User talk:Khoikhoi/Archive 28

Arcayne

Judging from my experiences and others on the 300 film talkpage, arcayne is constantly deleting everything he doesnt like regardless of wiki rules (even on the talk page). Please put an end to this. Thanks in advance.

Rusyns2

I absolutely agree with you, but not in this case. Conqueror100

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz !

Rusyns

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and your effort to do with official numbers. I cited the sources ( as you recommneded ) and despite that you changed it. Maybe you have too much work to verify information, but the official number of Rusyns is 60,000. Thanks. Conqueror100

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.75.34.248 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

List of massacres

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by Looper5920 and 219.88.86.165 - 3RR violation Tvoz | talk 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sprot was probably a good idea for now - I was getting a headache trying to figure out who was right. I think the IP was more out of control and Looper was trying to keep it straight, but it was not going well, to say the least. Maybe with a cooling-off time they'll be able to discuss it. By the way - your photo above of Toledo is fabulous. Tvoz | talk 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adana

Hi, could you please clarify what is wrong with the paragraph? What is wrong with the liberation date?

"Turkish nationalists fought against Allied forces and on October 20, 1921 Treaty of Ankara was signed between France and Turkish Grand National Assembly, based on the terms of the agreement, France signified the end of the Cilicia War, afterwards French invasion troops together with the Armenian volunteers [1] [2] withdrew form city until January 5,1922 [3] which is the liberation date of Adana thereafter. Which part is biased? If you think that way, all of the comments are biased for some... SEY01 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please find below a paragraph taken from one of the references I've given, you might have missed to read...

"Note : there are numerous websites and written sources available on the topic of the Armenian Genocide. Unfortunately, the majority of the sites side with either one of the parties in the conflict, and they often are written in inflammatory language; also, the majority of the sources looks at the matter from an Armenian point of view. While the Turkish forces have committed atrocities, and it is a fact that the Armenian population of Cilicia has been killed/expelled/relocated, preceding actions undertaken by Cilician Armenians against ethnic Turks in French-occupied Cilicia remain largely uncovered. Readers are advised to study information on the topic with caution." SEY01 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Andersen crisis

Khoi, check out my talk page and User:Atabek's talk page for our discussion on Andersen's credibility. Atabek is pushing to remove Andersen's NPOV map with the controversial Azerbaijani Paris Peace Conference map. He calls Andersen's map "fake map scribbles directed against Azerbaijan."

If Atabek succeeds, then he's putting a number of Wikipedia articles that use Andersen at risk. Your mediation is needed. -- Aivazovsky 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I replied to your e-mail. -- Aivazovsky 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that despite tons of counter evidence presented at Talk:Qazakh, User:Aivazovsky still insists on using "Andrew Andersen PhD" references. If "Andersen" is a non-credible "scholar", without any publication, accused and fired for racism, I don't see why his invented maps should be used on any Wiki page, unless substantiated by proven scholarly sources. My proposal is, instead of Andersen's invention, to use Azerbaijani MFA's map presented to Paris Peace Conference in 1919 on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, and similarly use Armenian MFA's map presented to Paris Peace Conference in 1919 on Democratic Republic of Armenia. And let the reader sort it out, since neither country was de-jure recognized by foreign powers. It's still the best compromise because both maps are documented and express the claims of each side on respective page, while Andersen's map is simply not credible and unacceptable for scholarship.Atabek 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop siding with User:Dahn or else

Dear Khoi, you have taken the annoying habit of reverting my work, instigated by Dahn. I write on Romanian-related articles. You do not even know what this is about. What you are doing is not ethical and you stand to lose from it. Dahn is really dishonest. He basically pushes the message that some Soviet agents were Romanian: people who were not of Romanian ethnicity; did not speak Romanian as native language (if they spoke it at all); were not born in Romania; were officers in the NKVD, an organisation opposed to the Romanian state; and finally who were sent into Soviet-occupied Romania as occupation agents, responsible for the death of 400,000 people. Now you know the issue. If you think you can make some educated change, please feel free. But reverting as a rule to last by Dahn is not fine. I am afraid you may be banned if you persist with this practice. (Icar 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

What is your justification?

Why on Earth have you created these pages - Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ivan Kricancic, User:124.177.92.88, User:124.185.36.177, User:58.165.126.167?. You created them with absolutely no proof or evidence of any kind, and you know as well as I do that these users are not me. And I know you can see the constant attacks and harassment against me made by Emir Arven, and yet you do nothing about; instead you actually help him to harass me. I am asking you to delete those pages because you created them without any evidence/proof/ without any investigation of any kind, and without checkuser evidence. Until you can prove that those were me (which you won't be able to, since they are not me) then those pages must be deleted. Thank you. —KingIvan 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you are online at the moment. Could you please answer my question. Thanks. —KingIvan 03:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So you went ahead and created those pages based purely on the speculation of one user who has proven to be disruptive, and quite bigoted and has a block log that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, if you actually do the WHOIS, you will notice that those IPs are not coming from where I am from. I am asking again, please delete those pages, as they are false. —KingIvan 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can do that? I was under the impression that you couldn't request a checkuser on yourself to prove that you are not someone else. On another related topic, why has Emir Arven not been warned to stop making personal attacks against me, and why haven't his personal attacks been removed? I had a personal attack against him on my page, but it was promptly removed, but almost his whole talk page is basically an attack page against me. I realize that you have been an administrator for a while, and I've noticed that you are generally a good administrator - especially on such controversial articles relating to Iran etc, but I honestly believe that the situation between Emir and myself should be handled better. I have tried numerous times to resolve our "dispute" - I even gave him a full on apology, but no, he just will not listen to reason. Could you at least have a chat with him and try to explain to him WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I mean, come on, after his latest block, he and I did not interact or anything and I thought the situation had blown over, but then out of nowhere, BAM, he just started provoking me and making false accusations all over again. This situation is making it extremely difficult to edit constructively (and that's coming from someone who doesn't even edit much) and I just want it to end. —KingIvan 04:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This was posted on about 2 or 3 pages, and since it is not in English, it went unnoticed, but translated it means - Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of this, but "Ustasa" is one of the most insulting slurs that can be thrown at a person of Croat ancestry. But thsi has not been removed from pages it is on, and he still has not apologized or shown any remorse over it.

• With this one, the edit summary is a bit racist (albeit not towards me), and same here where he accuses "Indian" admins of conspiring against him.
• Basically, I would consider his almost his whole talk page, and his talk page archive 4 as generally uncivil toward me, because they have numerous slurs, but most prominently he has the same aggressive false accusatiosn against me there - I suppose one could justify them being there if he showed proof or evidence of some sort, but he hasn't.
• This and This are quite provocative as he is accusing this anon of being me - I suppose I can't really prove that this wasn't me, but I know that it isn't me.
• These four ([4], [5], [6], [7]) are not directed towards me, however with the first one, he changed a hotly disputed article into a version where all references to the man being Serb are removed, and he says "it's okay". The second diff he claims something is false, removes it, but does not provide a reason for it. The third diff he removes a sourced section from the article and inserts his unsourced POV sentence; his reason - a Serb wrote it. The fourth diff is him destroying a compromised version, and his edit summary suggests he is unwilling to compromise. These four, while not directed at me, are well outside the range of civility, and they certainly are disruptive, bordering on vandalism.
• Here he completely ignores the issues I raised concerning him, and instead just repeats the same old crap he's been ranting on about for ages.
• Same here. He just ignores what I have said, ignores the fact that even after all this I am still willing to forgive him, and just jumps straight back in being rude to me.

This is just some of the personal attacks and incivility from Emir Arven, and I do believe his behaviour must change, otherwise I can think of no other option except for him to leave the English Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to listen. (P.S, sorry I took a while to respond; I went out to practice driving for a while - my license test s in 2 weeks!) —KingIvan 06:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, those attacks must be removed and he must stop making them. I would even agree on a one week block for both of us if you wish. —KingIvan 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta

Hello, I saw you protected the Sparta page. Is the time at which the page was protected random, or does it constitute an endorsement by you of the protected version? NN 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I will look at your past edits and protections if you don't mind. NN 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I could find no pattern in your protections, so I have faith your protection was random. It is however an unfortunate point where the page got protected has the introduction linking Sparta to a superpower which is described as a state with the "ability to project power on a worldwide scale". This is blatantly wrong when applied to Sparta and absolutely misleading to the readers. Possibly a RfC or Mediation could help, any suggestions? NN 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the protections Khoikhoi. Miskin 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I randomly endorse random endorsements. Thanks, and see the bottom of that talk. NikoSilver 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have reason to believe that these users are sockpuppets of Usergreatpower (talk · contribs): Cloudcheck (talk · contribs), Givenoften (talk · contribs), Scenebadly (talk · contribs). They have had a hand in introducing some POV pushing to Iran about its nuclear program (except Scenebadly, who vandalized a userpage in a related way). My question is: which code does this fall under? The Behnam 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

KnoiKnoi?

