User talk:Aucaman/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Request for Arbitration[edit]

I have filed a Request for arbitration against you. Please read it. Robert McClenon 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, do you want me to get involved with this? Please e-mail me. Lukas (T.|@) 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز . Amir85 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Happy New Newroz, Hewppy New solar year and comming of spring! Yes you are right and thank you for your advice. I believe that some people think (dream) that they can censor my contrubutions by annoying and gir dadane bikhodai and constant halgiri! Diyako Talk + 15:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Iranian New Year[edit]

Happy Iranian New Year. The New Year clebrationis a litmus test of Iranian peoples. 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mail problem[edit]

Please check your e-mail now, or use the Emailuser link again. I've provided a different address. There's been a technical problem with the other one. Lukas (T.|@) 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it. The other address is also working again. Lukas (T.|@) 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Aucaman, I have seen that you are going around user's talk pages trying to get them against me.

Let me remind you Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. Please stay WP:CIVIL and If you have anything to say to me, come and say it to myself --Kash 12:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed[edit]

You may want to comment on it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry, it's been retracted. Lukas (T.|@) 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable diffs[edit]

Two edits of yours have been brought to my attention that I wanted to comment about. First of all, this is quite innapropriate. If you believe that a user's claims are without base, simply ask them to source it, or something else more civil. Secondly, please be careful when you edit discussions as you did here. It seems fairly clear that you did not capture the full discussion under the title you placed, which could confuse new users trying to enter the discussion, and can sometimes seem to present a biased view of things. --InShaneee 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the first part, yes, it is innapropriate to accuse someone of 'making something up'. You said on my talk page that you accused him of not having any sources for what he was suggesting. THAT would have been more appropriate, as that is more along the lines of assuming good faith. As for the second part, it's not at all unusual for users to jump into a debate they were previously uninvolved with, and it's usually best to leave a comment next to the comment it's responding to for clarity. --InShaneee 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Aucaman, I want to ask for a mediation for the article of Kurdish people as I explained it in the talk page, but I don't know exactly where and how to do that can I ask you please help me, Thanks. Diyako Talk + 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian nations[edit]

Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and add any pertinent info that needs to be added, but the Greater Iran article already looks fine to me. --Khoikhoi 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Endo-European speakings of southwestern Asia[edit]

Hi, I have several times read the article Aryan since long ago, but because it is not a wel-formed article I could not still understand how it defines Aryans! Maybe it lacks a clear definition of Aryan (or maybe I clould not find it). If we want to solve the problems in articles related to peoples who are considered to be linguistic decendants of those so-called Aryans, we should first have a clear definition of Aryan which by some people is thought to be ethnic ancestor of modern IE speakers. Then we can go on to other smaller branches and correct the myths an political views inserted incorrectly by some people. that is my oponion. Diyako Talk + 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the Aryans as the ancestors of modern Indogermanic speakers is an outdated conceit that owed primarily to the Aryan origins of the science of comparative philology. The ancestors of the modern Indogermanic culture are more accurately known as the Indogermans, the Protoindoeuropeans, the Caucasians, or the Kurgan People. The first two are falling out of favour because of their complexity and also because of their connotations with modern Europe. The Caucasians is also falling out of use because of the common, although inaccurate, usage of the word to mean "European" in general. Many linguists are turning to the coinage Kurgan People in order to avoid these problems. The Aryans or Protaryans are now specificly considered as a branch of the Kurgan People that migrated from a very early time out of Caucasia to the east, and established the foundations of the Indopersic culture. As such, the Aryans would be most closely related to the Anatolians, with a more distant relationship to the Sclavons and the Hellenes, but their relationship with the Germans, Celts, or Itali would be very, very distant, and certainly not that of cultural ancestor. Also, the Western branches have mixed very heavily with non-Indogerman races and cultures, thoroughly dividing them racially from the ancient Kurgan peoples and by extension from the Eastern branches. Note that some anthropologists object to the use of the term Kurgan Peoples, claiming a lack of evidence that the Kurgan excavations are related to the Protoindoeuropeans. 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza![edit]


Welcome, Aucaman/Archive 3, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Misza13 T C 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


You may only use rollback for clear vandalism, not a content dispute. As far as I remember, you've used the rollback function against me twice the last time being today [1] [2], please stop or next time I'll tke this issue to an admin and your rollback function might be taken away from you. --ManiF 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You did this again, TWICE today. Stop it please. --ManiF 05:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Artilces nominated for deletion[edit]

I appreciate your comments on this page [3].Heja Helweda 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

JoTurner RfA[edit]

