User talk:InShaneee

Click here to start a new talk section.

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.

Toa of Sound

knock it off, please, Toa of Sound is my friend, you blocked him for no reason. Unblock him. DO IT- Jedizati 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no reson to block me. I don't get it, give a warning next time about typing in all caps. I had no idea that wasn't allowd. Sorry for anything I did to anger you, but I think you messed up. Next time, please, refrain from such actions until a warning is givin. Thanks! --Toa of Sound 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Said Friend-Jedizati 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. :) – ClockworkSoul 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? – ClockworkSoul 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. – ClockworkSoul 18:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

redirect for Sam Beauregarde

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

User Bill of Rights

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Calling other editors "terrorist", "racist" and racial slurs [1] 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)

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. You lie left and right. I challenge you to show InShanee where I say: "Diyako is from CIA".
4. I'm not the only here. There is an entire group of editors filing complaints against Diyako: [2]

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

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)

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)

Inshaneee, this is another diff that shows user Diyako has made personal attacks towards other users a habit[3]Zmmz 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

LaszloWalrus

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [4] describing other editors as "some pan-Iranist users", why wasn’t he warned as well? Regards. -- ManiF 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Talk:al-Khwarizmi

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

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)

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)

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 Bel10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Personal Attack?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[5]. 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.[6]; 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.[7], and Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately...[8]. But, definitely, let me know about the section in my talk page man. ThanksZmmz 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. JDoorjam Talk 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

[9] [10],[11], [12],[13], [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19]).

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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".[20] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please help merge articles

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

• SimonP and the King James Version

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

• 200 verses of Matthew
• Verses of John 20
• Whole bible chapter text

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

• Matthew 1, Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34
• Matthew 7, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2, Matthew 7:3, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:5, Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:8, Matthew 7:9, Matthew 7:10, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14, Matthew 7:15
• John 20, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

• Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
• Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

HOw dare you Abuse your Powers and Defame Me! This Behaviour is Uncalled for!

You have no authority whatsoever to block me on those grounds. Since when is a polite and civil warning a personal attack or derogatory comment? You are being a hypocrite, which is shown through your favouritism and one-sided blocks. I have engaged myself in a civil and satisfactory manner. You are abusing your administrative powers and should be stripped of them for negligent abuse and biased behaviour. I will commence in reporting your breaches of your privileges. Manik666 22:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice

Hi, Dear Inshaneee, You are right, I promise never tell it to nobody again. (I learned it from another wikipedia but 'now' I find it a bad wording). I'm trying to change my wordings that are considered by you as bad. I want to be a more better user. I should learn more about wikipedia policy. Diyako Talk + 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

InShaneee I have warned you before not to harass me. I have reported you on the admins board and I am waiting for a neutral admin to take up the case.

First of all "Making abusive acusations", the comment is far from abusive. I have even given links to what I was referring to.

I warn you again NOT to harass me, if I break any wikipedia policy, feel free to tell me, untill then do NOT follow or harass me.

About Diyako, "Keep out of this" let me quote it properly for you "as I said I have reported you on the admin's notice board and I suggest you keep out of this "

His disruptive behaviour is reported [here. I welcome you to take a look and do something about it.

This is the last time I am going to warn you not to harass me this way. --Kash 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee, I appreciate you trying to protect civility in this dispute. But maybe it would be better to actually relax it a bit, at the moment. Too often over the last few days, warnings have actually served to heaten up things rather than calm them down as they should. As for Kash's comment to me, well yes, it was an "attack" on the truthfulness of my motives, and as such annoying, but I wouldn't have complained - I've seen worse ones lately, and actually prefer his open, aggressive attacks to the more devious ones of some others. Take care, -- Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lucas, as you know perfectly well (I hope), you can always tell me if you find something I said offensive, it was not my intention to 'attack' you.

Thanks --Kash 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kash

It looks like User:Khashayar_Karimi is going back to his usual accusatory mode. Could you tell him to stop accusing me of vandalism and being uncivil just because he doesn't like my edits? It's really hard to work in an evironment where I'm constantly accused of breaking Wikipedia rules without much evidence. Aucaman^Talk 11:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the introduction to an article which was being discussed in the talk page (has been for the last month or so without any conclusion), is vandalism in my opinion.

Asking a user to be Civil is being uncivil?!!

This user has also been going around on users talk pages trying to start something against me [21]!

Please tell him to stop. --Kash 11:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

He also posted this. This has got to stop. He has been warned many times before - for the same exact thing. Could you tell him that if he thinks I'm being uncivil or have done something wrong he should report me directly and not go around posting accusations in different talk pages? I think he knows exactly what he's doing, and he's been warned for doing the same exact thing before. I'm not sure if another warning is going to change his behavior even a little bit. Something needs to be done here. Aucaman^Talk 12:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Could you tell him that if he thinks I'm being uncivil or have done something wrong he should report me directly and not go around posting accusations in different talk pages? "

Wait a minute.. He is the one who is going around posting on different people's talk pages, e.g. [22], I simply reported him to you.

I see that you have already warned him about his behaviour. This user is way out of control in my opinion, I am not sure if block would be enough! --Kash 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK sure, but you warned him about his edits, can you please remind him to stay civil? because my try here did not seem to work and he came back here to accuse me about things again, and he is the one whos coming here "recommending" what you have to do, perhaps you should remind him of this also.

Thanks, --Kash 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I just had a look at WP:CIVIL and I see I have not been the most civil myself. I will try to do this more often.

But about "evidence" which you asked for:

First he came here accused me of accusing him things, "It looks like User:Khashayar_Karimi is going back to his usual accusatory mode."

-Which I tried to show that they were infact justified.

Second he posted on another user's talk page [23], trying to provoke others against me.

So then I posted on his talk page telling him to stay civil.

Third he came and posted on your talk page AGAIN accusing me things which he was doing himself!

"Could you tell him that if he thinks I'm being uncivil or have done something wrong he should report me directly and not go around posting accusations in different talk pages?"

