User talk:Khosrow II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archive 1

[edit] Re: Do not take out sourced info

The section is an exact duplicate of the section from the Azerbaijan article - why does it have to be on both pages? —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But does it have to be the exact same words? "History of the name Azerbaijan" is a sub-article of the Azerbaijan page. The history of the name in general is not specific to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and does not belong there. It's like having a background on the name "Armenia" on the Democratic Republic of Armenia page. Perahps you could re-word the text to make it specific to the ADR. —Khoikhoi 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You two can argue about it, count me out. —Khoikhoi 04:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan etc

Hey Khosrow. I think this issue should be very easy for you to negotiable. You and Grandmaster should be able to reach a compromise. If the main article is clearly linked to, surely the summary can be quite brief. Then people click onto the main article if they wish to know more. Regarding the List of Azerbaijanis, I understand what you're saying. Would you find it acceptable if the introductory section at the top was changed to clearly explain that the list also includes people who were native to the region prior to the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan? I think a compromise can be reached on matters like this. It really doesn't need to be win/lose, one way or the other. Please consider some type of middle ground that you would find acceptable. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. And by the way, I think you should archive some of your talk page as it's a bit of a pain on a dial-up connection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I explained to Larry that it's generally not a good idea to splice comments because it makes it hard to follow who said what. You can find instructions for archiving here: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If you need help with it, just let me know. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you still want the page unprotected, you'll have to take it up with the administrator who protected it or else try requesting unprotection here: WP:RPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan

User:NisarKand is vandalizing the article Afghanistan. Please have a look at it. Thx Tājik 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Q

Do you have diffs so I can see what you mean? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes etc

I've started a special page here User talk:Sarah Ewart/KII-GM. I wanted to start on the list, but what you are saying about manipulating quotes is very serious and it needs to be resolved first. Can you go to the page and make your case in your section and list the quotes that you think are manipulated. Please be as concise as possible and don't make personal commentary about other people and their possible motives, just stick to the facts. This is important because I don't want it to descend into the personal arguing and bickering that was happening on El C's page. I have access to a Britanica subscription, so I will check the quotes myself. Thanks Khosrow, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm going to go through it now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went through your points and I also looked at the Britannica article. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of it but it is 4 am here, so maybe I'm missing something. I want to let Grandmaster have a chance to respond to your comments about his removal of sourced information before I say anything about that. I think it's important to resolve this Britannica issue and removing sourced information issue first, then we can start on the articles. Is that okay with you? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can comment on anything you like. Just continue writing little sections in your part like you did before. I'm just trying to keep everyone in their own section so it (hopefully) doesn't break down into bickering. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't wait forever. At least we've made an effort and we resolved the Britannica issue, which is good. I sent GM an email prior to starting the page, but he hasn't replied to that either. I guess he's too busy or isn't interested or whatever. Which articles are protected? Are these the ones that El C protected? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GM sent me an email saying he wants El C involved, so I don't really know what to do. I don't mind El C participating if he wants, but it doesn't seem like a very productive way to move forward, or a productive use of our time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions? See: User:Khorshid/Misconceptions

Hi, about the "misconceptions" section on your userpage...

Firstly I'd like to point out that I also agree that Iran is overdemonised. However I feel a userpage does not exist for one to express political beliefs. I would encourage you to remove it. You can for instance put the content to a blog and link to it in your userpage.

The deletion is for the now seemingly obsolite "User:Khorshid/Misconceptions". I would appriciate if you {{db}}'ed it.

--Cat out 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing political about it. Its just a list of misconceptions.Khosrow II 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the US president and/or Fox News would disagree. That makes it political. --Cat out 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Unless you have a convincing argument, I wont take it off.Khosrow II 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, it is all about perspective. That is what politics is about.

I do not have time to "convince" you. It was a mere friendly advice.

--Cat out 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as I am not breaking any Wiki rules, I dont have to change something just because a person doesnt like it, because that doesnt make any sense, just dont look at my user page if your offended. If I am breaking any rules, please notify me and give me the link to the rule. Thanks.Khosrow II 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rule driven comunity we are not a burocracy. If you really are looking for a rule, it can be removed on the basis of wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Exact quote you mau want to consider is: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Like I told you, I agree with some of the stuff you are saying there, so I am not offended. However I do feel that would be more approporate off-wikipedia.