Aucaman, I had some rather heated exchanges with JoTurner when he first arrived on WP. He seemed to me to be extremely devout and prone to take offense. He has mellowed a lot, and quickly too. I get the feeling that he's a smart kid, somewhat out of sync with his environment, and that conversion to Islam was both a benign sort of adolescent rebellion, and a way to just be a PERSON, without having to be "African-American". WP gives him a way to be a "citizen of the world" as well, and a place to feel effective regardless of age. Some of our best Wikipedians are young. Given that he's young, and changing and growing fast, I'd just like him to have more time to settle. That's all. I don't think a few months is enough time to get a full understanding of how things work here. But if he gets the adminship -- well, I expect it will turn out OK. I'm not horrified by the prospect. I don't think you need to change your vote. That was your gut feeling and you should stick by it. Zora 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

צ Transliteration[edit]

The IPA character that accurately transliterates the Hebrew letter צ is the affricate ligature /ʦ/. This symbol, however, is absent from many fonts, and so a bridge may be used instead, /t͡s/. The use of simple /ts/ is incorrect because the pronunciation of the plosive followed by the fricative is very different from the pronunciation of the affricate itself. This is very obvious in German where the two sounds, both /t͡s/ and /ts/, are often found side by side, and are pronounced clearly differently. Confer nichts /nɪçts/ and jetzt /jɛt͡st/.

Note that this sound is written in Rumanian by ţ, t with subscript comma; and in the Slavic languages by c. In Old English and Old German orthography, z was used when this sound occurred.

Mōšeh Qaṣāv would be the transliteration I'd use. Gemination, as I understand it, is no longer pronounced in Hebrew, and the few times that it actually matters, it functions a sort of orthographic technique that has no purpose in Romanised Hebrew. As such, I see no reason that gemination should be transliterated. In the case of letters like ב and פ, I suggest transliterating them as b/v or p/f according to how they are pronounced in context, leaving gemination untransliterated. The IPA symbol for gemination, when it is pronounced, is the same as the symbol for length, id est, /ː/.
ş represents the sound /ʃ/ in the languages in which it occurs. ș, s with comma, is a Romanian letter used for that sound also. The only other suggestions than the one above that I could give would be Qatzāv or Qatsāv. 20:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic definitions[edit]

Some users deliberately and systematically, insert wrong info into articles. They know better than everybody that they are wrong but still insist on. I think We should request for a sock check among some of these users. They use several usernames to have a weight on discussions or related actions which is unapprociated in Wikipedia.
Iranian peoples: The term although is not a widely accepted and widely-used term such as Semitic, Turkic or Germanic, but there are some short definition of this term in some references, In English and Swedish. They all say people who speak Iranian languages. 'People who have Persian or one of its dialects as mother tounge such as persians, Tajiks and most of people of Afganistan'. 'People who live in Iran'. You maybe have already seen this link [4]. The term Aryan is a linguistic term according to all encyclopedias and academic sources. It does not mean that this people are one race or ethnic group! For the relationship of Kurds and Iranians there are many interesting academic sources that I'll provide them!I'll be glad to hear you opinion from youDiyako Talk + 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I know him. It's me! Thank you for message.Diyako Talk + 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1[edit]

Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience:
"No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!
  1. Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before.
  2. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log.
  3. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time.
  4. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified.
  5. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community.
  6. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially.
  7. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on.
  8. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen.
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


You made several accusations in your comment here that are patently unnacceptable. Specifically, your accusations about another user's purpose for using Wikipedia is a blatant violation of the Assume Good Faith policy. This is, of course, in addition to the personal attacks you made by accusing the same user of expressing 'racist-nationalist' views, and of being a 'rich, immature' person. You've rode the fence in regard to policy with a lot of your activities in the past; this isn't one of those times. If you make any more comments like this, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. --InShaneee 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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. --InShaneee 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews[edit]

I'll takes a look.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea they were making some pretty ridiculous statements, but I don't really see it permeating the article too much besides it being a little bit too focused on Persian history instead of the history of the Jews in persia, I made some small changes and I'll my eye on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As for me, the Persian Yahoodies are only peripheral to my sphere of interest, but my suggestion for a neutral text would be to simply state that the ancient Hebrews have had such a long history with the Persian people and their state(s) (many centuries longer than the Arabs, Mongols or the various Turkic peoples) that their cultures are to some extent intertwined in both Iran and Central Asia. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Iranian peoples[edit]

