Hi there khoikhoi i was hoping to get some help from yor self to align that photo that i uploaded to that entry so it would be in a centre alignment within the box, or is it just going to get deleted? -- argonorgan ( talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Apologies for misunderstanding why the picture had been flagged for deletion in the first place, the image i have uploaded is a cropped photo of the same image which is found lower down in the entry, the original image is copyrighted for public use from the US government however i have not indicated this in the set up of my image onto the commons. Is it still applicable for the image i have added, since it has been cropped and if it is, how do i do this? I hope you can help a new user!! -- argonorgan ( talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! I updated an image name on your Gallery page. Tsunami by hokusai is now The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Hope you don't mind. Best regards. Oda Mari 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

213.178.224.164 ( talk · contribs) is another User:CoCoWaWa sockpuppet. Corvus cornix 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

HI I need to know who to speak to about this. I am currently as you know adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages such as Infobox Tibetan settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: Domartang but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on Deleg at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease respond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Something like this: reply

Domartang, Tibet

Tibetan name
Tibetan:	{{{t}}}
Wylie transliteration:	{{{w}}}
pronunciation in IPA:	[{{{ipa}}}]
official transcription ( PRC):	{{{z}}}
other transcriptions:	{{{e}}}
Chinese name
traditional:	{{{tc}}}
simplified:	{{{s}}}
Pinyin:	{{{p}}}
Location	30°53′N 94°49′E / 30.883°N 94.817°E / 30.883; 94.817
Region	Tibet Autonomous Region, China
Prefecture-level division	Qamdo Prefecture
County-level divisions	Banbar County
Population Approx. in a 7 km radius	439
Major Nationalities	Tibetan
Regional dialect	Tibetan language
Area code
Postal Code

I don't see you around, have you left WP? :(( -- Pejman47 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you please keep an eye out for these pages, as two users are bent on removing all of the scholarly information that has been added. Pages are: Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan language. Also, it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on the Armenia, Mitanni, and Urartu articles.

The two users are User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann

Thank you.-- Moosh88 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that you are back. Have you had time to look through the articles I linked you to? I could really use your advise on how to continue with this. Please get back to me, thanks!-- Moosh88 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, this is a spam note to anyone who has ever moved List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada. A discussion is ongoing on the talk page, which currently appears to endorse a move to "List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada". Consider making your views known. < eleland/ talk edits> 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you have a look at the article and help? There is an edit conflict going on. It has been tagged for POV check and peacock terms, but it seemed ok to me before a user added allegations of anti-semitism. It has several relevant external links that are well organised and wikified, but someone keeps removing all of them. Thanks. 124.170.158.162 03:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey I'm back. If you need some help somewhere in Wiki let me know or if you want to suggest articles that need attention. Lisa the Sociopath 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Yes I posted source, but I found you about it and about the Hungarian-Hun relationship site. www.hunmagyar.org please accept what I wrote before.

Sincerely Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ahwaz territory. There are question about the truthfulness of the article and whether such a territory exists. Since you contributed to the Ahvaz article, I am hoping that you would consider participating in the Ahwaz territory deletion review to shed some light on whether the Ahwaz territory in fact exists. -- Jreferee t/ c 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for the message :). i've just checked over the past edits by this IP and it seems that it isn't any edits of my doing :). It seems as if someone has a similar IP to mine and is a dynamic one :). Marcus_bowen 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I remember you could understand persian. Please check this page and see personal attacks to Roozbeh. Thanks. Hessam 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

So what's up? Baristarim 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Could you please have a look at Armenians in Turkey? I've added a paragraph with a respectable reference and it is being deleted by anonymous users. I and another user tried to revert to original but it has been a couple of times and I am afraid of violating a rule. Maybe you, as an administrator, do something. Thanks. Filanca 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hı, could you be involved in the "discussion" in that article..In fact Kekrops and Nıkosılver discuss nothing, but simply revert anything they dont want to see. The article has been in this shape for months, and ı think ıt ıs fair to have such a format. I dont thınk anybody can claim that sources that i have cited in the article can be claimed to be remotely pro-Turkish, Arnold J. Toynbee and Taner Akcam..

The other option could be to open up a separate article about the atrocities of the Greek army, presented in an isolated fashion as such being made in this article..-- laertes d 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I notice you haven't been editing much, but I recall your work as being neutral, calm, and well-respected in related topics. If you have time, could you take a look at the current RfArb Macedonia? Jd2718 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi. I hope you are doing good. Can you please unprotect the Demography of Afghanistan article? It's been 3 months now and I think the disputes are over since there are no disputes on the talk page anymore. Thanks. -- Behnam ( talk) 06:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Nevermind, it's ok now. -- Behnam ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey dude, what up? I remember going through the whole thing with picture collages and how they are a copyright problem, but I don't recall where the conversation took place. You remember where that conversation took place? Much appreciated and i'll be in touch. Ciao. Tombseye ( talk) 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

...that Jews did WTC? ;)-- Doktor Gonzo 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I was considering blocking Ehud Lesar, but I became hesitant after a number of editors said the evidence for sockpuppetry wasn't compelling enough for a block. Glad to see my initial hunch was correct. Thanks for doing the block. Nishkid64 ( talk) 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This User:Thegreyanomaly is back in pushing crappy POV with fake/offtopic citations on Tibet and South Asia. Could you please kindly take a look. Thanks! -- 210.0.212.59 ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd also like to make it clear that the ip vandal above accusing me has been warned by User: Master of Puppets for being uncivil and for not justifying their claims (see User talk:210.0.212.59). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Didn't see you for quite a while, so I just thought I'd stop by and say hi. So... hi! :-) -- Illythr ( talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Please be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Ehud Lesar arbitration case. Thanks. Grandmaster ( talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi: Bună! I am wondering if you could help me translate a very short stub version of 1 or 2 sentences of this article in Română for the Молдовеняскэ wikipedia? Thank you very much for any help you could provide. I hope to hear from you. All my best, Khoikhoi, cu recunoştinţă Cãtãlina Maria ( talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi,
Based on short conversion we had one year ago, I think that you wanted two COAs in the infobox at Shusha. Can you please review that infobox as I am going to place the single use Template:Shusha on TfD. Rregards, — MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As a past contributor to a Tuva-related article, I was wondering if you would be interested in forming a Tuva workgroup of Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia with me? If enough people show interest, I'll go ahead and create the workgroup. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

THis user has requested unblock. As you stated he was an sockpuppet, I wonder if there was checkuser evidence or not. _{→ Aza Toth} 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, I am troubled by your precipitous block of User:HaniEGY. Both editors were clearly edit warring, and the new user did not get a warning explaining policy adequately before breaking 3RR. I also do not see an unblock request in the notice you left on his talk page so that he may contest the block if he wishes. Please consider unblocking and having a talk with him instead, as I do not consider this a proper block at all. — Zerida ☥ 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm I see, I hadn't even checked. Didn't mean to overreact, it just seemed like too much WP:BITE for one small edit, and I am not even one to fully extend that courtesy because of all the trolling that I've encountered. Thanks for the clarification (I feel like I haven't "seen" you in ages). — Zerida ☥ 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Friesian, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Friesian is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Friesian, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It would appear that the dispute faltered after the mediator, Cloudnine withdrew without notice. The mediation hasn't seen new activity since December of last year. I think Cloudnine saw the matter as intractable - people on one side insisting we follow the guidelines ( WP:LEAD, WP:N) - to whit, mentioning the alternative name of Arabian Gulf in the Lead as discussion of the nomenclature dispute is both notable and already present in the article. The other side of the discussion have offered successive arguments of undue weight, notability, political maneuvering, ethnic bias and space alien intervention (just kidding about that last one) as reasons to disinclude the alternate name. Frankly, I don't see what to do at this point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Will do. Thanks for allowing me to keep you appraised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey dude. I need some assistance with the Pashtuns article. This user keeps interjecting faulty information which he knows is not reliable just to make a point. Arbitration or what? Hope you're doing well and I'd appreciate the help. Ciao. Tombseye ( talk) 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, this request is unnecessary and can be sorted out by further discussion. It mostly concerns the valididty of Ethnologue as a reliable source. From my understanding, it is widely used on Wikipedia and meets WP:RS. Tombseye disagrees. Please see the continuing discussion here. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm OK with some sort of investigation into the validity of Ethnologue, but some things to consider: they have no bibliography and their figures seem to widely all over the place. Some figures are outdated (they claim 161,000 Azeris live in Armenia which is really outdate even for 1993!), and others are simply unverifiable. I myself used them before I learned more about them. They seem like a nice and neat organization to look at, but produce very sloppy results. As far as I can tell the "Pashtuns" figure for India comes from refugees most of whom are Punjabis, thus further confounding where these figures are coming from. [1] So is this going to be simply, "sure they meet the low-end criteria even though the figures seem completely unverifiable," route? There are, for example, Pashtuns in Germany, Scandanavia etc. (and probably in larger numbers than in India), but no listing b/c we don't know how many there are. This is really a lot of trouble to include a shaky source to include a negligible figure frankly. Tombseye ( talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, saw you reverted the article. Reason for editing: you don't see articles with "THE UNITED STATES Government said..." on it 100 times do you? It's pretty obvious which subject the sentences are referring to. The article uses "Riots" earlier in the article. It makes more sense to refer to the situation as already described. ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Nice to hear from you. It would be nice to have an article about the city of Garzê, or whatever one calls it. However, I've found it a bit difficult to get good information on that sort of thing, so I don't know how feasible it will prove to be. I suspect that Garzê County might be roughly the same place as the city. As for the spelling issue, this was discussed a bit on Talk:Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. There are a couple of underlying issues. One is that we're not really sure how "dkar mdzes" is pronounced. The obvious possibility is [kárdzeʔ], but the m in mdzes introduces a bit of a wildcard which could be pronounced different ways—a lot of sources have an "n" instead of the "r". The "standard" (Lhasa-based) pronunciaton might be different from the local pronunciation, and I'm not sure which we would go with in that case. Also, determining the most common spelling is a bit tricky. I think that some of the Google hits for "Garze" come from sites such as the various weather sites which I imagine mine placenames from some sort of database, so I'm not sure those should all be counted separately. Some of the hits are no doubt also referring to the Autonomous Prefecture, rather than to the city or county. That said, "Garzê" or "Garze" does seem to be the most common spelling in English currently, so I suppose I would recommend using that.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, you have a nice user page, mind if I copy the layout? thestick ( talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding your comment [2] That account was not mine at the first palce and the admin who blocked me did not justify his accuastions -- Aziz1005 ( talk) 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see User talk:Lindsay658. This user was caught in an autoblock of one of your checkuser blocks of DavidYork71. I didn't want to remove the autoblock without checking with you first. Can you look and make sure it is ok to remove this autoblock or soft block the IP if appropriate? Thanks. -- B ( talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
• Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

