User talk:Aucaman/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Just wanted to cross-post the following to make sure you didn't miss it in all the jumble:

Interesting, I guess I sort of suspected that, that "wiped off the map" might not even be a literal translation of what he said. Can you propose and alternate translation of the original Persian into English? Or is his actual comment not availble in Persian? I find it insane that this is not something I've seen discussed in the media, to make a big deal of a particular phrase and not question the translation... --Brian Z 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your further explanation is very interesting. I sort of feel like it should be worked in to the article more directly, but I'm not sure how since it is "original research" in a way. Anyway, thanks! --Brian Z 13:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Zygmunt Łoś

Hello. I stumbled across the article on Jerzy Zygmunt Łoś. Aleph4 remarked that the article mentions two different years in which he died, 1996 and 1998. Based on the Polish articles, and some biographies that I found with a quick Google search, I decided that 1998 is probably the correct one, and changed the article accordingly. Could you please check whether I did not make any mistakes?

You list maths as one of your interests on your user page. In that case, have you already come across the WikiProject Mathematics? If not, then perhaps you can have a look, and even add yourself to the list of participants if you feel so inclined.

Anyway, have a nice time here, and feel free to ask me any questions on User talk:Jitse Niesen if it is not clear how things work here (it can be a bewildering place, especially if you're new). I hope you will be able to continue contributing.

Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...his year of death is indeed 1998, but he had a severe stroke in 1996 (which was the main cause of his death in 1998). The wording might have caused some confusion. Thank you for the other stuff as well. I'll take a look at them. Aucaman 02:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. By the way, one oddity of English spelling: pronounce, pronunciation. I didn't invent it :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's

AfD on Ecstatic

Transwikify vs Delete

Hi Aucaman. Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecstatic. I would like to point out that whenever I make a vote, I look back at the article 4 or 5 times to consider if any future arguments change my mind. Whilst I don't usually change my mind, perhaps 1 in 10 times I would do so, sometimes due to further research of my own. I understand that the argument put forward there is that, whilst the article should be in Wiktionary ordinarily, Wiktionary already has a very good entry, and hence Transwikify is not relevant. However, I don't think that my changing my vote will make much difference, as what I am saying essentially agrees with you. If I am thinking of delete, I don't think that I will bother to change my vote in that case because the argument that I have is identical to that of the argument put forward for delete - except with different conclusions. However, if I were to change my vote to keep, then that is a different matter. Since there is an article on ecstasy there is an argument that a properly expanded version of ecstatic warrants being kept. I am currently seeking advice as to the proper procedure for this kind of thing before changing my vote. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Wikifiddler

Wikifiddler

OK, done. No problem, it's a good article, I shouldn't have such a thin skin! Herostratus 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifiddler

I think our opinions on this weren't far from each other anyway. I have tried to clarify my opinion at AfD. Kusma (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Wikifiddler

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. I'm going to continue to disagree with you. I think the Wikifiddler article is just too trivial on its own--my suggestion to merge was my attempt to keep some of the content instead of just deleting it completely. But I think one article documenting criticisms, attacks, whatever, is enough in the article space. Nothing personal, OK? I understand where you're coming from, we just disagree. rodii 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikifiddler

Hello! This is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifiddler, which you messaged me about. I've spent some time thinking this over, and I'm still not convinced it should be kept. The article at its essence is a criticsm of Wikipedia's anti-elitism and its group dynamics, points which are already well-covered in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. The Wikifiddler term, while being more specific, does not really add anything more useful to the discussion. I think the only thing right now that would make me change my vote is evidence that the term is in fact in widespread use. Maybe you could clarify your reasons for keeping?

