User talk:Partridgeinapeartree

Hi, Partridgeinapeartree. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our

Thank you Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Partridgeinapeartree! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

I removed your edits for two reasons. Firstly you included a lot of material that might better be part of articles on the History of Iran or The Shah's reign. Certainly nothing about the war itself. Secondly you expressed what seemed to me to be a non Neutral POV on the subject of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. I am not claiming AIOC was a perfect employer but when you talk about exploitation etc. then you must have very good non-partisan sources to cite for your claims. Also it does not have any real relevance to the actual war which is the topic of the article. Dabbler (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dabbler,

I appreciate you explaining to me the reason for your revert. If you read the description that I put for my edit, I wrote that it was "Part 1" of new information that I was adding for the article. That means over the next few days, I am going to put additional information on this article. Today I focused primarily on the prelude and orgins of the conflict, but I also added a very detailed passage about the Soviet invasion of northwest Iran, and created sections for the other fronts of the conflict (which I will be writing about soon). Almost everything I put in the prelude section is very relevant to this article, because quite simply, the invasion could not have happened without them. Rezā Shāh's modernization was one of the reasons Iran became so important to the allies (for example securing the Trans-Iranian Railway he built). And Iran's neutrality, balancing act of the various powers, and their relations with Germany helped start the war, so all of this is very relevant to the conflict and this article. Of course nowadays that can mostly be dismissed as wartime hysteria, but it was of great concern for the allies at the time.

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company also is very important to this war, after all oil was the primary reason it was launched (to secure the Abadan refinery and oil fields from alleged German use). The part about the exploitation, influence on the shah, and the coup d'etat was from Kenneth Pollack's book "The Persian Puzzle". I was making a point of how influential the company was and how it affected Iranian policies. Right now I cannot display that part of the book on my computer since I used a Google Books link, so I will not dispute that part of your revert, and leave it as is.

I am going to soon revert the article to my previous edit, but I will not put the part about the AIOC, and get rid of a several extra points about Reza Shah's modernization (like political prisoners or banning of hijab). I hope that my explanation should be sufficient, and we have cleared up any confusion. Good luck.Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that Wikipedia articles do not have to stand alone. If you are providing background information, it is often better not to include it in the article but to ensure that it is included in supporting articles, such as History of Iran or Reza Pahlavi and then link to that information from the one you are editing. This avoids duplication and bloating of articles. I await your additions, but please be aware that you should also consider posting your plans on the article Talk Page so that people are aware of what you plan and can discuss it with you. That may avoid further misunderstandings. Dabbler (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Iran–Iraq War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to

Canabalise and Sangar

Operation Opera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eject

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran–Iraq War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drones (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) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had thought that I had posted the correct link. Just to be safe, in the future I probably will decrease the amount of links that I put. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you added some kind of references to the article

Hi, I actually didn't notice those brackets before. Parts of Operation Karbala-5 was originally on the main Iran-Iraq War page. I copied and pasted much of the section on Karbala-5 in the Iran-Iraq War article to the Karbala-5 article, then I shortened and summarized that section on the Iran-Iraq War. So most likely, those brackets are the citation numbers from the original Iran-Iraq War article. Good luck Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Partridgeinapeartree, it was interesting for me, as an Iranian, that you are interested in topics related to Iran-Iraq war. You have edited some operations which I had no idea about them. Are you interested in all military related topics? or just this specific war? Soroush90gh (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

Problem solved! Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iranian Revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and times of the Shah'' University of California Press, page 465 & 459, ISBN 0-520-25328-0</ref><In 2001, an Iranian newspaper was shut down after it implied that Khomeini himself ordered the
• state),<ref>Kepel, Jihad, (2001), p.</ref><ref>Arjomand, ''Turban for the Crown,'' (1988) p.135)</ref> and later the [[Islamic Republican Party]]. Inevitably, the overlapping authority of the

Thanks,

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iranian Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackouts (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) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following entries from the

The Iran–Iraq War was the first war that featured the use of unmanned

It may be the case that these are factual statements, however, there is no credible source provided. You wrote this referencing an article you wrote on a website you own; this assertion is not cited there, either. Bstouttt (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bstouttt

While I don't intend to dispute your edit, since it is relatively minor, I do not own the website that I used as a source, nor did I write that article. Therefore I am genuinely baffled about how you came to that conclusion. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Partridgeinapeartree. 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

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]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Partridgeinapeartree. 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

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]

Hello, Partridgeinapeartree. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contributing to this page. I realized the contents you added to the page mostly have page-needed tags now. Do you have access to the books which you used? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]