User talk:Mani1

Contents

1 SAFAVIDS

2 Unicode and Farsi

3 Tajik (Persian)

8 What to mention on top of the articles

9 The quake

10 Farsi/Persian

11 Move of "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" =

12 ثارسی/فارسی

13 Persian template

14 Ahvaz and Khuzestan pages need help

15 Stubs

16 Qarun Treasure

SAFAVIDS

Mani, please think twice, before you amend carefully phrased and historically founded editorials. I noticed some of your latest amendments of the SAFAVIDS article, which were simply in contradiction to established historical facts. "TURCIC-speaking soldiers" does not necessarily imply TURCIC soldiers, which they actually were. QIZILBASH is not merely TURCIC (an idiom of "Istanbuli" Turkish) but actual Turkish for "Red-Heads". Azeri WAS actually the official court language of the early Safavids, a well established fact. The respective references to Azerbaijan (Turkey held part/Persian held part) are historically significant and should therefor not be deleted! I believe the Safavids have been quite clearly portrayed as ethnically PERSIAN/IRANIAN, therefor the geographical basis (Azerbaijan) of their early development bears historical significance. --Pantherarosa 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pantherarosa,

What you mentioned is in my opinion contradictory to the historical facts. The word Turkic when applied to a people means they are of Turkic (=Mongoloid) stock, while the Safavid soldiers where people of mosly Iranian stock who were linguistically Turkified. That's why the designation Turkic-speaking is more correct for them. Qizilbash is a Turkic word used in Azerbaijani and Uzbek etc. and not in (Istanbuli)Turkish. The (Istanbuli)Turkish for that word is Kizil-bas. Turkic means "related to the family of language spoken by the Turks" and does not mean (Istanbuli) Turkish at all.

It is a well-established fact that the standard and official language of the Safavid government was Persian. There is not even one single official document of the Safavid times found to be written in any other language than Persian. I have been studying the documents of that period and I know what I am talking about. Azerbaijani was not official at all. It was only used by the Safavid kings to talk to some of the military officiers who might have not learned Persian yet. But all the official correspondences were done merely in Persian.

Azarbaijan is the area to the south of the Aras River and is not divided by Turkey and Iran or others. It is in its entirety a part of Iran as always. If you want to refer to Aran, the newly forme republic to the north of Aras, it is a new forgery to call that area "Azerbaijan" too. The historical reference here is about the real Azarbaijan not the new fake one. --Mani1 11:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unicode and Farsi

While changing evrey refernce to Farsi on wikipedia to Persian, please be careful about cases officially established and internationally approved. In unicode there is a code known as "Farsi Symbol". This symbol is known with this term in all documents (including unicode's standard [1] (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf)) and we are not in a position to change it to some other word because we don't like it. If you want it to be changed in later revisions of the standard contact unicode (http://www.unicode.org/). --Pouya 15:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you.

--Mani1 16:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tajik (Persian)

While I agree that Tajik is really a dialect of Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tajik_language&diff=8784669&oldid=8784648), that is a matter of POV; some people, if only for political reasons, insist that it's a separate language. The term "Tajiki" is neutral, not indicating whether it's a language or a dialect; the term "Tajiki Persian" is POV, enforcing the view that you and I believe to be correct, and should therefore usually be avoided. - Mustafaa 16:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. What is the official name of the Tajiki-Persian in Tajikistan? I heard that they use the name Tajiki-Persian too. I think Tajiki-Persian is an official and accepted name and not a POV. I might be wrong on that. Wheter considered a dialect of persian or a "seperate language" (by some), its name can still be Tajiki-Persian. --Mani1 16:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question; apparently, Roozbeh says Tajiks call it [2] (http://lists.sharif.edu/pipermail/persiancomputing/2004-May/001149.html)Tajiki, as does Ayatollah Lankarani[3] (http://www.lankarani.net/Tajik/), but I can't seem to find any helpful Tajik government sites that aren't in Russian. Let's look into this further. - Mustafaa 16:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah. It's simply "Tojiki" on the Internet Access and Training Program site (http://www.iatp.tj/RU/index.php). - Mustafaa 17:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In many sources, the name Tajiki-persian is given as a legitimate alternative (Example Here (http://www.paratype.com/help/language/language.asp?langCode=85)). I am still not sure whether the Tajikistani government and official cultural organisations consider the name Tajiki-Persian to be controversial or not. Do those sites you mentioned, mention that Tajik(i) is the only politicaly correct and official name? --Mani1 17:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly it's an alternative name used by some, but it doesn't seem to be the primary name; and the Ethnologue (the ultimate source of the alternate names listed there) gives many politically controversial names, like "Lapp"[4] (http://www.paratype.com/help/language/language.asp?langCode=115). Encyclopedia Britannica calls it Tajiki[5] (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368164), and it does seem that, in all the Tajik sites I've found, they simply call their language "Tojiki" or "zaboni Tojiki". UCLA also calls it Tajik (http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/proft01.htm). The main exception I've found is IranianLanguages.com, which calls it Tajiki Persian[6] (http://iranianlanguages.com/newiranian/tajiki.htm). - Mustafaa 17:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the name Tajiki, which ignores its Persian connection not a POV?

