Jump to content

User talk:Zmmz/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Khwarazmi

The reason I'm not getting involved there is because no matter how much Zora etal try, they cant change anything. Khwarazmi is one of those things that is solid clear.

No major scholar or encyclopedia contests what they are contesting.

Basically, theyre making a fool out of themselves. As if trying to push for a flat earth explanation on the Earth article. As ShervinK said, there's a limit to how accurate open source encyclopedias can get.

Dont worry,... in time, the mess will clear up. Keep up the good work.--Zereshk 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I`m only one person; I can`t do everything by myself.Zmmz 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you could spend your highly valued talents and efforts on other articles. Zora is a bigot whom one shouldnt waste time on. She will challenge everyone even if Khwarazmi himself logged on to WP and refuted her. Debating her is pointless and a waste of your precious time. Dont worry, there are many many editors that will soon show up and delete their rubbish POV theories. Ive seen it happen many times.

These people have no sense of objectivity or reason. Theyre basically trying to push their agenda. And it's a dumb one, because noone will buy it.

Again, I have to thank you for your efforts. I'm flying out of town tomorrow morning. I'll be back soon.--Zereshk 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Its not important if he was persian or arab. The important thing is what you learn from the other side during the discusiion. I think the discussion page is more valuable than the main article itself!! Jidan 07:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Trust me Jidan, me, Zora, and a few others go long long ways back. We know eachother.--Zereshk 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I, Zereshk, hereby award this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar to Zmmz for his/her priceless efforts to protect Wikipedia from historical revisionists and fraudulent contents. You rule! Zereshk 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not always there to back you up.--Zereshk 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aryan

God! This debate over Persian people is still going on? I thought it was over. What is their excuse now? I tried reading the talk page but it is very confusing! since you have been active on this discussion, can you be good enough to tell me what is the problem now? Is it the term itself that is being labeled Racist or is it whether it should be associated with Iranians? Or is it the wording of that section? I really don’t know what to defend if I don’t understand what is their problem.

Also, great job on Kharazmi page.

thanks a lot

Gol 08:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


The user Aucaman does not want the word Aryan used in all articles about Persia or Iran, period. He tries to use excuses that say the word is outdated, or racist; even when used to describe the ethnicity of Persians. The mediator then has come up with some sort of watered-down, wishy-washy sentence to describe the Iranian ancestors, as compromise. Non of this makes sense because Aucaman`s reasons are purely political, that`s it. I made a mistake at first, thinking his concerns were legitimate. We told him Babylonian Cuneiforms discovered shows, from its birth; the country was called `Land of Aryans` by king Darius. After giving reasons like telling you the word Aryan was used because when the Babylonian Cuneiforms were discovered a German archeologist who put that word in there or something like that, I’m convinced his rational is off-the-wall, and there can be no compromise with him. Today, he wrote something else that is extremely controversial in the Iran article[1], but luckily we caught on time. Anyway, just concentrate on the Rfc I set-up for him[2], because the only solution for this is limiting his editing privileges. We need to bring him in front of the Arbitration Committee. Thanks Zmmz 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

I saw your message at User talk:Aucaman. Can you give me some specific examples of the behavior you're discussing? Another user who is a native speaker of Farsi has agreed to translate for me if the comments are not in English. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure, you can view specific examples here[3], which is an Rfc page. Thank you for looking into this.Zmmz 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked Aucaman, no (I didn't block the anonymous user, either--that person was blocked earlier for violating WP:3RR). The particular example I warned him about is the worst of his edits I could find, and if he does something like that again, I'll block him. The stuff recorded in the RfC is, I think, beyond my purview. It's a bit odd, I have to say--some of the things recorded there he shouldn't have said, but others of them are perfectly ordinary if not good edits, like warning someone for vandalism who had, in fact, committed vandalism. Incidentally, I noticed your post at Ed Poor's talk page. There's no need to go around bugging people about this--you've already opened an RfC, so see how it plays out. If you need to bring it to Arbcom, do so. If anyone posts truly nasty stuff, bring it up at WP:AN/I. Otherwise, be patient and please try to compromise. Chick Bowen 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to us reporting him for warning a user about vandalism; we never reported him for any vandalism warnings that was legitimate, I don`t know where that comes from. User Aucaman has violated the 3rr, many times, but someone who blocked him yesterday, immediately unblocked him, for some reason. The problem is that the user is a--problem user, and it takes so much efforts to respond to his numerous politically motivated disputes, and edit wars. He does make many off-the-wall comments and article edits. I`m sorry, but it`s frustrating to see a user who is being so abusive, getting away with so much. We have been waiting for some sort of decision--any decision--but nothing works, and the user`s racially motivated rational is nothing to compromise with. So, we try to ask help from any admin who listens, and I`ve got to tell you, I don`t agree with the fact that you feel we are bugging any of the admins. Users like this just end up driving away other editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. Thank you anyway. Zmmz 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

You keep reverting people's edits without saying anything in the talk page or giving good edit summaries.

You made this edit (which is undoing people's hard work) without an edit summary. Your name doesn't even appear in the talk page. I'd already explained my edit. Why did you revert it and why didn't you use the talk page?

Another example. You undid my edit here although I had already explained the edit in the talk page. Again, your name doesn't even appear in the relevant talk-space.