Arguements

• In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.

• In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The issue would be especially important for China, given the physically separate parts of what they agree is still one China. The revolution has been recent enough in Iran that I'd agree it should be "Islamic Republic", as there plausibly might be an article on rights under the Shah, or even earlier 20th century governments. On the other hand, it might make sense to have one article with the different governments and different rights policies. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm kind of at a loss as to where to go because no one wants to help. Me and another user are currently in mediation of sorts with User:Nyanrunning. Long story short, the user has taken it upon themselves to attack the other editor (see: Nyan's last comment) and is basically uncivil all the time. Suggestions? Thanks. Pinkadelica ( talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, the hogwash comment. They actually just changed the talk page to clean up their comments. We suspect this user is also User:Debbiesvoucher and User:Dooyar. Aside from the same editing styles, Nyanrunning has made personal comments about the other editor's disability (something Nyanrunning would not know unless they went through an archived talk page of a dispute that ended months ago on an unrelated article). Debbiesvoucher has also told Wildhartlivie to "get some help" on 2008 another occasion (same thing Nyan just did). It gets deeper than that, but that's the jist for now. Basically this person has these account to bring up issues on three obscure articles: Karyn Kupcinet (now resolved), Johnnie Ray (we had a dispute that went nowhere with Dooyar a few months ago when she/he decided to go MIA because they weren't winning) and Dorothy Kilgallen. Pinkadelica ( talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry...as PS, User:Wildhartlivie and I filed a sock puppet report on Dooyar in 2007. It basically went nowhere because it was Thanksgiving weekend and they didn't use their account during that time. In fact, it's probably impossible to tie them all in together because they don't use all their account concurrently. Hope this helps! Pinkadelica ( talk) 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Awesome. Thank you so much for helping! Pinkadelica ( talk) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikoi,

I would like to call your attention to an edit war in progress in article Wahhabism between User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz and User:BoogaLouie/ User:CreazySuit.

Also, are User:BoogaLouie and User:CreazySuit in fact the same person, may I ask?

Note that recently, while both users are prolific, there are days when User:BoogaLouie is prolific and User:CreazySuit is quiet and vice-versa, but both users are doing the same aggressive deletes on User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz.

Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In the case of Iran-Iraq War, it would have been nice, but I would have been surprised if it had been technically possible. Just for background, the warring over the infobox proper has been going on for months. There may be little point to going on about the history, but the Military History Project is technically responsible for the infoboxes for wars, and various people have tried to get across that infoboxes were intended to assist in the understanding of a war or major campaign, rather than become a war in and of themselves. It's been fairly fruitless, with a group of half a dozen or so editors seemingly focused on proving the guilt of the United States by making sure there is a US flag in the Iran-Iraq War infobox, focused on arguing the numbers of soldiers and tanks there rather than discussing the nuances of those numbers in the main article or even sub-articles, etc. Ernxmedia, at least, has been put on temporary block over that.

I've been figuratively biting my tongue about the infobox wars, and trying to ignore them, while making attempts to move the feuds into a more productive discussion. On the talk page, I've been trying, in what I hope is a reasonably gentle way, to suggest there is stereotyping about national character in both ways. Of course there are Americans that are ignorant about Iranian/Persian history, and that for reasons that seemed good to the people involved at the time, did unwise things -- be they overthrowing Mossadegh or seizing the U.S. embassy. It's good to find editors at least talking, but when an editor is saying that the US people and/or government is somehow in the wrong for "permitting" the movie 300 to be made, portraying the Persians badly, and this is a reason for enmity, there's what, to take a classic movie line from Cool Hand Luke, "what we got here is a a failure to com-mun-i-cate." When Cheney and assorted neocons are even seriously suggesting a preventive military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, when the four-star regional commander has resigned quite possibly over policy, etc., there is a more immediate problem than a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae.

Periodically, I've suggested that people editing in the Iran-Iraq area look at what is being done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project, which has just as strong POVs, but who manage to have a real spirit of internal moderation, have specialized 1RR rules, etc. I had encountered this in a peripheral manner, when I was heavily editing an article on counter-terror, and had used Sri Lanka as one example of where terror and counter-terror (and, for that matter, anti-terror), take place. My use of each of those words was as a military term of art, and I kept repeating and explaining on the project talk page. Eventually, with the gentle interpretation of another Project member, it became evident that I was, indeed, using terms in a technical sense, and the editor who originally complained was graceful enough to say that he had literally never heard of a technical use of the terms, but only in the context of politicians assigning groups to the "Global War on Terror". We eventually worked out that what was not needed was additional sourcing of my examples, but a bit of education on how I was using the terms.

My personal feeling is that the Iran-Iraq editing controversy, in large part, has lost sight of the reality that the war was fundamentally between Iraq, the aggressor, and Iran. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I have set up, at least as placeholders in userspace, probably 30-plus countries that supported, in different degrees, Iran, Iraq, or both. I have hoped that will help get across perspective, but there are some editors that seem to want to establish that the U.S. was co-equal as a major belligerent with Iraq, and there is a sense that Iraq would do nothing without U.S. "permission". That, I'm afraid, makes little historical sense. The role of Saddam Hussein seems to be lost in the arguing about American guilt.

While it may be verging on original synthesis, I believe that a reasonable approach, which has significant WP:V and WP:RS, is that at a given point in time, there was an Iran-Iraq war, and also an Iran-US war, the latter often being called the "Tanker War". There were unquestionably war crimes on both sides of the latter, such as the Airbus shootdown, but also releasing drifting mines into international waters. The US, going back around 200 years, has considered freedom of navigation a critical national interest, as evidenceed in the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812.

I would greatly appreciate your independent opinion (email is fine) on whether my approach, which I won't have time to take to completion, about showing specifics of other nations (Italy, France, UK so far, USSR in progress), as well as a major (my userspace) rewrite of US support to Iraq, all showing the intertwining of Iraqi circumvention of international controls as well as the US "tilt to Iraq", make things much more complex than can be shown in an infobox. I'm frustrated over the time being wasted about assorted reverts in an infobox, and would like to find some way out of this mess. To my amazement, over six months or so, I was able to play a role in getting the conspiracy theories in context and the main Central Intelligence Agency article back to reasonable size, with a large number of detailed sub-articles. Is there a way to get some of the same recognition of a problem, with different POVs that need to be reconciled, in Iran-Iraq War? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi,

CreazySuit reverted me on U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war 3 times on 29 March and 3 times on 30 March for a total of 6 times, so you're saying the rule is simply revert 3 times a day and you're good to go:

1. (cur) (last) 19:23, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,505 bytes) (fringe view) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 12:41, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,505 bytes) (It's a fringe view, not supported by
3. (cur) (last) 00:49, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,371 bytes) (not rue) (undo)

CreazySuit followed my contributions around, if you look on 29 March he followed me around a total of 10 different articles that I modified to add link to U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war as a companion to link U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In all cases he reverted me, but I guess 10 * 1 is not the same as 1 * 3 + 1 * 3:

1. 12:36, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Iraq-gate (Gulf War)‎ (This page is about Iraq-US, it has nothing to do with US-Iran) (top)
2. 12:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Project Babylon‎ (It's not, this page has nothing to do with US-Iran) (top)
3. 12:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Rationale for the Iraq War‎ (It's not, this artcile has nothing to do with US-Iran)
4. 12:34, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Khairallah Talfah‎ (Undid revision 201826583 by Erxnmedia (talk) This artcile is about Iraq, not Iran)
5. 12:33, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Anti-Iranian sentiment‎ (US-Iran has nothing to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment)
6. 01:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Riegle Report‎ (both unrelated) (top)
7. 01:34, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Arms-to-Iraq‎ (unrelated to this page)
8. 01:29, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Project Babylon‎ (not related here)
9. 01:26, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Ruhollah Khomeini‎ (OR, doesn't belong here)
10. 01:25, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Anti-Iranian sentiment‎ (not related)

I raised the issue to you of Wahhabism because it was symptomatic of CreazySuit's interaction with me, which is:

• Aggressive deletes with no discussion to start with. These are done not using the revert key but by cut and paste with a comment, but the net is still a revert
• Continued pattern of reversion over multiple days
• Initial apparent efforts to appease if he gets into some hot water, e.g. a request for dialogue
• Often no response to actual dialogue after making the request for dialogue (see: this exchange with User:Imad marie) --- although we did get talking a little bit, finally, but not on the thread of his initial request for dialogue.

