User talk:Louis P. Boog/Archive 1

Mohammad Khatami

It seems to me that you "abruptly" remove other people's contributions without consideration, and possibly add biased comments. This is unfortunate, I believe. You removed the following text that I added, and fortunately, CreazySuit later re-edited the text to my version.

Some people have criticized Khatami for being unsuccessful in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic. In a 47-page "letter for the future", Khatami said his government had stood for noble principles, but had made mistakes and faced obstruction by hardline elements in the clerical establishment. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd read his version carefully, you'd see he actually just moved it from the lead into its own section. Please remember to [{WP:AGF|assume good faith]] while working on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. You are right and I should have considered that but the edit seemed biased. I guess now the Criticism section is inconsistent, and does not follow properly. I will try to clean it up, without removal of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:My bride and I.JPG

BL your a friggin hick and your wife is HOTTT so I will suicide bomb you and steal your wife. no I'll just take my 72 virgins!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.242.122 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:My bride and I.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal

Dear BL, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear BL, maybe you would like to help making the change discussed on talk: [1]. I cannot edit the article because it's protected. You seem to be able to edit. Thanks.

Award

		The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence
		For your recent work on Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Arrow740 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Islamofacism

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Islamofacism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Addhoc 06:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat Stevens/Rushdie

Sorry, I missed your note on the article talk page - been busy fighting off a persistent sockpuppet who has been tormenting Barack Obama. I've left some comments on the talk page about why I find the Stevens/Rushdie article POV. I do think you've improved it - if the edits hold, and if a few of the other concerns can be met, I'll remove the tag. Thanks for asking - some just remove. Tvoz |talk 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Afghan Arabs

Hi BL, can you kindly elucidate as to how you are going to edit the article? Best regards - Scythian1 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there again,

Hi BL, I saw your edits. While I am not complete agreement with your proposal, I will in good faith, relent to your suggestion. I will add the link to "the history of Arabs in Afghanistan" to the article "Arab Afghans" to clarify matters. Best Regards - Scythian1 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Qutbism

Watch out for that 212 IP address whose vandalism you reverted on the article. He's been stalking myself on a number of articles with petty reverts and has also turned his eye to certain other articles as well. Let me know if you need any backup in the event he starts following your contribs as well. MezzoMezzo 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, we haven't commented each other much but i've been observing your work and it's good. I know you're probably busy but I wanted to ask a favor. The issue I mentioned above is tied to a certain user currently edit warring on the Salafism article, I was wondering if you could check out the talk page and see if the whole issue comes off as poorly to you as it does to me, as i've started to question this person's sincerity in editing. Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but I want to be sure, as on another article he's consistently been inserting information cited by an Arabic-language source which does not confirm his edit; things just seem a bit fishy to me. MezzoMezzo 10:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wahhabism

Let's discuss the edits in talk. I have started the conversation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Seyed Mostafa Azmayesh

A tag has been placed on Seyed Mostafa Azmayesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- pb30<talk> 06:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sup!

Regarding your revert at Islamism. I made that edit for a couple of reasons. For starters, to suggest that Islamism be merged with Islam is to suggest that Islamism comes within Islam, rather than without. This is quite a radical suggestion, and one that, to my mind, is unduly critical simply in the asking. Clearly, the people of Turkey do not practice an Islam that allows for Islamism; clearly, the radicalism of Iran is not the radicalism of Islam, just the radicalism of Iran. Know what I mean? It's a slur just to ask the question, because it suggests that Iranian oppression is Islamic oppression, when it's rather an interpretive response to Islam, something along those lines.

Also, the question has stood for months, and the only response I noted on the talk page suggested dropping it. I agree, fiercely!

I also deleted the description of the page as "about political Islam". I find that to be technically false. The page is about political systems that incorporate (or, depending on your view, appropriate) Islam. Even if the note was made more accurate ("This page is about political interpretations of Islam"), it would be unnecessary and unhelpful.

Hey that was a long explanation! Sorry about that! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Righto! Leshan Giant Buddha grants you additional luck and wisdom. DBaba (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

I did not "vandalise" the Osama Bin Laden article. That was true points of him and was sourced by the BBC and the UK newspaper the Telegraph and the Independent.

