User talk:Khoikhoi/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Two Spam/Vandal Reports April 15th 2007

[edit] Politics of the People's Republic of China

The user Flag of the rising sun keeps replacing this page with the Japanese military flag.SteveSims 07:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam 87.234.135.94

The IP 87.234.135.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has linkspammed Free Speech Movement and freedom of speech with an advertisement for a P2P instant messaging service.SteveSims 07:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabriz

Hi Khoikhoi. An unknown person is removing referenced information about Armenian presence in the Iranian city of Tabriz (Azarbaijan province), and replacing it with lies. I told him (192.147.67.12) to discuss the changes in the talk page, but he simply continues vandalizing. Could you please protect the article? Thanks. -- Davo88 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered him on the talk page. Cheers! -- Davo88 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ákos

Thank again, man. Those Romanian site couldn't care less, and, not knowing any Hungarian... Btw, if you could quickly review this: I had the same problem with other UDMR ministers, so if you would follow the green-colored names and correct them if necessary, I'd be grateful. Dahn 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a second look, and it seems that the only one left for now was György Tokay (corrected by me from "Gyorgy"). But you are still my go-to guy for this stuff, so expect me to pester you with this stuff in the future :). Dahn 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the UDMR site was quite an obvious choice (feel free to edit a doh in your message). I relied on google searches, and they prioritize Romanian sloppyness (it's rather amusing to see what metamorphoses the name Béla Markó endures in the Romanian press - I still have trouble remembering which of them is his given name...). Dahn 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but, as you yourself noted, a given name is often turned into a family name. And it is just to tempting to assume that "Marko" is a given name... Dahn 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess that, had I lived in Transylvania, these things would have been more familiar to me (unless I was brought up as one of those secluded nationalist freaks). Alas, I am Wallachian to the core (which means that I can teach people more about how to eat polenta). Dahn 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You told me to contact you if I have any questions. Yeah, I do. You edited my edit from the "Romanians" article, saying "Restored range". First of all, there was ABSOLUTELY NO RANGE there before my edit, and none after either. It said plain and simple 28 million, no range at all.

And second, 21.6 million (the official population of Romania according to the 2002 census that is cited as a source there) + 10 million (the total number of Romanians living abroad, including Moldova, according to the last site cited right there on that same page) = 31.6 millions. I put it 31 without messing with the 0.6. You put it at 28. Be serious, you know 21.6 + 10 = 31.6 and 21.6 + 10 =/= 28! Mindless reversing IMO.

Later Edit: You do know I have proof. Official census site and Romanian World Council site agree with me. You can put there whatever, but the truth does not belong to you. Official census says 21.6 actual population of Romania. Romanian World Council says estimated number is 10 million Romanians living abroad. The lowest estimation is 8.2, and I've seen even higher than 10. Again, 21.6 + 10 = 31.6 . My edit saying 31 is reasonable. And here were people complaining about this even in the talk page, they said "we got ridiculously high numbers, like 36 million, and now we get ridiculously low ones". Exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, jeez. Why won't people understand that not all inhabitants of Romania are Romanians? Dahn 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
His edit was not about that. Read the history of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
You add 21.6 to x number, right? Well, let me tell you this: the article is about ethnic Romanians, and not all inhabitants of Romania are ethnic Romanians. I also don't know where you get your 10 million from, but has it occurred to you that "people living abroad" does not mean "people who are no longer counted at home" (e.g.: virtually all Romanians in Italy are counted in the Romanian census, because they are not citizens of another country, and because most left after the census was taken, and because census-takers were required to ask if you had relatives living temporarily abroad). IMO, the Romanian World Council is a sham, because it falls into exactly this sort of sophistry. Dahn 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The number of ethnic Romanians in Romania is estimate, also. He contradicted the information I put, which is taken from two official and legitimate sites, cited already by others before me on that exact page. And if you say "most left after the census was taken", it means you don't agree with the census. Sorry, but encyclopedia content must be verifiable. This is not even original research - it's original assumption! Go complain about this at the census takers supervisors or at whoever leads this kind of actions in Romania, as I see you are from there. This is supposed to provide accurate information. Instead, it got deleted and replaced with some numbers only God knows from where are taken. Yeah I'd call that lack of professionalism and blind editing. Honestly sorry if you do not agree with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Let me try to be a little bit clearer: the census' job is to count all Romanian citizens, and look into their ethnicity. This means: a) that all ethnic Romanians are to be deducted from the total number, resulting a total of 19,409,400 [1]; b) that Romanians who do not have another citizenship, as well as Romanians who have several citizenships, of which one is Romanian, are part of the 19,409,400 people (since the census counted these as well, regardless of whether they were living abroad at the time); c) there are Romanian communities reaching a number of x people - when determining that x, one has to exclude those people who are temporarily living abroad, all of whom, at least in theory, were counted among the 19,409,400. The "World Council" is by no means an official source, it is merely an NGO. One would have to find a source that clearly mentions all of these criteria, and estimates on the basis of them, not on mixing apples and oranges. I can only hope you see my point. Dahn 20:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll say that that is enough for me. I don't actually care so much about this article as to go into some heated argument with someone on wikipedia. But still - there was no range before, it said just 28! Now it says 21-28, and he said "restored range". While there was absolutely no range there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
There was no range in the version at that time because the page had been disrupted by people who messed up all possible criteria. Again, the "9 million" provided in the 21-28 range are likely to include, in one go, Romanian citizens irrespective of ethnicity who live abroad, Romanians irrespective of ethnicity who have another citizenship, and Romanian ethnics who are not/no longer citizens of Romania (not to mention problematic mentions of Moldovans). That is to say: the number of 28 million is not at all too low, but it may be too high. Doing all the proper maths with reliable and logical data will likely result in something between 21 and 28 million, not more, and probably not less. Dahn 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for nice welcome. Nice to know.--Borath 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Terrorism in Turkey

I did not start Category:Terrorism in Turkey, Angusmclellan did. Please keep this in mind. If you believe this category violates WP:WTA then nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD. Otherwise please stop removing the category. KazakhPol 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Baristarim 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RMDSZ

Hi! Yes, László Borbély is the correct spelling for Laszlo Borbely. About the other guy I'm not sure. Both Gábor and Menyhért can be a last name and a given name too (Menyhért is somewhat rare, but Hungarians in Romania often have given names that are rare or old-fashioned in Hungary), also, Hajdu (which is definitely a surname) is usually spelled as Hajdú (but both spellings occur). If he had two surnames, they should be hyphenated, at least that's the Hungarian custom, but I don't know about Romanian laws regarding last names. This source lists him as Hajdú Gábor Menyhért and this source names him as Hajdú Menyhért Gábor, so I think it is quite likely that Hajdú is his surname and the other two are his given names but I'm not sure about their order. Hope this helps.

– Alensha talk 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose we can postpone the issue of "Menyhért" being his given name or his second surname, since he is seldom cited with the full form. Dahn 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Birtalan" is probably related to Bertalan (the nickname for which is spelled "Berci" in Hungarian, not Berti), but since it is a last name here, I don't think its etymology is really relevant (in Hungarian, as in many other languages, lots of surnames derive from given names, with all kinds of different and archaic spellings. Birtalan is certainly used as a surname, I know people by this name.) "Francisc" is not a Hungarian name at all, the only spelling of this name in today's Hungarian is "Ferenc" (and the only variation I've ever encountered is its old spelling "Ferencz"). So "Francisc" must indeed be a typo for "Francisco". The English equivalent is Francis/Frank. The most common nickname for Ferenc is Feri, its pronunciation is similar to that of the English word "ferry". regards, – Alensha talk 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If he lived in Mexico, it's possible he changed his original name to a Spanish one. I don't know any names that are pronounced as "fedie", it's likely that the guy you knew was named Feri (but the "r" in Hungarian words is not as rolled as in many other languages). The only similar name I can think of is Frédi, the Hungarian for "Freddie", but Feri is a much more common name. – Alensha talk 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on Francisc Baranyi: "Francisc" is actually [also] the Romanian form of Francisco/Ferenc etc. The man is either from a multi-ethnic background or has adopted the Romanian version of his given name - either by being baptized this way or by allowing the name to stick. This is a habit with some tradition: leaving aside aside from Vasile Luca and Ştefan Foriş, who went and changed their names for a particular reason, we seem to have the sculptor Géza Vida, who is often rendered as "Gheza Vida", Iuliu Baratky, Vasile Gergely etc. In another community, but relevant for this habit: János Mattis-Teutsch (known as Hans, Johannes and Ioan).
It goes both ways: a rather well-known Romanian entertainer goes by the name Ioan Gyuri Pascu. (Btw, looking through the UDMR in government page provided by Khoikhoi, I noticed that one of their representatives is named "Anton Niculescu", a Romanian name if I ever saw one).
What is certain is that Baranyi appears to condone and perhaps prefer this version, since mentions of him under this form are overwhelming (I don't know any Hungarian, but it would seem that there is no mention of him as "Ferenc" anywhere to be found). Dahn 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob, any time. Oh, who was it, btw? The First Consul of the French Republic or the schoolboy from Canada? I'm guessing the latter (given the pattern). Dahn 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting It