LOL. This NisarKand guy is totally insane. After you reverted his edits he then made an account called KnoiKnoi after you. He then put a delete tag on that map that I made. This guy is just ridiculous. I think he's back to his mischief so I'm watching out for him. Behnam 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy or something like that ?!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.75.34.95 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

I asked it to an expert by e-mail

By e-mail, I asked what should be the name of the article to an expert, namely Rusen Cakir who is a writer and journalist working on Kurdish problem. I told him that there was a Wkipedia article using "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" in the name. By the way, he is an objective writer. He suggested using the title of his own book.
"I think that "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is not a good idea because it refers to some kind of civil war that does not exist yet.
I would prefer 'Kurdish question (or problem, or maybe conflict) in Turkey' or Turkey's Kurdish question'. Indeed the last one is the title of my last book.".
In English, "Causalities of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey", or "Causalities of the conflict [linked to] Kurdish question in Turkey" is my suggestions. (In English, "linked to" is not good, but I sometimes make mistakes.)
My other suggestion is to create a new article with the name "Kurdish problem in Turkey" more general article which discusses some political issues as well, and a subsection of it can be "Causaltities of the Conflict" which should be copied from the current article.Paparokan 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

link of the book

http://www.metiskitap.com/Scripts/Catalog/Book.asp?ID=1851
Paparokan 11:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I created a new user account and use my "paparokan" account only for discussions of my old contributions. Before creating the new account, I did not know "Change Name" option, so I created it.Paparokan 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my block

For your information, I'm still not scared by that block. But, in my opinion, YOU should be now. Mr.Bakharev ceased his attempts to threaten me with blocks so he is still an admin; this might not be your case. I wasn't limited by your block either: I didn't even know about it. In case if you were trying to limit my neutralizing anti-trollish activities, you and your friends should have been monitoring my actions more thoroughly :) Unfortunately, I'm not paid for my WP activities (although some people suspect that some Russian users ARE paid [8]). So I just can't visit WP everyday, sorry :)))) Happy edits (like your ... friend Irpen says), Ukrained 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Andersen

Er, what do you mean? Include the Paris Peace Conference map? -- Aivazovsky 13:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome/Need Help

Hi. I have entered a number of entries on organizations I'm familiar with in Romania. Since the individual entry Forin Lupu referred to an individual who is no longer alive, but played a significant role in facilitating economic development in Romania's coal mining region, I deemed the entry consistent with Wikipedia standards. The organizational entry Foundation for Development through Economic Education and Partnership also no longer exists, but was instrumental in launching numerous international partnerships for economic and cultural development in Romania's Jiu Valley coal mining region (including partnerships with coal mining communities in West Virginia), and was instrumental in getting international donor attention to the needs of the region. However, both of these articles were marked for deletion by Mentatus. As a result, I withdrew the articles were removed as I am unclear regarding the policy criteria.

I have read the policies and criteria for submission, and would like some clarification. Looking at the list Wikipedia articles on individual non-profits, it appears that many seem to fail to meet the same criteria to which was used to mark my entries for deletion. How do my entries appear less notable than the blatantly self-promotional Clarkstown Summer Theatre Festival, or entries like Use.ro? Are Romanian entries less credible than American? Kyrja 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

racisim by country

A user blindly insisting to add Iran to the list with a source that is not affilated to any race. the source says, in short period after the revolution some of the elite of religious minorities like bahaiis and jews were prosecuted. this is not at all related to any racism. How can I stop this edit war? --Pejman47 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Editor

Please take a look at this: [9] NN 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As William M. Connolley has already helped me with this, please feel free not to answer. You seem like a pretty busy person. NN 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that adding a {{disputed}} tag will be appropriate. Thanks, NN 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the disputed tag to Sparta. Also as per William M. Connolley's suggestion I have reported the incident to WP:AN/I [10]. NN 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Ustašoidi u akciji"

Ustash-oids [sympathizers of Ustašas or Ustaša-like Croats] in action

I would like to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his userpage in his insane fanaticism he goes from picture to picture regarding Bosnia and nominates it for deletion. He often does it unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know that it is difficult [to deal] with dumb-asses, but the degenerate is sick and he deleted that way all our pics e.g. in the article about the genocide in srebrenica, and now he puts tags on pictures placed by you, Markal. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A precise & exact translation - from word to word. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not like one bit this that came up between Emir & IVan; it seems that it's getting very heated, but I'd dare say this is quite in according to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --PaxEquilibrium 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had previous troubles with Emir, and reported him because of numerous acts of incivility (about some even racist opinions on Serbs), and whenever he was blocked, I demanded that I be blocked in the same time (solidarity, so that he sees that I'm not using his actions against him - we were in several disputes across numerous articles). It didn't really help as it only infuriated further Emir, but I think it was useful in the long term.

So I suggest - block both Emir and Ivan for several days (oversee the insults and mischiefs and base the block-time how much, who receives on that). --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was already blocked for two weeks, so it is past. That was my private message, that I wrote to other user, not to Ivan, a month ago, and not in English, but in Bosnian slang. The problem is, that Ivan who directly provoked me using words like: dickhead, stupid, fuck off, was not blocked for two weeks. I also, don't agree with your comments about myself, because they are not correct. As you know, HolyRomanEmperor, you gave me bad sources and said to me that the sources you gave to me supported your thesis which was false. When I read it, I found nothing, and I told you that. I know this is a good chance for you to get rid of me, because as you know, I will re-open your articles because I found so many false information. And you also, as a HolyRomanEmperor, have very bad past, so it is not nice to propose and suggest such thing, because since my block was over, I didn't break any of the rules. I was very careful. Emir Arven 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I'm trying to make a neutral stance - for that and other reasons I recommend(ed) that both you and Ivan be blocked for 72 hours. Please stop calling me (and linking to) User:HolyRomanEmperor. I was not born in Montenegro, neither do I live in USA, nor am I a Muslim. As I recall (this has been pointed out by tens of Wikipedians by now), you do not like sources (I'm talking in general) because of the ethnicity of their composers (i.e. Serb). If you still think that I was wrong (about that one), see this (..Raised in the Orthodox faith, Kotromanić was converted to Catholicism by Franciscan fathers..). Additionally, that is NOT my block-log - the only "bad" block was the first one (24h)> I demanded the second time to be blocked because you were blocked for incivility, personal attacks and other abusive activity (out of solidarity, so that you don't think that I would be in advantage) - so I think that it speaks more in favor of me. ;) The rest is not mine (also see my real blocklog). Also if I were you, I wouldn't brag around Blocklogs; as if someone would take a look at yours, I think the first reaction would be screaming. :D --PaxEquilibrium 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what happened when you allegedly died then became alive and etc.?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emir Arven (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

His account was hijacked by an Albanian troll, although I never figured out how.--Domitius 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither did I; although I am almost definitely sure it was User:Ferick. --PaxEquilibrium 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said (I was in too much of a hurry). I can't remember the article, but it was the placing of a {{fact}} template I think — I thought that that was rather more than minor. Not hugely serious, but I thought that I'd leave a friendly reminder. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re

Hi Khoikhoi, that was my private message in Bosnian language that I addressed to Ancient Land a month ago, trying to warn Ancient Land that Ivan keeps nominating Bosniak-related pictures for deletion. I even translated Ivan what I said, when he asked me (that is in my archive). But that was not addressed to him, but to Ancient Land. I used some bad words that are typical for Bosnian slang, provoked by his actions, and I was also blocked because of that for 2 weeks, although he should be blocked because of his actions. I could also send this message by an email, but I thought if I write it in Bosnian language, then it will be considered as a private message. Not to mention his insults pointed directly to me like: stupid, fuck off, dickhead etc. Emir Arven 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the translation of a non-English source regarding the term Bosniak, please check your e-mail. --Mardavich 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blackmailing a la Wiki style

Look at this. This is what I would call Wiki Blackmail. Previously Baristarim was threatened by user Miskin of making changes on the Ottoman Empire article if he didn't back down. I would call this a cultural problem but that wouldn't be very politicaly correct, right? Laters.--Doktor Gonzo 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I realized that. It can be renamed to Armed Armenian groups or something.--Doktor Gonzo 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I wouldn't mind if you did that for me ;)--Doktor Gonzo 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

first genocide

I was writing this on that talk page, but it turned out to be quite 'comment'ish, but I wanted to kinda answer your answer:) You might very well be just doing your administrative duties, sorry if that's the case:

Weird, as there is no Armenian genocide article, but an Armenian massacres article on Britannica, and at least in the summary they don't mention the word 'genocide'. It's weirder that death of 6-10 millions of Congolese people doesn't count here (Congo 'genocide' was might have started earlier, but it was happening at the beginning of the century, also Congo 'genocide's wikipedia entry redirects to Congo free state, they don't even have a genocide article). Let's also forget about other, say African nations like Algeria (I'm not talking about post WW2). I don't understand why it should matter that it is the FIRST genocide of century, if it is. What is so special about 20th century, are we disregarding all before Armenian massacres or genocide?