However, note that:

1. Wahhabism is in my area of interest, which is why I ran into CreazySuit to begin with. (I.e. general Middle East and war issues.)
2. People following each other around is just natural behavior. In daily life, I have observed that in any endeavor where there are 2 or more people in a room, be it film-making, finance, cooking, wine-tasting or what have you, people in a community will follow each around, whether or not they had an initial interest in a subject, simply as a function of how much interest another has in that subject -- it's human nature. Is there a Wikipedia rule against human nature, common interest, and the tendency of people to take an interest in what is in fashion in a particular group?

Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure that, with his pattern of spelling problems, his half-ceremonious-half-insulting language, his areas of interest, his chauvinism, and now the use of a singularly-crafted old canard aimed at me, User:Rezistenta strongly recalls Icar. Do you think it warrants a usercheck? (And, btw, there may be clues that Icar shared something with Dacodava - was he this ever brought up in the blocking process?) Dahn ( talk) 15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I read the comment of Icar on top of that talk page of "Romanians" , and I copied his accusation regarding the Trotzkist POV because I found them true.You've reported me 3 or more times before abusively and your accusations were proven wrong. I will suggest to stop because my "mr nice guy attitude" won't last fover Rezistenta ( talk) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, this is a friendly notice to inform you of an ongoing discussion about merging the articles Çaka Bey and Chaka of Smyrna, and the most appropriate name for the merged article. Your significant contributions to the latter article suggested to me that you might want to contribute to the discussion. Regards, Aramgar ( talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please give your opinion, after you read the article. Chaldean ( talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

just had a question for the yellow monkey, but you deleted it, innit? turns out his mate samir got shot at the bourbon club, was on Triple J, wanted him to confirm. maybe you can if you know? cheers mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.242.69 ( talk) 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello! Back in 2006, you poined out that "Peter Mogila" was the most common name. Over the last two years, "Petro Mohyla" happened to became more common, in particular, by 2:1 margin by re-running the Google test you used. I've requested the page move, and I'd like to ask for your support of the move. Sincerely, Greggerr ( talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am proposing to split the article on EOKA into two separate articles. I noticed you have contributed to the article so if you are still interested, please have a look at the talk page and add any of your thoughts. Georgeg ( talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Can you please point me to the checkuser report on Childnicotine being a sock of DavidYork71? For the life of me I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{( talk / cont)} 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding this revert in Talk:Persian Gulf, I was wondering what you found to be particularly soapboxing. I think I understand your claim of linkspam, but maybe you could elucidate precisely what you meant. I ask because I want to see the edit as you did, and how it prompted you to remove it as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, that is not entirely accurate, Khoikoi. A person cannot be blocked for reinstating a banned user's edits. They just become responsible for them once they are re-posted. So if the edit from the sock was a normal, acceptable edit (and I am not saying it was), I could upload it without worry of "being blocked" for doing so, as per Wikipedia:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits:

Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.

I note this because if the edit was cited and cleaned up (linkspam removed and whatnot), it seems a pretty good argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I was expressing my frustration that Victor keeps focusing on sources which all appear to be of Russian origin and which he uses to bolster that the world is out to "get" Russia. That's really not the case at all. You will note my extremely positive comments regarding Orthodoxy when Victor postulated WWI and WWII had as their goals the deaths of practitioners of Orthodox Christianity. I wish for Victor to see that the world is far more positive than he believes, in the case you cited, that Orthodoxy is truly one of the bright lights of today's Russia. There was nothing in that comment meant as an "attack." Please do not not focus on individual words and take them out of context to attribute motivations which do not exist. If I've offended Victor he may contact me directly. Thank you for your interest, have not seen you around my neck of the woods much lately. Best regards, Peters — PētersV ( talk) 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It does appear that a lot more is taken "personally" than I mean it. There's nothing that I write commenting on editorial behavior that I mean as a personal comment on character, but I can see that being too colloquial can be taken in a way not intended (meant for the person, not for the comments of the person). Can I blame English as my second language? :-) PētersV ( talk) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

But I guess it is OK for Victor V. V. to incite etchnic hatred, as in here [3] (scroll down), as eSStonia is considered a racist insult? 88.196.138.214 ( talk) 08:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, that is not what I am suggesting or saying, Khoikoi. I am not advocating posting comments on behalf of a banned user (and where on earth did you come up with that idea??) I am saying that the user did present some convincing arguments that no one else has thus far. Yes, there was unacceptable content mixed in with it (linkspam and whatnot), but many of the arguments, if properly verified would be appropriate for the discussion and eventually inclusion into the article.

Aside from the accusation of proxying, can you point to another place within our rules and guidelines that says that I cannot clean up the posts, separating citable info from claptrap and re-posit the argument? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, Khoikhoi, I don't know if you're interested in food-related articles, but... in the Hummus article, there is the claim that hummus is very ancient (perhaps even ancient Egyptian), all based on various Web sources which seem to me completely unreliable, and offer no evidence for their claims. This sounds like the typical sort of unsupported claim made in cookbooks and so on. I have tried to remove or at least bracket these claims as unsubstantiated, but another editor insists on retaining them and in fact recently added another. Though I have tried to reason with her on the Talk page about WP's Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines, she doesn't respond, instead claiming that her references are just fine. Could you help resolve this? Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your quick response. I'll consider mediation, but I'd hope that the editor would get the picture if you simply said what you said on my Talk page on the Hummus Talk page. No need for long discussion. If it comes to that, then I suppose we have to drag in mediation, which seems like a heavy procedure for a simple question.... Maybe I'll try for a third-party editor to start.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi - it's good to see this issue is coming to a head - but I am not sure about the process here. The people who have been deleting the text which is at issue, have not been forthcoming at all about why they have done so during their deleting work (no comments on any of those edits at all when they were made). So it is unfortunate that the page has been locked with the said text deleted. There is no incentive for any of those mostly anonymous users to discuss it, as they've got what they wanted - the text is gone, and the page is locked. Belatedly somebody has made some comments - but the arguement is weak. I have written a convincing argument why it should stay, so my question now is this: What happens if there is no more input? -- Commking ( talk) 04:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

FROM PUMPJACK -

I feel the argument to include the Levinson case is overwhelming and compelling. Since the case is well documented, the only remaining reason for not including the incident is protection of the island’s image. It is not the intent of Wikipedia to either improve or detract from the image of any subject being discussed. Rather, isn’t our objective to present a fair and accurate representation of the subject in a way that is NPOV?

I am not claiming that my original post is perfect. In fact, I would be open to any and all changes to my original entry that would lead to resolution of this dispute. I would agree to virtually any iteration of the disappearance and encourage the reader’s to improve it. But, on what basis can we allow a topic to be completely deleted, when the only reason for the deletion is protection of the subject's image?

What is the next step to resolution?

-- Pumpjack ( talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipdia is not the place for current events and missing person notices. WikiNews is there for a reason. If we were to include every disappearance or missing person case on every city`s page, there would be no end to it. -- InputPoem ( talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Levinson vanished over a year ago, hardly a current event. The suggested text is not a missing person notice, but a brief description of the case. Wikinews isn't really appropriate, because it is no longer 'new'. The incident is old, established, and documented. While I agree with you that we can't document every missing person's case on every place's page, I also believe this case is different due to its unprecedented international attention.

-- Pumpjack ( talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Google search survey:

• 40,700 for Mohammed Mosaddeq
• 86,000 for Mohammed Mossadeq
• 78,400 for Mohammed Mossadegh
• 2,010 for Mohammed Mosaddegh

Proposed name change

I propose changing the title of the article to Mohammed Mossadeq -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Maybe you should unprotect the article on Alhacen, or at least change his religion because he was a Shi'a Muslim not an Ash'ari. Chears. Carticus ( talk) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I don't think him being a Shi'a is controversial. I haven't found sources that state his religion, be it Sunni or Shi'a but I think it is agreed upon that he is Shi'a Muslim and his name, his birthplace and the fact that he worked for the Fatimids make it even more certain. Thanks again. Carticus ( talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't notice it. The source said nothing about him being a Sunni. Take care. Carticus ( talk) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings to you. I have to admit I was fairly annoyed when I logged on a little bit ago and found that my talk page was edited by you. I followed the links to your page and see that you also reverted other people's pages as well simply because user pumpjack posted on them. Honestly, I thought that he was following wiki-policy on this as I have no idea about the case that he is talking about on Kish Island, or even honestly of Kish Island itself. I'm an English Lit Major with a minor in linguistics, geography is not my fortay. So when this guy posted on my page, I actually considered ignoring it or staying out of it, as I did with the Fox News article, despite that I was also requested to help there. But, thinking I was followingn wiki-policy, I went and checked out the arguments and tried my darndest to be impartial about it. This despite a part of me wanted to be glib about how the last half of the Kish article read more like a tourist brochure, complete with majestic photos of stunning landscapes. I thought that simply because my input was given that the revert had been done, but it was still annoying. I have a false accusation of puppetry on page and my complaint about it, I figure it is a part of my page's history whether I like it or not. Please put the request for help back on my page. It seems that you have managed to hide the old edit by pumpjack somehow and to be honest I am a bit resentful that my page was changed. Rocdahut ( talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Khoikhoi!

