User talk:HistoryofIran


Userpage	Talk page	Awards	Articles	Sources

This is HistoryofIran's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Email

Hello, HistoryofIran. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Languages of Afghanistan

Hello, please review the Languages of Afghanistan. A user is constantly ruining it. FX200 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you're mixing up the user with the IP? [1] HistoryofIran (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, That user had made many edits to the version edited by IP, I got confused. FX200 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would advise apologizing to the user instead though. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Thanks FX200 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alijanhz

5.123.0.0/16 was blocked but I am afraid we missed a range. They are also editing under 5.124.0.0/16. Mellk (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you once again Mellk, I've filed another SPI [2]. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a longer block for 5.123.0.0/16. Maybe this needs to go to ANI instead? A lot of the edits are purely disruptive or borderline vandalism e.g. [3]. Mellk (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is not good. I'll see what I can do. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help for category

hello, i want Change Category:Ethnic Tajik people to Category:Tajik People, how can i do that? FX200 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I get why you want that, but there is already Category:Tajikistani people for that, although it's a very atypical way of saying "Tajik". I think it's done to differentiate Tajiks from Afghanistan and Tajiks from Tajikistan. I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do from here. The place to request categories to get renamed/merged is here though Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here Category:Iranic people how other categories are written, I think it's better for sorting the categories. FX200 (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then Category:Tajikistani people would be pretty redundant no? You can make a request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and see what happens. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,Thanks FX200 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hello, dude is back but this time with an IP address. [4][5] Kajmer05 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, forgot to look into this. A bit pressed for time, I'l see if I have time tomorrow to look into it. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoryofIran! Don't worry, I filed the SPI. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw, nice one. I added a little comment. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Hey there I was looking at an article that you edited and i noticed you're at 99,913 edits almost at 100,000 and i just wanted to give an early congratulations because 100,000 is a huge accomplishment Shadow. 547 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow. 547. Well, I'm not sure about that lol, but I appreciate the nice gesture, thank you. Best. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh lol but yeah thanks Shadow. 547 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ETHNICITY

Why does this only apply to Persian figures? There's literally not a single article about Arabs, Greeks, etc, where their ethnicity is not mentioned. MOS:ETHNICITY.is about modern articles anyway. If you read it clearly, it says "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident." Falka-Sol (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see WP:OTHER. If you have concerns about those other articles, I would advise taking it to their respective talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the policy starts with this "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable." HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an explanation why you removed my edits based on a policy that says it's about "most modern-day cases"?

BTW, I am not making a WP:OTHER argument about deleting an article. I'm saying why something that has universally been interpreted as being about modern articles, is applied only to Iranian articles in common with Islam? Falka-Sol (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an example. It still says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable." The figures you tried to add ethnicity to are not notable for their ethnicity. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted attacks

Hello HistoryofIran! I came to know of an Instagram account targeting you and spewing out unprintables. This was after I made a comment on the Wikipedia Instagram and got myself called a racial slur (on one my personal posts on that platform) by that same account. Do you have any knowledge of this? JamesSolterre (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesSolterre. I don't have any knowledge of this, may I ask who it is? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He goes by "Historyofirankhorsow" on instagram. There, he pretends to be you and writes racial slurs on the instagram pages of random Wikipedia editors, like me. JamesSolterre (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caspidarya - this is reaching levels beyond pathetic. Thank you for the information, and I'm sorry you had to be targeted by that guy. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not allowed"

What does this mean?

Is it against the rules to write without splitting history in a topic that is controversial and widely discussed, or is it more appropriate to delete it by saying "there is no permission"?

In order not to divide the historical topic into parts, it was discussed and decided that the opened pages would be redirected to a single page. Would putting an end to the discussions about a topic that has already been divided into parts be considered against the rules, or are you trying to imply that I don’t have the authority to delete messages? If that’s the case, shall we return to the agreement made in the section about not dividing the historical topic into parts? BEFOR01 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. You're not allowed to remove talk page sections unless they are purely disruptive. There are exceptions of course. For example if you are the only one who commented in that section. Removing others messages is a no go. And no, that does not mean you can remove your messages only, that would make the section confusing and useless. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. BEFOR01 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) One point is that you had a sense other discussions had come to an end, and others disagreed. So, the discussions should remain open. Another is that you didn't archive the discussions, but simply deleted them, including others' comments. That's not allowed. Remsense ‥ 论 13:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your first statement. Because I didn't mean to do so. If I did, I wouldn't try to remove someone else's requests to add pages or edit articles. If you were right, I would just remove the thread that contains my own messages. Thank you for your support of the policies. I'm not taking any action at this time. I just want to make Wikipedia a place that helps people understand things better by clearing up the confusion. BEFOR01 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kamran Mirza Durrani

