Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 31 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Misplaced Pages to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is Zmmz). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Misplaced Pages. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Misplaced Pages policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Misplaced Pages Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Misplaced Pages.

from Wikipedian: Kukini 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reported your violation of 3RR on the administrator's noticeboard. siafu 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn`t know what the 3rr was, but OK.Zmmz 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spacing

Hi,

I'm curious as to why you keep putting huge spaces between the comments in one section of Talk:Knight. It makes the page look unsightly, and it makes it more difficult to read comments in one continuous string.

Hbackman 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary it makes it very easy for the reader to see who said what, and it makes it very easier to read, i.e., it is organized. Your version makes look like it is one continuous, long, boring essay. You might be trying to sabotage the discussion and preventing the reader from reading it. Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have no reason to start making unfounded personal attacks right off the bat. Why would I want to prevent someone from reading the discussion? I've been working to clear it up by signing your unsigned comments (please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments) so that people can tell who's saying what. I maintain that the extra spaces are unsightly (note that the entire rest of the talk page, and the bulk of other talk pages, are formatted with only one or two lines between comments), but I'm not going to get into an edit war about it. I have better things to do with my time. Hbackman 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure thing. By the way, I AM signed in; I hope so.Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are signed in. But that doesn't mean that your comments are automatically signed. You still need to type the four tildes in order to sign them. Hbackman 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how come you worry about me signing in?Zmmz 04:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about whether you were signed in. There's a difference between being signed in and signing your comments. Signing your comments is a good thing to do because it makes it easier for people to follow who's saying what on a talk page. (And you're welcome for the instruction. I try to be useful when I can. ;) ) Hbackman 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the signing your comments instructionZmmz 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Ideology

It was a question. Such changes in well-established usage, as shah mata (excuse absense of macrons) are often the result of somebody's political correctness campaign. What does keesh mean literally, and how long has it meant it? Septentrionalis 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know what keesh is, but both terms are in Persian anyway, so what does it have to with ideology? I don`t get it.

3rr

Please read WP:3RR, especially with respect to Parthia. William M. Connolley 10:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Is there something wrong with the below introduction?

Parthia, or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

I express no opinion as to the content. But I've blocked you for WP:3RR on Babylon. Please take the time off to read up on the rules William M. Connolley 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Exactly why you have blocked me? And, how can it be unblocked?Zmmz 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the 3rr rule, please unblock me.Zmmz 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:3RR. William M. Connolley 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got you, thanks. And it says it will be unblocked 02/24/06--correct?

24 hours, yes. William M. Connolley 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question William. At the beginning I was new and used my IP Address; however, now that I do have a username, the user Sifu, makes sure that he goes on the talk pages I edit, and informs the reader about my IP address. Can this be remedied? Also, how can I report user Codex Sinaiticus who has multiple usernames? Thanks.

Ah, I was going to ask you: are you User:149...... as well? Because you appear to be, and have used that IP to make much the same reverts, today, to Babylon. How to remedy this: the best way is to avoid revert wars. But if you are reverting using a username *and* an anonymous IP, people are bound to want to know this, cos of 3RR count. If you believe that CS is using sockpuppets, then you want requests for checkuser. William M. Connolley 23:39, 23

February 2006 (UTC).

That IP address could be anyone, since this is a school, yet, Sifu does not have the right to inform others so they can see where I live. I do not use my address anymore, that was when I was new here, and was not aware of the policies. And, how can I ``requests for checkuser.``? Zmmz 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley the following statement in the Parthia discussion is not fair, because many people use this school IP address, ``All of the unsigned comments from above are User:Zmmz, who also posts under the IP.... siafu 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)``. Can I report user Sifu, or do anything about this? Thank you.

The statement happens to be absolutely true, the comments were made by you under this username and your anon. IP.... Moreover, when you edit without being logged in you agree to disclose your IP address, and it can be viewed by anyone in the page history. siafu 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is different than you actively letting others know who regulary would not care, even though all my comments were signed. And, the question to report you was not ask to you--so wait till I see if I can report you, because, if I can, I--will.Zmmz 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because if there's a fight to be had, you wouldn't want to miss starting it, huh? I put that statement there in good faith in response to Ben's query because he was confused as to who was whom. Your comments were not signed then. Removing comments placed by others on article talk pages, btw, is vandalism, and will be reverted, even if you think they're no longer relevant. It's not like I could stop you from "reporting" me (how, or for what, I can't fathom), but I honestly wonder what you are trying to accomplish. siafu 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time with you Sifu, but if you have a problem and make false accusations, you better back it up. I will do my best to report you for starting personal attacks. By the way, as you can see, admints., like William state there is no ``style`` prefrence on the Parthia page. I tried to represent that article and empire accurately, yet, you have no idea what you are talking about....``led by Arscid dynasty``? Parthia WAS the Arsacid dynasty.Zmmz 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations? Not only was it true that all the unsigned comments were posted by you, but you even went and proved it true by signing each and every one of them - you can see it in this diff here, so I'm lost on that front. As for the style preference, nobody has said (or "admitted" that, as if it would be a shameful thing to say?) anything about the presence or absence of a style preference, though Parthia is, like all articles, expected to confrom to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of style (which you should probably read if you're going to continue editting here), and William M. Connely hasn't made any comment whatsoever on any of the disputes, he's just enforcing 3RR. As far as the "led by" comment, that wasn't inserted by me (you can see who did what in the article's page history, just go to Parthia and click on the history tab at the top), but it's true that Parthia was an empire, and the Arsacid dynasty was a dynasty, and therefore the two cannot be equal as a dynasty and an empire are not the same thing. siafu 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, isn`t this a form of personal attacks? This is a public computer in a school by the way, would this make a difference?Zmmz 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Mr. Connolley, but typically a personal attack involves a direct insult of some sort. (You should probably read WP:NPA if you want to know exactly what a personal attack entails.) I fail to see how siafu is insulting you; s/he seems to just be trying to explain his/her viewpoint and the rationale for his/her actions. I also don't understand why your being on a public computer would make a difference; you might want to clarify that. Hbackman

I signed my comments because I have nothing to hide, and I just started knowing about this site`s policies. If as you say, everyone can see for themselves who is who in the history page, then there wasn`t a need for you to make sure you posted this IP address, all over that discussion page. But, my guess is, you got a lot of time on your hand, and like to take such deviant extra steps, because you lost the arguement on that page. Also, when I asked William, ``Is there something wrong with the below introduction? Parthia, or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE. He replied, ``I express no opinion as to the content``---and said nothing about the style not conforming with this site`s policies. And, you need a whole lot of reading to do, if you think the Parthian Empire was led by the Arsacid dynasty is logical, because, Parthian is given to the dynastic empire of Parthia, in the Western literature. Persians themselves, they never call them either of the names anyway. They are simply the Ashkâniân of Iran, and that was an important point I was making on that page. ``Also known as the Arsacid dynasty would be more correct. ``Led by...``, further confuses the reader.Zmmz 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted your IP address because Ben asked that users sign their comments because he was confused. It's common that users who are familiar with the situation have trouble following if the comments aren't signed. Since you had posted some of them while logged in as Zmmz, and some while not, it was necessary to indicate that the username and the IP address referred to the same person. As for the rest, clearly you are much more interested in starting fights and making enemies than writing an encyclopedia, so I'll let you continue doing that without me. siafu 05:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. So, as you said, anyone can tell from one`s history page, what the other person has posted under his username, and his IP address; yet, you feel it necessary, to mention his private IP address two to three times on that discussion page, even after the user has signed all his comments. Then you make sure you report the user, instead of, making sure if he knows the policies or not, then post his IP address another two more times here on this talk page. After Mr. Connelley did not mention anything about the style being needed to conform as it pertains to the article I edited, although you said numerous times, you are replacing my edits, because you thought it was an ``style issue``, I am beginning to believe, if it doesn`t go your way---watch-out. And, my contributions have been invaluable to Misplaced Pages--every statement I insert is backed up by other Encyclopedias, and/or scholars. I have done my best to enhance the reader`s knowledge, in a clear, factual manner. There should be no room for personal attacks here; this is an academic based environment.Zmmz 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to butt in if I may. ;) It is difficult to follow talk page discussions when comments are unsigned. It's common to sign other people's unsigned comments for clarity; there is, in fact, a Misplaced Pages template for that exact purpose. It's not persecution; it's trying to clarify. It is pretty annoying and time-consuming to have to search through the page history to find out who posted what. Also, I still don't understand how you feel that siafu has been personally attacking you. I think that it would help if you articulated this better, so that siafu could try to explain his/her rationale behind the comments. I'm sure you'll find that they were made in good faith.

Misplaced Pages is a cooperative environment. If people don't assume good faith and try to get along, we won't get anywhere. Please don't take it as a personal insult if people edit or revert your edits. It is very rarely due to any sort of personal vendetta, and you're new enough here that no one is going to have a personal grudge against you yet anyway. 99% of us are working in good faith to build a better encyclopedia. It just so happens that people's ideas of what constitutes "better" sometimes differ. If we talk respectfully with each other and assume good faith, we can usually arrive at some sort of compromise. But it does involve a willingness to compromise. No one here is infallible. That includes you. We as editors have to recognize our own infallibility, as well as everyone else's, in order to be productive members of the Misplaced Pages community.

I would be happy to keep discussing this with you, if you have any questions or responses. Feel free to leave a note here or on my own talk page.

Hbackman 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately ma`am, Siafu did not get his way, so he reported me for something that I didn`t know was against the policies--and then he repeatedly attempts to submit a private IP address on this page and other pages; eventhough, it is unecessary, and otherwise, readers would not care what the IP address of this user is.Zmmz 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to report me for? Go ahead and report me, I haven't done anything wrong... How are you going to report me for an edit war where you yourself were the one going against consensus of all the other editors and reverting about 12 times in one night? As for sock puppets, I don't use 'em... do you think everyone who has been reverting you is all the same person or something? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 140 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked again for 3rr

I've blocked you again for WP:3RR. PLease learn that you just can't break 3RR and get away with it. Its a waste of other editors time, but its also a waste of your time too. William M. Connolley 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh, man. You are right. I messed up; sorry, I went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours. Rest assured, it wasn`t on purpose though.Zmmz 22:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, if you look at the section above this one, you see a user has signed by a title that appears as boxes--other times, the user signs with the username Codex Sinaiticus. Does that imply anything?Zmmz 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to look under Babylon and Parthia please. I invite you to look under their respective discussions as well. It seems there is a sort of wierd alliance between some users, or at best some ganging-up on a particular user to silence him or her. If you look under their histories, you`ll see for example user Aldux has edited under both articles, whereas previously he had not. It is clever, since if a fellow user gets into an edit war, he would have others to help out, and avoid the 3rr violation. However, this drowns any views that others may have--in my case backed with multiple refrences. Yet, they refuse to properly discuss this in the discussion page, and simply revert. I need to know what you think William. The users are, Aldux and Codex Sinaiticus; Variable and Siafu. Thanks.Zmmz 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr, if you please. But WMC is better. Anyway: comments like went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours tend to make admins grind their teeth. 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement. Please don't assume you have a "right" to 3RR per 24h. As to the signing... sorry, I don't understand you. You seem to be suggesting there is something odd about 2 other users agreeing. William M. Connolley 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you kindly look under the articles and discussions, you`ll see it is more than just two users agreeing. They helping each other out, which in turn devoids any meaningful discussion. You have to admit, this CAN happen. They discuss this, and do not present their own proof, i.e., refrences. As for the user, Codex Sinaiticus may have two usernames, one is the one mentioned, the other is the signed title that appears as boxes. Look at his signature in two sections above this one, titles `3rr`. Zmmz 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be 2 or 3 or more. If that happens, you will not be able to get your desired changes into the article. If so *stop trying to insert them by brute force* because it won't work. Your choices are: stop reverting and start discussing it on the talk page; and stop reverting and try to bring in other users who might be interested in the matter. William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex does not have two usernames. If you look at the wikicode for his/her signature you will see this: ] (]). And the comment that is signed that way was added by Codex when logged in under that username: . Hbackman 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what does this mean, ``Dr, if you please. But WMC is better``?Zmmz 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Mr. But using titles is odd. If you don't want to type my full username, use WMC William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait a minute, you rather be called Dr. Connolley, or WMC? OK. Also, if you look under the discussions, you WILL see that I try to discuss this, with multiple refences, yet, they do not. Please assume good faith from my part.Zmmz 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages HAS to find a better way to finalize articles. Based on the discussions and refrences provided, yet via votes and/or a final decision by a panel of experts. I just got a taste of what ganging-up, or alliances can do. Although, I admit there is a fine line between helping each other out and users whole heartedly agreeing on an article--it can be tricky.Zmmz 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, how come I`m still blocked?Zmmz 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, have you blocked me for good sir?Zmmz 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zmmz, You can see your block log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AZmmz ... He only blocked you for 48 hrs, that should be expiring in (as I write) about 35 minutes from now... See you, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been out today. CS is right. I gave you the link to the block log, above. Since all is happy, I'll knock off the 35 mins... done William M. Connolley 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. Thank you CS and WMC both.Zmmz 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope everything is OK WMC because either I was autoblocked again, or still blocked. I`ll try back in 20 minutes.Zmmz 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hi, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. But since you're new here, there are a lot of things to learn. My username is Codex Sinaiticus; but if you click on "my preferences" up top, you will see all kinds of amazing things, one of these is a box that says "Nickname:"... Now, whatever you type into that box will automatically become your new signature, even if it is different from your username. This means that when you use the ~~~~ command, that will appear, with a link to your username's homepage. Now I currently have typed into that box ፈቃደ, this looks like boxes to you because you do not have the correct font on your computer, but if you did, it would look like a different alphabet.