In either case I think an Attacks on Wikipedia article would be a really bad idea - the title is almost inherently POV. It would imply that everything in it is an attack (deliberate attempt to disparage the subject) as opposed to criticism (pointing out flaws with the subject). Well, that's just my $0.02. -- Saikiri ~ 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maryan Rajavi

Hello. As you can see from looking at the history of the page, there was a long-running edit-war between two users, RezaKia (talk • contribs) and an anonymous contributor. It involved gross incivility and extreme POV. I placed two tags on the page to label the page as being disputed. I was not a party to the dispute, and the briefest glance at the history explains it. I was in contact with both parties by email, and it seemed unnecessary to make the point. Perhaps in future you could assume good faith before labelling people "irresponsible" as you just did on my talk page. A little civility can go a long way. I have indeed removed the tag as it no longer seems necessary. There have been no edits for fifteen days, nor talk-page comments. Best, [[Sam Korn]] 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I apologise for not putting the note on the talk page. Generally, as a hint, you can find the reason for a POV template in the reversions that immediately precede it... Cheers, and my apologies again, [[Sam Korn]] 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Hey, that was added because Humus sapiens and Battlefield Persistently added that Anti-Semitic category to the artcile without source. It has been removed, so I have removed the {{disputed}} tag--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Project

Hey,

My name is Aytakin and thourgh out my time in wikipedia, I have seen the great contributions you have made to articles about of Iran and that is why I am contacting you today. I am wroking on a website (http://www.iranclub.ca] about Iran which will have everything from editorials and deep information on history to current soccer scores and live TV and our own 24/7 radio! I am also working on a wiki[1] for information on everything relating to Iran. I am very much in need of some extra people to help me on this project. If you are intrested please reply, Thank you. --(Aytakin) | Talk 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx alot man --(Aytakin) | Talk 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youre right

About that edit: if it is deleted, no matter. It's not a big deal. I dont think it was such an important piece of information anyway.--Zereshk 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

User:Aucaman, I am very sorry for my unwise comments that I said in the Iran Talk page. I read the comments and i know what you mean of how long it is and i understand why you put it under a clean up.I am also sorry for mistaking you for another user who did unwise edits. My apologies Wikiwo123 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

No problem, and I appreciate the work you've been doing as well to keep everything as neutral as possible, considering the difficulty in attempting to do so. The Khomeini article has been a serious problem in a similar fashion (pro-Khomeinists, anti-Khomeinists, etc.) as I'm sure you've noticed. ;) I'll do what I can in finding sources and such. Keep up the good work. SouthernComfort 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.235.196.161

Hi, Aucaman. Not sure what you were talking about on WP:AIV re: 69.235.196.161. I looked through his contributions over the past few hours, and they don't appear to be vandalism. He also hasn't been warned recently. —Cleared as filed. 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

There are already four links to fullsize images in the external links sections. The link to geertwilder.nl appeared like a reference rather than an external link. I will move it to the caption of the image, where it might fit in better. Also, I will replace it with cryptome.org, which can handle the traffic and doesn't have any particular political message. Rasmus (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page where I object to your removing opinions.--

Nomen Nescio 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 11

You forgot to create the archive when you removed the material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened now. When you made this edit it links to an older version of the talk page. Although that works what you should do is follow Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and make a new page just like making an article. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khamanei

Hey, I am 129.116.28.180. I keep forgetting to log in for my edits. I replied on the talk page my perspective on POV vs. NPOV in the article. Glaucus 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people Article

Hi, I read the debate on Kurdish people article. If you have time, can you take a look at the Turkish people article and the discussion and add a comment of your own. You will see that the article is in shambles and instead of an "Kurdish people are Iranian origin" we have a "Turkish people are a mixture of all sorts of people." Thanks, AverageTurkishJoe 06:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your 'tidying up' of Talk Jyllands Posten cartoons controversy! Netscott 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish people

I'm not sure you quite understand semi protection and where it's used. There are 2 problems with using semi protection on that article. #1 it's as much of an edit war than vandalism and semi protection should not be used in those cases. And most importantly, semi protection only stops users whose accounts are less than 4 days old. Well, the user you reverted (Jalalarbil) is at 6 days, so semi protection wouldn't have stopped him from posting anyway. And he is not blocked. Same case with Manik666. He is way beyond 4 days and he was reverted as well. And Manik666 was posting before when the article was semi protected, which is why I moved it to full in the first place. Semi protection is just completely inappropriate in this case. I mean if you say it's all vandalism, then semi protection will only stop the anon vandals and that's unfair to the anon vandals. If you claim it's an edit war, then semi protection can't be used at all. So. it has to be full. Sorry. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's just too much of an edit war for SP even with heavy vandalism. Now if you guys work things out and we unprotect and the vandals come back, THEN we can do SP. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit made on Turkish people