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Iranian peoples. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unfair for me to be blocked because some other users have been revert-warring (and were blocked for it) and I might have done a few reverts at the same time. I don't even see how this first one can be called a revert when I'm adding in a brand new tag after I gave an explanation for it here. It doesn't make any sense. AucamanTalk 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your first revert was really a revert [5]. {{totallydisputed}} and {{disputed}} are not diffent enough not to count this as a revert. —Ruud 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first revert listed in WP:AN/3RR. Can get a consistent list of 4 reverts I've done? AucamanTalk 21:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
(previous version for 1st) 1st (previous version for 2nd) 2nd 3rd ... nthRuud 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. AucamanTalk 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry I just looked at what you call my first revert and it appears that I replaced the {{totallydisputed}} tag with a {{dispute}} tag. I don't think these are the same. User Khoikhoi was not participating in the talks (and he did not give ANY explanation for removing the tag), so I thought he was removing the tag because he believed the article was neutral. I'm not asking you to unblock me, but it would be nice to know the reasoning involved in calling this a revert. As far as I know, the totallydisputed tag carries more weight than a disputed tag, so I was indeed considering Khoikhoi's revert when making that edit. If I wanted to revert, I could have just replaced the totallydisputed tag with a totallydisputed tag. This doesn't count as a revert under the definition given there.

Could you also (before you even reply to me) report (or deal with) User:Khoikhoi's violation of 3RR at the same time? I don't think it would be fair if he gets away with it. His violation is a lot more straight-forward than mine. He's are the links to his reverts: [6][7][8][9]. Thank you, AucamanTalk 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but 2 of my reverts there are about tags, and two are about the text in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the versions that I reverted ([10], [11], [12], [13]) are all different. --Khoikhoi 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So taking off tags is not reverting but putting them in is??? You even call them reverts yourself! In any case my comments were not addressed to you, so stop trying to get people's attention by posting things on my talk page or I'll report you for harassment once I'm unblocked. AucamanTalk 07:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, as I've said before {{disputed}} and {{totallydisputed}} are much too similar for this not to be called a revert. And yes, Khoikhoi violated 3RR as well. —Ruud 13:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No big deal about the block. But Khoikhoi violated 3RR and....? AucamanTalk 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
He's blocked for 12 hours. It's pretty late to report him now, so I woudln;t have blocked him if he wasn't a serail 3RRv violator. —Ruud 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted this appear on his record so that he cannot deny it in the future. Sorry for all the whining. I try not to get into revert wars, but they know how to get on my nerves (by taking off the dispute tag). See you around. AucamanTalk 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave up messages, OK?[edit]

It's not an offense per se, Aucaman, but it's considered rather rude to remove messages, even angry ones, from your talk page. If you want to come out of the arbitration smelling like a rose, you are going to have to make an effort at good behavior. That means watching your reverts, not removing messages, and generally putting the means ahead of the ends. It's OK to "lose" if you're behaving correctly and the other users aren't. Eventually it will work out. Sometimes it takes months, but it does work out. Zora 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping me, User:Zora. Right now I don't want to hear anything other than an explanation for why it's okay for User:Khoikhoi to just go up there and remove the dispute tags placed in by others but it's not okay for me to replace a dispute tag with a one that better reflects the situation we're having. AucamanTalk 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not fair. But if you bug admins too much re single offenses, they're going to tune you out. This place is just too big, and there are too few admins on duty, to ensure strict justice in every case. But as I said to Ahwaz, if you're patient, and keep track of a string of offenses, a pattern of misbehavior is eventually going to get someone censured or banned.

BTW, I'm not preaching at you from a position of total irreproachability. I just went over 3RR in the Zakir Naik article, and reported myself to an admin :/ I was so pissed off I lost track. So I'm familiar with the temptation to ruthlessly revert war. Let's see what happens to me. Zora 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if User:Khoikhoi agree with you on all of this. He just made this edit right after you brought this up (and I'm pretty sure he's watching this page pretty carefully). Like I said, there seems to be a double-standard here. Unless some serious reforms are made to change the way disputes are handled here, I doubt any serious editors would be willing to stay for long. The rules should be precise and enforced without discrimination. AucamanTalk 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mutual aid[edit]

I have set up a notice board to give collective support to those facing racism, nationalist bigotry and group intimidation while editing articles related to Middle Eastern issues. There are a growing number of people who are coming across the same problems with the same users, but are outnumbered and over-ruled. It is plain and simple bullying. They are being turned off Wikipedia because of this behaviour. I hope that we can all support each other.