I'm guessing since you mentioned above that you were posting at a school, that you are probably about 17. Nothing wrong with that if you are, I'm sure you will gradually pick up a lot of features here as you acclimatise, just like we all did at one time. There are all kinds of tricks that have to be figured out, like preferences, and that's just the start... In the meantime, try not to make to many enemies! I don't want to be your enemy because I'm sure you have an interest in many of the same topics I write about, and hopefully we can not just get along but complement one another in improving articles, but it takes a bit of reasonableness about seeing all possible points of view and taking the neutral path... In this case, the consensus including myself just thinks it's not all that necessary to play up the Persian Superpower bit in an article about one city, Babylon... Your very first edits had all kinds of extra edits like "The vast and mighty Persians"... So why do you feel it is so critical for this article? Does this have something to do with Daniel chapter 2? I am trying to assume good faith, and not that you are doing this just for the sake of being disruptive... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not appreciate your subtle, yet sneaky comment, saying I am probably 17 because I use a pc in a school. But, then again that seems to be a pattern, you may be assuming too much. I am a PhD. student at a university. Secondly, consensus does not mean 2 or 3 friends playing tune-def, and helping each other out in an edit war. It means allowing sufficient time for others to join the discussion. Most importantly, you have not presented your counter argument in the Babylon discussion section. You have not provided ONE valuable reference that opposes the argument presented to you. I clearly, and repetitively presented an argument based on what scholars say. Simply read the discussion; I will not go through it again. Saying comments are disruptive certainly serves your purpose; yet, it is a far cry from the truth--and if a mediator follows this matter up, he or she will clarify this. Such comments as ``you are being disruptive`` are uncalled for, and frankly, your assumptions are not good faith, which is disappointing. Furthermore, they do not add any credibility to your opinions. Zmmz 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Babylon Discussion section. .......“However, as I have proved via many references--there is an over-whelming consensus among Western historians that Persia was the world’s first Super-Power; an entity not seen in the history till then. I sincerely believe that since this was a milestone event in history--and that as a consequence it heavily impacted the Greeks, as well as other civilizations, and because for the first time in history, most of the civilized world, nomads and alike were unified under one nation, the outcome of future history itself was affected. As such it is to mention this in the article, since Babylon--the "CITY"-- was intimately tied to the empire by being the empire`s administrative . As one of the foremost respected scholars in ancient history Robert Payne said in his book, "The Persian Empire swallowed up the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires, and went beyond them. It was the greatest empire the world had ever known, and for two centuries its capital was the capital of the world.". There are many other examples like this in my previous comments: unlike others so far, I have laced my comments with many refrences. Please do not take it upon yourself to edit that section, unless you provide a valid reason, backed with multiple sources that proves the words--world’s first Super-Power--are irrelevant to this article.”Zmmz 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Zmmz 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, no one would disagree that Persia under the Achaemenids was a superpower... If it would help, I can change the link to "empire" to "superpower" instead (this might be a more appropriate link anyway)... But there's really no need to go overboard with all the extra adjectives like "Vast" "Mighty" "Global" etc especially from some of your previous edits, it seems kind of strangely written and off topic to someone who is expecting to read information about the history of the city itself... If they click on any of the links, they can easily find the relevant articles that tell all about how great Persia was in 500 BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As to using words vast, etc., the idea was taken from articles about cities that were part of Alexander the Great`s empire, or were part of Rome. Yet, as you mention, such words were later dropped--so, I do not see the point of even bringing this up at this time. Back to the gist of THIS argument: I realize you try to avoid using the word super-power. Yet, as my argument above illustrates, it is a necessary word; keep in mind the edit will only involve the word super-power. I am still very unclear as to why you think this word should NOT be used? Besides giving hints that you may have some distaste about the word super power or the preeminent power in the world then, you still have not stated why isn’t this necessary? As to my compelling argument that it is necessary to mention this milestone in history, you repetitively argue, why is this relevant? This is not the strongest argument in the world.Zmmz 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at it now, because I've just added that very word, in just about the only way it can logically be used while keeping it about the city... Approve? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article isn`t exactly how I believe should have been written; yet, in the intrest of comprise, I am forced to agree. However, to make the article more fluid, I think the word super-power should be replaced with ``the preeminent power of the world at that time``, which gives a better hint about the role of Babylon in the empire. Isn`t that more descriptive?Zmmz 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, after just now reading the actual article at superpower, I'm inclined to agree... Will change it per your suggestion...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then I have no further arguments. I truly believe now--in an unbiased sense--the reader will now be more enticed when reading about Babylon, and it now presents the role of that city in history, a bit more accurately. Thank you.Zmmz 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

CS, it would be nice if you let other users like Aldux know we agreed on this. Zmmz 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Persia/Iran

I've already got my hands full trying to prevent people from claiming that al-Khwarizmi was an Arab/Turk, so please work with me here. In English Iran always refers to the country as it stands today. Nowadays, for a lot of people Persia refers to the Persian Empire. I know this differs from how Iranians call their country, but saying "Persia (Iran)" without the "now" would only confuse a large part of the readership. Cheers, —Ruud 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I understand that, and I respect the status quo, but isn`t this the gist of the argument? Isn`t one of the points of Misplaced Pages the fact that if given the chance we may clarify further, any misrepresentations about a country, culture, persons etc.? So, if we have the chance to enhance the status quo, and above all if it is factual, why not do it? Iran was never called Persia, which is the name of an state in that country. I mean God knows its history is rarely studied anyway, so why not keep Persia and simultanously inform the reader of the fact that it has always been one country, with one name?Zmmz 00:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran was never called Persia in the same sense that Deutschland was never called Germany. I think Iran naming dispute does a great job in explaining the matter and no, it is not Misplaced Pages's job to improve the status quo (see WP:V). —Ruud 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn’t true; Misplaced Pages allows edits for a reason. I don’t know about Germany, but I do know many people for convenience have divided pre-Islamic Iran into Persian and Parthia, and post-Islamic Iran as Iran. So, as you can see it is not JUST a naming controversy. People think Persia is extinct; my God; it-is-not. Iran hasn’t changed, its race has not changed---so I don’t get it, why modern? And, I don’t agree with you. Look how Greece is so homogenous in its historical representation. No, especially, if the change is as subtle as erasing the word modern and only leaving Iran there. It isn’t like, the Persian state Khwarezm, modern Khiva, Russia (that is justifiably called ``modern``). I have got to disagree with you on this. Zmmz 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the people here, but about geography, borders etc. —Ruud 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography and borders change all the time, within any country--however, it is the race and the culture that are viewed as being extinct. Keep in mind, the geography of the country itself is pretty much the same as it was in ancient Iran (not including the countries that were colonized under the empire), with the exception of the northern Iranian states like Khwarezm, and Samarghand, Bukhara etc., being given to the Russians fairly recently. Yet, geography has to take a back seat to the culture and the people, since many see them as being entirely different than their ancestors.Zmmz 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, it probably needs to be rephrased anyway to avoid the excesive parentheses. First a request though. Can you read Arabic? Avicenna's name doesn't right to me. —Ruud 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You see? That is exactly what I was telling you. People think Iranians are Indians, or Arabs (nothing is wrong with being any of those), assuming you thought I am Persian, which you may or may not be correct. But, no I don`t speak Arabic, sorry. BUT, if you go to one of the dictionaries, you can compare the names there fairly easily.

So Root, can we call Avicenna an Iranian Muslim....? Zmmz 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Preventive Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I'm warning both you, User:Jidan, User:MB and User:ManiF. I'm not going pick sides here as there is some truth in everbodies arguments. However your collective actions are damaging the articles. If you truly are intresting in writing a good and objective on al-Khwarizmi you will stop editing and take your differences to talk page and discuss things civily. And please thouroughly read through WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and stop all the speculations and citing of websites and other encyclopedias. And please do go out to the library and find some books on him and see what the historians have to say on this matter. Cheers, —Ruud 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, did you post that warning section directed towards me? The one that ends with thank you and is ubsigned. Zmmz 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Ruud 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I`m talking about this, Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You wrote that? If you did, you`re funny man. You are an administrator now huh?Zmmz 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a standard message that is given to everyone who might be violating WP:3RR soon. —Ruud 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, alright.Zmmz 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I have already spent a lot of time on this. I don`t have any more time for this. If you and other actually bother to read my 7 refences in the discussion page, and if you go to the actual sites, you will see there is an over-whelming consensus that at least say he was born in Khiva, Russia. So, to be fair, the only agreement I will make about the article is that we must mention he was born in Khiva, Russia and in a paranthesis we write formerly khwarizm, Persia, or vice-versa. Of course, I have also provided multile refrences that say Khwarizm was an ancient province in Iran. I mean by the way, I gave you refrences about the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary that say he was born in Persia. I HAVE the actual Merriam-Webster dictionary in my hands right now as we speak. I don`t think you can get a better source than a recently updated English dictionary. Do you? Yet, I am still willing to comprimise on this, and just say where he was born.Zmmz 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your efforts, however as discussed we should perhaps use Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Iran, so our actions would be organised and backed by eachother, and put an stop to this anti-Iranian behaviour by some small minority of anti-Iranians. Ba sepaas, --Kash 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I try and edit articles about ancient Greece, Iran, and Rome. I ONLY stand on the side of the facts. But, I do agree that there is some sneaky activity in regards to articles about Iran; some are not satisfied with refrences such as dictionaries etc. I do my best to remedy the situation. However, I cannot do anything alone; it gets too much. Zmmz 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Persians

Please get on Talk:Persian_people, Aucaman is trying to bully his POV again.

Hello There

can't you report this guy Acaman or whatever, he has violated 3rr and keeps pushing his point of view!