Hey thanks for improving it! --Khoikhoi 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I like your edit comment here [2] though I guess it was a typo :-). Its a great idea, though... William M. Connolley 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realized it was a typo right after I hit the "Save" button. I hit the stop button on my browser, but I guess it still went through. Dealing with this user has been a living nightmare. I tried reporting him here, but I guess my description was too long? I'm just trying to keep a record of his wrong-doings, so that next time his reporting would be self-explanatory. Aucaman^Talk 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No title

Hey Aucaman - thanks for your update and sorry I got snippy - thanks for your own mea culpa as well :) - I'll try not to step on any rules in the future Longshot14 16:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Never made Personal Attacks But Statments based on my Observations

It is funny people complain on your impartialness and you complain on me?

I was not attacking anyone, stop twisting words and I NEVER USED PROFANITY. STOP MAKING PROBLEMS AND ACCUSATIONS. WHERE IS THE PROFANITY YOU "CLAIM?"

THat is not to Profanity. It merely states those individuals use POV, are biased, and manipulate words....where did I make a PERSONAL ATTACK. I WAS ALWAYS CIVIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you for your contibutions to Turkish people article. -AverageTurkishJoe 23:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The issue has alerady been discussed and the majority believed that Aryan in connection to Iran and Iranians, has no racist implications. So you are the one vandalizing. --ManiF 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and roots of Persians

There is no academic proof that Persians as a whole are mixture of other races and invading nationalities, Persians are an ethnicity of their own descended from Aryans [3]. I find your "self-explanatory" edit racist and inflammatory. I suggest that you take your racially motivated agenda somewhere else. --ManiF 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten me!

You are using wikipedia as a tool to propagate false information with no proof or substantiation. You can be sure that I won't let that happen. --ManiF 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bugging/harrassing/threatening me. I simply won't let you propagate false information with no proof or substantiation, "self-explanatory" is not a proof. Unless you have a reliable source for your wild cliams, do not vandalize the Iran-related articles. Many of the Iranian wikipedians are fed up with your anti-Iranian crusade and we'll take this issue to the Admins if you persist. --ManiF 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. You're supposed adhere to Wikipedia policies. Read WP:NPA and WP:-(. Don't make personal attacks and don't remove dispute tags unless the dispute is over. Aucaman^Talk 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerady read Wikipedia policies.

1) I never made personal attacks. I'm expressing my opinion about your actions/edits and that they are racially motivated.

2) I removed the dispute tag bcause I already provided a source which you still haven't disputeed on the talk page. You either challenge and counter argument or the tag gets removed since there is no longer a dispute. --ManiF 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I'm using Wikipedia to to propagate false information is a personal attack. The dispute is not over. Your source contradicts yourself and I've pointed this out. Aucaman^Talk 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack, that's a fact supported by your own actions/edits. Anyone who has taken a look at your edits can see that. How else do you explain adding an unvarified, unsubstanciated, unrefereneced claim that "Persians are a mix of Arabs, Turks and Mongols" to the Persians' page. That's not only a wild claim, but also an inflammatory racist provocation of the Persian wikipedians. --ManiF 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my actions are well-explained in the talk pages. You're supposed to comment on the contents, not the Wikipedian. Again see WP:NPA. Aucaman^Talk 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to pull the strawman in every argument "disputing" every well established fact. That's fine with me, I'll just play the game like you. Just remember I have plenty of time online to do that! --ManiF 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Last Warning"

Who are you to issue me warnings? Are you a moderator here? If yes, then I'd like to know who your superior is, because I'd like to have a word with her/him. --ManiF 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Persian Jews" who?

Since you like to "dispute" the Iranian articles on ridiculous grounds and others can't remove the "dispute tag" no matter how ridiculous your claims/issues are, I'd like to dispute one of your favorite articles Persian Jews. See you in the talk page there. --ManiF 02:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Aryan"

Which Talk: page would you like me to comment at? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

If your problem is the racist implications of the term "Aryan" then I'm fine with you replacing "Aryan" with "Indo-European" on all the disputed articles as long as you remove the dispute tags and stop vandalizing the Iran-related articles with nonsense like "Persians are a mix of Arabs, Turks and Mongols". You know how offensive that is? That's messing with an entire people's identity.

Comments?