Next time check the sources before you consider something has been vandalised

Many thanks Sifu-keith (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

co-working

Hi, nice to meet you. I'm happy to see a new wikipedian has become active on the articles which I had edited them for a long time including Hezbollah, Iranian revolution and Ruhollah Khomeini. However I wasn't active on them for a while. Please let me answer your comments on the talk page of the articles before editing them. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a template:Template:Iranian revolution. Feel free to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Shah

Thanks for the excellent edits to His Majesty the Shah's biography. You really improved it. And GREAT user page, by the way. One of the best pictures I have ever seen on Wikipedia! Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Taqi al-Din

Thanks for your additional information and sources to the al-din observatory article! As for why it was destroyed, both explanations (the comet and clerical infighting) are correct in their own way. See this for the full story -- search for "Another observatory thought to have influenced", and read down to "gave orders to level the buildings." If you can think of a good way to summarize that in the article, great! All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Before you move a page, it's usually a good idea to propose the move and wait for comments. If you don't want to do that, it's usually a good idea to thoroughly research any applicable naming conventions before doing so so you get the name right. Because of your move I now have to do a formal move proposal to get the article that was formerly at Auxiliary organization moved to the WP:LDSMOS-friendly Auxiliary organization (LDS Church). It's also good, after you move a page, to change the redirects, which you did not do for this page, which had many. Snocrates 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Islam

User:Tigeroo has revert my edits 6 times at that article, and it has descended into simply vandalism. Can you help? Arrow740 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're not convinced it's vandalism, of course don't involve yourself. Arrow740 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop violating WP:CANVASS.Bless sins (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to.[2] The article is protected, so how could you have made an edit to it?Bless sins (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not violating WP:CANVASS, Arrow740 is. My above comment was clearly in response to Arrow740's comment. Bless sins (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put it in your talk page is because the policy was being violated here. I hope this explains.Bless sins (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sayyid Ahman Khan

A tag has been placed on Sayyid Ahman Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

hi

Dear Boogalouie, You seem to have knowledge and interest in muslim theology and history. You did'nt edit-out my addition of "criticism" part to the Sirhindi page. Thanks for that ! These days criticism of Islam on wiki is become risky process.

By the way, are you a professional history professor or research ?

Your pic is very interesting ( your dress superb ! ). Congrats to the bride !

Your Rottweiler is quite handsome too...! Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Islamism

I saw that you added a short criticism section. You might be interested in this interview with a liberal Muslim leader who opposes Islamism: [3], [4], [5]. Arrow740 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits on the Al-Walid article

I have just reviewed your edits on the Abu al-Walid article which was largely written by me, and I am rather puzzled by them. I don't really see your point. I didn't revert the edits because I if you do have a point I would very much like to know it. Also if you really want to improve articles, don't be sloppy and make sure your edits are gramatically correct. Let me know what you have to say on this.ForrestSjap (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam science

Re. your edit here, how does this not belong in "The relation between Islam and science"?:

Alleged Quranic predictions have also been called "vague descriptions of natural phenomena" employing "stretched or arbitrary" interpretations to shown their agreement with modern science. Alleged Quranic references in particular to the expanding universe, parallel universes, and cosmic structural hierarchies have been called "blatantly wrong." Anti-Bucailleist arguments do not necessarily argue in favor of unbelief, since as one says, "God does not stand or fall depending on whether our scriptures know their physics."

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This was all natural criticism on the topic. Now the criticism is just a few lines long. I dont think it should have been taken out. The sources being used though are the bigger concern in terms of reliability i.e. if these people are qualified enough (have peer reviewed stuff according to WP:RS or not). I might come back to this later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bucailleism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bucailleism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucailleism. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

before re-adding removed sections, please remove possible POV. In the section re-added here [6] I found POVish words. I will remove them. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this version: [7] - I took out the onlies and buts so there is no value judgment. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If Iranians are upset and, say that "XXX says YYY." - That is the format you want to show. If "Joe Blow" feels upset and wants the United States to apologize, say that. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:My bride and I.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:My bride and I.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I miss the picture on your user page. You should have done whatever was necessary to satisfy the silly robots. --RenniePet (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beware of original research