1- I did report him directly to you, 2- I never went around posting accusations, it was him who came here posted accusations which were found to be false - I did not post anywhere else. And also he went around other user talk pages (Diyako) if not anymore.

Also "I'm not sure if another warning is going to change his behavior even a little bit. Something needs to be done here"

Is calling for bans, etc without justification, which is also mentioned in the WP:CIVIL. Thanks, --Kash 22:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK.. user is now reverting my contributions which are totally valid and I have backed up by both scientific journals and Encarta encyclopedia, and I have also put it in the talk page, he reverted my change using "m", without any discussion in the talk page. Please have a look [24] --Kash 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do protect it. --Kash 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

user:Aucaman first accuses me of lying by saying "Now you're just making things up" and then when I present him with citations from authoritative sources to prove my points, user:Aucaman moves my reply under a new section, with a new title, without my permission, misrepresenting the direction and purpose of my comments. Can you please remind the user to remain civil and not title or move other people's comments on discussion pages. Your help would be appreciated. Thank you! --ManiF 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers and thank you for the quick response. --ManiF 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

I don't think there's anything inappropriate about this. If you read it in context it makes perfect sense. I've also explained what I meant there. He's trying to claim that the English word Aryan means Iranian, and I told him there's no evidence for that, so he's making this up.

As for the talk page, we were having a very specific discussion and User:ManiF jumps in with 5-6 paragraphs of irrelevant "evidence". I thought it deserved a new section as it wasn't in any way relevant to the discussions we were having. Should I stop doing this? Aucaman^Talk 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be more careful. Aucaman^Talk 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion nomination

Hi,

I feel that your nomination for deletion of 80 members of the parliement who voted against Vichy France is unfair. It is a major event that overthrew a 70-year old constitution. I hope this address your 'possible attack' concern.

Regarding the 'listcruft' nomination. I agree this is a long list, but many of the people cited here became famous. They were refered to 18 years later in a law.

'Tandis que, d'année en année, l'opposition des quatre-vingts parlementaires ayant voulu défendre la République reçoit un hommage grandissant, l'utilisation du nom de la ville de Vichy dans un sens négatif s'étend, allant jusqu'à prendre des formes substantivées censées désigner la trahison ou l'esprit de capitulation.'

Tony Bruguier 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Molobo

You have recently blocked Molobo (talk · contribs) citing '3RR violation'. Molobo contacted me telling me that he has send you an email and you have not replied yet, and that he has not broken 3RR. I have went over that user contribs and I see no 3RR violation (there is also nothing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). I am unblocking him acting in good faith assuming it was a mistake and that you are not here ATM. In the future, please state the page that was the cause of 3RR on the user page in addition to the information that he was blocked.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert in blocking, but I the 'unblock' function is buggy. I think that it 'transfers' to IPs when the user attempts to log in, and that is not autmoatically unblocked when the user name is. But that's just my working theory. Glad we cleared this up, happy wikiediting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako

Mashaallah! habibi once again: This is your personal assumption, the link clearly does not claim that. I wonder how you claim your knowledge of english is professional while cannot understand that simple English sentence correctly! If you know English grammar, It says Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group not Iranians

• 1- He is speaking in Arabic trying to provoke me.
• 2- It was not my personal assumption, two wikipedians above had agreed with this.
• 3- I think he is being very rude here. I am trying my best with English here.

[25]

"It is not a personal or family website for every claim you should provide a link that clearly and directly discuss the matter not the Kurds."

He has put citation needed right before the reference? [26]

I think he's using Wikipedia to prove a point..--Kash 00:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ~

It is not a bad word!!!!!!! It is a friendly word. Diyako Talk + 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Arabic, he also said "I wonder how you claim your knowledge of english is professional while cannot understand that simple English sentence correctly!"

I feel that was also to provoke me as well as being extremely rude which are both against WP:CIVIL --Kash 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mashaallah is Persian, Only habibi is Arabic which means 'my friend'. Is it offensive? and every Iranian know that. Arabic is a very common langueg in Middle East. it is like if you in swedish wikipedia instead of 'Min kompiss' say 'My friend', is it offensive?Diyako Talk + 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mashaallah" is not Persian. It has Allah in it for goodness sakes. It's something Muslims say to eachother and this user knows I am not a Muslim since I have a Zoroastrian userbox on my userpage so hes using it to provoke me. --Kash 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not true, 99% of Iranians are muslim and all Iranians including non-muslims use the word mashaalah. It is considered as a persian word. only is an arabic loanword. Diyako Talk + 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen! Please! I've expressed my feelings on the word already, REGARDLESS of its linguistic origins. --InShaneee 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As you see in my edits I constantly ask for citiation for wrong claims and provide valid sources which some users does not like that. It is possible that these users are thinking that can make me in trouble by incorrect complaimings. It never has been and never is and never will be an insult. I can provide thousands famous Arabic songs that use that word. I myself use it tens times per day with my friends. you can look at any dictionary. It is 100% a good word. But at least i knew that some people really don't like me! and as a result i never say again to them friend or dear. Diyako Talk + 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already expressed my feelings also. Some people don't like you? You were extremley rude to me in that comment, what do you expect? Kisses? --Kash 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK as expected, since you did not warn him about the English thing, when he offended me by being rude and telling me that I dont understand simple English [27], he is now repeating it here, he is now asking whether Khoikhoi is a native speaker of English! This is clearly against WP:CIVIL policy! --Kash 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Inanna

I apologize for this, and promise not to do it again. It's just very difficult to work things out with this user, as she always insists that she's right. I'll take your advice best I can however. --Khoikhoi 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I suppose I can just inform you or some other admin in the future. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you let the trolls rule?