I feel bad honestly, but you can. Go to administrator's noticeboard. Zmmz 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Regarding your comments here: bold-facing people's name when addressing them is considered rude. Please stop. Aucaman 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am simply copying and pasting it as it appears.Zmmz 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako

Aucaman

Despite that he broke a rule, in his opinion the tag should be added. The proper way to get the tag removed is to work out a compromise with so both parties are happy. The incorrect way is to just revert and call him an Anti-Persian, despite what you think. --Khoikhoi 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am as fair as it can get, but please read refrences and counter arguments under the discussion page. So are we supposed to keep the tag there even though the user in question has no valid sources and he refuses to compromise? The user offended because the word Aryan is justly being used.Zmmz 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I added a new section on the talk page. Check it out. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin

You could try Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal if you don't think the situation is getting any better. --Khoikhoi 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you do it for us please?Zmmz 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just thought you might want to add the request because you're better at explaining situation, but I'll see what I can do. --Khoikhoi 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are much more credible, I appreciate it.Zmmz 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I made it: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. Let me know what I need to fix. --Khoikhoi 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't edit the page. I'm not an admin, remember? ;) Let me know what you think of the meditation page I made. --Khoikhoi 04:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would appreciate two things if they can be changed and added---first not all the editors are Iranian, so I feel the other editors may be a better choice. Secondly, I` d appreciate it if you can point out the fact that you personally are a neutral user, and that you researched the word Aryan yourself. Thanks.Zmmz 04:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Khoikhoi 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work.Zmmz 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I really hope this ordeal can be resolved. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zmmz. I'll check it out tomorrow, as I'm very tired right now. ;) So long. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry, but I am not an admin. Hopefully one day, but not today. Sorry I can't help. I've found admins User:Android79 and User:Shanes to be quite helpful. Feel free to ask them. Good luck.Gator (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. ThanksZmmz 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

California

Yes I live in California but who said that? I don’t think I ever mentioned it to anyone.

Gol 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wanted to see if you`re a girl and leave there, that`s all.Zmmz 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Persian people

I'm not clear on what you think is "not fair" about this situation. What further action are you wanting me to take? If you want a more complex discussion of the issues surrounding the page, I might suggest that you open up a request for comment on either the article or a problem user, if you have had no luck resolving the dispute yourselves. I'm not going to step in and start handing out arbitrary blocks on my own. (ESkog) 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m new here, so if can please give me some guidence as what to to report a problem user, I`d appreciate it. I am surprised you did not block him for the 3rr, because he was warned beforehands many times, but he erased the warnings. ThanksZmmz 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem Users

If you have a problem with a user, please open WP:RFC against him, it might help. When editing an article please forget about the previous conflicts with other users and just argue with the edits. Personal conflicts usually are going nowhere on Misplaced Pages abakharev 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How to make 3RR reports

Hi!

I know it may seam beurocratic and complicated with all the different procedures and ways to report stuff, but when it comes to reporting 3RR violations, the proper place to do that is on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Be sure to follow the instructions on that page, by listing the violating reverts as given in the template at the bottom there, and it will be looked into Shanes 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look

Kurd nationalists..

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		A well deserved award for all your efforts against vandalisms and sleepless nights to make sure Iranian articles are accurate. Thank you! --Kash 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sup

Im new, wondering if you can help me out sometimes if I need. Thanks, looking forwrod to working with you and other Iranian Wikipedians. Iranian Patriot 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No one's watching the Aryans page!!

We have all been spending all of our time on the Persian people page that No one's watching the Aryans page!! On the Persian people page everyone has been trying to stop User:Heja_helweda and User:Aucaman saying it is racist to use the term "Aryan" on the page that everyone forgot about the Aryans page. I was looking at the history of that page and I saw that User:Heja_helweda has made some changes. If you have some time please check out what has changed and try to fix any bad mistakes similar to the Persian Peoples page that they might have made. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Kurds

The article is badly written and generalizes widely, but it does include sources so it's unlikely that it will be deleted. The only real option is to NPOV the article and make clear that such studies were severely limited in their scope and cannot be used to make assumptions concerning the entire Kurdish peoples. I've been saying this over and over again all this time to no avail. I don't much care for genetic studies in the first place, since they are almost always limited and cannot reveal anything about entire populations of people, but at the same time as long they come from a reputable source, the only thing that can be done is to clarify that the studies were limited. Also, keep in mind that the claims about Persians being "mixed" and so forth in Persian people by Heja and company used absolutely no scientific sources whatsoever, so any discussion of intermarriage and genetic heritage has no place in the article at all. That should be your primary concern, since their actions at the Persians article has been outrageous and flagrantly bigoted. SouthernComfort 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think we should erase it from the Iranian people article, where Heja goes on and on about Kurds in Iran, and monopolizes the article, unnecessarily.Zmmz 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Just noticed the page Requests for comment/Aucaman. This was long overdue, and thanks for drawing my attention to it. Also, I think much of the same applies to Diyako, who in my opinion is even a bigger problem. Shervink 12:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Im already under that category

My user name is already under the category that you suggested. and how do i change my user name? Iranian Patriot 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Yes, it seems to be formatted properly. Ral315 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the Description and the Summary section explain the matter well, and are they acceptable in the sense that we are strong language to refer to a certain user? ThanksZmmz 19:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is missing certain sections. Do you want me to help you as Advocate clean it up by adding them? Robert McClenon 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, yes. It is my first time doing an RFC. I really appreciate it.Zmmz 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User Diyako

The comment was made on December 28, over 2 months ago. It doesn't seem reasonable to dig up something that old to justify a block or even a warning. Has s/he done anything problematic since then? (ESkog) 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is in general the user is impossible to compromise with, he writes excessive amounts of texts refudently in discussion pages, put banners on multiple pages because his personal opinions justifies it, and still personally attacks others. But guess why? It seems he is part of some weird political movement. That isn`t really fair to users who provide refrences and have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. I just do not know what to do, it seems endless, mediation pages, third opinions, warnings; nothing works.Zmmz 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--Zereshk 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be dealt with between users on their own talk pages, the right place to deal with it is in the dispute resolution center. I don't feel qualified to deal with this dispute, nor do I feel it would be appropriate to make any decisions on my own without gauging broader community consensus. (ESkog) 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I should say

I was just trying to mediate the dispute, I have no idea as to content either way. I have no idea where the IP is from, it was flagged by someone else on a blacklist and hence I was alerted of the edit, I didn't run an ARIN whois on it. I'm going to wait 24 hours before touching that article again, to give both sides time to make arguments and hopefully sort it out by themselves. -- Tawker 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sure thing, but give them more time since at least one side has some important sources. ThanksZmmz 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Please be aware that the article Persian Empire is being regulary vandalized by an unregistered user (see the various ip addresses). The edits appear to be designed to undermine the idea of Iran being a continuous nation or civilization. Here is an example of one of the edits:

Successive states in ancient Iran are collectively mislabeled the Persian Empire by some Western historians regardless of the fact that succesive states had little of the continuity that would be ascribed to a singular state; the language, forms of government, state religion, military culture, capital city and economic system changed every time a new centralizing authority arose upon the Iranian plateau.'

The editor is most likely attempting to create a pretext for seperatism. --Houshyar 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Report it to an admin, and say the user never gives refrences.Zmmz 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Empire

It really doesn't fit the criteria for protection right now seeing only 2 IP edits in the last 12 hours but you could add a disputed tag if you'd like -- Tawker 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the pages needs to be protected now. It seems the user is a sockpupet.Zmmz 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not refering to you. but Zerehsk. also i know Zereshk since long ago. tonight maybe he became angry (maybe for no good reason otherwise i think he never would act against me. Sorry for I did not clarified that.Diyako Talk + 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a futile attempt, but I do think you and some other users should not start edit wars and controversies about the word Arya, or Aryan, or whatever else in the Iranian people, and the Persian people articles. It really is unnecessary in light of what I have personally researched and read. The use of that word is the standard in those ancient cultures. Do you really want to waste all your time in an edit war, and in the discussion pages? I`m sure you could use your time better on the articles that you may know about more?Zmmz 04:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rome

Does anyone have the map of the Roman Empire at its greates extent? ThanksZmmz 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerns of a neutral user

I neither like nor want to waste my time. but the truth is that some people among you mispresent me (and maybe others) and then every edit by me is lebelled wrong. If I had not good faith I could easily easily get a persian username such as User:Keyvan, or User Alireza and no one of you suspected me. but I do not know why you disagree with my edits? also I have not yet disagreed using or not using the word aryan. i can provide you many links that I have added the word aryan to the articles. my concerns are very clear and have explained in the end of talk page of Iranian people.

also I did not involved in the dispute of persian people. i just wanted to add native name of persian people to the articvle but user:Hoshyar reverted it in the name of vandalism. I do not think adding native names is vandalism. I every day add native names to many articles. It's part of improvment of the article. Diyako Talk + 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you disputing then? I`m not sure if there is anything solid to be honest. Also, please put this under another heading, and not `Rome`.Zmmz 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The use or not use of the term aryan is a greater job which I cannot decide on. My major contribution as on less important things, like clarification, fixing links, interwiki links, and Some times create stubs.

• In the article Persian people my concern was use of the native name.
• My other concerns on the Iranian peoples is to clarify a small section + clarify in the article in a sentence or in paranthese that what is the word aryan.
• The last one: the info box is not correct. we should replace it with a correct one. that one used in the articles is for ethnic groups like armenians or Persians. (as far as I know). Also please do not send me warning with no link to what is my so-called vandalism because I have the right to know what i have done wrong.Diyako Talk + 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I clearly warned you about a soon to be 3rr violation in the Iranian people article, and I did provide you the link. As to the dispute, exactly what native name do you wish to use for Persians? What do wish to add to the word Aryan? What specific changes do you wish to make to the infobox?Zmmz 05:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever in the language of persian people means "Persian people".
• That it is a linguistic term. (and have explained in the talk page of the article.)
• Infobox: Replacemnt to a correct one.
• Not all of the speakers of Iranian languages are ethnically related to eachother, ethnically they vary. Diyako Talk + 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I asked you for answers, refrences would be nice too, but you keep repeating the same things. What is the ethnic word for Persians? Encyclopedias clearly state the ethnicity, and lingual lineage both are refred to as the same. They are very much ethnically mixed, but still have their own sub-ethnicities, and this is already mentioned in there. Zmmz 06:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If in Tehran, Isfahan, shiraz ask someone who has persian language as mothertongue that what is your ethnicity he/she uses the word "Fars" (and probably Pars) this is native name for Persian people. Many people have their own name for themselves in their own language.Diyako Talk + 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you this? No one, not a single person in Iran, refers to themselves as "Fars" or "Farsi." That is so ridiculously absurd that it defies reason. Go look in all the encyclopedias you want Diyako, you will not find anything supporting your bizarre theories. SouthernComfort 06:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Southern??? Are you Iranian???? But if I will proved that native name for Persian peoples is for themselves is Fars what you say? you will say I'm not Iranian?!! I was not aware?!! Ok some weeks ago user heja helweda added a ton references on Fars but Iranian users removed it. it's a little strange yes?! Diyako Talk + 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The dominating language that unites that country is Persian, and it translates to Farsi. That is the language of the country. Is that what you want them to write? What happened to references that says not all Iranians at some point mixed and mingled together, and as you claim some ethicities there never mixed with their countrymen and are still pure?Zmmz 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Fars" native name for Persian people:

,, ,, , ,, , , ). Diyako Talk + 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The word Fars in Farsi language is both name of a ethnic group and a geographical area. here in the article persian people the word Fars means the native name for that ethnic group.Diyako Talk + 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Fars is the name for Iranians from the Fars province. Also, one, do not make my talkpage into another battle ground here, I don`t want to make this page flooded with texts. Two, Diyako referring to you, the user Southerncomfort seems to be ethnic Iranian. Third of all, where are refrences? How come what you are alleging is not mentioned in any of the encyclopedias. Here is the bottom-line, that in an ideal world would replace confusing names used in the English literature; Persia as a , and its people then and now known as Persians? No, they should be called Iran and Iranians. The Iranians in the province of Pars, or Fars being called Persians? Yes, is correct. The languge of Iran also being known as Persian or Farsi? Yes, is correct. Zmmz 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter what any of us say, they will continue alleging that we are "Fars" (he used to love calling us "ajam" but I guess he prefers "Fars" now) and that Iranians and Persians don't exist and that we are all "mixed up" or whatever other crap theory from the lunatic fringe. Fun, isn't it? SouthernComfort 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately he is fighting an uphill battle, all by himself, and he is very confused.Zmmz 07:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey Zmmz, just wondering if you could add your email address to your account. You can do that by going to Special:Preferences. I need to send you something. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing.Zmmz 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it`s done.Zmmz 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It still says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address". Try again. --Khoikhoi 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it`s done.Zmmz 07:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Check your email... --Khoikhoi 07:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven`t received anything.Zmmz 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Check again. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven`t received anything yet.Zmmz 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with problem users