--ManiF 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think about my compromise proposal untill tomorrow. If you want to carry on with your anti-Iranian campaign then that's fine with me. I have a broken leg and can't go out so I have plenty of time on my hand to pull an "Aucaman" on the Jewish-related articles that interest you, pulling the strawman within the wikipedia rules, just as you do.--ManiF 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan reference

Dear Aucaman, I'd like to point out to you that in Iran (aka Land of Aryans), I remember the first day of our history lessons. First page started something like this: "..The aryans migrated to..". Now I remember this perfectly well, from when I was 8. It is just to tell you that it is not a reference to racism, it is where Iranians generally believe we originated from, I am sure you already know this but you are just trying to make problems for Iranian wikipedians. Although It could be the fact than 20th century nationalism has made Aryanism in Iran more popular than it had been since the Sassanid dynasty, I don't know. But I hope you would stop wasting both ours and your own time. All the best - --Kash 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. It is that obvious. Shame on you --Kash 08:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandal report

WP:AIV is for clear instances of indisputable vandalism, which we can look at quickly and see a problem which deserves a block. This is not, in my opinion, one of those times. It appears that the dispute around the pages in question goes both ways, and as such you might be better working through some dispute resolution steps rather than seeking a block. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never let your persistence turn into stubbornness and ignorance!

My name is CYRUS THE GREAT, but I'm not your savior. I will be here every second of every minute of every hour of every day watching your every edit, making sure that you won't twist the facts, spread false information, and mislead the public. --220.92.206.12 11:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert warning at Persian people

Whatever the reason, there is never any excuse for violating our three-revert rule except in the case of simple vandalism, which this is not. As the page is currently protected I don't really see the point in blocking you for it this time, but when it is returned to free editing I hope you will be more careful to use the talk page and/or seek consensus for your edits, rather than unilaterally reverting more than three times in a 24-hour period. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or removing a "disputed" tag is not vandalism. That vandalism is referring to throwing those tags where they clearly don't belong to disrupt Wikipedia, or mass-removing them from articles, not differences of opinion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, part of my consideration in choosing not to block you was that you believed you were reverting vandalism - just try to be more careful and/or report conflicts through the appropriate channels before getting dragged into a potential 3RR violation yourself. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal situation is that you find another user to examine the situation and determine whether the disputed tag should remain. If they conclude that it should (which they would, if it's being removed without explanation or cause), then the other party will either violate 3RR or the consensus version will win out. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent people from individually hijacking an article. I do not think you acted horribly inappropriately, but it is not as cut-and-dried a case as it may seem (or as it should be, perhaps). (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for help

I'll take a look at the problem. Meanwhile, please be careful not to violate the three revert rule, even to restore dispute templates to pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on Persians page

Let me know what you think of my idea for compromise. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do agree to the use of the word Aryan as the majority, if not everyone, seem to agree with us. --Kash 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan

I'd agree that it is often avoided, partly because of the nasty Nazis, but partly because it just has too many different usages and can lead to confusion. But it is used quite a lot by English speaking Iranians and Indians, and I've seen it used as shorthand by scholars of Indian and Indo-Iranian history when they are writing or speaking in a context in which everyone is aware that there are no Nazi-related connotations. The odd thing is that in British and US culture the word actually stands for "Nordic" a lot of the time. I've seen documentaries on the Nazis in which someone is speaking in German about Nazi ideology. They clearly use the word "Nordish", but this is translated in the subtitle or voice-over as "Aryan". The word Nordic has no negative connotations in English, and is not strongly associated with the Nazis. I assume that's because Nordic was commonly used before Nazism, whereas "Aryan" is a more unusual word in English. Paul B 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kash

Hi this Khash removes dispute tags from Iranian peoples. This is clear vandalism! D iyako Talk + 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being impersonated

hi there. You are being impersonated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopherlin by an IP. Take a look at the history. Regards Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan

Hi, I thought you might be interested in this article ([4], p.3, last paragraph).Heja Helweda 04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, They (Iranians) are removing any article or category on Kurdish people from wikipedia. You see them?D iyako Talk + 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, They are afraid of any person who does not think like them. I'm not going to reply to their constant personal attacks. They want to get me involved. D iyako Talk + 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please support category Kurdistan against some biased users. Thank you very much. D iyako Talk + 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]