Hello, can your explain your rationale for unblocking one of the greatest liabilities of Wikipedia - Molobo - on the urging of his pal who has repeatedly engaged in wheel warring in order to unblock his fellow-troll in the past? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you wrote that 'it had been reported that he had violated the three revert rule'. Where was it reported?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

PROD: 80 members of the parliement who voted against Vichy France

Listcruft, possibly. "Members of Parliament who voted against the Petain regime" might be a better title. But who is it that you think is being attacked ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, InShaneee, Your English is good and sure you understand exactly which version is correct and sourced; some people use links wrongly. their links describes Kurds as an ethnolinguisic group not whole Iranians. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_peoples&curid=1268748&diff=45471638&oldid=45471128 Diyako Talk + 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RE Hectorian

Ok,thanks for letting me know that i've crossed the line.and although i think that i never was the first to make a personal attack(not that this excludes me from the rule,of course),i will not reply in the same way again.--Hectorian 02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish people

This page was supposed to be protected for a day or two for people to cool off? It's been 3 days since and it's still protected. Could you go ahead and unprotect it? Aucaman^Talk 05:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Please see Aucaman's latest comments at Talk:Persian Jews (where he as just called me a "devils advocate") [28]. Can I really be expected to respond to his nonsensical allegations? He continues to make absurd claims about me, especially in labelling me as a "racialist-nationalist" trying to "promote a positive image of Iran." What the hell? I am not on WP to promote any agenda or any positive image of Iran. I have, in fact, gone out of my way to adhere to NPOV and provide sources, which Aucaman always rejects (see Talk:Iranian peoples for example). There is an ArbCom proceeding that has been launched against him, and yet he continues vilifying me in this manner and quite frankly I'm getting tired of it. Really tired. How can I take WP seriously and continue editing here when I have to deal with characters such as this who constantly create problems, make personal attacks and baseless accusations against other editors? On Persian Jews he did not take my concerns seriously and instead spammed a bunch of other editors pages referring to me as "some guy" as if he doesn't know me [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. I find his behavior appalling, particularly at Iranian peoples where he as continued rejecting sources and persisting in putting dispute tags even when his concerns have been addressed on the talk (which he refuses to acknowledge) [34] [35]. I personally don't care what he wants to think, but he must stop making accusations and personal attacks. I should not have to put up with it. Thank you very much. SouthernComfort 11:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I second this. This comes right after here where he said:

'It's not talking about this "Iranian peoples" of yours.'

If he is really 'Iranian' then why is he being so rude and talking like he is not? Iranian people isn't of mine infact he is one of them, as he said in his Rfc. He keeps trying to seperate himself and "Iranians" by calling them names as posted above "devil", "nationalist", etc.--Kash 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, thank you for your message. However, you must realize that everything is a two-way street. When an editor is making incendiary accusations against another editor, how can I be expected to not respond? On Talk:Iranian peoples he is disputing a source that most other editors have accepted, and yet he continues to ignore what we are saying and creating problems. I have dealt with his accusations in the past (see his comments on Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan for example). I appreciate what you are saying and normally I try not to respond or at least attempt to maintain some level of cool, but this has been going for quite awhile now and I am not the only editor he has engaged in conflict and who has made complaints against his behavior. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide, as we are not children in grade school and there must be a level of civilty - as I have said, it is a two-way street. SouthernComfort 23:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this recent comment for instance, where he now accuses me of "trolling" [36]. SouthernComfort 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Please have a look at this. I have not taken any actions against it, I will leave it to you. --Kash 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(oh and by the way, User:Xebat is Diyako's new username) --Kash 17:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"No one asked you for reviewing and mediation." [37], can you remind him to be polite and stay WP:CIVIL?! --Kash 04:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RE

Hello, i'm sorry about that.I'll try to be more carefull next time.However, i have a request.Could you block that SikimTurki please? Because his username means "F... the Turk" in Turkish(with bad accent for sure).Thanks! :) Inanna 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Acusations [sic]

Firstly we're just talking about one statement, right? Well you might want to read the statement more carefully before calling it an "accusation".

What's wrong with telling someone he's here "to promote a positive image of Iran and Iranians", especially after he makes a remark dismissing any persecution of non-Muslims in Iran? You also might want to read my response later on in the same section. I even say that I myself am here to promote a positive image of Iran and Iranians. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

As for calling his views racialist-nationalist, that's exactly what they are. Saying a well-established ethnic group is is nothing but a religion and at the same time trying to label it as part of an ill-defined racial group - all of this without providing any sources - is definitely racialism.

And I didn't call anyone "rich, immature". I said I'd never seen anyone but a group of "rich, young, and immature kids of Iranian descent in United States" call their ethnicity Persian. That's a true statement and I'm sure the user agrees. The only problem is that he thought I was including him in that group, but I didn't say that.

You might want to read the stuff I say in context and don't just accuse me of incivility because some other users want to frame me that way. I was explicitly commenting on the contents of the article and some of the edits made. Any personal comment I made was done in accordance with WP:AGF even though I have some serious problems with the reasons for which he's disputing this article. Aucaman^Talk 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what this is for? A fully referenced article 'needs reference' now? I am confused. --Kash 04:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Sorry I never got to reply to to the message you left me on my talk page:

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

Well what I was trying to explain is that I never make any personal statements about him (with the exception of "to promote a positive image of Iran and Iranians", which, as I explained later in the same section, any person assuming good faith would take as an insult). You also might want to talk to him about accusatory statements such as this one, personally pointing me out by name. I never did anything comparable to this. Is this in accordance with your policy of "we discuss articles, not users"????

As for the unsourced tag, it's been discussed in the talk page. The article does not provide any sources discussing the subject of the article. All the sources provided are about other ethnic groups, but they make side comments that have been taken out context and are contradictory to some of the other statements appearing on the page. The article is on Iranian peoples, so it should contain at least one source discussing who these people are. Such a source has yet to be provided.

I think the article was initially meant to be written on the linguistic group of all speakers of Iranian languages, but the definition has changed considerably due to some misunderstandings (Iran is also the name of a country and some Iranian citizens see themselves as part of a greater ethnic group, that of "Iranian peoples" - see the article on Greater Iran for signs of this). I'm not sure what's the best way to move on from here. The article definitely has to be rewritten with a clear definition in mind, but a lot of users are not being cooperative. I'd consider any advice or mediation. Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 14:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako

He keeps losing his cool [38].

He also gave me a 'last warning' out of the blue! [39] (without signing it, etc).