I would have thought that, too, but he deleted the first warning and went right back to being uncivil and assuming bad faith in the talk area. It doesn't help matters. The second warning was to suggest that first one needed to be taken to heart. With any luck, it has sunk in this time. Arcayne 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it has not. He considers warnings for civility and AGF to be harrassment. Perhaps it might be a lapse in my recollection, but that seems pretty indicative that the tag warnings aren't addressing the issue. Contrary to what you suggested, he doesn't get it. Thoughts?Arcayne 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. This and this is what led to the first civility warning. After he blanked the warning, calling it "baseless", I figured that the point had been made. Blanking it means that he acknowledged receipt of it, and that was what was required. While conceding that - despite the rudeness, he had a point. I added the statement from the article (which had been the source of contention for two weeks) into the list of choices, and furthermore reset the choices in an entirely new section. This specifically addressed his concerns, and I didn't mind doing it, seeking an end to the bickering.
However, it did not end. Less than two minutes after blanking, he was accusatory and uncivil yet again here and here. It was here that I placed the second warning on his talk page for incivility. Accusing me of manufacturing proposed statements in a public forum is pretty uncivil, and certainly violates the principle of assuming good faith. While I had proposed one of the choices days earlier, the other six choices were ones introduced amidst the bickering. He was reminded of civility and AGF in the Discussion page yet again, offering him an opening to simply apologize and move on. I did everything necessary to address his concerns.
Rather than noting these concessions, he decided to instead address the civility warning here on the talk page, threatening to initiate an RfC, and demanding that the whole process be begun again (the new section had just been created by myself to do precisely that, had he taken but a moment to notice). Moments later, he addressed the new section, demanding that everyone be allowed to introduce proposed lead statements again, again reintroducing the accusation that I had chosen the proposed statements myself.
I have bent over backwards to accomodate Mardavich, and yet I am still getting uncivility and a failure to receive an assumption of good faith from him. I have held off on presenting him with a third warning because it would trigger an admin review and likely block. I am aware of his other Wikipedia troubles, and don't think that a block would serve the intended purpose of cool down, as the previous ruling has not accomplished. I am frankly afraid that the complaint would be seen in refrence to his other issues, and would inevitably work against him. I have had troubles with him in the past, and have learned from him that he does excellent work in many other articles when he does not respond defensively. Unfortunately, the defensiveness and not the excellence is the single trait he has shown in the 300 article. I am concerned that if he cannot focus his clear talent enough while also working with others in the 300 article, another editor will certainly do what I am holding back from doing. And that would be a shame.
I am not out to get him, or any other editor, but I am simply tired of dealing with the repetitive accusatory and disruptive tone of some of the editors. There is a general feel of 'us' versus 'them' amongst many of the pro-Iranian culture editors, and both sides are blaming the other (and of course, I know that Khorshid and Nader blame only me for all the problems in the article), which results taking weeks to address even the most basic of edits. As there are increasingly stiff penalties for a lack of civility and AGF, perhaps using the carrot of Reasoning and Compromise need to be replaced with the stick of being blocked for not extending the basic courtesies to a fellow editor, at least for the time being.
I hope that addresses your questions. You of course should feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions.
- Arcayne 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The civility/NPA problem appears to be occurring again with Mardavich. I think it is time you addressed the matter, please. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting one last time that you - as a personal friend of Mardavich - counsel him on his behavior within the 300 article. You have chosen to avoid this request on two prior occasions, and I must say that I expect a bit more neutrality from an administrator. His edits here constitute a breach of the NPA policy. This, coupled with at least four prior instances of invicility and personal attacks, requires you to take action. If he apologized on my Talk page or the 300 article discussion page, I will retract the Level 4 NPA/Civility warning. Before, I have withheld taking action on his behavior because you clearly indicated that you would address the problem. As it is consistently recurring, either your counseling has not taken place, or he is choosing to not heed it. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, your assumption that Khoikhoi is "my friend" is a breach of WP:AGF, I don't know Khoikhoi anymore than I know you or any other user on Wiki, so your accustions are also a breach of WP:Civility. Second of all, my post was not addressed at you in particular, but anyone who tries to disrupt due process, which is why I edited [2] a second later to make it more clear. And finally, your placement of false "warnings" on my talk page on almost daily basis, are also a breach of WP:Harassment. --Mardavich 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to dignify your protesting that you don't know Khoikhoi more than you do I with a response. I know you have been in contact with him on at least a few occasions via private email - he has said as much. Therefore, neither uncivility nor a breach of AGF.
As well, while you did redact it minutes later (which says what you initially meant to say and then thought better of it), you then went on to attack me - no one else - again here. So that is two personal attacks on me in less than 15 minutes If you feel the warning that have been placed on your talk page have been arriving daily, I might suggest that you take a moment to AGF yourself and ponder the merit of those warnings. Khoikhoi, my request remains. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have e-mailed dozens of administrators on different occasions for different reasons, that doesn't mean any of them are "my friends". So yes, your accusations and assumptions are a breach of WP:AGF. Also, reminding users in general to be mindful of Wikipedia policies, and not try to disrupt the due process, is not a personal attack.--Mardavich 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thnx

...for protecting Dalmatia... I thought my voice was being ignored back there.

BTW how goes the case with Emir Arven? --PaxEquilibrium 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia-related articles... many, many Croatian islands. You reverted linkspam from it. :)

By the way, could You please delete an image I created (I'm correcting it): Image:Karta Bosne.gif

It has errors. Thanks in advance! --PaxEquilibrium 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gergely

Gergely is a given name, but can be a surname as well. It can't be determined from this name what his Hungarian given name is; Vasile doesn't have any Hungarian equivalent as far as I know, and László has no Romanian equivalent. – Alensha talk 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced these names are equivalents of each other. It might be that he just choose a Romanian name which approximately sounds similar to his original name. :) – Alensha talk 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since his hometown was part of Austria-Hungary at that time, it is more probable that his name was written in the Hungarian form when he was born, but to not confuse readers of enwiki we usually switch the name order, so yes, it should be László Luka. (Your talk page is quite a crowded place btw, this is my second edit conflict here today :) – Alensha talk 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to Wikipedia

Hello there! I have many questions about Wikipedia. Where can I post my questions? Grumpanelli 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arcayne

Please see his comments on this users talk [3]. How many times will Arcayne single out users because they are Iranian and involved in the talk page of "The 300"? His attitude is beginning to really become aggravating and seems intent on scaring away users who oppose his POV. This is really bad. Khorshid 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is zero, Khorshid. I don't care what someone's ethnic origin is - the anonymity of the internet makes such consioderations fairly moot. I don't know what your ethnic background is, for example. And call me crazy, but I don't really want to know. I have said on at least 5 different occasions when I know you were reading (as you responded to part of it), my POV is NPOV. I am not on either pro-nationalism side; I am on Wikipedia's side. I certainly hope that this time, the meaning of those words, like seeds upon fertile soil, find purchase with you. The user in question had posted twice before (w/two additional minor edits) small clarification facts - quite useful, actually - and a suddent appearance at a vote seemed odd. To wonder if meat puppetry is occurring is natural, I was not uncivil in my post, and I followed it up with an apology for taking any of his time.. That Khorshid seemed to show up moments later is unusual, as if he were stalking me edits. However, I don't really have any edits that I need to worry about, so he may stalk away, if such is the case.
I am glad that Khorshid took the time to bring this to your attention, as the concern of meat puppetry was a delicate matter to bring up in the first place. Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Resistance

Hey, can ya help moderate the Van resistance under the talk page? (Hetoum 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

I have been looking for an admin who was active for an hour :) Can you approve me here - I have been having problems with my VandalProof and wanted to start using NPWatcher for a long time but didn't know the procedure (apparently I had to list a request at that page :)), so I kept on leaving notes at the wrong places. I have been doing vandal and new-page patrol by hand and it is getting tiring! Baristarim 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Baristarim 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kurdistana Sor.jpg

Is there any reason why you undeleted this image while its undergoing a copyright discussion on commons? -- Cat chi? 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For agreeing to move on. Regards, —KingIvan 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Khoikhoi, On the topic of Tibet, you can not just delete other people's addition without giving a reasonable reason. Please give a clear reason. Thanks. xiaoliang1

Hi, Khoi, I think you will love the admirable work of our common friend William Mauco:--MariusM 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[4]

[edit] Personages of the show

  1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [5]
  2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [6]
    Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary and words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) from his first edit.
  3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [7]
    Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.
  4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [8]
  5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

