text:
Something/Anything?

Something/Anything? is the third album by American musician Todd Rundgren, released in February 1972. It was Rundgren's first album released under his own name, following two records credited to the quasi-group project Runt, and was also his first double album. It was recorded in late 1971 in Los Angeles, New York City and Bearsville Studios, Woodstock. The album is divided into four sections focused on different stylistic themes; the first three parts were recorded in the studio with Rundgren playing all instruments and singing all vocals in addition to producing. The final quarter contained a number of tracks recorded live in the studio without any overdubs, save for a short snippet of archive recordings from the 1960s.

Rundgren had become confident enough at other instruments beyond his standard guitar and keyboards that he had tackled in earlier releases, and this, coupled with a general dissatisfaction with other studio musicians, led him to temporarily relocate to Los Angeles in an attempt to record an entire album single-handedly. After Rundgren created significantly more material than would fit on a standard LP, an earthquake struck Los Angeles. He decided to head back to New York for some live sessions, with the help of Moogy Klingman, to lighten the mood. The final sessions were in Bearsville, where the remainder of the recording and mixing took place, and this created enough material for a double album.

The album peaked at number 29 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold three years after its release. A single taken from the album, "Hello It's Me", was a top-five hit in the US in late 1973, and it contained a further hit, "I Saw the Light". Something/Anything? later attracted critical acclaim as one of the most significant records of the 1970s. In 2003, the album was ranked number 173 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, maintaining the rating in a 2012 revised list, and later ranked at number 396 in the 2020 edition. It was voted number 797 in the third edition of Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000). After Something/Anything, Rundgren moved away from the straightforward pop ballads present on this album to more experimental territory and progressive rock in later releases, beginning with A Wizard, A True Star.

Background

By the time Rundgren started recording the album, he had already achieved commercial success as a solo artist and producer, and this increased his self-confidence. He had also become dissatisfied with other musicians playing on his recordings, recalling, "I'd never played drums or bass before, though I would hector those that did." This led him to decide to record the entire album by himself using multi-tracking. He wrote the material for the album at a prolific rate. He attributed his productivity to Ritalin and cannabis, stating that the drugs "caused me to crank out songs at an incredible pace." He found some of the other songs quick to write, too, noting "they were all basically starting out with C Major 7th, and I'd start moving my hand around in predictable patterns until a song came out."

Los Angeles sessions
The majority of backing tracks on the first three sides of the album were recorded at I.D. Sound Studios, Los Angeles, engineered by James Lowe with assistance from John Lee. The studio was one of the first independent units in LA, and Lowe believes Rundgren chose it due to the ability to work hands-on without record company interference and having all the latest technology and equipment. Rundgren played every instrument in turn, starting with the drums, noting it "was the logical place to start," with the others individually laid down on top. While recording the drums, Rundgren would try and hum the song in his head to remember where he was, but "if I would screw up, then I would change the song afterwards, to fit the mistake that I had made, because it was easier than going back and fixing it." In retrospect, Rundgren felt he might have performed better with a click track, being a novice drummer at the time, but concluded that the result "sound[s] like a band". He didn't think his lack of technical proficiency on the instrument was a particular handicap, saying that "people comprehend what you're playing, and it has a greater impact." Engineering the album, Lowe recalled he was "mostly working in the dark", and that Rundgren would leave spaces for instruments during recording, spontaneously developing a song as it was being recorded. "I was never sure exactly where the song was going until we'd put down about four or five tracks."

In addition to recording at I.D. Sound, Rundgren took an 8-track recorder and some studio equipment, installing it at his rented home on Astral Drive, Nichols Canyon. 'Intro', 'Breathless', and 'One More Day (No Word)' were recorded here, along with various guitar and keyboard overdubs. A version of 'Torch Song' was also recorded, but was scrapped due to excessive background noise. Rundgren recalled that recording at home meant he could spend time working on pieces of technology or production, such as programming a VCS3 synthesizer, at his leisure without wasting anyone else's time. The artwork on the original gatefold sleeve was also shot in this apartment. Despite working long hours each day in both I.D and at home, with minimum breaks for sleeping and eating, Rundgren said he enjoyed the recording experience, and "wouldn't have had it any other way."

New York sessions
Rundgren contemplated recording more tracks to make up a double album in a similar manner, but following an earthquake, he decided to relocate to New York City and hold a live recording session at the Record Plant with session players. The basic idea was to create songs with sing-along choruses. Rundgren did not pre-plan who would play on the sessions, but simply wanted anyone who happened to be in or near the studio to turn up and learn the material.

Rundgren contacted Moogy Klingman, who would appear on several tracks and later co-found Utopia with Rundgren. Rundgren instructed Klingman to find the best session players possible for the recording. Klingman recalled getting a phone call from Rundgren late on a Friday evening asking him to find a full band by Sunday morning: "He wanted horns, singers, everything, so I made a ton of phone calls." Klingman said that not everyone could make the entire session, so a variety of musicians, particularly guitarists and bassists, needed to be used. The performers, including Rundgren himself, only rehearsed the songs a few times before committing the performance to tape, in order to sound spontaneous, and some of the banter between takes appears on the finished album.

Three songs were recorded at the Record Plant, including one of Klingman's own, "Dust in the Wind". Guitarist Rick Derringer appeared on one track, and would collaborate with Rundgren in the future. Trumpeter Randy Brecker had been a founding member of Blood, Sweat & Tears and, along with his brother Michael, who also played on the Record Plant sessions, went on to find commercial success with the Brecker Brothers. Trombonist Barry Rogers, who completed the brass section on the Record Plant recordings, had also collaborated with the Brecker brothers in the band Dreams.

A further live session was held at Bearsville Studios in Woodstock, which used some of the members of the Paul Butterfield blues band,  resulting in two other tracks. The final track on side four, "Slut", was recorded earlier at a live session in I.D. Sound Studios, and featured previous collaborators Tony and Hunt Sales, guitarist Rick Vito, and future actor Edward James Olmos on backing vocals. The majority of vocals for the existing studio tracks were also recorded at the Record Plant, with additional recording at Bearsville, where the album was mixed. As in Los Angeles, Lowe helped out with the engineering. "We'd just put up a Neumann U67 and he'd sing right there in the control room using the monitors for the playback."

Songs
The liner notes describe the first side of the album as "a bouquet of ear-catching melodies", the second as "the cerebral side", the third as "The kid gets heavy", and the fourth is titled "Baby Needs a New Pair of Snakeskin Boots (A Pop Operetta)". Rundgren wrote the sleeve notes, and included a small operetta that described a narrative between the live tracks. "I Saw the Light" was placed at the start of album, as it was felt to be the most likely hit. The song was influenced by Carole King and written in approximately 20 minutes. "Couldn't I Just Tell You" has had a major influence on artists in the power pop music genre, with music critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine of the All Music Guide calling it one of "the great songs that provided power pop with its foundation". Scott Miller's 2010 book Music: What Happened? calls the song "likely the greatest power pop recording ever made," with lyrics "somehow both desperate and lighthearted at the same time," and a guitar solo having "truly amazing dexterity and inflection."

"Hello It's Me" had been recorded by Rundgren's old band, Nazz. Rundgren explained this unique instance of his re-recording a track by one of his former groups: "I had some sentimental attraction to it as it was the first song I had written. ... during an afternoon session, the songs I really wanted to get were 'Dust in the Wind' and 'You Left Me Sore'. The sessions were going well and 'Hello It's Me' was something I had been thinking about updating. It was done as such a dirge originally, I thought that part could be addressed." As with the rest of the live tracks on side four, little preparation was done for the track. Rundgren later claimed the entire song was rehearsed and recorded in under two hours, and the horn lines and backing vocals at the end of the track were completely improvised. The fourth side was completed by two small extracts of archive recordings featuring Rundgren in the 1960s. The first was a performance of Barrett Strong's "Money (That's What I Want)" by a group with the same name, Money, recorded around 1966, while the second was a clip of "Messin' with the Kid" performed by Woody's Truck Stop in Philadelphia, late 1966.

Release and reception
Something/Anything was released in February 1972. White-labeled promotional DJ issues of the LP were pressed on colored vinyl—the first record on red vinyl, the second on blue. Billboard reviewed that Rundgren's songs "have an aura of being irreverent, irrelevant little ditties, while in reality they are penetratingly strident observations", and that he seemed to have had fun making the album. "Hello It's Me" was released as a single in September 1973, and reached #5 on the Billboard Hot 100.

