User talk:Agha Nader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Farahnaz Pahlavi 2 AfD Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad 3 Third opinion 4 Anti-Iranianism 5 Schools 6 My username 7 Malakaville User Name Issue 8 Consensus 9 ANI 10 Patchouli 11 RFC or ArbCom 12 attention 13 User name 14 Video section 15 "Bogus" 16 Nader Shah's Sword 17 Farrokh 18 Civility 19 300 Lead 20 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 21 Changed your mind? 22 Advice on prejudiced admins 23 Regarding Arcayne 24 Arcayne

[edit] Farahnaz Pahlavi

Please use the discussion page for the AfD debate for related posts; your absurd demand that I "accept defeat" is more relevant at that talk page than at my personal talk page. Thanks! The Behnam 04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about breaking up your edit with my topical responses. Someone else had done that to me, and I have not yet seen anything forbidding it, though I understand why you object. Per your request, I'll move all of my points below your response. Is it possible that you comply with my request above? Your comment did not make sense on my page since it directly addressed article content, and I would prefer that you move it to the page. Thanks!!!! The Behnam 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad

Simple, subject with multiple independent sources, high ranking in the Shiite hierarchies and verifiable... all that is enough to pass WP:BIO regardless of what we think about the person ourselves or about what they stand for. That makes me wonder if some nominators research before nominating for deletion or just go by counting rhyme. But maybe I overreact little do to all bad faith nomination going on in the last days Alf photoman 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

My third opinion is that both you and User:The Behnam should carefully read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and take it easy on each other. :) Seraphimblade 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Iranianism

Hi Agha Nader. There is some discussion on Talk:Anti-Iranianism about future directions for the article, and some such as GabrielF (who put it up for deletion) are proposing some major changes. You may be interested in taking part in the discussions. Cheers. --70.48.243.54 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Well, it depends I think. WP:N, WP:LOCAL, and the proposed WP:SCHOOLS are what I use. Khoikhoi 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My username

No, I didn't know that policy, but I do know that WP isn't censored. I insist that you have too much time on your hands and lack a sense of humour. I'm glad I don't know people like you in real life. Hopefully your lame attempt will fail, because I have no intention of changing this username. Malakaville 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't leave me anymore messages on my userpage and spare me the patronizing attitude. I'm not changing my username, but if they say I have to, then you have to as well for reasons I've outlined there. Malakaville 12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malakaville User Name Issue

Hey, can you notify me if you bring it to ANI? I would like to participate in the discussion, especially in advancing the compromise, if you do take it to ANI. The Behnam 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to, that's fine. Just so you know, I don't make avoidance or non-avoidance a part of my editing approach, so don't freak out if I happen to participate in something that you are involved in. The Behnam 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Hi,

Your input on Iran article's consensus will be appreciated: - Marmoulak 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Thanks for telling me you started the ANI. I was actually thinking about doing the same thing myself today, but I hesitated, not because of a lack of evidence, but rather because of an overwhelming amount of evidence. Your initial report is a good start, and it is good you linked to the other discussions from those users who haven't been on for awhile, but were considering ArbCom. I'll be checking over things and contributing new findings as I locate them. It is about time this happened. Seeing that "proud" comment was sort of the last straw. It may be good to look at previous AFDs for articles that were part of Patchouli's POV OR network for research purposes. The Behnam 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patchouli

No I haven't had the time to do it. If you do it, count on me to provide some evidence against his sneaky vandalism and participate in arbcom discussions, Barnetj 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC or ArbCom

The ANI of Patchouli isn't drawing any discussion, perhaps because that admin said it should go to RFC. Barnetj seems more inclined to ArbCom. In any case, I think we may need to start something for it outside of the ANI page. Do you think it best to go RFC or ArbCom? The Behnam 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, it seems we are favoring ArbCom. I'll ask Gerash about it to see if he'd like to be in one of the ArbCom parties. The Behnam 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great idea and we will hav too many supporters.--Sa.vakilian 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of admins told me we should use Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. We should prepare a text and some admins like LittleDan may help us. Then they may banned him completely. --Sa.vakilian 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attention