Hi, I do not have the authority to ban editors, I have the authority to block editors for a short time, if they are engaged into Personal Attacks and other disruptive behavior. I would do it to stop a flame war immediately after the attack, not day after just to punish people. If you want to discuss behavior of a problem user, you can start a WP:RFC process against him or her. In the most serious cases you can file Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration so that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee could handle the case. The ArbCom indeed have the authority to ban editors for a long time or indefinitely but they would take only the most serious cases. abakharev 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Zmmz 07:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Farabi

1. When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

   

   The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

   When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

2. Please don't remove references to Al-Farabi's being Muslim without discussion, or add a definite nationality; the article clearly states the position on the latter — that his ethnic origin is unclear. By saying that he's Persian, you make the article contradict itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take time to view the edit history before implying anything. I have not erased any refrences nor have I erased the word `Muslim` or other words. Furthermore, vandalism is just that, vandalism, and leaving the edit summary blank, although not a good idea, but it has nothing to do with vandalism. Finally, if any words were added, refrences were provided. Accusing someone of sneaky reverts, and vandalism is a major step to take, I sincerely hope you are aware of that. But again, writting a brief summary in the edit summary box is a good idea. Thank youZmmz 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I did look at the edit summary, but the organisation of the page meant that it looked as though you'd put "Persian" in place of "Muslim" instead of adding it. Sorry for that misunderstanding. The point about the addition of "Persian" stands, though.
2. The text that I added above about using summaries is a standard template (see {{tl:summary}}. It doesn't say that not using summaries is vandalism (though it is Misplaced Pages policy; anyone nominated for adminship, for example, is likely not to get it if they don't use edit summaries); it says that not using them might mean that your edits are mistaken for vandalism.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Advocacy Help

Dear Zmmz: Hello there, thanks for contacting me. I'll be your advocate from now on, and I'll make a mention of this down at the Advocate Cabal so that other people can track what's going on. I've looked at the request and Mediation Cabal request for mediation that you linked to, and they both seemed slightly odd from the perspective that the RfC didn't really have much in the way of actual comment on it nor of much documentation of the user's activities (only two diffs!) and the Mediation Cabal case doesn't appear to have, well, been mediated very much. The problem is that with these sort of disputes "bad blood" is generated on all sides of the dispute due to the animous tone of the debate, and so they become inextricably difficult to solve. I'd suggest the following:

• Give the mediator at the Mediation Cabal who's assigned to your case a nudge, and ask him/her to investigate it a bit further, and to try to tabulate some attempt at common agreement with the parties.
• Rewrite the RfC as per usual methodology, so that it contains enough content for people to comment on it. Take a look at some of the other RfCs for example that are listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment; you'll find there instructions on how to write the RfC.
• Take a step or two back from the dispute, and try not to get too worried about the user's activities. I know this sounds silly but we can all get perhaps a little too heated about things, and it's important not to get too burned out when dealing with difficult users. Then if you try to comment to the problem user from a more outside perspective you'll find it's easier to try to build some sort of understanding. Looking at the scenario, however, I wouldn't hold out a great deal of hope on this avenue, though.
• Failing all of the above, put the whole thing in front of the Arbitration Committee to handle, the last step in the dispute resolution process. Personally looking at this particular case I expect that in reality arbitration will be the only solution due to the interpersonal conflicts involved. You can make a request for the Arbitration Committee to hear a case at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration; follow the instructions given on that page for guidance on how to make a request. Before you do this, make sure that you've exhausted all possibilities regarding the RfC and mediation first, because the mediator won't be able to handle the case while there is a pending request for arbitration. I'll write a note to the arbitration committee when and if you place the case to let them know that they should accept it, so that I can attest that all other avenues have been exhausted.
• If you'd like my direct involvement in this matter, for example if you'd like me to talk to the user in question personally and try to work out some sort of involvement, then I will do so (but won't contact the user without your express permission, obviously, nor anyone else).

I hope the above is of some assistance to you. If you wish to reach me outside of Misplaced Pages, you can e-mail me at nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com (removing the munging) and I'll get back to you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all the info you provided. I do agree with you that all options must be utilized first, and I also agree with you that due `bad blood` between the users involved. Moreover, frankly from experience, it seems that unfortunately at this point there may be compromise. A neutral user, Khoikhoi who tried to moderate the Persian people article itself as a third opinion, and who was the one to set-up the mediation request, also now agrees that certain users refuse any form of compromise, but yes as you noticed, to date, no actual mediation was has taken place in that Mediation Cabal. User Khoikhoi and others then agreed to sign the RfC that was set-up by me. So, as of now I am requesting that you be the lone Advocate in these cases, and I am requesting that you please bring these matters to the attention of the Arbitration Committee: All other options have now been exhausted. Finally, we are working to put more diffs and evidence in the RfC page, and the page may be completed as early as tommorow. I really appreciate all your help. Thank youZmmz 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Please *don't* report vandalism to me by email. Its not appropriate. Use WP:AN/I if its serious. William M. Connolley 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Now he is interested in more than just Persian people. See Arabs of Khuzestan and Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 11:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. He calmed down and accepted reason. SouthernComfort 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

Wow, it looks like you and Kash have really been working hard at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aucaman. Good work! --Khoikhoi 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did all the work and Kash signed it, since due to technicality I could not.Zmmz 07:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Keep up the hard work. --07:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian people (again)

Aucaman has begun revert warring there again. I thought he was beginning to become reasonable, but these deletions are without even any discussion. SouthernComfort 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you report him to an admin, specially since, we have brought this case to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Add any violations to the case page we have set-up. Also, I warned him in good faith about breaking the 3rr, but he erased it from his talk page. If he breaks it, let me know.Zmmz 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He archived the talk which is totally unethical since there an RfC has been comment. He also improperly moved Parsi without discussion to Parsi people and then again to Parsi People, which I had to fix by moving to Parsi (ethnic group) and then fixing all the redirects manually. This is common as he also requested a merge between Iranian cuisine and Persian cuisine without letting anyone know, nor saying anything on the respective talk pages, and then someone else merged it due to the request. His actions are obviously preemptive and I have no idea what his problem is. Instead of trying to fix things and communicate, instead he goes around making all these major changes in articles where other editors are involved, all without discussion. SouthernComfort 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I need the diffs for the Parsi page.Zmmz 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman (again)

1. I have cleaned up the RfC.

2. You forgot to post a notice on his talk page, but I have done that for you.

3. Have you suggested or tried mediation?

4. I have not researched the details of the case. I am willing to act as your Advocate if you want to request mediation. I may be willing to act as your advocate for arbitration if his response is confrontational. However, before arbitration is in order, we need to give him a chance to respond to the RfC.

5. If I review the case and agree that he is a disruptive editor, I am willing to be your Advocate, but I will insist then that you cooperate with me. Robert McClenon 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

6. I will take care of the movement of the comments if necessary. However, I do want to try mediation before we try arbitration. I do know how to do arbitration, and I am good at it, but part of that knowledge is knowing when to try to resolve things by some less drastic method. Robert McClenon 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• On behalf of the team of editors who submitted this request we thank you very much for all your help. Certainly the user should have a chance to respond, and we could certainly use an advocate such as you. The answer to your question about mediation is; yes--we have tried compromising, involving neutral users, getting a third opinion, and even asked a third party to set-up a Mediation Cabal, the link to which was provided in the Rfc page. Unfortunately, they have all failed, and because much of our time, and efforts are now concentrated in battling disputes, providing references etc., at this point we welcome any decision made by the Arbitration Committee; as long as, there is decision--period. Again, feel free to act as a mediator, and/or our advocate; we will cooperate with you fully, and thanks for your efforts. Zmmz 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing to mediate. If I did, I would not be able to advocate for you if mediation failed. I will make one more effort to request mediation. Robert McClenon 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, mediation has not worked, but we will give it last try. After that, you be the advocate for this please. Thanks Zmmz 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to confirm that mediation has failed. If all else fails, we go to arbitration. Robert McClenon 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi

You guys could have potentially avoided all the problems at Al-Khwarizmi by adding online references, of which I have found many. I've added them to the article, but afterwards it was protected due to a request. This is the first time I got involved, so I don't know who requested the protection. There are still plenty of more sources to be found, particularly offline (i.e. books) sources. SouthernComfort 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, regardless of your personal opinions, please keep an eye on Ruhollah Khomeini. The article has been constantly attacked by a vandal (User:CltFn) who is inserting complete nonsense (the alleged sources are forgeries - a hoax) about Khomeini into the article - check the history. Thanks. SouthernComfort 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, good job man. I also got that Parsi diff. Aucaman should not have moved that page without discussing it with all the other editors.Zmmz 05:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hello. I'm not sure I understand why you asked me to change that. Can you give some explanation? It says Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Considering my previous discussions with him I think that description fits me, but maybe I didn't understand something correctly? Just let me know about it. Thanks. Shervink 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

OK, so please sign under the other section too, because the first section you signed in, does not show your support, rather shows you tried to solve the dispute, and that you certify you did try, that`s it. ThanksZmmz 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Parsis

Regarding your edit here. The study was done on Pakistanis in general and not Parsis in particular. Why are you objecting to the reflection of this in the article? Aucaman 09:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarazmi

The reason I'm not getting involved there is because no matter how much Zora etal try, they cant change anything. Khwarazmi is one of those things that is solid clear.

No major scholar or encyclopedia contests what they are contesting.

Basically, theyre making a fool out of themselves. As if trying to push for a flat earth explanation on the Earth article. As ShervinK said, there's a limit to how accurate open source encyclopedias can get.

Dont worry,... in time, the mess will clear up. Keep up the good work.--Zereshk 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I`m only one person; I can`t do everything by myself.Zmmz 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you could spend your highly valued talents and efforts on other articles. Zora is a bigot whom one shouldnt waste time on. She will challenge everyone even if Khwarazmi himself logged on to WP and refuted her. Debating her is pointless and a waste of your precious time. Dont worry, there are many many editors that will soon show up and delete their rubbish POV theories. Ive seen it happen many times.

These people have no sense of objectivity or reason. Theyre basically trying to push their agenda. And it's a dumb one, because noone will buy it.

Again, I have to thank you for your efforts. I'm flying out of town tomorrow morning. I'll be back soon.--Zereshk 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not important if he was persian or arab. The important thing is what you learn from the other side during the discusiion. I think the discussion page is more valuable than the main article itself!! Jidan 07:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Trust me Jidan, me, Zora, and a few others go long long ways back. We know eachother.--Zereshk 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I, Zereshk, hereby award this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar to Zmmz for his/her priceless efforts to protect Misplaced Pages from historical revisionists and fraudulent contents. You rule! Zereshk 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not always there to back you up.--Zereshk 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizimi

Hi ZmmmZ, Im glad we have agreed on a version. You can add all the reasons why al-k is persian in the persian section. The rest is up to the reader to make his choice. Jidan 07:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan

God! This debate over Persian people is still going on? I thought it was over. What is their excuse now? I tried reading the talk page but it is very confusing! since you have been active on this discussion, can you be good enough to tell me what is the problem now? Is it the term itself that is being labeled Racist or is it whether it should be associated with Iranians? Or is it the wording of that section? I really don’t know what to defend if I don’t understand what is their problem.

Also, great job on Kharazmi page.

thanks a lot

Gol 08:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The user Aucaman does not want the word Aryan used in all articles about Persia or Iran, period. He tries to use excuses that say the word is outdated, or racist; even when used to describe the ethnicity of Persians. The mediator then has come up with some sort of watered-down, wishy-washy sentence to describe the Iranian ancestors, as compromise. Non of this makes sense because Aucaman`s reasons are purely political, that`s it. I made a mistake at first, thinking his concerns were legitimate. We told him Babylonian Cuneiforms discovered shows, from its birth; the country was called `Land of Aryans` by king Darius. After giving reasons like telling you the word Aryan was used because when the Babylonian Cuneiforms were discovered a German archeologist who put that word in there or something like that, I’m convinced his rational is off-the-wall, and there can be no compromise with him. Today, he wrote something else that is extremely controversial in the Iran article, but luckily we caught on time. Anyway, just concentrate on the Rfc I set-up for him, because the only solution for this is limiting his editing privileges. We need to bring him in front of the Arbitration Committee. Thanks Zmmz 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

You keep reverting people's edits without saying anything in the talk page or giving good edit summaries.