According to Encyclopedia of Popular Music writer Colin Larkin, the album has since been "rightly regarded as one of the landmark releases of the early 70s". AllMusic especially praised the album's endearing tone and often adventurous variety of styles, commenting that "Listening to Something/Anything? is a mind-altering trip in itself, no matter how many instantly memorable, shamelessly accessible pop songs are scattered throughout the album." Village Voice critic Robert Christgau also applauded the album’s variety: "The many good songs span styles and subjects in a virtuoso display ... And the many ordinary ones are saved by Todd's confidence and verve." Rolling Stone found the songs "perfectly composed" while deeming the record Rundgren's "best-selling, most-enduring work born of desperation", one that "demonstrates his command of the studio, unfurling his falsetto over a kaleidoscope of rock genres". Axl Rose declared in a 1989 Rolling Stone interview that "Today, my favorite record is Todd Rundgren's Something/Anything".

Rundgren himself has been more ambivalent about the album's success and critical acclaim. He has stated several times that since he had already become successful as a producer, he was not as interested in straight commercial pop success as other artists. In particular, he rejected a tag of being "a male Carole King". "With all due respect," he later stated, "I took no comfort in merely being labeled a 'singer / songwriter'." Subsequent albums, beginning with the follow-up A Wizard, A True Star and the spin-off group Utopia, would see a radical shift away from straightforward three-minute pop.

Personnel
Todd Rundgren performs all instruments and vocals, except for the following tracks on side four:

 * "Money (That's What I Want)”
 * Todd Rundgren – lead guitar
 * Rick Valente – lead vocals
 * Randy Read – rhythm guitar
 * Collie Read – bass
 * Stockman – drums
 * "Messin' with the Kid”
 * No personnel credited
 * "Dust in the Wind" (Recorded at the Record Plant, New York)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, piano
 * Mark Klingman – organ
 * Rick Derringer – guitar
 * John Siegler – bass
 * John Siomos – drums
 * Randy Brecker – trumpet
 * Michael Brecker – tenor sax
 * Barry Rogers – trombone
 * Hope Ruff, Richard Corey, Vicki Robinson, Dennis Cooley, Cecilia Norfleet – backing vocals
 * "Piss Aaron” (Recorded at Bearsville Studios, Woodstock)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, electric piano
 * Amos Garrett – guitar
 * Ben Keith – pedal steel
 * Jim Colgrove – bass
 * Billy Mundi – drums
 * "Hello It's Me” (Recorded at the Record Plant, New York)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, piano
 * Mark Klingman – organ
 * Robbie Kogale – guitar
 * Stu Woods – bass
 * John Siomos – drums
 * Randy Brecker – trumpet
 * Michael Brecker – tenor sax
 * Barry Rogers – trombone
 * Hope Ruff, Richard Corey, Vicki Robinson, Dennis Cooley, Cecilia Norfleet – backing vocals
 * "Some Folks Is Even Whiter Than Me” (Recorded at Bearsville Studios, Woodstock)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, guitar
 * Mark Klingman – piano
 * Ralph Walsh – guitar
 * Bugsy Maugh – bass
 * Billy Mundi – drums
 * Serge Katzen – conga
 * Gene Dinwiddie – tenor sax
 * "You Left Me Sore” (Recorded at the Record Plant, New York)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, piano
 * Mark Klingman – organ
 * Robbie Kogale – guitar
 * Stu Woods – bass
 * John Siomos – drums
 * Hope Ruff, Richard Corey – backing vocals
 * "Slut” (Recorded at I.D. Sound Studios, Los Angeles)
 * Todd Rundgren – lead vocals, guitar
 * Rick Vito – guitar
 * Charlie Schoning – piano
 * Tony Sales – bass
 * Hunt Sales – drums
 * Jim Horn – tenor sax
 * John Kelson – tenor sax
 * Brook Baxes, Anthony Carrubba, Henry Fanton, Edward Olmos – backing vocals

Charts
Album

Single

title: Something/Anything?


text:
Talk:National Professional Qualification for Headship

Comments
Article created, BBC article on the proposed scrapping of NPQH here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4458107.stm 62.252.224.17 09:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia

Adding the fact of numerical and equipment superiority of sassanids
For some reason some users keep reverting my contribution that state this facts even after i added citations and sources

The last time user “Slatersteven” erased my contribution and replied: “Read WP:ONUS why does this content matter?”

I think these two lines i added matter just as how the previous 15 lines talking about how the Sassanid empire was exhausted and talking about how the Sassanid empire had internal problems matter, they are literally the same thing talking in the same context describing the same thing

You either include both or remove both Amr.elmowaled (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At least 3 out of the 4 sources you added were not WP:RS. Moreover, it seems like you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with your additions. Elephants equivalent to modern tanks? Really? The source doesn't even state that, which makes me wonder if there are some interpretation issues as well. Moreover, the lede is supposed to be short and concise. EDIT: I just realized that you added the exact same addition earlier without even providing any sources, so I wonder, are these purely your own words then? . --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * >HistoryofIran: “I just realized that you added the exact same addition earlier without even providing any sources”,Yeah when included them at first i assumed it’s well known facts, known by checking the numbers of the armies of the arabs compared to the sassanids and byzantines, known from the equipment and armory of the arabs compared to sassanids and weapons like “elephants”, known that sassanids had the defense advantage since they were the ones being conquered not the opposite, but when someone asked for sources i did provide sources in my last edit !,“ Elephants equivalent to modern tanks? Really? The source doesn't even state that”,I literally included an entire source stating that, you will literally find tons of scholars, historians and books describing elephants as literally “tanks of ancient time”, it’s not something i made up on my own,“ At least 3 out of the 4 sources you added were not WP:RS”,I wonder which one of them exactly and what makes them “not reliable”, what do they lack ? :)

Amr.elmowaled (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I recall they are described as in some respects like the tanks of the ancient world, I also seem to recall reading they were also obsolete and that many historians do not consider then analogous to tanks. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * >Slatersteven, “I also seem to recall reading they were also obsolete and that many historians do not consider then analogous to tanks.”, provide us a source for your claim please, like i can provide you tons of sources describing elephants as tanks equivalence of that time during and before the arab-sassanid battles, can you provide us a source that reject and object to this analogy or call elephants “obsolete” in the time of arab-sassanid battles ? :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You would have found that out if you clicked and read WP:RS. Ian Heath's work is self-published (WP:SPS) through Lulu.com, nothing suggests he is reliable and his quote doesn't support any of your additions anyways. Ilkka Syvänne is likewise a self-publishing author (she has been removed in the past as well ), and her statement doesn't even support what you added either, she didn't say elephants = tanks. China and Central Asia in the Post-Soviet Era: A Bilateral Approach has nothing to do with the Sasanians/Arabs, let alone that era. This is far from the authors expertise. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies looks okay, I didn't really bother looking further into it. Also, thanks for admitting that you didn't base those words on sources but your own personal opinion, please refrain from that - see WP:POV, WP:CITE (since u didnt add a single page number either) and WP:OR, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * > HistoryofIran, “XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies looks okay”, great !, so we are only differing at sources mentioning that sassanids used elephants, and more reliable sources stating that elephants were used as modern day tanks, for the former i can bring you the books of the medieval persian historian al-tabari and maybe ibn taymiyya too ! So it can be easily solved, and the latter at worst case we can replace “elephants were equivalent to modern day tanks” with “elephants are regarded by many scholars as equivalence to modern day tanks”,,,, “ thanks for admitting that you didn't base those words on sources but your own personal opinion”, no actually i based non on my “personal opinion”, i stated just facts and numbers (there are no opinions regarding these), the thing is 1.i just chose the wrong source to cite that persians used elephants 2. Cited that elephants were equivalent to modern day tanks, which at most can be solved by saying “many scholars consider …”, as there are abundant amount of scholars and historians already saying that,,,, and for the page number of citation then no problem, i will add that too !, so everything is okay ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PST as well. Al-Tabari and Ibn Taymiyya are not WP:RS either, they are several hundreds of years old. no actually i based non on my “personal opinion”, i stated just facts and numbers (there are no opinions regarding these) You didn't base those additions on any source, so that makes it your own words, same same. Everything is far from okay, please read all those guidelines I have posted. Also, please use capital letters when you're adding words that use them in a Wikipedia article. I would advise you to refrain from edit warring and post your suggestions here instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 * ”You didn't base those additions on any source”, didn’t you just say “ XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies looks okay” ?!, also you said “ Ian Heath's work is self-published (WP:SPS) through Lulu.com, nothing suggests he is reliable”, i wonder what is the difference between Ian Heaths and A.I akram and his self published book of “the muslim conquest of persia”, apparently he and his self published book are used in citation are used several times in the article and i found no one saying he is unreliable because “it’s a self published book” and no one had a problem with that as a citation, should i erase these sourceless claims until someone provide us a reliable source WP:RS ?! Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This demonstrates that every single piece of word was from yourself, no? And you're right, A.I Akram is not reliable either. But what has that do with anything? It's no secret that this article needs a cleanup, no one has volunteered though. Also, please see WP:POINT. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 * ” This demonstrates that every single piece of word was from yourself [6] [7], no?”, no, i just forgot to add the citations and i did add them when someone reminded me to :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

How about this one too ?! “ The Byzantine and Sassanid armies had superiority in numbers, in arms , and in technical organization , but their conscripts could not match the compelling inspiration Islam had brought to the Arab tribesmen .”