Hi BoogaLouie, I have been looking through some of your recent work on a few articles such as the Bucaille/Islam/science related ones. A pattern I see in your contributions is that you tend to add your own personal interpretation or commentary to the prose. Or another way to say it would be that I feel you don't strictly relate only the information imparted by cited sources. It's not major original research, but it presents itself in more of a subtle fashion. I don't want to get into examples because it might seem like I'm unduly criticising your edits, but I've needed to clean up some of these contributions because of the original research or synthesis issues involved, which also have an added effect of skewing the prose a bit more or altering the balance of articles. Regards, ITAQALLAH 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. ITAQALLAH 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You should know that cross-posting like this is not appropriate, and neither are the bad-faith attacks you made upon me in that message. The articles you cite are crammed with original research and syntheses, it is only right that the articles be brought into shape and conform to our content policies. I have gone to great lengths to assume good faith on your part, so please afford me the same courtesy. ITAQALLAH 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the amount of original research I've had to remove here beggars belief. The sources either mention Bucaille/Bucaillism a total of 0 times, or are twisted - almost beyond recognition - to mislead the reader as to what these sources actually say. ITAQALLAH 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't have to mention the word they only have to deal with the concept - the so-called miracles of science in the quran. BTW, what does a source have to be to not be "original research"? - "Why Bucaillism is wrong" by Ahmed Ahmedi, PhD in Islmic Science?--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken: if a source doesn't identify and discuss Buccailism/Bucaille specifically, then it's original research, more specifically WP:SYNTH. You've used one source to establish what Bucaillism purports to be, and then used other sources not even talking about Bucaillism to add "criticism" of Bucaille or Bucaillism. Just find sources actually talking about Bucaille or the neologism specifically, or don't include it in the article. Simple as. ITAQALLAH 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that wikipedia policy? If a source is talking about public ownership of the means of production but does not use the word socialism it cannot be used in an article on socialism? If it talks about the mental and moral inferiority of certian races but does not use the word racism it cannot be used in an article on racism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is Wikipedia policy, yes, as it is part of the WP:OR policy. Re: your first example, unless it's talking in clear reference to socialism (i.e. if the book is about socialism) instead of another context or ideology, then no it should preferably be avoided. Instead, another source making the direct link should be found, so it isn't you doing the interpreting. As for your second example, if a source (i.e. website A) is making discriminatory comments, then it would be a primary source in an article about racism. An alternative source should be found discussing website A in the context of racial prejudice or discrimination, for it to be used on such an article. ITAQALLAH 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a little vague, what if it's a clear reference to public ownership of the means of production? Why must a book be about socialism (or even public ownership of the means of production) to be quoted? As for the second example, I'm not talking about a source making discriminatory statements, I'm talking about a source that analyszes the idea that certain races are inferior to others. Why could not such a book or article or site be quoted in a wikipedia article on racism without being tagged WP:OR by you?

The second example is particularly relevent as like Buceilleism, it might be very unlikely to use the term "racism" if it was racist itself as racism is favored by critics of racism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If the book or passage ain't talking about socialism or in a context of socialism, then it should be nowhere near the article Socialism. It isn't for you to decide or interpret whether or not it is. I have difficulty comprehending why a source discussing what is popularly known as racism, would not actually use the word itself which is an established word in the English language. These hypothetical examples and contexts you are posing are rather detached from reality I think. If you still have an issue with understanding SYNTH or OR policy, you might want to take it to WT:OR for further explanation. ITAQALLAH 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the question: A source (book, article, site, etc.) has important/useful information that could be added to a wikpedia article on an issue (socialism, racism, Bucailleism, etc.). The issue of the article has a widely agreed upon definition (public ownership of the means of production; some races are inferior to others; the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs; etc.) The source does NOT mention the name of the issue (socialism, racism, Bucailleism, etc.), but DOES follow the widely agreed upon definition.

My question: why is using that source in the wikipedia article fobidden? As for your difficulty comprehending "why a source discussing what is popularly known as racism, would not actually use the word itself which is an established word in the English language" , as you would say "Let's not presume we know the author's intentions and psychological processes," ... even if it's obvious as the nose on your face. But if we were to presume, we would say that an author might not like the negative connotations in the public's mind associated with the name of the issue. Does that answer your question? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You really need to stop equating universally known concepts and ideas like racism with shady, non-notable neologisms like Bucaillism. You can't utilise sources in a context different to what they're presented in. That includes depicting sources as talking about a neologism when they're not. The language used in WP:OR is clear enough, please read through it very carefully. If you don't want to buy my explanation, you can take it to WT:OR and have them explain it to you. ITAQALLAH 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue as I see it is not whether Bucaillism is a well-known, old and distinguished term (like socialism, capitalism, nationalism), but whether its definition is agreed upon, so that there is zero doubt that Cook, Parvez Hoodbhoy, (and others you have deleted because they did not use that specific word), are talking about Bucaillism. You may be right that wikipedia forbids creating an article on Bucaillism because not enough people use that word, but AFAICT you have not proven there is any reason to believe that Cook, Parvez Hoodbhoy, and others are not all talking about the same thing, that thing being Bucaillism --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Commission....

