User talk:Kamran the Great

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kamran the Great, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Color of Paradise. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Sharam has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. P Carn (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of JAG episodes has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Farsi or Persian?

Thanks for explaining your edit on "The Color of Paradise". I still disagree though, because I have heard more English speakers say "Farsi", and more Farsi speakers say "Persian". The way I see it, the issue is ultimately about the influence of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan. Most of my Iranian friends consider the Arab conquest of Persia, centuries ago, a negative incident, and so they try to ignore the fact that Arabic changed the culture and the language. They try to ignore the fact that the land of Pars became the land of Fars. That's what my point is, to not be selective about what incidents in history I remember and which I ignore, but to be honest with all history. I hope you have a beautiful day.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about Farsi or Persian language, but can you not write Persian, since that goes to a disambiguation page about the language, the ethnicity, the cat, and what not? At least could you write it with the pipe, so: Persian? --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how to hold a "conversation" here, so just giving this a go. GRuban; point taken, will do!

Have you had previous discussion somewhere regarding these numerous changes you're currently making (Farsi to Persian in multiple articles), or do you have an unimpeachable source that says the word "Farsi" isn't for use in English? I for one am sort of skeptical. I've heard "Farsi" used in plenty of English media. And my English dictionary on my computer certainly has the word "Farsi" (as "the modern Persian language that is the official language of Iran"). I just bring it up because if you happen to be mistaken, it's gonna be a lot of work for someone to clean up after you! AtticusX (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that "a lot of people" saying something doesn't make it "right." Still, that doesn't address the immovable fact that the word "Farsi" appears in multiple English dictionaries, which by almost any standard would be enough to demonstrate that "Farsi" has become a sanctioned part of the English language. By contrast, "deutsch," "français," "dansk," etc. do not appear in English dictionaries, so those would seem to be inaccurate comparisons.

Sorry to draw out this argument. I really don't have a stake in the outcome or any reason to argue with you other than curiosity and an interest in seeing the discussion through to a factual conclusion. I personally can't imagine how one would refute the authoritative judgement of the dictionary, but do you have a reliable source that explicitly supports your argument that Farsi is not an acceptable English word? If so, please do share it. Till then, I remain convinced that "Farsi" (though it originated as a foreign word) is now a legitimate word to be used in English sentences. AtticusX (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Farsi is a standard English word. There is an examination entitled "Farsi" in the UK, where "Persian" often refers to the wider language and culture, including Old Persian and scripts other than Arabic. Nevertheless, I agree that "Persian" is more appropriate in most articles. Dbfirs 09:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the difference in usage. AtticusX (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change "Farsi" to "Persian", or vice-versa, at least for the modern language. Both are acceptable terms for the chief language of modern Iran, and the main reason why editros change it is a personal political attachment to one term or the other. Since you aren't the only editor with political opinions about modern Iranian/Persian/Farsi/other-term-goes-here culture, the practical effect is just to churn the article, and for the article to be churned again when some other editor with the opposite political opinions decides to change every instance of the language's name in the other direction. Again, for Wikipedia's purposes, either term is acceptable for the modern language, so neither is "wrong", and neither one is the correct one in English. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice you have resumed doing this, although you have not responded to my comments here. Please don't. Mass changes like this can be very disruptive, and you can be blocked for undertaking them when you have been asked not to. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavia ... no matter what people might say, the English word for the language Iranians speak is Persian. As i have probably noted before, the usage of the word "farsi" in the English language is like somebody coming up to you asking if you speak "magyar". In English "magyar" is Hungarian, "al-arabiya" is Arabic, "deutsch" is German, "farsi" is Persian, "italiano" is Italian, "svenska" is Swedish, and so the list can go on. It's pretty simple, really, when you think of it. I've already posted this on your talk page (sorry!). Thanks,Kamran the Great (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Kamran, you know as well as I do that many people of Persian/Iranian/etc. descent have strong political and cultural opinions attached to one name or the other - but both names are used in English. I don't have any personal opinion at all on the political and cultural questions, but I do have an opinion on mass edits like this - they are disruptive, especially when some other editor with the opposite opinion comes along and just reverses all of them, repeating the disruption, as happens in this topic area. Again, continuing these edits could lead to you being restricted from editing, including by a block, regardless of whether you feel you are right to make the edits. I don't particularly want that to happen, but if you continue to make these edits it may happen - so please don't. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavia; without the slightest bit of prejudice, I'm just wondering why you think that you are right and I am not. Also, what, exactly, do you mean by "disruption"?Kamran the Great (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by "disruption" is that needless mass edits like yours can cause problems regardless of whether they are "right" or not - being right or wrong doesn't enter into it - and so continuing to make them can be disruptive; see Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing for more on this. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have said below, Farsi is a quite acceptable term for the Persian language. Both the OUP and the Collins dictionaries say so. As they are 22-carat reliable sources, I'm afraid the matter must rest there. You have failed to provide a single source that states that Farsi doesn't refer to the Persian language and continue to make your absurd comparison to magyar, deutsch etc. If you continue to make these changes you will probably be banned, so please stop. Ericoides (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Arab States of the Persian Gulf