These are just two recent examples (with a really short time-span between your reverts). You've also done it before. Please stop reverting my edits without proper reasoning. You're making this personal. If this continues I'll have no choice but to bring this up with a third party. AucamanTalk 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When a user submits controversial edits, or erases comments that come with citations, other editors can revert it back to a previous version until the matter is resolved, which was the case here.Zmmz 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The 3RR Policy

You're about to violate WP:3RR on Persian people. Stop reverting my edits. AucamanTalk 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, from what I see here you have not only been warned very explicitly about the nature of the 3-revert rule, you have also been blocked for it twice previously. The rule applies to any time you reinstate the same version of the same page 4 times in a 24-hour period. I don't care about the content, I don't care who's "right" in this dispute, and quite frankly I don't feel the need to take the time to wade through and decipher the dispute at the content level. The only exception to the three-revert rule applies to the reversion of simple vandalism, which these clearly were not. When you return, please do not revert the page to the same version multiple times. Instead, deal with the situation civilly through our other dispute resolution mechanisms. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not warned explicitly, and user Aucaman reported me one exavtly two seconds after he or she warned me, you still haven`t granted me any exceptions. That`s fine, users like I, are much more civil than a user like Aucaman who repetitively inserts comments equating Naziism with Persia or Iran, and is otherwise generally disruptive. At any rate thank you for your time.Zmmz 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page spam was unrelated to you - it came from BBIH. You are welcome to have another admin review the block though, as I think it's certainly your right. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I mistakenly thought it was who you said, You and Zmmz should stop spamming WP:AN and my talk with block request. I can see a few mistakes, but this is just disruptive. I am sick of having to look through all these diffs, which already lag, only to find that there is no violation.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[4]. I apologize, and at any rate, as I mentioned before thank you for your time.Zmmz 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user was blocked unfairly, he was only trying to protect a page against vandals --Kash 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Request

Hi this is in regards to my block, please know that i had no idea erasing a dispute tag that was not agreed betw. at least two users, would be considered a revert. Believe it or not i actually thought i was doing the right thing, since the Persian people article is going through mediation again. The mediator actually warned the user Aucaman not put any dispute tag till the matter is resolved. Btw, again I wasn’t warned, nor did know erasing this would be a revert; I am still getting used to the rules.

you have to understand i never thought Wiki itself would be based on a loosely based network of admin, i thought if there are clear problems with a problem user, they will take immediate action, making a decision either for or against the user. but, it has been just so frustrating with this particular user [Aucaman], because he simultaneously disputes numerous articles, and is disruptive, going against clear consensus and initiating edit wars on many articles at the same time; for example when he kept constantly reverting and erasing complete sections because the word Iran, which means lit. Land of Aryans was used....we tried to explain to him with multiple references that there are archeological evidence in the form of what is called cuneiforms that shows Persia was called Iran from its birth, so we included that in the etymology section, but his response was at the time a Nazi administration was in charge of such archeological evidence and he put in the word Aryan on purpose. We told him but cuneiforms were discovered in Babylon in the 1800s, and provided numerous refs. Like Columbia. Encyclopedia that have the word Aryan settlers as Iranian ancestors, yet he still has not compromised to this day. Yet, he still uses such reasoning to write about the Nazis in articles about Persia, or Persian; the diff. is here [5]. To us at least, obviously he is a problem user, but no one is looking into the Rfc we set up for him, the link is [6].


At any rate, as you can see, it is very frustrating for those editors such as myself who don’t care about politics, rather the academic side of history, and i can tell you with honesty that again i had no idea erasing a dispute was considered a revert. the user himself left a warning about the Persian article on my talk page, but exactly a few seconds later he reported me for the 3rr, which does not show too much good faith; 06:21, 13 March 2006 vs. 06:29, 13 March 2006. But, it is unfortunate that some bad users like Aucaman and i m sure others drive away editors who have something legitimate to contribute..

Thank you so much Zmmz 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I got your e-mail, Zmmz. I'm sorry if you were blocked for a misunderstanding, but as ESkog says, since you've been blocked for 3RR violations before it's within the usual order of things to apply a stricter standard. However, I think you should be able to participate in mediation. If I unblock you, will you agree not to edit the article Persian people for the duration of your 48-hour block? Note two things: 1.this offer is not valid until I run it past ESkog. 2.I will hold you to this, and I will tell Aucaman I've made this offer, so I'm sure he'll let me know if you don't stick to it. OK? I'll go ask ESkog while you think about it. Chick Bowen 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


I certainly agree to that, and rest assured I would not edit the article mentioned by you. Thanks for looking into this.Zmmz 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're unblocked. Chick Bowen 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys, I appreciate it.Zmmz 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it take time to get unblocked? I`m still blocked.Zmmz 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You got caught in an autoblock - I think I've cleared it now. Leave a note here or throw me an e-mail if you still can't edit. Sorry for the complication. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


OK, everything is OK I now, again thanks for everything.Zmmz 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hi Zmmz, regarding Aucaman, since I haven't seen his edits firsthand, I cannot take a side. So far, I am only following the Iran page, and on that page I think both sides have not discussed or edited in good faith. It seems like Zora's suggestion is working out though, so it's all good. -- Jeff3000 16:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Reponding to {{helpme}}

Hi, how can I help? — CuaHL ☺ 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (reply to this?)

Hi, we have set up an Rfc here[7], but we have done a poor job. Bottom line, we need an advocate, do you of anyone? Thanks.Zmmz 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you're looking for because I'm not familiar with WP:RFC, but if you're looking for an administrator/SysOp, please see Wikipedia:List of administrators. I hope this helped. — CuaHL ☺ 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for help?

Hi, still looking for help? Ps. Can you use the template on your userpage please :D — CuaHL ☺;;; 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need help. Also, what do you mean when you say, Can you use the template on your userpage please?Zmmz 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant use the template on User:Zmmz, but I guess it doesn't matter where you put it. You realise that using {{helpme}} for a specific topic won't be of much use. That template is pretty much for new Wikipedians who have no clue about editing, let alone arguments and RfC, right? — CuaHL ☺ 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran & Aucuman

Hi Zmmz, thanks for the warning about Aucuman. Although I am finding him a little difficult to talk to, he doesn't seem too bad. Do you think you could comment on the Talk:Iran instead of just reverting his edits? There are a number of 3rd party editors there at the moment and if you put your view there it would help your case. Ashmoo 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not we have tried to work with in good faith, but after a few months, it was clear he really must have some sort of political views pushing his ideologies. He has a history of erasing sections about Iran, and worst of all for some reason constantly equating the country to Naziism. I really don`t know what else we can do? But, thanks for your support in the Iran article. It is good to see some well intentioned editors giving a third opinion.Zmmz 23:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aucaman

I agree that you both seem to have a dispute that cannot be resolved without outside mediation or assistance, and I think the request for comment mechanism is a good first step towards that. With that in mind, I definitely support your decision to step away from all of the pages where you have conflicted for a few days, and I have advised Aucaman to do the same. As I told him, there is nothing so urgent here that it can't wait a week or two, and this cannot be worth the frustrations on both sides - it's a matter of a few words one way or the other in an encyclopedia article, nothing more.