Salam. Ma bayad chand ta az POV pushing haye Patchuli ra rev konim va moraqeb bashim ta agar bargasht be baqie ham beguyeem.--Sa.vakilian 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User name

yes agha nader, my username does refer to Imam Hussain (a.s.) Yahussain 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video section

Just to clear things up, if you see the version of the page I was looking at, the video clips section was defunct [1]. You managed to fix the section, thanks. The Behnam 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems you fixed it in your 'revert', yet acted like my removal of the defunct section made no sense. Kind of odd. The Behnam 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that huge interview shouldn't be added. I thought that the template simply hadn't been made yet, so they should add the section after the template is made. Next time I'll actually look into it. The "mere puppet" appears to be based off of the title of the video on its post, but perhaps we can give a more neutral description of the interview. The full title is "A mere puppet? You judge for yourself." Any ideas? I'd hate to just number the videos but a neutral description should be used. I am wondering what the topic of the section is. Maybe something to do with 'the blue-eyed people'? I don't see anything else about that video standing out, topic-wise. The Behnam 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, the video in question is actually quite useless and incoherent. It is just an example of HIM (lol!) answering a dumb question poorly. I'm going to solve the neutrality problem by simply removing it from the template. The Behnam 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was really quite no-value-added. I'm wondering why we have a template linking to those youtube videos anyway. It is kind of odd since external links usually go under the external links section. Also interesting is that Patchouli made that template. Anyway, the neutrality problem is gone for now. The Behnam 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. The only problem is the new title. It isn't very descriptive considering that a few other videos in that template are from the same interview and have topical titled. What may be the best solution is finding a link to the whole interview so that we do not need to topically judge them. Tell me what you think of this. Thanks. The Behnam 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bogus"

While it escapes me why I used the word "support", I was referring to your 3RR report against me which did not go through for the same reasons my most recent one against Mardavich wouldn't. I don't mean to speak ill of your contribs, Nowruz or otherwise. It just happens to be that the two 3RR reports were invalid for similar reasons. Cheers. The Behnam 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nader Shah's Sword

Hi. I removed a picture of Nader Shah's Sword from its article because it contradicted that in the external link. However this picture is still used in Nader Shah's article.

The problem is that I can't figure out which one is best. They clearly depict a different sword. If you know anything about the issue I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. The Behnam 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are not too many sources on his sword. Only one website is refernced. I am not even sure such an article should exist. Maybe it would be best to incorporate it the Nader Shah article. Since there is only one source, we should use the sword it depicts and not the one in the postcard. Agha Nader 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

For some reason I cannot figure what postcard you are referring to, but I think that we should remove the images for now. I actually have a different idea. Supposedly there is a mural depicting Mohammad Shah Qajar with this sword, so if we can get a picture of that mural it may be more appropriate. I'll start looking around, and perhaps ask some other editors (like Zereshk) who generally have a lot of pictures from Iran. Do you think this is a good idea? The Behnam 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see [2], I referred to it as the postcard picture because it says "Old Iranian postcards and magazines." Do you have any source other than the sole one provided in the article? How can we be sure such a sword existed? After all I am sure Shah Ismail, Shah Abbas, et al. has swords, but are they notable? Is not it OR to find a painting with Mohammad Shah Qajar and say it is Nader Shah's Sword? Agha Nader 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

No it is not OR. It is from the external link at that article, which shows a very different sword from the postcard picture and also mentions the mural. Anyway, it was just an idea to use the mural to depict it. At this point it seems we should probably remove all of the pictures until authenticity can be confirmed. I'll do that for now. The Behnam 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farrokh

