User talk:InShaneee

Abuse of Admin Privilege

In reviewing your use of your admin privilege I note that you have been warned by other users not to bite the new comers, and to remain neutral. However, on several occasions you have opted to ignore those two well established policies opting instead to use your admin privilege to gain an advantage in a debate. You brag and boast about your intention to catch vandals and spammers then use deletions, reverts, blocks, and protections in such a manner as to close debate and discussion. You labor under the false assumption that all newcomers and anonymous users are vandals and spammers. You start wars and recruit others to pile on to gain an advantage, and at times it is painfully obvious that have no idea of what you are talking about. You assume bad faith and do not hesitate to use your admin privileges against newcomers who have no idea of what to do next after being attacked by you. You jump into other fights and arguments with a zeal that is truly adverse to Wikipedia policies. You need a vacation before you do anymore damage to Wikipedia and its editors. Therefore, I am reporting you on the admin abuse page and requesting that your admin privileges be suspended indefinitely.

Water hardness

Hi there. About the Water hardness article: I thought I had done enough looking around for a water hardness article, but who would have thought to look in the most obvious place (Hard water, Duh!). I'll work on merging the articles. Which title do you think is better: Hard water or Water hardness? --DanielCD 16:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping the name hard water, firstly because that's how most people know it as (IMHO), and secondly because it seems to describe the broader topic, while water hardness sounds like a measure of hard water itself. --InShaneee 16:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Driscoll

Please remove your post of IP addresses from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/John_Driscoll as they are inappropriate. Jsecure

Actually, everyone's supposed to sign their comments. Since those comments were made by an anon user, that was all I had to fill in. If you ARE that anon user, you should look into changing over the attributions. --InShaneee 15:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you found my livejournal, and have been threatening legal action on it. If you'd simply look up wikipedia's policies, you'd see that IPs must be used in place of usernames for unregistered users. It is also NOT an invasion of privacy, since wikipedia logs IPs of unregistered users. If that's not your cup of tea, you shouldn't be here. --InShaneee 16:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know we're in our right to put in the IPs of unregistered users for archiving purposes. It's completely useless to try and remove them anyway, as each edit remains in the history anyway, and you can't remove the edits you made earlier because of the GFDL. Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good work

You caught Sumu-abum literally seconds after it was posted; good job!—Trevor Caira 15:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what happens when trolling the 'Recent Changes' page is your idea of fun. :) --InShaneee 15:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RC

Thanks! I have to give all the credit to my cable connection, though. :) – Clockwork Soul 04:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to tell you though: my real pleasure is in finding copyvio pages. In fact, I just made a new template to drop on the pages of clueless newcomers that don't know not to copy and paste web pages: Template:nothanks. What do you think? – Clockwork Soul 04:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! It just seemed appropriate because I kept posting the same, "Gee, Mr. Newcomer, we really can't use that here" messages. You know, assume good faith and all. – Clockwork Soul 18:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for speedying the attack page directed at me--I wouldn't have even noticed except for a passing mention in the Recent Change list! --Alan Au 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical Instability

Hi Inshanee, Thanks for taking an interest. I'm muddling thru the math font problems. After I'm thru with the article I'll go thru it again and remove the I's We's you's etc. For now I want to get the message out. I don't know how to write to you so I'm using this way.--Alapidus 17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC) thanks[reply]

Blue_screen_of_death/Red_screen_of_death

I'm advising you, If you to take some decision precipitated without the had real consensus of the community - the article will be reverted. You don't withhold truth in the Wikipedia and need to learn to respect the opnions of other members. Thanks and good luck. --Mateusc 23:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's gibberish. We're still trying to decide what to do, and you're pretty much the only one who wants them left as individual pages. "Truth"? What in the heck are you talking about? No one's trying to hide any 'truth'. Heck, we're planning on keeping all of the info, which you still don't seem to understand. The only thing I'M worried about is if you start reverting things if a decision is reached that you don't like. "Respect the opinion of others"? Just because I respect your opinion doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it. You're just throwing around accusations now. Everyone else on the talk pages is just having a discussion; you're acting like this is some sort of holy war. Perhaps YOU should consider what it means to respect the opinions of others for a moment. I don't want this getting out of hand more than anyone else, but the fact is, if this discussion doesn't go your way, you're going to have to abide by it. --InShaneee 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make threads to reach consensus without the proper debate. User:Minghong is oppose, Me and other 6 members in VFD nomination was oppose. Respect. --Mateusc 23:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vfd discussion was in relation to whether the content cocerning RSoDs should be kept. The "keep" votes are not necessarily "don't ever merge" votes. Either way, the vfd discussion is irrelevant, as noted by its closing admin. --anetode ¹ ² ³ 00:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quote this to you one more time in the hopes you understand it. "Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage." This was said by the ADMIN who closed the AfD debate about RSoD. In other words, there IS an entirely new debate starting on the talk page, ALL previous votes are out the window, and this IS a common thing on Wikipedia. I've been a very active editor here for over a year. You aught to read the policies and proceedures yourself before you start accusing people of not knowing what they're doing. The talk page is NORMALLY the place this discussion would occur. This IS the proper debate. There is no "Articles for Merging" page. It was only listed on AfD because someone wanted it deleted, an option which THAT debate took off the table. The RESULT of that debate was that a NEW debate should begin on the RSoD talk page over whether it should be kept as it is or merged into BSoD. Stop citing votes for some other discussion, and start working with the editors at present. --InShaneee 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this debate has sort of turned into a mess, so if nobody objects, I'm going to try mediating. Can you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect for Sam Beauregarde

Hi, why did you redirect Sam Beauregarde to point to Violet Beauregarde please? --Rebroad 10:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 04:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Zinc Oxide and You

There are entire lists of parodies and fictional works, most with descriptions. Why do you think that (for example) a parody such as "Zinc Oxide and You" does not deserve it's own page, but topics like plots of pulp fiction books from the 1930s (to use a random example) do? It's certainly a legitimate topic of what deserves its own page, but note that this particular work has been seen by roughly 10,000,000 people. (The movie made $20,000,000 in sales, at a few buck each in those days). And it's still in print.