[edit] Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

  1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[9].
  2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [10]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [11].
  3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [12]
  4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [13]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[14]
  5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[15]
  6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[16]
  7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[17]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[18]
  8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[19]
  9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [20] [21]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[22]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [23]
  10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [24]
  11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[25]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
  12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[26], [27]
  13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[28]
  14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[29]
  15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[30]
  16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [31]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [32]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[33]
  17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [34]
  18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[35]
  19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [36]
  20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [37]
  21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[38]
  22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[39]
  23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[40]
  24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [41]
  25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [42]
  26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[43]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[44]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [45], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[46]
  27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[47]
  28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[48]
  29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[49]
  30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[50]
  31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[51]
  32. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[52]
  33. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[53]
  34. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [54]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [55]
  35. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [56]
  36. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[57], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[58], "I see. That's bad news"[59]
  37. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[60]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[61]
  38. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [62]
  39. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [63]
  40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[64]
  41. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [65]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[66]

[edit] Hiding evidence

  1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [67]


[edit] TGP

Howdy Khoikhoi. I was checking an article I edited recently, TGP and I noticed that it could might be an article which may need moderating of external links. I noticed another article pizza which does the same. How would a person build consensus for this? Hope all is well. Jsderwin 11:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Archive_30, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Tibet article is ubder attack from User:Xiaoling. Does he not know an encyclopedi attem[ts to provide a neutral view? P.s Also habe you thought yet about joining WP Tibet -THe Tobetolgoist has also joined now . I welcome you fully ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Merzbow and his attacks

Look at this please: [68] and [69]. Despite my bringing up legitimate grievances of the article I am attacked as being "easily offended" even they are promoting conspiracy theories like Eurabia by Bat Ye'or as "criticism of Islam" and calling Pat Robertson a "critic" of Islam (he calls Muslims devils and believes Muslims will burn in hell) even though they are clearly bigots. The double standard here is that if Bat Ye'or was promoting a similar conspiracy theory about Jews taking over Europe, she would be labeled a anti-Semite not a "critic" of Judaism. Can you please help there with the bullying or at least raise the issue with other admins if you don't want to look into it? Merzbow's actions in particular are reprehensible with his pasting of "This guy is a Christian, I'm easily offended" all over the place and calling me a troll. Khorshid 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly why the project has two banners one for Tibetan buddhism (historical, religious and cultural issues which are clearly not CHinese and one for WP china tibet for geo places. THis way it avoids the conflict!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oszkár Jászi

Hi,

I think it should remain at Oszkár Jászi. Oscar is the Anglicized form, which he probably used when he lived in the US, Oszkar Jaszi is basically his original name without the diacritics, which should be a redirect as not everyone has those letters on the keyboard, but in WP we usually use them in article titles. Oscár and Oskár are definitely incorrect IMO; these seem to be Czech or Slovak names rather than Hungarian.

The English-language Google doesn't differentiate between a and á, so the majority of the hits it gave for your search on Oscár were Oscars. If you search for him on www.google.hu, which does differentiate between a and á, you'll find that there are only 10 hits for Oscár (all refer to the same book). The spelling Oskar occurs only in German context, which is not surprising, since this is the German variation of the name, and maybe he used it if he ever published something in German. – Alensha talk 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trying to do Checkuser on NisarKand sockpuppet

Hi Khoikhoi. I tried several times to go here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand and add User:Aero stud24 by following the instructions. But when I add {{subst:Newcheckusercase}} to the top of the page, nothing happens. Can I do it manually by copying and pasting the previous cases and editing it? I really need to do this soon because he getting very annoying. --Behnam 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bonny sockpuppet?

Hi, can you please check these edits [70] I suspect is Bonny. Sorry, I don't know what's the procedure for checking this. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 07:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Help? Man... why Wikipedia doesn't forbid anon edits? -- AdrianTM 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I started to have doubts about the identity of the guy, but I think he manifests the same (more or less clinical) symptoms... -- AdrianTM 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I promptly added the {{User anti-anon}} tag to my account :) Unfortunately much time and effort on Wikipedia is wasted on reverts of anon vandals. -- AdrianTM 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asgardian's edit wars

Well, the edit warring over Mjolnir (comics) has stopped. Someone else requested a "check user" action on Asgardian's sock puppet. He admitted that it was his, but since he didn't use it for nefarious purposes, no action was taken. However, he is now edit warring over Galactus, Mephisto (comics), and Thanos. I have requested temporary page protection for these pages. However, if the edit wars continue once the pages have been unprotected, what next? --GentlemanGhost 09:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I reported Asgardian to the Administrators' noticeboard. So far, the admins' consensus is that it should have been taken to WP:RFC. --GentlemanGhost 11:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Merzbow

Did you see his comments on his talk? First he calls me a troll and refuses to acknowledge my criticisms (calling me incivil, despite my anger being justified at this Islamophobia in the article - again if I was a Jew or Christian would they still be talking like that?) but now he also again calls me "incivil" and refuses to acknowledge the criticisms, and on top of that claims I am a sockpuppet of somebody called "H.E" Have you read the article Criticism of Islam?? Why should anti-Muslim bigots be allowed to get away with this prejudice, and then on top of that, why should they be allowed to ignore legitimate criticisms from legitimate editors??? I don't know if "talking" with him would help anything, but if you can get them to stop removing the dispute tag from the article and to seriously begin acknowledging the bigotry in the article (which is not "criticism" but "let's beat on Islam and Muslims"). People like Arcayne, Miskin, Merbow, etc etc all get away with making anti-Iranian or anti-Muslim (in Merzbow's case) comments and people here back them up, even though WP is not here for "free speech", but is an encyclopedia for education. Thats messed up that this type of editors are tolerated. Khorshid 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow again calls me a troll for a second time [71] He should be blocked. Khorshid 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Khorshid, regarding the edit that led to Merzbow's dismissal,[72]: Such statements as, "Muslims are the devils, after all, right? According to our Christian friends, we're all going to hell, so who gives a crap, right?...Damn right I'm easily offended...But I urge Muslim editors not to give into this bullying...So much for "Christian tolerance". Ha, what a joke," assume bad faith, attack Christians and urge Muslims to view Wikipedia as a confrontation between religions. Please take the time to review our civility policy as well as the other links I've included. Minding them will help us all get along, give your fellow editors a reason to take you more seriously, and prevent situations like this from arising.Proabivouac 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my words. You yourself saw C. Logan's patronising comments to me. You go read the civility policy - you single me out yet ignore what others say and do. If you guys don't take me seriously, that's fine. I really don't care and I won't play these games. Go ahead and do what you will with the Islam articles - if the neutral and Muslim editors are fine with that, then that's their problem. I did my part in raising the issues of bigotry in the article. It's up to the others to decide whether or not to confront it and deal with it. Khorshid 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And in addition, the fact that you justify Merzbow's attacks against me speak volumes. Khorshid 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism by Country

Well, I proposed a paragraph for Iran that I thought was very well sourced and reasonable. Ten citations for eight sentences, by and large from what I imagined to be sources who's reliableness is unimpeachable, when attributed correctly. Mostly the United Nations' High Commission on Human Rights .. anyways. The editors who had previously rejected anything about Iran continued to do so, with arguments which seemed quite flimsy to me. I made a request for comment, and all the feedback was very positive about the section, and the RfC editors generally believed the no section on Iran arguments didn't hold any water. Anyways, I'm kind of stuck. It seems clear to me that section I proposed was entirely reasonable and there were no policy based reasons to reject it. But with external editors difficult to get, and the disputing editors apparently content with the article locked as is, it's hard for me to make any progress. I don't think that it's really at a point where I can request mediation, which would be the next step in dispute resolution, but I can't make any progress otherwise. In short, I'm stuck. It seems to me that you've put me in a situation where there's nothing I can do to get the article unlocked. Are you content to leave the article locked forever? Please take a look at the section I proposed and the comments before drawing any judgement - it may not otherwise be clear why I think there's nowhere I can go. WilyD 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting on my talk page

You reverted the addition of the somewhat odd section "Block me for 3RR" on User Talk:DESiegel. Why did you do so? I have reverted, restoring this section. In general im prefer not to remove content from my user talk page unless I archive it -- still less do i wish others to remove it for me, whatever its nature. DES (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps an edit summary would clarify the purpose of such reverts in future. DES (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Van Resistance

Hi!

