm

I just created and added this map of the sixteen lands described in the Fargard I. Could yopu please give a proper reasoning as to in which way it is not connected with the article? ---

01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Pahlavas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Pahlavas. Swarm Internationale (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. PLEASE delete it. Its rot, all I succeeded in doing was making it slightly less than utter rot. :) -- Fullstop 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to follow your "own" rule. Leaving comment on the opponent's talk page is faster way to get an answer. You erased the Kanji of the criminal's name intentionally. My reason is very simple. --Appletrees (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't erase the Kanji "intentionally." To assume so is bad faith. What I did do was remove the inappropriate interwikis, and in the process forgot to re-add the kanji.

Secondly, even if it was removed, you could have re-added it yourself.

Third, by using revert, you also removed other edits which had nothing to do with the kanji names.

Fourth, while reinstating my edits, I re-added the Kanji names, but you reverted anyway, meaning you again didn't bother to check the edit.

You are really very rude. If I ask you to write on your own page to avoid the back-and-forth, then, even if you don't agree, its not very courteous of you to respond with "I don't need to follow your own rule." -- Fullstop 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out about your absurd comment; "You're very rude."

Look who's talking? Did I say to you like 'fucking' as you did to me? Using the inappropriate slur is certainly "bad faith" How would I know you're going to put the kanji back? In the light of the previous edit summary, you implies the whole incidents are hoax. That's why I assume you 'intentionally' erased the interwiki info and kanji. If there isn't uncreated but important info on an article, sometimes, interwiki links are used instead. I've seen many examples of that case on the Japanese related articles.

Regarding your suggestion on the sticking one user page, I have to say like "I don't like the scarlet alarming color" and am very annoyed at seeing the notice bar whatever news my visitors bring.--Appletrees (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I didn't say "fu*ing," either to you or to any one else. It is not part of my vocabulary.

"How would I know you're going to put the kanji back?" You need to READ, not assume. If you had read, you would also see that I did not use the f* word.

Again, "In the light of the previous edit summary, you implies the whole incidents are hoax" you are assuming. I don't care if the contest really happened or it was just a big propaganda story in the Japanese papers. I see a problem. I fix it. I'm a wikifairy. In the contest article the problem was contradiction.

-- Fullstop 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you left the exact thought on the related talk page. How can you judge my valid revert as "rudeness" and "not valid" as justifying your usage of the 'fucking'? You're very uncivil. Your definition on the "contraction" is just your POV and your assumption. I only reflected the past edits by you and put the revision to the edit with their original name. Newspaper companies have to be discrete and honest on truth, but the Japanese company could produce it for mere an entertainment? That is your thought not from people. --Appletrees (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, where is the f* word? I didn't say it, so I don't have to "justify" it. Again, YOU ARE NOT READING! At least you should *READ*!
• Second, its "contradiction", not "contraction," and refers to
  • the {{contradict}} tag placed at the top of the article on July 1st
  • my resolution and removal of that tag on Dec. 4
  • and for which there is a discussion on talk.
  • To even *think* I have a "POV" (what you really mean is bias) or that that I am only "assuming" a contradiction can only be because YOU ARE NOT READING!
• Third, like I said before, I don't *care* if the Japanese newspapers instrumentalized the affair or not. I don't *care* if it really happened or not. I used the sources that were there. I am not Japanese or Chinese or Korean or whatever. I am not an apologist or a nationalist or have any other kind of agenda. I am a Wikipedian. I *READ* and dispassionately regurgitate what I read. I am very sorry if you cannot understand this or cannot respect the principles of Wikipedia.
• Fourth, you had *no* reason to revert, and you are still arguing with me instead of checking your facts. If you don't want to say sorry thats one thing, but at least *check* your facts!