I changed soft drink more than once because you kept changed a useful blue link into a dead red link. As well, in general, there is no need to change a link which is already redirected. As for Arabian Gulf, I don't know which particular page(s) you mean but I will note that some U.S. military photographs used on Wikipedia use "Arabian Gulf" in their original captions. Rmhermen (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur that the U.S. military does refer to the body of water to be the "Arabian Gulf" sans Persian Gulf. I noticed that you have gone through many articles, mostly U.S. military, and changed Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf. Johnnyleo11 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Gulf

I'm not really bothered as to what name is used. "Arabian Gulf" and "Persian Gulf" refer to the same place, two names one place. What I was trying to say is that as the section was about Arab countries I thought we should use "Arabian Gulf", however if the section were about Iran we should use "Persian Gulf". But to be honest I'm not too fussed as to which name should be used, I was just trying to be neutral as I know the name of the region is disputed. Therefore I'm willing to compromise with you, we shall refer to the region as the "Persian Gulf" on the article, however we shall refer to the organisation as the "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" (it's correct name) not the "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf" ("Persian" is not used in the organisation's name). Agree?
P.S. I really hate American English, I find it insulting haha IJA (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem mate, happy new year IJA (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Persian Gulf naming dispute. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Uirauna's talk page.
Message added 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Uirauna's talk page.
Message added 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Farsi is a valid description

You have reverted the detail the Mimi Khalvati writes in Farsi. She and her publishers describe the writing as Farsi, not Persian. I advise not trawling articles making this language change. Span (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Spanglej, Farsi is the "Persian" pronunciations of their language. In English, Persian is generally the name used, and endless historical documentation backs this up. If you don't know much about the subject, don't make such claims. The Scythian 20:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scythian, there's really no need to be rude. Kamran has been reverting 'Farsi' to 'Persian'. I am just saying that Khalvati uses the term 'farsi' of her own work, re the sources. It's in common enough usage. Are you suggesting this discussion should not happen? Span (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Span, you never responded to my comment on your talk page about this. i was about to make the assumption that you agree with me and was going to revert back to my edit. please have a look at your talk page and come back to me with your thoughts? if i don't hear back from you, is it to safe to assume my explanation has made sense?? Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Span, I am suggesting you are wasting everyone's time with this. Wasting people's time is rude. Now...Good Day! The Scythian 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Spanglej's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic Solidarity Games, you may be blocked from editing. Uirauna (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Uirauna's talk page.
Message added 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah Shahi

• "i fail to understand why you may have changed back my correction of "farsi" to the English word "Persian" in the entry Sarah Shahi. the article is written in the English language, and using a non-English word (i.e. "farsi") does not make sense. for example, if Sarah was fluent in French, would you say that she is fluent in "francais" ??? please change back, or explain .. Thanks"

Sir, I made the change because I deemed it to be the best option available. No one refers to the "Persian language" in 2011, or to speaking "Iranian". Most importantly, Pashto, Kurdish, Lurish, Baloch, Azeri and smaller communities of other languages are all spoken in present-day Iran. It would appear chauvinistic, in my humble opinion, under these circumstances, to refer to Farsi as "Persian", even if it is spoken by the largest number of people in Iran. The terminology used in the Iranian constitution is not binding on Wikipedia. For other language-related anomalies: the native languages of Wales and Ireland are often referred to as Cymraeg or Gaeilge as often as they are called "Welsh" or "Irish"; Austrians speak German, not Austrian; in the Philippines there are Tagalog, Cebuano, Visayan, etc., most certainly not the "Filipino language"; et al. There are no absolutes on Wikipedia, except avoidance of POV. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kamran The Great re Iranian-Azeri Separatist Controversy

Hello Kamran The Great. Would you please help to monitor the biography of Reza Moridi. Liberal MPP, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada? He is known to be Azeri-Iranian separatist. So far Moridi has not made any formal statement denying this. Below is the added section to his biography and has been removed once since this information added to his biography. Please use my talk page to write your comments. Starback, February 2nd, 2011

“==Iranian-Azeri Separatist Controversy==

Reza Moridi’s comments at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, has made some Iranian-Canadians to conclude that he is a pro-Republic of Azerbaijan, Azeri-Iranian separatist and admirer of Ja'far Pishevari. Pishevari was the founder and chairman of the socialist Azerbaijan People's Government (November 1945 – November 1946), created and supported by the people of Azerbaijan in north-western Iran.

Moridi's comments about the Azerbaijan flag raising day at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in June 2010, has caused the agitation and upset the Iranian-Canadians as well as the Iranian worldwide. Specially, when at the end of his speech Moridi stated “All Hail Republic of Azerbaijan”. Since making this statement and comments in June 2010, Moridi has not issued any formal statement denying any of these accusations or his relations to the pan-Turkic and Azeri-Iranian separatist movement. ” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starback (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

References

your moving of pages

Hi Kamran. Would you please pay attention to how you move articles? I have no problems with your moves but the correct titles should not be moved without discussions. Please use request a move template. Cheers.Xashaiar (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Xashaiar; I was under the impression that is only required of unregistered users. I am not a frequent "mover" of articles, but your comment is duly noted. Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Farsi vs. Persian