Let's add information about Congo massacres/genocide, to make that statement less POV. It's morning here now

--deniz 11:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Just to let you know I have added images to the Tibet page which I beleive give a very good view of the country and have found images of every Dalai Lama and uploaded them into a gallery. I have also started Economy of Tibet as well as improving the Lhasa article. OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But what about education? I know it has the institute in Gartok I think and Tibet University which I stubbed ages ago. Also what about transport and media and perhaps sport? My feeling is to condense the history a little and add these sections. I don't want the KB of the page much higher really ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Ukrained

I have looked into this block and I find no grounds for it. See my comments here and here for reasoning. As for AlexPU, his accusations of trolling, unbacked by WP:DR consensus, indeed warrant a block, alas, 2 weeks seems rather long.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it was not civil. But - as much as I it annoys me - we have no rules that allow clear blocking for violation of WP:CIVIL. It's all currently left to individual admins discression, and I am seeing a lot of inconsistency here (that is obviously going to make some editors quite angry). And it was Irpen who was responsible for shutting down WP:PAIN and WP:RFI (two places were attempts to work out rules for WP:CIV violations blocking were made). I have seen - I am seeing - lots of behaviours much worse then Ukrained comments above, but attempts to bring it to attention of other editors are constantly rebuked (by Irpen and some of his friends) as 'trying to get one's opponent blocked'. So seeing Kuban Khazak (one of Irpen's friends) request a review and block of one of his opponents for incivility, quickly supported by Irpen, seems like hypocrisy at best. That said, I'd be happy to see harsh penalties applied to all who violate WP:CIV, but what I am seeing now is 'double standard': a goup of editors have learned to complain about unfairness of reports against them and their friends on WP:ANI and related places, effectivly ensuring 'no consensus' to block them, and at the same time since the other group(s) tend to ignore discussions there, they are able to push their view of 'what is right or what is not'. Basically, Editor A is incivil, Editor X complains about him - but several friends of Editor A who follow Editor X contribs are quick to argue he is not that bad and Editor X is engaged in content dispute, etc. Result: no block. But when Editor X is incivil, and Editor A complains, Editor X nor his friends are not as active and are not aware of the complain, and Editor A is blocked with no or little dissent registered. Is the block of editor X bad? No. But are there double standards in play? Unfortunatly, quite so. Further, editors who try to resolve conflict with due procedures are also penalyzed, as they invest weeks of their time to complain about incivility in mediation, RfC, ArbCom, not always getting even an apology - while others take shortcuts through WP:ANI, find a fortunate (for them) admin combination (i.e. either their 'wiki-friends' or good faithed admins who don't see the bigger picture (that both parties are just as guilty)), and get their opponent blocked. In other words, two editors commit a similar WP:CIV offence: one is blocked after a report and short discussion at ANI, other may or may not be blocked after weeks-long debates at WP:PAIN/WP:RFI/WP:DR paths... As far as I am concerned, this represents a significant failure of how Wikipedia operates: not all users are treated equally (a group that has learned to 'game the system' and has no scrupules about bypassing WP:DR has a significant advantage). Sigh. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I am increasingly depressed about this problem. Przasnysz artifacts trasnlated. PS. If you have a moment, could you review this user's contributions and tell me if he behaves more or less constructive than Ukrained?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I have some history of conflicts with AlexPU and Ukrained so my opinion might be biased by I would endorse both blocks. The positive contributions of both users are minimal and the amount of disruption is quite high. Regarding the length of AlexPU's blocks, if a user got into a stream of attacks straight after a week-long block for the same behavior (after a month-long ban there I unblock him after the promise to behave), then doubling the block seems to be reasonable remedy Alex Bakharev 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • All I can say is that Piotrus manage to surprise me again by his reaction. I commented on that at his and JzG's talk. --Irpen 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki bug

There's a MediaWiki bug going around right now... unfortunately. Have a look here and here for some explanations. (→Netscott) 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

User:Persianskickass, where i can ask for its permanent block? --Pejman47 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced statement

why do you keep vandalising the article about the bucharest pogrom?Anonimu 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sixth, even some ethnic Romanians welcome the Soviets in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Such was the case in the town of Soroca, where local notables such as Mayor Gheorghe Lupaşcu, former prefect Petre Sfeclă, National Renaissance Party (NRP) leader Alexandru Anop and school inspector Petre Hriţcu organized a rally to welcome “Soviet liberators.” " From The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, Chapter 3, page 16 Anonimu 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack.

Hi Khoikoi. I've had my name derided twice now by User:Miskin. I took time to make a suggestion on the Sparta article only to find Miskin respond aggresively "What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here?"

Then again on admin noticeboard he states "A. Garnet has never shown interest in the particular article, nor in any related article, nor has he ever proved himself knowledgeable on the topic. He appeared soon after he had a conflict with Domitius in a different article, Cypriot Civil War I think, where he received a block. And now, there you see him, pretending to be a completely neutral participant."

I don't appreciate wasting my time trying to resovle a dispute only for Miskin to go round rubbishing my intentions. It is not only me, it seems he spends more time insulting editors than writing articles. --A.Garnet 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand at it again.

This guy just doesn't know when to give up. LOL. He is now using another one of his old sock puppets. Pashtun786. I reverted all his recent edits. Behnam 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one he just made, again after your name. Khoiknoi. You must be getting sick of this. lol. Behnam 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Please use the talk page for 300. The sections you are restoring are sourced to books written from 10 to 28 years ago, and thus they cannot speak to the movie, but instead represent an author's synthesis, making it all original research. Please do NOT readd it, and self-revert your last restoration of the material. ThuranX 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make your reply at 300's talk page, not my user talk. I'd rather it where the interested editors can see the discussion. thank you. ThuranX 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei image question

Hi. Considering that Ali Khamenei is the leader of a nation, I think that there should be a picture of him. But there is not. Can this picture from the leader's home page be considered fair use if used [11]? The Behnam 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frisian

Not really a lot. What do you need to know? Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't find an awful lot. It's not mentioned on Ethnologue, and if you google for it you'll find some discussion groups mentioning it as something that is at most highly marginal today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto

...But I said what I said in relation to the dispute at hand, there wasn't any intention of offending, just making a point. Anyways, I'll avoid it next time. Do you think that those may also fall under personal attacks? [12] [13] [14] This is an old user who clearly knows about NPA. I made early warnings [15] but he ignored me and you can see for yourself how many times he insulted me. Thanks. Miskin 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Poor Mistreated Miskin

Hey, I was commenting on this editor with a third party, as that editor's personal faults are affecting article content ... so don't see how it's a "personal attack", at least in the extreme way that merits your or anyone else's intervention (esp. as there is no ongoing dispute). I'm sorry if this may come as a shock, but users affect content. I'm entitled to discuss this with a third party should I deem it necessary. That being said, Miskin has been pestering me, even though I told him to stop talking to me, and even though he has no need to pester me ... I've told him I'm not involved in the articles he's concerned with! So please tell User:Miskin to stop crying to admins in pursuit of personal grudges and please tell him also to leave me alone. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty pointless. There is no ongoing dispute, I don't see why you're taking such an interest in this. If User:Miskin weren't tracking my contributions, he wouldn't know how I described him in that instance. If he were reading my private emails, would anything I said that were unfavourable to him be regarded differently (ignoring here the obvious abuse of hacking into someone's email account)? You talk about "calling him names" ... if that's the way you're looking at it then I understand your perspective. But from my POV I am describing him in a way I regard as accurate; calling him names would be throwing empty insults at him, which I was not doing. Like I said, users affect content. Trying to snuff out discussion of users' varying atributes seems to me a bad direction for wikipedia to take. Are you really wanting to encourage that, just because a few users have sensitive egos? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the risk of someone getting offended at something outways freedom of expression? I'd understand that if I were attacking his race or offering some other kind of intolerable irrelevant slander, but I do not believe anything I said to him even approached that kind of thing. Like I said, there is no ongoing dispute, so his grudges against me will not affect wikipedia beyond wasting my and your time. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, ignoring that, I am fed up with this conversation and done with this user. (Post below says it all really - but will resist the powers of temptation I feel myself under). I will not be talking to him again, and will ignore him even if he continues to obsess about me. Regards,Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi please read my last message to him [16] and look at the diffs provided there in order to understand what's going on. This guy has been paranoid and obsessive with me since the beginnning for no damn reason. I've only been answering his querries and trying to co-operate on an article, and he's only been offensive and hostile, nothing else. I've never seen anything like it, it really troubles me to think that he's a supposedly "well-established" editor. Even now upon a warning he's being sarcastic and semi-offensive towards me, for reasons that nobody knows but him. If you asked him what happened, he'll respond by insulting me. Of course according to him, I'm only doing propaganda now. Please Khoikhoi read my last message to him [17] in order to see what happened earlier on, and tell me whether you think he has any reason to be acting like he does. Don't worry, it's really few things to check, we haven't really spoken too much at a serious level, he went off too quickly with insults. I honestly think that this guy needs a fat block in order to cool down. He first needs to stop badmouthing me and then he needs to apologise. If he fails to do any of those, I may take the matter to AnI. Miskin 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country

Can you unlock Racism by country? The article needs a lot of work and although there's been a bit of back and forth editing over some reference, there's no edit war that justifies a lock. In any event, I'm planning to redo the section who's dispute lead you to lock the article so that it'll be quite hard to raise legitimate looking objections anyways. WilyD 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hey, just stopping by to say thanks a bunch for supporting my Rfa which passed successfully on saturday, I am honoured to serve the community. If you have any problems or questions, let me know, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WIkiProject Tibet

I have prosed a WikiProject Tibet for better coordinatiopn of Tibetan articles Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China - members of the China project think its a good idea- please leave some comments. Interested? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PKK, Kurdish, Turkish, Conflict

I think Ruşen Çakır made a general statement that problem in Turkey is not "Turkish-Kurdish conflict", but it is "Kurdish question of Turkey". He did not make a suggestion directly related to Wiki article, but made a suggestion for the name for the problem. He does not believe that "it's entirely the fault of the Kurds", but he opposes to "Turkish-Kurdish conflict".