-- Fullstop 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, You didn't say to me "fucking" but use "freaking" instead. I read your summary so quickly and that is my fault. However, it doesn't change my perception toward your edit. Freaking is so civil language? I don't think so. You ERASED the valid information regarding the criminal's original name. Non-English speakers adapt alphabet spellings from country to country if they translate or transliterate their native language into English. If the kanji are not given on the article, how do readers know which Japanese are "the criminals" That's why I made the VALID revert you edit. Besides, what is 'instrumentalized'? I can't understand what you're saying.--Appletrees (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Freakin'" is either used instead of "very", or when you are upset about something. It is not a bad word. For example: "I'm so freakin' tired" (== "very") or "My girlfriend talks too much on the freakin' telephone" (==upset).
• No, I didn't "erase" the "valid" information regarding the name. I forgot to re-add them after taking out the inappropriate interwikis (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Linking to Japanese Wikipedia)
• Anyway, so what? You could have just re-added it it yourself. Which would have been polite and saved everyone a lot of time.
• And, reverts are for vandalism etc (see WP:REVERT policy), not for reverting edits just because you don't like it. So, not valid.
• Secondly, I *did* re-add it myself. But you reverted anyway. No excuse because you did not read! So, again, not valid.
• "Instrumentalize" means to (mis)use something. For example, the way newspapers used a war story for propaganda effect. They "instrumentalize" horrors of war to show how "great" their soldiers are. Do you understand what I mean?

-- Fullstop 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. This is so wasting my time to hear your unreasonable complaint. So you keep denying to acknowledge your mistake as erasing the info first. If you had been cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history, you can't accuse me of reverting it without any reason. That is it. You can re-add your wordings without erasing the critical info. --Appletrees (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "unreasonable" complaint? What is my complaint? That you didn't read? That you violated every point in WP:REVERT#Do not twice?

No, I am not denying having made the mistake in the first place. I have already said this three times.

But you should have fixed it yourself! Improve articles! Don't destroy the work of others. And do not assume that other people are being destructive.

I should not have to be "cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history."

I should not be assuming that people are poor judges, because that would be bad faith in others.

I should be able to *expect* that people will *think* and *read* and work together to make Wikipedia a good place and a good resource.

I should not expect bad things. I should not expect editors to revert. Reverts are evil! They destroy goodwill.

If you have goodwill, then you should now fix the article yourself. Or at least say sorry!

-- Fullstop 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fullstop, please stop snark-baiting Jossi. I've very much appreciated what you had to say in the discussion, but the credibility of your words are diminished with the silliness. I completely understand how frustrating it can be in something like this -- and no this isn't my business -- but as a relative newcomer to this discussion the snark b/w you & Jossi seems really pointless. I don't mean to cause offense and, again, I've thought you made uncommon good sense with your substantive points. So I'd like it if we could maintain the high ground on those .... Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cause no offense at all. :) Point noted. But I will continue (though with a more judicious choice of words) to point out any attempts to change the subject. Its a symptom of denial, which is in turn a principle cause for the ring-a-roses. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One "judicious" approach that has worked for me (well, sometimes worked; sometimes there's just no hope at all) has been to say something like, "Okay, I hear that point; but my question is X" or "Okay, but that point is somewhat orthoganal to the original issue of X" etc. In other words to acknowledge their point but persistently return to my original point. I'm sure you've been down all this road before, if you've been on this page a while, anyway, but I'm working on my own peaceful-editing skills and trying to spread a little oil on the troubled NOR waters. I definitely share the frustration. --Lquilter (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

d'accord. I highly appreciate the feedback. But its going to be awfully hard to spread oil on the troubled NOR waters when one party is not saying anything; As far as the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crew goes, there are no troubles, leave alone troubled waters.

The "[what] you write above go against your own arguments" is just the sort of inane one-liner thats typical for the routine, that usually runs like this: User A say "foo"; user B says "no, not foo because..."; user C says "foo" and user A says "exactly."