That said, I should caution you that many administrators have a broad view of our no personal attacks policy, especially when commenting on the motivations or qualifications of other editors. This edit in particular concerns me, as it's a page in Aucaman's userspace. Try to lay off of accusations that may be construed as personal attacks, and try to instead limit your comments on Aucaman's conduct and edits to the formal process at his request for comment. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


OK ESkog, believe it or not I am a reasonable as it can be, and there is no cpmromise to be had about something so valid as a race calling itself by the same name that is unviversally accepted by all scholars, e.g, Germanic people of Germany. Time will tell Aucaman is actually unreasonable, but, I appreciate the advice. About the comments you mentioned, but why was that a personal attack? I was under the impression Aucaman is requesting to be nominated as an admin, so I let the others know thus far there are two Rfcs against this user. ThanksZmmz 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are his personal standards for supporting others for adminship. We all have them. You are to stop editing Aucaman's pages in his userspace except for his talk page, otherwise it may construe as harassment. NSLE (T+C) at 05:15 UTC (2006-03-15)

I am not too familiar with Wiki yet, and I actually thought he himself has put in a request for adminship. I then thought it was only appropriate for me to inform other user Aucaman does not have a good record in this site. I didn`t do it on purpose, and I have never personally attacked anyone here, unfortunately user Aucaman has a history of bullying though[8].Zmmz 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Hi, out of no choice, we too have set up an Rfc against user Aucaman Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman.Zmmz 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to provide any evidence I am gathering (I havent been tring to gather much so far). --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I actually stumbeled on your Rfc about Aucaman by accident, and frankly I was very surprised that there was another user who had done this. Aucaman has the admins thinking it is only the Persian editors who have some sort of vendetta against him. At any rate, at this point I`m really concerned about his disruptive behaviour, in that he does not take anyone else`s point of view into consideration, other than that his reasons for his disputes are pretty much invalid. Believe or not I don`t feel good about it, nevertheless, we are taking him in front of the Arbitration Committee. Go take a look at the Rfc page I set-up for him here[9]. Thanks and Good LuckZmmz 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Zmmz. I tried to work out a compromise version on Persian people, but Aucaman just reverted it. What should I do? His version doesn't really seem much like a compromise. --Khoikhoi 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what else we can do as good intentioned editors besides reporting him to the Arbitration Committee. At this point we need to have the admins involved; however, on the suggestion of some admins, I prefer not to revert the Persian people article anymore, until this matter is settled once and for all. Aucaman is doing this again in other articles; Parsi, Iran, Iranian people, Khuzestan, and a few others. The only thing I recommend is gather the diffs that show you tried to compromise again, and submit them in the Rfc page, and if you see fit, make sure you leave some comments there too please. Zmmz 03:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, ok. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I have passed on your request in an as polite manner as I could. I'll ask that you (continue) to live up to the same strict level of civility, but also that you in the future might try to just be the bigger man when someone is saying things you find insulting. Sometimes telling people to be polite and calm down will have the opposite effect, and just ignoring insults can be the best way to move on. We're after all here to build an encyclopedia. So the faster we can just move on, the better. But WP:CIVIL is an important wikipedia rule, and if you should come across incidents that you simply can't ignore, I'll be happy to look into it. Thanks! Shanes 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job; I agree; if only others would follow, we all would have an easier time in here. Thank youZmmz 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement

Which part? SouthernComfort 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The one that starts with.....thirdly.Zmmz 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Zora has continued stalking me as well and trying to get other editors slanted against me - see User_talk:LukasPietsch. I am seriously growing tired of this harassment - and it is harassment when another editors goes around calling you "chauvinist" and "nationalist" over and over again (as I've told Lukas) for over a year. I'm sick of it and she's asking for an ArbCom. SouthernComfort 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SC, I realize that now after only being here for a month. Zora keeps erasing the ethnicity of poets like Rumi, saying his ethnicity does not matter, he was a Muslim, and he belongs to all of us, which I thought was really inappropriate when writing an encyclopedia. Users like Lukas feel we are some sort of nationalist, extremists group here in Wiki, which is really unfortunate, nevertheless, the problem with A and Z seem to have gone for a year now. I really am convinced we need to bring them in front of ArbCom--do you other editors like you agree? I think it is time for that sort of action.Zmmz 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing material from talk page

Zmmz, it's not explicitly forbidden to remove contributions you don't like from your own talkpage, as you just did ([10]), but let me tell you it too is strongly frowned upon by many. Do what you like, but this in itself may be seen as a piece of evidence of uncooperative behaviour in a later Arbcom case. Just a friendly word of advice. Lukas (T.|@) 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd suggest you archive them instead. NSLE (T+C) at 08:19 UTC (2006-03-15)