From “A Short History of Africa” by Roland Anthony Oliver, J. D. Fage, New York University Press, 1963

Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "A Short History of Africa", really? We literally spoke about this. I'm sure it's not difficult to find a source thats actually specialized in this subject. Also, even if you find a source, you have to insert it properly, not in the same manner you did earlier. It has to actually fit in, sounding relevant and not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / Povish. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 * you know that i am right don’t you ?, one thing i hate about the english wikipedia is it’s zionist and anti-arab/anti-muslim biases, one know the truth and know everything but he intentionally doesn’t want it to be shown, i am going to leave this talk here, there is no use of wasting my time more, so whenever an admin or someone else come, he shall continue if he want to waste some of his time too … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr.elmowaled (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ok. let it be
 * "A Short History of Africa", really? We literally spoke about this. I'm sure it's not difficult to find a source thats actually specialized in this subject.
 * history of the africa heavily coincides with the history of the byzantines and sassanids, the source is totally fine Amr.elmowaled (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "the sassanids greatly outnumbered the arabs;rustem probably commanded 30,000-80,000 men, supported by a small number of elephants"
 * Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopdia, Alexander Mikaberidze, published by ABC-CLIO (reliable source)
 * -confirming sassanids fought with elephants against the arabs Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "the war elephants served as "tanks" in ancient armies." (p.25) in an article with a title of "ancient tanks"
 * Empire of Ancient Rome
 * By Michael Burgan, published by
 * infobase publishing
 * (reliable source)
 * Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

. Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it kill you to properly write a source (pages, quotes, etc) and its contents so others can verify it? Wasn't the English Wikipedia a "zionist and anti-arab/anti-muslim"? What are you still doing here then? You even ignored the WP:POINT policy and went on to pov push at  . Stop wasting my time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * so to sum up, we have:
 * 1."There is sufficient proof that the Sassanids and Byzantines were numerically superior to the Arabs . ... The Arabs ' military garb was obviously inferior to that of its enemies" Acts: XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies : Selected Papers, Main and Communications : Moscow, 1991, Volume 1, Ihor Ševčenko, G. G. Litavrin, Walter K. Hanak
 * 2. “The Byzantine and Sassanid armies had superiority in numbers, in arms , and in technical organization , but their conscripts could not match the compelling inspiration Islam had brought to the Arab tribesmen .”
 * From “A Short History of Africa” by Roland Anthony Oliver, J. D. Fage, New York University Press, 1963
 * published by very reputable insititutions stating that arabs were inferior
 * 3."the sassanids greatly outnumbered the arabs;rustem probably commanded 30,000-80,000 men, supported by a small number of elephants"
 * Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopdia, Alexander Mikaberidze, published by ABC-CLIO
 * > stating that sassanids used military elephants against the arabs
 * 4. "the war elephants served as "tanks" in ancient armies." (p.25) in an article with a title of "ancient tanks"
 * Empire of Ancient Rome
 * By Michael Burgan, published by infobase publishing
 * > directly saying that elephants served as tanks and calling them ancient tanks
 * any notes before publishing my sourced contribution ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not listening. For example, Michael Burgan is a freelance writer, not even an actual historian. You're posting "A Short History of Africa" once again. Mikaberidze mentions elephants alright, but what does it have to do with tanks? Use some time to read and understand our guidelines, how sources work, etc. I can't sit and analyse every source because you can't be bothered to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * any notes before publishing my sourced contribution ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not listening. For example, Michael Burgan is a freelance writer, not even an actual historian. You're posting "A Short History of Africa" once again. Mikaberidze mentions elephants alright, but what does it have to do with tanks? Use some time to read and understand our guidelines, how sources work, etc. I can't sit and analyse every source because you can't be bothered to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 * i don’t find your objection to “ A Short History of Africa” reasonable since as i stated earlier, the byzantines and Sassanids are part of the history of africa, and even if we assumed that the source is invalid (and it’s actually valid), the statement of arab inferiority also isn’t solely based this citation alone, and the citation of these reputable historians whose words were published by a reputable academic institution makes it more than worthy of being included, And For Michael Burgan quote in his book, i can still use it as a reference to say that “ ‘’’many scholars’’’ regard war elephants as tanks of ancient time”, so no problem at all, Anyone else have a note ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? The History of Africa is long and vast, the Sasanians barely sat foot in Africa, and author has no expertise in Byzantine/Sasanian/Arab history. You still can't use Burgan, because he fails WP:RS. I say again; you're clearly not listening. We're back to square one it seems. Yes, that I will report you if you resume your edit warring. I'm done trying to act in WP:GF. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean I can’t use a scholar quote saying “elephants were ancient tanks” to state that there are scholars who exist in this world saying that “elephants were ancient tanks” ?, like I can’t use a quote of some people to prove their existence ? :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not if that "scholar" (he's not one) is Burgan, since he fails WP:RS as he's not even a historian, but a freelance writer. Is it that hard to fathom :)? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine, this is the last one

“Elephants were the tanks of the ancient world;”

World History: A Concise Thematic Analysis, Volume 1 By Steven Wallech, Craig Hendricks, Anne Lynne Negus, Peter P. Wan, Gordon Morris Bakken and ironically  **Touraj Daryaee**

Published by john John Wiley & Sons inc.

https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=NQ8h828v06YC&pg=PA153&dq=the+war+elephants+served+as+%22tanks%22+in+ancient+armies+as+world+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl58Xi2Yb8AhXyQaQEHXMbBmw4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=the%20war%20elephants%20served%20as%20%22tanks%22%20in%20ancient%20armies%20as%20world%20war&f=false

- specialized people (check) - reliable publisher (check) - elephants being ancient tanks (check)

Now we are cool ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Anything else mr HistoryofIran before publishing my sourced contribution ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally a proper source. Yes, publish what you want here first and where, so we can make sure it's not WP:POV / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS like the previous one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am closing this discussion as part of a group, consisting of Talk:Muslim conquest of Egypt, Talk:Muslim conquest of Armenia, and Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia, as the moves are comparable, the arguments for each are comparable, and many editors in those discussions referenced their positions in other discussions.

With the exception of Muslim conquest of Egypt, which is closed as moved, these articles are closed as no consensus; editors opposing the move argued that the proposed title is inaccurate and would hinder understanding, while editors supporting argued that the proposed title was the WP:COMMONNAME. Overall, neither position was sufficiently strong to establish a consensus given the comparable levels of support.

Muslim conquest of Egypt differs from these in that the arguments for it were seen as stronger by the participants, as evidenced by P Aculeius's neutral position on that move compared to their opposition on others.

If editors wish to explore these moves in the future they are encouraged to open a multi-move request, which will address some of the raised WP:CONSISTENCY concerns.