In my opinion the name Tajiki alone does not cover all the point of views, or does not provide a neutral view. It is a bised name motivitated by politics. --Mani1 17:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name Tajik no more implies a lack of connection with Persian than the name Cockney implies a lack of connection to English. Similarly, if someone mentions "Darja" (or Maltese!), that could be taken by some to refer to a separate language, and others to refer to a dialect of Arabic. - Mustafaa 17:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The language spoken and written by the Tajiks of Central Asia was universally known as Persian and only Persian by the locals and foreigners. Russian invaders have tried to give the Persian language another name in the regions they occupied. It is like trying to call Australian a seperate language and refuse to accept term like English or Australian-English! In my opinion the term "Tajiki language" ignores its Persian connection as much as the term "Australian language" ignores its English connection. --Mani1 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was universally known as Persian, but modern Tajik sites seem to all call it Tojiki. - Mustafaa 18:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And other modern sites call it Tajiki-Persian. Why is Tajiki less POV than Tajiki-Persian? --Mani1 19:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I seriously disagree that "all other modern sites" call the language "Tajiki-Persian". Actually, a Google search [7] (http://freethoughts.org/archives/000663.php) shows that only Wikipedia mirrors use a dash, while other search results give one without a space. roozbeh 19:05, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

He said "and other modern sites" not "all other". Anyway, the fact is that in both Afghanistan and Tajikistan, the language used to be officially called "Persian" and in both countries, the official name of the language was chagned by introducing a bill in their parliament, and taking votes. In case of Afghanistan it became "Dari" and in case of Tajikistan it became "Tojiki". But this is fairly recent history, and it was artificially changed for political reasons. When I listen to Afghan and Tajik officials speak on TV (news conferences, interviews, etc), whatever that langugage is that they speak, call it "Dari" or "Tojiki" if you like, I understand it 100%, not 99%. When Iranian officials visit Afghanistan or Tajikistan, they speak the same Persian language that they speak at home, not a "limited version" of the language for special audience! The language is "Persian", but it is also called "Dari" and "Tojiki" by parliamentary vote due to political reasons in those two countries.

Persian Gulf

Dear Mani,

I know that you have strong feelings on the naming of the Persian Gulf and on teh nomenclature used in the first line. I understand that you feel the mentioning of the wrong name gives it a false credibility. While I actually share your feelings wrt the real name and your anger wrt attempts to change these by following the money and the oil from its souther shores I still believe that it is out of order to do a revert on the one bone of contention and call it a "minor" edit. It is not. It is actually disingenious, which I am sure you do not intend to appear as. Also - if you do look around you will see that all current serious contributors share your views reg the correct name - but believe to neglect mentioning the Arab-imposed version and the conflict around this would make the article biased and less credible. Please give this some thought before you do again a revert Refdoc 15:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Refdoc,