--Kash 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, its official..he HAS lost his cool! [40]

Lol ok this is turning in to a drama, he's adding socket puppet templates to users who have disagreed with him:

[41] [42] [43]

I hope you sort this out soon --Kash 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm waiting for result of checking. Xebat Talk + 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I am not sure about this one [44], he has posted the same message 4 times on this user's talk page before finally giving up and deciding he is a sockpuppet of khoikhoi! --Kash 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Xebat (Diyako)

Hi InShaneee. User:Xebat (Diyako) is vandalizing my user page [45] and talk page [46] [47], making baseless accusations against me. This is not the first time, however, that this user is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and bluntly accusing those who disagree with him of being vandals, sock puppets, and POV pushers. --ManiF 06:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you've been getting a lot of comments on your talk page lately, but for what it's worth, he also thinks that SouthernComfort is my sock. [48] --Khoikhoi 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely have the right to suspect people who constantly involve edit wars and have the right to ask for sock checking. Xebat Talk + 06:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This users constantly remove every sourced info or insert unsourced claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khuzestan_Province&diff=44235940&oldid=44222106

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fars_Province&diff=45229035&oldid=45196528 Xebat Talk + 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

He has been constantly tagging the Iranian peoples article though even an additional source has been provided [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. All this without any reasonable discussion on Talk:Iranian peoples - sometimes I am unable to understand exactly what they are disputing and why. And as I have said, they have been ignoring the sources. And my apologies for the number of messages, but they have been keeping us very busy, as you can see. Also please note this inappropriate edit (with summary) at Persian people [54]. Again, removing information that is sourced, and here [55] removing sourced information again but replacing with information from a personal page on a university server. SouthernComfort 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again InShaneee, I'm sure you're probably tired of reports of these conflicts with Aucaman, but he recentley called SouthernComfort a "troll" again. [56]. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, I just wanted to notify you that I strongly suspect that user:Aucaman has created a sock-puppet (User:Akkadian) to evade his block. A new IP address was used yesterday [57] to evade Aucaman's earlier block and continue edit warring on the same topics as Aucaman, now I strongly suspect that that Aucaman has created a new user (User:Akkadian), under that same IP address which is probably from his school. --ManiF 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole Bionicle matter

Oh, I did not know that wasn't alowed, and sorry for any inconviniance. But please, don't block Dark Jedi. We didn't know anything about that rule, and we will try to avoid any other incidences in the future. Let me agian express my deepest apologys for anything done against you. Thanks.--Toa of Sound 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Save your threats for those who buy them. That wasn't a personal attack. Miskin 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... I didn't know I messed up your sig. Please just calm down. And please don't block me for asking you to calm down.--Dark Jedi 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New watchdog

I am curious about this Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board, I hope it does not promote this heated situation between middle eastern contributers, especially by using an arabic (?) word for "freedom" as it's name and mentioning things like "Iranian Wikipedians are reminded that they have set up their own notice board - Iranian Wikipedians' notice board - where they can discuss the articles and projects of relevance to them." and "The intro must be corrected so that Irani or Turks who have their own Notice boads not be confused" Wikipedia_talk:Hurriyya_notice_board, I'd appreciate your comments --Kash 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that board and had to add that "Hurriyya" (Liberty) is a slogan in Arabic like "Jihad", used by Arab militants in Iraq and other parts of Middle East. The board's intro, written by User:Ahwaz who, ironically enough, has been blocked in the past for racist comments[58], reads "This notice board is set up to give collective support to those facing racism, nationalist bigotry". To me, the board is accusatory, inflammatory and discriminatory in nature and promotes a collective attempt to evade 3RR, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz is going around promoting his board while calling those who disagree with him "Nazi", "racist", "extremist", "ultra-nationalist", "Persian supremacist monarchist", "nasty" and other derogatory names. [59], [60], [61], [62], and [63]. --ManiF 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The watchdog currently states: "Some people have created a new ethnic group on Wikipedia which God has not created yet in reality: Iranian peoples." --Kash 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think Ahwarz just got blocked for 3RR already! ManiF predicted it very well! [64] --Kash 01:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee. I provided some clear evidence of User:Ahwaz's personal attacks and disruptive behavior here and to a larger extent on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board, and now the user is taunting me [65], looking for a fight, as if we are in fourth grade or something. The user knows he shouldn't be doing this and I feel like I'm being harassed and stalked here. --ManiF 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Music

Well, I listen to a wide variety of groups, but some of my favorite synthpop groups are Depeche Mode, Human League, New Order, Soft Cell, and lesser known groups like Empire State Human, Wave in Head, Joy Electric, VNV Nation, Assemblage 23, Felix da Housecat (technically "electroclash"), Celluloide, Tear Garden (not technically synthpop, but close). Lots of other groups, mostly obscure ones from France and Germany. As for industrial, which I used to be very much into (particularly the more abrasive underground acts) but not as much anymore, mostly mainstream stuff now like Skinny Puppy, KMFDM, even Nine Inch Nails, which are more electro-oriented. Do you listen to this sort of music as well? Thank you again for your help, by the way. SouthernComfort 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit waring by the same Iranians!!

They ignore 8 verifiable sources and revert to the uncommon version by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_people&curid=17068&diff=46015246&oldid=46014591

Xebat Talk + 14:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In the talk page I have explained very well that the sources are mostly personal home pages and do not justify the incorrect intro.

