In 2016, we had Eid al-Ghadeer listed September 20 for Iran/Iraq, and September 21 for Shia Islam in general. Is there a reason for the separate dates? There's nothing in the article that explains that. Should it just be on a single date this year? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: As far as I know, the main reason is the difference approach existing between Shia scholars for determining the first day of each month. This year, for example, each of Iraq and Iran held Eid al-Adha on different days. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just put it on a single day for this year, since that's what the article says. —howcheng {chat} 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: Thanks, it seems nice and correct. But, in spite of what the article says, Eid al-Ghadeer will be held on different days this year. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following - [[1]] is a violation of 1RR on a page with a clear ARBPIA notice on its talk page. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: Thanks for reminding. You had reverted my change, so did I. Both have done just one revert. I've opened a topic on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your original edit was a revert. However, there is also the following stipulation on ARBPIA warnings - "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (as you may see on the talk page). So even if your first edit was not a revert (which it was), you're still running foul of this stipulation. Again - I urge you to self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my edit was not a violation of 1RR, but per "If an edit is revert..." I'll do a self revert. Thank you again for reminding. However, I'll remove the synthesized parts. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my lead change would be OK under the rule. Removal of the long-standing section of the body - would not. Note that even if you claim this is SYNTH in relation to Khamenei+Fatwa (though there are sources discussing them in parallel) - it is still well-sourced information on Khamenei - so at most it should be moved to a separate section on Khamenei (e.g. WMD activities in the 1980s).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is directly touching the issue, thanks. However, it needs proper attribution for the sake of maintaining NPOV. They can be under any relevant section or in any relevant articles. Please note that, my version was the result of older discussion between editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: By the way, please note that being "long standing" does not change anything. They can simply be removed if they violate the policies or guidelines. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor (not me) has started a discussion on AN/I that concerns you. You'll find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: Thanks for pinging me. The user were blocked in Wiki fa for edit warring and other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AustralianRupert, Sure! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been accused of plagiarizing his PhD thesis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hassan Rouhani's plagiarism allegations), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakhl Gardani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakhl Gardani (pictured) is a ritual in which a woody structure symbolizing Husayn ibn Ali's coffin is carried on the day of Ashura? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakhl Gardani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nakhl Gardani), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am abliged to you for clarifying this discussion and good explanation. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Saff V.. I was astonished to see the whole paragraph was removed. Apaprently, some of the phrases needed to be accompanied by quotation marks and be reworded. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Dr. K. 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the dispute that was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard over the article on Ali Khamenei. The filing party had removed a section from the article because he found it incomprehensible. I also thought that it was incomprehensible. You had said that an entire section should not be removed from an article because of a simple resolvable issue. An issue is not simple and resolvable if you do not discuss it collaboratively. I assumed that there was a language problem, that your command of English was not sufficient to permit detailed discussion of what you had written. Since you say that there is no language problem and that you can contribute to the English Wikipedia well, you should have been willing to discuss your edits, at least if your objective is to improve the encyclopedia. I had to close the request for dispute resolution because you did not appear to be willing to discuss. I see that the section has been removed. Please do not add sections to articles unless you are willing to discuss them in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: Thanks for commenting and the intervention. This was not the first article I edited and he was not the first opposing editor I saw! I don't say the section did not need to be copyedited, but this was the first time I saw that a whole section was removed for such issues! This behavior on his part signaled something negative and the TP discussion regarding this topic and other cases, showed me that he was not seeking reasons to avoid the section, be it comprehensible or not, let alone his personal attacks. I don't need to prove, but you may see my "collaborative" behavior on other TPs and articles. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mhhossein - You don't seem to understand. The section did not need to be copy-edited. The section was incomprehensible, and needed either to be removed or completely rewritten. You mention personal attacks, but I have not seen any personal attacks. Do not claim that there have been personal attacks when there have not been. I do not know whether you have been willing to discuss your edits on other articles, but you were not being constructive or cooperative about the article on Ali Khamenei. Your addition was incomprehensible, and you were not discussing it reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]