The title is "Hurriyya", which means "freedom".--Ahwaz 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours concerning this comment, coming right after I warned you not to get into it with other users. Not only do you accuse this user of being a troll, but you threaten him with a block. Please use this time to calm down and take a few steps away from this situation, and when you come back, remember, focus on content and guidelines. --InShaneee 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely unacceptable. What he did was definitely trolling the way I understand it (inducing angry comments). That whole section is titled "Aucaman's behavior" asking me to "review WP:CIVIL" without giving any explanations as to what I've done wrong. If this is not trolling then what is? I'm not sure why you're doing this. I just spent 30 minutes writing a response to your previous warning and now I'm blocked without even getting a response? His provocative statement is okay, but me (rightly) calling it trolling is not? AucamanTalk 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Aucaman you were warned in various talk pages about your behaviour, yet you repeated it, so I think this block is very justified. --Kash 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this guy even posting on my talk page? And how come I haven't been given a respose in more than 8 hours? This is a clear case of censorship without any explanation and I'll deal with it once I'm unblocked. AucamanTalk 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify this as a serious personal attack, and I would not certainly block you for this. But than I have to deal with a user who throws ephitets about others being trolls or vandals every day, so I might have grown thick skinned about this. If another admin reads this and ponders unblocking you, I would throw my weight behind unblocking you, but I don't want to do it just based on my judgement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I think User:InShaneee has made this a little too personal and I'm not even sure why. This is part of a broader content dispute and he has made some statements that can only be interpreted as taking sides due to clear misunderstandings (the users initiating that page are not Iranians, but, on the contrary, are minority groups - so he's reading the whole thing completely backward). I'm not sure what I might have done to deserve this, but he tried to warn me against attacking the same user before but I did not think of it as an attack and gave a full explanation as to why. No matter what happens here I'm going to be filing an RfC demanding an investigation into this. It looks to me like this user has a history of blocking people for unnecessary reasons. Like I said this is unacceptable. I called that person a troll because he was indeed using provocative language (pointing me out by name and then asking me to "review WP:CIVIL" for making an edit he doesn't like), and I did not threaten him with a block - I was referring to his block on Iranian peoples for violating 3RR. This is unacceptable. I'm the one who should be complaining about this, but instead I'm blocked? I'm not sure how else I should have responded to this user without condemning some of the stuff he'd said. How should I get more people to take a look at this and comment? AucamanTalk 06:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The first step on what to do is not to continue calling other users trolls after you were just blocked for that. Considering how blatant and flagrant this violation is, consider it a courtesy that I'm warning you at all before reblocking you, this time for a longer period. Keep things civil, it's that simple. --InShaneee 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable stuff[edit]

As I mentioned before, you were warned in many different occasions for WP:CIVIL and yet you decided not to follow it and repeat your behaviour, which justifies the block in my opinion. --Kash 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your opinion on this. The block is definitely unjustified and I'll deal with it when I'm unblocked. You yourself have made lots of far more outrageous comments, repeatedly calling me "anti-Iranian" for no reason whatsoever. Your comments here can also be considered harassment. AucamanTalk 12:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, please stop being rude, be WP:CIVIL. Last time I called anyone 'anti-Iranian' was weeks ago. I stopped once I learnt about the rules on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the CIVIL policy which clearly states that you should stay calm and polite in all cases. --Kash 12:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing I've said here was impolite. I also take offense at you telling me to "be WP:CIVIL". Why are you calling me rude? Why are you even posting things here? AucamanTalk 13:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"I didn't ask for your opinion on this", is rude, making accusations are also against Civil policy. I don't need your permission to give my opinion here or any other place on Wikipedia, thats supposed to be the strong point about Wikipedia - anyone can contribute. --Kash 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"I didn't ask for your opinion on this" is nothing but the truth. This has nothing to do with you. I left a message for an admin, not you. I'm trying to read some of the articles here, and every time you leave me a message the message alert comes on. Leave me alone. AucamanTalk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I had warned you many times for your incivility, so I just came here to remind you about it. Again, I suggest you read up on the policy. Thats all. --Kash 14:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Lol I like what you have done with the place .. "hassments" and "friendly talk".. I was only trying to give you a nice friendly suggestion so you wouldn't get yourself blocked again, but fine - take it however you will. --Kash 14:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendly talk[edit]

Well maybe you should learn to leave people alone when they don't want to be bothered. In any case if there was any advice in this I'll try to figure it out and maybe learn something from it. I'm not going to bother giving you any personal advice, but maybe you should reconsider you whole approach to editing this Wikipedia. From what I see a lot of people seem to write stuff that are in violation to WP:NOR and somewhat controversial, and, when called on it, would try to find (ad hoc) sources that back-up their claims. This is not the best way to write articles. You should read the sources first then make edits, not the other way around. It has caused a lot of problems, and I'm sure you agree with me on this. And don't worry about calling me "anti-Iranian". I'm sure it's been a misunderstanding. I'm Iranian myself and most of the people I hang out with are Iranian. I only brought it up because you seemed to be implying that I was the one violating the policies. I don't think calling a troll a troll deserves blockage and I'll make sure this is dealt with. AucamanTalk 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, again I ask you not to label my posts under "harassments" - labelling is against wiki spirits. Please assume good faith, I came here and saw you are blocked and you don't think it was just - so I tried to explain it.

