User talk:Zmmz

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is Zmmz). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Kukini 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reported your violation of 3RR on the administrator's noticeboard. siafu 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only violation occuring are the pigments of your imagination, because you don`t agree with someone else`s views. By the way, my edits not only comply with Wikipedia`s policies, but also they would agree that all are factual and enhance the information on the articles. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it solely relies on facts, and other attributes that would enhence a reader`s knowledge. I have no choice but to report you as well.Zmmz 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spacing

Hi,

I'm curious as to why you keep putting huge spaces between the comments in one section of Talk:Knight. It makes the page look unsightly, and it makes it more difficult to read comments in one continuous string.

Hbackman 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary it makes it very easy for the reader to see who said what, and it makes it very easier to read, i.e., it is organized. Your version makes look like it is one continuous, long, boring essay. You might be trying to sabotage the discussion and preventing the reader from reading it. Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have no reason to start making unfounded personal attacks right off the bat. Why would I want to prevent someone from reading the discussion? I've been working to clear it up by signing your unsigned comments (please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments) so that people can tell who's saying what. I maintain that the extra spaces are unsightly (note that the entire rest of the talk page, and the bulk of other talk pages, are formatted with only one or two lines between comments), but I'm not going to get into an edit war about it. I have better things to do with my time. Hbackman 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure thing. By the way, I AM signed in; I hope so.Zmmz 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are signed in. But that doesn't mean that your comments are automatically signed. You still need to type the four tildes in order to sign them. Hbackman 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how come you worry about me signing in?Zmmz 04:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about whether you were signed in. There's a difference between being signed in and signing your comments. Signing your comments is a good thing to do because it makes it easier for people to follow who's saying what on a talk page. (And you're welcome for the instruction. I try to be useful when I can. ;) ) Hbackman 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the signing your comments instructionZmmz 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Ideology

It was a question. Such changes in well-established usage, as shah mata (excuse absense of macrons) are often the result of somebody's political correctness campaign. What does keesh mean literally, and how long has it meant it? Septentrionalis 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know what keesh is, but both terms are in Persian anyway, so what does it have to with ideology? I don`t get it.

3rr

Please read WP:3RR, especially with respect to Parthia. William M. Connolley 10:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Is there something wrong with the below introduction?

Parthia^[1], or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân [2] (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

I express no opinion as to the content. But I've blocked you [3] for WP:3RR on Babylon. Please take the time off to read up on the rules William M. Connolley 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Exactly why you have blocked me? And, how can it be unblocked?Zmmz 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the 3rr rule, please unblock me.Zmmz 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:3RR. William M. Connolley 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got you, thanks. And it says it will be unblocked 02/24/06--correct?

24 hours, yes. William M. Connolley 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question William. At the beginning I was new and used my IP Address; however, now that I do have a username, the user Sifu, makes sure that he goes on the talk pages I edit, and informs the reader about my IP address. Can this be remedied? Also, how can I report user Codex Sinaiticus who has multiple usernames? Thanks.

Ah, I was going to ask you: are you User:149...... as well? Because you appear to be, and have used that IP to make much the same reverts, today, to Babylon. How to remedy this: the best way is to avoid revert wars. But if you are reverting using a username *and* an anonymous IP, people are bound to want to know this, cos of 3RR count. If you believe that CS is using sockpuppets, then you want requests for checkuser. William M. Connolley 23:39, 23

February 2006 (UTC).

That IP address could be anyone, since this is a school, yet, Sifu does not have the right to inform others so they can see where I live. I do not use my address anymore, that was when I was new here, and was not aware of the policies. And, how can I ``requests for checkuser.``? Zmmz 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley the following statement in the Parthia discussion is not fair, because many people use this school IP address, ``All of the unsigned comments from above are User:Zmmz, who also posts under the IP.... siafu 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)``. Can I report user Sifu, or do anything about this? Thank you.