I'm interested in parodies of math and science. I'm not interested in the whole movie. A re-direct like this also this violates the wiki principle of least astonishment - if I go to "Zinc oxide and you", I'll get taken to a page with no obvious purpose, unless I already know it's part of a larger movie (in which case I would have looked there already.) If you could redirect to a point within a page I think your solution would be best, but since you can't I think a separate page is better. Note also that there are lots of articles on individual songs from albums, individual characters from movies, and so on. Do you think these are OK, or should they be removed as well? LouScheffer 06:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/2), so I'm now an administrator! I mixed you up with User:Shanel earlier, because I'm a doofball. Sorry! :( Mo0[talk] 06:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Zinc Oxide

I fully agree on keeping it civil - I was asking a rhetorical question. I also looked into redirects - they cannot be used as you suggest. See Wikipedia:Redirect which explicitly states

"Please note that you can only redirect to articles, not sections in them; although the syntax allows them, e.g. #REDIRECT [[University of Cambridge#History]] they don't work."

and the commentary from following the link implies they will not work in the near future either.

I'd say put the page up and see if anyone else suggests merging it in with the parent movie. LouScheffer 07:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for testing I made the redirect for Zinc Oxide and You point to the See also section of The Kentucky Fried Movie. It does not work, as the page above promises. Can you point me to an example that does work, so I can copy it? LouScheffer 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made it a minor section (three equals) and I still could not get it to work. Can you point me to a redirect page, and the target page, (both) so I can see exactly how they did it? LouScheffer 07:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After some experimenting, I believe # sections work in regular wiki links, but not redirects. This is consistent with the editing guidelines. LouScheffer 07:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Were you able to find any examples of working REDIRECT links with section tags, or else verify they cannot be done? If not here, then where should I ask to get a definitive answer and/or a working example LouScheffer 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X-band

Hey thanks for the heads up on the Xband article, I added it to my watchlist, it's really been cleaned up since it's first incarseration and I would hate to see it fall back again Deathawk 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I don't know whether you're one of the users who tries to avoid taking on adminship, but if you want to become an administrator, I've nominated you. The RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/InShaneee. If you want to accept, you should accept there, and then add it to the RfA page.. Hedley 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwebel

Sorry, I just can't help it, as a former violinist. By the age of 17 I actually had a CD recorded with BMG, and was a concertmaster of the Julliard Orchestra, so I can't help but have some fun with the guy. By the way, nothing ever came of me as a musician, and I couldn't be happier. I hated violin. Flyboy Will 06:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winter-een-mas

Hi there. I noticed that you redirected Winter-een-mas to Ctrl-Alt-Del as per some AfD. I looked around and didn't see the vote for that. Could you direct me to it? Thanks. --BradBeattie 05:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. That the vote happened back in February would explain why I didn't find it earlier. :) --BradBeattie 04:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on your adminship. I know how busy it feels :) - I am running for one right now. Anyways congrats. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

congrats, didn't need to vote on U :) Mostly Rainy 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey congrats, I'm sure you'll be great. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

You're very welcome, you deserve it. Congradulations! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks!

Congratulations and all of the best of luck in the future! --Thorpe | talk 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about deleting some of your posts. I was only doing it to clean up the discussion, but I guess that's frowned upon so I'll be careful in the future.

Letslip 19:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Flatheads

I believe you are mistaken. Encyclopedia Frobizica has exteremly complete entries on each of the articles that I am creating and the majority of them have some relevance to gameplay. This is analogous to the articles on each and every King of Gondor or Arnor in Lord of the Rings. Savidan 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminem.com Again

Hello InShaneee, I've been neglecting to cause any dispute with you over your desicion to nominate the article Feminem.com for the Non-PoV check and I will continue to not stir up any such trouble you probably would have experienced with Brad V. What I want to bring to your attention is the fact you didn't explain WHY you nominated that article for the Non-PoV check. By explaining why you put the template there in the first place you can save yourself and everyone else a lot of bother. I can agree that there is probably wrong on both sides of the issue but I understand people are trying really hard to make an encyclopedia. Brad asked why, you explained, and he replied back backing his case up. --86.1.44.238 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (AKA Druss)[reply]

I see you're reverting the feminem.com talk page back to where I didn't say anything before. Yet you're still not providing any explanation in doing so. Please clarify.--Kingdoms united 2004 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What channels?

And did you see the userbox I was talking about? You need to do something about this, before the whole Wikipedia website is being questioned by the FBI Captain Jackson 05:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't see it, it is a template in which the user proclaims himself to be a pedophile. This is a serious crime in the United States, where the Wikipedia server is, and where many Wikipedia administrators are. If you want the FBI pounding on your door asking why you didn't do anything about this guy or any of the other people who use that template, then don't do anything. Captain Jackson 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American area codes

Uncle G's major work 'bot is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review Category:Greek Area Codes, Category:United Kingdom area codes, and Category:North American area codes, and then contribute to the discussion at Talk:North American Numbering Plan#US-centric_area_code_page_titles. Uncle G 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perfect article

Read this Wikipedia words:

...is nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles.
...branches out; contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and outside materials that may add new meaning or background to the subject or give relevant, connected information, so readers may easily understand where they should go for more background or information.
...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
...is an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be better suited for a child article ("subarticle")... (AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES!!!!!!! - T)
...reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles.
...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date. (in this case the ones with the producers word - T)
...includes informative, relevant images, each with an explanatory caption (...) to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text(...)
...is engaging; uses varied sentence lengths and patterns; language is descriptive and colorful while still maintaining encyclopedic tone.