You have changed speaking "Farsi" to "Persian" in the Rosie Malek-Yonan article. Please refrain from making this change unless you can first show a reliable source or reference that this change can be made. According to the dictionary, "Farsi is the modern Persian language that is the official language of Iran". My comment here has also been posted on the Malek-Yonan talk page. Zayya (talk)

Yes, it's very annoying, please stop. There are much bigger fish to fry. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives, 'Farsi: Persian language.' It's nothing like using 'deutsch' to refer to the German language or francais to refer to the French language. Farsi is a word in the English language, unlike the other two, as the Oxford dictionary illustrates. I've reverted all of the pages where you give this erroneous comparison as a justification. Regards, Ericoides (talk)

Clearly, you need to get a life. Even assuming (not accepting for a momemnt) that your argument is valid, that does not make "Persian" wrong ... so why you have spent so much of your life changing that is beyind me. Kamran the Great (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As is obvious from this page, many editors disagree with your decision to make a change that is not based on anything but your personal taste (someone asked for a reference to your claim that Farsi does not refer to a language in the English language, but you have so far not supplied one). I'm not saing 'Persian' is wrong; I'm saying 'Farsi' is quite acceptable in English (see the Oxford Dictionary, cited above; or Collins English Dictionary, if you prefer: 'Farsi: the Indo-European language of Modern Iran'). If something is acceptable, changing it makes no sense and is disruptive. Your reasoning -- comparing the word 'Farsi' to 'deutsch' or 'francais', which are not used in English, except in informal contexts -- is therefore clearly fallacious. You would help your case by refraining from ad hominen arguments. And I am glad that 'so much of my life' consists of much more than the six minutes it took me to revert your changes. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Using "Farsi" in English is wrong. Correct form is Persian. Read this article. Regards.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So which is more reliable when it comes to correct usage of the English language? The Oxford English Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Cassell's English Dictionary, Websters English Dictionary etc etc on the one hand; or your Iranian website, on the other? And which are the reliable sources? Please let us know why all the standard English-language dictionaries have got the matter so wrong... Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

re: ACA disambiguation

Hi Kamran TG.

This message is about the ACA disambiguation page.

These disambiguation pages can be a source of confusion sometimes. They exist to help readers find existing articles. That is the basis for my removing the text. Since we're trying to help readers find articles that exist we do so by only keeping entries that point to an existing article that shares a potentially ambiguous name or an entry that points to an article that has content that relates to the (dab page name) but doesn't necessarily have an article of it's own.

So, for example, most articles that share the ACA acronym are valid entries. Another good example of a valid entry on that page would be Air Canada. It doesn't match the ACA acronym, but it serves the purpose of helping people find ambiguous terms within this large encyclopediaa because "ACA" is found on the Air Canada page. If ACA were not found on the Air Canada page we would not need an entry for it at ACA.

So if there isn't an article that matches the disambiguation page name, or if the term isn't mentioned on any existing article, the entry should not be created.

I searched for the entry that you had created (Australasian Corrosion Association), but I did not see that term listed on any article in Wikipedia and this is why I removed it. Any entry that does not need disambiguation only makes the page a little bit less efficient for those using the pages as they're intended.

Hope this helps. Dawnseeker2000 04:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

As you continue to make disruptive changes of Farsi to Persian I have made a comment here at ANI. Ericoides (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Hi Kamran, welcome back. Having been unblocked a few days and you are again correcting editors on the correct usage of terminology on which there is not consensus. Please be very careful about falling into old patterns. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We do not rely on perceived personal 'expertise' but solely on verifiable sources and discussion. It is not advisable to impose your view, especially after a long term block. Also, please be clear that if an editor challenges your perspective, in no way does this come under the heading of vandalism, as you suggest. Vandalism is not a conflict of good faith opinion. Please review the ways that we work towards consensus. Go gently. Span (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you, Span, for your message. The example you refer to and what my account was blocked for last time are very different. The name for a geographic region isn't one where a consensus is needed. The Persian Gulf in particular ... i'm sure you are aware of UN directives regarding the correct usage. Allow me to elaborate by way of an example : imagine the Americans waking up one day and deciding "let's call it the Gulf of the USA instead of the Gulf of Mexico" and then proceeding to edit Wikipedia pages based on that. If then you, Span, as a contributor/editor of Wikipedia corrected such vandalism, could you be accused of "imposing your view". I admit not to have (even yet) studied Wikipedia's proper definition of vandalism and you may be correct in that regard; however I'm sure you will agree that changing the correct internationally-recognized name of a geographic feature to an incorrect non-UN-recognized politically-charged one is not exactly "a conflict of good faith opinion". Span, I am not falling into old habits, but as you may have done some reading on this particular issue, you know the motivation and reasoning behind this particular editing of mine. I would appreciate your gentle reminder, and would like to ask you to carry on with the discussion (here or in private) if you are keen. On a slightly different note, you seem like an experienced Wikipedian, may i trouble you with some tutoring on how to initiate discussions on a Wikipedia page's talk page and how to alert interested readers to participate in a discussion? I will take your advise and "go gently" but not stop altogether :) Yours, Kamran Kamran the Great (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Arabian Gulf

Hi Kamran, every one know that "The Persian Gulf" is not the correct name. There is a dispute between Arabs and Persians about the name of the Gulf. Turkish call it for Basra Gulf. We Arabs have a lot of maps that the Gulf alwas was named Arab Gulf. --Uishaki (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Old French map dating back to 1667 confirms the fact of Persian Gulf naming Sein Arabique who is the correct.

