You can go here for a review on his activities[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior]. I have never seen an editor getting away with so much, as this user does.[[User:Zmmz|Zmmz]] 08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You can go here for a review on his activities[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior]. I have never seen an editor getting away with so much, as this user does.[[User:Zmmz|Zmmz]] 08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
== Iranian editors ==
I know enough about Indian politics to "place" Indian editors when they argue for one or the other edit, but I'm not really tuned into the varieties of Iranian politics, or Iranian nationalism. I'm starting to get a sense that there's a version that believes in Greater Iran and that some of the editors now on board adhere to that. I also sense that Arabs and Jews are not liked, though no one seems to admit that straight out. When I say it, I get denials. But when people want to attack me, they call me an Arab or a Jew.
I suppose it's predictable that if you oppose them you should be accused of being "anti-Iranian", just as those of us "USAians" who oppose Bush get accused of being "anti-American". I just want the best for everyone, and I don't think that truculent nationalism, or militaristic irredentism, on anyone's part, is in anyone's best interests. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 08:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you seem to miss the point, the article is written for everyone to read, headings such as 1979 doesn't make sense, if it was just the Jews in Iran, and the article is about Persian Jews, it seems pretty relevant that Iranian revolution should be used as the heading of the related section. And whats more silly is that you have renamed it as a 'POV', I doubt any contributers who put that is a Jewish Persian (from Iran, or outside!) --Kash02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the Persian language there are no terms in reference to Persian Jews specifically. In general, Jewish people are referred to by two common terms, kalimi, which is considered the most proper term, and yahudi, which is less formal. Don't you think that this is actually informative and relevant? SouthernComfort19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Persian Jews - it is meant to clarify that there is no Persian language equivalent for terms like "Persian Jew" or "Parsim" (which is included in the beginning). If you don't like that part and think it's obvious, you can remove it, but it's just atating a basic fact. The second part is simply providing the Persian language terms for Jewish people, and clarifying which term is more proper than the other, since the article is about Persian Jews, so why not include the Persian language terms for Jews as well? Why is that offensive to you? SouthernComfort19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, Wikipedia prohibits more than three reverts on any one article per day (see WP:3RR). Please be careful when editing Parsi (ethnic group) in order to ensure that you comply, as otherwise you may be blocked for up to a day. Thanks, and happy editing! Stifle02:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block[1] is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question[2]. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unblocking you on the condition that you use the talk page instead and follow 1RR (yes 1RR) on the article's page until a comprimise/agreement is worked out. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due repsect this is so unfair. The user Aucaman has been warned already three times since Feb. He has also reverted on the Persian people article, please check the history of that page, and he starts many edit wars simultanously. His activities are off-the-chart. Why is [so] much exception being given to him, while other users are blocked promptly? Please look into it, and reconsider your decision.Zmmz08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to him on AIM and he agreed to the conditions. However, if he breaks them, I will have to re-block. There does seem to be some reasonable misunderstanding. I will take previous edit warring warnind into account. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can go here for a review on his activities[3]. I have never seen an editor getting away with so much, as this user does.Zmmz08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian editors
I know enough about Indian politics to "place" Indian editors when they argue for one or the other edit, but I'm not really tuned into the varieties of Iranian politics, or Iranian nationalism. I'm starting to get a sense that there's a version that believes in Greater Iran and that some of the editors now on board adhere to that. I also sense that Arabs and Jews are not liked, though no one seems to admit that straight out. When I say it, I get denials. But when people want to attack me, they call me an Arab or a Jew.
I suppose it's predictable that if you oppose them you should be accused of being "anti-Iranian", just as those of us "USAians" who oppose Bush get accused of being "anti-American". I just want the best for everyone, and I don't think that truculent nationalism, or militaristic irredentism, on anyone's part, is in anyone's best interests. Zora08:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
