User talk:Sia34

Welcome!

Hello, Sia34, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Pejman47 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation talk

You are going to need to exercise a bit more politeness in the discussion, as your pointed remarks at me can easily be considered personal attacks. I would strongly urge you to find some route to the discussion which allows you to remain professional and polite. The alternative would be unpleasant, especially considering that your account seems to be a Single-Purpose Account. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physician, heal thyself. --Sia34 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you make a personal attack on me in an artcile, there will be repercussions. Focus on the article and the topic, and not the contributor. Consider this your last warning in that regard, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And understand that my note of repercussions is not a threat. It is an observation that personal attacks and incivility in Wikipedia is not tolerated, and that users thusly affected have recourse to affect its cessation. If you feel that my warning is in fact a threat, perhaps you might want to reflect on how me making use of my rights to not be attacked threaten you. Clearly, someone is considering your comments to be personal attacks and uncivil in nature. Perhaps it is time for you to take the opportunity and reflect upon what it was that made that user feel attacked and adjust your behavior accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should adjust your behavior accordingly first. I a not attacking you, I don't even know you, I am simply adressing your views and their insufficiencies ( you have no sources). --Sia34 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And calling attention to my blocking log isn't at all uncivil? Precisely what part of my past block log, or seeking to recruit members for an RfC was not a personal attack, sia? You see, you aren't the only one who can check a user's history - or, in your case, a notable lack of one. Is this a secondary account for you? Before you reply hastily, please be aware that RFCU and SPP can verify or disprove your answer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rather what I thought. So who were you before this account (or what is your primary account name)? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered you, this is my primary account, I just don't login in order to edit, I do so only for the mediation.--Sia34 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. thanks for answering. You might want to consider using your ID to edit, as the perception of an SPA was fairly strong. Ann RFCU wouldn't find anything else, would it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Perhaps you (CloudNine) could address Sia's behavior in the mediation? He's made a few personal attacks, and I am inclined to file an AN/I about it unless it stops. Perhaps you can offer this single-purpose account holder advice on how to focus on the edit and not the editor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? I have not made any personal atacks against you, I am simply asking you to back up your claims with sources, and I have every right to do so. You, on the other hand, have been rude and combative in your responses, and leaving threats like "You really don't want to find out how harsh I can be with you and your edits" [1] and "The next time you make a personal attack on me in an artcile, there will be repercussions" [2] on other users' talk pages, this is hardly civil. --Sia34 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having some difficulties with this user in the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf mediation. While mediation can be difficult at times, I am wondering why this user feels the need to be uncivil, making personal attacks on me simply because I (politely) disagree with his assertions. The user appears to be a SPA based upon his contributions thus far to the community, and thusly, I have tried to point out that we focus on the edits, and not the editors, all without success. The personal attacks (1, 2, 3) seem to be escalationg in both frequency and incivility. Additionally, the user has actively sought out a meatpuppet to support the filing of an RfC, presumably an attempt to eliminate me as a voice of dissent in the Persian Gulf mediation discussion.

Any assistance in helping to calm this user down would be both helpful and instructive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is me stating the fact that you have not provided any sources, is a personal attack? My concerns are about your claims and their insufficiencies and lak of sources to back them up with. You're anything but polite in the mediation page, you use a rude, sarcastic and combative tone in almost all of your posts, and whenever someone questions you, you go and make threats against them, like your threat to follow and haress Pejman when you told him "You really don't want to find out how harsh I can be with you and your edits" . After seeing comments like that, or reading Agha Nader's talk page and how you called him a "Muslim fundamentalist", I think your behavior is worthy of wide-spread notice from the community, which is why I brought up the issue with Agha Nader , since I am myself unfamiliar with the how to of filing of an RfC. --Sia34 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some pecific examples of rude/personal comments/attacks by Arcayne:

"your beloved name for a body of water" (implying that I have a "beloved name") "see those nifty little wikilinks I graciously provided you above" (condescending and rude tone) "Honestly, I could bring forth those sources, and you would attack them, calling them Zionist or pan-Arabist propaganda" (no AFG, making rude assumptions about me, an attack on my character)[3]
"Perhaps you missed that part of my post that asked you to avoid straw man arguments" (calling my arguments which are backed by sources, "straw man arguments") [4]
"your cherry-picked sources " ( calling my sources cherry-picked , when he has yet to provide a single source)[5]

--Sia34 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might point out how addressing my block log is not a personal attack and somehow addresses my reticence to be pulled into yet another debate that belongs elsewhere? As your knowledge of wiki policy and behavior seems to belie that of a user who has only been active for a few months, I could submit that your current account is not your first one. As I specifically asked you if this was your first account, your failure to respond speaks volumes. I wonder what your previous accounts logs look like...