"Causalities of the conflict [linked to] Kurdish question in Turkey" is better than "Causalities of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey". (I think 2nd is somewhat problematic with the meaning, but I don't know 1st one is good in English or not.)

I read the books and articles of Turkish writers, and they generally object that an ethnic conflict is ongoing on Turkey, but they generally use the term "Kurdish question". I should also say that the writers I follow are very objective in their works. The writers outside of Turkey are generally not experts of the problem, and they can't easily understand this complex problem. They see the problem as black-white, and they don't see gray tones. They generally see all Kurds are fighting against T.C., but for example DEHAP gets 30% of all Kurdish originated voters. I do not know these 9 writers, and did not read his books, but this is a general situation.

I also attach some links which are in Turkish.

1. http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=163418 "Türkiye'nin her köşesine her gün giden tabutlara karşın, yasadışı PKK'nın 1980'lerden bugünlere kadar başaramamış olduğu bir şey vardı. O da, Kürt kökenli Türk vatandaşlarıyla olmayanlar arasında bir çatışmanın çıkmamış olması. Dağlarda ve şehirlerde süren kanlı mücadelenin, ülkeyi derinden sarsacak bir etnik çatışmaya dönüşmemiş olması. Bu durumun en önemli nedenlerinden birisi, PKK'nın bütün iddiasına karşın, Kürtlerin tek ve meşru temsilcisi olarak kendisini kabul ettirememiş olmasıydı. O kadar önemliydi ki bu, Türkiye'nin PKK'ya karşı uluslararası hukuk mücadelesinde de önemli bir unsur olmuştu. Dışişleri, PKK'nın 20 bini aşkın silahlı güce ulaşmasıyla övündüğü bir sırada, tamamı Kürt kökenli vatndaşlardan oluşan korucuların sayısının 70 bini geçmiş olmasını bir veri olarak kullanmıştı. Ancak kanlı olayların etnik bir çatışmaya dönüşmemiş olmasında en büyük pay, halkındı. Sağduyu, gencecik cenazelerine ağıt yakan insanların, onlarla aynı acıyı paylaşan komşularına başka gözle bakmasına neden olmuyordu. Kıyıda köşede kalan birkaç küçük olay da kapatıldı, unutulmaya terk edildi. Bugün ise farklı bir manzara ile karşı karşıyayız. Türkiye ilk kez bir etnik çatışma ihtimalini konuşuyor. " In summary, Murat Yetkin states that PKK has not achieved to start a Turkish-Kurdish conflict yet, that is the only thing they could not have achieved since 1980's. The bloody conflict ongoing on mountains and cities has not been transformed into an ethnic conflict. This bloody events has not been transformed into an ethnic conflict because of the common sense of people. Although PKK's maximum number was 20000, over 70000 Kurdish village keepers were at the same side with Turkey. Although a small number of exceptions occured, neigbours were not seeing each other as enemies. But, today we talk about a possible ethnic conflict to start for the 1st time in history.

2. That one is better for you since it is in English, and you can read it: "People seem to instinctively understand and fear that this time such a path may lead to a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, i.e. not only a conflict between the state and Kurdish separatists as the conflict previously was, but which involves ordinary people"

This article says that there is a possibility that a Turkish-Kurdish conflict will start in the future, and all events occured in the past are part of "state-separatists conflict". (his view are similar to the views of 1st writer) That would be another nominee for the name: "Turkish state- Kurdish separatists conflict". http://www.turkishpolicy.com/default.asp?show=fall_2006_somer

Finally, I don't have much time in real life. Best wishes Paparokan 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiousity, how do you know that HIZKIAH is Bonaparte? Upin cursory inspection, I don't see similarities in their edits. Am I missing something? IrishGuy ^talk 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too, this looks very suspicious to me especially that that guy made claims against you. Is anyone who make claims against you a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, in this case I checked HIZKIAH history and doesn't look like he is a sockpuppet at least not to me... this makes his banning very suspicious to me. -- AdrianTM 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Dpotop 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, you can see the situation is getting pretty hot here. While the whole circus started by HIZKIAH looks indeed rather Bonaparte-like, I want to ask you to do this one "by the book" to avoid giving grounds to accusations of "The KhoiDahn Conspiracy". --Illythr 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, your uncanny ability to sniff out Bonaparte reminds me of a certain character of a certain story by Mikhail Bulgakov (no, not from "M&M")... :-) --Illythr 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you for helping preserve my sanity, Khoikhoi. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I shall explain why later. Dahn 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My response to Khoikhoi

Bosniak's reply

Bosnian Muslims = religious group

Bosnian Catholics = religious group

Bosnian Orthodox = religious group

Bosniaks = ethnic group

Bosnian Croats = ethnic group

Bosnian Serbs = ethnic group

Is anything unclear about this? Bosniak 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop Adil

Adil's adding all sorts of dubious information to the Nakhichevan article. He's basically using his unblock as a pretext to restart edit wars. Something needs to be done. -- Aivazovsky 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself per the revert parole, but I think that somebody needs to revert to my version which is both neutral and concise. -- Aivazovsky 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Aivazovsky 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, considering how many reverts you have done, and how many other disruptive edits on the page, it is not serious to accuse others, who include verifiable and soruced info, as "restart edit wars". Reverting yourself is not an excuse -- I've been blocked for 48 hours for accidentally revertig a page before the 24 hour limit (despite reporting my mistake to admins and seeking remedy), and would expect nothing less for you for your violation, which you, unlike myself, have done much earlier, within two hours apart. --AdilBaguirov 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Khoikhoi, it's not very fair to block some, like you did in my case, and not block others, like in case of Aivazovsky (who was not blocked about a month ago for a 3RR violation too, btw), and even give them advice: "I'll check it out, but please revert yourself first. Remember the revert parole... Khoikhoi 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)" Please stop Aivazovsky, despite his dubious "stop Adil" pleas. --AdilBaguirov 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Qazakh

Khoikhoi, where's the compromise? The wording ignores the evidence and repeats Aivazovsky's unsubstantiated POV. I will work on a compromise version, and offer it soon. --AdilBaguirov 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Yeah we have it right. Britannica's political map says Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas and that's what we should have too. Good call. Man, judging by your page, you are sure in demand! I've been a bit side-tracked with stuff, otherwise I'd help out (school, work, AND interning is murder). Let me know when you have a few little things that I can help with though, for old times sake. Ciao. Tombseye 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Artsvashen

Khoikhoi, I am rather surprised by your revert, when the article clearly is aimed at blaming Azerbaijan and without references. But since you took stance on this, can you please provide evidence about the incident killing Armenian servicemen. Thanks. Atabek 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, the Andersen quote was removed from Qazakh article exactly for the same quote that is used in this article on Artsvashen, that is falsely claiming that the region belonged to Armenia till 1931. So, if it removed from Qazakh page, I don't see why it should remain on Artsvashen page. Both Artsvashen (Bashkend) and Qazakh were parts of Elisavetpol governorate, and in the process of border delineation, Artsvashen exclave was given to Armenia. So, Andersen's stuff should be removed from Artsvashen likewise.

Thanks for the reference to site where this should be addressed. I believe removing Andersen's unsubstantiated, unscholarly, unprofessional, and provoking material from Wikipedia, can help to alleviate some tension between Armenian and Azeri editors. Atabek 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, thanks for the edit. I am not going on rampage. The problem is that a misinformation written today from completely unscholarly source, provokes future griefs and claims on others' territory, wars and not only edit wars in Wikipedia but real battlefields. That's the root of the conflict being decided at ArbCom, and I believe ArbCom will not be able to solve the issue, until looking into the content of the material that's causing the conflict. It's therefore imperative to identify all sources, whether pro-Azerbaijani or pro-Armenians, which clearly are not substantiated or not neutral and rid Wikipedia of those. Andersen is just one example of such. Perhaps, he was just after a quick buck, but his unscholarly inventions today can cost the lives of many in future generations wrongly interpreting the wrong material.

The map that Andersen has "drawn" mixes the claims of various sides thus contributing to even more grief and conflict. So, to avoid that, I am a proponent of just posting the maps made by each side with a note that these are the maps of their official claims. Atabek 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Faranbazu

Take a look at his/her contributions. Also look at [18] and Talk:Reza Shah. Jahangard 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

User Atabek is finding every excuse to start an edit war on the Safavids article.

Here is what the intro says:

The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia.

I merely changed it so that it would be in the correct for in English. I changed Iranian Empire to Iranian dynasty, because the Safavids were a people, not an empire. See here where the term Safavid Empire was removed [19] and replaced with simply the Safavids (the dynasty), yet the sentence continued to say Iranian Empire, which makes no sense. This is like saying The Ptolemy's, the greatest Egyptian Empire.... Atabek reverted within 20 minutes saying that "I should wait for a compromise" when I was merely changing something that was completely and utterly incorrect and anyone with a basic knowledge of English could see this: [20]. My edit did not even affect anything that is going on in the talk page and did not change anything within the intro.

Also, look at this: [21]

The link goes to Iranian Azerbaijan anyway, yet Atabek insists that it should just say Azerbaijan (even though it links to Iranian Azerbaijan). I just cut out the "middle man" and just wrote Iranian Azerbaijan instead of Azerbaijan (Iran)|Azerbaijan (both of which lead to the exact same article. Get what I'm saying?). Then he mentions something about a battle and other irrelevant things...

He is trying to bait me into an edit war, other than that, I see no reason why anyone would undo these two edits that I made, of which none of them have anything to do with whats going on in the talk page and both were minor edits based on either word usage or cutting out the middle man. Plus, one of the tags clearly says This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling. You can help by editing it now. A guide is available, as is general editing help.

Also note that Atabek has tried several times to tarnish the names of several editors through falsifying information and making incorrect and manipulation 3rr and incident reports. understandably, the moderators have rejected his claims ever time so far. I have told him to keep a cool head several times on the Safavid talk page but he has shown no signs of doing so. Sorry for the long message :)Azerbaijani 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should go back and fix those problems now?Azerbaijani 15:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country

I'm not actually sure an edit war was taking place - there were a couple of reverts back and forth on the Iran section, although I did change the section to meet the initial concerns of the editor who first blanked. Anyways, I haven't totally figured out how to handle the Iran section - I've assembled a few sources here but I'm not really sure how to put it all together. So it'll probably be a little while before I can try to put together anything for that part. I'm more interested in some stuff I've gathered for the Canada section from the recent United Nations High Commission on Human Rights and some of the intro stuff to expand the intro. To be perfectly frank the article's a mess, and desperately needs a lot of work in all the other sections too - and I've been using it as my take out frustrations by building a good article so I find it kind of annoying that's it's blocked.

• For what it's worth: I've abandoned all of the content in the section on Iran, and have no plans to restore any or all of the previous content. I explicitly acknowledge that your endorsement of Pejman's position means that the existing content and source need to be abandoned if the article is to move forward.

I'm not sure if you're looking for anything more - I'm not sure what more I can offer anyhow. Hmm - I'm not sure what else to say but this feels incomplete. I can't figure out what's missing, so I guess it'll have to stay incomplete. WilyD 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenedos moved to Bozcaada (Tenedos) without discussion

Hi Khoikhoi, I'm not sure why this move didn't show up on my watchlist, but Tenedos was moved to Bozcaada (Tenedos) w/o discussion on 9 March. I can't move it back because you've edited Tenedos to a different redirect. The move is clearly against the consensus on the talk page, would you mind reverting the changes? Or should I start a discussion on WP:RM, or something else? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, thank you; I just moved the page back. I'll leave a note on Cretanforever's page informing him of the move back to Tenedos. By the way, that's a gorgeous picture of Toldeo at the top of the page--I've never been, but now I see I need to visit. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LEPANTO SPANIARDS VICTORY LOLOOLO

WHAT INTEREST HAVE YOUR. IN ORDER TO DENY MY SOURCES TURK UNDERSTAND, THE CHILEAN PEOPLE IS MAINLY SPANIARDS MY SOURCES

1.- UNIVERSITY OF CHILE [[22]]

2,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [[23]]

3.- SPAIN GOV. [[24]]

4.- CIA [[25]]

Antarcticwik 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nakhichevan

Check out the talk page. There is a dispute over the khachkars section. -- Aivazovsky 11:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country

Well, that's not entirely true - there was some revision of the content between those edits, so they're not strictly reverts. And I didn't actually write anything, I just restored the existing content because Pejman was deleting it even though it was sourced and relevant without explaining any concerns, or expressing concern with only a small part of what he was blanking - this second case led to actual content removal. Anyways, can I ask what you'll do then if nothing further happens? Will you just leave the article locked forever? I've already offered to unilaterally end the "edit war" - if such a term is not too grandiose - with it over, I'm not sure there's any cause left for a lock. WilyD 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

editing my talk page

you erased stuff from my talk page, please put it back. Thanks (Icar 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Tibet

If anything I am more interested in old Tibet.But it would cover all -I even plan on setting up the missing villages ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarnaveni, Romania

You have added a phrase wich has bad intended word in it I have 3 times erased it because of that. This is the phrase: 'From its founding until its incorporation into Romania with the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, the town formed part of Hungary or an independent Transylvania'

Romania didn't incorporate Transilvania, it was tha peaoples decison. If you read the the next sentence under wich you have added this, you can see that this city than a village made part also of Moldova. And also if you look at the time the phrase it's placed you can see it's out of context it say about 1920 Treaty of Trianon, and it's placed between 1279 and 1502.

I see it's very important for you that it writes in hungarian the official name then?! and we know that the official language was not hungarian it was latin and german, it's not oky and I don't want to change it every time you or other hungarian language fun do that.I'm from Tarnaveni and it's not helping every one to write old names because there not in use any more.

I hope I expained my self as clear as can be

Good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olario (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

zurbagan

While user:Zurbagan checkuser is under investigation, he continues to do the same destructive work - I see no other word to comment this [26] - removal of many links, information and pushing POV. His comments and use of language on the talkpages [27] is self-explanatory. It much resembles the comments and edits of user:Jalaleddin - established sockpuppet--Dacy69 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that he is disruptive with his uses of socks. Claiming that it was added by a sock does not justify a removal of information. Ziya Bunyadov is not heard in the west, the only notable references about him are actually to relate his strong Armeniaphoby and his manipulation of sources. For those reasons, removing those informations on his controversial nature is POV pushing, claiming that a sock added it does not justify deleting information. Fad (ix) 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He removied links and other information from the page, while adding his POV. --Dacy69 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not comment nor justified his removal of materials, I already told more than once that he is "blocking material." What I said was that removing sources on the bases that the user is a proven sock of a banned member is not justified. In the west this author is not notable, in the only notable works he was cited was to accuse him for manipulation or Armenophobie. This alone would justify a very very significant portion of his article being about those critics. Fad (ix) 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chile & mestizos

Hmmm, he's got to be kidding...calling you a Turk like that! I'm not sure if it's quite ok with wiki rules...but, ok! I'll help by trying to keep up appearances there...most Chileans are mestizos, they just don't want to admit it...even if they say they're mostly "Spanish" with various amounts of Amerindian blood -they're still a form of mestizo, que no? ; ] ...I was wondering if you knew anything about Filipinos being related "ethnically" to Hispanics...I say no, they only took a few characteristics, and only 3.6%(probably even less) have Spanish/Mexican ancestry. Others (one person in particular) are bent on including Hispanics and no one else (only other austronesians)! I even suggested putting Americans and the Chinese...Filipinos were influenced a whole lot from them...I hope you can help me -it's at the talk page of Filipino people. If you can help, send me a note on my talk page, Thanks!C.Kent87 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please check the edit history of the page before editing next time. CieloEstrellado made a destructive edit, essentially reverting to a version of the article from months before."....can you please clarify? C.Kent87 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi KhoiKhoi

Thanks for notifying me about Jalil Mammadguluzadeh. I hope I will not enter an edit war! Take care. Sangak ^Talk 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring user and vandalising articles by adding german names instead of english or local ones all over the articles

Hi, what to do with the edit warring editor whose edits are considered as disruptive please ? See this: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] And many others, what to do please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Khoikhoi, hey Tulkolahten,

if I may add my two cents: I don't exactly see what is going on in all of the cases, and I sure wouldn't call it "vandalism", but with respect to the "(until 1920)" etc., I tend to agree with Tulkolahten on that that needn't, or even shouldn't, be there; the German names for these places are still their German names even though they don't belong to Germany anymore. And mentioning them doesn't mean claiming these places for Germany, which R9tgokunks may think (otherwise I can't make sense of his perseverance in changing the text).

The German names are historic names. If we put it the way R9tgokunks wants to put it, we would have to rewrite hundreds of articles, e.g. in Cologne:

Cologne, German: Köln, (until 1815:) French: Cologne

even though the French name "Cologne" for the city has stayed the same whereas it hasn't belonged to France for ages. Cheers, Krankman 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk

Elsanaturk has just broken his 1rr here: [35] [36] Thats two reverts just under 24 hours. He also (in an effort to tarnish my name) decided to report me for breaking 1rr when I did no such thing! Also note how the source he is using is neither third party nor credible. Here is where I gave him a chance to revert himself so I wouldnt have to report him to you, but he didnt take it: [37].Azerbaijani 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving AN/I report about Mardavich

I wish you had NOT archived that. I haven't worked anything out with him, his intimidation tactics haven't been addressed; nor has his general level of incivility. I would've liked a chance to say something about this, and say that I was more interested in actually SEEING admin action taken against him. His false reporting is really getting irritating, as is his disgenuine 'i'm allowed to warn anyone i want whenever I want replies.' Finally, as you yourself have been involved with the page, and even in a minor content dispute with myself, I think you probably should've made a statement, and not used admin tools to archive it, instead askign another admin to do so. There've been a lot of those sort of 'should the admin shouldn't they' lately. I'm not gonna 'burn' you on it, you're involved, you can see a lot more of the related content than a random editor, and probably felt better aware to decide. I just wanted to let you know, instead of grandstanding on AN/I about it. All this said, if he does anything more in that incivil way of his, I'd appreciate you giving it more time to air and let more editors examine it, and I hope you'll be able and willing to support any warnign or blocks that are appropriate against him. ThuranX 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Khojaly Massacre article

The Khojaly Massacre article is being repeatedly edited with POV and unreferenced information by an unregistered user calling himself "Javanshir." I'd like to request partial protection for the article. -- Augustgrahl 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's Hard Work

You do so much hard work making wikipedia a reliable source of information. If I could I would award you with something extra special!

a massive Vandalism of Khoikhoi

drop the hate against Turks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.235.53.209 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Racism by country

Well, per your request I've proposed a new "Iran" section on the talk page - I have no idea how it'll be received, but I'd like you to consider my Lenin-esque No Peace - No War offer on the issue. This section is really not something I want to have to devote all my editing time too, and if there's no edit war, there's no need for the article to be locked, even if the content is disputed, as far as I can see. WilyD 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm finding myself in a completely biarre debate on whether to move an article to an English name or not. Since you have participated in similar discussions before, I wonder if you could weigh in on Talk:Sinmiyangyo#The_page_should__be_moved_to_an_English_name.--Niohe 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Qazakh

User:AdilBaguirov provided a substantial body of material with references. Please, address those on the talk page ASAP and review for compromise. Thanks. Atabek 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Armenian terrorism

I would like to bring this to your attention. -- Aivazovsky 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarnaveni changings, please stop!

Please read my message also on discoussions, it's a childhood to change every time I change it, the article you are changing it was made by me and it's like you are making fun of me each time you do that (I spend time to get documented data by reading some books). I don't think you have an intrest to change, I just think you are not focus on what I changed there was a conflict ("For a few centuries until the half of the XX century," look at the discoussion) I resolve it and you without looking on my changings changed it. I changed also to Blaj to I don't eaven know hungarian name because if you want to know Blaj was called Small Rome (Mica Romă) because there it was the center of romanianism in Transylvania from XVI century And it was not the capital of Kis-Kukulle megye only after 1918 was capital of Tarnava Mica county because of it's population was in majority formed by romanians. Cetatea de Balta is the name of a village nearby Tarnaveni who was donate in the XV century to Sthefan the Great of Moldovia with 100 villages from nearby on wich Tarnaveni made part of, in Ukraine there is a city called in romanian Cetatea Alba who was also under Sthephan the Great until 1812 when Basarabia pasted to Rusia, now rusian and ukrainian name is Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, from that time it was used the romanian name Cetatea de Balta. Please if you want to change something in the article read all of it...so you know what are you changing about. When you are changing the names of cities rivers and so on, on hungarian you are changing them without thinking that in thouse times there were romanians here, and you can be 100% shure that in Transilvania from the first known census in XVIII century there were more romanians then hungarians, germans and all other nationalities togeter Thank you! Good Luck! PS On your last change you put the name of Dicsoszentmarton in 1502 when the official language of Transylvania was latin why put that name put the latin name if you want to be correct, if not live it the way it should be. I will not stop changing the article to how I made it, not how you think it should be! If you who I belive you are a adiministrator whould not help me I will ask for help to other adimn. Olario 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Terrorism

Khoikhoi, [User:Fedayee] made a revert of my edit at ASALA [38]] citing your previous removal of the category. I posted a comment regarding this at Talk:ASALA, providing legitimate State Department links as well as French Armenian source [39]. Can you, please, explain why ASALA, responsible for killings of numerous diplomats and civilians in Europe should not be considered in Category Terrorism, while Abdullah_Çatlı is? Or is killing Turks in a bombing or assissination not considered a terrorism? Please, set the record straight on that. Thanks. Atabek 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Louse, User:Citadelite, User:74.12.204.244

Hi Khoikhoi! Do you mind looking into these? I would post on administrative board but things move up so fast there and time is not my friend these days. They are new accounts that have immediately jumped into edit-warring conflicts over similar issues on Egypt-related articles and I am particularly concerned about this [40]. I have tried to explain to the first to stick to guidelines regarding lead section description but to no avail. Also, the issue of neutrality on Egypt. Any suggestions? — Zerida 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. He's already violated 3RR also, I may have to start filing reports. Zerida 08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the four diffs for the most recent account [41] [42] [43] [44]. Zerida 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I never got to thank you for your welcome message in my talk page! I found some very useful staff in this template. Do you use some form of automation for these welcome messages (e.g a bot perhaps) or is it a typical manual template use? - Zippocar 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zerida and Egypt

Hey Khoikhoi,

I note with concern the efforts of Zerida to use articles relating to Egypt to impart her own partisan views. I have already left her 2 comments on Talk, but neither has had any impact. It is my firm belief, borne out by the evidence, that Zerida's contributions are biased and inaccurate, and have the potential to fundamentally compromise the neutrality of some of the articles she edits. The mere fact that Zerida has been a registered contributor longer does not grant a license to manipulate and misrepresent facts to support her own viewpoints.

As can be seen below, both comments I left clearly explain the purpose of the edits I made, which I am confident can be supported more than adequately by a neutral third-party with sufficient knowledge of the pertinent issues.

---

Egypt

Hey Zerida,

I noted with interest your amendments to my own changes on the "Egypt", "Egyptian pound", and "1952 Revolution" pages. I wish to explain the reasons for the changes I made.

A) Egypt

1)Removal of the Ancient Egyptian and Coptic Egyptian names for the country (please note that I have not undone your re-insertion of these names) - this was because those terms are indeed anachronistic as I stated, and are more appropriately placed in the "Etymology" section alone. This is not to cause offense (I myself am Egyptian), but to avoid confusion as these terms are not in use today.

2)Inclusion of the term "Arab World", in addition to already present terms "Africa" and "Middle East" - a common sense addition, given that the Arab World is a distinct geo-linguistic/geo-cultural region in its own right.

3)Re-wording of the section relating to the Yom Kippur War - as you will know, in Egypt this war is referred to as the "October War", so adding this term next to "Yom Kippur War" is both accurate and informative. Furthermore, the pre-existing wording stated that Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, when the more neutral and accurate terminology would reflect that Egyptian and Syrian forces operated solely within their own sovereign territory, and no area of Israel was attacked. Hence, it was an attack against Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights, not an attack on Israel.

B) Egyptian pound

1)Adding focus to the Egyptian/Arabic term for the currency - this is an accurate and common sense edit to inform the reader of the local term for the currency. To omit this explicit reference can cause confusion as to what the currency is actually called by the Egyptian people themselves, whereas its inclusion provides the reader with the full picture.

C) 1952 Revolution

1)This is a most curious term to use for it misstates the nature of the event. In the interests of accuracy, the reader should be made aware that the revolution was an ongoing political event, not merely a coup d'etat, which brought about profound changes in Egypt and the region. Moreover, the term "Egyptian Revolution" is specific, accurate, and accepted, whereas the term "1952 Revolution" is not. Neutrality is not compromised at all by use of this term.

I hope you will not interpret any of my edits, or indeed this message, as arrogance on my part. I merely wish to provide a fuller, more accurate, and neutral body of information for the reader. I am sure this is also your desire. I would be extremely happy to further explore this issue with you so that we can both seek means of achieving this shared goal.

Thanks Louse 07:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Egypt pages

Hey Zerida,

I am genuinely shocked by the partisan views you espouse and seek to propagate on what is suppossed to be a neutral and impartial medium of information. In the "Egypt" article, you have specifically removed some (though not all) references to the "Arab World" when they appear in conjunction with the "Middle East", despite the fact that the Arab World is the larger geo-cultural/geo-linguistic region, and one to which Egypt is inextricably connected. Moreover, your objection to the distinction to how Egyptians and "non-Arabs" refer to the currency of Egypt seems to betray an underlying prejudice to describing Egypt as Arab, despite this being not only the official status of the country, but also the view of the vast majority of the Egyptian population.

This is coupled to your obvious desire to politicize the discussion of the Egyptian Revolution. While not discounting the immense importance of the 1919 Revolution, even a cursory view of historical literature, and various media will reveal that "Egyptian Revolution" is the standard historical term for the revolution of 1952. This is an incontrovertible fact and not in any way Nasserist as you falsely claim. Both supporters and opponents of Gamal Abd-El-Nasser routinely refer to the "Egyptian Revolution", and the use of this term does not preclude discussion of any of the negative policies and consequences flowing from the Revolution. Indeed, certainty of terms is a desirable prerequisite for an open and frank exposition of the negative aspects of the Revolution and the republican era, in addition to its effects in other parts of the Arab World and Africa. Supplanting the standard and accepted term for "1952 Revolution" fundamentally compromises the neutrality of the article and could have the effect of misinforming the reader.

Louse 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Louse 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Şebinkarahisar

Don't you think it's time to s-protect this yet?--Domitius 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think having some Armenian general born there can be used as a reason to use the Armenian name. Please see Thessaloniki. Are there any important Armenian churches, or any other important historical things related to Armenia? deniz 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then write that sentence there (one might dispute what 'great' refers in that sentence there, though. You know, Sivas is a big city, but Şebinkarahisar is what? context is important).

Currently, it seems that the reason the Armenian name is put there is that some Armenian general was born there. I am personally against that, and I think the Armenian name can be, and maybe should be removed if no other info is added. I don't think the edits of that IP that is currently edit warring (with very infrequent edits, so edit warring might not be the right term here, sorry) with Domititus is vandalism, I think that IP is not behaving any worse than Domitius.

The reason for the wikilink Thessaloniki was that it was hometown of Atatürk. The Turkish name Selanik should not be at the very beginning just because it is Mustafa Kemal's hometown (but Bulgarian, Jewish, Turkish names could be put there next to Thessaloniki for historical reasons). We can have many more examples (I am not sure we need even one)

deniz 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am with deniz on this one, it's irrelvant and this is not dictionary. Besides, nobody is citing any sources on Şebinkarahisar to back-up those irrelevant contribs. If there's a NPOV source, let's see it. --Oguz1 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Could you do something about a sockpuppet of a banned user. The evidence is here, and see this and this.--Domitius 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This user [45] also needs to be blocked. Miskin 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Needing your comment

I am saying this here on the open, for transparency purpouses. You've been dealing with the articles related with Armenia and Azerbaijan. So, you should I believe comment. Francis made a statment, Golbez too, but you have said nothing yet. Fad (ix) 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, actually, I want you to say what you think of Adil. :) Fad (ix) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonny?

This guy... Dahn 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...--Priceangle 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is him Alex Bakharev 12:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Close this AfD

Khoi, could you please close this AfD that I started? Thanks! -- Aivazovsky 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Can you please enforce this? Thanks.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3 things...

Hi, can you do those things:

• 1. Name of Illyrida article ahould be changed to Ilirida - the yahoo search engine show that most common name of this proposed state is Ilirida. Since my move button does not work in this case, somebody with admin abilities should move this name.
• 2. I believe that articles Kruševlje and Demographic history of Vojvodina were protected long enough, so perhaps you can unprotect them? I will try to make some compromise version there and I hope that user Bendeguz will agree with that - if he do not agree and if revert war start again, you can protect those articles again.
• 3. Can you please warn User:VinceB and User:Öcsi to stop personal attacks against me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clash_of_Civilizations&action=history User VinceB made personal attack here calling me "racist" and "fascist": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClash_of_Civilizations&diff=113819364&oldid=113138495 He had in mind this edit that I made on another page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographic_history_of_Vojvodina&diff=85381129&oldid=85377995 As you can see, I wrote there just an observation about ethno-political situation in the region, and I also wrote that the removal of irredentist speech of hate can prevent those events that I descibed. I really do not see how something there could be described as "fascist", "racist" or "hungarophobic" as user Öcsi said in his revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClash_of_Civilizations&diff=115868003&oldid=115810972 In another words, they (User:VinceB and User:Öcsi) posted this personal attack against me on the talk page of the article that I never edited and this personal attack have nothing to do with the subject of that article - the purpose of that attack was obviously an intention of User:VinceB to discredit me, and it is something that he done before too. So, can you please warn them to stop those personal attacks against me? - it is violation of Wikipedia policy and it is not pleasant. PANONIAN (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"As for Kruševlje, I think you should try proposing your compromise version on the talk page first, and get a consensus for it. Once there is, I'll unprotect the page"

But there is a long discussion on the talk page there and there are some things about which Bendeguz and I agreed, so I basically planed to partially revert article to my version, but to include in this version all what Bendeguz and I agreed, and to propose to him in edit summary that if he still do not agree with some things in "my " version that he revert only those my edits that he do not ageee with, but not those that he can accept - in another words, I do not claim that compromise version will be 100% acceptable for user Bendeguz, but if he accept 50% of it and revert only 50%, then we would still have some progress there, so we can concentrate further discussion only to this 50% of previous version that is still disputed. In fact, if Bendeguz revert this 50% of version (I believe that he will not revert 100%), then you can protect article again with "his" new version until all disputes are not solved - I do not insist that "my" new version is protected one, but if the difference between two versions is 50% instead 100%, that is still something. I believe this is fair proposal, right? PANONIAN (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Please stop reverting properly cited info in the 300 article. You have been asked to bring your proof disputing the RS of the statements and citation, as well as provifing compelling evidence as to why it should otherwise be removed. Your edits to continually remove it, as well as POV push the number of parliament members (the article says 4, and there are over 250 members in the parliament) as being several as opposed to being specific. Arcayne 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I cam back here to remove the vandalism warning off your talk page, as in retrospect I don't think you were vandalizing the article. I see you've already done so. 6 of one, half dozen of another. I thought I'd let you know again that an opportunity has been extended for you to indicate how the cited statemetns in questions do not arise to RS, as well as the other 'several' thing. Hope to see you there. :) Arcayne 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

VANDAL AND TERRORIST TURK (ISLAMIC OF COURSE)

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy ? Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy ? Antarcticwik 00:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MEXICO IS MESTIZO , CHILE NO

the SOURCE THAT YOU USE IS CUSTIONABLE, I I HAVE 3 SOURCES OF GREATER QUALITY THAN THEY SAY THAT MOST OF the CHILEAN POBLACION IS SPANIARD (BLANCOS IS WHITE PEOPLE IN SPANISH)

My sources:

1,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [[46]]

2.- SPAIN GOV. [[47]]

3.- CIA [[48]]

Antarcticwik 01:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

THEN IT CHANGES TO THE AYASI VERSION

[[49]] Antarcticwik 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AUtoblocK?

Im on a shared proxy server! i have no idea why im blocked because of bignastee!?(i had to use friends comp) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.199.250.106 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 18 March 2007.

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock|your reason here}} instead.

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

• Khoikhoi/Archive_28 (block log • contribs • creation log • unblock)
• 71.170.161.135 (block log • contribs • ipblocklist • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • proxycheck • unblock)
• Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bignastee1". The reason given for Bignastee1's block is: "vandalism-only account".

• Blocking admin: Khoikhoi (talk • autoblocks • blocks)

---

Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:

{{subst:Request accepted|[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblock]] of [[User talk:71.170.161.135|71.170.161.135]] lifted or expired.}}

{{unblock-auto reviewed|71.170.161.135|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bignastee1". The reason given for Bignastee1's block is: "vandalism-only account".|Khoikhoi|decline=reason — ~~~~}}

{{unblock-auto reviewed|71.170.161.135|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bignastee1". The reason given for Bignastee1's block is: "vandalism-only account".|Khoikhoi|sig=~~~~}}

Note: If the "decline=" is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

Panchen Lama

Why not pose the balanced view from the chinese side?Yes,it is mentioned there are two Panchen,but there's no information about why there are two.But indeed,there are chance that there is only one Panchen.You seemed not very pleased to know about it.--Ksyrie 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No,in this article the reason for two Pencham was not mentioned.That's why I want to add these informations.--Ksyrie 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are totally biased,the tradition of Lot-drawing from the golden urn(zh:金瓶擎签 is actually an important procedure,you just want to present the truth which you prefered.--Ksyrie 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I want to express,the first time I wrote something about the reason for two Panchen,and you regarded it as abundance.But in fact it seems you really somethings about it.--Ksyrie 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Persian/Arabian Gulf

Hi, Thanks for your last message. I want you now to monitor the editing of the pages Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf naming dispute and how users are deleting references, maps, historian works and UN documents to keep the page as a one-side POV. How is a map belongs to 15th centuery could be "fake" or a Roman historian book could be "false" or UN resolution is deleted from UN POV? In the translated name to Arabic, a Persian reference written in Arabic has been cited, which is far away from neutrality. I consider this as a group vadalizing by some users always revert the pages to what they want it to be, regardless what others may provide of information. I am going to report this group-vandalizing to Wikipedia' adminstrators. Ralhazzaa 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you get a look on the newest revert done by Barnetj [[50]]. I will try not to react as I expect your mediation in retreiving all deleted maps, references, cited works and UN documents that could balance this hot debate. Plesae also note that protection of this page has been removed by this user as well. Regrads Ralhazzaa 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok! but please watch the language used that user as "Nope you need to discuss your changed"! is this Wikipedia or a private/government property? Please remind me what are the standards of the discussion? is it to say "Nope we don't have to discuss your idea"?? Who is he/she to generlize a rejection for an opinion suggested in a Talk page? I consider that as an "encoded message" for the sake of adopting a POV by other users. So, I would like to report this here to you asking for a serious adjustment. Does this means there are no experts or users or editors but him/her? I don't believe this standard of discussion is fruitful! It is unresponsible to generalize a one-sided POV over Wikipedia and decide the Undue weight for a fact practiced by 300 million people and the UN? We are talking about the Arabic name of this Gulf not the English name, right? "Arabic Name".. not English name! Some users want to seize others Arabic-speakers' right of showing true & live interpretation. Ralhazzaa 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s

Hi. In order to comply with your deletion of categories from Justice Commandos Against Armenian Genocide, I kindly ask you to do the same with the following articles:

• Black Liberation Army
• Ahmed Bouchiki
• Gladio in Italy
• Gordon Hamilton-Fairley
• Japanese Red Army
• Jean McConville
• Ross McWhirter
• Aldo Moro
• Airey Neave
• Jürgen Ponto
• Allan Quartermaine
• Red Army Faction
• Samir Kuntar
• Hanns-Martin Schleyer
• Symbionese Liberation Army
• Weatherman (organization)
• Communist Combatant Cells
• James L. Dozier
• Yvonne Fletcher
• Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación
• David Lane
• Nijvel gang
• Oktoberfest
• Red Armenian army
• Squamish Five
• Suleiman Khater
• Vettivelu Yogeswaran

I listed only the articles in the above mentioned categories of 1970s and 1980s. For "unrelated" articles in the categories of other decades, please check by yourself. Happy wikicategoryremovingfromarticles. CeeGee 09:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do not care about that. For me, it is important that when the said categories are removed from the article Justice Commandos Against Armenian Genocide, the same categories should be taken off from similar articles, at least from terrorist organization pages like Symbionese Liberation Army, Red Armenian army, Red Army Faction etc. in order not to apply double standards. CeeGee 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That will give me the impression that you are not neutral. Someone with your wikiexperience and wikiauthority should be a good example. If you do not want to do what I require, so you should undo your removals. CeeGee 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason is the consequence and not applying double standards. CeeGee 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer of your question is hidden in the question "are Black Liberation Army, Gladio in Italy, Japanese Red Army, Symbionese Liberation Army, Red Armenian army, Red Army Faction, Weatherman (organization), Communist Combatant Cells, Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación etc organizations or incidents?" CeeGee 10:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Link

You should first read the link and then consider if it's hungarophobic or not: "... Hungarians are responsible for the problems in central europe" ??? Have Hungarians started a war against Croatia or Bosnia Herzegowina? "we should drive them away and burn the houses of the other ethnicities...", these are only some of the views Panonian wrote there. It's really provocative, especially when you know that all of the wars in this region in the last 15 years were started by 'his' nation.... no further comment --Öcsi 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Who ever read that link can see that I did not wrotte that it is my own opinion that somebody "should be driven away or that his house should be burned". I wrote there what are opinions of other people and I spoke about consequences of the irredentist speech of hate. And I never spoke about Hungarians (as a people) but about Hungarian irredentists (as political movement). I am not guilty because user Öcsi do not understand English very well and do not understand my comments, but that do not give him right to twist my words and make false accusations. So, Khoikhoi, please see this link and read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographic_history_of_Vojvodina&diff=85381129&oldid=85377995 After reading it, please say did I wrotte there that by my own opinion somebody should be expelled or I just wrotte what some other people would think or do? So, please tell to user Öcsi not to twist my words where I described opinion of other people claiming that it is my own opinion - it is just example of personal attack against me and I would appreciate if you warn him too not to do it. PANONIAN (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you already warned him - I hope he will not do it again, but if he do, I would really need help of the admins to do something about this problem. Let just see how he will behave in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I clearly understand what you want to say with that comment. Don't try to deny it, several other talks with user Bendeguz (some of them in Serbian) are proving that you are not very friendly towards hungarians. That's your problem: you and many other Serbians are blaming others but never admit their own faults (and of course you have made many faults too).

And to my English knowledge: In 3rd person singular you say does, like 'Öcsi does not' (not 'Öcsi do not'). And it isn't wrotte but wrote. Thanks for your friendly answer. --Öcsi 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The question what I think about Hungarians (in fact, I do not think anything about Hungarian people, but Hungarian nationalists and irredentists are different case), do not give you right to twist my words and to claim that I said something that I did not. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I did not had intention to insult somebody with my comment - I simply tried to explain the source of the conflicts. For example, all conflicts in former Yugoslavia started with nationalist speech of hate, and I only spoke against this speech of hate. In fact, I am very careful with usage of the terms and I never in my comments use terms like "Hungarians", "Croats", "Bulgarians", but always "Hungarian/Croatian/Bulgarian nationalists/irredentists" exactly because I do not want to offend all members of those ethnic groups (so, if I indeed insult somebody with some of my comments, I do not insult people because of their ethnic origin but because of their political ideas - and that is something that they can and should change). However, when other users speak to me, they do not use same principle and they many times insulted my ethnic origin which is far worse than any of my own comments. Just for example, even user Öcsi said here this: "you and many other Serbians are blaming others but never admit their own faults (and of course you have made many faults too)". A clear implication that just because somebody is Serbian should have many faults - that is far worse insult than any of my comments, and I had to deal with many users who insulted me in such way, and it is not easy to put away my emotional perception in some of those cases, but at least I am trying to. PANONIAN (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the information Khoikhoi. Jsderwin 12:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bozcaada / Tenedos

Hi Khoikhoi, Cretanforever moved Tenedos to Bozcaada again, I reverted him, and he moved the page again. He made some posts to the talk page about the move, but I think it's fair to say that there was no consensus for the move, since there hadn't been any real discussion about it. Getting into a move war is about the last thing I'm interested in; do you have any suggestions for dealing with the situation? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ararat

Khoikhoi please revert yourself. That reference says Turkish people call it mountain of pain, Kurdish people call it mountain of fire. You're removing referenced material with a good reference. I don't think any policy allows that. deniz 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a mistake in the article, the term in Armenian is Մասիս (Massis), it is not sometimes called by Armenians that way, it is the Armenian term. Fad (ix) 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Massis also means mountain, right? What about Արարատ? I think we should choose the one that can refer to both peaks. Can you please transliterate Արարատ , as well? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denizz (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

It is transliterated as "Ararat" or "Ararad", while Armenians call it that, the Armenian term is Massis. BTW, You have improved a lot since you have registered and I like that Deniz. Fad (ix) 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That little hook on the first letters tricked me. I guess it is also a Phoenician alphabet, then. So the names are, the Abrahamic name, and the 'mountain'. deniz 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Khoikhoi

You made my day, you too Fadix.

deniz 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Székely stuff

Hi Khoi,

I took a look at those diffs you sent me (and the articles they came from) and I must say that both articles are in pretty bad shape in general--confusing, unencyclopedic writing, not much in the way of citations, etc.--but your edits helped. (I removed a weird sentence in the Siculicidium article, something about the Székelys "spreading out to every corner of the world" because last I checked, they were basically just stuck in Transylvania. :)) I have to admit I don't know a whole lot about either the Siculicidium or the history of Bukovina, but I'll look into it when I get a chance (as my userpage now shows, I'm pretty much wikibonked and need to take a bit of a break.) Thanks for asking for my advice though, it's nice to know that my opinion matters. : )

K. Lásztocska 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack

See here: [[51]] --alidoostzadeh 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re:khoikhoi

Yeah, sorry, I was a bit angry, because I don't like if people are blaming other ones being Nazis, murderers or irredentists, but then behave in the same way regarding the delicate parts of their history. Everyone should be able to admit the faults of one's nations.

I mean Hungarians have committed many bad and cruel things, like the crimes of the fascist (Holocaust, etc.), Magyarization and several massacres, but e.g. Serbians did very similar things too, like the crimes of the partisans, Srebrenica, Kosovo, the burning of Hungarian villages during the Rákoczi Szabdságharc and 1848/49, etc. And one should not deny it only because he is serbian... this opinion is quite ambiguous.

@Szilágysomlyó: it's rather Schomlyo... why would you call it Scholmenmarkt - it is not Szilágysomlyóvásárhely. --Öcsi 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oguz1

Hey mate, I wanted to report to you this user Oguz1 that's going on a rampage of vandalism on many pages including [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] ....anyway i'm getting tired just take look at his contributions today. He's clearly broken 3RR...maybe 8RR? As you know, I am in an arbitration right now and cannot afford a "war" with this user. He clearly does not know wikipedia rules and is extremely nationalistic...even for Turkish coffee lol. He actually added "the Armenian term for mustard" in the mustard article [59]. Thanks man. - Fedayee 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cretanforever

Please take a look at my comment at User talk:Cretanforever#Dora Bakoyannis. --Macrakis 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)