The article Kamran Mirza Durrani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kamran Mirza Durrani for comments about the article, and Talk:Kamran Mirza Durrani/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Abbasqoli Khan Mo'tamed od-Dowleh Javanshir

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abbasqoli Khan Mo'tamed od-Dowleh Javanshir you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic deletion of galleries, and attack pages

Regarding [6] and claims of "image span". You are aware that galleries are accepted on Wikipedia right? WP:GALLERY: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." This is precisely the case of a small gallery of images to illustrate the type of miniatures produced by the Aq Qoyunlu here, don't you think? I suggest you revert yourself, otherwise this could be seen as significant disruption and harassment (your "More image spam" claim and systematic deletion). By the way, I do not think "Attack pages" (Wikipedia:Attack page) are allowed on Wikipedia, such as your WP:NOTHERE. This could be seen as quite a violation of policy. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." - WP:GALLERY
"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting: usually, less is more." - MOS:IMAGEREL
You were banned for these exact type of edits at WP:ANI [7]. Back then it was not seen as harassment, nor will it be now. It is no secret that I patrol a large list of articles related to Western, Central and Southern Asia. You are not an exception.
As I have already told you before, galleries do have a place, if done appropriately [8].

This is what an attack page actually is "Do not create pages which serve no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening their subjects, or biographical articles which are unsourced and entirely negative in tone." Which I am not doing, as you can see, it is clearly not "unsourced", "disparaging", nor meant to be "threatening", and they were also part of your WP:ANI report. I am merely preparing the report here as it's more practical due to its size, but sure, I'll remove it and do it elsewhere. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really actually. Your main claim was that the Badr al-Din Lu'lu' article had too many images and galleries, which I concede to a certain extent. The reality is that I was treating this article as an "Art" article (Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is mainly known for his miniature production, he was otherwise a fairly insignificant ruler), "Art" articles in which it is customary to have quite a few galleries for illustration purposes. Still you don't seem to have found it so disturbing in reality, since it took you a full 10 months to do anything about it and actually remove part of these images [9]. Here, in the Aq Qoyunlu article, the gallery you removed [10] was a single small gallery designed to show some examples of the variety of Aq Qoyunlu miniatures. This is perfectly legitimate, and even necessary from an educational standpoint, and of course allowed by WP:GALLERY, as are millions of such cases on Wikipedia. There is also one in the Qara Qoyunlu article in case you hadn't noticed, also in the Literature section. I'm afraid there is nothing appropriate in such seemingly retaliation-driven removals, and I do think it would be better for your standing to refrain from such actions, which basically go against policy and usual practices on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REHASHING your arguments about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is not going to get us anywhere.. you can revisit me and the others comments about that if you want. Ultimately no one supported your actions there, along with the other diffs. And I wasn't sure on how to go with the article as it was so badly constructed, barely being a Wiki article, and then I forgot about it due to other things on my plate (+ I don't enjoy constantly cleaning up after you, it is quite time consuming). Hell, even now it is still a mess. By all means, please explain in detail how your gallery goes in line with the two citations I just posted, and how it isn't like your dozen of other diffs. And please refrain from engaging in WP:OTHER everytime you get called out for it. I recall last time you did that and compared it to an article about sculptures or something... And please refrain from misciting policies as well, this is just more WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the gallery you removed [11] was a single small gallery designed to show some examples of the variety of Aq Qoyunlu miniatures, within the paragraph about Aq Qoyunlu literature (these examples were all from Persian-language manuscripts if I'm not mistaken). These four images illustrate the rich variety of iconography and style in Aq Qoyunlu miniatures, such as figures of rulers, court scenes, hunting scene, genre scene in Chinese style for example, with a variety of color palette and drawing styles. This is impossible to convey just in words, and helps the reader gain a global "feel" of what Aq Qoyunlu miniatures look like with just a few examples (my selection was intended to give a fairly synthetic view of Aq Qoyunlu miniature art in a few images). I trust this is in conformity with WP:GALLERY: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.", and in conformity with standard Wikipedia practices when illustrating artistic matters. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in your head, but the average reader won't have a clue, not gaining anything from this due to a severe lack of context (before my clean up there was also two images of the same work... remember when I had to clean up dozens of the same looking, generic potteries that you had added in articles related to the medieval Islamic era?). The section isn't even about art, but literature. Instead of reading and reciting the same small paragraph from WP:GALLERY over and over, perhaps you should read the quotes I posted and reflect a bit over it. But you've been reminded about this for years, and still try to justify your diffs in that report, despite a community consensus for your one year ban. Look at the Pacorus II I've mentioned several times, it explains how his coinage imagery changed throughout time, and thus it was actually relevant enough to add images illustrating that in a concise manner. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, literature is an art, and illustrated manuscripts especially so. In addition, not all galleries can be about the chronological evolution of coins over time.... Other galleries (most) are designed more eclectically to provide significant visual examples for a given, often artistic, subject. There is no obligation of chronicity or evolutionary path between images. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point here. If you truly want to improve articles and this is not more of the same image advertising and shoehorning demonstrated in the ANI report, please read the quotations several times. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific: you cannot just say "read the quotations", and not explain specifically what your problem is. I have answered to you and explained why I think this gallery is compliant and appropriate, and why I think your deletion is inappropriate, arbitrary, and even going against Wikipedia rules. So, what is specifically the problem with this image gallery in your mind? In what sense do you think it does not comply with WP:GALLERY? How is it less appropriate than the million other galleries we use routinely on Wikipedia? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific: you cannot just say "read the quotations", and not explain specifically what your problem is. I have answered to you and explained why I think this gallery is compliant and appropriate, and why I think your deletion is inappropriate, arbitrary, and even going against Wikipedia rules. So, what is specifically the problem with this image gallery in your mind? In what sense do you think it does not comply with WP:GALLERY?