I am specifically not providing references as they are not key to the discussion. If they are not key to the argument and are in fact inconsequential to the resolution of the mediation matter, they are a tangential discussion. Arguing in favor of a term that you are fully aware is going to create significant debate is both disruptive and untrue. As per straw man, your edit creates a fallacy of the argument, easier to refute and marginalize (ie, if Nasser created the term for political means less than 60 years ago, how can it be notable?). Your inclusion of Nasser, and the application of the 'Arabian Gulf' as a solely political derivative is the straw man argument. If you choose to ignore a request to avoid making straw man arguments, I am unsure why you would be upset over me again drawing your attention to the previous post requesting that course of action it. If you consider to be condescending my request that you actually read my posts before further defending a straw man argument, then I imagine that you have a right to.

Your sources, which seem to fairly avoid those academic and historical sources noting earlier instances of the term (many of them in use before Nasser was even born) are thusly considered cherry-picked. If you don't want your referential sources considered such, find more neutral sources. And if I make a point of noting that, it isn't considered unfair to do so. They are not instrumental to supporting the usage of 'Persian Gulf' and 'The Gulf' in the Lead and are, quite frankly, less than neutral.

As well, my warning to Pejman was in fact justified, when we consider his comment that preceded it, or are you suggesting that the comment directed at you would not have been considered (at best) impolite?

My issues with Agha Nader are - quite bluntly - none of your concern. If you want to learn how to create an RfC, please feel free to go to the article page an learn. It's a fairly straight-forward process, much like an AN/I. Just make sure you let me know when you file it. I am fairly sure I will have something to say about it. Seeking allies in a dispute is called canvassing. Using them to plan/confer attacks on other users is considered unseemly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing references is the key to the discussion, one can't just make claims and refute academic sources with no references of his own. I am sorry but you're in no position to call my sources "cherry-picked", my arguments "straw man", or tell me " find more neutral sources" (as if National Geographic and U.S. Board on Geographic Names are not neutral) when you still have not provided a single source to back your own views, and your failure to do so speaks volume. As for RfC, I think it's overdue, your behavior speaks for itself.--Sia34 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before (and apparently must do so again), I am not willing to waste my time arguing about that which is off-point (which is quite a different matter than being 'unable' to). Yes, references are key to resolving the dispute currently under mediation (not to mention actually following wiki policies), but references as to the origin of the naming dispute actually belong in the cleverly-named Persian Gulf Naming Dispute article, and have no place in the mediation. I think I've clearly noted why I feel your arguments regarding the origins of the nomenclature are of the straw man variety.

I guess I don't need to mention yet again that you seemed to miss (avoid/evade?) the question about whether this is your only account, or if this is a secondary one. Very interesting, that. I am not sure why you are reticent to answer this fairly straight-forward query.

If you feel that your behavior can withstand the scrutiny of RfC (and it will be called into question as well), file the request. While I am less than patient and reassuring in my handling of folk who I feel are either wasting time or being impolite, I think that my 12,000+ edits pretty much puts me in good stead. At least, i don't try to conceal my past mistakes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then do not argue against sourced facts, if you're not willing to back up your arguments with sources. The controversial nature and origin of the name are essential to the context within which the name can mentioned in the lead, and I am not alone in saying this. Also, not that I have to answer to you, but most the times I only read Wiki pages and edit anonymously, I don't feel like logging in, I do so only for the mediation. Quantity is not quality, your 12,000+ edits do not put you in good stead, when your behavior is far from constructive, and many many users have had problems with you. --Sia34 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

Sorry. I thought all of my edits were beneficial; but even if they are I should have discussed them. Could you check all of my edits, and please tell me if there are any inappropriate edits. I hope to continue my edits on the page, but in future I will take more notice of the sensitivities and disputes.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lad, I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to actually talk TO me instead of AT me. The condescending tone doesn't work with me, and actually makes me less interested in working with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your comment was moved to the discussion which it addressed. Please see WP:TALK if you wish to reacquaint yourself with Talk Page discussion policies and guidelines - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make ill-advised accusations of original research towards me. I find it to be uncivil. Let's not head down a path that will have unpleasant consequences for you, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soap-boxing

How do you see it as that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soap-boxing is defined as "Propaganda, advocacy...Opinion pieces", and that post falls under all those categories. --Sia34 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, were that the case, virtually every single post you've made in Persian Gulf would have to be removed as well. You are offering advocacy towards a point of view that seems skewed, whilst offering your opinions. I am not sure I am seeing propaganda, though - in either of you.

Err, what terrorist organizations? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first terrorist organizations and now a 5-day troll from a year and a half ago? You can understand why this might seem like a fishing expedition, right? What's next, adding my name because we disagree? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]