You made this edit (which is undoing people's hard work) without an edit summary. Your name doesn't even appear in the talk page. I'd already explained my edit. Why did you revert it and why didn't you use the talk page?

Another example. You undid my edit here although I had already explained the edit in the talk page. Again, your name doesn't even appear in the relevant talk-space.

These are just two recent examples (with a really short time-span between your reverts). You've also done it before. Please stop reverting my edits without proper reasoning. You're making this personal. If this continues I'll have no choice but to bring this up with a third party. Aucaman 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When a user submits controversial edits, or erases comments that come with citations, other editors can revert it back to a previous version until the matter is resolved, which was the case here.Zmmz 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

I saw your message at User talk:Aucaman. Can you give me some specific examples of the behavior you're discussing? Another user who is a native speaker of Farsi has agreed to translate for me if the comments are not in English. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure, you can view specific examples here, which is an Rfc page. Thank you for looking into this.Zmmz 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked Aucaman, no (I didn't block the anonymous user, either--that person was blocked earlier for violating WP:3RR). The particular example I warned him about is the worst of his edits I could find, and if he does something like that again, I'll block him. The stuff recorded in the RfC is, I think, beyond my purview. It's a bit odd, I have to say--some of the things recorded there he shouldn't have said, but others of them are perfectly ordinary if not good edits, like warning someone for vandalism who had, in fact, committed vandalism. Incidentally, I noticed your post at Ed Poor's talk page. There's no need to go around bugging people about this--you've already opened an RfC, so see how it plays out. If you need to bring it to Arbcom, do so. If anyone posts truly nasty stuff, bring it up at WP:AN/I. Otherwise, be patient and please try to compromise. Chick Bowen 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to us reporting him for warning a user about vandalism; we never reported him for any vandalism warnings that was legitimate, I don`t know where that comes from. User Aucaman has violated the 3rr, many times, but someone who blocked him yesterday, immediately unblocked him, for some reason. The problem is that the user is a--problem user, and it takes so much efforts to respond to his numerous politically motivated disputes, and edit wars. He does make many off-the-wall comments and article edits. I`m sorry, but it`s frustrating to see a user who is being so abusive, getting away with so much. We have been waiting for some sort of decision--any decision--but nothing works, and the user`s racially motivated rational is nothing to compromise with. So, we try to ask help from any admin who listens, and I`ve got to tell you, I don`t agree with the fact that you feel we are bugging any of the admins. Users like this just end up driving away other editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. Thank you anyway. Zmmz 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR Policy

You're about to violate WP:3RR on Persian people. Stop reverting my edits. Aucaman 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for violations of the three-revert rule at Persian people. As this is your third such block, it'll be for 48 hours. I will investigate the history to see if other blocks are also warranted. (ESkog) 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Aucaman also has more than three reverts on Persian_people within 24 hours, if user:Zmmz got blocked then User:Aucaman should be blocked too. --ManiF 17:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Aucaman's edits are not reversions to the same version. If he is editing the article disruptively then other action is necessary, but not a 3RR block. (ESkog) 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, from what I see here you have not only been warned very explicitly about the nature of the 3-revert rule, you have also been blocked for it twice previously. The rule applies to any time you reinstate the same version of the same page 4 times in a 24-hour period. I don't care about the content, I don't care who's "right" in this dispute, and quite frankly I don't feel the need to take the time to wade through and decipher the dispute at the content level. The only exception to the three-revert rule applies to the reversion of simple vandalism, which these clearly were not. When you return, please do not revert the page to the same version multiple times. Instead, deal with the situation civilly through our other dispute resolution mechanisms. (ESkog) 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not warned explicitly, and user Aucaman reported me one exavtly two seconds after he or she warned me, you still haven`t granted me any exceptions. That`s fine, users like I, are much more civil than a user like Aucaman who repetitively inserts comments equating Naziism with Persia or Iran, and is otherwise generally disruptive. At any rate thank you for your time.Zmmz 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page spam was unrelated to you - it came from BBIH. You are welcome to have another admin review the block though, as I think it's certainly your right. (ESkog) 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I mistakenly thought it was who you said, You and Zmmz should stop spamming WP:AN and my talk with block request. I can see a few mistakes, but this is just disruptive. I am sick of having to look through all these diffs, which already lag, only to find that there is no violation.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC). I apologize, and at any rate, as I mentioned before thank you for your time.Zmmz 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user was blocked unfairly, he was only trying to protect a page against vandals --Kash 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Request

Hi this is in regards to my block, please know that i had no idea erasing a dispute tag that was not agreed betw. at least two users, would be considered a revert. Believe it or not i actually thought i was doing the right thing, since the Persian people article is going through mediation again. The mediator actually warned the user Aucaman not put any dispute tag till the matter is resolved. Btw, again I wasn’t warned, nor did know erasing this would be a revert; I am still getting used to the rules.

you have to understand i never thought Wiki itself would be based on a loosely based network of admin, i thought if there are clear problems with a problem user, they will take immediate action, making a decision either for or against the user. but, it has been just so frustrating with this particular user , because he simultaneously disputes numerous articles, and is disruptive, going against clear consensus and initiating edit wars on many articles at the same time; for example when he kept constantly reverting and erasing complete sections because the word Iran, which means lit. Land of Aryans was used....we tried to explain to him with multiple references that there are archeological evidence in the form of what is called cuneiforms that shows Persia was called Iran from its birth, so we included that in the etymology section, but his response was at the time a Nazi administration was in charge of such archeological evidence and he put in the word Aryan on purpose. We told him but cuneiforms were discovered in Babylon in the 1800s, and provided numerous refs. Like Columbia. Encyclopedia that have the word Aryan settlers as Iranian ancestors, yet he still has not compromised to this day. Yet, he still uses such reasoning to write about the Nazis in articles about Persia, or Persian; the diff. is here . To us at least, obviously he is a problem user, but no one is looking into the Rfc we set up for him, the link is .

At any rate, as you can see, it is very frustrating for those editors such as myself who don’t care about politics, rather the academic side of history, and i can tell you with honesty that again i had no idea erasing a dispute was considered a revert. the user himself left a warning about the Persian article on my talk page, but exactly a few seconds later he reported me for the 3rr, which does not show too much good faith; 06:21, 13 March 2006 vs. 06:29, 13 March 2006. But, it is unfortunate that some bad users like Aucaman and i m sure others drive away editors who have something legitimate to contribute..

Thank you so much Zmmz 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I got your e-mail, Zmmz. I'm sorry if you were blocked for a misunderstanding, but as ESkog says, since you've been blocked for 3RR violations before it's within the usual order of things to apply a stricter standard. However, I think you should be able to participate in mediation. If I unblock you, will you agree not to edit the article Persian people for the duration of your 48-hour block? Note two things: 1.this offer is not valid until I run it past ESkog. 2.I will hold you to this, and I will tell Aucaman I've made this offer, so I'm sure he'll let me know if you don't stick to it. OK? I'll go ask ESkog while you think about it. Chick Bowen 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a very fair proposal, and I'll go along with it. If you accept, either Chick or myself will be along to unblock you. (ESkog) 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree to that, and rest assured I would not edit the article mentioned by you. Thanks for looking into this.Zmmz 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're unblocked. Chick Bowen 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys, I appreciate it.Zmmz 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it take time to get unblocked? I`m still blocked.Zmmz 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• You got caught in an autoblock - I think I've cleared it now. Leave a note here or throw me an e-mail if you still can't edit. Sorry for the complication. (ESkog) 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, everything is OK I now, again thanks for everything.Zmmz 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hi Zmmz, regarding Aucaman, since I haven't seen his edits firsthand, I cannot take a side. So far, I am only following the Iran page, and on that page I think both sides have not discussed or edited in good faith. It seems like Zora's suggestion is working out though, so it's all good. -- Jeff3000 16:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reponding to {{helpme}}

Hi, how can I help? — CuaHL ☺ 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (reply to this?)

Hi, we have set up an Rfc here, but we have done a poor job. Bottom line, we need an advocate, do you of anyone? Thanks.Zmmz 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you're looking for because I'm not familiar with WP:RFC, but if you're looking for an administrator/SysOp, please see Misplaced Pages:List of administrators. I hope this helped. — CuaHL ☺ 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for help?

Hi, still looking for help? Ps. Can you use the template on your userpage please :D — CuaHL ☺ 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need help. Also, what do you mean when you say, Can you use the template on your userpage please?Zmmz 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant use the template on User:Zmmz, but I guess it doesn't matter where you put it. You realise that using {{helpme}} for a specific topic won't be of much use. That template is pretty much for new Wikipedians who have no clue about editing, let alone arguments and RfC, right? — CuaHL ☺ 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran & Aucuman

Hi Zmmz, thanks for the warning about Aucuman. Although I am finding him a little difficult to talk to, he doesn't seem too bad. Do you think you could comment on the Talk:Iran instead of just reverting his edits? There are a number of 3rd party editors there at the moment and if you put your view there it would help your case. Ashmoo 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not we have tried to work with in good faith, but after a few months, it was clear he really must have some sort of political views pushing his ideologies. He has a history of erasing sections about Iran, and worst of all for some reason constantly equating the country to Naziism. I really don`t know what else we can do? But, thanks for your support in the Iran article. It is good to see some well intentioned editors giving a third opinion.Zmmz 23:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aucaman

I agree that you both seem to have a dispute that cannot be resolved without outside mediation or assistance, and I think the request for comment mechanism is a good first step towards that. With that in mind, I definitely support your decision to step away from all of the pages where you have conflicted for a few days, and I have advised Aucaman to do the same. As I told him, there is nothing so urgent here that it can't wait a week or two, and this cannot be worth the frustrations on both sides - it's a matter of a few words one way or the other in an encyclopedia article, nothing more.

That said, I should caution you that many administrators have a broad view of our no personal attacks policy, especially when commenting on the motivations or qualifications of other editors. This edit in particular concerns me, as it's a page in Aucaman's userspace. Try to lay off of accusations that may be construed as personal attacks, and try to instead limit your comments on Aucaman's conduct and edits to the formal process at his request for comment. (ESkog) 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK ESkog, believe it or not I am a reasonable as it can be, and there is no cpmromise to be had about something so valid as a race calling itself by the same name that is unviversally accepted by all scholars, e.g, Germanic people of Germany. Time will tell Aucaman is actually unreasonable, but, I appreciate the advice. About the comments you mentioned, but why was that a personal attack? I was under the impression Aucaman is requesting to be nominated as an admin, so I let the others know thus far there are two Rfcs against this user. ThanksZmmz 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are his personal standards for supporting others for adminship. We all have them. You are to stop editing Aucaman's pages in his userspace except for his talk page, otherwise it may construe as harassment. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:15 UTC (2006-03-15)

I am not too familiar with Wiki yet, and I actually thought he himself has put in a request for adminship. I then thought it was only appropriate for me to inform other user Aucaman does not have a good record in this site. I didn`t do it on purpose, and I have never personally attacked anyone here, unfortunately user Aucaman has a history of bullying though.Zmmz 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing material from talk page

Zmmz, it's not explicitly forbidden to remove contributions you don't like from your own talkpage, as you just did (), but let me tell you it too is strongly frowned upon by many. Do what you like, but this in itself may be seen as a piece of evidence of uncooperative behaviour in a later Arbcom case. Just a friendly word of advice. Lukas 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd suggest you archive them instead. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:19 UTC (2006-03-15)