When pressed for a reason, its one of three that are repeated ad-nauseum with no trace of logic a) "its been there since <some day in the remote past>"; b) its required (!) for notability; c) it's to prevent OR from primary sources. Well dang, how about preventing OR from all sources? How about explaining in NOTE why WP insists on academic recognition of a subject to keep people from writing about their pets? Nah, those are points IDIDNTHEARTHATs don't want to hear.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good summary. Thanks for you comments on this issue and the RFC and RFA issues, and your email comments. I'm trying to figure out how to approach these guys. I really think my credibility is damaged quite a bit at this point, since it's easy for those not familiar with the dispute to take Dreadstar's allegations in the RFC out of context, and I appreciate your comments so we can separate the issue of me from the issues of NOR. When all this first happened, I was pretty upset, but after a bit of time, I'm more concerned with how to make additional progress given my diminished credibility. There has been a fair amount of new blood entering the discussion, and at least now the Arbcom is aware of the issue. I'm hoping that everyone, including me, will be more careful about justifying every single edit or reversion, because it can come back to haunt you out of context. COGDEN 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I extend to you this olive branch, Fullstop? Yes, we are all frustrated a bit with this, but I am sure that it we can overcome the frustration by making proposals to move forward, rather than beating the same dead horse... Let's do that, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine! I'm shutting up already. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than saying this and that does not work, it would be much appreciated of you make some proposals that are actionable. Otherwise, these debates are purely theoretical (and get to become quite tedious) and do not moves us forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just FYI, I got home late last night and running late already this morning, so have yet to post a reply concerning the nutshell. If I get in at a decent hour I will try to look things over and respond. I have been thinking that chucking the “Other options” section might be a good idea, as it really is already covered in a roundabout way within V, but need time to write out an argument for doing so that makes sense. Brimba (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what?! you have a real life?! Oh, my! ;)

I don't see what 'other options' has to do with policy either.

The really simple reason why it does not belong in article policy is that its all about non-article thingies.

A less obvious reason is that policy is WP:NOT a directory (either).

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just added a recommendation to the NOR talk page for eliminating the “Other options” section. I combined both your reasoning and mine. It seems such a no-brainer; for that reason alone someone will be offended at the suggestion.

Yes, I do have a RL that interferes greatly with my WP endeavors. It’s a cruel universe, but I have learned to adapt a best as I can : ) Brimba (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm optimistic; "no-brainer" might not find that "reason" either. But I suppose we'll see the proof in the pudding soon enough.

Honest: Even though I've referred to the policy often enough, I don't remember ever having read that section before you pointed it out. I wonder why. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, it worked! :) Kudos. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: Is this still a current issue? [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The limit has been raised to 500, but I need to do some digging to determine what the status quo is now, or if a permanent solution has been come up with.

As far as {{Archive box}} and {{Archive box collapsible}} go, we should probably encourage (auto-archived) pages to use an index page if they have more than N archives. MiszaBot can deal with this already, the talk pages just need to be appropriately configured.

Alternatively, perhaps MiszaBot could be modified to update the archive list in archive boxes themselves.

Please give me a few days to ask around. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, I'll check back occasionally, or you can contact me if you figure s.th out. Regards, [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comment,

I'll look into it next week. Right now, I wonder if this article fails WP:NOTE by recycling an existing term to mean something new. And, even so, does it really need its own article? There is already a section under 'Divine language', and which has virtually the same content (and all the same problems) that this article has. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you think to propose that the article be deleted. I do not know if this would qualify for speedy deletion, I fear Dbachman would object. The point is this: I care very much about Wikipedia policies and recognize (as Dbachman seems not to) that there is something very wrong with this article. However, I do not know enough about the topic itself to know what the solution is. It is evident to me that you do. So if you care as much about the integrity of Wikipedia, I hope you will act - either by nominating this article for deletion, or by reorganizing it and at least partially rewriting it. I will back you up either way but given your knowledge I have to defer to your judgment and willingness to act. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help on Mandarin Mix-Up. It was very small when I started with it but Ive made it at least a little better. Im new here so all help is appreciated. Thanks again! KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to you too for improving the 'pedia! :) Happy editing. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened one up to gain further comments on the matter under dispute on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've split the talk at the relevant point so that reviewers can jump to it directly. Hope thats ok. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess you don't need to regurgitate what you've said already. :) John Smith's (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I've posted on the portal. Your help is much appreciated, especially since I'm a complete newbie. :-)--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! (in both senses ;-). Thanks to you too for improving the 'pedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've changed the common.css to now read