Hello, I notice that you reinserted a text on Farrokh with the comment "no reasons have been provided to not include Farrokh that aren't I DONT LIKE IT arguments." It's admittedly difficult to find anything on the talk page due to the multiple, simultaneous threads on identical topics, so I thought I'ld direct you to this diff with my own criticisms of the article. These are not, I think you'll agree, "I DONT LIKE IT arguments," but rather address the substance of the article and its flaws. In addition, the text which you inserted, which appears originally to have been added by Azerbaijani yesterday, is quite poorly written (for example, the East is presumably not "portrayed as backward in his article"), and does not employ standard citation styles, so that its recycling looks more like an act of obstinacy than a genuine attempt to improve the article. Best, --Javits2000 14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite aware of your edit. I read this edit [3], and I agree with some of your points. The problem is that your edit is a critique of Farrokh's article. Not one of your criticisms bar the information from the article to be provided. Please cite a policy or guideline, and not just your anaylsis of the article. Furthermore if you think the edit I added is flawed, you can help fix it. I hope you are aware that whole texts are not supposed to be reverted because they have grammatical errors. If you think there are parts of the text that are not in the article you can correct it. Agha Nader 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Hmm. While there is probably a relevant size-related criterion, it may also help to note that inclusion of Farrokh, especially to the extent you included him, can be considered undue weight. The Behnam 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why it is undue weight? He is given the same amount of "size" as Daryaee. Furthermore, his article provides different information than Daryaee, and has different views. Agha Nader 16:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

It places undue weight on certain criticisms. I may be able to add more to this, but anyway, bring it up at the talk page so others can be involved too. Cheers. The Behnam 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make accusations about other editors on the 300 page. It is considered uncivil and skirts the edge of stalking. Please exercise AGF. Consider this a warning about being more civil and AGF. Arcayne 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Get real! You accused me of having a "merry little band". You have told me to use my "noggin". You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche", this is tantamount to racism. Please reference a statement I made that is uncivil. Agha Nader 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

the post-Persian psyche thing was certainly not directed at you. I don't even know if you are Persian/Iranian or not. I was referring to those people editing in about how the film "is a great lie about Iran," - that anyone could get their president to comment about an action movie clearly says that there are some ego issues in play. That is observation, not racism. I can disagree with this viewpoint without being prejudiced. As for the merry little band, it seems that you are in very close contact with several of the other editors in the piece, particularly those who have worked on other wiki-projects before. I knew that by addressing my comments to all, I wouldn't have to answer them singly over and over again.

Noggin is another word for head, which I asked you to use, as you were asking a question that seemed far below what I think is your intelligence. You are a smart person; it does you little credit to act like you are not. After all, I list you on my User List of Interesting Wikipedians, right alongside The Benham. I didn't want you to feel left out. :)

Sometimes I think that you might not be aware of the effect that your argument style is viewed by others. You certainly come across as very aggressive and not very polite - at least, this is how you are perceived by many editors within the 300 article. Perhaps you could take a moment and look at what you are about to post, and ask yourself how you would react if someone used those words on you. I am pretty sure you would be unhappy with the impact they would have on you. I know that I have certainly felt uncomfortable with your tone and behavior upon occasion. Maybe think about what i had to say here. Arcayne 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What in the world does this mean "That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy"? Please clarify. Please tell me, what is your tone in this comment? Agha Nader 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Pretty much a deadpan B-sharp.

That more than a few people think their is POV-editing going on is neither new nor unsubstantiated. That others seem very concerned about how this movie about the ancient world affects modern Iran (not even called Persia anymore, assisting hte disconnect futher),which is odd, considering that most folk outside of Iran don't really seem to have a problem with this movie. If you are Iranian, I can understand how you might be offended by this film. However, that is precisely why you shouldn't be editing in the film; your own bias is sure to creep out. And do I think some of the vandalizing editors and the POV-pushing editors were posting to simply make themselves feel better, ergo the mommy comment. That you read this and internalized it to mean that I was speaking to you is akin to somebody watching Jody Foster in a movie and deciding that she's telling you to kill Englebert Humperdinck.

