User talk:ObserverToSee

Welcome!

Hello, ObserverToSee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hajji Piruz 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Nader

What similarity in edits are you noticing, and from which user are you noticing them? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do pray tell.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to leave it at what I said in the Persian Gulf talk page for now. I choose not to go the route that Agha Nader has resorted to. Regards. ObserverToSee (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I was hoping to find out who you though my sock-puppet was.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for both of you (bc i know that Nader will find this message); please leave the questions/accusations/etc of sockpuppetry off the article discussion page. If wither of you feel the other is a sock, go to WP:SPP or WP:RFCU, and let an admin make the accusations. Nether of you are in that happy place of being blameless here, and it would be best for you both to just file reports - there is no harm in filing them if you truly feel that sockpuppetry is going on. If you are just making the accusations to snipe at the other, I have to let you know that admins take an exceptionally dim view of that sort of behavior, almost more than sockpuppetry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful words of caution here. I fully agree with everything you've said. The only thing I would ask is for you to maybe read the exchange a little more carefully. Regards. ObserverToSee 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gleaned enough to see that both of you were accusing each other of sock-puppetry instead of filing the reports necessary to substantiate and verify socking. It didn't need to to be in the article discussion, as it was uncivil and a personal attack. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm not sure 'gleaning' is sufficient to come up with the conclusion you have. Although, I fully agree with everything you've said about behavior and proper procedures, I do not agree with your deduction that an accusation was made my me. My response was to an accusation leveled at myself. As I've said, I do not wish to be uncivil and have refrained from being so and will continue as such. Regards ObserverToSee 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Observer. thanks for responding, and doing so politely. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf mud

I wasn;t referring to you, though how people react to uncivil behavior does contribute to the mud. Wouldn't you agree? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Thank you for the clarification. I wish we could discuss the issues without anyone resorting to incivility. Regards ObserverToSee 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report

They aren't meant to be private. if you can attest to the truth or falsehood of the matter - esp. as you were the one accused of sock-puppetry (which even if unproven can damage your rep), then you should speak up. Usually, Notice-boards allow users to see that one user who has been an occasional nuisance to them getting reported, and their piping in allows for a broader view of the user being reported. Don't be strident, though - admins really get bored of that right quick. While it is not inappropriate for you to say thanks, it is such for me to recruit anyone to comment on the complaint. Do what thou will. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf mediation cabal case

Just to let you know a discussion over the inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead of Persian Gulf has been opened over at the mediation cabal here. You are welcome to add your viewpoint to the discussion; as mediator, I look forward to a speedy conclusion to the case, and your input will help. CloudNine (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural

It isn't my intent to be offensive, OTS. It is a perception based on viewing these sorts of arguments over and over again. It hasn't just occurred with the Iran/Persia viewpoint (although they have come up again and again in ArbCom and Persia-related articles), but as well in articles regarding Jewish persecution and random violence after WWII in eastern European countries, Chinese territorial and naming disputes. Being an American of dual citizenship who has traveled extensively, I am able to take that basic insulation from international issues and use it to remain apart (aloof, if you will) from some of the Crazy present in the world. Growing up American allows me to have some pretty lofty ideals, while traveling and living elsewhere has allowed me to see that often, 'survival' takes precedence over 'living'. Ideals outside America's borders (and often within them as well) take a beating in the Rest Of the World™. Seeing people argue about the most pathetic and petty - and to someone who is not part of the issue, it is certainly seen as such - of issues simply makes me sad. It makes me want to illustrate how this pride and need to possess are damaging to the soul and to the community. When I see the same behavior in Wikipedia, I am always going to address it.

The dispute in the Persian Gulf article has a lot of the earmarks of the same sorts of problems. People like Pejman, who are very vocal about how they think that allowing the name is necessarily a destruction of some Persian claim of provenance will edit-war over any introduction to the name. While I have been trying very hard to get him to come to the MedCab and voice his opinion and slowly come to terms with Wiki policy, I think we both know that his opinion is not just based in UN citations. He hates the very idea that anything would pollute the preeminence of the Persian Gulf naming, and his potential edit-warring can easily destroy any solution that MedCab proposes. That means ArbCom would follow, which would take a long time, and result in folk being blocked and banned and the article tied up for months. I don't want to see that happen.