Thanks for a quick response. I basically wanna rewrite the Van Resistance article - I wanna delete all the stuff that diverts from point of the article - going on to talk about some administration of Western Armenia and so forth until 1920, when Armenians acted in self defense ONLY in spring of 1915. The whole thing occurred over a course of a month, and the rest about administration makes the article look like a major headache. Can we at least agree the body of the article should deal with the ACTUAL resistance, and a history of the Van vilayet can be discussed in a separate article? I think the Administration for Western Armenia article does this. The article is called Van Resistance, but talks about the history of the Van vilayet and further diverts into politics of the time and the Democratic Republic of Armenia. Can we agree for the article to cover only the actual fighting period? (Hetoum 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 3RR

Because of serious backlog in the report page, can you please enforce this? Thanks.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 15 9 April 2007 About the Signpost
Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this acceptable?

Check out Domitius' userpage. Also the image itself in question.--Doktor Gonzo 13:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think that makes it less offensive. The future of Turkey: Islamic Republic of Ottomania? Bosnia: Hercegovinan Sultanate? I've seen such remarks get deleted before.--Doktor Gonzo 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You are the admin, I thought that was your job, not mine. I saw you reporting Maestroka's userpage and you reverted mine because I added a sentence that contained "Armenian nationalists" without pointing any finger to any certain Wikipedian. Anyway, it is ok, I think I know.--Doktor Gonzo 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for new article rejection?

After a year of editing, I finally decided it was time to dive in a little further and create my 1st article. A few day later, I was disappointed to discover that my article had disappreared from WP... without an explanation (I thought at least they would drop me a note). It was on a great little community theater with 1st class quality entertainment. Recently it had won national recognition for one of its annual shows. Although it is for profit (I thing), I don't have any conflicts of interest with it. See Hale Centre Theatre for more info. How do I go about finding out what the real reason was? Thanks. Leon7 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

It is under attack again by Ararat arev, can you semi-protect it? I know it is not going to stop him, but let's try.. Baristarim 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Khoi, but are these kind of statements ok in edit summaries? [73] [74] - the guy is just coming of a block.. Am I supposed to get insulted every single time I try to edit an article? Baristarim 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :) I have to go out as well.. Baristarim 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova and myself were the first to get it ...

I, Fut.Perf. ☼, award the Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Award to Khoikhoi for tirelessly reblocking returning sockpuppets. --19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I, Fut.Perf. ☼, award the Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Award to Khoikhoi for tirelessly reblocking returning sockpuppets. --19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

... but it would be entirely unjust if you didn't get it too ([75]):

[edit] Nasser Pourpirar

I am being blind reverted on this article, with dispute tags removed and even my edits that should not attract controversy, such as translation of the man's name into Farsi and wikilinks, being deleted [76]. As two users are doing this, it appears there is a determination to stack 3RRs to prevent me from editing the article. As it is, the subject of the article is non-notable and as such could qualify for deletion anyway. What should be done about this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TShilo12/RFC/Khorshid

Either the admin in question should open an RFC or remove that subpage at once, as it constitutes an attack page against me. The admin in question is targeting and singling me out for discussing his bias and prejudice against Iranian editors. Khorshid 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See also my comments on his talk. His own comments on my talk contained veiled threats. Khorshid 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism by Country

Well, I've invited the other disputing editors to come view the responses from the Request for Comment, since there've been a few. It's taken this long, so I'm prepared to sit on it for a few days (at least) and see what develops. In the meantime if you're amenable to unlocking the article, I'm willing to forgo working on the Iran section and work on cleaning up other sections. I don't know, maybe it's best to leave it locked. I'd like to work on cleaning up and sourcing the other entries, but I'd like to move past this dispute too ... anyways, you can leave it along for a bit, and I'll get back to you in a few days if I hear from the disputing editors (or not). WilyD 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[The end of an era ] lol. Their are more, still looking for them.. Chaldean 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Weiszman

Hi, You've blocked Weiszman as a puppet of AdilBaguirov.

19:08, 10 April 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Weiszman (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{SockpuppetCheckuser|AdilBaguirov}})

But Weiszman wasn't mentioned in the checkuser case you've cited. Can you clarify for me? Thanks, Ben Aveling 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Only because you appear to be away from keyboard at the moment, I've raised this at WP:ANI#User:Weiszman. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, I just want to be sure that no mistake has been made. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. Ben Aveling 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaziantep

Can you show me where exactly you saw Gaziantep is a Kurdish city in the google book you forwarded to me? The part concerning Turkey is not there, it says it is not a part of the preview.--Doktor Gonzo 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way it wasn't me who removed the Kurdish name from the article.--Doktor Gonzo 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic-wise we don't know who is what in this geography because we don't divide our population into ethnic groups since the days of Ottomans and I doubt the author made any scientific researches himself neither (unless you show me). As well as Turkification (which is actually nothing more than accepting the Turkish nationality) there are arguments for Kurdification. Some Westerners consider and treat the whole Eastern Turkey as Kurdish for example; what about the Turcomans, the yoruks or even the Arabs? Turkey, east and west, is very ethnic complex, Arab, Slav, Iranian, Mediterrenean, Kurdish, Turkic, you name it, that's why I don't like the way some try to divide this country into ethnic groups; that's definitely not in the Ottoman Turkish tradition.--Doktor Gonzo 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism by country

Alright, well after the results of inviting the other disputing editors to come look, nevermind what I said earlier. Leave it locked for now. If you want to offer informal mediation, that's great, or I can try the mediation cabal or something. WilyD 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

  1. Clement of Ohrid, again User:Martin taleski, reported for 3RR
  2. Economy of Romania, Bonny is back.

  /FunkyFly.talk_  21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nowruz

WP:RM is not needed for that move (Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators.). For controversial moves, the discussion should be placed in its talk page and it's already done. Jahangard 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibly controversial move and that's why I proposed it in its talk page. There hasn't been any objection in the last 5 days (in the corresponding talk page). About the vote, usualy the polls should be the last option (when there is no clear concensus in the discussion). If someone has an objection, he/she should participate in the discussion and justify his/her objection (that's what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say). Now you have effectively locked the title without considering the discussion in its talk page. Although I don't see any reason for locking the title (because there wasn't excessive move war), even if you want to lock it, you should consider the last discussions in the talk page (locking the title or the page should be a tool to persuade people to talk, instead of edit war). Jahangard 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Weiszman

This user, whom you have indefblocked as a sockpuppet, is asking for unblock. Are you certain that he is a puppet? Does not appear on checkuser.--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is why, as a fairly new admin, I asked you before doing anything stupid.--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism by country

I'm happy to leave it locked for the time being. I'll look at/think about formal mediation. Thanks. WilyD 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi,

Do not edit on Turk and Turkish related pages again, your edits as being an anti-Turk has been perceived as a provacative vandalism. Your future edits on these pages will be taken to legal status. You are free to edit an other pages including Iran.

[edit] 205.148.53.200 (talk · contribs)

Is there really nothing we can do to stop it? --Rayis 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hello Khoi!:) I am back now. Nice pic of Toledo u have (i think u had it before as well, but i may be wrong). Check your email when u have the time. Cheers! Hectorian 23:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, did you see Talk:Hacı_Bektaş_Veli#google_hits Talk:Hajji_Bektash_Wali#google_hits ? denizTC 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on in that article? How is "Re-occupation of Izmir" not POV? Why are you deleting references to Izmir - the city' current name? See talk for further points - the whole article is unreferenced anyways.. I am really surprised that you actually reverted to that horrible version. Baristarim 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet occupation of Romania

I was unaware that observing an editor has produced nothing they can substantiate and have resorted to article tagging is discussing the editor not the content--I was commenting on the lack of content of their content. If you mean to to tell me my only option where editors tag articles while providing nothing except their personal contentions is to officially report behavior I consider disruptive, do please let me know. I have seen far, far worse comments go by without admin warnings. I would be incurring your wrath because? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Van Resistance

Thanks, I still think I am unclear. Basically, I want to rewrite and focus on this article, the Armenian defense, not history of the vilayet, and problems associated with this article. I mean besides the actual resistance, he deviates into the Democratic Republic of Armenia, a so called "Administration of Western Armenia" and Armenian politics of the time in general. Reason why I want to delete these irrelevant parts of the article is:

1. It is redundant. Has already been covered in other articles dedicated to topic. 2. It deviates from one little connected topic to another. We should have a Background, Body, and all this can be briefly mentioned in a conclusion, but politics of the time and other things as Armenian Genocide should not take up more half the article about the Resistance.

For example, see this:

Last Flare, 1920

The resistance's last fight was against Bolshevik suppression in Armenia during 1921. Many members of the resistance were arrested and killed in prison. L. Shant, Kachaznouni and other leaders were also arrested. Approximately 1200 Army officers were exiled to Russia.

[edit] Conclusion

The revolution managed to build an Armenian homeland after World War I. However, the Turkish-Armenian War took Wilsonian Armenia away from Armenia. The resistance failed for some Armenian historians because of the 'oil' politics of the time. Armenia did not survive long without the extension of Wilsonian Armenia, and became part of the Soviet Union.