Remember me? Long time no write. :-) I just created the article Francois Lelord, but I had first created Francois lelord with a lower case "l". What do I do to have the page with the misspelt title removed?

Thanks, Krankman ( talk) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That was quick and easy. So an article like that with a misspelt tile isn't deleted? Well, what do I care, everything should be alright now. Thank you a lot! Krankman ( talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

BTW, any copy-editing and/or proofreading of the said article would be greatly appreciated! Krankman ( talk) 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, I don't mind at all. Thanks very much for the work you did there! Reliable as always ... Cheers, Krankman ( talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I request you not to revert my edits in the Wiki page on the cricketer Vivian Richards. I think as a non-follower of the game, you are not aware of many facts that are being covered up and many lies that are being spouted as facts on various pages. Please do not act merely on somebody's telling you something. I have been made guilty of reverting thrice or more which is why somebody dragged you in.

I only wish to see this site have good articles that are honest and realistic. Some people just will not allow that. Please co-operate with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.179.37 ( talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Your reversion on my talk page seems to have destroyed the record of the original contribution on the history of my talk page. The contribution contained a personal message to me, unrelated to flags. I wonder whether you could please correct this? Mathsci ( talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd rather you didn't edit my talk page by destroying it, despamming it and then restoring it as the logs show. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoi could you help me out? There is that user that is a sockpuppuet of a blocked user, that created a new account in the sole purpose of destroying an article I have created, on the purpose that the article is "politically hijacked", and made sentences such as "the author has been involved in other politically motivated hijackings" I do possess no such intention and as stated so many times, I created the vertebra of the article, and it is up to all of us to expand it. I have not got the time nor the wikiknowledge to do the general maintenance etc. Now I am seeking support from fellow wikipedians and am accused of spamming. For example, the message I sent to Aramgar was different from the one I sent to Kafka Liz, but it fot deleted... Won't I be able to even "seek" support? What I am feeling here is that my expression is being cut, that's it. Please show me it is the other way around.

Cheers! -- Eae1983 ( talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am really sorry I did not know. I hope my actions were not "disruptive" :(

Anyways khoi, is there anything we can do to save the article "List of largest flags" that is up for deletion? Is that vote for which I was seeking support a "referendum" type one where a 50% is required or will an admin look into it to arbitrate?

I stopped from seeking support as soon as I read your last message. (3 minutes ago). I will also never copy / paste anything again on multiple users.

-- Eae1983 ( talk) 10:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course! I am open for anything! I created the article because no such list was on wikipedia. Now wherever that list is, whether on another article or merged to another list, I'd be happy. This is why I'd like all the users with knowledge on the subject to contribute to that very list, but unfortunately, very few of them did :( Merging it to a larger article would be my best bet.

Cheers! -- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, come on you even deleted the personal messages that were not a copy paste. Why is that? -- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I just looked at the table and what I see is: I sent my last messages (the ones you just deleted) to a few users only 5 or so. (more "Friendly notice" than anything else), the message was pretty much neutral, they were invited to vote, whether positively or negatively. The audience was for sure a "partisan" audience (there I give credit to you) but also on the other hand, the transparency was "open", I did not send any emails or so. Is sending messages just to Turks or Zambians or Germans, enough to get these messages deleted? If yes, no problem. But if not, I really want people that are not average americans to express their opinions on that deletion discussion page. for now, it is going pretty much one-sided. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think our best bet is to merge it with the Flag article, but, how can this be done??

-- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoi, thank you for all your help! I will be ever grateful. By the way, are we *sure* he is "unrelated" to that other user? You noticed yourself how much the behaviours are alike. Anyways I guess he might be using a proxy (I think that changes his IP or something, I am sure you are aware of all these better than I am :) )

-- Eae1983 ( talk) 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoi, I need your help again, Harry the Dog is not listening and insists on quoting Google search numbers as an academically viable source for Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Eae1983 ( talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

PS: Thanks for everything until now!

Look at Flag now and tell me what you need now. (Although I am sure that many people will try to revert it) I think that we can ask the help of more expert people like Baristarim et alia on this one. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

PS: You were asking for a source, there you go: http://members.tripod.com/kibrisevi/ozel/Bbayrak.htm the actually measured the whole flag himself and also provides us with a Guinness Entry that was refused for political reasons, nonetheless de facto, this flag is the biggest.

Can you take care of Matt Statham. please. Its been up for a while, thanks Roadrunnerz45 ^{( talk 2 me)} 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Another one bites the dust :). Dahn ( talk) 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

who are you, what's your problem and what the hell do you want from me ? Rezistenta ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Very biased protection of the page on "Massoud Rajavi" Sir, You have protected a very biased pro Iranian regime version of "Massoud Rajavi", the Iranian opposition leader. You were impartial, you should have done otherwise. Perhaps this is a reflection of your own political tendencies.If so that is not good for Wikipedia. Tom davy ( talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank for the response regarding the Van Resistance. I'm happy that you have intervene with this page. I tried to ask help before but the administrator did not have time I guess. The article had controversial positions, which there is an author that acts against the WP:CIVIL. Takes VP:CON actions. He constantly revers the page to user:Hetoum I version, which is clearly had issues. At the minimum level, citations were not standard. It is impossible to know where the claims are originated. The language has problems with the "Fairness of tone." The article is filled with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, the editor included personal commentary such "treacherously murdered." Is it possible to being murdered non-"treacherously?" This is a violation of representation without a bias. Also it is impossible to know which sentences belong to Editor (An IP number replaced a previous editor), which belongs to cited source. I fixed some of the format issues at this version [4], without adding or removing text, but then other editors begin to WP:OWN the article and reverted my additions. Some of the issues have been mentioned in the Talk:Van Resistance page. I have been working on a to improve the "Varifiability" of the page. I'm sure you will be a good arbitrator. You can reach the version from User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance. -- Seemsclose ( talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The article, current version does not obey the WP:CITE. Without cites, I can not go and say, YOU ARE WRONG. It will be a personal attack. I tried to brought the citations, clearly marked along the WP:CITE. Instead of attacking to me, editors can work on the sources I brought forward. That is the base of my position. That is the base of my request. -- Seemsclose ( talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I did not add the {{ fact}} tags (just helped another editor), there is a user who does not know how to use the tags, informed the user. I do not know if those tags are valid or not. If you would like to spend time on my version, you would recognize that I did not delete information beyond one section regarding genocide in Persia. I believe you might be interested in that issue. It is totally relevant to a higher level article that would brought all these together. But if there is not a direct relation to "Resistance in Van", it is better to create another article to unite all these there, and develop the whole picture. At the end this article is limited with the events in one province of the Empire. My version has more facts, and properly worded. You said "If take it you are challenging certain statements in the article?" I do not know what to challenge in the protected version. As a challenge can be "You did not represent the source correctly," "Your source is using secondary information, find primary..." The "protected" form is very poor another editor has the same view. I'm saying the protected version, considering the guidelines of wikipedia, is the poor version. I'm not rejecting people bringing their information to an article, but wouldn't wikipedia require WP:Verifiability as a beginning of the editorial collaboration. My version has higher verifiability than the protected version. If the source I used missed a point editors can brought it with their source. SO, wouldn't it be a better position to begin from a version that has more citations than the version that has nearly minimum to none? -- Seemsclose ( talk) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That is fair. It is about improving the article. Also, I do not claim that my version is finished. -- Seemsclose ( talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you mind changing the protection to full to semi-protection to this page. I dropped the request to the page nearly seven days ago Talk:Van_Resistance#Protected_edit_request. Thanks. -- Seemsclose ( talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help. -- Seemsclose ( talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I wonder if it's possible to write a bot that will autoblock Bonny based on his behavioural patterns. That'd be so cool. For now... we need to find a way to clone you. ;-) -- Illythr ( talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

On the subject of Flueras... Thanks for the block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

...And for the heads-up. Well played. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed, it was, but A) I was involved, B) I hadn't had occasion to run into Bonaparte before now, and C) perhaps I was lazy. In any event, thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Got your e-mail - much appreciated. Thanks, again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Likewise. :-) -- Illythr ( talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

And likewise again! :P -- Illythr ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi, can you please keep an eye on Praktiker_iunie ( talk · contribs), I think I see the same patterns... -- 147.9.205.37 ( talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

How about Pryde 01 ( talk · contribs), if he's not Bonny, he's at least sick. Please put him out of missery. AdrianTM ( talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it's not Bonaparte. Did Pryde 01 do anything blockable? Khoi khoi 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you give an opinion on a dispute in Islamic Terrorism?

Here the situation: I've added a subsection Facial mutilation about throwing acid in women's faces for "immodest" dress. Bless sins has deleted it because none of the articles use the words "Islamic Terrorism" and so to call it such is OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Some_irrelevant_sources

This issue has come up before and I'm wondering if it isn't setting the bar a bit high for what can be used in an article. It seems that many legitimate sources of information will not spell out the word or phrase of an article for any number of reasons - too obvious, too unpopular, etc. For example, would we delete sources from a criticism section of someone if the source did not use the word "criticism"?

