User talk:Hooperag

Have a comment for me? Feel free to leave feedback or any comment on any of my recent Wikipedia edits on this page! Thanks, Hooperag

Invitation to vote on an article

hello. since you are an editor of the article Ammar ibn Yasir, would you be interested in voting for it to make it a featured article or not? thank you for your time Grandia01 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbas Babaei, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilot and Sardasht (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Farsi

Foreign language sources are acceptable. So it is better to add material while supporting it with references to non-English sources, than to add the material without sources. See WP:NONENG. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar

Thank you for all your contributions on the article of Abbas Babaei and on Mostafa Chamran (the picture).

Keep up the good work!

Haydar121 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Shaheed Abbas Babaei.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shaheed Abbas Babaei.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, also I would like to point out that the image is from Iran, and Iran and the USA have no formal copyright relations; so this is another reason proving the image is free of copyright claims. Please take this into note and remove the tag as soon as possible. I don't know how to do that, neither do I have the time to do it right now.
Thanks, and if you need more info I can provide it!Hooperag (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please follow wikipedia policies when editing articles, if you have an issue with the project manual of style regarding islam related articles, I suggest you take the matter up on the talk page of MOS:ISLAM and indicate why you think the policy should be changed. Dolescum (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please follow the manual of style and desist from edit warring. I really would prefer not to escalate this. Dolescum (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have an issue with the contents of MOS:ISLAM, head over to the policy talk page and get it changed. Going around edit-warring against established project-wide consensus is just counterproductive to your aims. Dolescum (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Dolescum has said, your edits to Muhammad do not follow Wikipedia's manual of style. Continue in this manner (or continue to canvass) and I will escalate this matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil is correct, you have been canvassing but I see you've stopped. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was trying to change something in the manual of style relating to Islam, however I noticed neutrality was the only solution for a viewing audience so wide and diverse. I am now focusing efforts to enhance Islamic articles with images and scan articles for biased information or vandalism.
Plus I did even know canvasing was not allowed, I had never even heard of the phrase, but now that I know I have stopped.
Hooperag (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. By the way, no need to add <br /> tags to your posts. A simple blank line will do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ISLAM

I see you have said "we will defy this policy until it is changed." If you continue to edit in defiance of this guideline, the outcome will almost certainly be either a block or a topic ban from Islam related articles. See WP:POINT. I've seen this happen before with other editors concerning other issues. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you've realised that you need to follow our guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use conditions for File:Inside the tomb of Imam Reza(a.s.) Shrine.jpg

Hello Hooperag. I note that you recently uploaded File:Inside the tomb of Imam Reza(a.s.) Shrine.jpg. You indicated the file is licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU GFDL licences, but also that the file is not to be altered or used disrespectfully. You should be aware that these restrictions are incompatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL, which, as free content licences, explicitly permit reuse and modification for any purpose. Could you please clarify whether your indication that the photo not be modified or used in a disrespectful manner is an absolute prohibition, or simply a polite request which users may freely ignore? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, that's a bad description from my part. It may be used by anyone in anyway. I will change the description soon. Thank you,
Hooperag (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Hooperag, I noticed you started a Request for Adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hooperag but did not transluded it to the main RFA page as well as removed various template placeholders on the request page. This essentially means your RfA is incomplete and in a holding state (not open). Additionally some of the base questions were still blank. Please let me know if you need any assistance or advice -- additionally I would recommend you read WP:RFAADVICE as generally RfAs where the nominee does not have several thousand edits to Wikipedia are unsuccessful. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 16:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice... anyways looks as if there's quite a team against me at the moment after some edits I made a few days ago. Probably I have no chance of becoming an admin at this point.
I have no use in being an admin, I just wanted to see what would happen if I applied.
Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it!
Hooperag (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an adminship candidate doesn't have several thousand edits, the normal response is to speedily close the request under WP:NOTNOW. I might be wrong but most recent successful request for adminship had at least 10,000 edits, and they had been involved in areas where admin tools are most often used, like deletion discussions, new page patrols, anti-vandalism work etc. It isn't essential but having some peer-reviewed content is usually looked on favourably e.g. featured articles, good articles, did-you-know's etc. Personally I'd recommend getting some experience on other Wikimedia projects like Commons (free images), Meta (overall coordination) or WikiData (technical matters), as well as the Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikiquotes etc. If you have any linguistic ability other than English I'd highly recommend you also try out one of the other language Wikipedias. Adminship isn't anything special, you just get a few more buttons to press but there is more of a chance that you will get shouted at by irate editors. In fact most of us get along just fine without becoming a mop-and-bucket expert. I've even heard rumours that most admins cry themselves to sleep every night, but obviously I can't prove this without a reliable source. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, Hooperag. You have new messages at Green Giant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for sharing your beautiful photos. It is difficult to find the sort of pictures you have uploaded, and I am grateful that you are sharing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Karbala 2013.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Karbala 2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Roof over Al Abbas Shrine.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roof over Al Abbas Shrine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rooftop of Imam Ali holy Shrine.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rooftop of Imam Ali holy Shrine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic wikipedia

Salaam. I have a question out of curiosity; do you edit on Arabic Wikipedia also? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may possibly be interested in the discussion I just now began on Talk:Abbas Babaei. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Hasan ibn Ali. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it is clear that these IP edits were by you, using the 39.49.51.102 IP.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Husayn ibn Ali. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have tried using an editor's talk page during your various edit conflicts.

Have you considered using the article talk pages? Your edit history shows that the last time you contributed to an article talk page was February 2014. Please could you have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus and maybe also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You write long and detailed edit summaries, which is good; but, nevertheless, it would be a good thing in the circumstances to also use the article talk page to explain your proposed edits.

Wikipedia has a policy that you seem to disagree with: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You have three times tried to delete information on Hasan ibn Ali's wives/concumbines:12:27, 2 November 2014, 01:56, 25 November 2014, 03:01, 28 November 2014. You will notice that the section you wish to censor gives both points of view. You either need to cope with the idea of Wikipedia having a neutral point of view, or not participate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those IP edits have nothing to do with me in relation to the edits on Hassan ibn Ali. I am not interested in engaging in an edit war, I once was in one and found it solved nothing so I do not intend on going down that road. I however do feel the info on the page Hassan ibn Ali is extremely biased and has n place in that article. I have spent years studying the lives of the Shia Imams, Hassan ibn Ali being one of them and have never heard the issue of the concubine slaves until I saw it in this article according to a scholar ibn Makki. It is important to note that for a figure such as Hassan ibn Ali whom is a very holy figures for millions of Shias around the globe that it is not acceptable to be including insulting and weak allegations of such a figure. I know Wikipedia is a neutral ground and that is something I totally support, I do however oppose including weak and controversial material that millions would find insulting, such as the disputed material in the Hassan ibn Ali article. Hooperag (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are learning something from reading Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 15 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Zaynab bint Ali page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:New Zarih for Hazrat Abbas April 2016.jpg

Hello, Hooperag. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:New Zarih for Hazrat Abbas April 2016.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hooperag. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hooperag. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]