The statement happens to be absolutely true, the comments were made by you under this username and your anon. IP.... Moreover, when you edit without being logged in you agree to disclose your IP address, and it can be viewed by anyone in the page history. siafu 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is different than you actively letting others know who regulary would not care, even though all my comments were signed. And, the question to report you was not ask to you--so wait till I see if I can report you, because, if I can, I--will.Zmmz 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because if there's a fight to be had, you wouldn't want to miss starting it, huh? I put that statement there in good faith in response to Ben's query because he was confused as to who was whom. Your comments were not signed then. Removing comments placed by others on article talk pages, btw, is vandalism, and will be reverted, even if you think they're no longer relevant. It's not like I could stop you from "reporting" me (how, or for what, I can't fathom), but I honestly wonder what you are trying to accomplish. siafu 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time with you Sifu, but if you have a problem and make false accusations, you better back it up. I will do my best to report you for starting personal attacks. By the way, as you can see, admints., like William state there is no ``style`` prefrence on the Parthia page. I tried to represent that article and empire accurately, yet, you have no idea what you are talking about....``led by Arscid dynasty``? Parthia WAS the Arsacid dynasty.Zmmz 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations? Not only was it true that all the unsigned comments were posted by you, but you even went and proved it true by signing each and every one of them - you can see it in this diff here, so I'm lost on that front. As for the style preference, nobody has said (or "admitted" that, as if it would be a shameful thing to say?) anything about the presence or absence of a style preference, though Parthia is, like all articles, expected to confrom to the Wikipedia:Manual of style (which you should probably read if you're going to continue editting here), and William M. Connely hasn't made any comment whatsoever on any of the disputes, he's just enforcing 3RR. As far as the "led by" comment, that wasn't inserted by me (you can see who did what in the article's page history, just go to Parthia and click on the history tab at the top), but it's true that Parthia was an empire, and the Arsacid dynasty was a dynasty, and therefore the two cannot be equal as a dynasty and an empire are not the same thing. siafu 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, isn`t this a form of personal attacks? This is a public computer in a school by the way, would this make a difference?Zmmz 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Mr. Connolley, but typically a personal attack involves a direct insult of some sort. (You should probably read WP:NPA if you want to know exactly what a personal attack entails.) I fail to see how siafu is insulting you; s/he seems to just be trying to explain his/her viewpoint and the rationale for his/her actions. I also don't understand why your being on a public computer would make a difference; you might want to clarify that. Hbackman

I signed my comments because I have nothing to hide, and I just started knowing about this site`s policies. If as you say, everyone can see for themselves who is who in the history page, then there wasn`t a need for you to make sure you posted this IP address, all over that discussion page. But, my guess is, you got a lot of time on your hand, and like to take such deviant extra steps, because you lost the arguement on that page. Also, when I asked William, ``Is there something wrong with the below introduction? Parthia<sup>[4]</sup>, or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân [5] (also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force on the Iranian plateau beginning in the late 3rd century BCE. He replied, ``I express no opinion as to the content``---and said nothing about the style not conforming with this site`s policies. And, you need a whole lot of reading to do, if you think the Parthian Empire was led by the Arsacid dynasty is logical, because, Parthian is given to the dynastic empire of Parthia, in the Western literature. Persians themselves, they never call them either of the names anyway. They are simply the Ashkâniân of Iran, and that was an important point I was making on that page. ``Also known as the Arsacid dynasty would be more correct. ``Led by...``, further confuses the reader.Zmmz 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted your IP address because Ben asked that users sign their comments because he was confused. It's common that users who are familiar with the situation have trouble following if the comments aren't signed. Since you had posted some of them while logged in as Zmmz, and some while not, it was necessary to indicate that the username and the IP address referred to the same person. As for the rest, clearly you are much more interested in starting fights and making enemies than writing an encyclopedia, so I'll let you continue doing that without me. siafu 05:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. So, as you said, anyone can tell from one`s history page, what the other person has posted under his username, and his IP address; yet, you feel it necessary, to mention his private IP address two to three times on that discussion page, even after the user has signed all his comments. Then you make sure you report the user, instead of, making sure if he knows the policies or not, then post his IP address another two more times here on this talk page. After Mr. Connelley did not mention anything about the style being needed to conform as it pertains to the article I edited, although you said numerous times, you are replacing my edits, because you thought it was an ``style issue``, I am beginning to believe, if it doesn`t go your way---watch-out. And, my contributions have been invaluable to Wikipedia--every statement I insert is backed up by other Encyclopedias, and/or scholars. I have done my best to enhance the reader`s knowledge, in a clear, factual manner. There should be no room for personal attacks here; this is an academic based environment.Zmmz 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to butt in if I may. ;) It is difficult to follow talk page discussions when comments are unsigned. It's common to sign other people's unsigned comments for clarity; there is, in fact, a Wikipedia template for that exact purpose. It's not persecution; it's trying to clarify. It is pretty annoying and time-consuming to have to search through the page history to find out who posted what. Also, I still don't understand how you feel that siafu has been personally attacking you. I think that it would help if you articulated this better, so that siafu could try to explain his/her rationale behind the comments. I'm sure you'll find that they were made in good faith.