Anyway, I came here to report Aucaman for labelling my comments on his page under "harassment" User_talk:Aucaman#Harassment, when I just went there to advise him about the Civil policy, since I read this policy my attitude has changed on wikipedia and I was hoping I could get him to do this also, but if you think I was rude or anything, then forget it. --Kash 15:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He again made use of the term "troll" in reference to me (obvious since he is talking about the reason for his block). [66] SouthernComfort 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, i'm sorry about that.I'll try to be more carefull next time.However, i have a request.Could you block that SikimTurki please? Because his username means "F... the Turk" in Turkish(with bad accent for sure).Thanks! :) Inanna 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Music

So you've worked as a radio producer as well? That's pretty cool - always wanted to do something like that during my undergrad years, especially since Pump Up The Volume was (is) one of my favorite films. Yes, "Playing The Angel" is excellent - my favorite tracks are "Nothing's Impossible" and "Suffer Well" (as well as "Free"). I think I like this one better than even Ultra, though I haven't decided yet. ;) You should track down the remixes bootleg if you haven't already - some of the tracks are even better than the album versions, IMHO. As for "With Teeth" I think it's overall it's very good, but the only track I ever listen to very often is "Right Where It Belongs." I still prefer "Downward Spiral" (which I'm not sure he can ever top) and "The Fragile." I think I'm just more in tune with the pretentious and melancholy, brooding side of things. ;) SouthernComfort 10:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

betty chan

I see no reasons for not allowing a short bio about betty chan to be written!... give me an explaination please,, thanks Snob 01:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HOw about if i create Yip Kwok Wah's bio? enough media coverage? you can search his chinese name on google.com.hk and there are plenty of websites about him....do you think that will be ok?Snob 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually betty chan meets "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" because Yew Chung is extremely popular in HK and yew chung became the first school to be granted land from the government to operate a private school... and it's all because of her leadership, well of course her husband as well, he is a politician...a few years ago when yew chung got the land, majour newspapers strongly critized yew chung because her husband was the secretary of the former cheif excetive tung chee wa....... does that meet the critera listed on the "bio" page? yew chung was on the news for months.. in hk i mean.. if i am going to dispute this which wikipedia page should i go? thanks Snob 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) thx=]Snob 01:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Misstubby

User:Misstubby had continued to vandalize after the third level warning. Just letting you know. Do as you see fit, with your supreme admin powers... K-UNIT 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delta Kappa Epsilon

You recently reverted an anonamous edit from a member who added a link to the official website of an active chapter. I just wanted to point out that those links are both appropriate and desired, so they didn't do anything wrong. They have since repaired your reversion. Just a heads up.

PS By any chance are you a Deke?

Canadian Caesar 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Betty chan

Hey there, just dropping you a line about the protected talk page. Talk pages are only protected for severe vandalism, and then only for a short time. You shouldn't use {{deletedpage}} on a talk page as it prevents discussion on that page. Would you consider unprotecting Talk:Betty chan to allow discussion on it, or at the very least including a link to the DRV on it? Thanks. Stifle 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Xebat

Xebat is removing other users' comments from Kurdish people's discussion page. [67]. He knows perfectly that he shouldn't be doing this. The other user seems confused and puzzled. [68] --ManiF 13:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

His responce to your comment is inappropriate too.."These Iranis lie. The same as their imam and their president" - what kind of responce is that?! --Kash 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, User:Xebat is now impersonating you and vandalizing your comments on his talk page. [69] [70] --ManiF 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

This user has made several personal attacks against me and others recently, though he has been asked not to and has been on WP long enough to know better [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] ("don't wet your knickers" - to a female editor) [76] ("my gang"). I was not going to report him because I have tried to be very diplomatic with him, but I noticed his calling me "ultranationalist" in addition to labelling me as part of a "gang" and that I will not tolerate. Thank you. SouthernComfort 08:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt I'll get banned, but those peddling anti-Arab racism will get off without a warning. Just a point of fact, "don't wet your knickers" is a British term that means "stop panicking" and applies to both genders. I made that clear (and I did not know that editor was female anyway!). So, it is pretty low of SouthernComfort to complain about it now. Just another way to stitch up people, I guess. Go on, ban me then: 24 hours or 48 hours?--Ahwaz 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He has also been adding tags to Persian people without explanation: [77] [78]. The section in question is sourced. Aucaman has also done the same: [79] [80], and he is aware that the section is sourced. No matter how much explaining anyone does on the talk, he continues to tag the article. SouthernComfort 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem with User:Ahwaz. I've asked him to stop numerous times, reminding him of the rules, and this is the answer I get from him. --ManiF 11:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And this is the kind of thing you two do when someone disagrees with you: [81] - conspiring against those you call "anti-Iranians".--Ahwaz 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That link is from 25 February 2006 when I had just joined Wikipedia, and hence unfamiliar with the wiki etiquette, and I was nonetheless warned about it by InShaneee. --ManiF 11:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You want more examples? I can give more if you want. But I have acknowledged the fact that you moved the personal allegations against me from the front page of the Iranian Wikipedians notice board to the talk page. You've learned a lot faster than some, although I wonder whether you have retained the same sentiment that "anti-Iranians" should be kicked out of Wikipedia. The whole situation would have calmed down if it had not been for a continuation of the group mentality in which the same group of editors (of which you are a member) continue to impose their will and claim it is consensus, when it evidently is not - as in the case of the Persian/Arabian Gulf issue where at least four editors disagreed with what you imposed. It is really, very irritating and why you won't get me to shut up about it - particularly given the fact that some users can make racial abuse with impunity whereas I cannot even tell you to blow your nose.--Ahwaz 12:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never attacked you and I'm not responsible for other users' actions or what they may have said to you, you are making this into an ethnic or nationality-based thing instead of dealing with other users on case by case basis. I, along with a few other people, have asked you to stop making personal attacks and be civil, but instead of complying with the rules, you keep making personal attacks and justifying your actions based on some other user's actions. --ManiF 13:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have attacked me. You main objection to the Hurriyya notice board was about me. You personalised it and brought out old arguments. I have simply given a bit of this back. And it does not feel nice, does it? If you want people to live by the rules, then you have to abide by them yourself. The anti-Iranian/pro-Iranian nonsense, in which people who would otherwise be undecided on an issue felt forced to choose, was not started by me. It should end here and now.

If anything, I hope the whole Hurriyya episode (which never matched the level of personalised animosity on the Iranian notice board) has sent a clear message. I know you despise me, but I think you did a good job in bringing everything on that notice board into line. I said it before and I actually defended the existence of that notice board even though I was one of those attacked on it. And I will now relent on the whole Persian/Arab Gulf issue. The accusations and the over-ruling of opinions (as in the case of User:William_M._Connolley, who has no reason to take anti/pro sides) should stop, as should the mass reversions. It is inflaming the tempers of those who are normally regarded as cool-headed.