/* suppress missing interwiki image links where #ifexist cannot be used due to high number of requests */ /* use restricted to rail icon management pages */ /* see .hidden-redlink on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css */ .check-icon a.new {    display: none;     speak:none; } 

but I haven't changed the style to a more general one due to the past discussion on such a generally-available style option. If others support it being more general, however, I'll have no issue with the style being renamed to suit (ideally renamed to the same as meta uses). --AlisonW (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your question as posted at the Consensus talk page here, since I've been answering it for other people there and don't want to appear trollish at the talk page. I reverted Kim's addition because (a) I didn't think that the addition to an already too long page added enough to justify the bulk, and (2) I think that we need more stability in our policy pages. Throughout the day there have been discussions with varying opinions. I don't object to improving our policy pages, but lately there has been too much instability without a clear direction or consensus, not just here but in many places. Kim's recent involvement in this topic is a spill-over from a discussion at Policies and guidelines, where I have also objected to unilateral changes to policy without adequate discussion. I would be happy to talk to you further about my concerns. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] (note the date) That must be some spillover! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you refer to my editing as "destructive"? I demand an official apology. 213.112.137.133 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:STBotI#Error: invalid time. --Geniac (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fullstop, External links are convenient by the fact that without having read the entire Wikipedia entry, or without having gone through the list of references, one can see what other sources say about the subject matter of the entry. In this particular case, Encyclopaedia Iranica is not just another source, but often the most authoritative source. There is however one very specific reason which necessitates citing Encyclopaedia Iranica separately: as you may be aware, this encyclopaedia uses a very special font, which, if not present in one's fonts' file, gives rise to an almost unreadable text on one's screen. As you may have noticed, when citing Encyclopaedia Iranica, I also make an internal link to the Wikipedia entry concerning Encyclopaedia Iranica. Somewhere in this entry (the second link in External links), one reads about the above-mentioned special font. In short, just making a link to an entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica is simply not helpful or sufficient for a large group of people who may be even very learned but not familiar with the technical details of the way in which texts are constructed on their computer screens. If you consider the entry on Hazin Lahiji, you will notice that in this entry I explicitly inform the readers about the existence of the above-mentioned special font adopted by Encyclopaedia Iranica (see References herein). Perhaps this should be done everywhere where one cites Encyclopaedia Iranica, as many people may not get as far as noticing the above-mentioned second External link in the entry on this encyclopaedia. Kind regards, --BF 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fullstop, let us not prolong the discussion beyond what is reasonable. Therefore please do what you deem to be best for Wikipedia. To my best judgement, however, there is a fundamental difference between a reference cited from inside an article and a reference given as "further reading" or "external link". When one cites inside one's text, one refers to a specific point that is being employed in one's argument (the reference at issue is therefore cited in the direct vicinity of the location of one's corresponding argument) and the reader is told, implicitly, to consult the cited source or sources for details. On the other hand, sources in "further reading" and "external links" may treat the subject matter under discussion from a different or a wider perspective (which in general they do); these therefore solely help advance and/or deepen the knowledge of the reader — even in the absence of "further reading" and "external links" the (Wikipedia) entry is supposed to be complete and well-documented. From this perspective, I believe that a source can occur in the list of "References" as well as under "Further reading" and "External links". I would not have insisted on this viewpoint, were it not for the fact that entries of Encyclopaedia Iranica are almost unreadable for those who do not realise that files of this Encyclopaedia are typeset by a very unconventional font (please see my previous message). Now, you may argue that my viewpoint is in conflict with some Wikipedia guidelines (and you certainly do), to which I would respond by saying that these guidelines are in need of modification. Even if you disagree with this verdict, I hope that I have provided you with sufficient amount of information whereby you may judge my additions of yesterday not as whimsical but as consistent and systematic. With kind regards, --BF 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article a while back, but do not have some of the books. Only recently I was able to obtain an old print edition of Zartosht Nama. Feel free to help out.[[8]] --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]