Some historical figures from the time of the Van Resistance include: Aram Manougian, Andranik Toros Ozanian, Drastamat Kanayan, Garegin Njdeh, Hakob Zavriev and Simon Vratsian.

We are talking about 1920 about events that took place in 1920. He mentions 1200 officers, no source, some other random individuals, improper article format, etc ... I think we should delete this particular section. What do you think? Hetoum 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary history of Iran

Salam. Do you agree on making a wikiproject or at least a task force (like this)about Contemporary history of Iran which includes issues science 1900. Please write your idea in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iran#Contemporary_history_of_Iran. We need your help, because these issues are highly controversial.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarious

I have to say I found this comment[77] hilarious. What does it even mean?? That has to be the lamest threat I've seen in a week. KazakhPol 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of other people's edits from a Talk page

The even is here [78]. User:Rayis removed a warning about his uncivil behaviour and then the diffs that were posted in the page (three times so far). Can you please explain to him that this is not allowed? I don't think he's planning to stop. Thanks. Miskin 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you can see all his removals and/or text alternations here: [79],[80],[81], [82]. Miskin 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "comment" that I removed was a personal attack against me, he went further and removed my argument for discussion with his message, and then later removed it again. Khoikhoi is well aware that uncivil comments should not be tolerated on Wikipedia and I strongly follow his own procedure of following any personal attacks --Rayis 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that I made a personal attack then report me under WP:NPA. You have no right to remove or alter my edits. Miskin 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw the alleged removal of an [argument for discussion was an inevitable accident instigated by his own actions. I only meant to revert his edits in order to restore mine. Miskin 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no comment, khoikhoi when you get this please cross out or remove this personal attack that he insists on keeping or warn him that it is indeed uncivil --Rayis 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovan Wikipedia

Could you please tell me if the Moldovan Wikipedia is out temporarily or definitely? And why? Thank you very much in advance. Pravoslav

[edit] User talk:76.80.62.137

I think you blocked the wrong person. 72.137.209.153 did this and then 76.80.62.137 tried to correct it followed by the bot reverting and then they tried again. They could have done a better job of fixing it but it might have been their first attempt at editing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. For all I knew that might have been a returning vandal using a different IP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese aborigines

Knock knock! Long time no chat. Hey, I'm going door to door soliciting comments on Taiwanese aborigines. There's a link to a review page on its Talk...

It just made GA. Over the next couple weeks we're gonna try to trim it, add perhaps two more paragraphs, and send it to FAC.

I know you're extremely busy, so don't feel bad if you don't have time! I appreciate all your contribs to Wikipedia.

Later! --Ling.Nut 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No. There's no rule against Harvard-style & in fact they are explicitly permitted. If FAC reviewers whine, I'll quote the rulebook & let them try to deny its explicit text... Thanks for the thoughts, tho.... :-) Ling.Nut 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Please do not revert the Transnistria page. Its time for a clean construction. All opposition is made by Mauco poppets. Thanks !!! Catarcostica 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Van Resistance

Khoikoi, thanks. Unfortunately, I started to seriously review the article, and in particular the sources Ottomanreference cited - they do not match up with the books. I have the electronic and hard copies of them available, so what he wrote stinks if you know what I mean. For example, he talks about the people rising up with pitchforks and makeshift tools in the countryside, but I really do not know where he is getting his 411, I cant find it in any of the sources, not to mention the defense was limited to about one square mile of the city, encompassing the Armenian quarter and fortress. I question his integrity and honesty. Seems he has made a lot up and given PS citations. Doctor Gonzo is not letting me do anything either, he keeps reverting edits, and I dont wanna get into an edit war.(Hetoum 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] How do bots work?

Hello Khoikhoi. I would like to know how automatic bots work. How do they catch vandalism so quick? Usually within 1 or 2 seconds. I have noticed that when I was catching vandalism myself on the Recent Changes. Usually the bots beat me before I warn the vandal. But I have noticed also that they only catch vandalism that has large sections of the page missing. They don't catch small minor vandalism or page move vandalism. Why is that? I think there should be bots that block vandals. That should save us a lot of work. Don't you think? But how do the bots work anyway? King Lopez Contribs 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Message

-==http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Casualties_of_the_TurkishKurdish_conflict#Survey== What do you think? OttomanReference created a survey. He posted a message to me.

The "war on terror" (so "war on PKK") includes many many many non-Al-Qaeda (in this case non-PKK) related incidents which their commonality is that they were Muslims (in this case Kurd or there are other ethnicities in Turkey that had their share). Yes Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian (even if he is not, there may be others), which was a collateral damage on this plight to fight against seperationist group (war on PKK). Thanks for PKK and its fight to eliminate all the Kurdish groups in Turkey during 1980s (which began 1970 right-left classes) there is no other Kurdish seperationist organization left which can be claimed that Turkey's fight is against not one but many other Kurdish organizations. However, if there is a monopoly of PKK among Kurds (no-pluralism), it can only be claimed that PKK is a anti-democratic organization (daaa... welcome the world of terrorism). If there is no democracy, PKK can not be claimed representative of Kurds. 1) PKK is not representative of Kurdish people (the title can not be generalized to Kurds, Kurds in Turkey, etc). 2) there is no other Kurdish seperationist group left and government's activities are directly related to PKK (title can not be generalized to Kurdish groups). 3) Terrosim aims civilians and specifically aims to blur the differences between them so that activities are seem to against the public not organization (check the "war on terror" and how things are getting blurred). What you brought as a question is part of the reality of fight against a terrorist organization (government's mishap can not be used to claim fight is bigger than PKK. These mishaps are illegalities but nothing more). War on PKK is a messy thing, but at the end it is a fight against "PKK". Wat is next in this naming scheme? Like seperationist activities of Armenians during WWI, are we going to name this as "Kurdish Genocide" in the coming years? It is what it is, fight against PKK.

The great problem is this name refer to peoples, who fight against themselves. But in reality, a seperatist organization who is somewhat supported by Kurds attacks against state and Kurds that are on the same side with state. Did you think of another name, in last month?Paparokan 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I see that you are involved in the discussion. I thought that you did not see it. Paparokan 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Bonaparte's socks

User:M-renewal [83] and User:Des-Grant [84] and also 202.29.22.94 ([85]) Alaexis 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There was also a couple of anons on the Abkhazia page[86]. Alaexis 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only CheckUser can say. Please ask one. --M-renewal 14:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like he's appeared again, now as User:Fotografia - [87]. Check this please. Alaexis 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, he's already been dealt with. Never mind )). Alaexis 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khoikhoi

Ok thanks Khoikhoi. I asked Ryulong about how do bots work before I asked you but he blanked my question. That was not very nice if you ask me. I don't know what is wrong with that guy. I asked him questions before and he always answers them. That's weird. If I need anything I will ask you for now. Thanks again. King Lopez Contribs 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Thanks, tell me what you think. I tried asking on his user page, seems he was blocked for an Edit war for a period. Also, I have seen him on an article writing binge with similiar styles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidieh_soldier Just one little example in this article: Note how it says March: Ey Reqîb - According to the article on the song, it was written in 1938. Making stuff up? I think so. Laters. Hetoum 06:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin (talk · contribs)

Hi Khoikhoi. As you might have read the message on your talk page above me and Miskin had a small problem regarding me removing an uncivil comment.

Sadly the user is not letting go. 3 days after the event, after the other two admins urged him to basically let it go here and here, he has been stalking me since and today when I was in a dispute with another user, he commented in the admin's talk page [88] accusing me of a great range of uncivil things [89] (apparently, [90]).

The admin quickly responded by saying that it is none of his business and this is wiki-stalking [91].

