User talk:Aucaman

This page is yours. Feel free to say whatever you want. Constructive feedbacks would be more than appreciated. --Aucaman 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Server time (UTC) 08:33 Monday 11-November-2024

Leave a message.

Archives
Oct 31 2001 – 5 March 2006 Archive 2

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a Request for arbitration against you. Please read it. Robert McClenon 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, do you want me to get involved with this? Please e-mail me. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز . Amir85 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Happy New Newroz, Hewppy New solar year and comming of spring! Yes you are right and thank you for your advice. I believe that some people think (dream) that they can censor my contrubutions by annoying and gir dadane bikhodai and constant halgiri! Diyako Talk + 15:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Iranian New Year

Happy Iranian New Year. The New Year clebrationis a litmus test of Iranian peoples. 69.196.139.250 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mail problem

Please check your e-mail now, or use the Emailuser link again. I've provided a different address. There's been a technical problem with the other one. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it. The other address is also working again. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Aucaman, I have seen that you are going around user's talk pages trying to get them against me.

Let me remind you Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. Please stay WP:CIVIL and If you have anything to say to me, come and say it to myself --Kash 12:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed

You may want to comment on it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry, it's been retracted. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable diffs

Two edits of yours have been brought to my attention that I wanted to comment about. First of all, this is quite innapropriate. If you believe that a user's claims are without base, simply ask them to source it, or something else more civil. Secondly, please be careful when you edit discussions as you did here. It seems fairly clear that you did not capture the full discussion under the title you placed, which could confuse new users trying to enter the discussion, and can sometimes seem to present a biased view of things. --InShaneee 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the first part, yes, it is innapropriate to accuse someone of 'making something up'. You said on my talk page that you accused him of not having any sources for what he was suggesting. THAT would have been more appropriate, as that is more along the lines of assuming good faith. As for the second part, it's not at all unusual for users to jump into a debate they were previously uninvolved with, and it's usually best to leave a comment next to the comment it's responding to for clarity. --InShaneee 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Aucaman, I want to ask for a mediation for the article of Kurdish people as I explained it in the talk page, but I don't know exactly where and how to do that can I ask you please help me, Thanks. Diyako Talk + 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian nations

Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and add any pertinent info that needs to be added, but the Greater Iran article already looks fine to me. --Khoikhoi 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Endo-European speakings of southwestern Asia

Hi, I have several times read the article Aryan since long ago, but because it is not a wel-formed article I could not still understand how it defines Aryans! Maybe it lacks a clear definition of Aryan (or maybe I clould not find it). If we want to solve the problems in articles related to peoples who are considered to be linguistic decendants of those so-called Aryans, we should first have a clear definition of Aryan which by some people is thought to be ethnic ancestor of modern IE speakers. Then we can go on to other smaller branches and correct the myths an political views inserted incorrectly by some people. that is my oponion. Diyako Talk + 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the Aryans as the ancestors of modern Indogermanic speakers is an outdated conceit that owed primarily to the Aryan origins of the science of comparative philology. The ancestors of the modern Indogermanic culture are more accurately known as the Indogermans, the Protoindoeuropeans, the Caucasians, or the Kurgan People. The first two are falling out of favour because of their complexity and also because of their connotations with modern Europe. The Caucasians is also falling out of use because of the common, although inaccurate, usage of the word to mean "European" in general. Many linguists are turning to the coinage Kurgan People in order to avoid these problems. The Aryans or Protaryans are now specificly considered as a branch of the Kurgan People that migrated from a very early time out of Caucasia to the east, and established the foundations of the Indopersic culture. As such, the Aryans would be most closely related to the Anatolians, with a more distant relationship to the Sclavons and the Hellenes, but their relationship with the Germans, Celts, or Itali would be very, very distant, and certainly not that of cultural ancestor. Also, the Western branches have mixed very heavily with non-Indogerman races and cultures, thoroughly dividing them racially from the ancient Kurgan peoples and by extension from the Eastern branches. Note that some anthropologists object to the use of the term Kurgan Peoples, claiming a lack of evidence that the Kurgan excavations are related to the Protoindoeuropeans.207.118.94.190 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Aucaman, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Misza13 ^{T C} 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