Lukas, there is no need for you to patronise or scold me[11]. There is an Rfc page, you need to write your concerns there. If my biggest problem is as you said my writings are wordy, or that I erased your lengthy message, that was inappropriate for you to leave in this page to begin with, then I`m in much better shape than Aucaman who personally attacks others numerous times, has failed to compromise after a third opinion and then a Mediation Cabal asked him to drop the unreasonable dispute, and etc., etc. Aucaman has gone as far as erasing my warning on his page about a 3rr, and erasing entire sections in an article that come with refrences, without any discussions. I also noticed that because Aucaman was warned not to edit the article Persian people, you are now doing it for him. Please from now don`t flood my personal talk page with subtle threats and bullism, rather address your concerns in one the five the Rfcs written up for Aucaman, where others can view it as well; that would be much more appropriate. Zmmz 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Lukas on the assumption of good faith, and after being pointed out to me by other users that it may be inappropriate to use the word biased--I have now erased it, and in the intrest of sounding fair; I do actually apologize. But, again, kindly do not spam my talk page too much, and certainly refrain from scolding me. Thanks and good luck to you.Zmmz 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse Lukas of bias. Remember to assume good faith when possible. I am willing to act as your advocate, but I have not yet reviewed the material in detail. I will caution you that if you have made personal attacks against Aucaman, then the ArbCom will take note of them. I may not be able to give much attention to your case until Friday or Saturday. Robert McClenon 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sure thing, I`ll take your advice; the reason I called Lukas biased was because he warned others about personal attacks, but simultanously called many, ramblers, whiners, nationalists etc. Honestly, I was upset because he basically scolded me in my own talk page. Nevertheless, I agree with you, and I am going to erase the word biased, as well as leave a message on his talk page. As far as personal attacks go; I`ve never attacked anyone; although, I believe yesterday, I left a comment on a page that I thought was Aucaman`s adminship request, saying, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported an abusive editors in Wikipedia[12].Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)  ; later that turned out to be his userpage, and I genuinely had no idea though. But, I do take full responsibility for that. And, I`m going to go ahead and issue an apology. I`m glad we have some help now, so thank you.Zmmz 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To demonstrate your good faith, I repeat, I'd appreciate if you didn't throw around the distorted quote from me everywhere. I did not call you "whiners" and "ramblers". I did call your behaviour "whining" and "rambling", and if you insist on believing that's the same thing, you could at least have the decency to include the link to the actual quote so that people can judge for themselves. I'm not going to retract that judgment, and remain highly critical of your overall stance and your actions. By the way, my contributions to your articles were compromise proposals, in case you didn't notice. Lukas (T.|@) 08:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Your tone is still very harsh and incivil, which is unfortunate, nevertheless, in regards to your concern, the difference between your quotations used by me, and your actual quotes are simply changing nouns to verbs (ramblers vs. rambling), which is what I’ll do--there is almost no difference, but I rather be precise, rather than almost accurate. I will change them in all the places in which they were used. In regards to compromise proposals; if you are taking sides in the Rfc, and act as a neutral user, it would be much more appropriate, and you would look more credible, if you did not take sides in an ongoing dispute in the Persian people article. You should have joined the discussion, and attempted to mediate, rather than revert the article simply back to user Aucaman` s version; the same user whose side your taking in the Rfc set up against him. At any rate, even after you harshly scolded me in my talk page, actually border line attacked me, and me simply implying you were biased, for which I actually apologized for, which is more than you have done. Your comments here, such as the one implying I may have no decency, once again do not show [any] good faith in your part. You need to be aware that there are absolutely no double-standards in Wikipedia, and neither you, nor anyone else is above the policies here. Again, from now on please refrain from using this talk page as a battle-ground. I don`t want my talk page to be flooded with texts. Thank youZmmz 08:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct you on something - Wikipedia itself is not a battleground, but you don't have the right to ban anyone from your talk page (actually, only the ArbCom does). You can ignore (or, indeed, while not recommended, remove) a person's posts to your talk page though. NSLE (T+

C) at 08:46 UTC (2006-03-16)


I do know, I cannot ban anyone, neither can you (actually, only the ArbCom can), but, once again, you assume too much. Just like the last time when you tried to guess my ethnicity, and automatically assumed English is not my first language without asking me first. Back to the gist of the discussion, I never banned anyone from my talkpage. When did I, in any form, used or implied the word ban? I asked a similar question about how did you assume my ethnicity, but you never replied, so, I`m curious, this time please reply and tell me where did the word ban come from? I certainly asked him many times to refrain from spamming this talk page; there is a difference between refrain, and ban.Zmmz 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "good faith", you might want to clarify in what way this edit of mine was a revert back to Aucaman? Lukas (T.|@) 08:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Why would you write this without discussing it with anyone else when there is an on going mediation in that article, The latter term, which is sometimes avoided today in Western scholarship in this sense, corresponds to their historically attested self-designation, Arya? One of the exact arguments in the mediation is that most editors feel it is irrelevant, or inappropriate to imply that the term Arya is a self-designated term, with self being a key word. In fact, user Aucaman many times had wanted to use that word, and/or imply that the term is sometimes avoided today in Western scholarship. Did you ask [any] of the users in the discussion page, or the mediator before you reverted to this version, which as it turned out, it is one of Aucaman`d preferred versions, and not the consensus`? Zmmz 09:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


(Taking this into a new section so it can get away more easily from the personal stuff, since we're now discussing the contents.) I'm honestly sorry if you found that compromise suggestion offensive. Let me assure you it really was just that, a well-meaning attempt at synthesizing what I believed might be acceptable to everyone. I had the impression it corresponded quite closely to recent statements and suggestions by your mediator, Fasten. And apparently, at least Khoikhoi found it good enough to use it as a basis for further work. And I have no problem if people reject it for some good reason. No, I had not read very carefully through all the discussion and mediation page; it's so long and cluttered you can hardly expect a newcomer to take it all in. That said, I'm a bit at a loss to understand why that phrase about the "self-designation" would be objectionable - after all, its factual correctness seems not to be in doubt, and it implicitly represents the strongest argument for why the use of the term also as a modern scholarly designation would be regarded as legitimate. But anyway, I don't think I'll get much involved in that any more. Lukas (T.|@) 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of--[I]--finding your reversion offensive, it`s a matter of accuracy; there are also at least 20 [other] editors actively discussing that article. The issue at hand was your credibility, since you are acting as an advocate for Aucaman, yet, reverted an article back to his version, perhaps in an eerily accident, without discussing it in the designated Mediation Cabal. Anyway, good luck in your endeavors, and please let’s end this discussion in my talk page.Zmmz 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment

This war you are having with User:Aucaman has been going on for far too long and you have done more than one questionable thing, but [this is way over the line. Behavior like that is NOT tolerated in any way, shape, or form. There is simply no excuse for making accusations like that. I must point you to Wikipedia:Harassment, and in doing so warn you that any more attacks on your part will result in a block. --InShaneee 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not unfair at all. Aucaman does not have a problem only with me, he has an entire community of users offended, and ready to sign a complain against. Everyday he reports someone for something, one person can be wrong, 20 editors cannot. I strongly suggest you read the following statements here, specially, the last statement submitted by me, and get back to me.[13]Zmmz 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This isn't about him, this is about you. That comment is innapropriate. I don't care if Aucaman is burning Rome to the ground, that does not give you a licence to make harmful accusations against him, nor does it give you the right to follow and dispute his every edit. That's called Wikistalking, and I'll be more than happy to block you for it if you continue. --InShaneee 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What harmful accusations? After the user tries, to this date, to insert a politically controversial section that would equate Persia to Nazism, even though everyone asked him that is inappropriate, and after he made a racially motovated profanity laced attack on a newcomer[14], I made an observation that he is pushing a POV, which is uncalled for when writing an encyclopedia, yet, he hides under the protective umberlla of a neutral user, see here[15]. Were my statements really that bad? Does he have any right to accuse me of harrassment for beinging up a legitimate concern? He is trying to bully others who do not agree with him, and turn good-intentioned admins like you against some other editors here. I really don`t know what else to do, we are all so frustrated with him, but I take your advice to heart.Zmmz 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're being as much of a bully as he is here. You want to politely remind a user not to insert POV statements into a page, that's just fine. You want to accuse him of having some sort of Zionist agenda, you're going to get blocked. You ask if he has a right to accuse you of harrassing him? As far as I'm concerned, you are. You've stopped discussing what you don't agree with in his edits, and are spending the vast majority of your time here trying to get him discredited, and eventually blocked. You're frustrated? I'M frustrated. Blocking a user is NOT the way to solve a content dispute. 20 editors are bringing an RfC against him? Doesn't matter if it's 10,000. Conduct yourself in a respectful manner or you WILL be blocked. --InShaneee 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How in the world am [I], out of all people, bullying him? That Zionist comment was certainly out of order, and it was made when I was new here, however, what are we exactly supposed to do if one user single-handedly tries to monopolize several articles, so that his opinion can be included in an article. I would not try to silence him, or anyone else, yet, if a user absolutely refuse to cooperate with others, even after a third opinion, a mediation cabal, other outside users and admins told him he was wrong, what can a reasonable user do? It looks at the surface as if we are trying ban this lone voice of reason, yet at a second glance, you`ll see this user is extremely distruptive. I can`t imagine going into an article about ancient Rome, try to insert or erase some wacky statements that have no place in an encyclopedia, then if no one there agrees with me accuse them of harrassment, and say things like they are Italian nationalist or whatever. This is exactly what he is doing, furthermore, these other editors mostly have no affliation with each other, and know Aucaman from dealing with him in various articles. So, his problem is wide spread and not limited to one subject, e.g., Persia. Editors like this just drive away others who have something legitimate to contribute to Wiki. What do suggest we should do? Would you prefer I stop editing in this site, instead of him? Even if so, tommorow somebody else would be his problem. Yes, the user is disruptive, and a bully, I just figured it`s time to bring him to the attention of ArbCom, which is long over due. Zmmz 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Zmmz you need an e-hug. /me e-hugs you. Please relax and be WP:CIVIL, and remember WP:NPA. Thanks, and listen to InShaneee ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


You know what, I really appreciate that. And, I [am] a reasonable editor, unlike Aucaman, so I will take yours and Inshaneee`s advice to heart. Thank youZmmz 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've blocked you for 24 hours for Wikistalking, this edit being the final straw. This was a discussion that has nothing to do with you, on some other user's talk page, with no rational reason I can see for you being there at all. But there you are, with an edit that serves no purpose but to defame him. This is insane, and it has to stop. You've filed an RfC. You want administrators to deal with him? Then let them deal with him. There is absolutely no excuse for this site-wide war you're waging against him. --InShaneee 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I was being very civil, and in some way tried to ask help from that admin in Aucamans talkpagethis edit.....check my talk page here with this diff[16], ppl have left things much worse than that in [my] talk page. I think you are so angry right now, that anything I`ll do or say seem exaggerated to you. I told you Inshaneeee, I`ll take ur advice to heart, so please calm-down. Aucaman himself was never blocked for this personal attack, Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary[17]. Let there be no double standards in Wikipedia: be fair and please unblock me. Thank youZmmz 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You haven't listened to a word I've said. It doesn't matter what Aucaman has said or did. You've been blocked for what YOU have been doing. I'd suggest you use this time to calm down so that when you get back, you can distance yourself from this situation. --InShaneee 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect InShaneee, it does matter what Aucaman has said or done. Aucaman has enraged several communities on wikipedia. As you said it yourself, "Zmmz is being as much of a bully as Aucaman is" yet you have not even warned Aucaman but you have blocked Zmmz. Now I don't wish to defend Zmmz's overall conduct, but this is not the first time I've seen you warn or block an Iranian editor but ignore similar or even duplicate actions by the opposing editors. To me, this is starting to look like a clear case of double standards. --ManiF 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There HAS to be a sense of fairness in Wiki though....there should be absolutely no double standards here. I already told you Inshaneee, I actually [am] very calm. Others have accused you of being trigger happy; but I am not. Assume good faith in me, and please unblock me. I was trying to ask help from the other admin in A`s talk page, but if it was THAT bad as you allege, then I apologize..Zmmz 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You've stated your case against Aucaman in your RfC, and you need to leave it at that now. If you have more evidence, add it there. If he steps out of line, report it to someone. Report him to me, if you'd like (but I won't block him for something that happened several days ago). --InShaneee 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, man..but at least show some faith in me when I say I`m calm and I take your advice to heart; and unblock me please.Zmmz 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Sure thing. The best thing is to just concentrate on the Rfc, or ArbCom, but, believe it or not, I really feel it is unfortunate that these steps have to be taken, it`s sad. Anyway, I really appreciate the unblock.Zmmz 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Inshaneee please know you might have some problem unblocking me from an autoblock, or at least this is what I was told by another admin about autoblocks. ThanksZmmz 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to edit now. Inshanee just made a typo when trying to unblock you. Shanes 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You`re the best; thank you so much Shanes.Zmmz 07:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman (4)