--Cat out 12:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah!

You can see the whole page here if you want. Thanks for your kind words...please let me know if there's anything I can do (i.e. protecting a page, etc.) for you. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 08:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I have the time, thanks for the link. Khoikhoi 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee already got it, it looks like. Ba’adan mibinamet... Khoikhoi 23:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the anon was you, but Farsi e man bad ast. :-) Khoikhoi 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I learned all of my Persian here on Wikipedia. I guess that's what editing Iran-related articles can do to you! Khoikhoi 01:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing man. Khoikhoi 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan

Please have a look at this ... it's really hopeless! Tājik 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your contriuion. You should also rvert his POV edits in the article. But watch the 3RR ... he himself has just reverted for the 4th time within 24h ... I have reported him. Tājik 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite his 3RR block yesterday, User:NisarKand is back at vandalizing the article Afghanistan. Please rv his changes whenever you notice them. I've already rverted twice ... Tājik 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep Afghanistan on your watch-list ... User:NisarKand is continuing the vandalism. Just take a look at this edit and his comment at the bottom. Tājik 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran Iraq War

The USA was a combatant. It used its navy and airforce against Iran, it funded and supplied Iraq, and helped Iraq strategically. One of the biggest offensives by the USA was destroying the entire Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Please do not take out the information again.Khosrow II 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's incorrect. The U.S. was certainly involved in the war by supporting Iraq with money and weapons but they were not an actual combatant. The combat portion you are probably referring to was the "Tanker War" where the U.S. and the Soviets put all the oil tankers under their flags to stop the Iraqis and Iranians from blowing them up. Since I believe that to be the case I'll continue to remove the U.S. as a combatant. Let's continue this discussion on the talk page for the war. Publicus 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] al-Farabi

An anon IP is getting annoying in the al-Farabi article, trying to "Turkicize" him. Tājik 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Turkish History Brief

Hi, I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to explain your reasons in the talk/discussion page of the template, before reverting. If there exists any controversy, you should mention at the right place, providing reliable sources, concerning other users. E104421 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

WHY? [1]

Oh i get it, you're ENDENIAL. All of them work. --24.211.184.243 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NisarKand again

LOL Take a look at this: [2] Tājik 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Language Theory

Hi, the paper (actually a book) you suggested by Hilaire de Barenton is actually not the one that constitutes the basis of sun language hyphothesis. It's something different. I'll dig more resources on this and try to get back to you. Regards E104421 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing two different issues. First, Hilaire de Brenton is a historian focused on Sumerians. Second, this book is related with a guess on Sumerian language connection with Turkish. Thirdly, it was Hermann F. Kvergić who initiate the hypothesis. Please, do not revert, cause you're removing the information and the sources. I recommend you to check the sources section. There you'll see an article on Hermann Kvergić, Jens Peter Laut (originally from "Turkic Languages" 6 (2002) (120-133). Regards E104421 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Which sources? I never erased but removed your pov push! E104421 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, have you ever read the book? also the references? As i told you above it is not related with the sun language theory, but a hypothesis which states that sumerian and turkish were related each other. You already removed other information about the Hermann F. Kvergić and pushed yours. Newspaper content is not a reliable source. Look at the reference section of my version. E104421 17:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hephthalite

I think you are missing an important point, i already commented on Talk:Hephthalite. I never edited the text of the article. When i first saw the article, i recognized the "factual accuracy" warning and commented about this at the talk/discussion page. After doing so, i put "POV-check" tag and removed the "factual accuracy" tag, cause there is no dispute at the talk/discussion page about this. However, you erased some parts and pushed your version. For this reason, i reverted back, not to favor any version, just to prevent the information to be deleted. You did not need to erase other arguments presented there, but you could try to balance them with neutral statements and sources. One more note, i'm only responsible for my own edits, do not try to accuse me for other's edits. Your statement "...an anon, who you obviously have some connection to..." is definitely a baseless personal attack. What obvious is your impolite manner. For the Huns article, the issue is quite different, i'm not edit warring but trying to neutralize/paraphrase some of the sentences. If you're interested in see Talk:Huns, but be civil at first! E104421 07:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(to Khosrow) I'm starting to get tired of these little disputes (that seem to happen almost every single day). I'd rather not get involved for this one. Sorry. Khoikhoi 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