Lukas, there is no need for you to patronise or scold me. There is an Rfc page, you need to write your concerns there. If my biggest problem is as you said my writings are wordy, or that I erased your lengthy message, that was inappropriate for you to leave in this page to begin with, then I`m in much better shape than Aucaman who personally attacks others numerous times, has failed to compromise after a third opinion and then a Mediation Cabal asked him to drop the unreasonable dispute, and etc., etc. Aucaman has gone as far as erasing my warning on his page about a 3rr, and erasing entire sections in an article that come with refrences, without any discussions. I also noticed that because Aucaman was warned not to edit the article Persian people, you are now doing it for him. Please from now don`t flood my personal talk page with subtle threats and bullism, rather address your concerns in one the five the Rfcs written up for Aucaman, where others can view it as well; that would be much more appropriate. Zmmz 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Lukas on the assumption of good faith, and after being pointed out to me by other users that it may be inappropriate to use the word biased--I have now erased it, and in the intrest of sounding fair; I do actually apologize. But, again, kindly do not spam my talk page too much, and certainly refrain from scolding me. Thanks and good luck to you.Zmmz 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse Lukas of bias. Remember to assume good faith when possible. I am willing to act as your advocate, but I have not yet reviewed the material in detail. I will caution you that if you have made personal attacks against Aucaman, then the ArbCom will take note of them. I may not be able to give much attention to your case until Friday or Saturday. Robert McClenon 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sure thing, I`ll take your advice; the reason I called Lukas biased was because he warned others about personal attacks, but simultanously called many, ramblers, whiners, nationalists etc. Honestly, I was upset because he basically scolded me in my own talk page. Nevertheless, I agree with you, and I am going to erase the word biased, as well as leave a message on his talk page. As far as personal attacks go; I`ve never attacked anyone; although, I believe yesterday, I left a comment on a page that I thought was Aucaman`s adminship request, saying, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported an abusive editors in Misplaced Pages.Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)  ; later that turned out to be his userpage, and I genuinely had no idea though. But, I do take full responsibility for that. And, I`m going to go ahead and issue an apology. I`m glad we have some help now, so thank you.Zmmz 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To demonstrate your good faith, I repeat, I'd appreciate if you didn't throw around the distorted quote from me everywhere. I did not call you "whiners" and "ramblers". I did call your behaviour "whining" and "rambling", and if you insist on believing that's the same thing, you could at least have the decency to include the link to the actual quote so that people can judge for themselves. I'm not going to retract that judgment, and remain highly critical of your overall stance and your actions. By the way, my contributions to your articles were compromise proposals, in case you didn't notice. Lukas 08:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is still very harsh and incivil, which is unfortunate, nevertheless, in regards to your concern, the difference between your quotations used by me, and your actual quotes are simply changing nouns to verbs (ramblers vs. rambling), which is what I’ll do--there is almost no difference, but I rather be precise, rather than almost accurate. I will change them in all the places in which they were used. In regards to compromise proposals; if you are taking sides in the Rfc, and act as a neutral user, it would be much more appropriate, and you would look more credible, if you did not take sides in an ongoing dispute in the Persian people article. You should have joined the discussion, and attempted to mediate, rather than revert the article simply back to user Aucaman` s version; the same user whose side your taking in the Rfc set up against him. At any rate, even after you harshly scolded me in my talk page, actually border line attacked me, and me simply implying you were biased, for which I actually apologized for, which is more than you have done. Your comments here, such as the one implying I may have no decency, once again do not show good faith in your part. You need to be aware that there are absolutely no double-standards in Misplaced Pages, and neither you, nor anyone else is above the policies here. Again, from now on please refrain from using this talk page as a battle-ground. I don`t want my talk page to be flooded with texts. Thank youZmmz 08:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct you on something - Misplaced Pages itself is not a battleground, but you don't have the right to ban anyone from your talk page (actually, only the ArbCom does). You can ignore (or, indeed, while not recommended, remove) a person's posts to your talk page though. NSLE _(T+

C) at 08:46 UTC (2006-03-16)

I do know, I cannot ban anyone, neither can you (actually, only the ArbCom can), but, once again, you assume too much. Just like the last time when you tried to guess my ethnicity, and automatically assumed English is not my first language without asking me first. Back to the gist of the discussion, I never banned anyone from my talkpage. When did I, in any form, used or implied the word ban? I asked a similar question about how did you assume my ethnicity, but you never replied, so, I`m curious, this time please reply and tell me where did the word ban come from? I certainly asked him many times to refrain from spamming this talk page; there is a difference between refrain, and ban.Zmmz 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "good faith", you might want to clarify in what way this edit of mine was a revert back to Aucaman? Lukas 08:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you write this without discussing it with anyone else when there is an on going mediation in that article, The latter term, which is sometimes avoided today in Western scholarship in this sense, corresponds to their historically attested self-designation, Arya? One of the exact arguments in the mediation is that most editors feel it is irrelevant, or inappropriate to imply that the term Arya is a self-designated term, with self being a key word. In fact, user Aucaman many times had wanted to use that word, and/or imply that the term is sometimes avoided today in Western scholarship. Did you ask of the users in the discussion page, or the mediator before you reverted to this version, which as it turned out, it is one of Aucaman`d preferred versions, and not the consensus`? Zmmz 09:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(Taking this into a new section so it can get away more easily from the personal stuff, since we're now discussing the contents.) I'm honestly sorry if you found that compromise suggestion offensive. Let me assure you it really was just that, a well-meaning attempt at synthesizing what I believed might be acceptable to everyone. I had the impression it corresponded quite closely to recent statements and suggestions by your mediator, Fasten. And apparently, at least Khoikhoi found it good enough to use it as a basis for further work. And I have no problem if people reject it for some good reason. No, I had not read very carefully through all the discussion and mediation page; it's so long and cluttered you can hardly expect a newcomer to take it all in. That said, I'm a bit at a loss to understand why that phrase about the "self-designation" would be objectionable - after all, its factual correctness seems not to be in doubt, and it implicitly represents the strongest argument for why the use of the term also as a modern scholarly designation would be regarded as legitimate. But anyway, I don't think I'll get much involved in that any more. Lukas 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of----finding your reversion offensive, it`s a matter of accuracy; there are also at least 20 editors actively discussing that article. The issue at hand was your credibility, since you are acting as an advocate for Aucaman, yet, reverted an article back to his version, perhaps in an eerily accident, without discussing it in the designated Mediation Cabal. Anyway, good luck in your endeavors, and please let’s end this discussion in my talk page.Zmmz 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hi, out of no choice, we too have set up an Rfc against user Aucaman Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aucaman.Zmmz 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to provide any evidence I am gathering (I havent been tring to gather much so far). --Cool Cat 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I actually stumbeled on your Rfc about Aucaman by accident, and frankly I was very surprised that there was another user who had done this. Aucaman has the admins thinking it is only the Persian editors who have some sort of vendetta against him. At any rate, at this point I`m really concerned about his disruptive behaviour, in that he does not take anyone else`s point of view into consideration, other than that his reasons for his disputes are pretty much invalid. Believe or not I don`t feel good about it, nevertheless, we are taking him in front of the Arbitration Committee. Go take a look at the Rfc page I set-up for him here. Thanks and Good LuckZmmz 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Zmmz. I tried to work out a compromise version on Persian people, but Aucaman just reverted it. What should I do? His version doesn't really seem much like a compromise. --Khoikhoi 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what else we can do as good intentioned editors besides reporting him to the Arbitration Committee. At this point we need to have the admins involved; however, on the suggestion of some admins, I prefer not to revert the Persian people article anymore, until this matter is settled once and for all. Aucaman is doing this again in other articles; Parsi, Iran, Iranian people, Khuzestan, and a few others. The only thing I recommend is gather the diffs that show you tried to compromise again, and submit them in the Rfc page, and if you see fit, make sure you leave some comments there too please. Zmmz 03:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, ok. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I have passed on your request in an as polite manner as I could. I'll ask that you (continue) to live up to the same strict level of civility, but also that you in the future might try to just be the bigger man when someone is saying things you find insulting. Sometimes telling people to be polite and calm down will have the opposite effect, and just ignoring insults can be the best way to move on. We're after all here to build an encyclopedia. So the faster we can just move on, the better. But WP:CIVIL is an important[REDACTED] rule, and if you should come across incidents that you simply can't ignore, I'll be happy to look into it. Thanks! Shanes 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job; I agree; if only others would follow, we all would have an easier time in here. Thank youZmmz 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement

Which part? SouthernComfort 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The one that starts with.....thirdly.Zmmz 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Zora has continued stalking me as well and trying to get other editors slanted against me - see User_talk:LukasPietsch. I am seriously growing tired of this harassment - and it is harassment when another editors goes around calling you "chauvinist" and "nationalist" over and over again (as I've told Lukas) for over a year. I'm sick of it and she's asking for an ArbCom. SouthernComfort 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SC, I realize that now after only being here for a month. Zora keeps erasing the ethnicity of poets like Rumi, saying his ethnicity does not matter, he was a Muslim, and he belongs to all of us, which I thought was really inappropriate when writing an encyclopedia. Users like Lukas feel we are some sort of nationalist, extremists group here in Wiki, which is really unfortunate, nevertheless, the problem with A and Z seem to have gone for a year now. I really am convinced we need to bring them in front of ArbCom--do you other editors like you agree? I think it is time for that sort of action.Zmmz 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment

This war you are having with User:Aucaman has been going on for far too long and you have done more than one questionable thing, but

That is not unfair at all. Aucaman does not have a problem only with me, he has an entire community of users offended, and ready to sign a complain against. Everyday he reports someone for something, one person can be wrong, 20 editors cannot. I strongly suggest you read the following statements here, specially, the last statement submitted by me, and get back to me.Zmmz 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't about him, this is about you. That comment is innapropriate. I don't care if Aucaman is burning Rome to the ground, that does not give you a licence to make harmful accusations against him, nor does it give you the right to follow and dispute his every edit. That's called Wikistalking, and I'll be more than happy to block you for it if you continue. --InShaneee 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What harmful accusations? After the user tries, to this date, to insert a politically controversial section that would equate Persia to Nazism, even though everyone asked him that is inappropriate, and after he made a racially motovated profanity laced attack on a newcomer, I made an observation that he is pushing a POV, which is uncalled for when writing an encyclopedia, yet, he hides under the protective umberlla of a neutral user, see here. Were my statements really that bad? Does he have any right to accuse me of harrassment for beinging up a legitimate concern? He is trying to bully others who do not agree with him, and turn good-intentioned admins like you against some other editors here. I really don`t know what else to do, we are all so frustrated with him, but I take your advice to heart.Zmmz 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• You're being as much of a bully as he is here. You want to politely remind a user not to insert POV statements into a page, that's just fine. You want to accuse him of having some sort of Zionist agenda, you're going to get blocked. You ask if he has a right to accuse you of harrassing him? As far as I'm concerned, you are. You've stopped discussing what you don't agree with in his edits, and are spending the vast majority of your time here trying to get him discredited, and eventually blocked. You're frustrated? I'M frustrated. Blocking a user is NOT the way to solve a content dispute. 20 editors are bringing an RfC against him? Doesn't matter if it's 10,000. Conduct yourself in a respectful manner or you WILL be blocked. --InShaneee 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How in the world am , out of all people, bullying him? That Zionist comment was certainly out of order, and it was made when I was new here, however, what are we exactly supposed to do if one user single-handedly tries to monopolize several articles, so that his opinion can be included in an article. I would not try to silence him, or anyone else, yet, if a user absolutely refuse to cooperate with others, even after a third opinion, a mediation cabal, other outside users and admins told him he was wrong, what can a reasonable user do? It looks at the surface as if we are trying ban this lone voice of reason, yet at a second glance, you`ll see this user is extremely distruptive. I can`t imagine going into an article about ancient Rome, try to insert or erase some wacky statements that have no place in an encyclopedia, then if no one there agrees with me accuse them of harrassment, and say things like they are Italian nationalist or whatever. This is exactly what he is doing, furthermore, these other editors mostly have no affliation with each other, and know Aucaman from dealing with him in various articles. So, his problem is wide spread and not limited to one subject, e.g., Persia. Editors like this just drive away others who have something legitimate to contribute to Wiki. What do suggest we should do? Would you prefer I stop editing in this site, instead of him? Even if so, tommorow somebody else would be his problem. Yes, the user is disruptive, and a bully, I just figured it`s time to bring him to the attention of ArbCom, which is long over due. Zmmz 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz you need an e-hug. /me e-hugs you. Please relax and be WP:CIVIL, and remember WP:NPA. Thanks, and listen to InShaneee ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I really appreciate that. And, I a reasonable editor, unlike Aucaman, so I will take yours and Inshaneee`s advice to heart. Thank youZmmz 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked you for 24 hours for Wikistalking, this edit being the final straw. This was a discussion that has nothing to do with you, on some other user's talk page, with no rational reason I can see for you being there at all. But there you are, with an edit that serves no purpose but to defame him. This is insane, and it has to stop. You've filed an RfC. You want administrators to deal with him? Then let them deal with him. There is absolutely no excuse for this site-wide war you're waging against him. --InShaneee 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was being very civil, and in some way tried to ask help from that admin in Aucamans talkpagethis edit.....check my talk page here with this diff, ppl have left things much worse than that in talk page. I think you are so angry right now, that anything I`ll do or say seem exaggerated to you. I told you Inshaneeee, I`ll take ur advice to heart, so please calm-down. Aucaman himself was never blocked for this personal attack, Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary. Let there be no double standards in Misplaced Pages: be fair and please unblock me. Thank youZmmz 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• You haven't listened to a word I've said. It doesn't matter what Aucaman has said or did. You've been blocked for what YOU have been doing. I'd suggest you use this time to calm down so that when you get back, you can distance yourself from this situation. --InShaneee 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect InShaneee, it does matter what Aucaman has said or done. Aucaman has enraged several communities on wikipedia. As you said it yourself, "Zmmz is being as much of a bully as Aucaman is" yet you have not even warned Aucaman but you have blocked Zmmz. Now I don't wish to defend Zmmz's overall conduct, but this is not the first time I've seen you warn or block an Iranian editor but ignore similar or even duplicate actions by the opposing editors. To me, this is starting to look like a clear case of double standards. --ManiF 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There HAS to be a sense of fairness in Wiki though....there should be absolutely no double standards here. I already told you Inshaneee, I actually very calm. Others have accused you of being trigger happy; but I am not. Assume good faith in me, and please unblock me. I was trying to ask help from the other admin in A`s talk page, but if it was THAT bad as you allege, then I apologize..Zmmz 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• You've stated your case against Aucaman in your RfC, and you need to leave it at that now. If you have more evidence, add it there. If he steps out of line, report it to someone. Report him to me, if you'd like (but I won't block him for something that happened several days ago). --InShaneee 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, man..but at least show some faith in me when I say I`m calm and I take your advice to heart; and unblock me please.Zmmz 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Alright. But I'm going to hold you to that. --InShaneee 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. The best thing is to just concentrate on the Rfc, or ArbCom, but, believe it or not, I really feel it is unfortunate that these steps have to be taken, it`s sad. Anyway, I really appreciate the unblock.Zmmz 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Inshaneee please know you might have some problem unblocking me from an autoblock, or at least this is what I was told by another admin about autoblocks. ThanksZmmz 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to edit now. Inshanee just made a typo when trying to unblock you. Shanes 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You`re the best; thank you so much Shanes.Zmmz 07:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas

There's a lot of sound advice in there; try hard enough to get someone blocked, and you'll most often get blocked yourself. If you want something done about a user, let his own activities speak for themselves. At least, that's what I got out of his comments. Lukas is a good editor, don't worry too much about him. Also, sorry the unblock didn't work last night, I thought I has it taken care of and went ahead to bed. --InShaneee 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don’t worry about the unblock Inshaneee. My main concern was, was the language of the comment appropriate, wasn’t it very acidic?: I tried to be a bigger man for calling his behaviour, biased, and actually apologized in his talk page, even after he scolded and threatened me in my own talk page, yet, he came back with an even harsher tone, basically implying I may have no decency, because I had unknowingly changed a verb to a noun when quoting him (i.e., rambling vs. ramblers). Secondly, in an ironic twist, he now seems to suffer the same fate as I; such that he is outraged by what he sees as bullism by us, and tries feverishly to let numerous editors know we are a bunch of problem users/nationalist mudslingers, i.e., what we thought of A and his activities. What is your take on it? Thanks manZmmz 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd call it strict, not neccssarily acidic. He's clearly fed up with this whole situation, but that's certainly understandable. As far as I can see, he's only been talking to other users in an attempt to figure out what to do about this entire situation, which might just save me a little time from doing the same thing. --InShaneee 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, hhmm, I have got to tell you, if I had done that, I would have been accused of stalking, or at best being incivil, e.g. no decency, after an apology? And, I have read some of his comments, he is actually trying hard to clearly presuave other editors to his side, not just find information, and obviously acts as if he indeed is fed-up. , that is exactly what we started to do at the beginning, for the reason of, guess what?: Being outrages and fed-up. But, regretablly, that has been lost, mostly due to my poor representation of the whole issue. At any rate, not everything is as one sided as you may prefer to think it is, but it is good to know your opinion about the whole think; at least it gives me some idea of what is going on out there. OK, thank you for your time. Zmmz 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Lukas Pietsch is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages spirit and reputation. I advise you to get a look at his interventions concerning the Phaistos Disk article. Terribly eloquent ! My humble opinion is that he should be banned from editing in WP. Best regards (80.90.39.45 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Hi, thank you for your warning about Lukas`s behaviour, can you provide me with more specific examples please, like links, or quotations? ThanksZmmz 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Zmmz, I know you don't like me on your talk page, but after your recent actions you'll have to put up with one more comment from me. First, let me say I appreciate your and ManiF's change of tone recently and the cleanup at the noticeboard. I thank you for that. Still, I am getting enervated at your latest efforts at denigrating me personally. You blamed me on the administrators noticeboard of "hitting the talk pages of many and identifying many editors as problem editors", and likening my actions with those of your own (). Then, as I now notice, you sent InShanee after me. Now, pray, whose talk page did I "hit", and what "many" people did I identify as "problem editors"? If I remember correctly, I named exactly four people on the RfC: yourself, ManiF, Kash, and Zereshk. All because of clearly identified actions, all of which were indeed problematic, as many others have agreed and you have now yourself admitted to some extent. And don't go complaining about getting drawn out into the public like that. All of you four had signed the RfC, it was your doing. It's called a "Request for comments" for a reason, you know. Comments is what you requested, comments is what you got. And it wasn't me who started to take the discussion away from the RfC and into people's talk pages, it was Kash and ManiF who did that. So, I'd really appreciate if you would stop running after me like that. I hope we won't need to exchange messages like this again.

P.S. On a completely different matter, just a word of friendly advice, and really without any negative overtones. I noticed you recently made some vandalism reports to the AN/I and to William Connolley. I'm sure these were well-intentioned, but I think they are a bit exaggerated. These cases seem to have been just very trivial everyday juvenile vandalism, of the kind Misplaced Pages unfortunately gets thousands every day. If people wrote messages to AN/I and individual administrators for every such case, there'd be no end to it. If you want to help fighting vandalism (which is certainly a good idea), look at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism or at the pages of the "Counter-Vandalism Unit" to find out about best ways of dealing with such cases. Mostly, in simple cases like that, you just simply revert the edit and leave a standardised warning on the offender's talk page. Lukas 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed-out to you before, I feel it may not be appropriate that you respond to me here, be that still in such a incivil, and always condescending tone. About the vandalism case though; this person, who had vandalized numerous sections in the Ancient Rome articles, and the same user who has been warned, and reported for excessive vandalism since Febuary, many, many times by other admins, so I felt it was time for a more decissive action to be taken. As far as the other issue goes, believe it or not, I do feel a sense an anger from you due to the Rfc. I`m disappointed that you unfairly have been actively criticizing my actions very harshly in the talk pages of many editors and admins. There are absolutely no double-standards in Wiki Lukas: here are some links showing you had me and many of those who are involved in the Rfc against Aucaman in many discussion pages, and indicated to many admins that I am some sort of a problem user, mentioning me by name, and you have said, I ’ll do everything can to stop it, or that some editors are involved in rambling, whining, and Nationalist mudslinging etc.; here are some examples. I’m not sure if biting on a newcomer, just because he supports the opposite side of the Rfc you are participating in, is such a good idea either: you said to him, Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away. In regards to your latest concern; please don`t misunderstand, I have not send Inshaneee after you, read the above comments, in fact, I specifically asked Inshaneee not to warn you, rather I asked him, his opinion about your comments, in a private manner, which you obviously saw and reacted to. Moreover, Inshaneee himself was defending you; read his comments above. And, I checked your talk page history, Inshaneee has not said word to you, so I am not even sure what you are complainig about? Again, as for my conversation with Inshaneee--I have every right to ask a question from any of the admins, so I can get familiar with Wiki`s policies. Yet, if you feel it is necessary to reply, you should honestly do it on that page, or if you feel it is necessary, here in my own talk page. Honestly though, You can`t keep throwing my name around to so many editors and admins, and not expect me to reply, specially, when you make disparaging remarks like some people`s comments are a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. Whether or not you care to agree, you did a hypocritical thing by spamming many, many admins` talk pages, right after I had left a comment there, which was the same exact thing you accused many of us of doing. At some point and time, we all may feel we are right, and everyone else is wrong; nevertheless, everything is not as lopsided as you try to make it seem though, not all. Anyway, as usual, good luck with the Rfc; I really can`t sound more fair than that. Take-care Zmmz 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you continue to accuse me of "spamming", "double standards", doing "the same thing" I accused you of, etc. You are denigrating my name in front of others, and I don't like that. Before I give you a last warning for wikistalking and harrassment, let's review together what I actually did, one more time:

• My contributions to the RfC itself - I commented on your actions; that's what an RfC is for.
• One friendly message to SouthernComfort, enquiring about the RfC (), with a subsequent exchange between us two; total of 4 messages. He was explicitly asking me for my comments. (I do notice though that others couldn't help butting in unasked, especially Kash.)
• One message to Zereshk, asking him (as the principal instigator of the "noticeboard") in a friendly way for his comments. Total of 2 messages.
• Exchanges with Ahwaz: I was't following you around, I was trying to help Ahwaz after his block, and later responding to requests of his. Which is absolutely none of your business.
• Notice to William Connolley: ditto; and I didn't even mention you or anybody else in that one post ().
• Notices to Dariush4444: 2 notices about advice relating to the RfC; and one later warning about personal attacks which I left him on Ahwaz' personal request (and then you butted in, but that was okay.)
• Notice to ESkog: relating to an entirely different matter, timing just happened to coincide with his endorsing my RfC "Outside View" ()
• Notice to Robert McClenon: responding to an explicit request by Ed Poor to "cue him in"; and it was you who had previously brought up my name in that discussion (), so you can't complain I joined it. (By the way, I like your typo there, "his first order of bossinessbusiness" - that's a good one. Just noticed it now. ;-)
• Notice to ManiF: A single note about an edit he made reverting mine, normal talk page activity during a content debate ()
• Notice to Fasten: A single notice about his mediation, after one of you had accused me of illegitimately interfering with the mediation ()
• Notice to Voice of All: That's about the only one where you might say I butted in uncalled-for. ()
• Notices on WP:AN: Two contributions to Williams's posting about the Iranian noticeboard. That was an open call for comments by William, so it was the most natural thing for me to do to comment and link to the related RfC.
• Notices to your own talk page: In both instances, I was taking discussions here from other fora because I didn't want the discussion there to be cluttered up with personal stuff. William's WP:AN notice about the "Iranian noticeboard" should be just about the noticeboard, and not about your or my behaviour against each other. The guys over there wouldn't thank us if we conducted this discussion there. Same goes for my earlier message that you deleted - I was protesting against your unjust accusations of me censoring the RfC page and of me insulting you as "whiners" etc. It was a legitimate protest but it would have messed up the RfC if I had done it there.