That the Iranian government - with all it should be concentrating on concerning world affairs, decides to all but declare war on a single movie addresses pointedly the idea that if a single action movie can affect your self-worth as a country bad enough, your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits. Now, since I do not know your ethnicity and or nationality and do not want to know, I cannot see why you would choose to make this all about you. You might want to consider my remarks and take a wikibreak from 300. It seems to be upsetting you too much. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", what do you mean? Please explain why it is my problem. Agha Nader 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Again, you are presuming i am speaking of you personally. Please reread the post a bit more carefully. The 'you' I am referring to is Iran, the country, not you the person. Maybe you might to reread things before forwarding them on. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You want me to believe you were directing your comment to the nation of Iran? If this is the case, my talk page is not the place to post comments directed to the Islamic Republic. Only post relevant comments please. Agha Nader 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

[edit] Civility

Regarding this edit [4], I remind you to please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Your sarcasm and tone is not conducive to cooperation and detracts from the collaborative environment. Cheers. The Behnam 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As you know, tone is quite subjective. What do you think my tone was? I feel my tone was appropriate for the context of the discussion, given the personal attacks I have cited. I have once responded to Arcayne "You accused me of having a "merry little band". You have told me to use my "noggin". You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche", this is tantamount to racism. Please reference a statement I made that is uncivil." Please cite a sentence that was sarcastic. Sarcasm is objective, so you shouldn't have much trouble (assuming I was sarcastic). I completely agree with you though, sarcasm "is not conducive to cooperation and detracts from the collaborative environment." I was not sarcastic though. If you are referring to the title I addressed you as "'Interesting Wikipedian'", you have Arcayne to blame, since he coined the term. I assumed you would not mind me referring to you as "'Interesting Wikipedian'" since you did not object to Arcayne using it. Agha Nader 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Is it a problem to ask the question to Arcayne without using the bold format? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EQ. It states "Don't ignore questions." User Arcayne has ignored my question several times already. I can provide diffs if you wish. By bolding my question I hoped he would see it and respond to it. Not answering it would be in violation of [WP:EQ]. Bold format is not uncivil, while CAPS can be. I am sure you have noticed that I rarely use the bold format, but I think it is appropriate in this case. Do not you agree? Agha Nader 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I responded to your questions/accusations here. I am presuming you read it, since you track my edits. I still await the recetn evidence of them. Cheers, Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

According to your actions and comments, it would be alright to remove your last comment. You seem to believe that useing bold text is "uncivil", and "shouts". I base this on you removing several of my edits because they were in bold text. Furthermore, you removed Khorshid's edit because it was in bold text. Would it be fair to remove your comment since you "shout" your user name? Agha Nader 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Regarding the above statement, it might be worthwhile to review false analogy. Regarding your recent request at WP:AN/I, please also review WP:POINT. If you're having a problem you can't get over with another user, the dispute resolution process is designed to assist in helping you. I've found sometimes tho, that the best way to resolve what appears to be an unresolvable conflict, is to just walk away. That's why I recommended WP:NAM earlier. Cheers, Tomer^talk 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Elaborate on why it is a false analogy. Agha Nader 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Arcayne pretty clearly has his username bold as part of his signature personalization, something that no rational person would interpret as "shouting", whereas bolding might be perceived as shouting when used in text for anything other than specific word or phrasal emphasis. I'm not saying I agree, per se, with Arcayne's removal of your remarks on the basis that he perceived them to be incivil shouting, just that you proposing to remove his remarks because his signature is in bold letters is ludicrous. The one does not follow from the other. Call it non sequitur if it makes you happier to do so, but I'll stick with false analogy for now. Comparing his signature to discussion text does not track—the two are irrevocably unrelated. Cheers, Tomer^talk 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And let's ensure that we have all our facts straight to begin with - something I've always found to be a useful tool in editing. Khorshid's posts were not removed (thought I'd point that out to the rest of the audience, who weren't privy to the fun elsewhere), but de-bolded. As for the removal of your posts in my talk page, I've rather explained it to you three different ways. Allow me to be succint - if you are concerned with the appearance of my signature, you might wish to avoid posting in those areas where I am sure to be, and avoid making remarks which are sure to prompt a response. You needn't respond to this - I might post a response yet again. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I would be warranted under Arcayne's logic: "May [sic] talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." Agha Nader 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I think this subject has been done to death, warmed over and killed again. Tomer^talk 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be relevant. Agha Nader 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

[edit] 300 Lead

Hello, in the past you've expressed strong opinions about the wording of the lead to 300 (film). Six numbered options have now been presented at talk, here; could you please visit and weigh in as to which are acceptable, and which you would prefer? Thanks, --Javits2000 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Regarding this revert by you [5]. This has been discussed at the talk page here. If you want, respond at the talk page, but dont revert again. Thanks. --- Melca 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed your mind?