For this article alone, there was some support for using Iran over Persia; a separate discussion on moving this article to Muslim conquest of Iran may be informative, and will likely prevent the question of which name shall be used derailing a future discussion on whether to use Arab, Muslim, or Islamic. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Persia → Arab conquest of Iran – The current title is as distinct minority nomenclature in modern sources. The vastly preferred term, as Ngrams attests, is Arab conquest of Iran (the name which is currently presented as the main alternative name). Indeed, "Arab conquest", as the Ngrams shows, has in fact always been the main term regardless of whether 'Iran' or 'Persia' is used, while 'Iran' has steadily edged out 'Persia' in the last two decades in this particular context. Aside from the general sourcing preference, another good reason for using 'Iran' here is that, despite it generally being referred to as the 'Persia' in a historical context, the Sassanian Empire referred to itself as "Eranshahr" or "Land/Empire of the Iranians", so 'Iran' also holds truer in the context. Google Scholar meanwhile yields 1,190 hits for Arab/Iran, 400 hits for Arab/Persia, 287 hits for Muslim/Persia, and 249 for Muslim/Iran, so again, much the same pattern, with no real divergence in overall prevalence. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer: "Arab conquest of Persia", since "Persia" tends to be the traditional historical term for the region. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support "Arab conquest of Iran". Long overdue and WP:COMMON NAME. "Iran" has generally taken over "Persia" in scholarly sources in these past two decades. For example;

 * Google Scholar shows 4,300 results for "Sasanian Iran", and 2.230 results for "Sasanian Persia".
 * JSTOR shows 6.971 results for "Sasanian Iran" and 3.577 results for "Sasanian Persia".
 * Brill Publishers show 2,597 results for "Sasanian Iran" and 1,622 results for "Sasanian Persia"
 * Taylor & Francis shows 924 results for "Sasanian Iran" and 509 results for "Sasanian Persia"
 * De Gruyter shows 3493 results for "Sasanian Iran" and 2240 for "Sasanian Persia"  --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Your results might be explained by the fact that "Sasanian Persia" as a fixed expression is rather redundant, using two historical terms side-by-side.... a bit like saying "Roman Hispania", to which "Roman Spain" would often be preferred. But when looking at the sheer proximity of the words, Persia tends to be used together with Sasanian (and its spelling variants) more often than Iran with Sasanian. Just for Google Scholar:
 * Sasanid+Iran: 5,110, but Sasanid+Persia= 5,630
 * Sassanid+Iran: 14,700, but Sassanid+Persia: 16,200
 * Sassanian+Iran: 14,200 but Sassanian+Persia: 16,600
 * Sasanian+Iran: 24,500, but Sasanian+Persia: 22,500
 * Total of the above in favour of Iran: 58,510 Total of the above in favour of Persia: 60,930.
 * So, WP:COMMON NAME still seems to favor "Persia" for historical usage (specifically in relation to "Sasanian", "Sassanian", "Sasanid", "Sassanid"), although not by a huge margin... but of course in many cases "Iran" would be used in these results for geographical purposes, or to refer to the modern country (as in "in the area of modern Iran"), so the actual usage of "Persia" to refer to the historical polity is in fact much higher. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “Sasanian” is the common spelling in literature, hence why the Wiki article is named that, its original name being “Sassanid Empire”, an outdated spelling. The rest of your claims are not supported by anything, and I could likewise argue that “Persia” is also used to refer to the southern province in Iran. I also wonder why you only used Google Scholar as an example here. There are countless prominent sources which use the name “Sasanian Iran” . And “Arab conquest of Iran” too. It’s not even a competition. I did include numerous sources regarding that in the last RFC, which was a few years ago. The numbers have only heavily increased since. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't really meant to be a referendum on whether the Sassanian Empire was Persia or Iran or both. But yes, Persia could, in theory, be confused with the little 'Persia' in the sense of Fars Province, so a conquest of 'Persia' could just refer to Fars (and indeed, this page includes a section on just that, the conquest of Fars, which was a granular part of the overall campaign), whereas Iran is a term that more unambiguously and naturally disambiguates to the entire Iranian domain, such as it was at the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Persia" is often intended to mean just "Fars Province", which is usually designated as Fars, Persis, or rarely "Persia proper"... For "Arab conquest", "Arab invasion" or "Muslim conquest" the results even clearer. Again, according to Google Scholar:
 * "Arab conquest" is used much more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
 * "Arab conquest"+Iran 10,300, but "Arab conquest"+Persia 16,000
 * "Arab invasion" is used more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
 * "Arab invasion"+Iran 4,300, but "Arab invasion"+Persia 5,200
 * "Muslim conquest" too is used more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
 * "Muslim conquest"+Iran 7,890, but "Muslim conquest"+Persia 9,740
 * So here again, WP:COMMON NAME seems to favour Persia... पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Iran still more generally has a broader meaning than Persia, just as the Iranian peoples are a broader grouping than the Persians. But this is all getting a little off-track. The thing to note is the Ngrams I began with, which shows the proposed title rising significantly in prevalence over the course of the last two decades - to the point where, in 2019, mentions of the set phrase "Arab conquest of Iran" outweighed the combined mentions of the three closest alternatives. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose as proposed. "Iran" is a modern term for the modern country. The more historical term is "Persia". So I Support move to Arab conquest of Persia. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this thread, but "Iran" is not just the modern term for the modern country, you yourself admitted to finding out about that back in 2019 . --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So I did. You obviously have a better memory than I do. I still think that "Persia" would be better to use in the title of this article though. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong Oppose. This has been discussed before (e.g. ), and remains unconvincing.  So I repeat the argument I made then: "it was a "Muslim" conquest, not an Arab conquest. Arabs (Lakhmids) had conquered parts of Persia before, but were themselves defeated and annexed into Persia, well before the Muslim conquest. Indeed, the Muslim conquest of Persia began as an attempt to conquer the Arab parts of Persia. And then it sort of just kept going. The "Muslims" were a movement among peninsular Arabs, yes. But not all Arabs were peninsular Arabs (there were Lakhmid Arabs in Persia, Ghassanid Arabs in Syria). And of course, not all Arabs were Muslims (nor are they today - there are Christian Arabs, etc.). The conquest described in this article is very specifically the Muslim conquest, not the Lakhmid conquest, nor does it involve any non-Muslim Arabs. Changing the title would be very misleading." Walrasiad (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There has only been one Arab conquest of Iran in the sense of conquering it in its entirety in history. That the Lakhmids previously made some forays into and claimed some Sassanid territory is a far cry from a total conquest of their empire, and does not seem particularly likely to cause confusion ... and no such Lakhmid-related page currently exists with which to get confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Walrasiad: FYI, I've found a journal source that firmly refers to the portion of the Umayyad conquest of Iran devoted specifically to capturing 'Persis' as "The First Arab Conquests in Fārs", with no apparent concern for confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I supported this back in 2019 and it is still probably my personal preference. My view now is that, since we have no other "Arab conquest" article titles, introducing one here will only cause confusion. Arab conquests redirects to Early Muslim conquests. The basis for the Muslim → Arab change affects many pages and I see no hint that it will gain traction. I will re-quote Robert Hoyland's defence of "Arab" from In God's Path, pp. 5–6:"I will speak of 'Arab' conquests rather than 'Islamic' conquests. Both terms are to some degree inaccurate, since the conquerors were neither all Arabs nor all Muslims, and the meaning of both terms was in any case evolving in the immediate aftermath of the conquests. Nevertheless, contemporary observers mostly referred to the conquerors in ethnic rather than religious terms, and even if some of the conquerors were not Arabs their descendants often came to think of themselves as such, and so it seems preferable to use the term 'Arab,' while bearing in mind that we are not talking about a nationalist endeavor nor an immutable racial category. . . Furthermore, if we use the term 'Islamic conquests' we cannot distinguish between the many different conquests achieved over the centuries by many Muslim groups (Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Berbers, etc.). This causes much confusion among students, and among quite a few experts too, for it tends to be assumed that the Arabs conquered most or all of the lands that are majority Muslim today, whereas a large proportion of them were actually conquered much later, by local Muslim dynasties, of non-Arab origin, or were Islamized slowly by traders, missionaries, and wandering ascetics."The argument for Persia → Iran is weak because, as I said last time, "Iran" as the universal name for Persia has been slow to make its way out of the academy and into the vernacular. Witness our articles on Georgia–Persia relations and Georgia–Iran relations, which are supposedly differentiable. An alternative to both the current title and the proposal is to move this to Fall of the Sasanian Empire, title of an article that was merged into this one since the last RM. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: You seem to agree that 'Iran' has been adopted at an academic level, and that you believe that only the vernacular demurs. Yet here Arab conquest of Iran is already the most prevalent term overall in Google Books, not just in academic sources. In the case of the Sassanids, their reference to their own empire as "Eranshahr" only compounds its validity here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I coincidentally found a work that combines both: Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran by Parvaneh Pourshariati (2017). Also interesting on Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the OP did not alert he opened a parallel discussion at "Muslim conquest of Egypt, nor that there was already an ongoing discussion to move "Umayyad conquest of Hispania" to "Muslim conquest of Spain". Of course, the arguments here will have implications on those two pages. Walrasiad (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is evidently more accurate in terms of Muslims vs. Arabs, and "Persia" is the more familiar name in historical contexts.  There is no particularly good statistical argument in the former case, unlike with the Egypt article, where "Arab" predominates by a ratio greater than 2:1, although I don't think there's anything wrong with the current title either (in the case of the Spain article, "Muslim" clearly predominates).  Insisting on "Iran" for a country historically known as "Persia" in virtually all English-language writing until the late twentieth century not only introduces an anachronism, but smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as though "Persian" were some sort of ethnic slur that needs to be erased from history—and that alone would would be a good reason to oppose this move, although anachronism is a still better reason.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Persian is an ethnic slur, but if we are discussing anachronism, the preference for 'Persia' pre-20th century is exactly that. It is a product of orientalism and the tendency of western writers from the 18th and 19th centuries to go along with the nomenclature of the ancient Greeks, whose writings are the ones responsible for aggrandizing the local origins of the ruling classes of Iranian empires in the province of Persis into the term 'Persian' for the entire polity. That conception is likely here to stay for some time still, but with the geography, it is already Iranian peoples and the Iranian plateau. So the 21st-century correction here is nothing new. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's pretty much what you're saying. Blame the Greeks, blame the colonizers, throw in all kinds of anachronisms to claim that the whole sweep of history has done a great injustice out of sheer ignorance and wilful disregard for the truth—and of course, above all, tell everybody else involved in the conversation why they're wrong.  But at the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't the place to reveal hithertofore unrecognized truths.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is already the most prevalent one in the 21st century. I'm not defying convention; the convention has already changed. And we don't peddle in truth here, but verifiability. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was my point. Your position is about truth, not verifiability.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what point you think you are making, but no evidence has been presented here that counters the Ngrams or Google Scholar evidence for the proposed title being the most prevalent name. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: To be clear, while I, as the OP, obviously prefer Arab conquest of Iran, I also in principle support Arab conquest of Persia as preferable to the current title - based on the very same evidence presented in the opening comment, which shows, first and foremost, that "Arab conquest" is the perennially more prevalent terminology, regardless of whether Iran or Persia is used. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The OP is at it again, starting more related RMs before this one is even finished. He's now opened RMs on Early Muslim conquests and Muslim conquest of Armenia, trying to get their titles changed from "Muslim" to "Arab". He has also has created a new page he titled Arab conquest of Mesopotamia, moving material out this page, while this discussion is still on-going.  And once again, he has not notified editors here or on any other on-going discussions that he opened related RMs, forcing them to scramble across pages and repeat the same arguments again.  Walrasiad (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Contested dates
The traditional dating is contested (based on historical records) here: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/decline-and-fall-of-the-sasanian-empire-the-sasanian-parthian-confederacy-and-the-arab-conquest-of-iran/introduction AJRT1 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no Persecution by the Rashidun Caliphate
No Persecution Hejazrules (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s known they was required to pay Jizya not your personal opinion. Hejazrules (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my first comment. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think you should start reading Persecution of Zoroastrians instead of trying to censor it in this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia


text:
John Payne (poet)

John Payne (23 August 1842 – 11 February 1916 ) was an English poet and translator. Initially he pursued a legal career and had associated with Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Later he became involved with limited edition publishing and the Villon Society.

He is now best known for his translations of Boccaccio's Decameron, The Arabian Nights and the Diwan Hafez.

After completing his translation of Omar Khayyam, Payne returned to the rendition of Hafez that was eventually published in 3 volumes. in 1901. Payne argues that Hafez takes the "whole sweep of human experience and irradiates all things with his sun-gold and his wisdom".

Payne once said that Hafez, Dante and Shakespeare were the three greatest poets of the world.

Archives
Papers of John Payne are held at the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham.

Works

 * The Masque of Shadows and other poems (1870)
 * Intaglios; sonnets (1871)
 * Songs of Life and Death. (1872)
 * Lautrec: A Poem (1878)
 * The Poems of François Villon.(1878)
 * New Poems (1880)
 * The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night (1882–4) translation in nine volumes
 * Tales from the Arabic (1884)
 * The Novels of Matteo Bandello, Bishop of Agen (1890) translation in six volumes
 * The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio (1886) translation in three volumes
 * Alaeddin and the Enchanted Lamp; Zein Ul Asnam and The King of the Jinn: (1889) editor and translator
 * The Persian Letters of Montesquieu (1897) translator
 * The Quatrains of Omar Kheyyam of Nisahpour (1898)
 * Poems of Master François Villon of Paris (1900)
 * The Poems of Shemseddin Muhammed Hafiz of Shiraz (1901): translation in three volumes
 * Oriental Tales: The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night [and other tales]. (1901) verse and prose translation in 15 volumes, edited by Leonard C. Montesquieu Smithers
 * The Descent of the Dove and other poems (1902)
 * Poetical Works (1902) two volumes
 * Stories of Boccaccio (1903)
 * Vigil and Vision: New Sonnets (1903)
 * Hamid the Luckless and other tales in verse (1904)
 * Songs of Consolation: New Poems (1904)
 * Sir Winfrith and other poems (1905)
 * Selections from the Poetry of John Payne (1906) selected by Tracy and Lucy Robinson
 * Flowers of France: Romantic Period (1906)
 * Flowers of France, The Renaissance Period (1907)
 * The Quatrains of Ibn et Tefrid (1908, second edition 1921)
 * Flowers of France: the Latter Days (1913)
 * Flowers of France: The Classic Period (1914)
 * The Way of the Winepress (1920)
 * Nature and Her Lover (1922)
 * The Autobiography of John Payne of Villon Society Fame, Poet and Scholar (1926)

title: John Payne (poet)


text:
User:Mark Jensen~enwiki

Name: Mark Jensen Age: 21 Residence: Maribo, Denmark Interests: Programming, Lost (TV Series), Alias (TV Series), soccer and guitar. Education: Multimedia design (2nd of 4 semesters) Fan of (soccer): FC Copenhagen, Sevilla FC, Chelsea FC and Fremad Amager.

Contributions
I contribute primarily on the Danish Wikipedia, but occasionaly I participate in the writing of, and discussion about, English Lost articles.

 * Kate Austen (wrote larger portions about season 4)

Lost theories
If you are not yet watching Lost season 4, it's not recommend that you read the following. These are my ideas and thoughts about the current mysteries on Lost (none taken from spoiler forums, just thoughts):
 * Ben's "man on the boat" is Michael Dawson
 * Elsa's emplyer is Matthew Abbadon
 * Abbadon was refering to Miles, Daniel, Charlotte and Frank when asking Hurley, if "they" are still alive

da:Bruger:Mark Jensen no:Bruker:Mark_Jensen nn:Brukar:Mark Jensen sv:Användare:Mark Jensen

title: User:Mark Jensen~enwiki


text:
Talk:Outline of the European Union

Untitled
1) Will Trichet be more pragmatic about Euroland's problems or continue with ECB vision for low inflation?

2) Will the current trade dispute between Europe and the US over export taxes grow into a real trade war of ever-increasing sanctions or will trade liberalization return to the agenda?

3) Will Europe adopt the tax competition and labor market reforms suggested as appropriate in the age of global market?

Please advice.

Recheck references
The second reference seems to be a broken link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.161.108 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Outline of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303205301/http://www.franceonu.org:80/spip.php?rubrique764 to http://www.franceonu.org/spip.php?rubrique764

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Outline of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021040202/http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Which article covers exemptions?
There's a list of special exemptions granted to some countries (Denmark, previously the UK), which I came across on WP, but now I can't find it. Anyone know where it is? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Outline of the European Union


text:
Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2000 TV series)

Transformers: Robots in Disguise, originally known as Transformers: Car Robots (トランスフォーマー カーロボット), is a Japanese anime television series based on the Transformers franchise. The series was produced by Nihon Ad Systems and Studio Gallop, in cooperation with Korean company Dongwoo Animation, aired in Japan in 2000.