As long as you keep your language civil, of course, you don't need to ask permission first. Believe me, I more than welcome any discussion that can help bring this issue to a close. --InShaneee 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing; I just didn`t want another block handed to me for Wikistalking just for mentioning his name (you`re cool though). Thank youZmmz 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you one more question please Inshaneee; I need to talk to a user to see if they want to support the Rfc, because he or she too, complained recently that A has erased many sections relating to an Iran article[18]; can I go ahead and talk to this user?Zmmz 03:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There's usually nothing wrong with pointing someone twords and RfC involving something they were involved in (as they can often lend a helpful perspective on the situation), though it is considered bad ettiquite to suggest or recommend that they vote one way or another (it's preferred that they take a look at the page themselves and then judge). --InShaneee 21:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good advice Inshaneee--also, please be aware that user Lukas at this point is breaking every rule of civility, due to his own reasons, and if he harrasses me one more time, I will report him for that, see here if you care please[19].Zmmz 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to report him; I don't see anything to warn him about in his posts. While I do think his wording is a little strong, he's simply reacting to all the (unfair) accusations being thrown at him from all sides now. --InShaneee 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What unfair accusations? The fact that I personally provided diffs in only [one] discussion page that showed Lukas suffers from a case double standards, in that he labels and attacks others, and me asking him on that same page to be more civil please? What ever happened to the fact you told me about, which was, it does not matter what others say, it is [your] reaction that matters? Are you as an admin excusing Lukas`s reaction because you think he is being treated unfairly?Zmmz 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m genuinely sorry that you feel there are unfair accusations, after I replied to his comments that were vulgar and really inappropriate. I have told him many times to write his concerns in the Rfc, and rather not flood my page with rhetoric and threats, not drag my name around, or not go and accuse me or anyonr else in the talk pages of admins or other users. I simply replied to him by saying there are no double standards here. I am shocked that you continue to take sides Inshaneee. I was hoping you`d stay neutral, but thank you for time.Zmmz 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on anyone's 'side'. You asked for my opinion on something, and I gave it to you. --InShaneee 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, being neutral means giving the same warning to both sides, and not implying one side has the right to reply to unfair accusations, while the other side does not, because you obviously feel one party is bullying the other. There can`t be a vicious cycle here; an admin should warn both sides--, yet, you clearly do not care to warn Lukas or others, because you infer he is responding to unfair accusations. You almost blocked me for going to Aucaman`s talk page, and leaving a comment there, although I did not use any incivil language there, yet, when Lukas leaves such vitriolic messages on my talk page, over and over again, stooping to name calling, you feel he has the right to do that. So, it isn`t correct when you say, I'm not on anyone's 'side'; you certainly are not neutral here--but that`s fine. Take-careZmmz 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas

There's a lot of sound advice in there; try hard enough to get someone blocked, and you'll most often get blocked yourself. If you want something done about a user, let his own activities speak for themselves. At least, that's what I got out of his comments. Lukas is a good editor, don't worry too much about him. Also, sorry the unblock didn't work last night, I thought I has it taken care of and went ahead to bed. --InShaneee 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don’t worry about the unblock Inshaneee. My main concern was, was the language of the comment appropriate, wasn’t it very acidic?: I tried to be a bigger man for calling his behaviour, biased, and actually apologized in his talk page, even after he scolded and threatened me in my own talk page, yet, he came back with an even harsher tone, basically implying I may have no decency, because I had unknowingly changed a verb to a noun when quoting him (i.e., rambling vs. ramblers). Secondly, in an ironic twist, he now seems to suffer the same fate as I; such that he is outraged by what he sees as bullism by us, and tries feverishly to let numerous editors know we are a bunch of problem users/nationalist mudslingers, i.e., what we thought of A and his activities. What is your take on it? Thanks manZmmz 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd call it strict, not neccssarily acidic. He's clearly fed up with this whole situation, but that's certainly understandable. As far as I can see, he's only been talking to other users in an attempt to figure out what to do about this entire situation, which might just save me a little time from doing the same thing. --InShaneee 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, hhmm, I have got to tell you, if I had done that, I would have been accused of stalking, or at best being incivil, e.g. no decency, after an apology? And, I have read some of his comments, he is actually trying hard to clearly presuave other editors to his side, not just find information, and obviously acts as if he indeed is fed-up. [But], that is exactly what we started to do at the beginning, for the reason of, guess what?: Being outrages and fed-up. But, regretablly, that [our efforts] has been lost, mostly due to my poor representation of the whole issue. At any rate, not everything is as one sided as you may prefer to think it is, but it is good to know your opinion about the whole think; at least it gives me some idea of what is going on out there. OK, thank you for your time. Zmmz 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Lukas Pietsch is a disgrace to Wikipedia spirit and reputation. I advise you to get a look at his interventions concerning the Phaistos Disk article. Terribly eloquent ! My humble opinion is that he should be banned from editing in WP. Best regards (80.90.39.45 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Hi, thank you for your warning about Lukas`s behaviour, can you provide me with more specific examples please, like links, or quotations? ThanksZmmz 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Zmmz, I know you don't like me on your talk page, but after your recent actions you'll have to put up with one more comment from me. First, let me say I appreciate your and ManiF's change of tone recently and the cleanup at the noticeboard. I thank you for that. Still, I am getting enervated at your latest efforts at denigrating me personally. You blamed me on the administrators noticeboard of "hitting the talk pages of many and identifying many editors as problem editors", and likening my actions with those of your own ([20]). Then, as I now notice, you sent InShanee after me. Now, pray, whose talk page did I "hit", and what "many" people did I identify as "problem editors"? If I remember correctly, I named exactly four people on the RfC: yourself, ManiF, Kash, and Zereshk. All because of clearly identified actions, all of which were indeed problematic, as many others have agreed and you have now yourself admitted to some extent. And don't go complaining about getting drawn out into the public like that. All of you four had signed the RfC, it was your doing. It's called a "Request for comments" for a reason, you know. Comments is what you requested, comments is what you got. And it wasn't me who started to take the discussion away from the RfC and into people's talk pages, it was Kash and ManiF who did that. So, I'd really appreciate if you would stop running after me like that. I hope we won't need to exchange messages like this again.