These, to the best of my memory, are all the contributions I have made in the course of the recent dispute (plus those on my own talk page, obviously). The only place I mentioned your name where it hadn't previously be brought up by others or by yourself was, I think, on SouthernComfort's talk page, and there I was just discussing the RfC he had signed together with you. Please review the contributions above, and then retract your statement that I was "spamming" or acting "hypocritically" or "throwing your name around". As for "following" you, well, yes, I have no problem confirming that I have been checking your contribution history from time to time lately, as well as that of the two others, to keep updated about what you were up to. And as for "biting" MysticRum, I'll tell you the same I also told Kash (who BTW butted in on my talk page unasked-for again): My extra patience for newcomers is reserved for technical mistakes and weaknesses about how to write good articles. It does not apply to personal bickering. I suppose MysticRum is an adult who is responsible for how he behaves himself, so he gets from me what he deserves. Lukas 11:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, your acidic language does not lend further credibility to you. I have been very fair and courteous to you, perhaps too fair. I have only stated some facts, provided some quotations from you, as well as some links to your comments. You seem to be giving excuses for your attacks to newcomers and others, however, firstly, the newcomer was very civil with you, and secondly, it does not matter what others say, it is incivility I`m concerned with. There is no justification for user Aucaman, or you to attack us, and try to manipulate the system, e.g. buy the sympathy of the admins etc., every time we complain about you. I have told you that there are no double standards here--so, if you attack me or any newcomers who have written up an Rfc for A, and call other editors names by saying things like they are, whining, rambling, nationalists, involved in nationalist factionalizing mudslinging, or say vulgar things like then go away, a disgrace to Misplaced Pages, none of your business, and then you butted in, I suppose MysticRum is an adult who is responsible for how he behaves himself, so he gets from me what he deserves, or even after I apologised to you for inferring your behaviour was biased you in return implying I may have no decency , or if you harass me here or on anyone else`s page one-more-time, I will report you for harassment, and stalking. Apparently, as an anon user pointed us to an article about Phaistos Disk, we are not the only ones who are the target of your personal vendettas. thing you have to say, you should say it in the Rfc, not here, and certainly not so incivil like; just be forewarned please. Zmmz 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't respond to the substance of your allegations this time; I'm sure you'll get all the response you need from the third parties you've been contacting. Let me just say I very much regret that you found it appropriate to side against me with an abuser who actually wrote this: . Be assured, if you were faced with attacks like this, from whatever side, I'd defend you against them. Lukas 09:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, you need to stop accusing me, and manipulating my words to fit your agenda. I do not want you to write in my page, nevertheless, drag my name around anywhere. I have not sided with anyone, rather I asked him to be specific about his allegations, since he was the one who had followed you, who are following me around into my talk page. Do not involve me in any of your problems with a completely different user, or anyone else please. You saying, I won't respond to the substance of your allegations this time is a bit of an oxymoron, since once again you . A week ago, I asked you to please not flood my talk page and rather write your grievances in the Rfc in which you are an advocate for. Take a look above , and you`ll see the length of your responses in the past two days alone. Secondly, Lukas, the things the other user had called you in a case unrelated to me, is not much different from your own harsh language that you have used with me in the above sections. Certainly, you had provoked the other user as well. I think you may be viewing yourself above everyone else, and above all the policies here. And, I need you of all people to defend me in a situation (since I have joined Wiki, I have never personally attacked here), rather instead, you can simply refrain from attacking me in my own talk page, and stop stalking me (that ought to do it).Zmmz 09:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman (4)

As long as you keep your language civil, of course, you don't need to ask permission first. Believe me, I more than welcome any discussion that can help bring this issue to a close. --InShaneee 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing; I just didn`t want another block handed to me for Wikistalking just for mentioning his name (you`re cool though). Thank youZmmz 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you one more question please Inshaneee; I need to talk to a user to see if they want to support the Rfc, because he or she too, complained recently that A has erased many sections relating to an Iran article; can I go ahead and talk to this user?Zmmz 03:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• There's usually nothing wrong with pointing someone twords and RfC involving something they were involved in (as they can often lend a helpful perspective on the situation), though it is considered bad ettiquite to suggest or recommend that they vote one way or another (it's preferred that they take a look at the page themselves and then judge). --InShaneee 21:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good advice Inshaneee--also, please be aware that user Lukas at this point is breaking every rule of civility, due to his own reasons, and if he harrasses me one more time, I will report him for that, see here if you care please.Zmmz 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to report him; I don't see anything to warn him about in his posts. While I do think his wording is a little strong, he's simply reacting to all the (unfair) accusations being thrown at him from all sides now. --InShaneee 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What unfair accusations? The fact that I personally provided diffs in only discussion page that showed Lukas suffers from a case double standards, in that he labels and attacks others, and me asking him on that same page to be more civil please? What ever happened to the fact you told me about, which was, it does not matter what others say, it is reaction that matters? Are you as an admin excusing Lukas`s reaction because you think he is being treated unfairly?Zmmz 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m genuinely sorry that you feel there are unfair accusations, after I replied to his comments that were vulgar and really inappropriate. I have told him many times to write his concerns in the Rfc, and rather not flood my page with rhetoric and threats, not drag my name around, or not go and accuse me or anyonr else in the talk pages of admins or other users. I simply replied to him by saying there are no double standards here. I am shocked that you continue to take sides Inshaneee. I was hoping you`d stay neutral, but thank you for time.Zmmz 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on anyone's 'side'. You asked for my opinion on something, and I gave it to you. --InShaneee 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, being neutral means giving the same warning to both sides, and not implying one side has the right to reply to unfair accusations, while the other side does not, because you obviously feel one party is bullying the other. There can`t be a vicious cycle here; an admin should warn both sides--, yet, you clearly do not care to warn Lukas or others, because you infer he is responding to unfair accusations. You almost blocked me for going to Aucaman`s talk page, and leaving a comment there, although I did not use any incivil language there, yet, when Lukas leaves such vitriolic messages on my talk page, over and over again, stooping to name calling, you feel he has the right to do that. So, it isn`t correct when you say, I'm not on anyone's 'side'; you certainly are not neutral here--but that`s fine. Take-careZmmz 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes

That would be considered vandalism. Unfortunately, he's using a dynamic IP, which means that the next time he logs in, he'll be using a different IP. Makes him hard to stop. And since that post was from this morning, I'm assuming he's not using it anymore. --Woohookitty 06:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One last question on vandalism; is this also considered vandalism, since the section comes with a reference, i.e., Columbia Encyclopedia, and since the user in question knows about the reference, but refuses to accept it? ThanksZmmz 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. That's more of a user just disagreeing with you. --Woohookitty 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's always best to warn users on their talk pages. --Woohookitty 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good advice; I just did that. ThanksZmmz 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Angel

Hi. Wasn't sure if you'd seen my reply on Talk:Angel, so I thought I'd leave you a note here just to let you know that I have left you a reply on the page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and tried to get you some references, but unfortunately as of lately I have been caught-up in some incivility fractions towards me from, shall we say, some users here (oh boy). But, if you look at the source I gave you, it does explicitly state ...the debt owed to Z.... in regards to angelology and demonology; although, you`d have to browse the pages by clicking the button on the right hand side of that encyclopedia to really get to the actual dates of 500-600 BC. Do what you can as for now, we can always make minor changes later if need be, other than that, you have convinced me that we should use both sides of the arguement; great job Jude. ThanksZmmz 07:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right-o, then. I won't include it now, because we can just edit it in later. :-) I'm going to leave a message under a new header on the talk page just explaining the changes that we've made, then I'll remove the sentence from the lead paragraph, and implement the new section with a note in the edit summary to see the talk page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please vote !

Dear Zmmz, please see the following page:

Thanks. --Sina Kardar14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

This user is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

69.196.139.250 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

email?

Did you get my email?--Zereshk 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have warned user Dikayo

He insists on using the term Farsi even though is aware it can be offensive. See his discussion page. He continues doing it and goes on to insult the whole cimmunity and Persians and Iranians in genral. See his talk page. He is deliberatly instigating conflict. Additionally, even though there have been warnings made about the provocative term of Farsi and its offensive conotations he is intitionally using the term to upset users and saying Iranians wikis are unreliable and making attcks on the community. See his talk page. 69.196.139.250 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed on your behalf, at your request. Please read it and respond to it. Robert McClenon 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you, you got mail by the way. Great job RM. Zmmz 03:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help and Involvment

I have asked one of the administrators to stop user:Diyako from adding phony or fictatious additions to articles. When there is even proof that he is using bogus sources such as blank pages as verification the administrator, user:InShaneee, has done nothing and let it slie. Look at both mine and user:InShaneee's talk pages as well as the Kurdistan discussion. User:Diyako has added false sources. When I point this out to the administrator in question they shrug and do nothing. Manik666 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stay cool, and simply report the matter here . Zmmz 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CLEAR evidence on Acuman; here is part of the evidence

It has to do with an old discussion in the Kurds and Kurdistan articles and how it was being vandalized and phoney sources were being used. It was pointed out to user:Acuman and Heja, but they ignored it. Read my talk page. It gives you the lead and the trail. The digging in the archieves someone else can do. If you succeed in digging it up from the archeieves you can prove that this group of users are biased and with an agenda. I have just proved user:Diyako is on a agenda on my talk page and with my evidence. He has been caught red handed. Manik666 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, read my talk page

The administrator I was dealing with refuses to do anything about user:Diyakos actions. Read it and get back to me with a course of action. Manik666 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don`t rely on individual admins who may not care to hear your side of the story, report your concerns here.Zmmz 06:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز . Amir85 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

Hi, I included a diff to your Rfc in an ongoing ArbCom case that we unfortunately had to file against Aucaman; so just be aware of that please.Zmmz 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Cool Cat 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Diyako Talk + 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed

You may want to comment on it. --Cool Cat 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

با درود، به‌ حرفهاش گوش نکن، بعضی ها میخوان از وضعیت سواستفاده‌ بکنن‌، اگه‌ درگذشته‌ اختلافاتی در بین ما بوده‌ دلیل نمیشه‌ که‌ ما باز هم وضعیت رو ادامه‌ بدیم. Diyako Talk + 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use english on english[REDACTED] so we all understand whats going on. Thanks --Cool Cat 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Octavian

It's actually convention to bold-face alternate names for the subject of the article mentioned in the opening paragraph (the way "Ashkanian" is in bold-face on Parthia). Also, Octavian is just a redirect to Augustus, so it shouldn't be linked as it just brings you back to where you started. siafu 23:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why linked it, because a new reader might want to know the difference between the two names, hence, the link will show the names are interchangable; but, if you want to leave it bold faced, go ahead.Zmmz 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Siafu did you get my email? Zmmz 00:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Now its your turn to check the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to revert the edits to your original 'secularism'. Moshe's already gone and broken 3RR's, and I don't want to break it myself.black thorn of brethil 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is the first time I am having a discussion with you both, but both of you need to give each other the benefit of the doubt and compromise with each other more. But, Black definitely don`t go over the 3RR, just let`s see what Moshe says, and we`ll revert it to a compromised version. ThanksZmmz 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

deal. black thorn of brethil 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You gave in way too easily. Your sentence ought still to contain a note on the secular bent of the Parthians, as that has immediate relevance to what comes after with the Sassanids - religious intolerance, suppression, bigotry and murder. black thorn of brethil 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldnt of called you insane and I was kinda being a dick in general. Like I said earlier I wouldn't mind including a reference to their tendency towards secularism as long as it doesn't replace the hellenistic reference.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following: "For Persian Jews, the change from Parthian to Sassanid control was negative. Heavily influenced by Hellenistic attitudes towards religious freedom (relatively secular in governance and tolerant in general), the Parthian environment protected Jewish communities and rights. The change to Sassanid control was, for all religious minorities, manifestly negative. The Sassanid program favored the Pahlavi language and wholly restored the old monolithic religion of the Zoroastrianism (founded upon worship of the universal God Ahura Mazda) which, under the favoring influence of the new government, attained the zeal of conservatism and all its intolerant byproducts."

Please amend as necessary. A few footnotes from our discussion could stand insertion. Well? black thorn of brethil 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, no problem, all is good, and I think the proposals by Black are good as well, for now.Zmmz 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For the most part I agree I just think we should take more of a neutral position, like not mention it being negative. Also I don't really think the Parthians' religious tolerance was Hellenistic influenced, since most Greeks weren't all that religiously tolerant, if anything the Parthians being religiously tolerant were influenced by the earlier Archemids.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How are you guys getting along on the compromise--Moshe and Black? Zmmz 08:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the Sassanid section. It seems good to me. black thorn of brethil 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read it, it looks good to me, what do you think Moshe?Zmmz 01:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)