(from wikipedia:the perfect article) ... Just trying to make you change your mind about my bat-embargo page. Throw me a word if you want. Greetings--T for Trouble-maker 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew

I've restored my comment. You might not be aware but there have already been a series of other discussions along these same lines, where consensus was anything but clear. See for instance Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1 and all similar articles. This particular discussion only got the result it did because -Ril- only advertised to people he thought would agree with him. It was ignored by everyone else because he is a troll and because this issue has already been discussed to death. - SimonP 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous, and much larger discussion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses, was only concluded a few months ago. It is unquestionably a more accurate reflection of the community in that it was created by a neutral party, and had participation from all sides. -Ril- does not operate in good faith, those that have dealt with him before know this. No one who has dealt with -Ril- in the past had any illusions about his new efforts. If -Ril- had actually been interested in reaching a useful conclusion, he would have simply added his new evidence to the still open discussion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. He would also have contacted those who actually worked in the area, rather than those who he thought would agree with him. I'm sorry -Ril- wasted your time, but that is basically what he does. - SimonP 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a history with -Ril-, in part because he has been pulling these same stunts for many months now. I understand that we disagree, but please do not delete my comments. Removing another person's comments is greatly frowned about, and people should know why they will speedily be reverted if they try to introduce these changes. - SimonP 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, InShaneee, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha (Paper Mario 2)

I understand. I had actually anticipated this. I am only slightly frustrated.Ron Stoppable 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP and the Biblical verses

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

You may remember that fairly recently you took part in a discussion about verse articles. You were one of the main figures, particularly due to SimonP's reaction to your closing summary. A very closely related arbitration case against SimonP has just been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV and you may have some evidence to contribute at the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You might not as well, but there are a large number of articles involved here, and so bits of evidence are more than welcome since it is difficult to check the edit history of so many pages.

---Ril-00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

Once again, none of the information is unverified.....because no absolute claims are made. Google it if you don't believe me. 69.248.237.88 04:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that many people believe he is jewish and that belief affects how they view the story is NOT speculation. 69.248.237.88 04:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than ME, check out the history of the page [8] say what you will, other people have claimed this. 69.248.237.88 04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question = Accuse?

Sorry but since when is a question an accusation?

Netscott 04:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you might want to see this btw. Netscott 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings and blocks I was referring to were for that particular IP... but I see your point my language wasn't so clear. Netscott 04:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

final warning?

Sorry, I don't see how my questions below were offensive...and I was merely posing an honest question to you.... Netscott 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... I fail to see any accusation in my messages under UGH below... but I will leave you in peace with my final word of thank you for being fair and the assist with User:69.248.237.88's (Admin User:Arminius according to the UGH message below)'s edits. Cheers! Netscott 04:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you one last time but I thought you should be aware of this on User_talk:Arminius. Feel free to block me if you feel such action is warranted. Netscott 06:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UGH

It was pretty clear you were accusing me twice of being a vandal, eitherway both of you have behaved rather poorly and you win I do not care if a pretty basic fact is known on wikipedia. FYI the fact would be many people believe he is jewish and that affects their view of the story, NOT that he is jewish. bye. Arm 04:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, now why would a WikiPedia admin not want to ascribe his (or her) name to such an edit... and instead use an IP? Netscott 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess using an IP makes sense if one is inclined to use language of a 'personal attack' nature. Netscott 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you deserve it!

File:Nuvola apps kwikdisk.png

I award you the "what's-missing-in-the picture? non barnstar"!-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JT Woodruff

This is actually a real person who is notable. Please check out Hawthorne Heights. I suggest you do a little more research into articles before you speedy delete them in the future. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it deserves to be speedy deleted just because two people think it deserves to be deleted. A simple search for Hawthorne Heights would have established notability enough since there are multiple links on that page to reputable sources. We shouldn't punish new users just because they don't know how to make an article. JHMM13 (T | C)

03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was rude yesterday. I still disagree with you about the article, but the apparent consensus that was achieved on the AfD went against me, so that is that (also I haven't got the time to keep arguing!) I always get a bit surly around my birthday. Anyway, I hope to see you around Wikipedia. JHMM13 (T | C)

06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My AfDs

Is it actually relevant on Wikipedia whether I AfD something slowly, motivated by personal reasons (yet a valid AfD) or because I consider many articles unnotable? I think not. You should see that people who vote on game related articles seem to have no idea about games and have very stylized user page with userboxes that have to do with something else than entertainment. This can be described with one word: pseudo-specialist. It's called double standard that would be pulled off all the time unless other mod articles would be treated equally, too. You are expected to keep a cool head when someone pulls that double-standard on articles, being a double-specialist pretending to know something about the article's category area (in this case, video games). Then a same kind of an "I have no idea about this subject" adminstrator comes and sees my comments as incivil and ignores them (that's called "ignorance") then it gets removed. So this is a biased AfD, in my opinion. Please, think what you would've done if you were me. All I did was AfD a few less-notable artices and one of my favorite (a lot less notable) mod. --nlitement ^[talk] 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoLD SToRAGE

I noticed you deleted the stub for CoLD SToRAGE, giving the reason "nn-artist". I'm guessing you mean that it's not a real artist, or a vanity page - but Tim Wright, aka CoLD SToRAGE is in fact a famous video game musician, who has worked on games such as Wipeout on the PlayStation. I agree that the page did not contain any real information as of 6 hours ago, but work was underway to expand and wikify the article. Therefore, if the article is recreated with added information and discography, can I assume that it will not be deleted again? PkerUNO 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, so what is your opinion about these two? 1 and 2, In my opinion they have been created to support Pan-Kurd or Kurd Nationalist propoganda on Wikipedia. They should be deleted or renamed.. as these names are not recognised by no country, nor people beside a few nationalists. Thanks, --Kash 18:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to where I can request page rename/moves? Thanks --Kash 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I respect your opinion, but I think you have missed the fact that Kurdistan has different meanings, I invite you to look at here

Well can you revert your action? because all the sources he mentioned were false, they were either not academic, or they just used the term to refer to the Kurd people living in the country (e.g. Turkey).. --Kash 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is so ridiculous. I am not sure if a rename would work without changing the whole content, so perhaps deleting would be for best! --Kash 20:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be even more ridiculous, why are you taking sides? these articles are only part of Pan-Kurd ideology, they do not exist in reality, until this is sorted out, visitors should know that the content is disputed. --Kash 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats why I was amazed to find it. I have asked for academic sources and waiting for reply. I know a LOT about the situation, so you can leave it to me. --Kash 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that such thing does not exist! Lol how can it be more obvious? Lets take a moment to see the full situation: There are Kurds, going around vandalising Iranian articles mentioned in the incident here, and also they are causing disputes on both articles Persian people, which has resulted in a totally one sided mediation (against the Kurds, claiming Iranians should not use the Term Aryan!), and now it has inspired them to also put dispute on Iranian peoples, for the same reason that mediation was started with!