This is a clear case of harassment. What do you think? Cheers, --Rayis 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did let it go by not filing an RfC against you. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to share my opinion everytime your name appears in my watchlist as the origin of disruptive behaviour. Again, that's another thing you instigated by refusing to apologise and by "banning" me from editing your Talk page. I respected your request, now it's your turn to respect the fact that I was offended by your recent, hostile comments. Miskin 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No you let go because all admins you conciliated with told you to let go as it was just a small incident based on ME removing YOUR uncivil comment which upset you. Who says I was the "origin of disruptive behaviour"?! If you are so civil yourself, take some of your own advice and stop harassing me. If anyone must do anything is for you to learn not to take grudge every time you get upset on Internet. Seriously, it wasn't personal and as I said before I regret provoking you, and no I don't want any apology from you or anyone because frankly I don't even care about what you thought of what. Now will you chill out and let it go?! --Rayis 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what troubles me about you, those irrational conculsions you make. You do what you do and then you think you were right about it. Why? Because you managed to get away with it. EL_C told you already that you shouldn't have removed my edits and that your behaviour was uncivil. A wise editor would have admitted his mistake and apologised, instead you chose to insult me again and call my behaviour "childish" (can be seen [User_talk:Rayis#King_of_Kings|here]). Why? Because you thought you had got away with it. This "harrassing" claim is a red-herring. I see you're causing problems and I'm chipping in my opinion. If you had been nicer to me (by apologising or by not being uncivil in the first place), I may have been putting in a good word for you instead. You gave me the impression I have about you, you can't be expecting me to forget about it or turn my head everytime your behaviour causes a new problem. Miskin 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi I'd be more than willing to have a mediator on my dispute with Rayis, to decide once and for all who has been uncivil to whom. I've posted diffs on several pages (including yours), most of the others are already linked by Rayis. Just leave me a note if you're up for it. Miskin 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a "dispute" with you. Leave me a lone and stop harassing me. --Rayis 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You harrassed me by being uncivil, removing my edits, insulting me, and refusing to apologise. You requested from me to stop editing your talk page and I respected it. You _cannot_ however request from me to stop caring about your general behaviour in wikipedia. You were wrong to think that you could insult people, trying to shut them up by removing their edits and get away with it. Guess what, you can't, you must take responsibility of your actions. You don't have to be an administrator to care about editors' behaving or misbehaving. If you interpret my interest in wikipedia's integrity as "harrassment" then that's your misconception. You can't just accuse me for not doing what you had predicted that I'd be doing (i.e. nothing). You seemed too cool and sure of yourself when you called me childish and told me not to edit your talkpage again. Judging from your recent actions, it appears that you just did not think of it over that much. Miskin 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way this is the first time ever that I see you regretting about something that you did, referring to me. Unlike what you think, I'm not at all upset. I just did what I feel that any wikipedian should have done, be it admin or editor. If you want to reconcile you can always leave me a messgae in my Talk, I never forbade you that. Miskin 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All admins have told you to let it go, perhaps you should listen to them --Rayis 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something about Kalash, Nuristan, Ethnologue, and people which think they know, but for real, they regrettably don't know

I truly ask myself more and more, - what is the real effort, the deeper mind of the great Wikipedia vision….

Dear Khoikhoi, in certain way I must congratulate you for you changes on several pages related to Kalasha, Nuristan, etc. These are perfect examples how to make articles poorer, to destroy important relations - and, at the end, to discredit the Wikipedia. I'm sure, you intention was "to improve", but unfortunately you make absolutely the opposite.

What I talk about? There is some fundamental difference in our definition on the entire acceptance oft the Wikipedia. If I look at you edits, it seems, the mayor target is to make everything as “most common” as possible, and at second, to make the Wikipedia “Ethnologue compatible”.

Now I ask you, what is, if certain things aren’t just simply or “common” to explain? If it’s impossible to change them without destroy their substance? Must the favourite goal really be a “Wikipedia for dummies”? I prefer a Wikipedia with substance, if someone has a problem to understand, he should try to open his mind….

As already mentioned, I believe it’s impossible to make everything “common”, complex things should be like they are.

Second important note, it’s nearly excrescent to say, Ethnologue as an idea and website is not only well accepted, in contrary, it’s also highly disputed. In this situation here I absolutely decline Ethnologue as a standard or source.

If you search on the Internet, you will find only one deep-going source about Nuristan. This is Richard Strand’s Website, nowhere you will find such a lot of well founded information’s. I believe he is the only linguist which where able to look so profound in the culture of the people in Nuristan. And, - not to forget, which returned back alive. http://users.sedona.net/~strand/

It is wrong to describe Strand as infallibly, he is also disputed. But please do not merge his person and character with his work. I contacted him some time ago, and he is not a “friend” of the Wikipedia, quotation: ...The information on the Wikipedia is outrageously bad. It was clearly written by persons with no scholarly credentials on the region and is based on equally bad sources. Don't believe most of it.

Until now, I don’t understand his dislike, - but nowadays I am able to recognize him.

Last note, please don’t understand the term Nuristani as a homogeny ethnic group. It’s much more a collective term, a language family, but not a clean 100% purely ethnicity. Therefore it’s not correct to describe the Nuristan Kalash(a) only as Nuristani; it is alike wrongly and inaccurate to explain the Chitral Kalash(a) just as Dards.

There are a lot of intricacies in this whole thematic here, please be aware of them…

Regards --lorn10 01:19, 17. April 2007 (CET)

[edit] Fazari

Hi. In Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī article, if someone add Encarta or Britannica as a source to refer to Khwarizmi as an Arab would you keep it? of course not. Accepting the sources in this version you reverted in this article is just the same as accepting Encarta and Britannica in Khwarizmi Article. I told Mardavich that many of the sources he added to al-Fazari article is false and I proved that. One of the sources in the version you reverted is still false. Mardavich already deleted a source I added (Irshad al-Arib fi Ma'rifat al-Adib). It seems that you just reverted the article without even looking at the talk page or the page history. Whatever the reason is, you made a mistake and you have to correct it.--Lanov 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Maybe you may care to take a look at what this guy has been doing to this page. Some time ago, he put an accuracy tag for the Hamsheni descent of Murat Karayalçın and I brought a reference from Hürriyet that his family is from Şenyuva (Çinçiva) village in Çamlıhemşin. He tells that the article does not refer to his "ethnic origins" (as if there is any other ethnic group residing in this village) and deletes the mention of Karayalçın. His aim is to gradually eradicate the article. I shall also add that I have never witnessed a contribution of this feller on any of the articles content of which he deliberately objects. Ciao! Behemoth 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I am not sure they will work. [92]. However, I am not particularly surprised for his approach. He bears the surname Tarim and maybe he is originally from East Turkistan. East Turkistani community in Turkey is known to have issued many staunchly nationalist figures, Kâzım Mirşan (pseudo-historian who claims that Turks invented writing 20,000 years ago), Veli Can Oduncu (a famous Grey Wolf hitman) to name a few. They are quite aware that they don't belong to Anatolia so they are hostile to the presence of every non-Turkic element in its cultural heritage. Ciao!Behemoth 09:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 16 16 April 2007 About the Signpost
Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag" News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think about this

Aren't comment such as [93], [94] examples of personal attack? Also look as his comment about my request for a page move [95]. Jahangard 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Van Resistance

Asked, still no RE: Hetoum 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, just responded, said he didnt put it in, and no one is taking credit for this and citing, so I think we can remove it. Just thought he would have done something since he put a lot of work on that article. Seems he is biased as what he edits. Hetoum 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Khoikhoi. I have a question and I am curious about this. When a adminstratior blocks a user where is the block button located at? Does it look something like this? Or maybe it is in there block log or there user page? How does it look like? Do you think you can copy and paste an example? I would like to know. Thank you. King Lopez Contribs 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it. It looks something like this MediaWiki:Blockedtext Can you show me a screenshot from another blocked user? You won't get in troble beacuse you are a administrator. Who can block administrator? They can always unblock themselfs. Am I right my friend? King Lopez Contribs 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day. King Lopez Contribs 08:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baskale

If you read the Bryce version of the events [96] it says "The news that comes to us from across the Turkish border is far from pleasant." and does not say who wrote it. It also says, "What is going on inside Turkey, God only knows" in the same paragraph.

The AP news report is from an American reporter [97], and says it is from within or a few yards from Baskale and from within the Armenian-Russian Army camp.

The latter source is much more reliable than the Bryce source as it is in first person and from a known agency. This source also says there were massacres OR that the people were carried away, so it is NOT an endorsment of Turkish version of history in case you think I am "poisoning the well".

You must include this source where it says armed Armenian soldiers burned and looted the town and killed the Muslims. The AP reporter was a witness to this and it is a fact.

You must provide both sides of history. As it is now, the article is one-sided. --Oguz1 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Province

You claim original research [98] on Van Province.

However, as per WP:NOR, the criteria was met to satisfy this policy by meeting "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."

1. There were 2 sources provided as required. Both sources validate each other.

2. The content provided was not an "interpretation", but merely a summarization. Quoting a source directly, does not mean POV or an interpretation.

And NOR also states:

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged....This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --Oguz1 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordu Sources are invalid

The new "other sources" that are mentioned here [99] are not new or "other sources", they are the same thing. The last three are not even a valid sources (a blog, an interview, and the last taken out of context) . Please read them carefully or see below.

  • Source 4 is a book compilation which contains - verbatim - a passage from a Dardian book. It is indeed just a compilation of books, each chapter being from a different author. (I discussed this extensively already)
  • Source 6 is a magazine interview with Dardian, who says the same thing which was already quoted in Source 4, verbatim.
  • Source 7, is a blog (armenianaffaris.blogspot.com) that also includes the same passage from Dadrian, verbatim, which was already used as a source. This is not a valid source.
  • Source 5 [100], is about Giresun, not Ordu, this is completely out of context. The author only mentions Ordu as a geographical reference to Giresun, and I quote, "... and Gherasun was clean of them (Armenians)" (page 280): Here's the quote: "We went to Trrebizond...and before Trebizond sits, Treblus; and before Treblus, Gherasun; and before Gherasun, Ordu;..." (page 280, same paragraph but not the same sentence)

I trust you will correct these errors. If you are in doubt of my research, you can read them yourself and compare. --Oguz1 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone we know?