• See here

[1]

An old Ottoman map in Arabic, calling the Gulf for Gulf of Ajam.--Uishaki (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[2]

It is you who do disruptive changes. --Uishaki (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the English Language Wikipedia, Persian Gulf is historically and currently correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I added this material to Mutaib bin Abdul Aziz, I feel an obligation to write about it. It was not my invention. It was "Arabian Gulf" where I took it. Then, please convert it to its original term. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arabs obviously love to call it Arab Gulf because they are Arab. Me personally thinks it should be Persian Gulf. Even the Americans and other countries call it Persian Gulf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do next?

1. State your case (politely, avoiding accusations) at the relevant thread at WP:DRN.
2. Wait until the discussion there is closed before editing the articles.

Zero^talk 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Egeymi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI2

Hello, Kamran the Great. You have new messages at Egeymi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Dammam–Riyadh Line revert

Dear Kamran,

You were 100% correct in your revert. The Persian Gulf is the world accepted term. But on the west side of the Gulf it is non universally accepted. So if the editor is from that side of the Gulf or related to people from that side, it was probably not vandalism. They actually call it the Arabian Gulf. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignore above message. Saw your page all ready has discussed this issue. --Jackehammond (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC) .

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Farsi help needed

Hello Kamran the Great, I'm contacting you because we need some Farsi translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on fa.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Farsi Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pat; Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I will not be able to be of much assistance, though, due to a number of reasons, one being that my computer does not have Persian fonts/software, and I - while fluent in Persian - do not know Persian typing! On a slightly different note (and you may have seen discussions about this on my talk page), if you needed help with French, would you title your message "Français help needed"? or would you say (in English) : "French help needed"? What I'm trying to say is that there is an English word for the Persian word "farsi", just as there is an English word for the French word "français". I'm sure I do not need to elaborate further. Thanks again, and good luck with the Visual Editor :-) Have a nice day. Kamran the Great (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the reply. On the Persian/Farsi thing, I guess I chose Farsi because the few Persian friends I have here in Vancouver usually say Farsi when asked what language they speak. I figured if I was talking to a native speaker I would use the form they used. I probably would do the same for a French speaker as well. Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to help, Pat. Although I'm not able to help on a project scale, please feel free to contact me if you have any specific questions I may be able to assist with. Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, I might send a message your way if there is a post on fa.wiki that I can't make sense of. Thanks, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do :-) Kamran the Great (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited March 20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not change the American University of Sharjah Page

rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;"	Please do not change the American University of Sharjah Page
Please do not change info on American University of Sharjah page concerning its establishment and development of the Persian Gulf region as the university itself has stated that it wants to develop the region of the Gulf Cooperation Council or GCC region. Thank You Mgaria (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mgaria... thanks for your message. I have to disagree, as the GCC is not a region, per se. The GCC is an organization, it's an institution, it's a legal entity. The Persian Gulf, however, is a region with an internationally-recognized name which needs to be used properly. What the university itself "wants", I'm afraid, is irrelevant.

I am not changing it back, but will await your response, as we do not want to start an edit war on Christmas, do we now!?? Have a great Xmas. Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kamran the Great

The Gulf Cooperation Council is not only an economic bloc but is also recognized as a region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council

Alternatively “Arabian Gulf” can be used as an alternative as Persian Gulf is not an acceptable use in most of GCC countries, especially in UAE -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute But GCC is preferred as a non-controversial regional designation.

Thank you (Mgaria (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

Hello again, Mgaria;

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on your comment that "“arabian gulf” can be used as an alternative". going back to my original comment : what the UAE, or the GCC, or any other entity for that matter likes or dislikes is completely irrelevant. I'd use stronger language if it weren't inappropriate, but "Persian Gulf is not an acceptable use in most of GCC countries, especially in UAE" ??? ummmmm ... so??? it is completely irrelevant (COMPLETELY) what "most of GCC countries, especially in UAE" think or wish... I cannot stress this enough. for more on this, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute. allow me to try and make my point by way of an example : say the Vietnamese woke up one morning and said "you know what? let's change the name of the Gulf of Thailand to the Gulf of Vietnam (just for the keck of it)". would you, Mgaria, then expect the rest of the world to follow suit? would you, Mgaria, then go ahead and change references in Wikipedia? just because the Vietnamese have so?? I'd really like to hear your opinion on the last bit. Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

plz help us

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of state visits to Iran#improve. Thanks. Shahin (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuwait

I reverted your edit to Kuwait. The footnote explains why "Gulf" is preferred to "Persian Gulf" by pointing to Persian Gulf naming dispute (an article that - I see from above - you have a history with). I sense that you understand that this contentious. Geographical features do indeed have names, but in this case the name is disputed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Kamran - I've had a little time to look at this more closely and I have some concerns, so I've asked for help on WP:ANI and so am putting the template below. I hope the conversation there is constructive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Kamran - my ANI issue is closed. You're free to continue to hunt for occurrences of "Arabian Gulf" and change them to "Persian Gulf". But, please, respect the opinions of others. The edit you did to Kuwait was unnecessary. You will see the opinion that I wrote on ANI but my opinion is neither here nor there. There is a fine line between having a niche interest and being an WP:SPA I hope you agree that we should both be aiming to make a better Encyclopaedia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf

I've started a discussion to try and resolve the dispute over the use of Gulf over Persian Gulf on Culture of Kuwait. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Culture of Kuwait#Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf. Thank you. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours -- the only person I see vandalizing pages is you, by changing or modifying the name "Persian Gulf" in articles. Those IP addresses were correcting your disruptive edits. Consider this a fair warning; the next such incident may result in this account being blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Amatulic. I'm not changing or modifying... merely correcting. Feel free to respond if you have more to add. Kamran the Great (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding "[sic]" to a name is not "correcting". Those edits are disruptive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So if you were reading a Wikipedia page saying that, say, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened in the "American Gulf", went in to correct it and found that the reference actually does say "American Gulf", would you not add [sic] to it ??? Something tells me you would. Kamran the Great (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC) PS. great user page!

Except unlike your genuonely made up American Gulf, Arabian is widely used inthe press, by the US military, regional organisations and numerous academic publications publications as evidenced by your endless addititionsof sic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.218.147.99 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"Contrary to popular belief, the plural of anecdote is not fact". Kamran the Great (talk)

The phrase is "the plural of anecdote is not data" which means something rather different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.218.147.99 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, for which you have been warned repeatedly, over a matter of several years. As you know, you were previously indefinitely blocked, but then unblocked on the basis of an undertaking to interact better and discuss issues, but you have not done so, but have persisted in stubbornly trying to force through your own preferred changes no matter what anyone else has said. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request 1

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kamran the Great (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is outrageous! JamesBWatson cites "persistent disruptive editing" when all I have been doing is to undo instances of persistent and disruptive reverts of my edits, none of which have been disruptive. The worst aspect of this block is that said JBW has not even given me the courtesy of discussing his grand plan, and gone ahead, apparently, on the basis of some vague claim of "disruptive editing" by no other than a faceless IP address. JBW; I have not been trying to force "my own preferred changes"; if you make such a claim, please elaborate. IF you are referring to the Persian Gulf naming dispute, that is not MY preference. Read up, and then let's discuss. Kamran the Great (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Admitting to edit warring in your unblock request while insisting you were right to do it is not going to get you unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kamran the Great (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Boing! said Zebedee; I am not admitting to edit warring, however ... I have had this sockpuppet on my back for about a month now... and when I asked administrators what you do do with an IP address sockpuppet, I was advised to "just undo and move on". Out of interest, what DO you do with a sockpuppet who doesn't give up? and ... how did I end up getting blocked when it was MY edits under attack? Also, how is it that other administrators saw my reasoning and complied (repeatedly, so) by blocking the IP addresses suspected of sockpuppetry, and then all of a sudden (apparently, as a result of a sockpuppet IP address claim) I'm the one who gets blocked? Should this not have been discussed with me? and I mean by someone other than a faceless Wikipedia vandal who hides behind an IP address. And finally, Boing! said Zebedee, and I say this in absolute seriousness : you say "while insisting you were right to do it" ... would I have done it if I didn't think I was right? In the same vein; most people, many of them Wikipedia administrators (judging by compliance with my sockpuppet block requests) also think I am right. I'm not being cheeky ... this is just my style of arguing my point ... it's a disease! And finally... to defend my edits, I will first need to be advised what I am being charged with. I am at a loss to understand why fixing vandalism of Wikipedia pages is "persistent disruptive editing" as JamesBWatson suggests. Again, I'm open to discussion. Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is nothing "right" about adding [sic] tags to every instance you find of "Arabian Gulf," especially a book title. That's the kind of tendentious crap that falls clearly under WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Your statement that "all I have been doing is to undo instances of persistent and disruptive reverts of my edits" is pretty much a definition of edit warring. And you are not supposed to engage in edit warring even if you are right, as it explains at WP:EW - "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense". You made the disputed additions (adding "[sic]"), someone else later removed them, and you are then supposed to seek a consensus and not just revert right back again - the onus to seek a consensus is on the editor wanting to include the disputed content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee ... your explanation makes perfect sense. Yes, I am aware of the definition, and of course that is what it looks like at face value. However ... how DO you seek consensus with an IP address? I am not just defending my actions ... it's a serious question. They "guy" (i'm assuming) is no more than an address. So ... what do I do ... I certainly do not want the same to happen again (if, and) when my account is unblocked !! Your help is appreciated. Kamran the Great (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know where WP:Consensus is and to read it for yourself. And a consensus is not with any specific editor, it is with the community. If you get a consensus of editors supporting your changes you can make them, and if you don't you can't. You really should know this by now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I cannot say that I know the contents of WP:Consensus by heart, I will say that the same issue had been raised previously with other users and administrators, and that a consensus was reached on more than one occasion (quite pleased with myself here, dodging the need to use the word 'consensuses', if i may say so myself!). I have no intention of dragging this conversation on needlessly, wasting your time, Boing! said Zebedee and my own : I would like - obviously - to be unblocked. I can see how my edits over the past couple of weeks may constitute edit warring. Henceforth, I will be opening dialogues on respective talk pages when the need arises. I hope this will be sufficient commitment on my behalf to unblock my account. Blockedly yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there anything you would like to edit on Wikipedia other than related to the Persian Gulf naming dispute? If carrying on that battle is all you intend to do, I wouldn't be at all surprised if no admin is willing to unblock you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is... i'm not an SPA, if that's what you mean; admittedly the number of my "other" edits pales in comparison. And to address your concern, I wouldn't call it a battle, but i DO like righting wrongs, particularly those that I have an interest in ... do you not? So, answering your latest in a nutshell : yes and no. I had not considered opening a dialogue on talk pages of articles for discussion of potential edit wars ... i can see that would invite not only the other warring party - even if they are no more than an IP address, but other Wikipedians as well. Such a discussion, including others, could then lead to a consensus. Yeah... that makes sense to me. Regards, Kamran the Great (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You should stop referring to IP editors in demeaning terms - unregistered editors are welcomed and valued just as much as registered ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. It's just that I have recently been given lots of grief by said editors. Kamran the Great (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

and maybe worsened by the fact that, apparently, a complaint by an unregistered editor has had more clout than me who has been (somewhat) identifiable on Wikipedia for years. Kamran the Great (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kamran the Great (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

so, i'm discussing my blocked account with an admin (Boing! said Zebedee), and just as I think we may be reaching some sort of agreement/understanding ... another administrator swoops in and (apparently, regardless of the ongoing conversation) rejects my appeal. I have made a commitment to open dialogues on talk pages when there is disagreement. Can't really think of what else I could do. Open to suggestions. Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you may want to address WP:Tendentious editing in your next unblock request. Huon (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I offered a few questions and suggestions, but seeing as I had already reviewed one unblock request I had, in fact, left it for someone else to review - sorry for not actually saying so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been following this page off and on. I considered blocking Kamran the Great myself, but I felt that the behavior I initially warned him about above didn't rise to the level of an indef block. At the same time I wasn't aware of past history. I am disturbed by the idea of indef-blocking an otherwise productive, long-term editor. If we can come to an agreement on what restrictions Kamran the Great can operate under, I think we can consider an unblock. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Amatulić, Huon, Boing! said Zebedee, et al.; I have had a look at WP:Tendentious editing, as suggested. The contents are, needless to say, quite logical, and there isn't much there that I can (or would want to) disagree on. One point I will raise ("this isn't helping your case", i hear Huon saying!) is that my correcting of the name of the Persian Gulf is not a biased point of view; i think we can agree on that (or, at least, discuss). The [sic] saga, I admit is different; maybe I did overdo that one (looking back, some of those edits were unnecessary - although I will say, in the same breath, that the other side's were too). Going back now to the agreement Amatulić mentions in the above paragraph, I won't be wasting my time with adding [sic], say, at the end of a book name ... i can see that is unnecessary and disruptive. If I see a vandalism of geographic names, be it the Gulf of Thailand or Everest or the Persian Gulf, I would fix and then revert to the talk page at the next instance before it turns into an edit war ... methinks we would all be doing the same? say, if someone goes ahead and unnecessarily changes the name of the Gulf of Mexico in an article, each of you admins would go fix it? As you may have seen on my userpage, I am Iranian - albeit living overseas for a long time now - so yes, I do have an interest in said subject, but I wouldn't call myself "biased". Hoping this is enough to warrant my account being unblocked? Still blockedly yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

• When the name of a geographic feature is disputed, there is not a single factually "correct" name - there never can be, as names are entirely invented subjective things. What we have, instead, is a number of factual observations of who uses which name, recommendations of best practice, various usage standards for different contexts, and Wikipedia should neutrally record those aspects. It is absolutely not the same as, say, claiming that the moon is made of cheese or that the world is flat - or other things which can have an objective factual status.
• Given the nationalistic nature of the dispute, the fact that you are from the nation that is the most vociferous supporter of one side of it (the most widely accepted side, but not the objectively correct side because, as I say, there is no such thing as objective correctness here), the length of time you have been pursuing this issue, the ludicrous extremes to which you have taken it (even adding "[sic]" to the title of a book by an Arabic writer), the likening of the usage of the term "Arabian Gulf" to vandalism, etc, I would only support an unblock with a topic ban on the Persian Gulf naming dispute (widely construed).
• There are plenty of other people who can deal with problems, it really isn't a great tragedy if the less optimal name is occasionally used in some places and not replaced immediately, there are some contexts where the minority usage is appropriate - and your fervour in pursuing this really is becoming disruptive.

