I like in principle [[User:Aucaman/read/adminship|your RfA standards]], but I wonder if the percentage of edits matters so much (since things such as vandal reverts and [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]] can artificially run up total edit counts and distort the percentage calculation). [[User:NoSeptember/RfA standards|In my standards]], I also look at the contributions to various namespaces. Are you going to add you standards to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|WP:RFA/Standards]]? Cheers, [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I like in principle [[User:Aucaman/read/adminship|your RfA standards]], but I wonder if the percentage of edits matters so much (since things such as vandal reverts and [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]] can artificially run up total edit counts and distort the percentage calculation). [[User:NoSeptember/RfA standards|In my standards]], I also look at the contributions to various namespaces. Are you going to add you standards to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|WP:RFA/Standards]]? Cheers, [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I`m not suer if user [[User:Aucaman]] is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported an abusive editors in Wikipedia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Outside_View_by_Lukas_Pietsch_.28II.29].[[User:Zmmz|Zmmz]] 23:53, 14 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]
???
Yes I did withdraw from Wikipedia because the Persian ultra-nationalist editors started calling me a "separatist" because I did not follow their party line. Wikipedias Iran-related pages are ruled by these partisan people. They will not even accept the term "Ahwazi", although it is frequently mentioned in human rights reports. They hate Arabs more than they hate the mullahs running Iran. Thats why they wont have any discussion on the issue. They even want to reduce the Arab population to "half a million" at one point.
I have just changed the population figure for Ahwazi Arabs on the [Arabs of Khuzestan] page to the latest figure mentioned by the US State Department which say 2-4 million or more. I can bet you that they will use their force of numbers to keep it at 1-2 million. It is on this kind of issue that I just give up. Wikipedia's pages on Iran are inaccurate and one-sided, but only the rich Persians in America have the time and money to maintain their lies on Wikipedia. In the end, who cares? In reality they want no Arabs in Iran.
These nationalist Wikipedia editors want a holocaust against Arabs. You know what these types call Ahwazi Arabs? Indians! They think that is insulting. What a joke! Hinduism is a Persian-derived religion! If being Indian is insulting then they are insulting themselves.
We know the truth about Al-Ahwaz and we know abouty cultural cleansing and even the UN and Amnesty document this well. If some Wikipedia editors want to lie then let them because no-one will take these Wikipedia pages seriously if they are just written by Persian nationalists.--Ahwaz09:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parsi
I'm going to have to disagree with you on Parsi. I think the material on genetic testing should be restored. It doesn't belong at the head of the article -- it's just too complex for an intro. However, it is a dispute re whether or not Parsis really were endogamous, and all sides should be reported. Zora09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Payandeh Iran
Dorood bar Iran sarzamin Parsian. Koroush Kabir dar ghabr khud khahad larzid agar befahamad ke yahoodi ke aan bozorgvaar az zanjir azad kard o panah daad, ingoneh namak mikhorad vaa namaak-dan mishakanad. Amaa bedaan ey mozdoor ke koroush asoodeh khahad khabid, ziraa ke farzandanash bidaarand vaa as miras vey paasdari khahand kard! Payandeh Iran!User:201.252.133.159 12 March 2006
You can always spot a fake Persian - this one (with a US-based IP) made three attempts to write in Farsi and it is still bullshit! This kind of abuse is what you can expect when you don't agree with people who have racist views about Arabs.--Ahwaz13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khamoosh ey yahoodi. Agar Koroush adamkosh bood ke tou alan injaa naboodi ke? Tou injaei chon ke koroush be ajdadet rahm kard. Boro tarikh melatet ro bekhun bani-israel!
You will get used to this abuse, Aucaman. There is a deep hatred of Arabs and Jews among some Persian ultra-nationalists. On Wikipedia, I have given up fighting some of it, just the worst elements. You will too because they grind you down with abuse. Take it from me, the person doing this vandalism is a Wikipedian who is too cowardly to put their name to the abuse. It is a tactic learnt from their experience of ethnic cleansing in Al-Ahwaz.--Ahwaz14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Johood!
Sepas kon koroush kabir raa ke ghomaat raa nejaat dad! speaas kon melat Iran raa ke be ghomaat panah dadand! sepas kon Iran o Irani raa ke be tou bee-khaneh khaneh o hoviat dadand! sepas kon!
regarding [4], have you ever studied islamic history? Really studied I mean, not just what islamic revisionists want it to be.
Mohammed's father was named Abd'Allah, because he was to be a priest for the moon deity Allah, one of the hundreds of pagan gods worshiped and enshrined in the Kaaba. This is fact, not fiction, and it should not be hidden just because muslims want to hide their pagan past. BlatherAndBlatherscite00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks
Please note that this is absolutely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks--we do not allow attacks on other users, and ethnically motivated ones are particularly intolerable. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Chick Bowen00:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chick Bowen, user Aucaman has a history of personally attacking others[5]; please look into this, because unless his editing privileges are limited, experience shows he or she will continue to submit racially, and politically commets both on discussion pages and the articles.Zmmz00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish people
i do not know what happened...i also reverted the article to the last version by Assyria 90...Maybe we did it at the same time...--Hectorian02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your message
Yes, I've been told that you were provoked, Aucaman. I trust Aytakin's translation, and in fact it was essentially the same as yours. The other editor is currently blocked, but I have left a warning on that person's talk page as well. If you are attacked again, please report it at WP:AN/I rather than responding. Thank you. Chick Bowen02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on Greek alphabet
Hi Aucaman, thanks for bringing up that issue about the wording re. the Greek alphabet. I think we can easily solve that. - By the way, this just brought me to this weird RfC against you - what the heck is going on there? Couldn't help adding a comment in your defense. Lukas(T.|@)12:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zmmz
I wanted you to know that Zmmz has agreed not to edit Persian people for 48 hours in exchange for being unblocked. Please let me or ESkog know if he does. Also, you are on the edge of 3RR yourself on that page, so I'm assuming you'll understand not to try to take advantage of this situation. The whole point is to allow the mediation to continue--we expect all sides to discuss on the talk page before making any major chages to the article. Thanks. Chick Bowen00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I saw it right when you did it, then I opened a tab up to your talk and completely forgot about it for a few minutes :o --Rory09603:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might look like his edits were in good faith, but what he was really doing was replacing the picture in the article with a vandalized version. The picture was deleted, and he recreated it twice more to vandalize the page again, desptite being warned not to vandalize. So, his account was indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.--Shanel15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like in principle your RfA standards, but I wonder if the percentage of edits matters so much (since things such as vandal reverts and AWB can artificially run up total edit counts and distort the percentage calculation). In my standards, I also look at the contributions to various namespaces. Are you going to add you standards to WP:RFA/Standards? Cheers, NoSeptembertalk18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