Hi there, I noticed your request for a third opinion on Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah. I attempted to provide an unbiased opinion regarding this dispute. Hopefully it can be of some help to you. The opinions is here. Thank you for posting it and again, I hope it is at least a teensy bit valuable :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I suggested that the quote be removed and an external link be added to it. Does this sound reasonable? Lazulilasher (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing Wikipedia

You've been editorializing several articles with a strong POV, using opinion pieces written by one or two Iranian opposition members as "sources", to legitimize inclusion of fringe views like "Mossadegh relied on communists" and nonsense like that to several articles, when most mainstream historians agree that Mossadegh was in conflict with communists all along. Please stop this POV-fying and editorializing of Wikipedia, or I will be forced to file a request for comment on your behavior which is uncanningly similar to that of User:Patchouli, a banned user who also engaged in editorializing Wikipedia. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? Afshin Molavi is just an editorialist and political lobbyist, he's neither a historian nor a reliable source. As for Mossadegh, the religious right ACCUSED him of being in bed communists, and that's very different from your false assertion that he was close to communists, when all the historians say he wasn't.--CreazySuit (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So Afshin Molavi is a historian now?

no a journalist. "A former Dubai-based correspondent for the Reuters news agency and a regular contributor to The Washington Post from Iran, Mr. Molavi has covered the Middle East and Washington for a wide range of international publications." [8] Kindly calm down and stop accusing me of bias. Its in violation of wiki rules about assuming good faith--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Iranian history

You did not provide an explanation as to why you removed the following sourced statement "While the student ringleaders had not asked for permission from Khomeini to seize the embassy, Khomeini nonetheless supported the embassy takeover after hearing of its success." which is from "Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam". --CreazySuit (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Please do not make bad-faith accusations of wikistalking, it's OK to review another user's contributions history to make sure they comply with wikipedia policy, especially since I, and others, have had legitimate concerns about some of your edits. --CreazySuit (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, good job on Ali-Akbar Saidi Sirjani article. Here is reference you can use to expand it. The documnetry's commentary is biased, but the quotes are good --CreazySuit (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you about those facts of Iran-Iraq war, my disagreement is about the selective and sensational presentation of war-time slogans in the lead, otherwise those facts are covered in the body of the article as is, and nobody is denying that Khomeini could have and should have ended the war in 1982, but was persuaded by likes of Rafsanjani to go on the offensive. Also, I created Kazem Sami, feel free to improve and expand it.--CreazySuit (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Iran-Iraq war

Sorry I am really busy today, I'll take a closer look tomorrow, if you don't mind. The only objection I had was the wording of the 1982 events, it makes it sound like the Iraqis voluntarily retreated, put down their guns like good boys, and left Iran, when they were defeated and driven out of Khoramshahr by force, and some even argue that the Iraqi forces never really fully retreated into Iraq at any point, and that they held on to many boarder villages and Iranian lands. So could you reword that part? On an unrelated note, I noticed that you posted a study cited by Robert Fisk about the number of suicide bombings in Iraq, Robert Fisk also says that the study found that most of these guys came from Saudi Arabia, do you mind if I add that clarification to your paragraph?--CreazySuit (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PMOI

Hi, I saw your edits on this article. This subject is actually the reason I created an account here. I've been keeping an eye on that article for a year now, and it regularly gets attacked by some pro-PMOI SPAs. I'd appreciate your keeping an eye on that article, as well as Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi. Thanks!

I posted on the talk pages of the two main troublemakers. Both are obviously WP:SPAs. Their efforts have progressed from obvious copyright violations to more subtle efforts to whitewash the subjects. I don't expect them to respond constructively, so if it continues, I'm getting ready to take it to WP:ANI. There's an open offer to collaborate, and if they turn it down I'm taking it to the admins. By the way, that's my post above (forgot to sign, like last month). // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Louis P. Boog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Slow-burn_edit_war_on_People.27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran_and_related_articles. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mossadegh

"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This is a false/loaded statment, do you have another source for this beside Avrahamian? Does Vali Nasr make a similar claim? --CreazySuit (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't have another quote about the election. That and the fact that it is a controversial subject is why I preceded the statement with "According to Ervand Abrahamian ...". Abrahamian is a reputable scholar and his book Iran between two revolutions is a major work of Iranian history. You can't just assert that it is "false." --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can assert that it's false, so long I can refute it with another source. Remember, fringe views do not belong on Wikipedia, if there is any truth to that statement, then other scholars would have mentioned it, huge claims and liables need more than one source. Also, I disagree with you that "Abrahamian is a reputable scholar", he's a former Marxist, and a very political person. What I am saying is that he clearly has an agenda.--CreazySuit (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam and homosexuality

BoogaLouie, have you read the whole entry yourself? The tone you construct through the quotes is not supported by the source. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Khalkhali

Doesn't your source mention anything about the abolition of Reza Shah's tomb? I found this "Moreover, in May 1980 he destroyed the tomb of Reza Shah, an action which was later condemned by President Bani-Sad" from The Middle East and North Africa by Taylor & Francis Group. . --CreazySuit (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! :) I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thought I'd let you know. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wahhabism

I saw that you've contributed to that page, some WP:SPA keeps adding extreme POV material to that page that are taken from Wahabi pages, I am not sure if that's allowed. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hudud [9]

This edit you add a reference called "bechor" which was invalid. Can you fix it? Also, are you sure that where you moved the Schacht quote is still properly referenced by the Schacht book? gren グレン 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's great. Thanks. gren グレン 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Assadabadi

Check this, the user is removing a bunch of sources with a deceptive edit summery that he is "reverting for lack of sourcing". --CreazySuit (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to post a message to my talk page about this issue? I'm not at all familiar with it and have never posted about it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PMOI articles again

So it doesn't look like we're making any progress on these articles. I looked at filing an RfC agains user:Tib72, but we have to have tried communicating with him personally before we can do that. Can you please try to talk to him on his talk page? If he doesn't respond, then we can move up the next step. In the meantime, I'm seriously thinking about starting a Checkuser case against him, user:Tom davy, user:Tipf2004, and user:AlborzTaha for good measure. Thanks for your persistence. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AlborzTaha. That makes things interesting. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Tib72 is indef blocked. If you want to communicate, talk to user:AlborzTaha, who is blocked for a week. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the checkuser report, TomDavy is unrelated to the other two accounts. We'll see what happens in the next week or two, but things should calm down some now. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Made a request on his talk page anyway. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back. While you were away, AlborzTaha has calmed down, but Tom Davy appears to have taken up his slack. I'm about to file an RFC against him. I think we've met the conditions, since both of us have tried to engage him in conversation, and he's not once made an edit to a talk page. Let me know what you think. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, started the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tom_davy. If you could please certify the dispute, we can get this started. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Satanic Verses Article

Dude, what is your deal? It states and is referenced on the Ibn Ishaq page that that biography is NOT surviving. Do you not get that? It doesn't exist! So you can't write the "oldest surviving biography" since it is is NOT SURVIVING! Secondly, what could you possibly have against including the full Roald Dahl quote in the article? It is not that long and give a better picture of his opinion, one portion of which is already quoted, and the rest of which is in the crappy picture. I just transcribed from the picture. Thirdly you continually modify the portion on British blasphemy laws to state that they are not enforced, but you provide no reference. Fourthly, the possible explanations section by definition does not need to be strictly sourced. It is a *possible* explanation section. Anything reasonable goes. Meelash (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

tom Davy RFC

Since it got two signatures, it is now listed as active. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to me about it

If you have a problem with me,[10] then please take it up with me on my talk page. If you feel that doesn't work, then report me on the appropriate board, so I may have the chance to defend myself.

I find it quite impolite that you would go to others' talk pages, saying that I'm making your life miserable, without actually discussing the matter with me.Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The only articles we've had a conflict on recently are : Islamic terrorism, and Hijab. Both are articles I've edited for quite some time. Both are issues that concern me very much. If you think that those two articles comprise your "life", then I suggest broadening your experience on wikipedia.

Secondly, I'm strict with wiki-rules because I don't want double standards to prevail.Bless sins (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing talk page comments

Booga, in reference to this as a general rule its best to strike through and then add the new text instead of replacing text in comments that have already been responded to, even if you're just clarifying something in good faith, as I know you were. Otherwise, without this transparency, what was a sensible response may turn into a nonsensical one. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zahra Kazemi

The third paragraph ends with a partial sentence which seems to have been added by you on March 15, 2008 at 17:00. It goes like this: "Kazemi is also the ". Perhaps you'd be so kind as to complete the sentence?

Also, who is Ali Kazemi? I found this article (Zahra Kazemi) from an article written by Ali Kazemi in which she was mentioned. Is he a relative of hers?

Please accept my gratitude to you and everyone else who has worked on this article.

66.74.94.111 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Bride

Dear Sir, With all due respect we wil like to see the image of your bride... Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's back for now. I've saved the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License twice now, but it keeps getting deleted. I don't know much about copyright. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:My bride and I.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:My bride and I.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pictures you find on the web are not public domain, don't pretend to be an image's author. Dual Freq (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Hi, noticed you are a major contributor to this page. However there are a bunch of tags and I have especially objection to the POV tag. I am going to remove it, only a opinion from you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

see my comment in the talk page. I've asked for a reason for the tag and gotten none. As far as I can tell there is no legitimate reason for the tag. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a response here. We shouldn't delete information by Human Right's groups. At the very least, we can quote them, especially if they are notable organizations. My problems with a few of the citations is that the information isn't even mentioned in the sources. That needs to be deleted. If we deleted everything by a Human Right's organization in a Human Right's article, there wouldn't be much left! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[pasted from Jclemens page] Tags on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the {{Multiple issues}} can be removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped wastchlisting that article, as I was only concerned with it in an attempt to get those in favor of tagging to provide meaninful and actionable issues for resolution as part of a WP:3O. Does it need more intervention? If you believe that those tags no longer apply, please feel free to remove them per WP:BRD--if someone reverts your removal, they owe you an explanation on the talk page about the issues they still believe remain. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens

garbled sentence in Political aspects of Islam

Hi BoogaLouie,

there's a slightly garbled sentence in Political aspects of Islam that seems to have been there since you added the section in December:

The second reaction to European encroachment was in Westerniznig of by members of the urban, Westernized elite, with Egypt, Iran, and Turkey being examples.

I'm not sure what you intended it to say, so I thought I'd tell you so you can fix it yourself.

By the way, the image that your user page links to appears to have been removed because it didn't have a copyright tag.

Joriki (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat Stevens - support and donations to Hamas front groups, openly,writing anti Jewish comments for Hamas, front groups, etc

I see that you have been heavily involved in Cat Stevens article. I have added a section about him in discussion section of the main article and I was wondering if you could help out/weigh in how to include his anti- Jewish, anti-Israel statements and his support for Hamas front groups. I am new at this so please forgive any inadvertent mistakes. I have read many of your comments and edits and find them to be erudite and well argued, even the ones I have disagreed with.aharon42 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your additions to Cat Stevens disscusion page. Thanks for the sources.aharon42 (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

stub tag

Hi, The {{stub}} tag is only used for a whole article, not as you did in Islamic terrorism to indicate that a section is a stub. It wastes the time of people at WP:WSS, who look at articles tagged as stubs and categorise them into stub types - not appropriate for this article. Please find one of the many other suitable templates to use in mid-article, but not this one. Thanks. PamD (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Zakir Naik. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Hmmm..interesting.. the references you provided about Naik's comments about 9/11 says absolutely nothing about him, but rather about some professors in USA who made such a claim Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 08:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America

A tag has been placed on Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Manipulation of another's talk page comment

Please don't change my posts as you did here without explanation. Thanks, 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was dividing your text to make a reply and was interupted and did not finish. I should not have clicked save page of course. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, I was looking at the work in your sandbox. I'll wait for you to finish your draft before commenting on the Khomeini stuff, but I noticed in the previous contents you were possibly using an undergraduate honors thesis as a source for some other Wikipedia pursuit. I advise that an undergraduate's assignment as part of an honors college program is not a reliable source. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Can I tell you how impressed I am with the work you have done on this article? Really - good work. One minor, minor critique - do you think it's subdivisions are too numerous; i.e. the content box looks a little too list-y? I assume, given your extensive work, that you decided that it's currently the best organization for now. Also, I'd join forces with you and work on the woefully embarrassing Human rights in Iran article, if you want.

But the real reason I write - I haven't been able to figure out why you removed the LGBT section? I re-added it, but I'd like to accord your work on the article some respect and see if there was a good reason? Signed, an admirer, --David Shankbone 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

re your edit: there still are copies of the video, though not on youtube, check my edits. --tickle me 19:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

email

salam salam :) it seems that you didn't have your emial in your profile.would you please send me email.thanks --Mardetanha ^talk 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Human Rights in the IRI

Anytime. Those editors were shamelessly biased. I've got the page watchlisted in case more try that BS. Give me a yell if you need support elsewhere. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Can you please provide a good source that says explicitly that atheists are discriminated against in Iran? I'm going through the article Discrimination against atheists, which is mostly original research, with the sources either lacking or containing no mention of "discrimination against atheists." I've been tagging and excising where appropriate, but I came to Iran's section and I felt a bit odd getting rid of it. Given, the section needs to be re-written around a secondary source that specifically talks about "discrimination against atheists" in Iran, but I suspect this could easily be done, especially considering all of the attention that Iran's "negative" policies get under the current political conditions. You always seem to have these kind of things on hand, so could you perhaps find mention of this discrimination in one of your sources and re-write the section based upon it? All this sounds lazy of me, but hey, I figure you probably have the right source close at hand... The section is here: Discrimination against atheists#Iran. I sincerely hope you can help. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, some guy changed the Khomeini lead we agreed on. Should I just revert him saying it is against consensus? How do I counter the inevitable "consensus can change?" A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War against Islam

Your repeated POV edits to the War against Islam page are just that - repeated POV edits. When there is a controversial issue regarding any article, relavent discussion must take place before editing the article. Your actions are clearly tht of a Sectarian bigot. Regarding the content itself, you can create a whole new page about conspiracy theories related to Islam and link it to the page War against Islam. The article War of Islam is about actual military activity against Muslim populations. So, please keep this in mind. It is not that your opinion is not respected. It just isn't relevent to the topic of the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azial Xarel Druda (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Need an explaination

You're required to give an explaination for your actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israr_Ahmed#Please_Read_This_and_Answer_Me --89.108.1.154 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement

According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [11]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hail and well met

Good hello. Sorry to bother you but you seem to have an interest in the subject. All of the articles on Iranian military hardware could use some cleanup and a lot of watching. They tend to attract a great deal of regional hyperbole, misrepresenting quality, quantity, and country of origin for the various pieces of equipment in use by the IRI. List of military equipment manufactured in Iran can be a fun read. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran-Contra

Hi, perhaps you could explain in depth why you believe that your changes to Iran-Contra affair's lead were beneficial at Talk:Iran-Contra affair? The majority of your edits were good and I'm willing to compromise with you, but I would like some more information as to why you changed the article Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Sounds good to me, if the content doesn't get lost. Regards (and thanks for your good work), -- 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring at Quilliam Foundation and 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Keep in mind that even if you technically do not violate 3RR, the three reverts are not to be seen as some sort of magic barrier (see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Not an entitlement). The bottom line is that edit warring in general is disruptive, and the purpose of these blocks are to encourage users to discuss their changes on the talk page instead of constantly reverting. Since this is your second offense, the block is a bit longer than it would be for first-time offenders. Jk54 and KneeJuan have been blocked as well. When you return, please discuss your changes on the relevant talk pages. Thanks. Khoikhoi 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've extended your block to 10 days, as you clearly logged out to evade your block ([12], [13]) in order to continue edit warring. Evading your block by logging out will lead to a considerably longer block. Please sit this one out this time, thanks. Khoikhoi 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Booga, I really don't want to have to extend your block but I feel that I am forced to. 10 days is not a long time. Please sit your block out and return once it has expired. Simply reverting again and again will get nothing accomplished: you are not allowed to edit while you are blocked. Your original block has been reset and it will only get longer if you continue to evade it. Please stop. Thanks, Khoikhoi 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are watching

I know you are blocked, but if you happen to be watching, do you have an opinion on the recent edit war at Ruhollah Khomeini? The history, my talk page, and now a talk page section chronicle this development. Since you normally opine on matters related to that article, I'm willing to convey your thoughts to the talk page if you think it useful. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

Please review WP:DR more carefully. The idea is that going to a third party should only be attempted after all previous steps fail to resolve the dispute (i.e. once you make a clear attempt to get a consensus with your fellow editors). This type of mass-spamming can be considered canvassing and therefore unacceptable.

My idea was to get input from editors in the Iran wikiproject as it seemed there weren't many other editors in the History of Islamic Republic of Iran article (besides people checking spelling and such) in recent months besides myself. I had no reply from KneeJuan - the person who was deleting what was as far as I could tell a good despription of the IRI - and I thought people familar with Iran would be in a better position to judge how suitable the text in question was to the article, than something like Editors willing to provide assistance. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do it again, as it is a blockable offense. Once all previous attempts at dispute resolution have truly failed, please try Wikipedia:Third opinion instead. Khoikhoi 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're watching me for blockable offenses and I don't want to make any false moves. I've found the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a time consuming, less-than-helpful maize. What exactly would you deem a permissable way to resolve the dispute besides Wikipedia:Third opinion? And BTW, if you have nothing to say about my question Quilliam_Foundation could you refer me to someone who might. Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you feel left in an uncomfortable position by this unfair scrutiny, do know that Wikipedia does not consider it acceptable. In this case, it is a mix between Wikihounding and Threat. Of course, it is hard to prove, particularly if the harasser has friends or power, but at least the hounding is, in theory, condemned. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1953 coup

you wrote: I'll work with you if you want to fix up the Iran coup article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Article_Structure_and_Confusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#rewriteA9tat#Column_at_Buzzflash_is_not_credible_source --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will help clean it up when I can. I won't be able to get over there for another week or so. As I recall, it needs tightening and focus.Skywriter (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

wrong reference or perhaps...

I saw one of your edits in the article Khosro Roozbeh, you wrote:

... Rouzbeh was a skilled spy who escaped detection of counterintelligence until 1977, "by which time he was a full field Marshal in charge of intelligence agencies in all three branches of the armed forces. A SAVAK officer writes that this field marshal had been giving information to the Soviets since his days in the Military Academy in the 1940s . Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, 1999, p.94-95

the book Tortured Confessions is available online here, i read pages 94 & 95 but haven't found what you wrote in the article, the interesting thing is Khosro Rouzbe was executed in 1958 (as the article mentions) and wasn't alive in 1977 to give information to soviets!! infact the book is saying the opposite, this is what I see in that book:

... In fact, it turned out that the Soviets did have an agent in the Iranian armed forces, but he was neither in the Tudeh nor in its military organization. He escaped detection until 1977, by which time he was a full field marshal in charge of intelligence agencies in all three branches of the armed forces. A SAVAK officer writes that this field marshal had been giving information to the Soviets since his days in the Military Academy in the 1940s...

can you explain that? it's totally strange for me! --Transparagon (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my sloppy work. The part in Tortured Confessions (p.94) that talks about the field marshall in the Iranian military does not mention that field marshall's name but goes right on to talk about Rouzbeh "the military organizations de facto head." I copied that text down and later used it for the wikiarticle In my haste I thought the two people were the same.