I have received emails from two users who felt intimidated by some of what has been going on - and not on articles in which I have had any editorial involvement nor in the whole "Aryan" controversy. I felt I needed to state how they felt as an act of catharsis and to prevent people from minorities from feeling intimidated. I prefer arguments in the open instead of cloak-and-dagger stuff - I have never sought a block on anyone. Anyway, I won't be contributing here any more, which will bring a sigh of relief to some. I wanted to state what I felt and have done so.--Ahwaz 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee: OK, that's fine, but I request that something is done about the imposition of "consensus" that does not exist (as SouthernComfort did on Persian Gulf), an end to the accusations of "anti-Persian" and "anti-Iranian" and a serious policy dealing with anti-Arab racism, particularly this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArabs_of_Khuzestan&diff=46419732&oldid=45915282

If it happens again and nothing is done about it, then do not be surprised when people bite back.--Ahwaz 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

My name is Boris. User:Khoikhoi advised me to seek help from you. A certain user called Ilir has been making very biased contributions, personal attacks and has reverted every single edit that has been made to any Kosovo-related article. As you may know, Kosovo is a part of Serbia, and the majority of the population wants to separate, Ilir is one of them, and keeps claiming that Kosovo is independent. What makes it worse is that he personally attacks anyone who confronts him, and calles them nationalist. He has also started calling me, and other users who revert his biased edits, sockpuppets of User:Asterion. I need help from an experienced user like you, I can't argue with Ilir anymore, he is simply pushing his own agenda without consideration of others. Help me preserve the neutrality of Kosovo-related articles, please. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings InSHaneee. I feel obliged to give a short clarification. The user above has been doing exactly what he claims I have been doing. In coordination with several other users from his nationality and political orientation he has been reverting the content and attacked other users with ironic questions, which do not contribute to a consensus being reached. Kosovo is currently being administered by a UN administration [82] and all I am trying is to refer to that official website when making my statements. user:Bormalagurski instead uses the one-sided sources, from the successor of the government which caused the Kosovo_war. According to its internationally recognized constitutional framework [83] "1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes.", and predictions on whether it belongs to any other country do not help in this case. Thank you for your attention, Ilir pz 10:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Kosovo is under UN administration, but Ilir fails to recognize that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, which can be proven by looking at any map of Serbia, like this one from the CIA World Factbook. It is not a prediction that it belongs to Serbia, Kosovo is Serbia. It is recognized as such by every nation in the world. Only Ilir and his sockpuppets are trying to make Wikipedia untrue to it's name - an encyclipaedia. As you can see, Ilir follows my every move, and tries to counteract any attempt I make to block him for vandalism, by attacking me and all the other users who are against him but don't have the guts to do anything about it. Help me bring justice to this user. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 20:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your aditude!

Man, you have a temper, cool it. Watch you block me for saying this... MAN!

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

Okay so this guy is back with more his personal attacks. This time he's accusing me of "attacking articles", "vandalism", "racism", "Strategic fictional editing", and spreading "propaganda" among other things.[84][85] I have no clue what this guy is talking about and he provides no evidence for his outrageous claims. Can you do something about this? Aucaman^Talk 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More attacks Aucaman^Talk 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see that calling someone Iranian is invective

If you're going after me for calling someone "Iranian", how about doing something about the numerous times the Iranian editors have called me anti-Iranian, racist, a Jew, an Arab, an Arab nationalist, etc? I've generally kept my mouth shut and tried to ignore the abuse heaped on my head, but it does irk me to be scolded for non-existent incivility when it seems to me that the invective is coming from the other direction. Zora 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it is wrong to point to evidence of collusion based on nationalistic sentiment when there is ample evidence of such collusion. See [86], [87], and [88].

This group has since cleaned up the Iranian notice board, since Lukas Pietsch called attention to the organizing, but I am still under attack [89].

I don't really LIKE having to run to the admins when I'm subjected to personal attacks. It's like tattling. Surely someone else should notice and take some action. Zora 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

I did not write that comment (someone else did). Someone was removing it and, per WP:RPA, I was simply putting it back in (it was more than just personal attacks).

I have to say your comments on my talk page are bordering harassment. Leave me alone and stop threatening me with future blocks. I have already been discussing some of your blocks with other users/admins and am about set up a RfC on your conduct in this whole situation. Aucaman^Talk 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you're not familiar with WP:RPA (the comment was made by someone else and someone was trying to remove them here). I've been told that personal attacks should be left in tact - especially when they're more than just personal attacks. I think you should go discuss this with User:El_C. What you did was a direct violation of WP:AGF and the fact that you still haven't apologized for claiming those were my words is even more shocking. Aucaman^Talk 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You called them "[my] comments" and you assumed they were made by me. And no you're not helping the situation here because I'm subject to daily personal attacks myself and you don't seem to be doing anything about them (I've reported some of them above, and the latest one just a few hours ago here). Instead of fully investigating situations and warning both parties you seem to be only following certain users and warning/blocking them for responding to personal attacks (most of these responses not being anywhere close to the originial personal attacks). Aucaman^Talk 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Xebat

Hi - I was away for a few days and I just saw the message Xebat had left. I just wanted to tell you that I think you made the right choice, Its not the first or second time he had posted such deeply offensive messages, and I really hope it wont happen again, or you will put an end to it. Thanks again, --Kash 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

- I just realised that he had posted he is not sorry for his behaviour [90] as well as changing your comments [91] - I will leave it to you, --Kash 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

Greetings InShaneee. Sorry to disturb you again. User:Ahwaz is back making the same old personal attacks against users he disagrees with calling them "Persian chauvinist gang" as well as the administrators of this website saying "Wikipedia is a pile of rubbish and the people that run it are donkeys" [92]. He's also posting on User:Aucaman's talk page, advocating a rebellion and "confrontation" to disrupt Wikipedia and its due process. [93] --ManiF 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now he's indeircely calling me a "Persian chauvinist" and adding a "donkey" image to your last warning to him. [94] The irony of it all is that I'm not even Persian. --ManiF 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Nationalists are a major threat to the credibality and sucess of Wikipedia

Dear InShaneee, I understand and appreciate your concern in guarding Wikipedia guidelines. But you are judging me wrong. If you have a quick look at my contributions you will see that EVERY info (I mean it literlaly) I add, will be instantly deleted by 5 specific users and specially by ManiF. A fresh case is List of Arab scientists and scholars, which the Iranians want to totally wipe out of this encyclopedia [95], while ofcourse keeping List of Iranian scientists and scholars. I'm sure that I'm not the first one you have meet with this problem. The Iranians are in hundertes and they even have their own Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, which is often used a starting base for starting editing wars. And I am just One!!