The article lead says "Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam.[1]" There can't be much doubt that throwing acid in the face of someone is intended to instill fear or terror, and there is little question that the motivation of actors is Islam, even if the sources don't spend much time on Quran quotes and such.

I know you are probably very busy but hope you can spare the time to weigh in. Thanks in advance, -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to warn you against canvassing opinions. If you'd like an outside opinion, please call an RfC. If you want an opinion of some who edits the article, then simply post on the talk page. Bless sins ( talk) 17:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Isn't this Wikipedia:Third opinion? What's wrong with it? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Have added the issue to Wikipedia:Third opinion -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Third opinion should be sought of a general audience. You can't ask third opinion of people who have maintained a particular opinion in the past. Adding something to WP:3O is a good idea. Bless sins ( talk) 20:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the delay in answering you. I'm doing fine but I am pretty busy and don't have much time to get involved with Wikipedia. I hope everything is going well for you. Ciao! Behemoth ( talk) 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, take care. Ciao! Behemoth ( talk) 14:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

As I've noted here, I very strongly object to this block. I see no evidence of president 3RR violation (there is a single one at Grunwald, and that may be a simple editorial mistake - his edit summaries indicate he was moving content, not removing it), sockpuppetry, even revert warring. Any editors, per AGF and WP:BRD has the right to revert every now and then, and I see nothing in Molobo's edits that looks "over the top" (a single 3RR does not justify indef block!).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Clasiffying part of a larger edit, only in small part concerned with removing information, that was not restored later, as a revert and part of a revert war is a very dubious interpretation of a revert. Reverting anon's vandalism does not count towards 3RR. THAT is not a revert - new reference (so far unchallenged) was provided, it is a standard part of WP:BRD. Therefore I see no grounds for a 3RR violation here. On the other hand, I wonder how Sciurinæ ( talk · contribs), who seems not to be engaged in editing of Strategic bombing during World War II - but has often warred against Molobo on some other articles - was made aware of Molobo's edits there; I'd suggest running a checkuser comparing his IP (as well as that of Stor stark7 ( talk · contribs)) to those of anon's editing this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

As I have Molobo's user page on my watchlist, of course I got to know about the dispute. I have absolutely nothing to do with that IP (or any other for that matter). Since you would never report Molobo, and only defend him regardless of his offence, I had to do the reporting (and naturally get slapped by you for doing it). Of course his 3RR violation was valid (the previous one too), and you should sometime get informed of what actually is "vandalism". Molobo has never done much else than continue his nationalist agenda of before his block, albeit his activity had reduced, and before his block he has never done much else, either, propagating his views in the forums (that's where the name Molobo is from, which was coined after his forum account Obserwator had already been banned, i.e. his first sockpuppet even before Wikipedia). Speaking about sockpuppets, here are some of his to evade his one-year block after having changed the provider, or do you suddenly not remember? By the way, if you want to stop creating the impression that Molobo was your " protegé", you should not always be supportive of him. Molobo was an instant messenger buddy of yours, who even now strangely turns up at an article once you have already made three reverts for that day (and after Molobo, another owner of that messenger (Tymek, [5] [6]) turned up for reverting, and after that yet another (Alden Jones), who even reverted blindly). Now you, the person who rollbacked a cry for help about Molobo and who had done a similar one long ago to sabotage the first indefinite block, protests at an archived case that because your humble being is against it there was no consensus.(!) Sciurinæ ( talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Anon's rationale is good for talk, but not for removal of referenced info; I classify such edits as vandalism. In any case, this 3rr case is not clear, and is not the issue here: the main problem is that ban hammer was used on a user who does not deserve a permban. I have discussed the "mass reverts" - which were neither mass nor reverts - at ANI; most of them were justified and he Molobo has the same right to make them as anybody else. If anybody is unhappy about this, he should seek ArbCom, which has the right to restrict editor's rights. No such restriction was made and hence Molobo reverts are perfectly acceptable (I also revert similar vandals and POV pushers, should I be perm banned too?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly, yes. For several years now, Piotrus has shown questionable behaviour which was subject to several cases. Back in 2005, he controversially unblocked Molobo, and he is still showing sympathy and support for Molobo's acts. For comparison: when I added a comment to a 3RR case (in which I was not involved, but Piotrus), I was quickly placed on Digwuren restriction and subsequently blocked for 24 hours for trolling a closed 3RR case by User:Ioeth (who is inactive now). On the other hand, Piotrus edits a closed ANI case which was already moved to an archive, violating WP:AGF with statements like "his opponent was an IP (likely a sock of some neo-Nazi)" (which also violates Digwuren warning " All editors are warned that ... making generalized accusations that persons ... harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans") and even dares to remove the consensus template. If Wikipedia has any standards, then Piotrus needs to be edit-restricted and blocked also, without much further ado, just like I was. Or, when the acts of "uninvolved admin loeth" (which include withdrawal of Piotrus' formal notice from Digwuren list are judged inappropriate, then my name and block notice has to be removed from there, too. --  Matthead   Discuß   09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly, Matthead, you are walking on thin ice and are getting closer and closer to a well deserved permban yourself, as shown b the ArbCom restriction you are under.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly, Piotrus, you are walking on thin ice yourself by constantly supporting Molobo in the face of all the evidence against him. Molobo is one of the most extreme nationalist POV-pushers I have come across here. He doesn't have a scandalous track-record of blocks for no reason. If it weren't for the unwavering support by some of his compatriots, it would be even longer. People have been blocked indefinitely for much smaller things. I don't advocate "zero tolerance", people should be given chances to learn and to improve. But there has to be a limit to tolerance somewhere. Do you really feel you're improving people's image of Poland by taking Molobo's side no matter what? Believe me, you're achieving the opposite. -- Thorsten1 ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Piotrus suggests checkuser for both Sciurinae and me against the anon IP who edited strategic bombing, an anon who Piotrus apparently has called "likely a sock of some neo-Nazi". And Piotrus seems to get away with this type of name calling. Just for your information I am completely unrelated to that IP, but let me return the favor by suggesting running a checkuser comparing this throwaway account: Antyfaszysta ( talk · contribs) whose only purpose was to revert me, against Piotrus ( talk · contribs) who used the revert as a base for maintaining his preferred structure of the article. [7]. Further it is rather arrogant of Piotrus to state that he is "verifying" the sources I had provided and that the sock took away. [8] If this is to be the normative behavior then I would like to see a ban on introducing Polish language sources, since it is tricky for me to "verify" them when Piotrus introduces them. As to Molobo, Piotrus has shown his strong ties to him by for example coediting with him on numerous occasions. An example at hand is this Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1939)#This_article_is_terribly_inaccurate which to me reads like a theater-play. Piotrus states that the Germans wanted to get themselves killed for propaganda reasons. Piotrus eloquent claims notwithstanding, that is certainly a very tenuous POV claim on his part , see [9], [10]. Then he goes on to claim that one source in the article does not exist, "proving" this by citing the June issue, while the reference clearly stated it was the April Issue that had the review by Richard Blanke. Another example of Piotrus support for Molobo is in the justly deleted article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_collective_guilt. This article was by the way created by Molobo just a few days after he had discovered that I was planning to write an article by that title [11]. Really constructive behavior, and really conductive towards assuming "good faith" on the part of Molobo.-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello KhoiKhoi. I hope you're doing well. I'm sure remember Tajik, Beh-nam, and NisarKand. NisarKand was banned for very good reasons I'm sure you remember. What happened later on is NisarKand kept coming back with socks, he eventually figured out ways to get Beh-nam in trouble, through edit warring with him and getting Beh-nam into 3RR trouble. He kept manipulating admins into blocking Beh-nam, eventually Beh-nam got banned thanks to NisarKand. Beh-nam tried to talk to Arbcom about it but they ignored his emails. Beh-nam is not a trouble maker, he is an honest person who wants to contribute. NisarKand on the other hand was a big time trouble maker and made sockpuppets long before his ban. Beh-nam never made a single sockpuppet, he was always honest and only made sockpuppets after he got unjustly banned thanks to NisarKand. Can you please look at Beh-nam's case? You might not like the fact that Beh-nam made sockpuppets after his NisarKand arranged ban, but what else was he supposed to do? Was he just supposed to accept the way NisarKand manipulated admins into banning him?

Hi Beh-nam. Yes, I do remember them. I also remember why Nisar was banned. I don't know the exact details as to why you were banned in the first place, but this did not justify making all these sockpuppets. If you want to get unbanned, the first step is to stop reverting, stop creating sockpuppets, and think about how you could've contributed constructively to Wikipedia. I don't know why ArbCom did not reply to your emails, but I can see from your talkpage what Dmcdevit said: "This ban was long in coming, based on Beh-nam's persistent edit warring, repeated disruptive campaigning to unban Tajik, and battleground tactics." I would be convinced that you have stopped resorting to edit warring if you were not reverting me at this very moment. If you can demonstrate to me that you really contribute constructively to Wikipedia, I might be able to form a different opinion. But sockpuppeting was the one thing that you should not have done. You should've tried waiting awhile, and then asking your blocking admin (Thatcher) to give you a second chance. See what another user did here after a year of being blocked. From looking at your block log I see a long history of edit warring and incivilty. If you can show me by not using any more sockpuppets and not editing with any more IPs, then eventually I might reconsider my decision. If you are unblocked you would have to change your old ways of edit warring and try a different approach (see WP:1RR). I was once blocked many times for edit warring ( [12]), but I decided to stop a long time ago because I realized that it doesn't help in contributing to this encyclopedia at all. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Khoi khoi 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi.