Hey, my Persian is coming along... I understand what you mean—do you want me to protect the page or something? As for the Turkic peoples page, I guess what I'm asking for is a source that says, "the number of Turkic peoples is..." I'm just more comfortable with that rather than you doing your own math. This applies to Zap as well. Ciao, Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but WP:NOR specifically says:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Also, just because something was "up there for months", doesn't mean that it's true. See Wikiality. Khoikhoi 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify: you went to every Turkic people article and got the numbers from there? As much as we would like to think, we cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source. Also, are all the numbers from these articles sourced? I guess I could go to WP:VP and ask about the numbers there. Khoikhoi 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But were all the sources the same? If they weren't, it's considered a new synthesis of published material... Khoikhoi 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude, continue your little edit war. I don't care anymore and have better things to do with my time. Khoikhoi 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Block Zaparodjik? Khoikhoi 05:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a convincing argument Khosrow, but is there a problem with confirming this with other users first? Khoikhoi 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to 300 (film)

Your recent edit to this film article consisted of a biased POV. Furthermore, the claims made were not verifiable by any kind of reliable source. If there are independent, published sources that address this so-called controversy, then it can possibly be included. Be warned that biased statements will not be tolerated, as you were vigorous in your remark on the talk page about including criticism of which there has not been published articles. Furthermore, I doubt that the film will adhere to such a black-and-white perspective -- if you read the article, you'll see that there is a character called Ephialtes, a Spartan soldier who had been mistreated by the "defenders of freedom" and betrayed his side to the Persians. The film is directly based on a graphic novel, which deliberately took artistic license in writing about the Battle of Thermopylae. In the future, if you want to include criticism besides your own, please cite accordingly. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq war

You need to go sign the arbcom. This has gone to arbitration and the info you are pushing for will be reverted pending the outcome of the arbcom. L0b0t 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been filed in regards to the failed mediation. As an involved member of the mediation, you have been named a party in the Arbitration request. Thank you for your time. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic peoples

Well, I'm an admin too, and although I certainly don't have an issue with Khoikhoi's edit (I was actually just trying to revert vandalism which ended up re-inserting that number), you should know that just because someone is an admin doesn't necessarily mean that they're right (although here I think Khoikhoi was right). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont know how to sign this but i fixed the reference request you insisted on at the Ataturk page.

[edit] Kandovan

Faucon is a new user, so let's follow WP:BITE and WP:AFG and try to assume that he either made a mistake (i.e. he was referring to Iranian Azerbaijan when he added the stub). You should also keep in mind that he doesn't know about Wikipedia policy yet, so the best thing to do is simply explain it to him. As for Karcha, he/she is just stalking you...

About my userpage, was that sarcastic? :-) Khoikhoi 04:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on his/her talk page. He does however, have a point for Rumi (although I don't agree with all of his edits to that page), see Talk:Rumi#The "Authoritative" reference. The truth is, the man didn't care at all about his ethnicity, so there isn't really much sense in fighting over it.

As for my userpage, I actually don't read that much at all. I got the poem from the Ladino language article (it appears someone deleted it). Ciao, Khoikhoi 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Iranian pop artist Googoosh has also said: I wasn't born in Azerbaijan, I didn't grow up in Azerbaijan, I have never been to Azerbaijan and I do not carry an Azeri Passport so that does not make me Azeri, but not putting in her ethnicity is just wrong, and that is why it is mentioned that she was born to Azerbaijani parents.Khosrow II 04:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned, but further down in the article (not in the intro). Khoikhoi 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Nothing's removed but added. You're the one deleting the edit of other users. E104421 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this time you're right, i accidentally reverted to the wrong version while trying to add the deleted parts. Thanx. Now, check [[3]]. Regards E104421 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Azerbaijan

I apologize. The section seems to have been re-added now. -- Clevelander 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumi

I will ... Thx ... We also have to keep an eye on Azerbaijan and Herat. Tājik 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also keep an eye on Babur ... same Pan-Turkist nonsense again ... Tājik 07:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message. I will try to contrubute to Iran project but my time limits do not allow me to do so regularly. We can lessen the stress if we can accept the differences between us and out opinions and try to make compromises. Take care

[edit] Racist comments by User:NisarKand

Because of his racist comments, I have reported User:NisarKand to admins. Please take some time to have a look at this: [4]

Your opinion and comments may help to solve the problem.