You may only use rollback for clear vandalism, not a content dispute. As far as I remember, you've used the rollback function against me twice the last time being today [1] [2], please stop or next time I'll tke this issue to an admin and your rollback function might be taken away from you. --ManiF 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Artilces nominated for deletion

I appreciate your comments on this page [3].Heja Helweda 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

JoTurner RfA

Aucaman, I had some rather heated exchanges with JoTurner when he first arrived on WP. He seemed to me to be extremely devout and prone to take offense. He has mellowed a lot, and quickly too. I get the feeling that he's a smart kid, somewhat out of sync with his environment, and that conversion to Islam was both a benign sort of adolescent rebellion, and a way to just be a PERSON, without having to be "African-American". WP gives him a way to be a "citizen of the world" as well, and a place to feel effective regardless of age. Some of our best Wikipedians are young. Given that he's young, and changing and growing fast, I'd just like him to have more time to settle. That's all. I don't think a few months is enough time to get a full understanding of how things work here. But if he gets the adminship -- well, I expect it will turn out OK. I'm not horrified by the prospect. I don't think you need to change your vote. That was your gut feeling and you should stick by it. Zora 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

צ Transliteration

The IPA character that accurately transliterates the Hebrew letter צ is the affricate ligature /ʦ/. This symbol, however, is absent from many fonts, and so a bridge may be used instead, /t͡s/. The use of simple /ts/ is incorrect because the pronunciation of the plosive followed by the fricative is very different from the pronunciation of the affricate itself. This is very obvious in German where the two sounds, both /t͡s/ and /ts/, are often found side by side, and are pronounced clearly differently. Confer nichts /nɪçts/ and jetzt /jɛt͡st/.

Note that this sound is written in Rumanian by ţ, t with subscript comma; and in the Slavic languages by c. In Old English and Old German orthography, z was used when this sound occurred.

Mōšeh Qaṣāv would be the transliteration I'd use. Gemination, as I understand it, is no longer pronounced in Hebrew, and the few times that it actually matters, it functions a sort of orthographic technique that has no purpose in Romanised Hebrew. As such, I see no reason that gemination should be transliterated. In the case of letters like ב and פ, I suggest transliterating them as b/v or p/f according to how they are pronounced in context, leaving gemination untransliterated. The IPA symbol for gemination, when it is pronounced, is the same as the symbol for length, id est, /ː/.

ş represents the sound /ʃ/ in the languages in which it occurs. ș, s with comma, is a Romanian letter used for that sound also. The only other suggestions than the one above that I could give would be Qatzāv or Qatsāv. 207.118.94.190 20:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic definitions

Some users deliberately and systematically, insert wrong info into articles. They know better than everybody that they are wrong but still insist on. I think We should request for a sock check among some of these users. They use several usernames to have a weight on discussions or related actions which is unapprociated in Wikipedia.

Iranian peoples: The term although is not a widely accepted and widely-used term such as Semitic, Turkic or Germanic, but there are some short definition of this term in some references, In English and Swedish. They all say people who speak Iranian languages. 'People who have Persian or one of its dialects as mother tounge such as persians, Tajiks and most of people of Afganistan'. 'People who live in Iran'. You maybe have already seen this link [4]. The term Aryan is a linguistic term according to all encyclopedias and academic sources. It does not mean that this people are one race or ethnic group! For the relationship of Kurds and Iranians there are many interesting academic sources that I'll provide them!I'll be glad to hear you opinion from youDiyako Talk + 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I know him. It's me! Thank you for message.Diyako Talk + 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Note from the editor Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log) Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Acusations

You made several accusations in your comment here that are patently unnacceptable. Specifically, your accusations about another user's purpose for using Wikipedia is a blatant violation of the Assume Good Faith policy. This is, of course, in addition to the personal attacks you made by accusing the same user of expressing 'racist-nationalist' views, and of being a 'rich, immature' person. You've rode the fence in regard to policy with a lot of your activities in the past; this isn't one of those times. If you make any more comments like this, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. --InShaneee 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You can explain your comments all you want, but the fact remains that wikipedia policy dictates that we discuss articles, not users. Make sure you stick to that in the future. Additionally, adding the 'unsourced' tag to Iranian peoples is quite innapropriate. A simple look at the page shows at least 12 sources, not 0, as the tag implys. --InShaneee 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

I'll takes a look.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea they were making some pretty ridiculous statements, but I don't really see it permeating the article too much besides it being a little bit too focused on Persian history instead of the history of the Jews in persia, I made some small changes and I'll my eye on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As for me, the Persian Yahoodies are only peripheral to my sphere of interest, but my suggestion for a neutral text would be to simply state that the ancient Hebrews have had such a long history with the Persian people and their state(s) (many centuries longer than the Arabs, Mongols or the various Turkic peoples) that their cultures are to some extent intertwined in both Iran and Central Asia. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Iranian peoples

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Iranian peoples. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unfair for me to be blocked because some other users have been revert-warring (and were blocked for it) and I might have done a few reverts at the same time. I don't even see how this first one can be called a revert when I'm adding in a brand new tag after I gave an explanation for it here. It doesn't make any sense. Aucaman^Talk 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your first revert was really a revert [5]. {{totallydisputed}} and {{disputed}} are not diffent enough not to count this as a revert. —Ruud 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first revert listed in WP:AN/3RR. Can get a consistent list of 4 reverts I've done? Aucaman^Talk 21:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(previous version for 1st) 1st (previous version for 2nd) 2nd 3rd ... nth —Ruud 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Aucaman^Talk 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Aucaman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sorry I just looked at what you call my first revert and it appears that I replaced the {{totallydisputed}} tag with a {{dispute}} tag. I don't think these are the same. User Khoikhoi was not participating in the talks (and he did not give ANY explanation for removing the tag), so I thought he was removing the tag because he believed the article was neutral. I'm not asking you to unblock me, but it would be nice to know the reasoning involved in calling this a revert. As far as I know, the totallydisputed tag carries more weight than a disputed tag, so I was indeed considering Khoikhoi's revert when making that edit. If I wanted to revert, I could have just replaced the totallydisputed tag with a totallydisputed tag. This doesn't count as a revert under the definition given there.

Could you also (before you even reply to me) report (or deal with) User:Khoikhoi's violation of 3RR at the same time? I don't think it would be fair if he gets away with it. His violation is a lot more straight-forward than mine. He's are the links to his reverts: [6][7][8][9]. Thank you, Aucaman^Talk 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but 2 of my reverts there are about tags, and two are about the text in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the versions that I reverted ([10], [11], [12], [13]) are all different. --Khoikhoi 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So taking off tags is not reverting but putting them in is??? You even call them reverts yourself! In any case my comments were not addressed to you, so stop trying to get people's attention by posting things on my talk page or I'll report you for harassment once I'm unblocked. Aucaman^Talk 07:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave up messages, OK?

It's not an offense per se, Aucaman, but it's considered rather rude to remove messages, even angry ones, from your talk page. If you want to come out of the arbitration smelling like a rose, you are going to have to make an effort at good behavior. That means watching your reverts, not removing messages, and generally putting the means ahead of the ends. It's OK to "lose" if you're behaving correctly and the other users aren't. Eventually it will work out. Sometimes it takes months, but it does work out. Zora 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping me, User:Zora. Right now I don't want to hear anything other than an explanation for why it's okay for User:Khoikhoi to just go up there and remove the dispute tags placed in by others but it's not okay for me to replace a dispute tag with a one that better reflects the situation we're having. Aucaman^Talk 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)