User talk:Parvazbato59

Archives

List of states with limited recognition

Hi. The text I deleted was originally written by myself (no intention to vandalize). I just had second thoughts about the level of detail needed in the Palestine reference. If you want to keep it that's OK by me, I just want to point out that there was no ill intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.159.133.20 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please refer to your talk page. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trique

I've replied to your reversion on the talk page for Trique. -Lingboy (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Trique. I replied to your proposed changes. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weaknesses of the {{afd}} process

There are various weaknesses of the {{afd}} process.

Those Weaknesses include how rare it is for anyone to acknowledge they changed their mind, or acknowlege that they made an innocent mistake, or lapsed from policy.

As a nominator you have certain responsibilities.

In my opinion the potential nominator a responsibility to fairly review articles before they nominate them for deletion. If an article can be fixed, the concerned contributor is not supposed to nominate it for deletion, they are supposed to fix it, or leave a note on the talk page, stating their concern, or apply an editorial tag.
In my opinion, if the potential nominator's fair review of an article turns up additional material that may show that the topic does merit coverage, that was not included in the article, they have a responsibility to mention that in their nomination. Many nominators fail to acknowledge this kind of additional material. Many nominators base their nomination on the current state of the article itself, not on the merits of covering the topic. But the deletion policies are clear on this, and those nominators are clearly flouting the policies. We are all supposed to assume good faith. I find it a strain on my ability to assume good faith when nominators continue to fail to own up when their flouting of policies is brought to their attention.
In this specific case I thik you had a responsibility to address the use of Shahzada as a disambiguation page. Back in January someone made an ill-advised change to the article. They changed it from a disambiguation page to an article devoted to the princely title. They could have created a Shahzada (disambiguation) page, but they did not do so. Their edits seem well-intentioned, and seem to suggest they simply didn't understand how wikipedia disambiguation pages work. Perhaps you too do not understand wikipedia disambiguation pages? If that is the case, please go and learn about them right away.

When I realize I made a mistake, I own up and say so. I think I should expect all good faith wikipedia contributors to own up and acknowledge when they make mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I responded to all your comments in article Shahzada deletion page, but this is the last time that I responde to your personal attacks. Please review your talk page. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Its not Vandalism. It was a comment on another person's opinion on a talk page. HIs opinion has nothing to do with the Encyclopedic value of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Article. I will replace my comment on his comment. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespecting a user, with such comment is vandalism and will be reverted and if you continue placing such comments on talk pages, you will be blocked. Parvazbato59 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disrespectful comment is not vandalism, but I think might be another type of wiki violation. But I know its not vandalism, unless they changed the rules. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]