So, tell me please, what should I do? what legall procedures can I do to stop this "gang behavour"? Jidan 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee to comment on the particular problem - I have to say Jidan should assume good faith, the consensus is not on "wiping out" but to renaming the article, because of the problems rised by disputes over ethnicity of these scientists & scholars. We don't want to rename them to Iranian! just a Muslim, which is what they were known for, and for a period of time thats what many Iranian scholars were famous for - being muslim - not for being Arab or Iranian, however some Arab friends assumed by Muslim it meant that these scholars were Arab, but in any case since there are disputes on the matter, we just want to compromise by renaming it to Muslims.

Thanks for your time - Hopefully this clears things up, --Kash 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets assume good faith. Why was the List of Arab scientists and scholars renamed to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, while List of Iranian scientists and scholars was not renamed? Until there is a proper explaintion on the discussion page I will revert it back. Jidan 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was reached without any opposition, so I don't understand why you have started a little revert war after it. Things like consensus on talk pages are where you get your voice heard, not by revert wars. If you have problems with other articles, you post it in their talk pages not on another article's talk page. --Kash 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question! ;-) And wikipedia is not a democray. Jidan 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are distrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:Point? Wikipedia is a mixture of many different systems, including democracy, see [96]. You can not vote after the consensus was reached [97]. You had the whole day to vote, you even knew about the vote but instead of opposing you decided to come here and post about it? next time oppose it if you really want to.

Also stop removing my comments from your talk page Jidan [98] [99] (and again [100]) - its not considered ethical. --Kash 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

yet again.. [101], I give up --Kash 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You have accused me with vandalism[102] and that is a violition of good faith. Also I dont think InShanee likes it when his talk pages is turned into a chat page for other users. If you have anything concerning me, then please post it in my talk page. Jidan 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, Kash, Jidan is right. Don't respond to other user's comments on my talk page. I'm trying to talk to him about something here; if you have something to say to him, say it on his talk page. Secondly, Kash, just because you don't agree with someone else's actions does not mean that they are automatically violating some policy; rampant accusations without a strong base can be seen as an incivil attempt to intimidate other users. Jidan, Kash is right that it is not considered good ettiquette to simply remove comments from your talk page shortly after they are posted; archive them if you really must. Kash, wikipedia is NOT a democracy. There is no such thing as a binding vote here. If a 'straw poll' was taken, but a user was not there to put in his two cents, that does not mean you can ignore his point when he gets there. Consensus means working together with ALL users, regardless of how they think OR when they show up. --InShaneee 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Dear InShaneee, Thank you for your meassge on my talk page. The instance that you mentioned can hardly be interpreted as a personal attack, and that was most certainly not my intention. In any case, since he was directly neglecting clear evidence offered to him, I had only two choices: First, to assume he is not interested in reading them, and second, that he indeed read them but does not understand them completely. Since the first one would be a violation of the good faith principle, I could only conclude that he is unable, or unexperienced, with making judgements based on articles and books that he reads. Shervink 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

What do you expect me to do? The person you are talking about is himself a violator of just about every wikipedia policy you could think of. I still don't think what I said was a personal attack. But a discussion cannot go on if one side has already made up his/her mind not to listen to the other, and Aucaman has never, never, never listened to anything anybody says. His only major contribution to wikipedia is stubbornness, leading to a large number of edit wars and conflicts created because of his attitutde. You should warn him, not me. Shervink 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hello again. I do understand your concern and I truly appreciate it. However, I am not convinced that what I said was in any way an insult, or attack, or whatever. It was not meant as such. It was rather meant to make Aucaman at least consider what most other people were telling him, rather than rejecting everything he/she is offered. The true incivility here, if any, is in his/her unproductive way of discussion, which has wasted tens of hours of my time so far, and many more of others'. I have not acted in an incivil manner, although if my words created such a misunderstanding I'm sorry about it. However, I really think that you are warning the wrong person here. Shervink 08:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

List of Arab scientists and scholars

Hi InShaneee, your neutral stance is needed here: List of Arab scientists and scholars. The Iranian editors have moved this to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, although they have themselves a List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which contains many non-Iranians scholars, which actually doesn't bother me. Thank You! Jidan 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ibn haithem Image

The Image I posted in Alhazen is a scan of a 10000 Iraqi dinnar note, currently in use in Iraq. Do I need a special copyright for that? BTW: Thanks for your help in List of Arab scientists and scholars. Jidan 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! Jidan 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Conquest of Persia

I appreciate your friendly early warnings. For all my edits, I have provided discussions and edits on the Talk page. The Iranian editor (Zmmz) has almost accepted the changes provided that it is written in a neutal language, which I accepted. Heja Helweda 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi InShaneee,

Can you please warn Ldingley (talk · contribs) about personal attacks? (example) I asked him to stop and he simply denied that he was making them. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --Khoikhoi 01:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again

250 just posted this on my talk page. It's rather disturbing, especially this statement: "Answer me this are you an Israeli citizen too? I think you are on an agenda. All your edits against Iranians (from Kurds to Persians,etc.) since Iran is seen as the biggest threat to Israel and all your other edits in the Arab fields. Also trying being a force in tension between Arab and Iranian and Turkish editors. All at the benefit of Israel." I'm tired of seeing these kind of statements on my talk page. Could you do something about this? Aucaman^Talk 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Naw, no hard feelings about you. I have my periods of whining. But this guy really doesn't leave me alone. He thinks he's here to save the world and that I'm here to destroy it. He doesn't even appear to be reading my statements correctly. Hopefully he would stop after this. Thanks for the help. Aucaman^Talk 03:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this. I only read the first sentence, but you probably need to tell him about this too. Aucaman^Talk 03:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ManiF

Dear InShaneee,

I want to report the fanatical patriotism behaviour of a user User:ManiF. The following are only recent examples.