P.S. On a completely different matter, just a word of friendly advice, and really without any negative overtones. I noticed you recently made some vandalism reports to the AN/I and to William Connolley. I'm sure these were well-intentioned, but I think they are a bit exaggerated. These cases seem to have been just very trivial everyday juvenile vandalism, of the kind Wikipedia unfortunately gets thousands every day. If people wrote messages to AN/I and individual administrators for every such case, there'd be no end to it. If you want to help fighting vandalism (which is certainly a good idea), look at Wikipedia:Vandalism or at the pages of the "Counter-Vandalism Unit" to find out about best ways of dealing with such cases. Mostly, in simple cases like that, you just simply revert the edit and leave a standardised warning on the offender's talk page. Lukas (T.|@) 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)



As I have pointed-out to you before, I feel it may not be appropriate that you respond to me here, be that still in such a [kind of] incivil, and always condescending tone. About the vandalism case though; this person, who had vandalized numerous sections in the Ancient Rome articles, and the same user who has been warned, and reported for excessive vandalism since Febuary, many, many times by other admins, so I felt it was time for a more decissive action to be taken. As far as the other issue goes, believe it or not, I do feel a sense an anger from you due to the Rfc. I`m disappointed that you unfairly have been actively criticizing my actions very harshly in the talk pages of many editors and admins. There are absolutely no double-standards in Wiki Lukas: here are some links showing you had [followed] me and many of those who are involved in the Rfc against Aucaman in many discussion pages, and indicated to many admins that I am some sort of a problem user, mentioning me by name, and you have said, I ’ll do everything can to stop it, or that some editors are involved in rambling, whining, and Nationalist mudslinging etc.; here are some examples[21][22][23][24]. I’m not sure if biting on a newcomer, just because he supports the opposite side of the Rfc you are participating in, is such a good idea either: you said to him, Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away.[25] In regards to your latest concern; please don`t misunderstand, I have not send Inshaneee after you, read the above comments, in fact, I specifically asked Inshaneee not to warn you, rather I asked him, his opinion about your comments, in a private manner, which you obviously saw and reacted to. Moreover, Inshaneee himself was defending you; read his comments above. And, I checked your talk page history, Inshaneee has not said [one] word to you, so I am not even sure what you are complainig about? Again, as for my conversation with Inshaneee--I have every right to ask a question from any of the admins, so I can get familiar with Wiki`s policies. Yet, if you feel it is necessary to reply, you should honestly do it on that [very] [same] page, or if you feel it is necessary, here in my own talk page. Honestly though, You can`t keep throwing my name around to so many editors and admins, and not expect me to reply, specially, when you make disparaging remarks like some people`s comments are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Whether or not you care to agree, you did a hypocritical thing by spamming many, many admins` talk pages, right after I had left a comment there, which was the same exact thing you accused many of us of doing. At some point and time, we all may feel we are right, and everyone else is wrong; nevertheless, everything is not as lopsided as you try to make it seem though, not [at] all. Anyway, as usual, good luck with the Rfc; I really can`t sound more fair than that. Take-care Zmmz 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you continue to accuse me of "spamming", "double standards", doing "the same thing" I accused you of, etc. You are denigrating my name in front of others, and I don't like that. Before I give you a last warning for wikistalking and harrassment, let's review together what I actually did, one more time:

  • My contributions to the RfC itself - I commented on your actions; that's what an RfC is for.
  • One friendly message to SouthernComfort, enquiring about the RfC ([26]), with a subsequent exchange between us two; total of 4 messages. He was explicitly asking me for my comments. (I do notice though that others couldn't help butting in unasked, especially Kash.)
  • One message to Zereshk, asking him (as the principal instigator of the "noticeboard") in a friendly way for his comments. Total of 2 messages.
  • Exchanges with Ahwaz: I was't following you around, I was trying to help Ahwaz after his block, and later responding to requests of his. Which is absolutely none of your business.
  • Notice to William Connolley: ditto; and I didn't even mention you or anybody else in that one post ([27]).
  • Notices to Dariush4444: 2 notices about advice relating to the RfC; and one later warning about personal attacks which I left him on Ahwaz' personal request (and then you butted in, but that was okay.)
  • Notice to ESkog: relating to an entirely different matter, timing just happened to coincide with his endorsing my RfC "Outside View" ([28])
  • Notice to Robert McClenon: responding to an explicit request by Ed Poor to "cue him in"; and it was you who had previously brought up my name in that discussion ([29]), so you can't complain I joined it. (By the way, I like your typo there, "his first order of bossinessbusiness" - that's a good one. Just noticed it now. ;-)
  • Notice to ManiF: A single note about an edit he made reverting mine, normal talk page activity during a content debate ([30])
  • Notice to Fasten: A single notice about his mediation, after one of you had accused me of illegitimately interfering with the mediation ([31])
  • Notice to Voice of All: That's about the only one where you might say I butted in uncalled-for. ([32])
  • Notices on WP:AN: Two contributions to Williams's posting about the Iranian noticeboard. That was an open call for comments by William, so it was the most natural thing for me to do to comment and link to the related RfC.
  • Notices to your own talk page: In both instances, I was taking discussions here from other fora because I didn't want the discussion there to be cluttered up with personal stuff. William's WP:AN notice about the "Iranian noticeboard" should be just about the noticeboard, and not about your or my behaviour against each other. The guys over there wouldn't thank us if we conducted this discussion there. Same goes for my earlier message that you deleted - I was protesting against your unjust accusations of me censoring the RfC page and of me insulting you as "whiners" etc. It was a legitimate protest but it would have messed up the RfC if I had done it there.