Regarding to the abuse of bureaucrat privileges in Persian wikipedia, I asked User:MBisanz for his insight and he had this suggestions. I thought you may want to also see that. Best -- Kaaveh ( talk) 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. The conflict on this page cannot be solved, since one party - 68.5.250.146 ( talk) - quite obviously is lying about his sources. 68.5.250.146 claims to have provided sources for his assertion that Mazandarani is a dialect of Persian. No question about it. He claims to have provided them here. It doesn't look as if he has ever read them, though. He cannot even spell them correctly. He spells them exactly like this list of sources on the talk page does, including all in all four misspellings/misspacings (nord- ouest / l, Iran / Wiesbadan / Geselaschaft). But why would someone who has taken pains to obtain a scientific journal published in 1868 (in Germany!) still not know how to spell it? - 68.5.250.146's explanation reads like this. - Regards, -- Ankimai ( talk) 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

First off, it's important to assume good faith in this case. You are saying just because the anon did not spell his sources correctly, that he has not read his sources. I have left a comment on his talk page asking him to join the discussion. Once he does you can bring up all those issues at the talk page. However, for the time being please remember AFG. Khoi khoi 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please have a look at 68.5.250.146's edit history. Assuming good faith with him has been tried already, it didn't work out. 68.5.250.146 has quite a long history of disruptive editing at Amir Taheri. During a long edit war from February until November 2007 the page had to be protected six times. 68.5.250.146 waged that war using a variety of other IPs ( 75.31.17.226, 75.26.157.62, 75.25.16.245 and many more) and sockpuppets ( Nyisnotbad, Unclezeb, Solidgower). Several editors assumed good faith and tried to talk to him (especially Ursasapien, here, and Chris Chittleborough, here), but to no avail.

(if you doubt that 68.5.250.146 and Nyisnotbad and others are one and the same guy, look out for edits like this one. They speak for each other. It's really obvious).

68.5.250.146/ Nyisnotbad has been around for one and a half year now. He has been asked many times to seek consensus and use the talk page; check yourself how often he does it. Check how often he has been asked to sign his comments, and how often he does. Check how often he makes edit summaries, and, when he does, how often they prove wrong. Have a look at his revenge sprees (like here, or like her, on March 15, 2008 [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]). Note how he alters sourced information, even quotations, like here. You will, like me, assume bad faith from now on. Regards, Ankimai ( talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow, what a record. Ok, point taken. I agree with you that the revenge sprees were totally inappropriate (which also violate WP:STALK). In regards to the dispute at Mazandarani language, I got tired of the edit warring and constant page protections. Although the anon has made trollish contributions in the past, this appears to be a valid content dispute from both sides, and not a case of vandalism as Partheva suggests. I have left another comment on 68's talk page, urging him to join the discussion so that this can be resolved once and for all. I don't want to see the page protected, unprotected, and protected again, which is why I am asking people to follow WP:DR. If you don't have any luck with that please let me know. Khoi khoi 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

68.5.250.146 has replied to your request, here. He still is not able or willing to cite his sources. Do you still assume good faith with him? - Please have a look at this endorsement of 68.'s sources by Larno Man and at my message to Larno Man, too. Thanks, -- Ankimai ( talk) 15:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

KhoiKhoi, If you are the one who actually wants to resolve it, you may saw my notes in that talk page, My notes clearly specifies that this user is nothing to do, but just vandalizing the page, We had too many wasteful disscussions, But the obvies thing is that this guy not awares about where he is adding nonesense staffs,
This page will be remained protected, and this is what you like, you stated mazanderanis are persian before, which is not NPOV -- Parthava ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Could 1largeatom ( talk · contribs) be just another sock of Bonny? Xasha ( talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope I wasn't aware -redirect will be necessary, regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That article was done when we were sorting out dab links so avoid directing to districys. In this case it appears this wasn't the best course of action. Usually those sources combined offer light on whether it is a populated settlement to start them off. Unfortunately for Afghanistan at present online population data for all the villages isn't here, yet.... P.S I would reocmmend you add ing the infoboxes with locator maps for the chinese cities ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Khoikhoi. I wonder what should be done about this -- a user, currently on a month-long block, has a "strong suspicion" that I'm Bonaparte, and requests a checkuser (which presumably he can't do through normal channels since he's blocked). I'm quite willing to undergo a checkuser to clear my name and put his suspicions to rest, should you think it necessary. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Heh, you had me there for a moment! I wouldn't mind a check (if only to play along with him a bit longer), but I think your idea of giving him assurances first would be more constructive. If he continues his accusations (and by the way, that whole bottom section of his talk page is quite a sight), we can take it from there. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what cuased the last warning you sent my way. It was my effort to bring some semblence of balance and objectivity to this article that resulted in the backlash of the well known propagandists, and I am sure they are all known by many here by now. In the end, article is now protected with all the flaws, with all my contributions removed. Following the instructions - I am not well versed in all the formats, templates and styles - I made my argument about the photo/painting in the discussion section and still got a warning. I am a bit confused and would like some recommendations on how to proceed.-- Murat ( talk) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi. When I suggested that the Erzurum entry should be protected in someway, I wasn't actually thinking it should be fully protected. The problem was that every week or so, over the past few months, an anonymous editor would remove, without explanation or edit summary, the same material in the entry related to Armenia and Armenians. Fortunately, after a few days or a week another editor would notice it and revert to restore the material. Can't the entry just be made semi-protected to prevent edits from anonymous users? Meowy 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoi, I only wish you show the same sensitivity when when every single edit and correction I have made (not deletion or reverts and all signed and preceded by discussion entries) to certain articles is removed and reverted every single time. Usually by the same users. If the rules do not apply uniformly, then I should find out soon so as not to waste anyone's time and bandwidth.-- Murat ( talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like you had some administrative interaction with User:Hudavendigar previously, so thought I should let you know that User:Namsos has started an AN/I thread regarding them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV. – Luna Santin ( talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Once more I am confused. Though I have tried my utmost to stick to all the guidelines I am made aware of, much beyond it have acted in good faith, it seems the users so tranparently determined to silence me are winning. Facts and truth does not seem to be of any real concern. Clearly I still do not understand what exactly is prompting these warnings and restrictions. 1- I have not reverted anyone's edits since we last exchanged notes, except restored (not reverted)my own edits and references that were vandalized, or simply removed without reason by pov users, and I have always improved and provided more references. Need examples? I have not removed any references from any article and have always discussed issues first. Please show me an example of "aggressive" editing by me so I know what is meant by that. Please let me know why it is ok by other users to revert my edits and remove references, continuously? Is it allowed for example for me to insert additional info into these articles that is not pov and backed up by verifiable refrences? 2- I have been as civil as one can be here, but I have been constantly attacked personally and targeted specifically. Is that ok? You need examples? Please show me an example of my uncivil behaviour. 3- I would very much like to have my edits to be supervised by someone, impartial preferrably, for example and once it is cleared it would be nice for them to stick. Is that possible? 4- This particular user, Namsos for example has nominated a whole article by me on Erich Feigl for deletion. This is a man who has won awards, produced over 60 documentaries, written dozen books and a search yields typically thousands of hits. Is this the kind of "good" faith sanctioned by Wiki that I should aspire to? 5- I could not even include a recent book, by a well known academician, titled "Armenian Rebellion at Van" included as a reference in an article here titled "Armenian Resistance (read; rebellion) at Van". It was removed again and again, and now the article is blocked after all my edits and references are clenased. Same happened in Erzurum. My application for conflict resolution was denied and none of my contributions were restored and my discussions on the discussion pages have just elicited personal attacks. Same happened with Bitlis and Sasun. Is that the kind of behaviour we should aspire to? I am obviously missing something. I am still not sure exactly what I can do or not do here. Please help explain with some examples.

Hello there Khoikhoi this user [21] seems to be a sock of Kuntan. -- Namsos ( talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocked, thx. Khoi khoi 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hardly followed your advice at all. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.206.108 ( talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.-- G-Dett ( talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but.... I think if you look more closely at the thread you're referring to, you'll agree that what you've deleted is not so much a heavy-handed response to a bogus argument as it is a restrained response to out-and-out trolling.-- G-Dett ( talk) 05:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

There are different ways of dealing with trolls, and yours may well be the best. Thanks again for your input.-- G-Dett ( talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Jay is trolling when he reverts an editor he personally despises (and has lied egregiously about) on the grounds that a summary of a book in an article about the book is original research, while claiming an exemption for himself on grounds that his own book summaries are "brilliant and moving." If this knowledge prompts you to levy a retaliatory block, do your thing.-- G-Dett ( talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