I was looking over the origin of the "Nader Shah" link at Anti-Hinduism and I found this [6]. Did you just change your mind? :) The Behnam 01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I agree. And yes the article has similar problems. What some of the people who put the OR in don't seem to realize is that OR actually discredits and disvalues the concept that they are trying to support by detracting from the quality of the article. I just asked you about it because it seemed funny and I didn't know if you remembered that you had added it. Anyway, further help with that article is always invited. Also, perhaps you could take a look at ShiaChat.com? I did a little and put some tags, but I think it needs major reworking, and its notability may also need to be evaluated. The Behnam 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about there lacking many words, though one I see immediately "What makes ShiaChat.com specifically fair". Perhaps I'll find a different template to use; I think there is one for 'fan-like' tone. As far as the restaurant goes, I've heard about it but haven't made my way over yet. Its opening was delayed a bit but it is up now. I haven't heard anything about it being good or bad from those who went. You been yet? The Behnam 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on prejudiced admins

Salam agha, my advice when dealing with admins who have a prejudice or racism towards Iranians, like User:TShilo12 (Tomer) is to simply ignore them and do not continue the discussion, but seek help elsewhere from admins who do not harbour hostility towards Iranians. Otherwise they may try to find an excuse to get you angry and then block you. Its not worth it. Unfortunately such hostility to Iranians (and Muslims) can be at a high level here, but there are also many good admins for every bad admin. I never bother to argue with admins who have anti-Iranian POV, its pointless. Hopefully one day WP will have a policy to prevent people who have such racist bias (and who even admit such racism as in this case!) from becoming or remaining admins.

Anyway the best course of action is to open an RFC for 300 (film) and to talk to admins when they try to push their POV. Remember, we have plenty of sources on our side, so they are clearly in the wrong. If RfC doesn't work, we go to ArbCom since their continued POV pushing is unacceptable on WP. We'll wait and see what they do, if they continue pushing for this "historical fiction" nonsense, then we take the next step. Khorshid 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, thanks for the advice. Agha Nader 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

[edit] Regarding Arcayne

Can you not let go of this situation? Neither of you seem capable of having a civil discussion, and to be honest, your re-addition of your comment that Arcayne removed is borderline harassive. I would highly suggest that both of you move on; there's clearly not going to be any kind of correspondence between you two that would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arcayne

I know you and Arcayne don't get along, but it would be a good idea to just leave it be. If he wants to remove a comment you left on his page, let him. It will always be there. He can't erase the history. Nothing productive is coming from this, please just let it go. I will ask him to do the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He provided no rational reason for removing an answer to his question. Clearly because he did not think the answer existed. Just because a discussion takes place at his talk does not mean he can control it. He has a tendency to bastardize other peoples comments and edits; he should be told it is frowned upon. I think I am being forced to "leave it be" anyway. Agha Nader 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. You have been asked to stop introducing tendentious commentary into my user talk page. Please consider this a warning and stop. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how it is vandalism. In response to a similar accusation, user Dmcdevit responded "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil, see WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not". Agha Nader 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I know, but even if he removes it, it will still be there. I can go to the history and find the first time you wrote your comment. I'm sure if you've ever been warned or blocked for something that I can go back in your history and find it. Nothing is ever hidden from people completely. If someone just glances over a talk page and doesn't see any warnings, true, they may think differently, but it isn't as bad as looking at the history and seeing a private edit war over the insertion of a comment on a user talk page. It doesn't speak highly for either of you. I'm just trying to help separate the two of you before something happens that brings you both down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User Arcayne asked "As well, if you could cite a Wikipedia policy that excuses stalking behavior under the pretense of monitoring so-called edits." This user should read WP:STALK. ArbCom decision referred to in WP:STALK states

"It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy."

User Arcyane should stop accusing me of stalking and vandalism. Agha Nader 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader