User talk:Octavian history/Archive 1

November 2007

All the users involved (on both sides of the dispute, this includes 68.175.71.240) have now received warnings about talk page vandalism. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you gyrofrog, quick question. When I logged into my account, a red flash thing popped up and said you have a new message. How did you do that?--Persianhistory2008 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone modifies your talk page (for example to leave you a message), then Wikipedia will notify you that you have new messages. (I don't know why yours is red.) See WP:TALKPAGE#You have new messages. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I got it. BTW, just saw "sockpuppet", I never had a user name of johnyajohn. Thanks--Persianhistory2008 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer

No problem --Sylent 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi Persianhistory. Please be careful with page moves to preserve the editing history. This is required by the GFDL copyright license that we all work under.

If you want to move a page to a new title, use the move tab at the top of the page. This will preserve the editing history. If a redirect already exists at the desired title, then it usually needs to be deleted by an administrator before the move command can be completed. Do not copy the text from the old page and paste it into the redirect page, as this obscures the editing history.

You can read more and find help, if needed, at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Duk 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information.--Persianhistory2008 11:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kalam-e Saranjam

A tag has been placed on Kalam-e Saranjam 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 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. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jack Clemmons

A tag has been placed on Jack Clemmons 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. Toddst1 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is on the Clemmons page.

I think it is important to keep this. He is in hundreds of books and documentaries. --Persianhistory2008 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A citation or two would help a lot. Toddst1 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citations isn't a reason for a speedy delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7. Phil Bridger 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry response

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't simply take your word for it. Let me first clarify two things:

1. I placed the sockpuppet tag out of concern for the integrity of Wikipedia, and
2. The tag is not intended to offend or upset you (Note that the tag does say "suspected").

Your first Wikipedia edits were to make essentially the same arguments that other Johnyajohn sockpuppets had been making regarding Ostad Elahi and Nur Ali Elahi. Your early contributions, combined with your choice of user name, strongly suggested a single-purpose account: there's certainly no rule against that, but it did arouse closer scrutiny. You might have abated my suspicions when you ventured into different topics, except that it was right into the same territory that Johnyajohn (and Company) has frequented: in addition to various articles about Kurdish/Persian mysticism, there's daguerrotypes and Civil War-era photography and photographers (and you made those edits after I placed the sockpuppet tag). I will grant that the article edits you've made are more constructive than those of the other Johnyajohn suspects, and I don't mean to dissuade you from making further constructive contributions. But now, all of this coincides with yeserday's re-appearance of 12.0.30.180 (talk · contribs), whose edits, along with the other suspect accounts, suggest Johnyajohn's attempts to evade scrutiny and/or build false consensus. Anyone who's being on-the-level should have no need for more than one Wikipedia account. Again, I'm sorry if you've taken offense with any of this, but for now, I stand by my conclusions. Thank you for the compliment, in any case. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I just looked at his history and see your point, but with that said, I have no idea who the person is. The way I found and edited the articles was by clicking on user names like yours, and one leading into another. I even almost made an edit on your Shakshouka which I find very cool! It looks like a scary looking meal, but very different.---- Persianhistory2008 (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nur Ali Elahi

(I've left the same note at Talk:Nur Ali Elahi.) Persianhistory2008, please re-read Amatulic's boldface comment at Talk:Nur Ali Elahi#RfC: Article name. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain he's referring to both you and Global.wiki: You've both already made your positions very clear, and seeing how the dispute is between the two of you, neither of you could be considered a neutral party. That section is intended for those who have had no previous involvement with this article, and who have no interest in the outcome of the dispute. Thank you for your consideration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species

You've moved The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species which brings it into line with the earlier editions, though the "On" was omitted for the final (and arguably definitive) 6th edition.[1] I've always taken care with this distinction when adding links to articles, so it means that all links, whether piped or not, are now to a redirect. Please go through linked articles and bring them into line with the new title, taking care to ensure that the appropriate title is shown for the relevant edition. .. dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi dave, okay, but do you mean on that page? Or do you see it on another page?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this, if you have a look at the article and click on "what links here" in the toolbox to the left,[2], you get a list with an indented list under "The Origin of Species (redirect page) (links)" which shows the pages going through that redirect. The aim is to make sure that these links (from articles, not from talk pages or archives) go directly to the page, as I've just done with Charles Darwin's views on religion here. If it's the earlier version, or doesn't matter, add "On" as I've done in that example. If it's the 6th edition, it should be a piped link as [[On the Origin of Species|The Origin of Species]]. It's an ideal which isn't always achieved, but any assistance with sorting this will be appreciated. ... dave souza, talk 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robert Fulton

Unfortunately, any and all Wikipedia articles are subject to vandalism. That's the downside of having a wiki. Feel free to fix these edits as you see them: see How to respond to vandalism and Help:Reverting. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A reminder