Conceived as a reboot to the franchise, with a self-contained continuity separate from any previous incarnation, A localized English adaptation aired as part of the Fox Kids programming block in the United States from September 8, 2001 to March 30, 2002.

Plot
While attempting to stop the Predacons from stealing Earth's energy, the Autobots ally themselves with Koji Onishi after Predacon leader Megatron captures the boy's father, Dr. Kenneth Onishi. Amidst their battles, the Autobots and Predacons discover the location of a crashed spaceship from their home planet, Cybertron, containing six Autobot protoforms. Megatron reaches it first and reprograms the protoforms into the evil Decepticons. In light of this, Predacon sub-commander Sky-Byte attempts to prove his worth to Megatron by stealing the Autobots' O-Parts. Meanwhile, Ultra Magnus, the bitter brother of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, arrives on Earth to claim the latter's Matrix for his own, only for the brothers to gain the ability to merge into Omega Prime.

The Autobots and Predacons eventually discover Fortress Maximus, a giant Transformer hidden on Earth to protect it. While they race to claim its power, Sky-Byte accidentally frees Dr. Onishi, who joins the Autobots to help them locate all of the O-Parts necessary to find the Orb of Sigma. While Megatron finds it and uses its power to become Galvatron, the Orb leads the Autobots to Cerebros, Fortress Maximus' power key. A final battle soon ensues between Galvatron and Omega Prime, who eventually prevails and brings the Decepticons and most of the Predacons back to Cybertron to face justice while Sky-Byte stealthily escapes into Earth's oceans.

Episodes
The three clip shows of Robots in Disguise differ between the English and Japanese versions. Both are listed at the appropriate numbers.


text:
User talk:Sarcelles/2005

Hallo Sarcelles! I've noted that you changed the section about "Flemish" dialects in the article about the Dutch language. You apparently based these changes on the Dutch article about Dutch and the German article about Limburgish. At first blush they seem very reasonable. They also pose a few major problems however:

I. You are now mixing up two irreconcilable systems. What most German linguists mean with Limburgisch-Bergisch is not the same either in range or interpretation as the Limburgs of linguists in the Low Countries. Hint: the old town of Limburg is today located in Germany.

II. You use Dutch and German names. However there are English ones and obviously these should be preferred, especially when they link to already existent articles.

III. You use the higher-level grouping of the Dutch article. It's not a very bad system and often used, but there is no consensus whatsoever among linguists about its validity. The relations between the various Low Franconian dialects are extremely complex. East Flemish in particular is very difficult to categorise. In some ways the southern Brabantic dialects and East Flemish are very closely related. That's one reason to talk about a Central Dialect Group. However there's also a very strong isogloss bundle between them, while there's none between the southern and more northern Brabantic dialects. And in some ways West Flemish and East Flemish are more closely related. So it seams preferable to me to use a more traditional and "atomistic" lower-level approach and to speak of four groups. Of course we should then add that according to some criteria East Flemish should be grouped with Brabantic.

IV Strangely however the system is in some ways too atomistic: it shows divisions where there are none. Now why should it do that? The answer is: Hollandocentrism. Holland has been for four centuries the dominant province in The Netherlands. The normal sociological process has taken place of creating a value system in which the Hollander is at the top and the others are his inferiors. To emphasize his uniqueness his language also has to be set apart. In reality however the standard Dutch the Hollander today uses is basically Brabantic in origin. To repress this painful truth defence mechanisms have been activated. One other reason to use the term Central Dialect Group, is that "Brabantic" can be avoided. Also the fact is hidden that Brabantic very gradually fades into present Hollandic. So artificial dialects are created in the system to form a buffer, like the non-existent Zuid-Gelders (no isogloss bundle exists) and the barely discernable Utrechts (very weak isogloss bundle). The same trick is used to keep the Flemish away by talking about Zeeuws which in fact is northern West Flemish. But is there no justification to be found to distinguish a separate Zeeuws in the fact that the dialect continuum is broken by the geographical division in several islands? No. For the dialect of each islands then would have be considered its own dialect group: they form no unity.

Do you find my remarks correct or do you disagree? I'll also put them on the talk page of Dutch, in case anyone else should care to comment.

--MWAK 09:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hallo MWAK,

your comments on Dutch are founded and seem valid. Thanks a lot, Sarcelles 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No thanks: especially as I made a mistake in stating the town of Limburg was located in Germany: it's in fact located in de Voerstreek in Belgium, south of Dutch Limburg.--MWAK 07:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ituri
I have moved Ituri war back to Ituri conflict. This is by far the most commmon name, albeit for a vastly underreported conflict. I'm not arguing that it does not fit some definition of war, but that it should go under the most common name, e.g. Darfur conflict. Many of the google hits for "Ituri war" are for "Ituri's war", which is not a proper title. Also, I have changed the link at List of current wars for Second Ugandan Civil War, listed as beginning in 1995, to the insurgency of the Lord's Resistance Army. 1995 roughly coincides with the collapse of the Bigombe talks and the beginning of Sudanese support so I think that's what it's referring to, though it's possible it's referring to the Allied Democratic Forces insurgency. Feel free to change it if I assumed the wrong rebel group. Cheers,  BanyanTree 01:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your edits
Hi Sarcelles,

When I noticed that you switched your edit efforts to the English Wikipedia, I took the time to check some of your edits.

I noticed that you keep producing substub quality articles in English just the same way you did in nds:. I strongly urge you to put more effort in good quality and especially in longer articles. No one will be interested in articles about administrative parts of small towns in Germany. Especially not if it is just three sentences.

I also noticed your change in England. You added info about more religious communities. You added so many entries that it would be better to move that into a separate paragraph. The info box of a country has one simple purpose: to give an overview. This purpose is not fulfilled by listing all religios communities in the info box. (Besides you missed mine: Seventh days adventists :) ). One more thing: You listed Church of the Latter-Day Saints, which does not exist. This should not have passed unnoticed, after all the English Wikipedia already has more than 500.000 articles, so a religious community of 180.000 people can expected to be covered. Indeed it already is: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please, please take care of your quality.

Heiko Evermann 19:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Hi Heiko Got your message. There is no need for 5 lines-articles. Particularly not careless ones. Regards, Sarcelles 09:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Laogai
Hi Sarcelles, I appreciate your efforts in adding more information about laogai to Wikipedia, but don't you think that it's too specific to start articles about cities just for the purpose of describing laogai facilities there? Articles about American or European cities, for example, don't contain lists of prisons or prison abuses; even a list of schools, hospitals, courthouses or police stations is really pushing it. Many of the cities that you're describing have long, illustrious histories; interesting and unique local customs; and are hometowns of famous personnages. It's just strange to sum all of them up by describing the laogai camps there, and starting so many articles about individual geographical locations for the purpose of supporting one particular political voice is not particularly NPOV either.

Frankly, I would suggest collating all of the info you have into one single Laogai article. -- ran (talk) 14:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've brought this issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities. -- ran (talk) 15:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, that prisons in China are comparable in their importance to ,say, US prisons. Furthermore, the Laogai system is one of the main features of Mainland China of our days.

Sarcelles 12:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest further discussion to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities.

Sarcelles 12:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point in going to various articles about Chinese cities and putting up poorly worded sentence fragments about prisons. It would be much better if you were to focus on putting up one article focusing on the topic rather than posting all over the place. And yes I must agree with Ran, your articles are definitely not NPOV either.

-User:Abstrakt

Censorship
Sarcelles,

nice to talk to you again.

You said I have to criticize your habit of voting for deletion of German articles critical of Mainland China's system. - again an allegation, please give evidence. I never vote for deletion unless I spot articles that are clearly wrong, such as your masterpiece Chinesische Volksreligion. But this one has nothing to do with Mainland China's system, as you write. So, I am waiting for your evidence. -- Herr Klugbeisser 00:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ah, Not Really.

As mentioned above, this dispute is going on on Wikipedia talk Chinese cities. Sarcelles 09:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on the talk page, personal allegations should be discussed on user talk pages. This is one reason why they exist.
 * So, where is your evidence? There is still plenty of space on my user talk page for this. -- Herr Klugbeisser 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Tetauni
Is this spelled correctly? The name of the city is Tétuan, it seems strange that the name of a dialect named after the city would be called Tetauni instead of Tetuani. Tomer TALK 23:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the spelling I know, independent from the article Ladino language, which uses Tetauni and Tetuani. Maybe it is best you decide, which title is better.