These, to the best of my memory, are all the contributions I have made in the course of the recent dispute (plus those on my own talk page, obviously). The only place I mentioned your name where it hadn't previously be brought up by others or by yourself was, I think, on SouthernComfort's talk page, and there I was just discussing the RfC he had signed together with you. Please review the contributions above, and then retract your statement that I was "spamming" or acting "hypocritically" or "throwing your name around". As for "following" you, well, yes, I have no problem confirming that I have been checking your contribution history from time to time lately, as well as that of the two others, to keep updated about what you were up to. And as for "biting" MysticRum, I'll tell you the same I also told Kash (who BTW butted in on my talk page unasked-for again): My extra patience for newcomers is reserved for technical mistakes and weaknesses about how to write good articles. It does not apply to personal bickering. I suppose MysticRum is an adult who is responsible for how he behaves himself, so he gets from me what he deserves. Lukas (T.|@) 11:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)



Lukas, your acidic language does not lend further credibility to you. I have been very fair and courteous to you, perhaps too fair. I have only stated some facts, provided some quotations from you, as well as some links to your comments. You seem to be giving excuses for your attacks to newcomers and others, however, firstly, the newcomer was very civil with you[33], and secondly, it does not matter what others say, it is [your] incivility I`m concerned with. There is no justification for user Aucaman, or you to attack us, and try to manipulate the system, e.g. buy the sympathy of the admins etc., every time we complain about you. I have told you that there are no double standards here--so, if you attack me or any newcomers who have written up an Rfc for A, and call other editors names by saying things like they are, whining, rambling, nationalists, involved in nationalist factionalizing mudslinging, or say vulgar things like then go away, a disgrace to Wikipedia, none of your business, and then you butted in, I suppose MysticRum is an adult who is responsible for how he behaves himself, so he gets from me what he deserves, or even after I apologised to you for inferring your behaviour was biased you in return implying I may have no decency [34], or if you harass me here or on anyone else`s page one-more-time, I will report you for harassment, and stalking. Apparently, as an anon user pointed us to an article about Phaistos Disk, we are not the only ones who are the target of your personal vendettas. [Any] thing you have to say, you should say it in the Rfc, not here, and certainly not so incivil like; just be forewarned please. Zmmz 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't respond to the substance of your allegations this time; I'm sure you'll get all the response you need from the third parties you've been contacting. Let me just say I very much regret that you found it appropriate to side against me with an abuser who actually wrote this: [35]. Be assured, if you were faced with attacks like this, from whatever side, I'd defend you against them. Lukas (T.|@) 09:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, you need to stop accusing me, and manipulating my words to fit your agenda. I do not want you to write in my page, nevertheless, drag my name around anywhere. I have not sided with anyone, rather I asked him to be specific about his allegations, since he was the one who had followed you, who are following me around into my talk page. Do not involve me in any of your problems with a completely different user, or anyone else please. You saying, I won't respond to the substance of your allegations this time is a bit of an oxymoron, since once again you [are responding]. A week ago, I asked you to please not flood my talk page and rather write your grievances in the Rfc in which you are an advocate for. Take a look above , and you`ll see the length of your responses in the past two days alone. Secondly, Lukas, the things the other user had called you in a case unrelated to me, is not much different from your own harsh language that you have used with me in the above sections. Certainly, you had provoked the other user as well. I think you may be viewing yourself above everyone else, and above all the policies here. And, I [do not] need you of all people to defend me in a [hypothetical] situation (since I have joined Wiki, I have never personally attacked [anyone] here), rather instead, you can simply refrain from attacking me in my own talk page, and stop stalking me (that ought to do it).Zmmz 09:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Angel

Hi. Wasn't sure if you'd seen my reply on Talk:Angel, so I thought I'd leave you a note here just to let you know that I have left you a reply on the page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and tried to get you some references, but unfortunately as of lately I have been caught-up in some incivility fractions towards me from, shall we say, some users here (oh boy). But, if you look at the source I gave you, it does explicitly state ...the debt owed to Z.... in regards to angelology and demonology; although, you`d have to browse the pages by clicking the button on the right hand side of that encyclopedia to really get to the actual dates of 500-600 BC. Do what you can as for now, we can always make minor changes later if need be, other than that, you have convinced me that we should use both sides of the arguement; great job Jude. ThanksZmmz 07:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right-o, then. I won't include it now, because we can just edit it in later. :-) I'm going to leave a message under a new header on the talk page just explaining the changes that we've made, then I'll remove the sentence from the lead paragraph, and implement the new section with a note in the edit summary to see the talk page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please vote !

Dear Zmmz, please see the following page:[36]

Thanks. --Sina Kardar14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

This user is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

69.196.139.250 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

email?

Did you get my email?--Zereshk 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have warned user Dikayo

He insists on using the term Farsi even though is aware it can be offensive. See his discussion page. He continues doing it and goes on to insult the whole cimmunity and Persians and Iranians in genral. See his talk page. He is deliberatly instigating conflict. Additionally, even though there have been warnings made about the provocative term of Farsi and its offensive conotations he is intitionally using the term to upset users and saying Iranians wikis are unreliable and making attcks on the community. See his talk page. 69.196.139.250 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes

That would be considered vandalism. Unfortunately, he's using a dynamic IP, which means that the next time he logs in, he'll be using a different IP. Makes him hard to stop. And since that post was from this morning, I'm assuming he's not using it anymore. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One last question on vandalism; is this also considered vandalism[37], since the section comes with a reference, i.e., Columbia Encyclopedia, and since the user in question knows about the reference, but refuses to accept it? ThanksZmmz 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. That's more of a user just disagreeing with you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's always best to warn users on their talk pages. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good advice; I just did that. ThanksZmmz 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed on your behalf, at your request. Please read it and respond to it. Robert McClenon 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you, you got mail by the way. Great job RM. Zmmz 03:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help and Involvment

I have asked one of the administrators to stop user:Diyako from adding phony or fictatious additions to articles. When there is even proof that he is using bogus sources such as blank pages as verification the administrator, user:InShaneee, has done nothing and let it slie. Look at both mine and user:InShaneee's talk pages as well as the Kurdistan discussion. User:Diyako has added false sources. When I point this out to the administrator in question they shrug and do nothing. Manik666 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stay cool, and simply report the matter here [only][38]. Zmmz 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CLEAR evidence on Acuman; here is part of the evidence

It has to do with an old discussion in the Kurds and Kurdistan articles and how it was being vandalized and phoney sources were being used. It was pointed out to user:Acuman and Heja, but they ignored it. Read my talk page. It gives you the lead and the trail. The digging in the archieves someone else can do. If you succeed in digging it up from the archeieves you can prove that this group of users are biased and with an agenda. I have just proved user:Diyako is on a agenda on my talk page and with my evidence. He has been caught red handed. Manik666 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zmmz/Archive_2&oldid=1142670035"