Please use the preview button before you save your edits. This helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks in advance, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahl-e Haqq

See Talk:Ahl-E Haqq#Page move. The lowercase/uppercase 'e' makes a difference, in terms of searching for the article. Also, another user has already noted, such page moves create a number of redirected links (See also: Help:Moving a page). Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Gyro, you are 100% correct. The E must be a lower case E, but for some crazy reason it only accepts an upper case. How do we make it lower case now. Thank you very much for caring!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason it can't be moved is that both pages have histories, and I'll comment at the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the Ahl-e Haqq linking. Thanks--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I've noticed a few times that you've added categories using the pipe ( | ) character, example: "[[Category:Xyz| ]]" (instead of simply "[[Category:Xyz]]"). This pipe puts the article at the top of the category, overriding any alphabetical sorting. I wasn't sure if you had a reason for doing this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about this, I think I understand what you mean, but I only used what Wiki had, so I don't know why they had it there ( | ). I will try to read about it!

Well, there are times you would want to do it (example might be to pipe the "Canada" article to the top of the "Canada" category), so perhaps you had seen one of those instances. No worries. See also: Help:Categories#Sort key. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cited reference in Hajj Amin Elahi

Hello, please double check your assessment of the New York Times reference in this article. It is not from the obits section, it is a paid announcement in the classified ads section. The author is apparently the family of the deceased, and so the comments do not conform to the editorial integrity aspect of the requirements for sources per WP:NN. If an obituary in fact does exist, it would be preferred to cite it, not this classified ad. If you agree with my assessment please revert yourself. Otherwise, please explain your rationale at my talk page. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for you opinion, but it absolutely was in the obituary section of the New York Times (I still have the paper). Not an advertisement, 99% of all the obituaries are paid for, so that is the reason it says "paid notice, published march 28, 2004". All obituaries for the past few hundred years are always paid for in all mainstream papers (unless some special editorial)! It was never in the classified ad section, with items for sale. That would be very bizarre for an obituary!

Plus, I am only using it as a citation for the date of death, not to sell anything. I think the New York Times is a very reliable source. You state "classified ad (advertisement)", that is normally associated with selling an item. Nowhere on the New York Times page does it state paid advertisement. It was absolutely in the obituaries section, but that is a “notice”, not an advertisement.

Thousands of people around the world enjoyed his music while he was alive and his style of playing is very unique. I think the obituary of any person is sacred. There are hundreds of thousands of pages on wiki that need major help. I can’t understand what your motivations are in trying to do something destructive instead of something constructive. I have created and helped edit hundreds of pages on wiki, not sure what you have against a dead persons obituary, but I think it is very strange. We could have both be spending our time improving wiki, instead of wasting time arguing about this.

According to Dictionary.com an obituary is “a notice of the death of a person”. That is exactly what it is. It establishes the date of death. If this is not acceptable, then we have to delete literally thousands of pages on Wiki. As an author, I can tell you that most authors rely very heavily on obituary from the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianhistory2008 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very saddened and disappointed to see you use the phrase "I can’t understand what your motivations are in trying to do something destructive instead of something constructive." Please read WP:AGF. Then please review my contributions and decide if your statement was fair and/ or called-for. It is very unpleasant for me to put my effort in toward improving this project and making earnest efforts to be civil and read a comment like yours. As for the rest of your comments, I no longer wich to discuss this issue with you. I will just agree to not edit the article in question and leave this up to the other editors. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your page move of The Origin of Species during move request.

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway, as you did to The Origin of Species. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Also, you appear clueless about cleaning out double redirects --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I've some sympathy for the move to "On the Origin", there should be consultation before moves and Francis is quite right about the need to follow procedures. ,,, dave souza, talk 08:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 warning

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, as you did to The Origin of Species, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You just undid Pmandersons effort to keep the page in the place where it was when the WP:RM started --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I was right and you were wrong. After a long discussion anyone who knows anything about science and history kept it as Darwin himself named it On the Origin of Species--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please do not canvass for an article on the talk pages of others as you have recently done numerous times. The talk pages are meant to discuss ways to improve the specific article, not to recruit other editors to weigh in on a proposed page move. If you do not understand what I am referring to, please read this. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did not try to canvass and don't appreciate your accusation. I did not know that I did not have the right to ask other peoples opinion. Sorry, for some strange reason I thought I had freedom of speech (to ask questions). I find your comments very rude and arrogant. If you are a scientist, you must understand reasoning. I explained very well why the name is “On the Origin of Species”. Darwin himself never took the “On”, off. That was a business move to sell more books over a decade after the book was published.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did when you inserted the exact same talk page comment onto no less than 4 separate talk pages in order to further a point you had made on the page in question. That is textbook canvassing. And while you do have a reasonable right to expression, you must abide by the rules of Wikipedia. I have no strong feelings either way about the title of the article. My standing as a scientist does not factor in here nor does my reasoning ability. However, your personal attack does factor in here. Please do not insult other editors, especially since I only gave you a good faith warning about your actions. If I did not warn you, any number of other editors would have done it. Don't shoot the messenger. Also, do not spam your messages to every editor involved. You added the exact same comment from above to my talk page and OM's talk page. Both have been removed. Baegis (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see I was right and you were wrong. After a long discussion anyone who knows anything about science and history kept it as Darwin himself named it On the Origin of Species--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

“On the Origin of Species”

• Charles Darwin named it “On the Origin of Species”, lets not try to change history.
• The book was published in 1859. In the 1850s, 60s, up to the mid 70s it always had “On”.
• Harvard University Press also published it with “On”.
• Even current reprints use “On the Origin of Species”, ISBN-10: 0674637526.
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 0486450066
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1592242863
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1551113376
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1434616851
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B000JML90Y
• Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B00079PSPG
• The photograph on the main page also says "On the Origin of Species".
• Encyclopedia Britannica also uses “On the Origin of Species”.
• Almost every college, university and high school uses "On the Origin of Species".
• Some businessman decided to take off the “On” over a decade after the book was published so he could make a quick buck, why fall into his trap??--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The-Scriptorium

It is evident that you have made edits as The-Scriptorium (talk · contribs) (e.g. Ahl-e Haqq (edit talk links history); building consensus at Talk:The Origin of Species). Please stick to a single account. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that no one appreciates accusations. I don't like making them unless I believe it's warranted. I've noted before^[3] that you have made constructive contributions (at the same time, constructive contributions can and should stand on on their own strength, without "help" from The-Scriptorium). But to clarify, the block was on the "The-Scriptorium" account, not Persianhistory2008. Any block that you encountered would have been due to a resulting autoblock on The-Scriptorium (i.e. because you used the same computer^[4] as The-Scriptorium). Right now I can't see that any block was lifted, nor that any autoblock was triggered. Also: this is the second time today you've mentioned freedom of expression; please take a moment and read Wikipedia:Free speech. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cooper Union speech

I noticed you created the above article stub, however there is already an article stub covering the same thing at Cooper Union Address. Will you take the necessary actions to merge the two articles? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DONE! Thank you for bring this to my attention. I just took care of it, and fixed it up a lot! Thanks--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disdéri

Hi, I reverted your move of this article because it isn't true to say that "most people and books" refer to him as "Disdéri". Even the Smithsonian (which you mention) gives "Andre Adolphe Eugene Disderi" as its preferred variant. There is some difficulty with his name because so many variants are used... please see the article talk page for a selection of authoritative variants. I think "Disdéri" makes more sense as a redirect. Cool? Pinkville (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, of course his full name is André Adolphe Eugène Disdéri, but everyone calls him Disderi, just like we call George Herman Ruth, Jr., "Babe Ruth" Nobody knows him by the VERY long name. Also I don't think we should have all the dashes. The french wiki and most books do not have the dashes.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, I replied on the article talk page and on my talk page. Ciao! Pinkville (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ulysses S. Grant V

A tag has been placed on Ulysses S. Grant V 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. Avruch^Talk 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The CNN article you added as a reference is not about USG V, it just mentions him in extremely brief passing. Avruch^Talk 23:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added a CNN link as a citation. He is in dozens of books and articles. Important to keep it. He is the last great grandson of one of the most important American's that ever lived!!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole articel is about the multimillion dollar collection HE was selling. All his. I just added another one too. He is the last of the blood line.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello G, there is a person who is removing what I write on his talk page and on another persons talk page. His user name is Baegis. He removed it on his talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baegis and at another person page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin Is he allowed to remove what I write many times like he did? Thank you--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove it from his own page... but not from others, unless you're trolling, or vandalizing, and I don't think you were. Gscshoyru (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what I thought. He removed it several times from another persons page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin can you or someone please give him a warning to stop deleting the message I am trying to send to the other person. Thank you--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you try talking with him about it yourself? That's usually best...

Put it back and tell me next time he removes it. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war

Hi, I've noticed you have been changing the number of people killed, but do you have any sources, because if you don't I'll have to do an AGF rollback.

Thanks,

Cf38 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected only what I wrote (in the talk page) and put the link. Just look at the history!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Persianhistory2008, Why did you undo my edit on the Cooper Union speech? The entire text of the speech is not needed, especially since it is found at this wikisource page? —ScouterSig 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Clemmons

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jack Clemmons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Jack Clemmons. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• He was a very important and key person. If its references and citations you need, I will provide that. He is in hundreds of books and articles.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)