Sarcelles 06:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

For you
just in case you are interested: Chinesischer Volksglaube, I'm not yet 100% satisfied with this article, though. -- Herr Klugbeisser 11:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Sarcelles 11:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tewu
Please look at Talk:Tewu. -- ran (talk) 17:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Edit quality
Hi Sarcelles, I've been looking through your contribs and found that you have created MANY new articles. That is good. However, I noticed that most - if not all - of them are substandard. There is no wikification, and no elaboration. Of course, many articles start that way, but we would all appreciate it if you would place a template after each article that are not really well elaborated. Thanks. -Hmib 02:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually overestimated the formal quality of my recent edits.

I didn't realize my last article in this wiki was not written in English. Sarcelles 05:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please use this template:

Also, seriously.... rather than starting one million tiny articles, why don't you focus on one city and write it out well? -- ran (talk) 06:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, using that template is a good point.

Writing a major article on a city currently not having an article is quite difficult, considering that I neither live in Asia nor in an English-speaking country. Translating fully developed German articles might be an option. Sarcelles 08:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Sarcelles... you really really need to improve the quality of your edits. Like Shihezi for example, the general quality was horrible until Physchim62 and Abstrakt cleaned it up for you. (And what is the "Xinjiang Cultivation Corps"? Can't you find the official translation of an organization before putting it down?)

The truth is, we need 1 well-written, comprehensive article more than we need 20 poorly-written stubs. Why don't you focus on one city and make it better, rather than the way you're doing it right now?

Finally, about the World Christian Encyclopedia, can you tell me where they get their numbers from, and what year those numbers are applicable for? -- ran (talk) 18:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The World Christian Encyclopedia uses figures from the 20th century. Sarcelles 21:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, look, I'm serious. Which year do those figures come from? And how are these figures collected? -- ran (talk) 21:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

They come from the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001 edition. It gives about the sources, that there is contextual evidence. Sarcelles 11:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What kind of sources? What is "contextual" evidence? Do they say? As I said, the Chinese government does not conduct any survey of this kind. I'm not even sure if they give out the memberships for the official churches. So where did the World Christian Encyclopedia get it?

Also, the other question, which year are these applicable for? -- ran (talk) 16:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Contextual evidence is based on overalll figures on provinces, which are used as bases for the compilation of data for cities. I didn't find a year mentioned.

Sarcelles 08:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the source probably is not reliable enough (World Christian Encyclopedia)

Sarcelles 30 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Sudanese localities with massacres
Hi Sarcelles,

Actually I'm not really a Wikipedia guru or anything, but my suggestion would be to write up the locale as one would write up any geographical location, and then note the historical events that took place there. This is the pattern I've seen in other articles, although I don't have any examples at hand. I think the sound approach is to describe the place as a place first, in general terms, and as the place where atrocities took place second -- as difficult as that may be on an emotional level, it's the encyclopedic approach... --babbage 10:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources
Please read and respect Cite sources. Thank you.--Fenice 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mandarin / Standard Mandarin
Please don't confuse the two. The zh: links you added to Mandarin point to the wrong places. -- ran (talk) 12:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Sorry. My attempt to seperate the two went wrong. Sarcelles 13:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese cities
Hi Sarcelles,

I'm sure you realize the amount of exasperation you've caused us due to the articles that you've been starting on Chinese cities. I don't really understand what you're trying to do... why are you trying to put up poorly-written articles about Chinese cities that you probably know nothing about? This does nothing but bring down the general quality of Wikipedia. If you're trying to help Wikipedia, then why are you causing us so much grief? Can you concentrate on something that you know more about instead? -- ran (talk) 00:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Ran,

I actually don't agree with this view. By now I wouldn't say I know nothing about this subject. Regards, Sarcelles 09:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Really? Then why do you think there are at least four people (Abstrakt, Herr Klugbeisser, Hmib, and me) chasing after your edits, trying to check them as fast as you add them? Why do you think several non-English encyclopedias have taken action against your highly suspect edits?

Look, your problem is twofold: you have a credibility problem, and people don't trust what you add ever since several fiascos revealed your ignorance of the subject (e.g. Tewu). You also have a language problem, since your command of conventional written English standards is sub-par. You need to deal with these problems to become a fully welcome member of Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 18:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Churches
Hi Sarcelles. I wanted you to know that I'm chasing after you, proposing all the new articles on churches for deletion. The reason is I feel the subject matter is not notable, and the articles themselves are almost completely void of information. If you were to add a bunch of notable content, I'll vote to keep them, otherwise I think they should all go. Bubamara 10:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wish to defend these articles, they are up for deletion at Votes for deletion/Rawang churches. Cheers. --BaronLarf 14:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

More on Church articles
Could you please standardize the naming of your church articles? (i.e. calling them all churches, such as Akha churches, rather than alternating between Church, church, Churches and churches) It's just a real pain in the butt to find anything when they're all named differently, so they'll have to be moved, which is a ton of work for whoever has to do it. Thanks! --Scimitar parley 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Yue names of cities
What exactly are you actually looking for? :-) — Instantnood 20:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am looking for the pronunciation and English spelling of Yue names.

Sarcelles 20:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Cantonese pronunciation of the names of the cities in Guangdong? — Instantnood 20:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean the local pronunciations of cities, where the native speakers of Yue form a majority.

Sarcelles 20:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for information like those provided in brackets in the first sentences of Shenzhen and Kowloon? — Instantnood 21:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes

Sarcelles 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I'm doing with place names in Hong Kong. Not sure if it should be done for Guangdong cities, as practically Cantonese is not as much an official language in Guangdong as it is in Hong Kong or Macao. — Instantnood 13:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Names of Chinese prefectures
Sorry.. what prefectures are you taking about? — Instantnood 13:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean the fact, that it is misleading for European leaders if the name Baoding for example is used for both the prefecture and the city.

Sarcelles 13:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well these are prefecture-level city. — Instantnood 13:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is incomprehensible for most Americans.

Sarcelles 14:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. to make it simple and clear, the top level of the hierarchy are the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. The second level are prefectures, and many prefectures are having the city status. The third level are county-level divisions, that can be (rural) counties, a district within a prefecture-level city, or a county-level city. The third-level (or county-level) divisions are subordinate to those in the second-level (prefecture-level). — Instantnood 14:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Americans might understand ,,province" as ,,state", but ,,prefecture-level"

city is not going to be understood as corresponding to ,,county" by most of them. Particularly if the title of the article is the same as the name of a city in the American meaning of ,,city". Sarcelles 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The meaning of city as a level of administrative division varies from country to country, and Wikipedia is not written only for American readers. — Instantnood 15:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The German and Polish words for city can be translated as ,,city". The Mandarin word can be translated as ,,city" or ,,prefecture".

Sarcelles 15:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No.... there are two types of cities. One is second-order (i.e. prefecture-level) in the hierachy, and the other is third-order (county-level). Both are known as shì and translated as "city". The terms "prefecture-level city" (dìjí shì) and "county-level city" (xiànjí shì) tell which level a city belongs to. There are other prefecture-level divisions which are not designated as cities. — Instantnood 16:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sarcelles, I'm an American myself and I have no trouble comprehending the various political divisions of China, I think it is just you having having difficulty understanding the political terms. I don't mean to pick on you but your English language skills are a bit sub-par. Anyway please refer to Political divisions of China if you need help understanding the political divisions of China. And to add to what Instantnood has already said, Wikipedia is not written with the sole purpose of catering to an English speaking American audience and the meaning of city as a political division DOES vary country to country so such a request to rename political divisions of China to make them more in line with counterparts in American political divisions is a ludicrous one at best. Abstrakt 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I still consider the titles misleading. How should be clear whether the urban area or the prefecture is meant ?

Sarcelles 23:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

quoted from Prefecture-level city:

""Prefecture-level cities are not "cities" in the strictest sense of the word, since they usually contain rural areas many times the size of their urban, built-up area. This is because the prefectures that prefecture-level cities have replaced are themselves large administrative units containing cities, towns, and farmland. As a result, prefecture-level cities nearly always contain counties, county-level cities, and other such subdivisions. To distinguish a "prefecture-level city" from its actual urban area (the traditional meaning of the word "city"), the term 市区 shìqū, or "urban area", is used.""