If you visit all the unbiased sites and atlasses of the world from day one till today all of them have just one name for that body of water i.e. Persian Gulf. Only recently some very BIASED and scandalous sites use illegal newly-forged names for that. If wikipedia does not want to be biased and be associated with pirates and thives it should not refer to the illegal (according to UN resolutions) forgeries as (legitimate) "alternatives" for the established legal names. As I said before, if I want to add here all the alternative names the Arabs would like to use for the geographical names or for western girls or people, there will be nothing serious about wikipedia anymore. This bad Arab joke should stop somewhere before becoming serious. Thanks for your discussion of the matter. Take care, --Mani1 15:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now Mani, this is not exactly true. Not everyone who uses Arabian Gulf is in cahoots with Arabian nationalists, is a fake or wants to cheat Iran out of its heritage. An this has nothing to do with western girls either - please stop being offensive! The Persian Gulf is a body of water. all names are a mixture of history, legality, convenience and personal preference. Names are symbols, but not the thing in itself. Long before Persia was teh guld was and long after Iran i will be gone, the gulf will sttill be. So - I have said this before and everyone else who is seriously contributing prefers Persian Guld and would personally never use anything else. But to to win this argument is a real way, not simply by making people go away, sent packing by endless revert wars, You need to be a bit more flexible and show that you are striving for NPOV - then it will be easy for others to follow your argument and agree. Refdoc 01:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "alternative names" people use for western girls or countries sound offensive to you (and me) then you can understand how offensive that Arab forgeries are to Iranians. (I think you wouldn't accept or tolerate those names to sit next to the names USA and blond in wikipedia, would you?).

I understand you feel obliged by Wikipedia rules to revert my edits. And I have been using the same rules to edit them again. I admit I have been impatient in examining and finding a Wikipedial correct way to lay out my arguments here, and that's the reason you gentelmen have to revert my edits (against your wills). I will try to find the time and eagerness to go through all Wikipedia's rules and find a way out of this vicious circle. Before I have done that I preserve the right to edit the articles as I think is correct. Free speech can cause complexities, I know. Take care. --Mani1 01:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zazaki

You've made an interesting addition [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zazaki&diff=9370730&oldid=9365155) to Zazaki. Do you also have a book title or the like as reference? The Zazaki articles are victims of edit warring in all wikipedias, and IMHO the best counter-measure is expanding and giving references.

Strange anecdote: I had found an Zazaki grammar book (in german) ISBN 3928943960, and since I've put it in the de:Zazaki reference section, its Amazon sales rank is up from 3,500,000 to 650,000. Wondering, what this means in absolute numbers.

Pjacobi 23:48, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Hi. One of my references about Daylamite origin of Zaza-Guranis is: Blau, "Gurani et Zaza," in R. Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 336-40

I added it to the article. See also: Encyclopaedia Iranica: Zazaki (http://members.tripod.com/~zaza_kirmanc/research/dimili.htm) --Mani1 12:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith

Hey Mani,

I know you love going around to every article and adding references to Iran, since you are very proud of your home country, but please don't keep adding the word "Iranian" to the first paragraph of the Baha'i Faith page. It will be changed back. Lower down in the article it does say that Baha'u'llah was a Persian nobleman, so there is no need to repeat. Also, the Baha'i Faith sees that all people of any race and colour are equal and we should be proud of our humanity and not of your country. -- Navidazizi 14:42 Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. As thousands of articles on wikipedia start with sentences like "... the American author, ... the British architect, ... the Chinese prophet ...etc." I consider it to be no problem to mention at the beginning that Baha'ullah was an Iranian prophet. Insisting on making an exception in this article to avoid mentioning the name Iran on top is rather biased.

You advise me not be proud of my country and think that I am not proud of my humanity! How do you know I do not see all humans as equal? You are offensive and prejudist. You may not be proud of your country and culture but I am. I am proud of its good things and disapprove its negative sides. What is your real reason behind deleting the name of Iran on top? Shame of your background? Low self-confidence? --Mani1 16:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually Baha'u'llah was persian, Iran was not a country at the time of his life, so placing Iranian is actually incorrect. In the article, in the history location it clearly says Persian, so thus no need to restate it. I am not ashamed of my culture. I am canadian, I am proud of it's multi-culturality, it's allowance to allow me to keep some of my persian culture, but I don't go along putting canadian beside everything. Iranians were the ones who killed 4 of my family members during the revolution. Iranians are the ones who made my family escape from Iran, taking all of our possesions. Even saying that most of my friends here in Toronto are muslim persians, but I don't go bragging about my heritage, canadian or iranian. -- Navidazizi 17:00 Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Iran was called Iran by Iranians, only in the Western countries it was knows as Persia. Both Bahaullah and Abdul-Baha referred to Iran as "Iran" in their Persian writings. Have you even read any of their works?! Also, the fact that YOU (and other Bahais) think that the concept of nationality and culture and languges should go away, does not make it a universal rule (until Bahais finally rule the world). In today's world, there are concepts of nationality, language, culture, etc, and thank god there are. They are like the variety of flowers in the garden of humanity. Bahaism wants to destroy all of them and make just one "nation". Any intelligent person would ask himself why would god create us with different physical, geographical, and therefore, cultural characteristics if he wanted us all to be just one nation? As an Iranian, I am not proud of Bahaullah, I think he was a crook, and there is plenty of evidence to show that he was, but that doesn't change the fact that he was an Iranian. Don't impose your religious views on the whole world.

And you say "Iranians" killed your family during the revolution? Didn't muslims get killed during and after the revolution? Many people of all walks of life were killed during and after the revolution, not just Bahais. It seems that in your mind Bahai victims of some murderers are more of a "victim" than muslim victims of the same people?! So much for your "humanity is one" Bahai motto. This actually proves my point of the previous paragraph -- human beings are by their nature gregarious, and therefore, be it a nation or religion or other categorizations, we have a propensity to form groups. This shows the Bahai concept of "one humanity, one nation, one religion" is only nice on paper, but against the human nature, as you yourself just demonstrated it unwittingly. On another note, I understand that the modern-day version of the Azalis are the so-called "Orthodox Bahais" who are getting all sorts of evil treatment from the loving and peaceful Bahais! hehe ... God help humanity if one day you guys take over. There will be ZERO tolerance for anything else. --Amir 20:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I omited the name Persian down in the article and mentioned it in the first line. In this way your objection that, restating it is unnecessary, is solved.

Iran has always been a country, in the time of Baha'ullah too. I advise you to read more history. I am sorry about your family and I understand you have a personal vendetta with Iran but this encyclopaedia is not a place to fight your vendettas. As Persian and Iranian was synonymous before 1936 I used the name Persian instead of Iranian (which you don't like) in the first line. Whether you like it or not he was Persian (Iranian) and mentioning this fact early in the article only adds to the informative quality of the article. About me mentioning the name Iranian/Persian wherever neccessory, I advise you to do the same with the name Canadian wherever you see the information is incomplete. This will help wikipedia to present a more comprehensive and correct information. --Mani1 13:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta against Iran or Iranians. As I said before most of my friends are muslims persians. What I disagree with is putting people's nationalities in front of every personage. I would rather people not be known as nationalities, but rather for their actions (good or bad) regardless of nation.

What to mention on top of the articles

Now you omitted both references to him being Persian! This is encyclopaedia and if people go to the articles they want to get information such as where this or that person was from. If that kind of information does not interest you, you can not push other people not to want to know where this or that personality is from!

If I go to the article about a person, a.o. I would like to know where he/she was from. This is one of the first things many people want to know about persons. You do not like this information you can go on and read other lines. You can not omit information just because YOU are not interested in it. I can not go delete all the information about countries' currencies because I think it is not important to know! Stop defecting the article and let the information stay complete. Take care. --Mani1 15:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you please show when I reverted the text since we starting having this discussion? -- Fadeaway919 15:54, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Then it must have been someone else. My apologies.

--Mani1 16:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you should now agree to have Arabian Gulf in the first line.... Refdoc 20:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see the Great Satan in the first line or the second or ...!

--Mani1 23:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL!, but you DID see him, didn't you? It has survived in a very exposed position for more than a day. I guess you must give me some credite here! Refdoc 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. I truly didn't. I think I should check the history of that article then. As I said, if you can get the "Great Satan" ESTABLISHED as a normal alternative next to the name of the USA in the top line of the article, then the matter with the Persian Gulf article will difer too.

Take care. --Mani1 11:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, that would be too ambitious an aim. It is though firmly established in a new section "foreign policy", pretty much up in the article. I created the section. Refdoc 11:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have mentioned what Khomeini called that country but actually the whole government of the Islamic Republic uses that term (we also have to find out waht al-Qaeda calls that country).

Other names what some people want to call instead of the Persian Gulf is also mentioned in a large seperate article with link provided inside the Persian Gulf article. So you agree that putting A. Gulf or other names instead of established and historical and UN-approved name of the Persian Gulf on top is too ambitious an aim. --Mani1 11:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. And so I was happy with the final version, which you now so "kindly" deleted again. The wrong name was mentioned, reasonably wide up , but not bold. Mani, you are an all-or-nothing guy, aren't you? Please do show some respect to your fellow editors who have worked hard on finding a solution which is clear, unambigous (the correct name is at the top and alone) but also clarifies what all the fuss is about. "More information in the sub page" which you created - a good idea actually. Wrt Great Satan and the Iranian government - is this still the name used by the Khatamni government? Refdoc 11:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have also worked hard here for finding a solution. A few minutes ago I made a "final version" too and deleted one of the links to the Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf which was repeated twice in the article. I see no reason why the information about the fake names has to be mentioned in the upper paragraphs and not somewhere else in the article as is the case with many other articles in Wikipedia. Let me know whether you like this final version too, or in case you don't what the reasons are.

Great Satan is still used in friday prayers and some governmental publications for reffering to the USA. --Mani1 15:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quake

2005 Zarand earthquake --Pouya 21:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Farsi/Persian

I think the reason people put "Farsi" into the template is not so much to quote the local term, but to document the increasing use of the term "Farsi" in English. Certainly many English speaking people will look at me with glazed eyes if I say speak "Persian" but suddenly understand when I say "Farsi". Not enough motivate dthough to start an editwar over this :-) Refdoc 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And in more educated circles people will immediately correct you if you use the local word i.e. "Farsi" instead of the English equivalent: Persian, (when talking or writing in English).

In my opinion the official and correct forms belong in an encyclopaedia not the mistakes the laymen might increasingly make.

--Mani1 18:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute this. People in English speaking countries have long stopped talking about "correct" versions of words/grammar etc - if a word is used by a large minority it will find its way into dictionaries and encyclopedias. Few countries subscribe to a top-down approach. I know Iran did (or does), France does, Turkey does, but these countries are increasingly in a minority. Refdoc 18:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are no official and correct forms in English. Farsi is not a mistake; it's an alternate name. Please at least stop being obtuse on the edit summaries; it's not the local word, it's an alternate English name of the language. --Prosfilaes 02:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Farsi is the local name and Persian is the English name. This fact and the alternative names are mentioned in the article on Persian. A small information table is not a place for naming the alternative names, as we see in the case of all other countries. Only for Iran is the "alternative" (local) name of the language mentioned in that table. If you insist on that, then you should put the alternative names all over those tables for all the countries. --Mani1 10:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mani, you are quite wrong here. "Farsi" is widely used in the UK and other countries as another valid name for the Iranian dialect of Persian. Please have a look at following google search for official governmental pages in the UK [9] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Farsi&num=50&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=.gov.uk&safe=images) interestingly enough the equivalent search in official government pages in the throws up only a fraction of the results [10] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Persian+site%3A.gov.uk&btnG=Search) and most of these results are either mentioning "Persian" as the alternative to Farsi or are histoical references to Persian culture and history, not references to the language. Refdoc 10:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of the main dictionaries, encyclopaedias etc. mention the word "Farsi". You are right and there is much confusion about Persian language these days (some think "Farsi" (the local name for Persian in all three Persian-speaking countries) is the Iranian version of Persian!, some think "Farsi" is Persian as a whole!, some think "Farsi" is another language and they don't know it is the same as Persian, some know it is the local name for Persian, some think Persian is the older version of "Farsi"! ...

To avoid all this misinformation and confusion we should stick to the formal name which is used in all serious references i.e. Persian. As I said even if you insist on naming the "alternative" names in the article itself there is no need for naming it every time a word is used especially in a small table. --Mani1 10:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move of "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" =

Dear Mr Mani1, you moved "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" to "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf". I consider that a quite unacceptable vandalism and a lie -- the organization is NOT named that. The organization's name is the organization name, no matter how much said name offends you, and you can't simply *wish* it to be different anymore than I can wish George Bush to have been named Bozo the Clown instead. I'll be moving the page back, and if you lyingly move it yet again for your propagandistic purposes, I'll do everything I can within Wikipedia process to see you banned from editing anything Middle-eastern related ever again. Cheers. Aris Katsaris 07:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point. But somebody should ban you from any public place for using such a bad language and such a nervous tone. Cool down and take a calm breath, man. Take care. --Mani1 10:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ثارسی/فارسی

Mani, I saw your post at Zereshk's user page, and I wanted to comment before you got exercised over the Persian User template currently in development. These are based on the Unicode standard, so I think we are stuck with the FA designator. And I have to admit to saying "Farsi" a lot myself, because that's what I've learned to do. In contemporary America, "Persian" is often assumed to be an incorrect label stemming from Orientalism instead of the favored term that it actually is. I try to use "Persian," but sometimes I slip.

While I can't change the "FA" symbol, I can make sure that the Persian User template 3.0 says "Persian" in the translation portion. {Right now, it's all written in Persian, but they want to start adding an English translation to every button so that English-speakers know what language it is).

As far as the Persian version goes, changing فارسی to ثارسی is problematic. I had a very difficult time getting all the combinations of Persian characters and Latin-alphabet code to work together properly, because of the right-to-left vs. left-to-right issue. The HTML tags for addressing this don't seem to work on Wikipedia. But more importantly, might not some Iranian users consider the usage archaic, even though it is more historically correct? And of course a Persian-speaker in Afghanistan would call it داری, and a Tajik wouldn't be able to read this template at all, even though he could converse with you in Persian. So I'm trying to do the best I can here -- and I can't even speak or read Persian well enough to qualify as an "fa-1" on Wikipedia:Babel scale. You could help me out if you put the tag below on your Userpage to test if everything is working:

As I've said, FA we're stuck with, and I'd like to keep فارسی , but everything else can be changed. Please jump right in and edit yourself, or if you don't feel comfortable with that, post any corrections you think are necessary on my userpage.

Sorry for making this so long. Khodahafiz! --Jpbrenna 00:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks a lot for paying attention to the matter. If the English tanslation of the template says the correct form i.e. Persian it's very good. As for naming our language in the Persian language itself you presented two option: فارسی (Fârsi) and ثارسی (Thârsi!). I suppose by ثارسی (Thârsi) you mean پارسی (Pârsi). I should tell you that Pârsi is not used by the Persian-speakers today and it is a historical form many wish to make alive again. But right now the only official and currect form is فارسی (Fârsi). Notice that the name of the language in Persian itself is فارسی (Fârsi) and not in English. So if you try to use PERSIAN when writing in English, using فارسی (Fârsi) when writing in Persian and using Persisch when writing German etc. you are correct. I don't know much about the template itself. I will try to learn more about it and try to help if I can. As for Afghans in daily life and daily talk they call their language also فارسی (Fârsi) but their government uses "Dari" on the papers, for political reasons. So all the Afghan visitors know exactly what you mean by فارسی and Persian. The Tajiks all know the meaning of the word Persian in an English text and the ones who have learned Perso-Arabic script understand فارسی too.

Khodahafez. Take care, --Mani1 07:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Persian template

Thanks very much for those template, I am looking forward to use them. --Sina 21:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea to create those user language templates for Persian language. There was a technicality in listing category: User fa-1, category: User fa-2 and category: User fa-3 under category: User languages that I corrected. --Pouya 19:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Actually Jpbrenna made those templates and I just introduced them. It is indeed nice to have such templates. Take care, Qorban-e shoma, --Mani1 21:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahvaz and Khuzestan pages need help

Salam,

User:Zora has been a royal pain in the ass for the past few weeks, CONSTANTLY trying to delete, censor, and REVISE these two pages painfully written and referenced by me and User:SouthernComfort.

She is trying to substitute a Pan-Arab version she got from British Al-Ahwazi websites instead. She claims the name Ahvaz is not even Iranian. (!!!)

I dont know why Wikipedia even allows revisionists like her to run around like this.

Your help there could be gratefully used.--Zereshk 02:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for adding the Abu Said Gardizi article. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, I replaced the generalized {{stub}} tag with {{bio-stub}}. When you create new articles, it would be great if you could use these more specific tags whenever possible. Thanks, and continue contributing to Wikipedia! RussBlau 16:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'll certainly do that,

Take care --Mani1 16:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Qarun Treasure

Hello, and thanks for your assistance on the List of mythical objects article. I do have a question, though. On the list, you added an item called the "Qarun Treasure". Can you give a brief explanation what that is? I have not been able to find it on the net, and I'm sure readers of the article would like a brief description of it. Thanks again for your assistance.--Mitsukai 03:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mani1"