Now, I have taken a second to see what else they are up to, and I find out that they have started a whole Kurdistan movement here! Sure, there are Kurdish people, with unknown ethnicity, who have been part of Iran and other neighbouring countries for hundreds of years, but they have never had official land names as Turkish Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan! its amazingly funny. When asked for academic sources, the user has replied with a travel blog on internet!! So yes, this is just about the situation in a paragraph.. Thanks, --Kash 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I am trying to understand your point here.. Bible Belt does not seem to cite where it has got its information about the borders and cities, etc that it is referring to. And no one is questioning this, so I am guessing it is a generally accepted information?!! You are the admin.

That Belt article mentions that it is accepted between a certain group of people, So I am guessing the fact that no one else beside nationalist Kurds agree to using such terms, then this fact should be mentioned in the Kurdistan article, preferably in the begining? --Kash 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some really academic sources which would mention the term and some description of it.--Kash 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (which would match the description on the page..) --Kash 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, No. For example for Syrian Kurdistan, google only returns ~700 pages! 1, compared to over 9 million when Kurdistan is mentioned on its own. Is it really unreasonable to ask for sources for this? I am really not sure why you keep insisting its OK to have articles that don't have proper sources, atleast a half academic would be useful? OK OK - The main problem is that the sources provided for this article don't provide any description offered by the article, will that satisfy you? Because if not, then don't worry about it, I will get someone who is more reasonable on the case. --Kash 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to offend you. Sadly it is not up to me and you to agree what 'these places' qualify to be a nation or not?!, no official country or organisation accepts 'Syrian Kurdistan' as a nation, although I do agree that a human rights page has used the term, but it does not define it, it just refers to the people. The problem is that Wikipedia holds quite an important place on Internet, so I actually think by even recognising this term, usage of it will get more popular, for the wrong reasons. I do invite you can to find me ANY half-reliable source which actually defines 'Syrian Kurdistan', and add them to the article so perhaps I can then investigate it. Then we can go on the right tracks, if not then perhaps we should go down the rename route. --Kash 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what does your source show? Can you quote this description of Syrian Kurdistan? --Kash 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it says describes Kurds in Syria. However, if you look at Syrian Kurdistan it does not describe Kurds in Syria, it describes an imaginery land with such name --Kash 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgement, do you also agree that the name of the topic should be changed? Also you must atleast even with all the best faith, be a little suspicous that Kurds are trying to make all their articles and templates and categories, etc etc like they are truely a country, however just not 'accepted' here or there.. I am not sure if this is common on Wikipedia, and I do apologize but do you personally know of any other of such proposed 'Nations' which you seem to refer to regulary? --Kash 00:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man sorry to say this but you seem to keep missing the point! French Canadian refers to the people! "or Canadiens historically refers to inhabitants of Canada", Kurdistan articles are referring to the LAND! they are making imaginery countries! Its like having French Canada! It's hard to assume good faith even with you if you miss such obvious points after such long debate. --Kash 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- LOL! such article exists. However not in the same way as Syrian Kurdistan, lets be fair.. There are over a million Iranians in America, but we don't have Iranian America for sure.. (Lets hope!!) --Kash 01:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is though with all Kurdistan articles its ending with -istan (Land) and refers to the land..all French ones are "Franco-Columbian", etc referring to the people.. This is where it gets problemitic.. Kurds pages look like a political movement (Kurdish separatism) , which could also be the reason why the same contributers have been doing anti-Iranian attacks mentioned in the begining.. --Kash 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey actually, look at this Pashtunistan .. reads: "Pashtunistan (پشتونستان) or Pakhtunistan, sometimes also referred to as Pakhtoonistan, is what many Pashtun nationalists call the Pashtun-dominated areas of Pakistan." Although this is probably POV..? but its probably closer to truth..--Kash 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine

I guess I know what you're getting at but the current version doesn't state why you must "use a condom" it just vilifies bodily fluids. Chooserr 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is in the intro - in a way. It talks about AIDs and all but unless you were to click on the blue link I don't think you'd immediately see that the reason you avoid blood, and other bodily fluids is that the virus travels through that medium. Chooserr 00:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Kurdistan" in Turkey or Syria

wikipedia is not the place to promote political nationalist ideas. Kurds are an ethnic group but they do not have a region named after them in either Syria or Turkey. There are a lot of Armenians in Turkey and Syria too, but we don't have a "Turkish Armenia" or "Syrian Armenia", now do we? Please provide an academic source to counter our argument or stop pushing your POV. --ManiF 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack was made against you. I'm expressing my opinion that you are pushing your POV with no authoritative academic source to back your claim. Please do not threaten me for engaging you in a debate about a dispute, that is a personal attack. --ManiF 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Nation has nothing to do with this debate regarding Syrian and Turkish "Kurdistan". There is no entity called "Kurdistan" in Turkey or Syria. Sorry if I offended you, but your refusal to accept this fact is why I assumed you were pushing your POV. By your logic, there should be a "Turkish Armenia" or "Syrian Armenia" as well. --ManiF 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but we can't just create new entities and list them on wikipedia under the cover of the vague definition of "nation". For example, the number of results that comes up for "Syrian Kurdistan" on Google is hardly in double digits and almost entirely from Kurdish POLITICAL WEBSITES. You can be sure if such entity existed, then other scholarly sources such as encyclopedias would have a mention of it somewhere. But that's not the case. Thanks. --ManiF 01:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles such as "Kurds in Turkey" or "Kurds in Syria" with a more appropriate content dealing with the population instead of the geography of the place, would solve this issue. Regards. --ManiF 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm disputing the content as well as the title.

2) "Franco-Columbian" is not the best example, as I have no problem with the term "Syrian Kurds" or "Turkish Kurds".

3) All those results are from Kurdish sources with political and nationalist agendas. Please provide an academic source that refers to "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Turkish Kurdistan".