Is that something you could accept? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: I should add that your comparisons to changing the names of other places are not relevant, as they are not places for which there are genuine naming disputes - a lone editor changing "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America", to use one of your examples, is not remotely similar to the genuine Persian Gulf naming dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

[Sic] "indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription." So you're arguing that, say, the US military using "Arabic Gulf" is erroneous, archaic, or faulty? That scholarly texts using it in their title don't know what they're writing about? To me that does seem a rather biased view. Not because I have much of an opinion on "Arabic" vs. "Persian" (if anything I'd use "Persian" myself), but because second-guessing reliable published sources and trying to correct them based on our personal opinions is not a good idea. No objection to an unblock accompanied by a topic ban as suggeted by Boing! said Zebedee. Huon (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

hmmmmm ... tell me more about the "topic ban". Am I understanding it correctly that it is being suggested I wouldn't be making ANY edits to ANYthing to have ANYthing to do with the Persian Gulf or its naming dispute? If so, I'd submit that is quite harsh; again especially in view of how this block and these discussions have started (someone going in and changing my edits and then me being the one blocked). While very aware of the fact that I am not helping my own case here, allow me to respond to some of the points you have raised here, Boing! said Zebedee ... I'll start with your last point raised, that comparing a name change such as "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" is not remotely similar to the case in question : all I will say is that at one stage it would have been. There would have been a first time, first day, first person, etc. It's started at one point. No? As such, I would argue that "not remotely similar" is maybe going a bit too far (remote/far ... see what I did there!?). Moving on ... I will have to completely agree with you when you say "it really isn't a great tragedy if the less optimal name is occasionally used in some places and not replaced immediately" ... also agree with "there are some contexts where the minority usage is appropriate" ... and - surprising myself - I guess I do also agree with "your fervour in pursuing this really is becoming disruptive"; what can I say? when you're right, you're right. You also associate me with the "most widely-accepted side"; dare I suggest there's a reason for that? Now going back, again, to your suggestion and maybe giving some consideration to my responses here, I would again say that a total "topic ban" is too harsh. Your point on the fervour, and similarly that of Huon on the (over)use of [sic] have been duly noted. I'd like to ask for an unblock based on an understanding of "toning down THE fervour". Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to add an example : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Abu_Nu%E2%80%99ayr&type=revision&diff=735537884&oldid=734396202 ... an editor has gone ahead an made a change (unnecessarily so) and, in the process of said disruptive change, screwed up the whole page. Are you suggesting that - if unblocked - I should not restore that page (even if it weren't screwed up as a result)? Kamran the Great (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd support the topic ban as outlined by Boing! said Zebedee: "the Persian Gulf naming dispute (widely construed)". That would mean you can discuss and edit the Persian Gulf's sealife or geography or the like to your heart's content, but when it comes to the Gulf's name (including issues related to the name in articles on other topics, such as a reference that calls it the "Arabian Gulf"), you should tread very, very carefully. To use the example above, the template could easily have been fixed without undoing the name change; it wasn't the substitution of "Arabian" for "Persian" that broke it but a removed bracket. Huon (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, if you see any examples of other people making Persian/Arabian changes that you think are wrong, you just leave them alone. Just imagine you died tomorrow, what would happen? I'll tell you what - Wikipedia would get along just fine without you (as it would without me or without any other individual). So treat the Persian Gulf naming dispute topic just like that. If you agree to a voluntary total ban on anything to do with the Persian Gulf naming dispute (and on the understanding that you would be reblocked if you broke your ban), I'll be happy to unblock you - and I will not unilaterally unblock you on anything less than that. One alternative is that a proposal could be made to the community at WP:AN to see if a topic ban would be supported, and if there is a consensus for that then you would be community banned from the topic and would have no say in the matter - so we could do that if you prefer. If a topic ban does emerge from this, then the usual conditions are that you would be able to appeal the ban after six months, and then a community consensus could be sought for that. The only other option is that you post another unblock request and hope a more lenient admin will come along and accept it (though I should mention that I consider myself to be one of the most lenient). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee; you leave me with no choice (not even little choice, but none, whatsoever). I will, however, make one last effort at asking to be explained why me : I will use Huon latest paragraph as an example : Someone has changed the name of the Persian Gulf on the page Sir Abu Nu'ayr... in doing so they had neglected to put a bracket back where it belonged, and screwed up the page. When I bring that up, our friend Huon suggests that that could have been fixed by adding a bracket and no need to undo the change. What I am struggling with, is that how is such a change not disruptive, but mine is?? This editor's edit was unnecessary in the first place, and then it was syntactically faulty, as well. However - and here's the irony of all this - that editor won't be banned; there's not much you can do to an IP address (no offense intended), but then someone like me, gets a topic ban on a topic he's passionate about. If both you admins really do not see this as too harsh (and, maybe, unfair - for lack of a better word), then go ahead and place a topic ban on me. Otherwise ... just place a topic ban on me (see? that's what I mean by not having much choice!). I see the possibility of either of you fine people wanting to discuss this much further, as being slim. So let's just. Unless you do feel like dragging it out a tiny bit more !! :-). Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There will be no more discussion from me - I have made my offer and I have better things to do with my time. And yes, of course you have choices - you can decline my offer and make another unblock request, and I will leave it entirely to another admin to decide without adding any further comments myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that I didn't say the IP edit wasn't disruptive - in fact I reverted it myself. That is, however, no reason for you to be likewise disruptive, and you have shown rather bad judgement on what is and isn't disruptive for this topic. That said, I agree with Boing! said Zebedee that there isn't much to discuss here; you can agree to the topic ban or write another unblock request in hopes that another admin will unblock you. Huon (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