Also you wrote in the article:

In his ideological beliefs Rouzbeh was opposed to liberalism and thought many Tudeh leaders `mere reformers,` bourgeois liberals,` and `parliamentary lobbyists.

and you refered to page 81 of Tortured Confessions. but what I see in the book is:

Rouzbeh deemed some of the Tudeh leaders "mere reformers," "bourgeois liberals," and "parliamentary lobbyists." In his memoirs, Ovanessian praises Rouzbeh as a sincere but impatient radical in need of a firm hand

as far as I know there's a big difference between "some" and "many". if I'm wrong then you can explain to me and clear that for me. Transparagon (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I should have used some and not many. I certainly won't contest your edit. I think we should add this from Abrahamian though: Contemptuous of the party for being too `moderate`, Rouzbeh had resigned in 1946 and not rejoined until the early 1950s. He confessed he had thought the assassination of such a popular anti-court journalist as Massoud would polarize Iran and thus radicalize the Tudeh. (Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, 1999 p.94-95) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BoogaLouie, I've already corrected the article, If you think that the further information from that book is neccessary to add to the article then add it, I will use other sources to provide more information about Khosro Rouzbeh later.--Transparagon (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that adding the information about assassination of the journalist to the lead is proper. it has been mentioned in the body of the article. the book tortured confessions is about confessions made under the torture, so we don't know under what condition Rouzbeh confessed and it's not that important to be written in the lead. --Transparagon (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:lead the lead "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable,". I put it to you that Khosro Roozbeh, is not notable because he wrote "a number of pamphlets on chess, artillery warfare, and together with co-author Ardeshir Ovanessian, the country's first political lexicon," he is notable because he organized the infilitration and recruitment of hundreds of military officers on behalf of the communist party to overthrow monarchy, and because of the "controversy" so delicately refered to in the lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Left-Islamist alliance

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RolandR (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. What are you talking about ? Who has been attacked??? --BoogaLouie (talk)

Hi BoogaLouie, I declined the speedy deletion as in my view it wasn't an unsourced attack, so you don't need to put a Hangon on it I also gave it a POV tag and made some edits to try and balance the article. Further discussion is taking place both at Talk:Left-Islamist alliance and on the talk page for the AFD. What would particularly help would be to find sources that discuss this phenomenon in a neutral or positive way as all the current sources would appear to be from its opponents. ϢereSpielChequers 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Left-Islamist alliance

I have nominated Left-Islamist alliance, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Islamist alliance. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

am contesting your deletion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Diruptive edits

Most of your edits are not encyclopedic , and a gross violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:Undue weight, WP:SYNTH and various other policies. Wikipedia is not your personal journal where you can advance your point of view by cherry-picking quotes from hand-picked sources in order to advance a position. There are policies against editorializing Wikipedia. --KneeJuan (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re:your message

Hi, I don't take this as canvassing at all. 1st point - he's certainly allowed to blank his talk page, so you might want to self-revert. All the history is still there, so anyone concerned can see that he's been blocked.

That said, the diffs you pointed out on his talk page are problematic. You know much more about the subject than I, but I see a nationalist determined to whitewash the revolutionary government. I'm eating dinner, but I'll most likely reverse those edits myself and drop him a note about deleting sourced information, which is definitely a no-no. I don't see that he's communicate on any talk pages other than Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état. If he persists, I'm not sure what to do. AN/I is probably overkill, but AIV won't touch it. However, his refusal to communicate, as well as the appearance that he's following you, might get someone's attention.

Also, have you considered the possibility that he's not a new user? He shows a fantastic grasp of policy and markup for someone so new... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Before I see any more reverts from you, KneeJuan, and Dchall1, I want to see some serious attempts to discuss the content that is being reverted. Please see WP:DISPUTE to understand what I'm talking about. Users may be blocked for edit warring even without technically violating the 3RR, and I am warning all three of you before this gets out of control. Please discuss your edits as opposed to reverting. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that you should be sticking to the content. I applaud your efforts to take the issue to the talk page, but in order for there to be a healthy discussion, stick to the content and content only. Your talk page headers for example are counter-productive and only make things more personal, which is not what we need right now. Please go back and change them to something that addresses the conetnt, not the other user. Khoikhoi 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And...

No, that's not me. But while we are on the subject, why don't you tell me what your relationship is with User:Ebudswenson and User:Leroy65X? I am just asking! --KneeJuan (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)