Regards. --ManiF 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Turkish Kurdistan" exist, please cite an authoritative academic source that backs up your claim. --ManiF 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The page already exists" is not a valid argument as I can create a page about "German Kurdistan". Plus, I have every right to argue my case, the reasons for dispute have already been explained on the talk of those articles and I'd like to see an authoritative academic source that backs up the geographical implications (content) and the title of the articles. --ManiF 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns, but right now I'm simply arguing my case, not making any accusations. --ManiF 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CT

Hi, I notice you reverted my addition of the term "cock teaser" on the CT article, but didn't give a reason. Just in case you were suspicious, I wasn't vandalizing it - it is evidently a common usage. I was watching The Day of the Locust, and Burgess Meredith used the term in that film. I didn't know what he meant, I had to look it up. I thought I'd save others some trouble and add it here. MFNickster 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Obvious Personal Attacks

HI there. Can you please take a look at MB's conduct on on this page. There is an ongoing dispute and he's addressing the person he's debating as a "troll" and "poor little guy". Regards.--ManiF 20:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reason for what you say? If not, slander is also considered a personal attack. Admins can also be blocked for engaging in such behaviour, as we successfully blocked admin GMaxwell who constantly threatened me.--Zereshk 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you. That is not a personal attack, and it is your perception of what the rules say. A personal attack (you posted the wrong link) is one where the person is attacked instead of the argument, or "personally targeted behavior", stipulated here. Nowhere in that sentence do I specifically address Diyako with any ad hominem. Is it about me asking him if he is being "pissed"? The Meriam Webster defines "being pissed" here. I would like to draw your attention to this page regarding Diyako. THIS is a personal attack: "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I await your similar warning to Diyako.--Zereshk 00:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zereshk, what is the diff. for Diyakos comments?Zmmz 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont see me calling people "terrorist", do you?--Zereshk 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "terrorist", "racist" and racial slurs [9] is a clear breach of wikipedia rules. I'm amazed that Diyako has not been banned despite such obvious violation of basic wikipedia rules. --ManiF 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

First this returns to when I was new on wikipedia and you despite of being an old wikipedian several times attacked me with most bad words. Second you have continued it even till this time which if necessary I can provide links to all of them in five minutes. Third, You Farsis (Iranians) who due to political and economical reasons have more access to internet when a wikipedian from Kurdish minority comes to wikipedia imidiately disagree with him, call him in every talk page separatist, and mispresent him to all other Iranians in a bad way. For example your links refereing that I am from CIA.!!! admins will know you.Diyako Talk + 00:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diyako, I can provide links to your attacks too. You werent new. You had quite a number of posts by then. And being new isnt an excuse either. The rules apply to everyone.
Diyako is using the word "Farsis" as an insult. It's an ad hominem to begin with. (Im not even Persian. I'm an Azeri.) I hope InShanee is noticing that. Note that ShervinK and other users have brought this up before.
You lie left and right. I challenge you to show InShanee where I say: "Diyako is from CIA".
I'm not the only here. There is an entire group of editors filing complaints against Diyako: [10]

--Zereshk 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my disgust at a member calling Iranian wikipedians 'terrorist', I would like to see this user banned ASAP for racism --Kash 11:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin, I left a standard warning message on user Diyako`s talk page stating he was about to violate the 3rr policy, and provided a link, however, he has erased that warning from his discussion page. This user is getting away with so much, and along with the mentioned violation he is also writting an excessive amount of texts in numerous discussion page. Please look into it. Thanks again.Zmmz 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inshaneee, this is another diff that shows user Diyako has made personal attacks towards other users a habit[11]Zmmz 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

LaszloWalrus

Thank you for getting involved. When will you be banning LaszloWalrus? 00:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus's comments about me are distorted at best. He is the lone supporter of Ayn Rand's categorization in "LGBT rights opposition" against a consensus of eight or nine. He has issued threats and/or personal attacks against me and against other users he disagrees with, such as Billyjoekoepsel and RL0919, evident on the Ayn Rand article's talk page. I'm not saying that he should be banned necessarily (though frankly, II wouldn't mind), but I do want to correct his portrayal of me. LaszloWalrus 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InShannee, it's up to you whether you want to get involved, but you should know that I've already requested a ban on Laszlo from Tony_Sidaway, who had removed the Protect from Ayn Rand. Just keeping you in the loop. Alienus 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Protection

Hi. Please look into protecting the Persian empire page, since one or more users with IP addresses are inserting text that are not backed-up by refrences, causing an edit war. Over-all, too much editing is going-on there, for now at least.ThanksZmmz 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Iran

In the talk page Talk:Greater_Iran Diyako has not proposed why this article should be deleted, he even agreed to a rename from the old name Iranian continent to the new Greater Iran, instead of deleting it.

Now he has put it up for deletion without any proper reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Iran, this is part of the Anti-Iranian actions I described to you before. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and sort it out --Kash 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Harman

Please remove your ban on this user. My reason is very reasonable and I wrote a paragraph about it on her talk page. Thank you. -LambaJan 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape 2 Wilderness Guide

I've just noticed that this page has been deleted by you. How is this a copyright violation when I've made drastic changes to the document? In addition, I have changed grammatical and sentence structural errors that were present in the original document. Please explain to me. Thank you. -AWDRacer 10:51 pm PST, 6 March 2006

Runescape 2 Wilderness Guide

Thanks for your reply. I would like to say I did not write that article though. Had you not deleted it, you would've seen another person before me. I just found it strange my hyperlink was red for that page.

Re: Personal Attacks

Hi there. Regarding your "last warning" to me, if describing the actions of certain unnamed users as "nationalist" is considered a "personal attack", then Diyako had done the exact same thing just before me, on the very page you warned me about [12] describing other editors as "some pan-Iranist users", why wasn’t he warned as well? Regards. -- ManiF 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not perfect either. I'm trying my best to learn and respect the rules of wikipedia. Please note that I only joined wikipedia in late January. I was unaware that indirect comments, labeling unnamed individuals as "nationalist" constitutes a personal attack. So thanks for your warning, I will try to remain within the boundaries of wikipedia in the future. Thanks and regards, --ManiF 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in place the dispute tag because of specific content dealing with the geography of the place and not just the title, as already explained in those pages' talk.