last question : if I write another unblock request (with fingers crossed), and I don't get a favorable response ... can I then come back to you to pick up where we left off, Boing! said Zebedee and Huon?? Kamran the Great (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for Boing! said Zebedee, but personally I will take any further unblock requests (and responses thereto) into account for any further actions. If you do not want to take the offer now, I cannot guarantee that it will remain open indefinitely. Huon (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as Huon says. For me the offer will not be withdrawn simply because you make a new unblock request and I will be happy to consider it again afterwards. But, I would also have to take into account any comments or recommendations a reviewing admin might make, and any possible responses to the review by Huon and others here, as admins are required to go by consensus. (As examples, should a reviewing admin recommend that it should be decided at WP:ANI, or should there be an emerging consensus that the current offer should not go ahead, I would feel obliged to go along with that.) So, yes, the offer would provisionally still be open, but dependent on the outcome of the new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK; that being the case, I think I will try my luck with another unblock request, and come back to you if I need to take more of your time. Thanks for your time, so far. So ... do I just add another unblock request here?? Kamran the Great (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I'll make a new section for it for ease of editing, as this one is getting quite long... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Kamran the Great (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed that your unblock request completely ignores the reason you got an indef bock - your battlefield approach to the Persian Gulf naming dispute which has been going on for years. The reviewing admin will read the block message and the subsequent discussion, you know! Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would have thought the bit that says "My discussions over the past few weeks with other admins has brought to light that there are other and better ways that this could have been dealt with in the first place" and that "I do appear to have gone overboard in some instances" together with the admission that i need to tread lightly, would have acknowledged that very reason; no? Kamran the Great (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help, but OK, if you think that's a sufficient addressing of your behaviour... I'll see you back here after it is rejected. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Your help is acknowledged, and appreciated. :-) Kamran the Great (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Boing! said Zebedee! No offense, but I was hoping that our paths wouldn't cross again - well, "here", anyway! As you can see, i'm in a bit of a predicament with my unblock request getting rejected again (guess you're not surprised!?). Looking through previous requests and related correspondence, I honestly cannot see what else I can do, on top of admitting fault; starting discussions before attempting to make changes leading to potential edit wars; agreeing to tone down my "fervour" as you referred to it; treading carefully - as suggested by our friend Huon, when it comes to anything to do with the naming of the Persian Gulf; and an evident (if i may say so myself) acceptance/understanding of disruption caused. I would really like to be unblocked, with the proviso that Persian Gulf naming issues be avoided OR, maybe, tiptoed around. Thanks for the time you've already spent on this. Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say it, but I was seriously disappointed with your unblock request, below. It showed no understanding of the reason for your block, and instead fell back on blaming some IP editor for it all. I'm also not convinced that you really understand the need to keep fully away from the Persian Gulf naming dispute - it isn't a recent issue, it's something you have had trouble with for years. I'd still like to see you unblocked and I'm still prepared to help with that, but I think it would need to be with a formal topic ban from the Persian Gulf naming dispute - no "treading carefully", no "tiptoeing around", just complete avoidance. I don't have the power to issue such a ban myself, so I'll probably ask the community for it - I'll come back here and give you a link if and when I do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request 3

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kamran the Great (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a few weeks now, as a result of getting into an apparent "edit war" with a sockpuppet. They just wouldn't let go. Every time, I asked for the IP address to be blocked, they would spring up from somewhere else. At one stage, I asked one of the admins what you do with an IP address sockpuppet, I was advised to "just undo and move on"; which is what I carried on doing. Each time, i would ask for the sockpuppetry to be looked into, and those IP addresses would get blocked. It got to a point where the edit war became disruptive (i see that now) and I was blocked indefinitely. While slightly disappointed that I was blocked with no discussion, I have been discussing the issue with other admins over the past couple or so weeks, and these discussions have brought to light that there are other and better ways that this could have been dealt with in the first place; I do appear to have gone overboard in some instances. In view of all that has transpired, I'd like to ask to be unblocked with the proviso that I shall "tread lightly". Kamran the Great (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for systematic disruptive editing over many years. No sockpuppet had forced you to make this edit, for example. Until you own your behavior and stop blaming others, no unblock is possible. Max Semenik (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Max Semenik; i realize you must have better things to do with your time than to read the above novel of a correspondence string between me and other admins ... but I would think the "Until you own your behavior" has been, quite explicitly addressed by yours truly, particularly when it comes to examples such as the one you referred to. Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary - I've read it all before declining, as any admin is supposed to do before deciding upon unblock requests. You're still failing to grasp the reason for your block, as your reply indicates. I personally think the only way you're going to be unblocked is that you agree to ban keep away from all ethnic feuds, including (especially) the Persian/Arabic Golf dispute. Max Semenik (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It would likely help your cause if you would explicitly agree to step away from the Persian Gulf naming dispute. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban request at WP:AN

I've started a topic ban request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban over "Persian_Gulf" naming dispute?. If you have any contribution you wish to make to the discussion, please post it here and I (or someone else) will copy it over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban/unblock

• I'll lift your block in just a moment. Please be aware that a return to any sort of battleground behavior, regardless of the topic, is likely to result in your indef block being reinstated.

Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kamran the Great. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kamran the Great. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kamran the Great. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ESEAP Conference 2018

Hello Kamran the Great,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 01:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kamran the Great. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)