User talk:DoostdarWKP

Hello,

I am دوستدار ويکيپديا from Farsi Wiki.

Hello. Can you translate the image/GFDL license info on these pages?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chemical_weapon2.jpg

Otherwise the other images in the following category may be deleted:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Halabja_chemical_attack

Click on one of the photos there to see the license info request. The images in that category are from the following sajed.ir page

http://www.sajed.ir/pe/component/option,com_ponygallery/func,viewcategory/catid,278/startpage,1/Itemid,4/#category

See the bottom of the following home page where the licensing info is found

http://www.sajed.ir

پایگاه اطلاع رسانی جامع دفاع مقدس (ساجد). باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده بلامانع است. «کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» (تاریخ آغاز فعالیت، دوره جدید- 23-6-1385)

I don't read the language.

There is another set of images from the http://www.sajed.ir - See:

• commons:Category:1987 Sardasht chemical attacks

Those images also need this sajed.ir permission.

Thanks. You can reply on my talk page here or on the Commons: commons:User_talk:Timeshifter --Timeshifter (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doostdar! I would like to invite you to join the discussion on the quote you just edited here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#marvelous. As you can see there is a lot of input and what you added does not currently meet the consensus. I'm going to temporarily remove it, but please add your thoughts and reasoning Zuchinni one (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doostdar, I liked the way you changed the reporter wording there. RomaC and I weren't too sure of the best way to word it. Your change is much more clear :) Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DoostdarWKP. There is no need for a Human sexual intercourse article. The Sexual intercourse article mostly covers humans, and the term is mostly reserved for humans. We also have Human sexual behavior and Human sexuality. Thus, a Human sexual intercourse article would be extremely redundant, and since the term is mostly reserved for humans, it was decided some time ago that we did not need an article titled Human sexual intercourse. This is why I changed it back into a redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer22. You are right that the term is commonly associated with humans but I am not sure if this is the case among biologists. There are plants, animals, fishes, and lots of species whose sexual intercourse story is no less interesting than that of humans. And we want to avoid Speciesism too. But of course this is a matter to be decided by the consensus in En.Wikipedia project. We will probably have a featured article on human sexual intercourse in Farsi Wikipedia soon, focused on the sexual intercourse of humans only (not on sexual intercourse or Human sexual behavior in their generality). I guess if this article wants to ever become a featured article in English Wikipedia, it will have to cover non-humans in a significant way, simply because the academic texts do have to say quite a lot of things about non-human sexual intercourse and it will appear less and less unfair to cut them down. On the other hand, there are also just a lot of things to be said about human sexual intercourse that it will justify having its own sub-article. Cheers --DoostdarWKP (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Good points. Would you mind presenting this case at Talk:Sexual intercourse, perhaps as a WP:RFC? I now feel that the greater community should weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You have added some quotes to this article suggesting that Karl Popper lately thought that Darwinism had been refuted. Do you have a Popper citation for them? Myrvin (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, Darwinism is not the same as "natural selection", and "natural selection not being universally true" does not mean that it is not true in greatly many cases. Popper says this in the same book that he says "I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation", just a few lines after that explaining his new view. Will add the source very soon. You can see the book at books.google.com in this link. You can read it here [1]. Cheers--DoostdarWKP (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I also found it here http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html There is a small mistake in the first quote - a missing 'it', which made it confusing to read. Oh - and 'seems' should be seem'.Myrvin (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing. Yes. My mistake when typing it. You are right :-P Thanks for pointing that out. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]