Wikipedia is a cooperative environment. If people don't assume good faith and try to get along, we won't get anywhere. Please don't take it as a personal insult if people edit or revert your edits. It is very rarely due to any sort of personal vendetta, and you're new enough here that no one is going to have a personal grudge against you yet anyway. 99% of us are working in good faith to build a better encyclopedia. It just so happens that people's ideas of what constitutes "better" sometimes differ. If we talk respectfully with each other and assume good faith, we can usually arrive at some sort of compromise. But it does involve a willingness to compromise. No one here is infallible. That includes you. We as editors have to recognize our own infallibility, as well as everyone else's, in order to be productive members of the Wikipedia community.

I would be happy to keep discussing this with you, if you have any questions or responses. Feel free to leave a note here or on my own talk page.

Hbackman 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately ma`am, Siafu did not get his way, so he reported me for something that I didn`t know was against the policies--and then he repeatedly attempts to submit a private IP address on this page and other pages; eventhough, it is unecessary, and otherwise, readers would not care what the IP address of this user is.Zmmz 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to report me for? Go ahead and report me, I haven't done anything wrong... How are you going to report me for an edit war where you yourself were the one going against consensus of all the other editors and reverting about 12 times in one night? As for sock puppets, I don't use 'em... do you think everyone who has been reverting you is all the same person or something? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 140 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked again for 3rr

I've blocked you again [6] for WP:3RR. PLease learn that you just can't break 3RR and get away with it. Its a waste of other editors time, but its also a waste of your time too. William M. Connolley 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh, man. You are right. I messed up; sorry, I went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours. Rest assured, it wasn`t on purpose though.Zmmz 22:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, if you look at the section above this one, you see a user has signed by a title that appears as boxes--other times, the user signs with the username Codex Sinaiticus. Does that imply anything?Zmmz 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to look under Babylon and Parthia please. I invite you to look under their respective discussions as well. It seems there is a sort of wierd alliance between some users, or at best some ganging-up on a particular user to silence him or her. If you look under their histories, you`ll see for example user Aldux has edited under both articles, whereas previously he had not. It is clever, since if a fellow user gets into an edit war, he would have others to help out, and avoid the 3rr violation. However, this drowns any views that others may have--in my case backed with multiple refrences. Yet, they refuse to properly discuss this in the discussion page, and simply revert. I need to know what you think William. The users are, Aldux and Codex Sinaiticus; Variable and Siafu. Thanks.Zmmz 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr, if you please. But WMC is better. Anyway: comments like went by day, rather than an actual 24 hours tend to make admins grind their teeth. 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement. Please don't assume you have a "right" to 3RR per 24h. As to the signing... sorry, I don't understand you. You seem to be suggesting there is something odd about 2 other users agreeing. William M. Connolley 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you kindly look under the articles and discussions, you`ll see it is more than just two users agreeing. They [are] helping each other out, which in turn devoids any meaningful discussion. You have to admit, this CAN happen. They [do not] discuss this, and do not present their own proof, i.e., refrences. As for the user, Codex Sinaiticus may have two usernames, one is the one mentioned, the other is the signed title that appears as boxes. Look at his signature in two sections above this one, titles `3rr`. Zmmz 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be 2 or 3 or more. If that happens, you will not be able to get your desired changes into the article. If so *stop trying to insert them by brute force* because it won't work. Your choices are: stop reverting and start discussing it on the talk page; and stop reverting and try to bring in other users who might be interested in the matter. William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex does not have two usernames. If you look at the wikicode for his/her signature you will see this: [[User:Codex Sinaiticus|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus|ውይይት]]). And the comment that is signed that way was added by Codex when logged in under that username: [7]. Hbackman 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what does this mean, ``Dr, if you please. But WMC is better``?Zmmz 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Mr. But using titles is odd. If you don't want to type my full username, use WMC William M. Connolley 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait a minute, you rather be called Dr. Connolley, or WMC? Also, if you look under the discussions, you WILL see that I try to discuss this, with multiple refences, yet, they do not. So, if I revert, it is by brute force, and when others do, it is not? Please assume good faith from my part.Zmmz 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia HAS to find a better way to finalize articles. Based on the discussions and refrences provided, yet via votes and/or a final decision by a panel of experts. I just got a taste of what ganging-up, or alliances can do. Although, I admit there is a fine line between helping each other out and users whole heartedly agreeing on an article--it can be tricky.Zmmz 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. But since you're new here, there are a lot of things to learn. My username is Codex Sinaiticus; but if you click on "my preferences" up top, you will see all kinds of amazing things, one of these is a box that says "Nickname:"... Now, whatever you type into that box will automatically become your new signature, even if it is different from your username. This means that when you use the ~~~~ command, that will appear, with a link to your username's homepage. Now I currently have typed into that box ፈቃደ, this looks like boxes to you because you do not have the correct font on your computer, but if you did, it would look like a different alphabet.