Also, I'd like to know why you still haven't warned Diyako for accusing other users of being "Pan-Iranist" when you warned me for using the term "Kurdish nationalist" on the very same page. Please note that I'm not making an excuse for my own actions as I accepted the warning earlier. But Pan-Iranist means Iranian nationalist, so if my comment warranted a warning, Diyako should have been warned as well. The rules apply to everyone, and the admins should enforce them for everyone. --ManiF 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for moving this section to the bottom, I thought that was the standard procedure when making a new comment. Oh and I am not accusing you of favoritism, if I believed that was the case then I'd have already taken the issue to the Administrators' noticeboard. Furthermore, User:Diyako's conduct does not seem to be improving as far as I'm concerned and I just wanted to know why he still hasn't been warned while I keep getting warnings form you left and right. Thanks for looking into the issue though. --ManiF 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please tell me why you have not warned user Diyako, even after he erased warnings by other users in his talk page, and even though other users were warned for the policy that Diyako violated as well? By the way calling some a Pan-Iranist is the same as saying a nationalist. Also how come some users are being warned for putting dispute tags on articles , eventhough they have a legitimate reason for it?Zmmz 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nural

Why did you delete Nural? It is a legitimate band. Re: By accessing the band's official site, a tour record and/or future tour dates could be requested. The band toured across the U.S. at least twice since 2004. this fits under the criteria you highlited. Your overly conservative approach to inclusion and deletion is an affront to Wikipedia's mission: to allow public addition in order to enrich the internet information database.

Jim Norton

What I added to this entry was not nonsense. It's completely relevant to understanding Jim Norton's behavior and thus his comedy.

Your nearly fascist dismissal and removal of it detracts from the Jim Nortin entry and does a great disservice to wikipedia.

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. This is not what my entry was.

Please explain yourself.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim Norton

Jim Norton says he has square feet on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Direct quote from Jim Norton himself. Direct quote from NBC.

Jim Norton said numerous times on Opie and Anthony that he enjoys being deficated on. Direct quote from XM Satellite Radio.

Jim Norton was, according to imdb.com, dead from AIDS related complications. IMDB.com is the source.

I didnt say you were a fascist. I said your actions were nearly fascist. Quite a difference, so dont misquote what I wrote.

Please explain why you deleted the entry.

Your information has no sources, and thus cannot be proven. This sort of information can not be included in a wikipedia article. Please note also that personal attacks (such as calling another user a 'facist') are not allowed on wikipedia. --InShaneee 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't call you facist. He said your actions were "nearly facist". He has already pointed that out for you. I will agree with him on this part.

However, although that with the exception of IMDB, none of his sources are easy to find; they are only heard at a particular time, such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and since that this show is not recorded as an episode, Norton's comments cannot be easily verified. Thus, I, for the most part, agree with your [Inshaneee] reasoning. AWDRacer 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification

Yes, you are right and since a while i've not used them, but really the word "Farsi" is not a bad word, this is the native and common name for modern Persians which even is used in English. I provided many references in the talk page of article Persian people.

Diyako Talk + 08:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To comment..Farsi is only referred to the language, the people you are referring to, are called Iranians, by their national identity rather than their ethnic roots --Kash 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imdb link in v for vendetta?

Hi, I'm just curious as to why you removed the imdb link I place in External Links in the V for Vendetta article (I had posted it anonymously). Is there a policy of not linking to them that I'm not aware of? Thanks. -Mattingly23 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:al-Khwarizmi

Hi, was this edit intentional? Cheers, —Ruud 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking shared IPs

Please be careful when blocking shared IPs, such as User:206.110.235.21, for extended periods of time. Thanks. --tomf688^{talk} 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borda fixed point

OK, you reverted a the talk:borda fixed point page.

I don't think that this is correct. I will now remove, anyhow, the listing of the paragraph that you took offense of, and hope that this will allow you to give me the time out that I wanted.

If not, please help me through the required mediation process. Colignatus 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RV

Hi there. You reverted my post on this page. The guy in the picture is not khomeini. Please read the talk page before deleting other people's edits. Not all mullahs are khomeini! --Mitso Bel 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aliens (comics)

I'll AFD The Aliens (comics) if someone can tell me what the grounds are. RJFJR 14:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

I've undeleted the article Neil Stonechild; given that the circumstances of his death led to a major scandal, a federal inquiry, and several police officers (and the chief) losing their jobs, I would argue that he acquired posthumous notability. DS 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack?

umm... When did I make a personal attack recently? Thanks 210.142.29.125 08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Acuman has made racist comments vandalized edits and pushes POV

He has made racist comments, personal attacks, has manipulated, made many outrageous policy and editoral claims that have been proven false, and threatened me. I am an editor and I don't care about politics, but you can not rape fact and truth for political interests. He and his group have laughed at me and said the truth does not matter. You know why he wants his discussion page hidden because people will put the dots together there are whole communities upset with him and his systematic attacks. Look at his board and the messages he passes on to others. Look at his conversations. Yes, I am not perfect and in good will I know no one else is but I interact with him and I see over time that his behaviour is aggresive and harmful. Read the Kurdistan archieves and the many true facts sacrified. Why? Is this right? Are racist comments right? Is fake consensus right? Once they saw that it was going to be proved that Kurrds are ethnic Iranians they decided to attack the and alter the definiton of Iranian peoples. Then the definition of Iranian. Then toportray Iranian minorities as hating Persians or the nation-state of Iran. You are an Administrator right? Tell me what I can do for justice. The truth is being attacked for the ugly reason of politics. Why? I am trying to defend fact, academia, and Wikipedia. 69.196.139.250 05:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

It doesn't look he's been blocked. He just tried to vote twice here. Aucaman^Talk 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu see Acuman just wants to get me in trouble. He is hurting the community. He makes fictatious edits. Have I ever once made a racist comment? No, Acuman has. Have I ever had multiple fights? No, but Acuman has. And yes I am allowed to vote and I am being looked after by a higher authority in Wikidom. Thank you. And please tell Acuman to shut up, there are other users on this IP. 69.196.139.250 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's supposed to be blocked per this. He's now grossly vandalizing my talk page by copying-pasting stuff from your page. He's got to be stopped now. Aucaman^Talk 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

"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".

This is the translation of a comment User:Aucaman left here

For your information, Cyrus was the founder of then Persia, now Iran.

Do you think he is fit to 'contribute' to Iranian articles when he has a strong anti POV against Persians/Iranians? --Kash 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not seem to answer me, I asked you whether YOU think he is fit enough to contribute to Iranian articles or not, while he calls the founder of the nation an illiterate murderer? and on his talk I asked him to comment on this. How is that a personal attack? Asking people to comment on a racist thing they said is a personal attack now?! Which rules are you exactly referring to? Because I think first of all to even tell me that by asking him to comment on such a thing I have personally attacked someone, you are breaking the good assumption rule. As an admin should you not follow the case up to stop someone from repeating offences? If someone called the founder of your nation, an illiterate murderer, would you still assume good faith? I want some answers because I think as an admin you are not being too fair on this matter --Kash 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I would like to ask you to assume good faith on my case. I am obviously angry over this matter of Aucaman, but I will try to control it. I hope you can appreciate this and assume very very good faith because you seem to generally have a very good faith on matters, right?! I trust you. --Kash 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since Aucaman got away with calling the founder of my country an illiterate murderer (Even after we have a full case against his actions), and even when I report it to you - an admin with such amazing good faith, you decided to come and give me a 'personal attack' warning, I am sure justice will be served, as long as we have such amazingly fair admins on wikipedia --Kash 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

What`up, Inshaneee do me a favour please, read these comments by user Lukas in entirety in my talk-page; is not a long section, and just tell me your opinion about it[13]. You don’t have to warn the guy, but there are a lot policies here that I`m getting used to, like the one you told me about yesterday; so, which category would this fall under, I`m just curious? Also, you might want to keep an eye on a particular user who makes uncalled-for remarks like these; Just stay calm and give Dariush enough rope to hang himself.[14]; The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk. If they get the bomb too, that's an axis of potential insanity right across central Asia.[15], and Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately...[16]. But, definitely, let me know about the section in my talk page man. ThanksZmmz 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inshaneee, I want to make some comments about Aucaman in your talk page, is that cool with you?Zmmz 00:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Aucaman-related craziness

Well, this is a fun little pickle, isn't it? I'm trying to keep track of the admins involved in this case because I sense that consistency and communication are going to be important if there's going to be any sort of resolution. I expect that we're going to get our salary paid in angry messages on this one, but I want to see this through to a workable solution, if possible. Hopefully the messages on the admin notice board will get some back-up to roll in, so we can get some help here. I'm gonna monitor Aucaman's talk page and the articles in question; lemme know if you'd like me to weigh in on any dialogues I've overlooked. JDoorj a m Talk 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in regards to the case against or involving Aucaman, I just wanted to inject my thoughts here by saying, I know many of the so-called-Iranian Nationalist Rambling Editors, have been buggin and complaining to the admins; obviously, so has Aucaman---but, believe it or not, there was a point at which many editors, including myself, were looking to admins for a quick intervention, because the user mentioned above can be disruptive. So, I don`t agree with InShaneee`s observation that there is an Aucaman crucifixion, just because as it turns-out, users from a wide spectrum of subjects have some concerns with him, apparently long before I ever joined Wikipedia. Yet of course, I don’t agree with those who have attacked Aucaman either, and do not endorse such childish behaviour. However, from the beginning, I believed, and still do, the only way to resolve this, in this case unfortunately, is to bring this in front of the ArbCom; not to silence this user, or try to get rid of someone you disagree with (that was never my intention as some have suggested), but to invite the only substantial source that can make a final decision about this; ArbCom. This is because my efforts to get a third opinion, and having a mediation cabal, and and now an Rfc set up have all failed miserably. But, it is also important to point out that, as I had stated in the Rfc, the admins should indeed look into [both] sides of the situation, and as InShaneee rightly suggested, the best thing to do is [stop] provoking each other. I suggest everyone to keep a cool head and sleep on this for a while; that means [everyone] involved. Wiki is not a battleground, so just distance yourselves from making accusations, and let the system figure out if there is indeed a major problem here (which I genuinely think there is). ThanksZmmz 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kash and Zmmz

Thanks for the warning you gave to User:Khashayar Karimi. I'd also like to add this to the record, although it doesn't make much of a difference now that he's been warned.

As for Zmmz, I have to say the message he left here was a direct violation of his pledge here telling you that "[he] would take your advice to heart". The fact that he did this less than 30 minutes after you had warned him against harassment, and the fact that he's been warned for doing the same exact thing before (second paragraph), shows that he has no respect for the warnings people leave him on his talk page. The message he left resulted in yet another unwanted discussion with users Zora and 250 jumping in. I've already left a message for User:Zora asking her not to do this again - and I'm sure it was a one-time thing fot her. Let's hope this kind of stuff won't happen again. It's very disruptive and is designed to divert attention from the real issues.

If any of these users happen to violate the warnings you've given them, should I report them directly to you or list them at WP:ANI? I know that I'm supposed to be doing it there, but it takes a lot of time to explain all the things that you (and some other admins) already know. Aucaman^Talk 17:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep my eye on user:Acuman and see that he does not make anymore racist remarls or threats. 69.196.139.250 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, Inshaneee, Please look at here some users are abusing the tags and removing sources from the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newroz&curid=2459883&diff=44511644&oldid=44511502 Diyako Talk + 15:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake to revert, he was not using the "edit summary" so I was not sure what he had added or whatnot.

But about the 'source', the link had nothing to do with it, I discussed it in the talk page before removing it. --Kash 15:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have told the user to use edit summary from now on --Kash 15:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do comment on this page, User is trying to add a film review as a reference to a historical event!! --Kash 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let s see if you really are a neutral editor. User:Diyako after knowing and being told that the term Farsi is offensivve and should use the term Persian continues to user the term Farsi. Read his talk page and see his behaviour. He has been warned and continues. I await your action on the matter. 69.196.139.250 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hi InShaneee,

I recall you explicitly warning Diyako awhile back not to use the word "Farsi". However, he continues to use the word to this day, claiming that is is "the real name of modern persian people". See here, here, and here.

He is quite familiar with the Persian language and he knows that the word Farsi is an Arabized version of "Persian". Its usage in English has been banned by the Academy of the Persian language. The Iranian editors have explained this to him but it almost seems like he's doing it to provoke them.

Please have a word with him, because when I tried to talk with him about it he insists that it is not offensive, however, it very much is. I am not Iranian but I know what it's like to have my culture disrespected. I hope you understand. --Khoikhoi 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It is not right. We are involved in a dispute over a Kurdish traditional new year Newroz which they want to erase and remove it in the name of a wrong merging. The word Farsi is common and neutral in English and every language but they want to block me to make me silenced and do whatever they want.

[17] [18],[19], [20],[21], [22], [23],[24], [25], [26], [27]).

Diyako Talk + 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to block you Diyako, I would appreciate it if you stop using the term Farsis and Farsi. You know that the Iranian editors don't like it, so why do you do it? If it is a neutral term why was it banned by the Academy of Persian language? --Khoikhoi 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian editors (who most of them use several usernames) don't like it is their POV and this has no place in wikipedia. once I added the word to the article of Persian people you Iranians removed it maybe because merely want to be identified as ancient Persians who in fact are different than modern Persians/Farsi people. Diyako Talk + 01:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this discussion to your talk page. --Khoikhoi 01:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Inshaneee you are quite right, but on the other hand they also call me anti-Iranian, every edit I do is anti-Iranian and political, they call me idiot politically-motivated, also the term Iranian which they use for every thing related to Kurds is a huge insult to whole of Kurdish culture and traditions which by that they mean that this was Iranians who educated Kurds! but this are all false and POV.Diyako Talk + 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action so quickly, InShaneee. --Khoikhoi 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. It seems the different admins specialize in certain policies - for example, William M. Connolley is the 3RR guy, and you're the Personal attacks guy. ;) --Khoikhoi 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now Diyako! Do not lie. The issue had nothing to do with KUrds. It was based on your new definition of a seperate celebration for Turkic peoples. WHich you later saw as futile and abandoned. The issue of the Kurdish New Year came after. Even the chronological order of your dialogue proves that you are lying. I smell a block! Manik666 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but he is clearly lying. The Kurdish issue appears after he delibertly to create a seperate definition for the celebration of Nowruz outside Iran. He additionally did not stop using the term Farsi when asked. This is not the first time. This is instigation. I also want to point out to his vandalism of the Kurdistan page. This user uses bogus and phoney resources as verification. This is a clear and inexcusable breach of Wiki guidelines, which needs no explaining. I expect fulfill your duty and responsibility as an administrator unless you agree with his actions. PLease look at the sources stating that the Kurdish flag is criminal to fly in Iran, then get back to me. In my good nature, I can not tolerate such vandalism as I have seen in the past from this user as well as user:Acuman. Manik666 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

Okay it looks like this user is back with his personal attacks, again accusing me of making "racist comments".[28] Could you somehow send him the message that my talk page is not a place for these kind of discussions? His comments don't even seem to be addressed toward me. Aucaman^Talk 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE ASKED YOU TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITH DIYAKO AND HIS USE OF BOGUS SOURCES

I am still waiting for you to act! I have not even reverted his vandalism. You are obliged to do something and be proactive. Manik666 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are saying that user:Diyako can do anything he wants and mutalate articles. So, let me get this strait under your rational I can add anything to an article as long as I give any random webpage as verification? Manik666 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is not giving sources. Diyako is placing random webpages or blank pages as sources for his claims that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. Manik666 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prior user has beofore hand. Have you even read the talk page? Did you look at the sources now? It is on the flag article in Kurdistan. I am not touching it I want it as proof. This is exactly the type of behaviour that user:Diyako and user:Acuman engage in that has the 40 or so editors upset. Manik666 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO you know what I am talking about? Where are you? There is no Britannica. Here let me make it very easy for you since you have a hard time following. It seems that you have a hard time understanding. Here take a look at the sources. Allow me, exhibits number one and two and three…fake sources claiming that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. Where do they even talk about flags?

Manik666 04:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that clear enough for you!? Manik666 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, he just added that one. It does not justify the other two and that one is conjecture. All Kurdish festivals are the same as other Iranians. As for langauge, It is taught in private schools and at the university level. You see what he is doing now. You see how unread sources are being used to justify claims? This third source was just added. Where does it state that iti is criminal or a crime? There is no verification that the Kurdish flag is a crime to fly in Iran. Manik666 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you read the archieves of the discussion on kurds ou will see that was pointed out in the past but ignored bu users such as Acuman in a very biased way. Note back then there were only two sources, the ones that had nothing to do with the flag. Manik666 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See it is unfortunate I must go through all this effort to point out the blatant destruction of articles by a small and select group of individuals with their political POV. I want the article protected. I wanted this user disciplined and warned about this type of destructive and unpleasant behaviour. It has been going for to long. I do not need to tell you what to do you are an administrator for a reason to make sure there is quality control and proper verification of articles. I believe this type of behaviour is a gross form of unsavoury vandalism. Tell me what you intend to do to this user. Especially after user:Diyako deliberately was instantiating and antagonism other users today with his uncalled for demeaning statements.

Well you have basically stated where you stand. You allowed him to get away with demeaning comments that he was warned about continuously by you and two other users. Now you are letting him continue with this behaviour. Furthermore, you have edacity to reprehend and censor me when it is that user that should be disciplined. You have watched these users degrade articles and other editors in personal attacks and it is all documented. Lastly I see on your user page and other pages you have been basically called a bad administrator who abuses his powers. I would have to agree with the authors of such statements and I will ensue on a course of having you told about your reasonability’s and obligations as an administrator. I merely want articles of all shapes and sizes protected in the sense where fabrication and counterfeit information are not inseminated into them. That is the sort of protection I am talking about. Very well allow this disgusting behaviour to continue. Manik666 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've already provide several sources that the flag is banned in Iran. This user for a long time has been claiming that the flag is free in Iran! but could not yet provide a source. The matter was discussed before with User:Tombseye and some others and they accepted that the flag is banned in Iran. You can look at the history of the page.You can 'listen' to this non-Kurdish and reliable source.

Diyako Talk + 15:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]