It sounds unfair, but i saw a lot of the same sort of behavior while editing the 300 article back earlier this year (agha nader and I were on opposite sides of the fence in that dispute). I saw a large contingent of folk suddenly arrive in the discussion page to talk about how it was criminal to even address the Persians the way that the movie did, wanting to add actual bas relief depictions of Xerxes. They didn't see Wiki policy. They didn't see that it was a movie. they only saw an affront to their cultural pride and weren't going to tolerate it. Recently, nader tried the same sort of nonsense in the article, insisting that we replace instances of Persian with Iranian, somehow thinking that - against historical evidence to the contrary - the controversy was about how Iranians were depicted, and not the ancient Persians.

I see the same sort of pattern in the Persian Gulf article and discussion. I don't see anyone speaking up to counter Pejman's point of view (except nader, who seems content to tease and vaguely infantalize Pejman's point of view, which I think is simply bad form). That indicates to me that Pejman is to the discussion what Pearl is to Hester Prynne; he says what the others won't say but seem to feel. The argument of undue weight seems to be based not on whether the argument warrants consideration (which in my eyes, it does), but on whether there are enough Arabs to constitute a group noteworthy enough to validate their view. Whether intentional or not, it feels like cultural elitism. On both sides of the issue. I would prefer to sidestep that whole 'my culture is better than yours' innuendo and stick strictly to wiki policy. It may be flawed, but it is a meeting place for all views, and no one's view gets to trump anyone else's. Wiki holds supreme sway, which is how it should be.

okay, i am a bit talked out. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Maybe my characterization of pathetic was a bit unfair, but I think that my observation of pettiness is pretty much on the mark. It might be part of a political agenda that is behind the use of Arabian Gulf, but because that political agenda and term usage is a noteworthy event, it needs to be noted. We aren't here to interpret the events on the world stage here in Wikipedia. we just note them and move on. If the matter is ever resolved (and I think we both know that our own children will grow old before that happens), it would be addressed in first the Naming dispute and reflected in the Persian gulf article.

I think its commendable that you are willing to even try to step back and see the events form a metaphorical distance. many others are either incapable or unwilling to even make the genuine effort. For making the effort, you have my respect. :) Not sure which is appropriate, but joyous Eid al-Adha and/or Waqf al-Arafa. Have you even been on Hajj? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the indent. I would have caught it, but was otherwise occupied. I hope you had a nice holiday, or at least a little relaxation. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. :-) There are still a bunch of inconsistent indentations out there in that discussion that no one has fixed. This last one finally got to me. ;-) You probably already do this, but just in case, if before you hit the "Save page" button you take a quick glance at "Show preview", you'll catch these right away. The holidays were very enjoyable. I hope you had the same. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on Seattle Seahawks history - First season was in NFC

No big deal, and it's sort of an obscure piece of trivia, but the Seattle Seahawks did play their first season in the NFC West finishing with a record or 2-12 behind the Rams, Niners, Saints, and Falcons. See the 1976 standings here. There is some confusion about Zorn winning the Offensive award itself which is in the discussion section of the Jim Zorn article itself. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! Thanks for correcting this again. Once I changed this, I did further research to find references and found that indeed Seattle started in the NFC in 1976 but then moved to AFC in 1977. By the time I got back to revert, you had already corrected. What's interesting is that Redskins.com is also listing AFC Rookie of the Year as an accomplishment for Jim Zorn in 1976! Regards. ObserverToSee (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess that I, also, originally thought that the Seahawks had always been an AFC team until they joined the NFC West. I only found out about that when investigating the Jim Zorn article and his award as (I think) "NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year." When people I know bitch about Wikipedia because "anybody can change anything" I counter by pointing out that many of the changes are the corrections of a community of observers. It's a two-edged sword.

In any case, it really is a sort of cool piece of trivia and very unusual. I'm betting you can trip up a lot of native Wathingtonians (me for one) on this. I'm also not surprised other sites make this mistake. The implication is that you will win many bar bets in your future! Just ask "In which conference, NFC or AFC, did the Seattle Seahawks begin NFL play?" Most people will think you're going to trip them up with the AFC until 2002 switch and then BAM! Instant free beer. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a fantastic idea about the bar bet! :-) I for one would have definitely been on the loosing end of that bet until now. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Gulf

This user [1] has been inserting Arabian Gulf in some articles. See the Dubai article, for instance. Agha Nader (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Nader!! Long time no see! Good catch on these. They seem to have been cleaned up by others already. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious thing I just noticed Agha Nader, the edit log shows May 10th for your edit here, but your edit is tagged with May 7th. How does this happen? I noticed your edit today! ObserverToSee (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]