I'm guessing since you mentioned above that you were posting at a school, that you are probably about 17. Nothing wrong with that if you are, I'm sure you will gradually pick up a lot of features here as you acclimatise, just like we all did at one time. There are all kinds of tricks that have to be figured out, like preferences, and that's just the start... In the meantime, try not to make to many enemies! I don't want to be your enemy because I'm sure you have an interest in many of the same topics I write about, and hopefully we can not just get along but complement one another in improving articles, but it takes a bit of reasonableness about seeing all possible points of view and taking the neutral path... In this case, the consensus including myself just thinks it's not all that necessary to play up the Persian Superpower bit in an article about one city, Babylon... Your very first edits had all kinds of extra edits like "The vast and mighty Persians"... So why do you feel it is so critical for this article? Does this have something to do with Daniel chapter 2? I am trying to assume good faith, and not that you are doing this just for the sake of being disruptive... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not appreciate your subtle, yet sneaky comment, saying I am probably 17 because I use a pc in a school. But, then again that seems to be a pattern, you may be assuming too much. I am a PhD. student at a university. Secondly, consensus does not mean 2 or 3 friends playing tune-def, and helping each other out in an edit war. It means allowing sufficient time for others to join the discussion. Most importantly, you have not presented your counter argument in the Babylon discussion section. You have not provided ONE valuable reference that opposes the argument presented to you. I clearly, and repetitively presented an argument based on what scholars say. Simply read the discussion; I will not go through it again. Saying comments are disruptive certainly serves your purpose; yet, it is a far cry from the truth--and if a mediator follows this matter up, he or she will clarify this. Such comments as ``you are being disruptive`` are uncalled for, and frankly, your assumptions are not [based on] good faith, which is disappointing. Furthermore, they do not add any credibility to your opinions. Zmmz 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Babylon Discussion section. .......“However, as I have proved via many references--there is an over-whelming consensus among Western historians that Persia was the world’s first Super-Power; an entity not seen in the history till then. I sincerely believe that since this was a milestone event in history--and that as a consequence it heavily impacted the Greeks, as well as other civilizations, and because for the first time in history, most of the civilized world, nomads and alike were unified under one nation, the outcome of future history itself was affected. As such it is [necessary] to mention this in the article, since Babylon--the "CITY"-- was intimately tied to the empire by being the empire`s administrative [capital]. As one of the foremost respected scholars in ancient history Robert Payne said in his book, "The Persian Empire swallowed up the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires, and went beyond them. It was the greatest empire the world had ever known, and for two centuries its capital was the capital of the world."[17]. There are many other examples like this in my previous comments: unlike others so far, I have laced my comments with many refrences. Please do not take it upon yourself to edit that section, unless you provide a valid reason, backed with multiple sources that proves the words--world’s first Super-Power--are irrelevant to this article.”Zmmz 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Zmmz 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, no one would disagree that Persia under the Achaemenids was a superpower... If it would help, I can change the link to "empire" to "superpower" instead (this might be a more appropriate link anyway)... But there's really no need to go overboard with all the extra adjectives like "Vast" "Mighty" "Global" etc especially from some of your previous edits, it seems kind of strangely written and off topic to someone who is expecting to read information about the history of the city itself... If they click on any of the links, they can easily find the relevant articles that tell all about how great Persia was in 500 BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As to using words vast, etc., the idea was takjen from articles about cities that were part of Alexander the Great`s empire, or were part of Rome. Yet, as you mention, such words were later dropped--so, I do not see the point of even bringing this up at this time. Back to the gist of the argument: I realize you try to avoid using the word super-power. Yet, as my argument above illistrates, it is a necessary word, not keep in mind the edit will only involve the word super-power. I am still very unclear as to why you think this word should NOT be used?Zmmz 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at it now, because I've just added that very word, in just about the only way it can logically be used while keeping it about the city... Approve? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)