Hi, man. I have a quick question: is this guy anyone we know? Dahn 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just love the rowiki nick ;). Dahn 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered: did I create it without remembering it? But then I saw it was edited by "me" in March, and I haven't contributed anything over there since last year. So, no, it's not (and I'm willing to bet I know who it is, but whatever). I meant to ask you something, come to think of it: we should have a cat for UDMR politicians, but I frankly don't know if articles in it should continue to be each included in the "Hungarian-Romanians" cat, or if the "UDMR members" cat, as an umbrella, should replace "Hungarian-Romanians" for those people concerned (as a subcat). Your thoughts? Dahn 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the Gheorghe Frunda redirect. From what I have researched, the Romanianized variant seems to be used only in inflammatory discourse and libel, by the likes of Funar and Vadim (I had little patience to look into each case, but it seems that they theorize Frunda was origainally known under "that name"). Still, it was a good idea, since it prevents the occasional troll from moving the page to there. Dahn 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Good job. Dahn 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked again at "my" page on rowiki, and noticed something disturbing in the welcome message. Do you think it is normal that admins there ask contributors what they would like to contribute? Dahn 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It says: "În ce domenii aţi dori să contribuiţi? Poate să fie specialitatea dumneavoastră sau un domeniu pentru care aveţi o pasiune aparte." Which translates as "What areas would you like to contribute in? It can be your specialty or an area for which you have a particular passion". I think it is maladroit more than anything, but it can easily be read as a restriction (plus, it may seem like contributors are conned into assuming that there is some sort of hierarchy, from them to the admins). Dahn 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why did you revert this [101]? --Oguz1 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on user

Hello. I have a question on the conduct of a particular user, Torb37. I believe he's editing in good faith. However, his contributions are clearly problematic and don't really conform with the manual of style. Furthermore, I and several others keep spelling out our issues on his talk page (most recently here), but not once has he has replied to a message. Should we do anything, or just leave him alone? Biruitorul 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's no evidence he's Bulgarian - he's created similar articles on Slovakia, Romania and Finland. So would ANI or RfC be the logical next step? Biruitorul 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurabia

Please make sure categories are not removed from the article. User:Beit Or did this out of what I believe was POV. I think it is very wrong to deny anti-Islam, anti-Arab sentiment like this and also to deny the conspiracy theory aspect. Because that's what it is. This kind of stuff is like the Protocol of the Elders of Zion of Islam. Have you heard of Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment? Funny how people forget history so easily. Khorshid 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Khoi, could you please delete these redirects: Armenians in France and Armenians in the United Kingdom? -- Aivazovsky 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I think that those titles should be reserved for future articles on the history of the Armenians in those countries. They should not be redirects to lists of nationals from those countries who are of Armenian descent. -- Aivazovsky 20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Sinhalese

Hey what up. Well I put in my two cents there. this whole thing with viewing these language groups as races is really annoying as that's what is unacademic. clearly, geographic neighbors are related in various ways and that's all those studies are meant to convey. anyway, I hope my input is helpful. So i see you are super busy as usual mr. admin. ;) Tombseye 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally wasn't a big fan of that whole section on putative ancestry being as long as it is, BUT any additions should include citations so I'd say it should go for now. As for the other additions, I believe we should follow a policy of adding things that are cited and not someone's opinion, but I have seen articles and such that back the view that various cities in Pakistan have large migrant Pashtun populations. Sheesh, this stuff is never ending. So how are the articles doing? Looks like your backlog is endless. Oh and feel free to put in your two cents at Sinhalese. Ciao for now. Tombseye 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sovereign states

You reverted me on this article stating "it makes no sense to remove Abkhazia but keep Nagorno-Karabakh". I saw you didn't participate in talk page discussion. Why you didn't remove Nagorno-Karabakh as well, but added other 3 entities on the list? Anyhow, in Nagorno-Karabakh there were no Russian (former Soviet) troups who created the "sovereign state", the desire of local population seems genuine.--MariusM 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a sovereign country is a country which is governed from inside (by its own people or its own dictatorship). In Transnistria, for example, and as I saw in Talk:List of sovereign states also in South Ossetia, the majority of the leaders are not natives from the area. Those countries are heavily dependent of Russian support, from their creation until now. I agree with you that removing all unrecognized countries can be a solution, we anyhow have a List of unrecognized countries and we can include such a list in a "See also" section.--MariusM 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. It seems I have a wikistalker now. Quartet 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalker? Don't be so hypocritical, you basically revert ALL of my edits, and Khoikhoi, you will be reported for admin abuse. 70.253.160.220 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll ensure I use the proper term for the future. Also could you semi protect my talk page? All the editors I have a thread going with are established. This may deter another unprovoked attack. Use your best judgement as to how long. Cheers. Quartet 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice with how to handle a difficult editor?

I know you are busy - I understand you may not have time.

I am having problems with two editors at Allegations of Israeli apartheid - and it's not what you think.

  1. I swear user:Urthogie means well (even though I disagree with much of what he does), but makes lots and lots of little edits very fast - fifteen edits in half an hour is not unusual - making it very difficult to come back to this (busy) article and move through diffs. Also, because he sometimes moves text in two steps (cut, and then paste) it can be very difficult to see what is being done. Several editors have asked him to prepare his edits in a sandbox or something similar, and he agrees! but goes right back to the mini-edits.

Also, Urthogie sees comments on the talk page, and implements them, even when they are ideas thrown out in the middle of a discussion (IOW, while we are looking for something that resembles consensus). Any hints?

  1. User:Doright is another story. Around since November 2005, about 1000 edits, history of aggressive editing on Zionism- Jewish- and Israel-related topics, with many accusations of personal attacks (but no blocks). Arrived just today on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid page, adding charges of "blood libel" to the lead (no worry here, we'll take care of the content). But he's throwing around accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, disruption. He says I accused him of vandalism (not even close to true). I asked for a retraction on his talk page (I know, I know, probably not the greatest way to ramp down the invective, but at least I moved it off the article talk page) here, and his hostile non-response is here.

What do I do? I certainly don't want someone waltzing around accusing me of personal attacks.

Again, if you don't have time, I absolutely understand. Jd2718 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hemşinliler, tarihte farklı toplumsal kökenden gelmiş olsa bile toplumlar birbirini karşılıklı etkilemektedir. Türk toplumu ile Hemşinliler arasında etnik ya da dinsel bir sorun yoktur. Hemşinli olup ülkemizde devlet yönetimine gelmiş eski başbakanlarımızdan Mesut Yılmaz ve eski Dışişleri bakanlarımızdan SHP Genel Başkanı Murat Karayalçın buna en iyi örnektir. Bir çoğunuz Mesut Yılmaz veMurat Karayalçın’ın Hemşinli olduklarını belki bu sayfaları okuyunca öğrenmiş oldunuz.

Although Hamshenis are from different social origin in history, societies mutually affect each other. There is no ethnic or religious problem between the Turkish society and Hamshenis. The best examples to this are Mesut Yılmaz, a former prime minister, and Murat Karayalçın, a former foreign minister and the chairman of SHP, who are Hamshenis and held posts in state administration. Perhaps, many of you had learned that Mesut Yılmaz and Murat Karayalçın are Hamshenis, when you read these pages.

This is from the website of Karacaahmet Sultan, a historical Bektashi establishment in Istanbul. The text is written by Cemal Şener, an Alevi author who published an unauthorised translation of Peter Alford Andrews' Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey back in 1992. Ciao! Behemoth 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1 - Samast's family is from Düzköy but he was born and bred in Trabzon city, more specifically, in suburban Pelitli. I edited the article on him. The source in the article indicates that he is "registered" in Düzköy. The location of an ID registry in Turkey is usually the place of origin of your father's family. Meanwhile I saw that Düzköy in Trabzon is confused with another settlement also named Düzköy. Düzköy in Trabzon is originally named Haçka and it is a district. Düzköy with the Laz name Çxala is a Laz village in Borçka district of Artvin. I made the necessary edits too.
2 - The article sure looks better now. A nice edit indeed. However, I still don't know exactly who is a Terekeme and who is a Karapapak. I know there exists differences in one's preference of using the names Terekeme and Karapapak but I don't have the answer.
3 - Yes, both interesting and not. Ciao! Behemoth 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is no problem that "South Kipchakya" is not a term used in English, "Güney Kıpçakya" doesn't exist in Turkish either. The article is a translation of [102] but it is not the only one, Turkish Wikipedia also has [103] and [104]. Take a look at the references and you won't be surprised. I think you already know about Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu. There is also Yunus Zeyrek from Posof, a scholar of Turkish language at Gazi University (a nationalist stronghold) who claims that Muslim Georgians are Turkish "Acars". Just guess on what he recently wrote! [105]

Also see this "contribution" [106]. The guy claims that Acarlar, Macarlar, and Kacarlar are all offshoots of Saka Türkleri. He says that they embraced Islam in 5th century (sic!) but Macarlar then converted to Christianity. I think we need the article Turkish pseudohistory.