That should help I hope in your understanding of the concept. I don't think that a change needs to be made just because you are confused. It has been stated before, that the meaning of city as a political division varies from nation to nation. Abstrakt 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

your original research with unverifable information
hi I have noticed that a lot and I mean a lot of your articles either have dubious sources or contain information is largely unverifiable. at times you have articles with sources in foreign languages, as this an English wikipedia please refer to Verifiability, otherwise a large number of your articles are candidates for deletion. this is an official policy on wikipedia. and please do not put your original ideas which lack credibility, standards are to be maintained on wikipedia, otherwise if everyone else was allowed to post random nonsense like you have been doing so, it would transform wikipedia into a collection of nonsensical tripe.

205.188.116.65

a simple question I ask of you, where are your sources for most of these articles? and why are most of your sources non-verifiable? when you do have sources they are strongly biased. another question, are you just conjuring up your "research"? if you are making up sources for your articles, realize that you are committing fraud. please refrain from this activity and please refer to Verifiability. you have been warned my friend.
 * Many of my articles have as source World Christian Encyclopedia. The French language is legible by many users of this wikipedia, actually.

Sarcelles 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability:

"As this is the English Wikipedia, sources must be in the English language so that readers and editors can understand them. If a non-English language source is translated into English for the purposes of a quotation, the original-language quote must be given alongside it, so that readers can check the translation if they wish to."

The World Christian Encyclopedia is a dubious source at best since it can not be verified as a PRIMARY SOURCE. From Verifiability:

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or CREDBILE PUBLISHER. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."

Please make note of the term "credible publisher". You are using a BIASED source with a clear agenda here. Your data is clearly SUBJECTIVE with a BIASED point of view, it is not neutral at all. Most of your articles that used the World Christian Encyclopedia has subject matter that can not be verified, therefore can not be backed up.

Obscure subjects
From Verifiability:

"Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.

However, just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. See what Wikipedia is not.

See criteria for inclusion of biographies and auto-biography for some suggested criteria for inclusion of biographical articles."

Another problem is your articles on obscure subjects.

 * I haven't written about obscure subjects.

Sarcelles 08:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes you have written about obscure subjects before. You have written about small obscure churches with followers not exceeding 50,000 people before. I've been tracking your previous entries and see that you have written numberous articles on members of the Falun Gong. Also I have noticed you have been banned on the German and French Wikipedias for ridiculous edits in the past, so if you're going to defend yourself please do not tell blantant lies. Your credibility is already hanging by a thread here. I see in the past you were being chased for putting up poorly editted stubs on Chinese cities in the English Wikipedia as a means of promoting Falun Gong.

public security bureaus
Hi Sarcelles, why are you at this again? What is your purpose of doing this? What is the purpose of finding various websites that promote the Falun Gong and copying and pasting their articles on Wikipedia? I mean you have been banned on the German, French and Italian Wikipedias for doing the same thing in the past, why you continue on your one man crusade of idiocy? You have admitted time and time again that you are NOT an expert on anything about China, yet you pump out poorly worded edit after poorly edit expressing your views about the PRC, yet you have been warned by others for this in the past on the English Wikipedia, ie. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities.

Anyway your articles are up for deletion: Articles for deletion/Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, Articles for deletion/Bengbu Public Security Bureau, Articles for deletion/Tangshan Public Security Bureau, and Articles for deletion/Changchun Public Security Bureau, just thought you might want to know.

Cheers, Abstrakt 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

List of murdered famous people
I am just letting you know that I have changed this article, which you created a couple of months ago, into a redirect to List of murdered people. I did this for two reasons: firstly having both lists results in a duplication of effort (a victim has to be somewhat notable to remain listed on "List of murdered people"); and secondly, terms like "famous" tend to result in needless arguments on differing definitions of the word. Rje 00:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Sarcelles,

Abstrakt, Miborovsky and I are all frankly fed up by your behaviour on Wikipedia. The factual accuracy, level of neutrality, and writing style in your contributions are so poor that we're wondering whether you even care about the quality, the NPOV, or the wellbeing of Wikipedia at all. Are you just happy that you found a place where you can say whatever you want, however badly? Well, this can't last forever. If you don't improve the quality of your edits, the three of us will submit you for an RfC (Request for comment), and eventually an RfA (Request for arbitration).

Here's an example of your latest contributions that Abstrakt dug up: Human rights abuses by Anhui police.

Now let's ignore the sheer POV displayed in the introductory sentence. (I'm sure the government of Anhui will disagree with your statement.) Let's focus on factual accuracy: "Anhui still is seen as a part of China which is less developed than the entire East of China excluding Manchuria"? Hello? Did you do any research at all to verify this supposed fact? Wikipedia itself contains info that contradicts you: List of China administrative regions by GDP per capita. I compiled that list myself, and it's accessible from the infobox in the Anhui article. Manchuria clearly is not the poorest part of eastern China; although stagnant, it still has an industrial base, oil from Daqing, metropolises like Shenyang, Dalian, and Harbin, which Anhui lacks. And Anhui is "administered by the provincial Public Security Bureau"? Do you even know how the bureaucratic structure of China works? Have you heard of a Provincial Party Committee Secretary? Or a Provincial Governor? Do you know how a Public Security Bureau fits into the bureaucracy? (Hint: it's two levels below the Provincial Secretary.) Before writing what you feel like writing, do you ever attempt to find out even the barest basics about what you're trying to write about?

The fact is, an RfC is a lot of trouble for all of us here involved. I'm sure none of us want things to head that way. So I urge you to come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities, and discuss things with us. I'm sure a solution can be found that is acceptable to all, so that we don't have to go to an RfC or RfAr. But if you continue to make poor-quality edits, then you will leave us with little choice. You have already gotten into trouble in the French, German, and Italian wikipedias. Do you really want the same to happen in the English Wikipedia as well? -- ran (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to admit that it is wrong to claim that Anhui is administered by the provincial Security Bureau. The Data on the economic strength of parts of China is what I have read.

 * I consider it unjustified to regard articles as POV because they are articles on the persecution of religious minorities or containing the topic of persecuted religious minorities.

Sarcelles 13:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not why we consider your articles to be POV. There are many articles on religious persecution, and many people who've written about it. Do you wonder why you are the only one we're not happy about?

That's because we have to chase you constantly. Chase every single one of your edits. Because it turns out that no matter what you write about, you always seems to be making blatant assumptions and egregious errors showing that you do not have the slightest inkling about the topic (e.g. Tewu, Anhui police, etc.) And yet you are intent on pushing your POV into as many articles as possible, going as far as starting new, only remotely related articles (like the Chinese cities articles) just to prove your point.

This is not about religious persecution. We would be unhappy if anyone pushed a POV like this, no matter what POV it is.

Imagine that there is someone who doesn't like the Roman Catholic church. Rather than just sticking to Catholicism-related topics and contributing in a sane, neutral manner, however, he goes around and spreads inaccurate information about Catholicism and a lot of other topics, simply because he doesn't make sure he knows what he's writing about before he writes it. To make sure people understand his POV, he starts hundreds of tiny little articles on North American and European cities and towns just to show off his anti-Catholicism POV. He would start one tiny article about a town somewhere in Europe or Africa, and 80% of it would be about some atrocity committed by Catholics that he heard from an anti-Catholic source. And then he repeats this for 100 other articles.

Wouldn't you be pretty annoyed? I would. But that's what you're doing. Look in the mirror. -- ran (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gujarati
I'm sorry to bother you like this, but it appears as though there's a dispute about Língua da Casa at the Talk:Creole Languages page over whether Gujarati is a substrate language. As far as I can tell, you put that information there and I'd imagine that you'd be able to do a much better job of verifying it than I am. AEuSoes1 18:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zheng Enchong's sentence
Hi Sarcelles,

I've made some minor edits to your article on Zhend Enchong. However, I think he was sentenced to 3 year's imprisonment and not 5. I'd like to change this to 3 years, but wanted to check with you first, as I don't want to update the article with incorrect info. See the article's talk page. Cheers, Leigh 11:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Update - I've changed it to 3 years. Cheers, Leigh 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment part 2
Hi there, I thought we discussed this in the past that you would not resort back to posting POV based prison stubs. Abstrakt

West Low German
I reverted your change to this article which you made redirect to Low Saxon which simply redircts back to West Low German! So all the information from the article was unavailbel. I know nothing about lingusitics or which is the proper name for this information just please be sure the work is'nt lost.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  18:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sarcelles/2005