Thx.

Tājik 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again Pan-Turkistic vandalism

Sorry to bother you again, but User:E104421 - a Turkish nationalist who also vandalized the article Hephthalites - is not messing up the articles Babur, Mughal Empire, Khwarezmian Empire, and Seljuqs.

You help is needed.

Tājik 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also keep an eye on Timurids. The same user again. Tājik 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googoosh

Is there some reason I'm missing that this article needs a stub tag? Seems well-developed enough not to fall into the category of a stub, especially compared to other articles in Category:Iranian people stubs, many of which are only a few sentences long and are much more in need of attention. {{cleanup}} or {{expand}} would seem to be more appropriate tags. Thanks. cab 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anons

I'm not sure...they're welcome to join-in on the discussion, but I'm don't know if their vote gets counted, especially when they don't even bother to sign their comments. Khoikhoi 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary; the admin who closes it will most likely not count it anyways. Khoikhoi 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit-warring

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Ak Koyunlu. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Ak Koyunlu).

You have been edit-warring on at least 5 different articles in the last 24 hourse, just barely evading the 3RR in each. I count:

• Ak Koyunlu (3 reverts; or 4 in 27 hours, and others in the days before)
• Kara Koyunlu (3 reverts; or 4 in 44 hours, and others in the days before)
• Tabriz (3 reverts; or 4 in 44 hours)
• History of Baku (3 reverts)
• Persian Gulf (2 in 24 hours, and continual reverts almost daily before that)

As a repeat 3RR offender, you ought to know that exactly 3 reverts every 24 hours is not an entitlement. This clearly constitutes disruptive edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fut, if what I did merits blocking, then why are Karcha, Zaparojdik, and Jidan also not blocked? Were they not involved in the same articles you mention? Did they not also do the same thing? Whats going on Lukas? Please answer, this unjustified block may warrant reporting.Khosrow II 00:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, I've unblocked you and reblocked you for 48 hours, which is another 24 hours. When I unblocked you early last time, we had an agreement that you would stop edit warring and breaching 3RR. I told you, "If you let me down, the next block will be for 48 hours" and you replied with "Thank you. Now that I know the rule I wont break it." Because you've not only unapologetically and remorselessly breached edit warred again, not just on one article but across numerous ones, you need to be accountable to our agreement. And instead of suggesting that Fut. has abused his tools, how about for once admitting that you are in the wrong?
If the users you mention above have breached policy, report it here on your talk page with diffs, and I will follow it up and take action if necessary. I've told you numerous times, tu quoque is not a defence on Wikipedia and does not exempt you from policy. If others are breaching policies, report them or ask for page protection if necessary, but don't respond by breaching policy yourself.
Please sit this out and when the block expires, I hope you will return and follow policy and guidelines. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, I did not break 3RR at all on any of those articles. Go see the histories for yourself! All I did was revert disruptive editores, on of which has now been shown as a sock and been banned! This is what I'm talking about. Admins here make hasty decisions! Karcha was a sock that I was reverting, and now he is blocked for good! Exxx (numbers, dont know them) was the person running the sock, and now he is blocked for 9 days I believe. See I was only reverting disruptive editors, I did nothing wrong, I did not even break the 3RR rule, and as evident on the histories of those pages, I was not the only one reverting them! I see admins going around reverting on many different articles all over the place, so they are immune but I'm not? Please unblock me, as I was reverting a sock and puppeteer that that are both now blocked. I did nothing wrong. Lukas even knows I did not break 3RR, look at the reverts he listed above. I did not have more than 3 at any 24 hour period. Furthermore, it amazes me how Zaparodjik and Jidan are not blocked, while only I was....Like I keep saying, admins make hasty decisions. Now that it has been shown that Karcha was a puppet of Exxx (numbers, dont know them), was I wrong for reverting their disruptive edits? If so, then every admin should be blocked for reverting "disruptive" edits wherever they see them. I'll admit when I do something wrong, but on this occasion, I have done nothing wrong, but have only been singled out by Fut. Khosrow II 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the diffs. The 3RR policy does not entitle you to revert 3 times in 24 hours:

"...This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

Your behaviour is dispruptive. Disruptive behaviour is blockable. I've told you repeatedly, that the way to deal with other editors, problem editors or not, is not by edit warring. You know perfectly well how to report people and how to ask for admins to step in and protect articles or block other editors etc. I cut your block back to another 24 hours, 48 hours in total, largely because Fut. indicated to me that he supported me doing that. But I'm not going to cut it back any further. You need to understand that going from article to article and edit warring until an admin steps in and protects the article, and then moving on to the next is not acceptable. The fact that you always refuse to see any wrong-doing on your behalf and instead blame the admins or the other editors only makes me more convinced that this block is appropriate. Please don't use other editor's real names unless they consent (I don't know if he has or not but if he hasn't, please don't do it). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, see here: [5] Wikipedia clearly states that reverting Socks is not considered revert warring, and Karcha was a sock of Exxx (who are both now blocked)Khosrow II 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in again, but the policy exempts only reverts of proven socks of banned users. Neither was Exxx banned or blocked at the time you reverted him, nor had Karcha been proven to be a sock at that time. - Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that Karcha is actually not a sock of E, despite all appearances, so that ban will probably be lifted soon, but that's a different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

<after edit conflict> The problem is, you weren't just reverting a sockpuppet and as I understand it, that account wasn't a confirmed sockpuppet at the time. Edit warring is disruptive behaviour, regardless of the number of reverts. You don't seem to get that and I don't seem to be able to get through to you any other way. Bottom line is, I've knocked off 24 hours, but I won't reduce it any further. Please have a nice weekend, and come back in 24 hours, and when you do, please don't continue this on-going disruptive behaviour. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it bad to revert disruptive editors? I understand it edit warring is bad, but reverting disruptive edits is not, I see admins do it all the time, on several pages too. Also, have you blocked Zaparojdik or Jidan yet? Please notify me when you do, if you dont, then unblock me as well. Decisions here are made too hastily, I wasnt even the only one reverting those guys, which goes to show that they are the ones being disruptive. I followed every promise I made to you. I did not break 3RR, I came to you with important edits, etc... I just did what I saw admins do all over Wikipedia, revert disruptive edits, which by the way, are continuing still, regardless of me being blocked, which again goes to show that I did nothing wrong, nor was I the problem.Khosrow II 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Zaparojdik is still allowed to make his disruptive edits? Look at the Turan article. Turan is a Persian word, yet he keeps deleting that information and putting in his propaganda. This is what I have to deal with and its edits like this that I have to revert, but unfortunately, I'm the only one singled out!Khosrow II 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Turkish History Brief}}

No, only a handful of admins have CheckUser privileges (the room for abuse is too large). I suggest you file a report at WP:RFCU, your code letter would be "D". Khoikhoi 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

I created a category for Persian names:Category:Persian given names. Hopefully many will help in expanding it! roozegar be-kaam! :-) Sangak 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I removed the image from your user page. It's licenced as a fair use image. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use, fair use images are only allowed to be used in articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  !

Then, can you please explain me why you write everywhere "Zaparojdik" be careful when editing, or it's normal to think that you have some problems, sincerely --Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration update

At the present time, arbitrator Fred Bauder has moved to dismiss the Iran-Iraq case due to insufficient evidence. Certainly it would be a good idea to avoid controversy in the future. This does not mean you have to avoid controversial articles, but if you do edit controversial articles, try to be especially patient, and use the formal dispute resolution processes (like third opinion, RFC and mediation) rather than edit war. (I would give the same advice to anyone who edited controversial topics.) If the case becomes active again, you could message me for more info. Thatcher131 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)