There have been sufficient warnings, which G-Dett does not appear to want to heed. I would support a block at this time. -- El on ka 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comment here about the recent block. If it was an invocation of the discretionary sanctions, you should add a note of the block to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log of blocks and bans. -- Jenny 05:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Reg. Mordvins and Volga Finns articles. You see, the problem is that first mentioning of mordvin, morduimi, merdas, etc in various sources (I mean chronicles) referred to Erzyas. Mokshas in the same time mentioned as Saracins, Moxel, Tartars. Medieval historians used to mix Erzyas with Mokshas and Mari even calling them all Tatars or Mordvin Tatars when describing Volga peoples. Russian government tended to divid all Russian Empire population into Russians and Non-Russians (mostly based on Orthodoxy coversion)/ After October Revolution in 1928 when autonomous okrugs being under discussion, earlier supposed as Erzya-Mokshan okrug been named Mordvinian okrug. So then, starting from 1930 there were no more Mokshas and Erzyas, only Mordvins. In fact Mordvin must be pronounced as Mordovian (Mordovia habitant). During Stalin reign it was not allowed to discuss Finnic relatives (political issues) and the easiest way was to mix up Moksha, Erzya, Chuvash and Tatar not to mention Moksha or Mari have close relation to Finnish. Most sources till now just copying old Soviet period sources information that is why it looks like quite a mess when there are two peoples but one language or two languages but ethnically people are the same. Comparing to Russians and Ukrainians Moksha and Erzya have nothing in common. The most important issue is their mentality. They are absolutely different. 2-5 years ago it was a kind of project proposed by Mordovia authorities and aimed to merge Erzya and Moksha into one Mordvin or Erzyamokshan language. Some people were mad about that, some were indifferent but nothing could be changed. There is Moksha literary language and Moksha culture and Erzya literary language, etc. That is why I guess Moksha Wikipedia users offered opportunity to start Volga Finns article redirecting all requests like Mordvin, Mordva, Moksha, Muroma, etc. to that page.Please visit discussion page and see the references, links added by ethnic Mokshas and Erzyas. Please remember we are trying to pick up one by one only facts to collect Moksha history like my friend Kevin Brook working under http://khazaria.com/ If you have doubts and/or questions just feel free to ask -- Khazar II ( talk) 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for understanding. I agree article "Mordvins" can not be just deleted. In the same time when working under this article one cannot avoid making a terrible mess mixing history, culture, language information of the two peoples. Since Mordvin ethnicity, Mordvinian language, etc do not exist this article can hardly ever be finished. I would suggest to describe in this article history of this term "Mordvin", mentioning all chronicles and sources and peoples who ever been referred to as Mordvins or the like. In the same time I would suggest NOT TO describe today Mokshas, Shokshas, Erzyas, etc in this article just mention them linking to separate pages Moksha, Shoksha, etc. Article Volgaic Finns must include Meryas, Muromas, Maris, Mokshas, Erzyas, Meshcheras, Teryukhans, Qaratays and may be some else. Of course I will try to collect more sources showing POV on this matter but I'm afraid most of them will be just muttering something like "Moksha and Erzya are alike but not the same or maybe the are the same but not alike" That is what scholars usually do if you know what I mean. You know I'm not sure at all most of them agree Moksha and Erzya are NOT single ethnic group if start counting their POVs. Well, I start counting :-)-- Khazar II ( talk) 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually many old scholars beliving Mordvins do exist and they are a single ethnic group believed these Mordvins speak two dialects of Mordvin language. In 1980s during Soviet period Mordovia republic authorities requested creation of Mordvinian-Russian dictionary with rethis request sent to Mordovian Research Institute of Language Literature and Economy. That project never been finished because it was absolutely impossible to fuse two separate Moksha and Erzya literary languages into a Mordvin language. In 1990s when Soviet period was over Institute published two separate Moksha-Russian and Erzya-Russian dictionaries. Some old scholars still support this idea of Mordvin language unification like Mordvin University Profs Nikolay Mokshin, Nikolay Butylov, Dmitriy Tsygankin, Mikhail Mosin as well as Prof Gabor Zaicz. In spite of that fact two separate literary languages with codes myv and mdf do exist we still find in Britannica and many other reliable sources information on this enigmatic Mordvin language. Erzyas and Mokshas never felt as single ethnic group and of course do not doubt they speak different languages which cannot be fused. The problem is in this very term "Mordvin" which persists due to Russian Federation administrative subdivision with Mordovia republic a part of it. In spite of number of all those protests 2002 RF poll gives separate numbers for Mordvins, Mokshas, Erzyas as well as for Mordvin-Mokshas and Mordvin Erzyas making a total mess of this again. Number of scholars (those who are not under Soviet, Mordovian University or any other influence) regarding Erzya and Moksha as absolutely separate languages as a matter of fact believe Moksha and Erzya are not a single ethnic people. They are Prof. Alexander Feoktistov, Eeva Herrala, Sirkka Saarinen, Alho Alhoniemi, Jack Rueter M.A. in Finno-Ugric studies, Katrin Hiietam, Arnaud Fournet fm Sorbonne University, many linguists like Alo Raun, Daniel Abondolo, Budenz Josef, Erdõdi József, Juhász Jenö, Björn Collinder still use "official" term 'Mordvin languageS' when speaking of either Erzya or Moksha language. The useless term Mordvinic is still persisting in most linguistic works. In the same time it is absolutely clear for Finno Ugric Society and IPA (John Wogan) tt Moksha and Erzya are separate peoples speaking separate languages.-- Khazar II ( talk) 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Here's my take on the situation. Khazar II is fixated on proving that the Mordvins are a fiction, invented by God knows whom for unclear reasons, and that the Moksha and the Erzya have little in common. This is based on the following points. Any dialect, however cosmetic its differences from the rest, is proclaimed a separate language. (Following this measure, Scottish English is a language in its own right, as is US English). Reliable sources take the form of obscure publications by indigenous Erzya/Moksha teachers which nobody outside Saransk has ever read or peer reviewed. Needless to say, I'm unfazed by such arguments. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm pleased to hear everybody believes the Moksha and the Erzya languages are different in spite of that Britannica says they are dialects of Mordvin language. I have noticed that Mordvin language redirects to Mordvinic languages, but I also noticed Dbachmann have merged article Moksha (people) and now it redirects back to Mordvins with all information now lost. I started this discussion trying to draw your attention to the contradiction we are having: there are two separate languages and one people speaking it. Actually Mordvins is an offensive ethnonym. But ok let's pretend we all agreed Mordvins is an exonym for two separate peoples. So, where are those two peoples? Where are now articles Moksha (people) and Erzya (people)? Don't you feel we threw the baby out with the bathwater? -- Khazar II ( talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, sure. I know it was not you who made the merging. Thanks. Now will try to explain all over again to Dbachmann. -- Khazar II ( talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

let's discuss this at article talkpages. The merging was for purely editorial reasons (two stub articles in broken English merged into a single article with wider scope). Mordvin, as I understand it is a branch of Volga-Finnic. The "Mordvins" are a grouping of two (or three) peoples belonging to this group, and in our WP:RS are mostly treated together. It's still true that they are two different peoples, but until we do have enough material to warrant two standalone articles, both groups can easily be treated at the Mordvins article. dab (𒁳) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know you saw or not, You care about it or not, But see this one, where that user attacked to me by baseless statments. What they are doing is just to worse the situation of these articles, I have too many reliable references, even from persian nationalists who even consider mazanderani as dialect, what they told is that more than 60% of formal persian is arabic and the rest 10% are europian loan words. Am i going to writing these notes in persian language article? As an iranian i would like to taking care of my iranian culture and theories, But stupid actions makes worse everything. -- Parthava ( talk) 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what is the meaning of "Hoy" in your society, I've never been in cali, anyways, Look at the contributions of Larno Man, his edit pathern clearly shows that he is not new to wp, and it is surely a suck-puppet, Just to acting as good-hand bad-hand username manner.

For your information, There was a long time-wasting discussions about Mazanderani language and i guess you didn't read them, Yes because it is too-long, I defined that IP used my own entered references, Which i never encountered to that remarks, Both of them (specially 64...) got too many warnings about same behaviours, But they are not the same guy.

What i'm asking you is the solution for mazanderani language page, what about RfC for that IP? Finally What is your idea? -- Parthava ( talk) 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid of wikipedia's RFCU system works with IPs, If someone would be professional to bypass policies by creating another username, So using a different IP (specially in IRAN where all are connecting by dialup) is not difficulat to do.

Thank you for your suggestions, I'll do that soon (if i find enough time to writing a good statement, Hopefully in summers i can), It was my fault to not requesting first before accusing everything and eachother and to avoiding the positions getting worse. -- Parthava ( talk) 06:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi KhoiKhoi,

While I agree with you on Kos and Rhodes, I think the situation for Crete is a little different. There are no Turks left on Crete today, and Turkish is no longer spoken there. Few Turks actually settled there, and most of the historical Muslim population were local converts to Islam who spoke Greek as their only language. Furthermore, Crete was conquered only relatively late by the Ottoman Empire (1669 I believe), and the duration of Ottoman rule was therefore significantly shorter than the rest of Greece. As a result, there are few traces of Ottoman rule left in Crete. By contrast, the Venetians were there for a long time, and left a distinct imprint on the place. Thus, while it makes sense to me to include the classical Latin name in the lead, I do not feel the same way for the Turkish name. Moreover, almost no one outside of Turkey refers to it by its Turkish name. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