Geber, although he was born in Iran(part of the arab empire at that time), his ethnicity is with most certainity arab: Columbia Encyclopedia , Ancients & Alchemists , Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia .

In the articles, where his ethnicity is not important, In good faith I removed info regarding his arab ethnicity, but this user inserted "Iranian-born" infront of his name to make the impression that he was Iranian.

• Hydrochloric acid
• Sulfuric acid
• Citric acid
• Alembic
• Alchemy - he removed Geber (arab) and replaced him by al-Razi(persian), although all discovires muriatic, sulfuric, and nitric acids, soda, potash) described were done by Geber.

• List of Arab scientists and scholars - wanted to rename List of Arab scientists and scholars to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, although ofcourse the List of Iranian scientists should stay. (I was blocked 24H because of this).

If I am wrong on this than please let me know. If not, then I ask you please to do what ever in your hands is to stop the fanatical patritiosm of this user, which is a threat to the success and credibality of Wikipedia.

Thank You. Jidan 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no substance to this "complaint". Whatever I have done has been in conformity with Wikipedia rules and regulations. User:Jidan is the one who is breaking wikipedia rules regularly (3RR, sockpuppetry, false accusations, personal attacks as above), and the one who originally removed the term "Iranian-born" from those articles despite the fact that Gaber, regardless of his Arab [or Persian] ethenicty which is itself disputed by contradictory sources [103], was infact Iranian-born, born in the city of Tus, according to all the sources. I just restored the term. --ManiF 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry InShaneee, but my english is not that good to describe it with another word. Thank you for taking the time. Jidan 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Support

Hi, as you know, my RFA passed (56/1/1). I would like to personally thank you for supporting me. I am not doing a mass thank you post, but I thought your comment was funny, so I wanted to drop you a quick note.--Adam ^(talk) 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about "sneaky vandalism"

There is a line on the vandalism page about sneaky vandalism, can you tell me more about that specific topic? (Deng 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Ok thanks for you reply but I want much more tell me everything :D , for example would removeing sections of an article over time to such an extent that the article changes completely from what it orginally was be sneaky vandalism? (Deng 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Wow fast replies, lets say I change specific facts like how many floors a building has in an article that have been sourced because I believe they are wrong and If I keep on doing this in articles where those psecific items have been sourced, or remove things that I dont really like but have been sourced and does shine a light on intresting ideas, is that sneaky vandalism? (Deng 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Ok then I would like to report this person for sneaky vandalism 213.243.185.219 (talk · contribs) who is Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs) in the battle of kursk he altred the numbers without any source, in the battle of berlin he altered the numbers without any source, in the Battle of Greece he altered the numbers without any source in the Italian war in Soviet Union, 1941-1943 he altered the numbers without any source, in the winter war he delted relevant information see the talk page, in the Battle of Suomussalmi he altered the numbers without any source, he has often done this in many articles these are just a few. How and where do I report him? (Deng 22:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Simple edit war between these two, accompanied by numerous personal attacks from deng. DMorpheus 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is sneaky vandalism there are no two ways about it. If one is to follow what you (Inshaneee) have said then this is sneaky vandalism, there is nothing simple about it. If you look at the articles and look at the eidts you will see that it is sneaky vandalism also DMorpheus (talk · contribs) withholds the fact that all my edits have been to revert Kurts sneaky vandalism just as it says on the vandalism page; if you see vandalism revert it, so I have only follwed the instructions but Kurt continues with his sneaky vandalism and therfore the number of edits has grown. Because Kurt has not done one or two acts of sneaky vandalism he has done numerous(Deng 09:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

User:Ahwaz

Sorry to bother you again. I made two edits to the article Anti-Arabism, not removing or rephrasing anything, just inserting a tag asking for a citation for two claims, while fully explaining my legitimate concerns in edit summaries. [104] [105] Then User:Ahwaz comes and reverts my edits saying "ManiF is just trolling - ignore him". I really don't know what to do about these personal attacks and accusations. --ManiF 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ManiF: Whatever I edit, wherever I edit, you come following along and put in tags or delete my words - even in articles you have never been interested in before. It is harassment. You are just here to bully people off Wikipedia. You don't use talk, you have deleted what I write on your talk page because you don't want a discussion and you enforce everything unilaterally.

Yes, whinge about it to InShaneee. He'll ban me and you'll get your way again. It is pathetic.

What I wrote was sourced and NPOV - you can't argue that. I put both sides of the argument. But you do argue. You and your gang are there to revert everything I and others write. What is the matter with you?--Ahwaz 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved on the Anti-Arabism article since March 19th [106]. You have no right to call my edits "vandalising and trolling". [107], you are in breach of both WP:FAITH and WP:Civil. --ManiF 18:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, you replaced one word and you littered the entire article with tags. Let's face it, you want the article deleted. You have nothing constructive to add.--Ahwaz 18:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

Sorry to interfere, but may I ask which specific statements User:Ahwaz was blocked for so I can talk to him about it? Aucaman^Talk 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the discussion above. Thanks for your reply. Aucaman^Talk 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Greg Lindahl bio removed.

Hello! You removed the bio for Greg Lindahl. I think Greg Lindahl merits a bio; I would be happy to rewrite the page using the standard bio format, and make it more informative and factual. I can't find reference to why the page was deleted, so I hope you will do me the favor of replying.

Thank you!

Wendy Wendy 02:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to ask an editor about themselves

I am allowed to ask an editor about themselves. So I will. 69.196.139.250 04:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)