I have already tried to be specific here as well as for years (WP:ROPE), either you can't (WP:CIR) or won't understand (WP:LISTEN). It was foolish of me to try for the 100th time. And no matter how much you miscite Wikipedias rules (WP:GAMING), it's not going to work. Your random, shoehorned, contextless images always uploaded by you are intrusive (WP:SPAM) and not making the reader any more knowledgeable.

How is it less appropriate than the million other galleries we use routinely on Wikipedia?

More proof that it is futile to try to explain stuff to you, you have been told of WP:OTHER countless times. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the bottom line is that you cannot provide any rule-based rationale or concrete justification for this specific content deletion [12] (again), and only bask in generalities and past acrimonies. Having once won a case doesn't give you the right to constantly attack me thereafter without proper reason. I will leave it at that, and if you don't self-revert (which I strongly recommend), I will restore the original content. But please note that I have served my time, and have now recovered normal editorial rights. I have the same rights to due process as you do. Your actions against me have to be rule-based and editorially justified, you cannot just go around revenge-blanking my contributions, repeatedly spreading gratuitous and insulting aspersions (spam), being constantly aggressive, rude and invicil,[13] and harass me just because of past disputes. I, for one, do not mind turning the page, so as far as I'm concerned we remain collaborators and friends. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the bottom line is that you cannot provide any rule-based rationale or concrete justification for this specific content deletion [12] (again), and only bask in generalities and past acrimonies.

More WP:REHASH. I already have. The average reader won't have a clue, not gaining anything from this due to a severe lack of context. Your shoehorned images do not comply with the rules I cited, which you refuse to read for some once, instead making false claims. Do I have to repeat this in another way like I did at Talk:Aq Qoyunlu for you you finally understand? You are the one with the vague explanations, as well as constantly ignoring parts of what I say.

Having once won a case doesn't give you the right to constantly attack me thereafter without proper reason. I will leave it at that, and if you don't self-revert (which I strongly recommend), I will restore the original content.

I did not "win" anything. Maybe you see it as a game, but I don't - I don't care about "winning" against you. It was not a mere "case" either, you had been disruptive for years, and thus got reported for it, that's it. However, you are clearly denying any wrongdoing, despite a community consensus and an admin banning you, which is incredibly concerning and shows you have no issue in continuing the same pattern, as you are doing right now. And now you are threatening to be further disruptive.

Your actions against me have to be rule-based and editorially justified, you cannot just go around revenge-blanking my contributions, repeatedly spreading gratuitous and insulting aspersions (spam), being constantly aggressive, rude and invicil,[13] and harass me just because of past disputes.

More WP:REHASH. These "actions" of mine are the exact same that brought you (and other users who violate x rule(s)) to WP:ANI. You are still not an exception of out all the other users. I have not done anything differently, no matter how many WP:ASPERSIONS you throw.

I, for one, do not mind turning the page, so as far as I'm concerned we remain collaborators and friends.

Then you should have followed the rules of this site instead of your own. Actually try to actually view things from the average readers point of view and not what you fancy. You've been given years of WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The topic is "Possible slow-moving revert war at CTOP article Hazaras". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]