With respect to Alexandroupolis, I don't think the name in either of those languages is warranted in the lead. They are mentioned in the lead paragraph though, and I think that is sufficient. There are no Turks or Bulgarians in the city, and it was founded by the Greek state after the area was incorporated into Greece in 1913 (it was only a fishing village before). So it is a very "new" city and is entirely Greek in character. Very different from Komotini. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi KhoiKhoi, I am not placed under supervision, I was just warned before about the fact that Armenia-Azerbaijan articles were under special supervision or whatever they call it. The warning I had received when put on that list was a crock in my opinion because I hadn't been edit warring, Gulmammad was simply reverting my edits. Please see the discussion [ here] where at least one admin agrees that I wasn't revert warring. Please see the discussion here. I humbly request that you have a look at user:Gulmammad's edit history instead of tarring me with the same brush. He has been edit warring on multiple articles and multiple users. See here and here for example. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, both Seraphim as well as the folks at WP:AE had said that it was a warning and not a notice of discretionary sanctions. The folks at WP:AE had said that I was not revert warring but they also said that because of the fact that it was just a warning that Seraphim had given to me and not sanctions that I could not appeal it and that I should just ignore it. Please read all of this. I feel I have done nothing to warrant any restrictions, like I explained in the appeal in the link above I had only done 1 revert and it was completely justified. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello KhoiKhoi, Overall, there seems to be two separate ideas with Zargari: 1. a language game/secret language from Persian (eg. here (uncited) and here), and 2. a natural language of Indo-Aryan origin. So it would make sense to me to have two separate articles (obviously with see also's). As for the further confusion as to the specific Romani origin, I'm always a big fan of just presenting the conflicting ideas to the reader (as long as they conflict in reliable sources). While this article seems more reliable than this, I suppose they both appear reliable enough to present both sides here. Just my 2 cents. Best, – jonsafari ( talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. I'm no expert on Zargari, but it seems that origins of Iranian vs. Indo-Aryan are pretty different things. Just a thought. – jonsafari ( talk) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Koikhoi, I'd like to see your concern about these articles Sheylanli and Sheylanli tribe. I have created and improved them but the user Pocopocopocopoco keeps tagging them regardless to the results of the dispute resolution here (it is very long!). He has already nominated one of them for AfD here. He keeps ruining them with tags. Apparently he is hidden edit warring with me to see if I will revert them or not then to report me (I have been blocked according his report). He can add tags because he can do that but I can't revert them for obvious reasons. This is one way of having someone to violate the rules. Please have a look at those articles and if indeed they are useless to be in encyclopedia, then nominate for AfD and delete them! I don't know what to do with this user, he does absurd claims as you can see from here. His comment reads:
"OK Gulmammad, you've shown that works with these titles exist. Now who can verify that the above claims are made in these works?"
I searched libraries and found that claimed facts are exist in those books and I have scanned images of pages but unfortunately I cannot upload them here due to their copyright status. Now what else one can do to convince him? Gülməmməd ^Talk 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Gulmammad, I and others at WP:RSN have told you time and again that forums and blogs are not reliable sources. As long as you insist on keeping these sources, I will insist on keeping the tags. Like I suggest, please use reliable sources only for these articles. Thanks in advance. Also, pictures that you've taken yourself that attempt to prove a controversial point are unacceptable. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If forums and blogs have been your only problem (as you stated above) for ruining those articles by number of tags and templates which are more than the number of the words in those articles, then don't worry I have just removed them, 1 and 2, as they were useless in the articles since the same fact has been confirmed by many other sources. Now, please remove all tags, templates, and whatever useless you placed in those articles in the contest of your long term edit warring. Otherwise I am going to do it by myself according to this. Thanks in advance. Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Valy introduced himself as a Tajik in a TV interview in February in K-AFG TV.-- 71.107.21.65 ( talk) 06:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sources must be verifiable. Please see my comment at Talk:Valy for a quote from his official website. Khoi khoi 00:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You are involved in this thread on ANI. Just a heads up. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said in edit summary, you can always do a "partial" edit, by replacing those quotes only. As the article contains too many wrong terms, I didn't notice those were actually quotes.

But I cannot find a word to describe your edits, in other İzmir related articles. Please obey wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NCGN Silikonvadisi ( talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd say his most correct common handle is "Nezāmi-ye Ganjavi", but "Nezami" might be a good idea to use - no macron. em zilch ( talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It appears that 81.159.252.120 believes his edits [22] to Gaston d'Orleans should not be changed, regardless of the historical inaccuracies he adds to the article. Would you care to take a look at this situation. Thanks. Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for intervening. The disruptor is a sockpuppet of 86.158.101.203, who also used 86.154.178.231, and was reported at WP:Suspected sock puppets on 6 June 2008. I accepted his suggestion of a truce on 25 May 2008, but he promptly broke it using a new puppet. Essentially, he enjoys uploading trivial royal history to Wikipedia, and feels others should edit it into shape, rather than him having to put forth that effort. Since he just creates new accounts to continue vandalizing, he needs to be banned. Alternatively, you can try to semi-protect all of the articles he edits (the House of Bourbon and House of Orléans), but that's a lot of articles. FactStraight ( talk) 04:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your attempt to find a designation for the ethnicity or national origin of Jabir ibn Hayyan -especially in the current atmosphere surrounding the history of Islamic cultures where editorializing is often based on ıdeology, emotion, and personal preference- however, you are catering to those elements by indicating that Jabir ibn Hayyan was 'Iranian born'; this would be like saying Byzantium was built in Turkey, or that Columbus discovered The United States. I suggest, if you wish to use a modern signifier of region that does not assert ethnicity, that the passage be rephrased to indicate that he was born in an area that is part of modern day Iran. The alternative is to use an accurate name for the area from his time, which will in all likely hood prove derisive to those with conflicting agendas. Mavigogun ( talk) 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Khoikhoi. I've just seen that I have an e-mail from you... I hope you won't be annoyed, but I couldn't quite understand what you're asking for. :( Sorry. Perhaps you could explain it – if it's something private, you could just do that in another e-mail. Sorry again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the welcome, Khoikhoi, I will check out some of those pages that you mentioned! PGScooter ( talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm reviewing this user's unblock request. What makes you think this user is a sockpuppet of User:Altai Khan? Altai Khan seems to have been obsessed with the Safavid dynasty and whether or not they were Turks; this user's edits relate to a different dynasty and a different ethnicity. Also, NPOVfan just doesn't seem to have the extreme confrontational style of Altai Khan. Is there more evidence than just what's in the contributions? Mango juice ^talk 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hiya, the Kish Island article was full-protected a couple months ago due to edit-warring, but without an expiration date. The talkpage seems to have quieted down, so would you be willing to consider unprotecting at this point, to see how things go? Thanks, El on ka 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for your kind message. I have now read through the text of the above-mentioned entry and brought some minor changes into it (for these please consult the edit summary of the entry). I hope the changes are to your liking. With kind regards, --BF 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC). reply

Dear Khoikhoi, you are welcome. I do not insist on the hyphen, however, the correct transliteration must include a hyphen; Ali-Akbar is an example of a number Iranian compound first names that cannot be viewed as representing two separate first names (some examples: Ali-Mohammad, Mohammad-Ali, Mohammad-Reza, Hassan-Ali, Gholam-Hossein, Gholam-Abbas, Gholam-Reza, Amir-Hossein, etc.). Incidentally, for the case that you might be interested, you may wish to read the following news item: Cyrus Cylinder to be returned to Iran, Cultural Heritage News Agency, Tehran, June 25, 2008, [23].

As I was writing this, your second message arrived. No, it should be "On becoming ..."; "Once becoming ..." conveys a different meaning. Kind regards, --BF 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC). reply

You are right that the correct transliteration must include a hyphen. However, since he does not use the hyphen on his website I'll have to contact him first. You might note however that even if someone is correct, it is not always widely used in English. See Alireza Jafarzadeh for example. There was also a (now inactive) guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Persian)#Names. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Persian) (note that neither of these are official) I'll check out the link, thanks. Perhaps you would be interested in the discussion at Talk:Persian people#Discussion if you have the time. Basically, we recently split the article in two to make the page more broad and created a page for Persian-speakers in Iran. There were concerns about the previous state of the article as "Persian" is not really used to signify ethnicity in contemporary Iran. Khoi khoi 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi, as I mentioned earlier, I was not (and am not) insisting on the hyphen; my remark was very general and reflected the fact that in Farsi, for instance, Ali-Akbar is written and viewed as a single name, and not as two separate names put together. Kind regards, --BF 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, ok. Thanks again for copyediting the article. Cheers, Khoi khoi 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You are welcome. --BF 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi, I have raised the following problem earlier, but to no avail; perhaps you are able to resolve this problem. It turns out that someone has included the name "Davoud Rastgou(London)" into "iran-actor-stub"; everywhere the stub is introduced, one gets the name of this person. Here is what in reality happens: {{ iran-actor-stub}}

Could you please see to it that this name is removed? Thank you in advance for the trouble. With kind regards, --BF 17:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC). reply

Dear Khoikhoi, just wish to let you know that I have now resolved the problem mentioned in my previous message; therefore, you do not need to take any further action. Kind regards, --BF 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I am of strong convictions that User:Raguseo is Afrika paprika, here are his contributions. I must say that I am a little shocked that I hadn't noticed this before.

This user has his edits completely and in every single way:

a) over 75% of the articles he edits/edited were edited by him, or one of his sockpuppets

b) his style of writing is identical

c) undoubtedly the most important one, he obviously knows me very well and has the very same tenacity to, for no apparent reason, harass me by personally created single-purpose accounts with the sole desire to bug me ( Hambla, luckily though, it was indef blocked after checkuser). -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you'd really want to hear this, but...the other part of his name "K..." refers in Serbo-Croatian to a large male you-know-what, an especially huge insult.

And on my own talk page he just told me that he knows where I live and threatened me in a horrible & terribly vulgar manner.

I'm taking a wiki-brake. Every mind has limits. -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply