User talk:Zmmz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ideology

It was a question. Such changes in well-established usage, as shah mata (excuse absense of macrons) are often the result of somebody's political correctness campaign. What does keesh mean literally, and how long has it meant it? Septentrionalis 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know what keesh is, but both terms are in Persian anyway, so what does it have to with ideology? I don`t get it.

Spacing

Hi,

I'm curious as to why you keep putting huge spaces between the comments in one section of Talk:Knight. It makes the page look unsightly, and it makes it more difficult to read comments in one continuous string.

Hbackman 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary it makes it very easy for the reader to see who said what, and it makes it very easier to read, i.e., it is organized. Your version makes look like it is one continuous, long, boring essay. You might be trying to sabotage the discussion and preventing the reader from reading it. Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have no reason to start making unfounded personal attacks right off the bat. Why would I want to prevent someone from reading the discussion? I've been working to clear it up by signing your unsigned comments (please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments) so that people can tell who's saying what. I maintain that the extra spaces are unsightly (note that the entire rest of the talk page, and the bulk of other talk pages, are formatted with only one or two lines between comments), but I'm not going to get into an edit war about it. I have better things to do with my time. Hbackman 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure thing. By the way, I AM signed in; I hope so.Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are signed in. But that doesn't mean that your comments are automatically signed. You still need to type the four tildes in order to sign them. Hbackman 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how come you worry about me signing in?Zmmz 04:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about whether you were signed in. There's a difference between being signed in and signing your comments. Signing your comments is a good thing to do because it makes it easier for people to follow who's saying what on a talk page. (And you're welcome for the instruction. I try to be useful when I can. ;) ) Hbackman 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the signing your comments instructionZmmz 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

3rr

Please read WP:3RR, especially with respect to Parthia. William M. Connolley 10:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Is there something wrong with the below introduction?

Parthia^[1], or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân [2] (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

I express no opinion as to the content. But I've blocked you [3] for WP:3RR on Babylon. Please take the time off to read up on the rules William M. Connolley 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Exactly why you have blocked me? And, how can it be unblocked?Zmmz 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the 3rr rule, please unblock me.Zmmz 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:3RR. William M. Connolley 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got you, thanks. And it says it will be unblocked 02/24/06--correct?

24 hours, yes. William M. Connolley 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question William. At the beginning I was new and used my IP Address; however, now that I do have a username, the user Sifu, makes sure that he goes on the talk pages I edit, and informs the reader about my IP address. Can this be remedied? Also, how can I report user Codex Sinaiticus who has multiple usernames? Thanks.

Ah, I was going to ask you: are you User:149...... as well? Because you appear to be, and have used that IP to make much the same reverts, today, to Babylon. How to remedy this: the best way is to avoid revert wars. But if you are reverting using a username *and* an anonymous IP, people are bound to want to know this, cos of 3RR count. If you believe that CS is using sockpuppets, then you want requests for checkuser. William M. Connolley 23:39, 23

February 2006 (UTC).

That IP address could be anyone, since this is a school, yet, Sifu does not have the right to inform others so they can see where I live. I do not use my address anymore, that was when I was new here, and was not aware of the policies. And, how can I ``requests for checkuser.``? Zmmz 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley the following statement in the Parthia discussion is not fair, because many people use this school IP address, ``All of the unsigned comments from above are User:Zmmz, who also posts under the IP.... siafu 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)``. Can I report user Sifu, or do anything about this? Thank you.

The statement happens to be absolutely true, the comments were made by you under this username and your anon. IP.... Moreover, when you edit without being logged in you agree to disclose your IP address, and it can be viewed by anyone in the page history. siafu 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is different than you actively letting others know who regulary would not care, even though all my comments were signed. And, the question to report you was not ask to you--so wait till I see if I can report you, because, if I can, I--will.Zmmz 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because if there's a fight to be had, you wouldn't want to miss starting it, huh? I put that statement there in good faith in response to Ben's query because he was confused as to who was whom. Your comments were not signed then. Removing comments placed by others on article talk pages, btw, is vandalism, and will be reverted, even if you think they're no longer relevant. It's not like I could stop you from "reporting" me (how, or for what, I can't fathom), but I honestly wonder what you are trying to accomplish. siafu 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time with you Sifu, but if you have a problem and make false accusations, you better back it up. I will do my best to report you for starting personal attacks. By the way, as you can see, admints., like William state there is no ``style`` prefrence on the Parthia page. I tried to represent that article and empire accurately, yet, you have no idea what you are talking about....``led by Arscid dynasty``? Parthia WAS the Arsacid dynasty.Zmmz 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations? Not only was it true that all the unsigned comments were posted by you, but you even went and proved it true by signing each and every one of them - you can see it in this diff here, so I'm lost on that front. As for the style preference, nobody has said (or "admitted" that, as if it would be a shameful thing to say?) anything about the presence or absence of a style preference, though Parthia is, like all articles, expected to confrom to the Wikipedia:Manual of style (which you should probably read if you're going to continue editting here), and William M. Connely hasn't made any comment whatsoever on any of the disputes, he's just enforcing 3RR. As far as the "led by" comment, that wasn't inserted by me (you can see who did what in the article's page history, just go to Parthia and click on the history tab at the top), but it's true that Parthia was an empire, and the Arsacid dynasty was a dynasty, and therefore the two cannot be equal as a dynasty and an empire are not the same thing. siafu 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, isn`t this a form of personal attacks? This is a public computer in a school by the way, would this make a difference?Zmmz 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Mr. Connolley, but typically a personal attack involves a direct insult of some sort. (You should probably read WP:NPA if you want to know exactly what a personal attack entails.) I fail to see how siafu is insulting you; s/he seems to just be trying to explain his/her viewpoint and the rationale for his/her actions. I also don't understand why your being on a public computer would make a difference; you might want to clarify that. Hbackman

I signed my comments because I have nothing to hide, and I just started knowing about this site`s policies. If as you say, everyone can see for themselves who is who in the history page, then there wasn`t a need for you to make sure you posted this IP address, all over that discussion page. But, my guess is, you got a lot of time on your hand, and like to take such deviant extra steps, because you lost the arguement on that page. Also, when I asked William, ``Is there something wrong with the below introduction? Parthia<sup>[4]</sup>, or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân [5] (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE. He replied, ``I express no opinion as to the content``---and said nothing about the style not conforming with this site`s policies. And, you need a whole lot of reading to do, if you think the Parthian Empire was led by the Arsacid dynasty is logical, because, Parthian is given to the dynastic empire of Parthia, in the Western literature. Persians themselves, they never call them either of the names anyway. They are simply the Ashkâniân of Iran, and that was an important point I was making on that page. ``Also known as the Arsacid dynasty would be more correct. ``Led by...``, further confuses the reader.Zmmz 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted your IP address because Ben asked that users sign their comments because he was confused. It's common that users who are familiar with the situation have trouble following if the comments aren't signed. Since you had posted some of them while logged in as Zmmz, and some while not, it was necessary to indicate that the username and the IP address referred to the same person. As for the rest, clearly you are much more interested in starting fights and making enemies than writing an encyclopedia, so I'll let you continue doing that without me. siafu 05:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. So, as you said, anyone can tell from one`s history page, what the other person has posted under his username, and his IP address; yet, you feel it necessary, to mention his private IP address two to three times on that discussion page, even after the user has signed all his comments. Then you make sure you report the user, instead of, making sure if he knows the policies or not, then post his IP address another two more times here on this talk page. After Mr. Connelley did not mention anything about the style being needed to conform as it pertains to the article I edited, although you said numerous times, you are replacing my edits, because you thought it was an ``style issue``, I am beginning to believe, if it doesn`t go your way---watch-out. And, my contributions have been invaluable to Wikipedia--every statement I insert is backed up by other Encyclopedias, and/or scholars. I have done my best to enhance the reader`s knowledge, in a clear, factual manner. There should be no room for personal attacks here; this is an academic based environment.Zmmz 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to butt in if I may. ;) It is difficult to follow talk page discussions when comments are unsigned. It's common to sign other people's unsigned comments for clarity; there is, in fact, a Wikipedia template for that exact purpose. It's not persecution; it's trying to clarify. It is pretty annoying and time-consuming to have to search through the page history to find out who posted what. Also, I still don't understand how you feel that siafu has been personally attacking you. I think that it would help if you articulated this better, so that siafu could try to explain his/her rationale behind the comments. I'm sure you'll find that they were made in good faith.

Wikipedia is a cooperative environment. If people don't assume good faith and try to get along, we won't get anywhere. Please don't take it as a personal insult if people edit or revert your edits. It is very rarely due to any sort of personal vendetta, and you're new enough here that no one is going to have a personal grudge against you yet anyway. 99% of us are working in good faith to build a better encyclopedia. It just so happens that people's ideas of what constitutes "better" sometimes differ. If we talk respectfully with each other and assume good faith, we can usually arrive at some sort of compromise. But it does involve a willingness to compromise. No one here is infallible. That includes you. We as editors have to recognize our own infallibility, as well as everyone else's, in order to be productive members of the Wikipedia community.

I would be happy to keep discussing this with you, if you have any questions or responses. Feel free to leave a note here or on my own talk page.

Hbackman 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately ma`am, Siafu did not get his way, so he reported me for something that I didn`t know was against the policies--and then he repeatedly attempts to submit a private IP address on this page and other pages; eventhough, it is unecessary, and otherwise, readers would not care what the IP address of this user is.Zmmz 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to report me for? Go ahead and report me, I haven't done anything wrong... How are you going to report me for an edit war where you yourself were the one going against consensus of all the other editors and reverting about 12 times in one night? As for sock puppets, I don't use 'em... do you think everyone who has been reverting you is all the same person or something? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 140 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. But since you're new here, there are a lot of things to learn. My username is Codex Sinaiticus; but if you click on "my preferences" up top, you will see all kinds of amazing things, one of these is a box that says "Nickname:"... Now, whatever you type into that box will automatically become your new signature, even if it is different from your username. This means that when you use the ~~~~ command, that will appear, with a link to your username's homepage. Now I currently have typed into that box ፈቃደ, this looks like boxes to you because you do not have the correct font on your computer, but if you did, it would look like a different alphabet.

I'm guessing since you mentioned above that you were posting at a school, that you are probably about 17. Nothing wrong with that if you are, I'm sure you will gradually pick up a lot of features here as you acclimatise, just like we all did at one time. There are all kinds of tricks that have to be figured out, like preferences, and that's just the start... In the meantime, try not to make to many enemies! I don't want to be your enemy because I'm sure you have an interest in many of the same topics I write about, and hopefully we can not just get along but complement one another in improving articles, but it takes a bit of reasonableness about seeing all possible points of view and taking the neutral path... In this case, the consensus including myself just thinks it's not all that necessary to play up the Persian Superpower bit in an article about one city, Babylon... Your very first edits had all kinds of extra edits like "The vast and mighty Persians"... So why do you feel it is so critical for this article? Does this have something to do with Daniel chapter 2? I am trying to assume good faith, and not that you are doing this just for the sake of being disruptive... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not appreciate your subtle, yet sneaky comment, saying I am probably 17 because I use a pc in a school. But, then again that seems to be a pattern, you may be assuming too much. I am a PhD. student at a university. Secondly, consensus does not mean 2 or 3 friends playing tune-def, and helping each other out in an edit war. It means allowing sufficient time for others to join the discussion. Most importantly, you have not presented your counter argument in the Babylon discussion section. You have not provided ONE valuable reference that opposes the argument presented to you. I clearly, and repetitively presented an argument based on what scholars say. Simply read the discussion; I will not go through it again. Saying comments are disruptive certainly serves your purpose; yet, it is a far cry from the truth--and if a mediator follows this matter up, he or she will clarify this. Such comments as ``you are being disruptive`` are uncalled for, and frankly, your assumptions are not [based on] good faith, which is disappointing. Furthermore, they do not add any credibility to your opinions. Zmmz 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Babylon Discussion section. .......“However, as I have proved via many references--there is an over-whelming consensus among Western historians that Persia was the world’s first Super-Power; an entity not seen in the history till then. I sincerely believe that since this was a milestone event in history--and that as a consequence it heavily impacted the Greeks, as well as other civilizations, and because for the first time in history, most of the civilized world, nomads and alike were unified under one nation, the outcome of future history itself was affected. As such it is [necessary] to mention this in the article, since Babylon--the "CITY"-- was intimately tied to the empire by being the empire`s administrative [capital]. As one of the foremost respected scholars in ancient history Robert Payne said in his book, "The Persian Empire swallowed up the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires, and went beyond them. It was the greatest empire the world had ever known, and for two centuries its capital was the capital of the world."[17]. There are many other examples like this in my previous comments: unlike others so far, I have laced my comments with many refrences. Please do not take it upon yourself to edit that section, unless you provide a valid reason, backed with multiple sources that proves the words--world’s first Super-Power--are irrelevant to this article.”Zmmz 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Zmmz 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, no one would disagree that Persia under the Achaemenids was a superpower... If it would help, I can change the link to "empire" to "superpower" instead (this might be a more appropriate link anyway)... But there's really no need to go overboard with all the extra adjectives like "Vast" "Mighty" "Global" etc especially from some of your previous edits, it seems kind of strangely written and off topic to someone who is expecting to read information about the history of the city itself... If they click on any of the links, they can easily find the relevant articles that tell all about how great Persia was in 500 BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As to using words vast, etc., the idea was taken from articles about cities that were part of Alexander the Great`s empire, or were part of Rome. Yet, as you mention, such words were later dropped--so, I do not see the point of even bringing this up at this time. Back to the gist of THIS argument: I realize you try to avoid using the word super-power. Yet, as my argument above illustrates, it is a necessary word; keep in mind the edit will only involve the word super-power. I am still very unclear as to why you think this word should NOT be used? Besides giving hints that you may have some distaste about the word super power or the preeminent power in the world then, you still have not stated why isn’t this necessary? As to my compelling argument that it is necessary to mention this milestone in history, you repetitively argue, why is this relevant? This is not the strongest argument in the world.Zmmz 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at it now, because I've just added that very word, in just about the only way it can logically be used while keeping it about the city... Approve? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article isn`t exactly how I believe should have been written; yet, in the intrest of comprise, I am forced to agree. However, to make the article more fluid, I think the word super-power should be replaced with ``the preeminent power of the world at that time``, which gives a better hint about the role of Babylon in the empire. Isn`t that more descriptive?Zmmz 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, after just now reading the actual article at superpower, I'm inclined to agree... Will change it per your suggestion...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then I have no further arguments. I truly believe now--in an unbiased sense--the reader will now be more enticed when reading about Babylon, and it now presents the role of that city in history, a bit more accurately. Thank you.Zmmz 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

CS, it would be nice if you let other users like Aldux know we agreed on this. Zmmz 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked again for 3rr

I've blocked you again [6] for WP:3RR. PLease learn that you just can't break 3RR and get away with it. Its a waste of other editors time, but its also a waste of your time too. William M. Connolley 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh, man. You are right. I messed up; sorry, I went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours. Rest assured, it wasn`t on purpose though.Zmmz 22:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, if you look at the section above this one, you see a user has signed by a title that appears as boxes--other times, the user signs with the username Codex Sinaiticus. Does that imply anything?Zmmz 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to look under Babylon and Parthia please. I invite you to look under their respective discussions as well. It seems there is a sort of wierd alliance between some users, or at best some ganging-up on a particular user to silence him or her. If you look under their histories, you`ll see for example user Aldux has edited under both articles, whereas previously he had not. It is clever, since if a fellow user gets into an edit war, he would have others to help out, and avoid the 3rr violation. However, this drowns any views that others may have--in my case backed with multiple refrences. Yet, they refuse to properly discuss this in the discussion page, and simply revert. I need to know what you think William. The users are, Aldux and Codex Sinaiticus; Variable and Siafu. Thanks.Zmmz 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr, if you please. But WMC is better. Anyway: comments like went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours tend to make admins grind their teeth. 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement. Please don't assume you have a "right" to 3RR per 24h. As to the signing... sorry, I don't understand you. You seem to be suggesting there is something odd about 2 other users agreeing. William M. Connolley 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you kindly look under the articles and discussions, you`ll see it is more than just two users agreeing. They [are] helping each other out, which in turn devoids any meaningful discussion. You have to admit, this CAN happen. They [do not] discuss this, and do not present their own proof, i.e., refrences. As for the user, Codex Sinaiticus may have two usernames, one is the one mentioned, the other is the signed title that appears as boxes. Look at his signature in two sections above this one, titles `3rr`. Zmmz 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be 2 or 3 or more. If that happens, you will not be able to get your desired changes into the article. If so *stop trying to insert them by brute force* because it won't work. Your choices are: stop reverting and start discussing it on the talk page; and stop reverting and try to bring in other users who might be interested in the matter. William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex does not have two usernames. If you look at the wikicode for his/her signature you will see this: [[User:Codex Sinaiticus|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus|ውይይት]]). And the comment that is signed that way was added by Codex when logged in under that username: [7]. Hbackman 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what does this mean, ``Dr, if you please. But WMC is better``?Zmmz 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Mr. But using titles is odd. If you don't want to type my full username, use WMC William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait a minute, you rather be called Dr. Connolley, or WMC? OK. Also, if you look under the discussions, you WILL see that I try to discuss this, with multiple refences, yet, they do not. Please assume good faith from my part.Zmmz 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia HAS to find a better way to finalize articles. Based on the discussions and refrences provided, yet via votes and/or a final decision by a panel of experts. I just got a taste of what ganging-up, or alliances can do. Although, I admit there is a fine line between helping each other out and users whole heartedly agreeing on an article--it can be tricky.Zmmz 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, how come I`m still blocked?Zmmz 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, have you blocked me for good sir?Zmmz 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zmmz, You can see your block log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AZmmz ... He only blocked you for 48 hrs, that should be expiring in (as I write) about 35 minutes from now... See you, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been out today. CS is right. I gave you the link to the block log, above. Since all is happy, I'll knock off the 35 mins... done William M. Connolley 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. Thank you CS and WMC both.Zmmz 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope everything is OK WMC because either I was autoblocked again, or still blocked. I`ll try back in 20 minutes.Zmmz 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Persia/Iran

I've already got my hands full trying to prevent people from claiming that al-Khwarizmi was an Arab/Turk, so please work with me here. In English Iran always refers to the country as it stands today. Nowadays, for a lot of people Persia refers to the Persian Empire. I know this differs from how Iranians call their country, but saying "Persia (Iran)" without the "now" would only confuse a large part of the readership. Cheers, —Ruud 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I understand that, and I respect the status quo, but isn`t this the gist of the argument? Isn`t one of the points of Wikipedia the fact that if given the chance we may clarify further, any misrepresentations about a country, culture, persons etc.? So, if we have the chance to enhance the status quo, and above all if it is factual, why not do it? Iran was never called Persia, which is the name of an state in that country. I mean God knows its history is rarely studied anyway, so why not keep Persia and simultanously inform the reader of the fact that it has always been one country, with one name?Zmmz 00:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran was never called Persia in the same sense that Deutschland was never called Germany. I think Iran naming dispute does a great job in explaining the matter and no, it is not Wikipedia's job to improve the status quo (see WP:V). —Ruud 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn’t true; Wikipedia allows edits for a reason. I don’t know about Germany, but I do know many people for convenience have divided pre-Islamic Iran into Persian and Parthia, and post-Islamic Iran as Iran. So, as you can see it is not JUST a naming controversy. People think Persia is extinct; my God; it-is-not. Iran hasn’t changed, its race has not changed---so I don’t get it, why modern? And, I don’t agree with you. Look how Greece is so homogenous in its historical representation. No, especially, if the change is as subtle as erasing the word modern and only leaving Iran there. It isn’t like, the Persian state Khwarezm, modern Khiva, Russia (that is justifiably called ``modern``). I have got to disagree with you on this. Zmmz 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the people here, but about geography, borders etc. —Ruud 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography and borders change all the time, within any country--however, it is the race and the culture that are viewed as being extinct. Keep in mind, the geography of the country itself is pretty much the same as it was in ancient Iran (not including the countries that were colonized under the empire), with the exception of the northern Iranian states like Khwarezm, and Samarghand, Bukhara etc., being given to the Russians fairly recently. Yet, geography has to take a back seat to the culture and the people, since many see them as being entirely different than their ancestors.Zmmz 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, it probably needs to be rephrased anyway to avoid the excesive parentheses. First a request though. Can you read Arabic? Avicenna's name doesn't right to me. —Ruud 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You see? That is exactly what I was telling you. People think Iranians are Indians, or Arabs (nothing is wrong with being any of those), assuming you thought I am Persian, which you may or may not be correct. But, no I don`t speak Arabic, sorry. BUT, if you go to one of the dictionaries, you can compare the names there fairly easily.

So Root, can we call Avicenna an Iranian Muslim....? Zmmz 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Preventive Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I'm warning both you, User:Jidan, User:MB and User:ManiF. I'm not going pick sides here as there is some truth in everbodies arguments. However your collective actions are damaging the articles. If you truly are intresting in writing a good and objective on al-Khwarizmi you will stop editing and take your differences to talk page and discuss things civily. And please thouroughly read through WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and stop all the speculations and citing of websites and other encyclopedias. And please do go out to the library and find some books on him and see what the historians have to say on this matter. Cheers, —Ruud 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, did you post that warning section directed towards me? The one that ends with thank you and is ubsigned. Zmmz 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Ruud 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I`m talking about this, Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You wrote that? If you did, you`re funny man. You are an administrator now huh?Zmmz 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a standard message that is given to everyone who might be violating WP:3RR soon. —Ruud 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, alright.Zmmz 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I have already spent a lot of time on this. I don`t have any more time for this. If you and other actually bother to read my 7 refences in the discussion page, and if you go to the actual sites, you will see there is an over-whelming consensus that at least say he was born in Khiva, Russia. So, to be fair, the only agreement I will make about the article is that we must mention he was born in Khiva, Russia and in a paranthesis we write formerly khwarizm, Persia, or vice-versa. Of course, I have also provided multile refrences that say Khwarizm was an ancient province in Iran. I mean by the way, I gave you refrences about the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary that say he was born in Persia. I HAVE the actual Merriam-Webster dictionary in my hands right now as we speak. I don`t think you can get a better source than a recently updated English dictionary. Do you? Yet, I am still willing to comprimise on this, and just say where he was born.Zmmz 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your efforts, however as discussed we should perhaps use Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, so our actions would be organised and backed by eachother, and put an stop to this anti-Iranian behaviour by some small minority of anti-Iranians. Ba sepaas, --Kash 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I try and edit articles about ancient Greece, Iran, and Rome. I ONLY stand on the side of the facts. But, I do agree that there is some sneaky activity in regards to articles about Iran; some are not satisfied with refrences such as dictionaries etc. I do my best to remedy the situation. However, I cannot do anything alone; it gets too much. Zmmz 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello There

can't you report this guy Acaman or whatever, he has violated 3rr and keeps pushing his point of view!

I feel bad honestly, but you can. Go to administrator's noticeboard. Zmmz 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Regarding your comments here: bold-facing people's name when addressing them is considered rude. Please stop. Aucaman^Talk 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am simply copying and pasting it as it appears.Zmmz 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Despite that he broke a rule, in his opinion the tag should be added. The proper way to get the tag removed is to work out a compromise with so both parties are happy. The incorrect way is to just revert and call him an Anti-Persian, despite what you think. --Khoikhoi 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am as fair as it can get, but please read refrences and counter arguments under the discussion page. So are we supposed to keep the tag there even though the user in question has no valid sources and he refuses to compromise? The user offended because the word Aryan is justly being used.Zmmz 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I added a new section on the talk page. Check it out. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry, but I am not an admin. Hopefully one day, but not today. Sorry I can't help. I've found admins User:Android79 and User:Shanes to be quite helpful. Feel free to ask them. Good luck.Gator (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. ThanksZmmz 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Persian people

I'm not clear on what you think is "not fair" about this situation. What further action are you wanting me to take? If you want a more complex discussion of the issues surrounding the page, I might suggest that you open up a request for comment on either the article or a problem user, if you have had no luck resolving the dispute yourselves. I'm not going to step in and start handing out arbitrary blocks on my own. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m new here, so if can please give me some guidence as what to to report a problem user, I`d appreciate it. I am surprised you did not block him for the 3rr, because he was warned beforehands many times, but he erased the warnings. ThanksZmmz 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

California

Yes I live in California but who said that? I don’t think I ever mentioned it to anyone.

Gol 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wanted to see if you`re a girl and leave there, that`s all.Zmmz 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem Users

If you have a problem with a user, please open WP:RFC against him, it might help. When editing an article please forget about the previous conflicts with other users and just argue with the edits. Personal conflicts usually are going nowhere on Wikipedia abakharev 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin

You could try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal if you don't think the situation is getting any better. --Khoikhoi 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you do it for us please?Zmmz 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just thought you might want to add the request because you're better at explaining situation, but I'll see what I can do. --Khoikhoi 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are much more credible, I appreciate it.Zmmz 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I made it: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. Let me know what I need to fix. --Khoikhoi 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't edit the page. I'm not an admin, remember? ;) Let me know what you think of the meditation page I made. --Khoikhoi 04:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would appreciate two things if they can be changed and added---first not all the editors are Iranian, so I feel the other editors may be a better choice. Secondly, I` d appreciate it if you can point out the fact that you personally are a neutral user, and that you researched the word Aryan yourself. Thanks.Zmmz 04:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Khoikhoi 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work.Zmmz 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I really hope this ordeal can be resolved. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zmmz. I'll check it out tomorrow, as I'm very tired right now. ;) So long. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How to make 3RR reports

Hi!

I know it may seam beurocratic and complicated with all the different procedures and ways to report stuff, but when it comes to reporting 3RR violations, the proper place to do that is on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Be sure to follow the instructions on that page, by listing the violating reverts as given in the template at the bottom there, and it will be looked into Shanes 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		A well deserved award for all your efforts against vandalisms and sleepless nights to make sure Iranian articles are accurate. Thank you! --Kash 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sup

Im new, wondering if you can help me out sometimes if I need. Thanks, looking forwrod to working with you and other Iranian Wikipedians. Iranian Patriot 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No one's watching the Aryans page!!

We have all been spending all of our time on the Persian people page that No one's watching the Aryans page!! On the Persian people page everyone has been trying to stop User:Heja_helweda and User:Aucaman saying it is racist to use the term "Aryan" on the page that everyone forgot about the Aryans page. I was looking at the history of that page and I saw that User:Heja_helweda has made some changes. If you have some time please check out what has changed and try to fix any bad mistakes similar to the Persian Peoples page that they might have made. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Kurds

The article is badly written and generalizes widely, but it does include sources so it's unlikely that it will be deleted. The only real option is to NPOV the article and make clear that such studies were severely limited in their scope and cannot be used to make assumptions concerning the entire Kurdish peoples. I've been saying this over and over again all this time to no avail. I don't much care for genetic studies in the first place, since they are almost always limited and cannot reveal anything about entire populations of people, but at the same time as long they come from a reputable source, the only thing that can be done is to clarify that the studies were limited. Also, keep in mind that the claims about Persians being "mixed" and so forth in Persian people by Heja and company used absolutely no scientific sources whatsoever, so any discussion of intermarriage and genetic heritage has no place in the article at all. That should be your primary concern, since their actions at the Persians article has been outrageous and flagrantly bigoted. SouthernComfort 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think we should erase it from the Iranian people article, where Heja goes on and on about Kurds in Iran, and monopolizes the article, unnecessarily.Zmmz 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Just noticed the page Requests for comment/Aucaman. This was long overdue, and thanks for drawing my attention to it. Also, I think much of the same applies to Diyako, who in my opinion is even a bigger problem. Shervink 12:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Im already under that category

My user name is already under the category that you suggested. and how do i change my user name? Iranian Patriot 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Yes, it seems to be formatted properly. Ral315 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the Description and the Summary section explain the matter well, and are they acceptable in the sense that we are strong language to refer to a certain user? ThanksZmmz 19:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is missing certain sections. Do you want me to help you as Advocate clean it up by adding them? Robert McClenon 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, yes. It is my first time doing an RFC. I really appreciate it.Zmmz 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I should say

I was just trying to mediate the dispute, I have no idea as to content either way. I have no idea where the IP is from, it was flagged by someone else on a blacklist and hence I was alerted of the edit, I didn't run an ARIN whois on it. I'm going to wait 24 hours before touching that article again, to give both sides time to make arguments and hopefully sort it out by themselves. -- Tawker 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sure thing, but give them more time since at least one side has some important sources. ThanksZmmz 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Please be aware that the article Persian Empire is being regulary vandalized by an unregistered user (see the various ip addresses). The edits appear to be designed to undermine the idea of Iran being a continuous nation or civilization. Here is an example of one of the edits:

Successive states in ancient Iran are collectively mislabeled the Persian Empire by some Western historians regardless of the fact that succesive states had little of the continuity that would be ascribed to a singular state; the language, forms of government, state religion, military culture, capital city and economic system changed every time a new centralizing authority arose upon the Iranian plateau.'

The editor is most likely attempting to create a pretext for seperatism. --Houshyar 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Report it to an admin, and say the user never gives refrences.Zmmz 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User Diyako

The comment was made on December 28, over 2 months ago. It doesn't seem reasonable to dig up something that old to justify a block or even a warning. Has s/he done anything problematic since then? (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is in general the user is impossible to compromise with, he writes excessive amounts of texts refudently in discussion pages, put banners on multiple pages because his personal opinions justifies it, and still personally attacks others. But guess why? It seems he is part of some weird political movement. That isn`t really fair to users who provide refrences and have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. I just do not know what to do, it seems endless, mediation pages, third opinions, warnings; nothing works.Zmmz 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--Zereshk 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be dealt with between users on their own talk pages, the right place to deal with it is in the dispute resolution center. I don't feel qualified to deal with this dispute, nor do I feel it would be appropriate to make any decisions on my own without gauging broader community consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rome

Does anyone have the map of the Roman Empire at its greates extent? ThanksZmmz 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Empire

It really doesn't fit the criteria for protection right now seeing only 2 IP edits in the last 12 hours but you could add a disputed tag if you'd like -- Tawker 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the pages needs to be protected now. It seems the user is a sockpupet.Zmmz 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not refering to you. but Zerehsk. also i know Zereshk since long ago. tonight maybe he became angry (maybe for no good reason otherwise i think he never would act against me. Sorry for I did not clarified that.Diyako Talk + 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a futile attempt, but I do think you and some other users should not start edit wars and controversies about the word Arya, or Aryan, or whatever else in the Iranian people, and the Persian people articles. It really is unnecessary in light of what I have personally researched and read. The use of that word is the standard in those ancient cultures. Do you really want to waste all your time in an edit war, and in the discussion pages? I`m sure you could use your time better on the articles that you may know about more?Zmmz 04:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerns of a neutral user

I neither like nor want to waste my time. but the truth is that some people among you mispresent me (and maybe others) and then every edit by me is lebelled wrong. If I had not good faith I could easily easily get a persian username such as User:Keyvan, or User Alireza and no one of you suspected me. but I do not know why you disagree with my edits? also I have not yet disagreed using or not using the word aryan. i can provide you many links that I have added the word aryan to the articles. my concerns are very clear and have explained in the end of talk page of Iranian people.

also I did not involved in the dispute of persian people. i just wanted to add native name of persian people to the articvle but user:Hoshyar reverted it in the name of vandalism. I do not think adding native names is vandalism. I every day add native names to many articles. It's part of improvment of the article. Diyako Talk + 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you disputing then? I`m not sure if there is anything solid to be honest. Also, please put this under another heading, and not `Rome`.Zmmz 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The use or not use of the term aryan is a greater job which I cannot decide on. My major contribution as on less important things, like clarification, fixing links, interwiki links, and Some times create stubs.

• In the article Persian people my concern was use of the native name.
• My other concerns on the Iranian peoples is to clarify a small section + clarify in the article in a sentence or in paranthese that what is the word aryan.
• The last one: the info box is not correct. we should replace it with a correct one. that one used in the articles is for ethnic groups like armenians or Persians. (as far as I know). Also please do not send me warning with no link to what is my so-called vandalism because I have the right to know what i have done wrong.Diyako Talk + 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I clearly warned you about a soon to be 3rr violation in the Iranian people article, and I did provide you the link. As to the dispute, exactly what native name do you wish to use for Persians? What do wish to add to the word Aryan? What specific changes do you wish to make to the infobox?Zmmz 05:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever in the language of persian people means "Persian people".
• That it is a linguistic term. (and have explained in the talk page of the article.)
• Infobox: Replacemnt to a correct one.
• Not all of the speakers of Iranian languages are ethnically related to eachother, ethnically they vary. Diyako Talk + 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I asked you for answers, refrences would be nice too, but you keep repeating the same things. What is the ethnic word for Persians? Encyclopedias clearly state the ethnicity, and lingual lineage both are refred to as the same. They are very much ethnically mixed, but still have their own sub-ethnicities, and this is already mentioned in there. Zmmz 06:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If in Tehran, Isfahan, shiraz ask someone who has persian language as mothertongue that what is your ethnicity he/she uses the word "Fars" (and probably Pars) this is native name for Persian people. Many people have their own name for themselves in their own language.Diyako Talk + 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you this? No one, not a single person in Iran, refers to themselves as "Fars" or "Farsi." That is so ridiculously absurd that it defies reason. Go look in all the encyclopedias you want Diyako, you will not find anything supporting your bizarre theories. SouthernComfort 06:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Southern??? Are you Iranian???? But if I will proved that native name for Persian peoples is for themselves is Fars what you say? you will say I'm not Iranian?!! I was not aware?!! Ok some weeks ago user heja helweda added a ton references on Fars but Iranian users removed it. it's a little strange yes?! Diyako Talk + 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The dominating language that unites that country is Persian, and it translates to Farsi. That is the language of the country. Is that what you want them to write? What happened to references that says not all Iranians at some point mixed and mingled together, and as you claim some ethicities there never mixed with their countrymen and are still pure?Zmmz 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Fars" native name for Persian people:

[8] [9],[10], [11],[12], [13], [14],[15], [16], [17], [18]). Diyako Talk + 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The word Fars in Farsi language is both name of a ethnic group and a geographical area. here in the article persian people the word Fars means the native name for that ethnic group.Diyako Talk + 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Fars is the name for Iranians from the Fars province. Also, one, do not make my talkpage into another battle ground here, I don`t want to make this page flooded with texts. Two, Diyako referring to you, the user Southerncomfort seems to be ethnic Iranian. Third of all, where are [your] refrences? How come what you are alleging is not mentioned in any of the encyclopedias. Here is the bottom-line, that in an ideal world would replace confusing names used in the English literature; Persia as a [country], and its people then and now known as Persians? No, they should be called Iran and Iranians. The Iranians in the province of Pars, or Fars being called Persians? Yes, [that] is correct. The languge of Iran also being known as Persian or Farsi? Yes, [that] is correct. Zmmz 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter what any of us say, they will continue alleging that we are "Fars" (he used to love calling us "ajam" but I guess he prefers "Fars" now) and that Iranians and Persians don't exist and that we are all "mixed up" or whatever other crap theory from the lunatic fringe. Fun, isn't it? SouthernComfort 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately he is fighting an uphill battle, all by himself, and he is very confused.Zmmz 07:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with problem users

Hi, I do not have the authority to ban editors, I have the authority to block editors for a short time, if they are engaged into Personal Attacks and other disruptive behavior. I would do it to stop a flame war immediately after the attack, not day after just to punish people. If you want to discuss behavior of a problem user, you can start a WP:RFC process against him or her. In the most serious cases you can file Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration so that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee could handle the case. The ArbCom indeed have the authority to ban editors for a long time or indefinitely but they would take only the most serious cases. abakharev 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Zmmz 07:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Advocacy Help

Dear Zmmz: Hello there, thanks for contacting me. I'll be your advocate from now on, and I'll make a mention of this down at the Advocate Cabal so that other people can track what's going on. I've looked at the request and Mediation Cabal request for mediation that you linked to, and they both seemed slightly odd from the perspective that the RfC didn't really have much in the way of actual comment on it nor of much documentation of the user's activities (only two diffs!) and the Mediation Cabal case doesn't appear to have, well, been mediated very much. The problem is that with these sort of disputes "bad blood" is generated on all sides of the dispute due to the animous tone of the debate, and so they become inextricably difficult to solve. I'd suggest the following:

• Give the mediator at the Mediation Cabal who's assigned to your case a nudge, and ask him/her to investigate it a bit further, and to try to tabulate some attempt at common agreement with the parties.
• Rewrite the RfC as per usual methodology, so that it contains enough content for people to comment on it. Take a look at some of the other RfCs for example that are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment; you'll find there instructions on how to write the RfC.
• Take a step or two back from the dispute, and try not to get too worried about the user's activities. I know this sounds silly but we can all get perhaps a little too heated about things, and it's important not to get too burned out when dealing with difficult users. Then if you try to comment to the problem user from a more outside perspective you'll find it's easier to try to build some sort of understanding. Looking at the scenario, however, I wouldn't hold out a great deal of hope on this avenue, though.
• Failing all of the above, put the whole thing in front of the Arbitration Committee to handle, the last step in the dispute resolution process. Personally looking at this particular case I expect that in reality arbitration will be the only solution due to the interpersonal conflicts involved. You can make a request for the Arbitration Committee to hear a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; follow the instructions given on that page for guidance on how to make a request. Before you do this, make sure that you've exhausted all possibilities regarding the RfC and mediation first, because the mediator won't be able to handle the case while there is a pending request for arbitration. I'll write a note to the arbitration committee when and if you place the case to let them know that they should accept it, so that I can attest that all other avenues have been exhausted.
• If you'd like my direct involvement in this matter, for example if you'd like me to talk to the user in question personally and try to work out some sort of involvement, then I will do so (but won't contact the user without your express permission, obviously, nor anyone else).

I hope the above is of some assistance to you. If you wish to reach me outside of Wikipedia, you can e-mail me at nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com (removing the munging) and I'll get back to you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all the info you provided. I do agree with you that all options must be utilized first, and I also agree with you that due `bad blood` between the users involved. Moreover, frankly from experience, it seems that unfortunately at this point there may be [no] compromise. A neutral user, Khoikhoi who tried to moderate the Persian people article itself as a third opinion, and who was the one to set-up the mediation request, also now agrees that certain users refuse any form of compromise, but yes as you noticed, to date, no actual mediation was has taken place in that Mediation Cabal. User Khoikhoi and others then agreed to sign the RfC that was set-up by me. So, as of now I am requesting that you be the lone Advocate in these cases, and I am requesting that you please bring these matters to the attention of the Arbitration Committee: All other options have now been exhausted. Finally, we are working to put more diffs and evidence in the RfC page, and the page may be completed as early as tommorow. I really appreciate all your help. Thank youZmmz 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Farabi

1. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

   

   The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

   When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

2. Please don't remove references to Al-Farabi's being Muslim without discussion, or add a definite nationality; the article clearly states the position on the latter — that his ethnic origin is unclear. By saying that he's Persian, you make the article contradict itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take time to view the edit history before implying anything. I have not erased any refrences nor have I erased the word `Muslim` or other words. Furthermore, vandalism is just that, vandalism, and leaving the edit summary blank, although not a good idea, but it has nothing to do with vandalism. Finally, if any words were added, refrences were provided. Accusing someone of sneaky reverts, and vandalism is a major step to take, I sincerely hope you are aware of that. But again, writting a brief summary in the edit summary box is a good idea. Thank youZmmz 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I did look at the edit summary, but the organisation of the page meant that it looked as though you'd put "Persian" in place of "Muslim" instead of adding it. Sorry for that misunderstanding. The point about the addition of "Persian" stands, though.
2. The text that I added above about using summaries is a standard template (see {{tl:summary}}. It doesn't say that not using summaries is vandalism (though it is Wikipedia policy; anyone nominated for adminship, for example, is likely not to get it if they don't use edit summaries); it says that not using them might mean that your edits are mistaken for vandalism.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey Zmmz, just wondering if you could add your email address to your account. You can do that by going to Special:Preferences. I need to send you something. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing.Zmmz 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it`s done.Zmmz 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It still says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address". Try again. --Khoikhoi 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it`s done.Zmmz 07:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Check your email... --Khoikhoi 07:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven`t received anything.Zmmz 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Check again. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven`t received anything yet.Zmmz 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Please *don't* report vandalism to me by email. Its not appropriate. Use WP:AN/I if its serious. William M. Connolley 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Now he is interested in more than just Persian people. See Arabs of Khuzestan and Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 11:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. He calmed down and accepted reason. SouthernComfort 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

Wow, it looks like you and Kash have really been working hard at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman. Good work! --Khoikhoi 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did all the work and Kash signed it, since due to technicality I could not.Zmmz 07:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Keep up the hard work. --07:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian people (again)

Aucaman has begun revert warring there again. I thought he was beginning to become reasonable, but these deletions are without even any discussion. SouthernComfort 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you report him to an admin, specially since, we have brought this case to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Add any violations to the case page we have set-up. Also, I warned him in good faith about breaking the 3rr, but he erased it from his talk page. If he breaks it, let me know.Zmmz 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He archived the talk which is totally unethical since there an RfC has been comment. He also improperly moved Parsi without discussion to Parsi people and then again to Parsi People, which I had to fix by moving to Parsi (ethnic group) and then fixing all the redirects manually. This is common as he also requested a merge between Iranian cuisine and Persian cuisine without letting anyone know, nor saying anything on the respective talk pages, and then someone else merged it due to the request. His actions are obviously preemptive and I have no idea what his problem is. Instead of trying to fix things and communicate, instead he goes around making all these major changes in articles where other editors are involved, all without discussion. SouthernComfort 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I need the diffs for the Parsi page.Zmmz 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi

You guys could have potentially avoided all the problems at Al-Khwarizmi by adding online references, of which I have found many. I've added them to the article, but afterwards it was protected due to a request. This is the first time I got involved, so I don't know who requested the protection. There are still plenty of more sources to be found, particularly offline (i.e. books) sources. SouthernComfort 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, regardless of your personal opinions, please keep an eye on Ruhollah Khomeini. The article has been constantly attacked by a vandal (User:CltFn) who is inserting complete nonsense (the alleged sources are forgeries - a hoax) about Khomeini into the article - check the history. Thanks. SouthernComfort 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, good job man. I also got that Parsi diff. Aucaman should not have moved that page without discussing it with all the other editors.Zmmz 05:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hello. I'm not sure I understand why you asked me to change that. Can you give some explanation? It says Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Considering my previous discussions with him I think that description fits me, but maybe I didn't understand something correctly? Just let me know about it. Thanks. Shervink 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

OK, so please sign under the other section too, because the first section you signed in, does not show your support, rather shows you tried to solve the dispute, and that you certify you did try, that`s it. ThanksZmmz 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman (again)

1. I have cleaned up the RfC.

2. You forgot to post a notice on his talk page, but I have done that for you.

3. Have you suggested or tried mediation?

4. I have not researched the details of the case. I am willing to act as your Advocate if you want to request mediation. I may be willing to act as your advocate for arbitration if his response is confrontational. However, before arbitration is in order, we need to give him a chance to respond to the RfC.

5. If I review the case and agree that he is a disruptive editor, I am willing to be your Advocate, but I will insist then that you cooperate with me. Robert McClenon 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

6. I will take care of the movement of the comments if necessary. However, I do want to try mediation before we try arbitration. I do know how to do arbitration, and I am good at it, but part of that knowledge is knowing when to try to resolve things by some less drastic method. Robert McClenon 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• On behalf of the team of editors who submitted this request we thank you very much for all your help. Certainly the user should have a chance to respond, and we could certainly use an advocate such as you. The answer to your question about mediation is; yes--we have tried compromising, involving neutral users, getting a third opinion, and even asked a third party to set-up a Mediation Cabal, the link to which was provided in the Rfc page. Unfortunately, they have all failed, and because [so] much of our time, and efforts are now concentrated in battling disputes, providing references etc., at this point we welcome any decision made by the Arbitration Committee; as long as, there is [a] decision--period. Again, feel free to act as a mediator, and/or our advocate; we will cooperate with you fully, and thanks for your efforts. Zmmz 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing to mediate. If I did, I would not be able to advocate for you if mediation failed. I will make one more effort to request mediation. Robert McClenon 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, mediation has not worked, but we will give it [one] last try. After that, you be the advocate for this please. Thanks Zmmz 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to confirm that mediation has failed. If all else fails, we go to arbitration. Robert McClenon 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Parsis

Regarding your edit here. The study was done on Pakistanis in general and not Parsis in particular. Why are you objecting to the reflection of this in the article? Aucaman^Talk 09:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizimi

Hi ZmmmZ, Im glad we have agreed on a version. You can add all the reasons why al-k is persian in the persian section. The rest is up to the reader to make his choice. Jidan 07:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)