OK, I'll get an e-mail account for persona Behemoth. Ciao! Behemoth 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naghadeh

No problem.

The historical name of the city is Sulduz (سولدوز; also spelled Solduz or Suldoz). It was renamed to Naghadeh sometime in the 20th century. The new toponym becomes Nəğədə when transliterated into Azeri. Parishan 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All the Iranian Azeri websites seem to spell it the same way it's spelled in Persian - نقده. Parishan 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Coka Nostra

I don't really understand what's going on at this article. First you edit-warred with an anon editor who was quite rightly removing a link to a fan-site; now you're reverting his corrections to spelling, grammar, etc., with no explanation. Why did you revert here? Everything that he did was correct; your revert went back to spelling and punctuation errors and mislinking, and removed a perfectly legitimate image caption. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bölöni

Yes, it should be moved. – Alensha talk 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Markos Vafiadis

I had read it on books. On-line you can see it here.--Kostisl 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and am confused. Is Erzurum "του Πόντου" ? Or was there a third city with the same name? Jd2718 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 17 23 April 2007 About the Signpost
Administrator goes rogue, is blocked Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed TfD on Infobox ethnic groups

[edit] Kurdistan_Workers_Party

Khoi, can you comment on Talk:Kurdistan_Workers_Party#protection? So far everybody commented on talk are against your version Alex Bakharev 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebron

I've left a detailed message citing the diffs behind what I have been saying on Talk. While it looks a bit long, our inability to agree on the content of edits is a gulf whose bridging is imperative if there will be any progress on the entry, and a detailed response on your part would go a long way to resolving this conflict. Thank you, TewfikTalk 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I await your reply on Talk. TewfikTalk 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Jayjg is offering to mediate. You may want to reply to his comments. TewfikTalk 03:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANB

Hi Khoikhoi. I want to thank you for being friendly with me throughout the 9 months of WGS (that's it). I appreciate Admins who think about a case clearly and thoughtfully. Various strange edits were made, which I won't explain and I don't think they need to be, since it pertains to something else. I guess what I'm going to do in this Wiki is occasionally edit anonymously and try to help out occasionally. I don't think Wikipedia is a completely frivolous use of time. Thanks dude, the discussion at WP:ANB has been resolved. 69.224.231.23 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please say me, why ?

Hi Khoikhoi

I've no idea why you believe it must have an Arabic variation apart with it's Persian name; Are you anti-Iranian? I hope not but if you really are not another Frank Miller or something like that, let me know why you repeat it several times? (Ahvaz) Let's add a Chinese variation, hmm? what do you think ? Ahvaz is a Elamite word, not Arabic , ok ?

Sasanjan 08:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry

You have mass reverted my recategorization of a number of articles. I was wondering if you had a rationale for this action. I was merely recategorizing articles from a "Kurdistan" (which has unverifiable borders) to "Iraqi Kurdistan" (which has verifiable borders). In the absence of a reliable source, those entries can only be categorized as being inside of "Iraqi Kurdistan". -- Cat chi? 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is this: you cannot just try to empty a category unilaterally. You have to go to CfD or some other place. I've reverted your mass-deletion of the category for now. If you would like some help, here's a map of Kurdistan from National Geographic. Khoikhoi 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I can "mass decategorise" at the speed of categorization at my whim if the categorization is not done properly in a verifiable manner. Can you provide a verifiable and reliable source that those cities belong to Kurdistan? That website is a fansite and fails to meet WP:RS. Which issue of National Geographic is it from? Since I have been waiting for this reliable source for the past 2-3 months... I will depopulate those categories as per WP:V in 4 days unless I see a verifiable reliable source. After that please do not revert until you find a verifiable and reliable source. -- Cat chi? 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. It's August 1992, Vol. 182, No. 2. Struggle of the Kurds (Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in northern Iraq have focused world attention on an ancient people seeking autonomy in their long-divided homeland.) [107] Khoikhoi 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The word "Kurdistan" is not even mentioned once. That article clearly does not discuss boundaries of Kurdistan. I ponder how you came up with that link? -- Cat chi? 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is:

292H0032.JPG
292H0033.JPG
292H0034.JPG
292H0035.JPG
292H0036.JPG
292H0037.JPG
292H0038.JPG
292H0039.JPG

Khoikhoi 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did that map come from? What is it based on? Did Ed Kashi drew it himself? If so is he a reliable source in determining the borders? -- Cat chi? 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It comes from the National Geographic article, so I'm sure that someone associated with NG drew it. You don't seem to understand what the issue is. It doesn't matter what the borders are of Kurdistan are because it doesn't have exact borders. However, cities such as Muş, Van, and Dahuk are included in the shaded area, so we can add the category to their relevant articles. National Geographic seems to meet WP:RS. If it doesn't, please explain why. Khoikhoi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not certain. I'll acquire that issue of National Geographic and read the rest of the material to comment on the issue any further. As far as I care the issue is on hold. Meanwhile please delete those copyvios. -- Cat chi? 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] issues with the Romany people

Hey dude. It seems that there is a problem with this article. See here. Can you help out in some capacity? The article is taking an approach of vying away from reality frankly. Ciao. Tombseye 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

I don't understand why Erdem Şenol is blocked because of me. He is another user in Wikipedia if you don't believe me you can ask tr:User:Dbl2010 (he is also a steward) or any other users in Turkish Wikipedia. Ruzgar 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ruzgar wanted from me to verify to you that User:Erdemsenol and User:Ruzgar are not same person. I am bureaucrat of trwiki and I confirm that, they are not same person. I dont know the block reasons in the first place however I definitely know that they are different person. It seems one of them passed his login id to another to upload a picture. --Dbl2010 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Hetoum

Hey, this is user Hetoum, and my log in does not work anymore. Says I keep typing in the wrong pass. Can this be fixed? 149.68.164.1 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should try asking your question at WP:HD or WP:VP. Khoikhoi 01:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Denizz is repeatedly removing the Greek names of the settlements on Pontic Greeks page. [108] [109]. How should I interprete this? If there will be an agreement, the current Turkish names should be in parantheses. Some of them are simply made up by Turkish authorities, like Yazlık, Olucak, Dumanlı. The locals still use the original Greek names. Ciao! Behemoth 10:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Behemoth, please reply to the comments on the talk page first. Also, Khoikhoi, please remember your comment on Baris' talk page, about some anon. I feel like Baris should feel at that moment, unfortunately this time it is not an anon. Please stop doing disruptive edits, you should be an experienced user, an administrator, please behave like one. Particularly, please do not remove sourced material, misuse the sources, skip reading latter parts when you make edits. DenizTC 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tajik-Professor

The new registered user User:Tajik-Professor is really messing up the Afghanistan article, especially the Etymology section, as well as other articles such as Samanid dynasty. He is not discussing his edits first, and plus he deleted my comments in Talk page when User:MarsRover started discussing his edits, here.

I reverted his edits twice because they were redundant (already mentioned in other paragraphs), un-sourced, written in an inappropriate place (breaking the reference from the referred sentence), and written in a very poor language and not compatible with encyclopedic tone (e.g. using "God Knows", "Don't call them...", etc.) But he wrote insulting comments and made personal attacks in my Talk page; although User:Riana already warned him and made him aware of wikipedia Guidelines. Please check my talk page. I just tried to copy-edit his newly added texts in Afghanistan and Samanid dynasty articles, but he again reverted them all. For the Samanids he changed the date of their ruling period, and deleting the Britannica source, here are his comments in the talk page. He also made insulting comments in Talk:Pashtun people article as well.

So I hope you can take appropriate measures. User:Tajik is on a break now, and it is only who is watching the Afghanistan related articles. I cannot revert them anymore because of 3RR violation. Ariana310 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MarsRover rebrought my comments in Talk:Afghanistan page, but he again deleted them, here. So he is not discussing them anymore. Ariana310 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat's - Decategory - related kurdish articles

Hi Khoikhoi, whould you please check cat's constributions. Thanks. --Bohater 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

Ok, its not finished yet, but please take a look at what I've compiled so far for the Azerbaijani people article: [110]. Your input is important.Azerbaijani 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zile

Hi,

I guess I am done with the merging operation of Zile and Zela. I would like you to have a look at them and drop me a message about your opinions. If you say ok, I will redirect Zela to Zile.

See you,--Ugur Olgun 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)