Feel free to criticise my behaviour on wikipedia - I am learning same as you are, although I do see myself as a critic when it comes to Wikipedia's power strucutre (as posted on my blog), but these are the current rules and we should follow them. Where in Iran are you from, may I ask? and do you live there? --Kash 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Tehran. No I don't live there anymore. AucamanTalk 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How come? --Kash 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My family decided to move out. (I'm afraid there's no specific story to it. Now we live in the U.S.) Where in Iran are you from? AucamanTalk 15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am from Tehran, my family roots are from Shiraz, but my father and his last generation lived a bit in Tafresh in Markazi --Kash 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Great! Friendly chat is good. AucamanTalk 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendly talk[edit]

Hi, Friend. Xebat Talk + 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're someone I wouldn't mind talking to. How's everything? Sorry about the revert war that other day. You were not the only one who got blocked. All the 4 people taking off your (justified) dispute tags (ManiF, Kash, Khoikhoi, SoutherComfort) got blocked before you did. I made sure they wouldn't get away with it and as you can see they're still harassing me over it. Could you send me an E-mail? Just copy-paste this into your address bar (I you haven't submitted your e-mail address you probably should):

There are some stuff I need to talk to you about. Thanks. AucamanTalk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I enabled it but it says: This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. Xebat Talk + 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now. I'm too lazy to send you an e-mail :) AucamanTalk 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sent it! Xebat Talk + 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ditto! AucamanTalk 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Again. AucamanTalk 15:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman[edit]


An Arbitration case involving you 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 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Acuman Please Stop Attacking Articles[edit]

Vandalism is not okay. Racism is not okay. Strategic fictional editing is not okay. Fictonial information is not okay. Be civil. Have diolgue and stop fighting with Kurdish editors and other editors on topics such as Jews and Iranians. Have a nice day. 02:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


touching base--Ahwaz 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

the Hurriyya notice board is getting deleted and I need your help --Ahwaz 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews[edit]

Hi, I thought you may be interested in the article on Persian Jews, as there are several disputes going on regarding that article with some of the editors you may already know. Regards, Pecher Talk 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your note, I will take a look. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

your message[edit]

You are welcome, the better sourced the information the better it sticks. When people revert stuff it is usually a sign that the source that was provided was weak enough to be successfully challenged by a dissenter. The cure is to find better sources that meet the peer review test. That is the challenge of wikipedia. --CltFn 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks[edit]

Aucaman/Archive 3, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 02:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious symbols.png

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is going on With the Persian Jews Article?[edit]

Update me on statments being made? An attack on Persian Jews and other Iranian Jews (i.e. Kurdish Jews) is an attack on all Iranians. 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


You say that Aryan is synonomous with Iranian. For that matter, North Indians are Iranian people? Would you call the Bengalis, an Iranian people. They are Aryan after all. I would like to make the correction that Aryan signifies the Indo-Iranian branch itself and that Iranians are just a branch of the Aryan people, not the entire Aryan people itself. The Aryan people includes the equally prominent Indo-Aryans in addition to the Nurestanis. -User: Afghan Historian

abdul rabb sayyaf[edit]

his name is abdul rabb rasul sayyaf i dont know why somebody put it down as abdul rasul sayyaf, thats an insult to his name as abdul rabb means the servant of god whereas abdul rasul means the servant of the prophet, which is an unislamic name. heres a bad google translation of a website on him

i know what his name is, i mean i went to university with his nephew, and these afghans are pretty proud of their family and thats all i heard from his mouth abdul rabb this abdul rabb that lol

hey on the term persian[edit]

i read your reply about persian jews. I agree with what you are saying considering i have done my homework and read about persian jews. i also think that the term persian can be applied to people that also live in other countries and dont speak persian. because people did move around and may have lost their mother tongue to assilimilate into new cultures. what do you think about that? you can see this with some people in pakistan and india and probably other countries because the genetics and characteristics still remain to this day.

My RfA[edit]

Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I have to point something out to you[edit]

This is my personal opinion and I could be wrong and if I am a beg your pardon, but I think the problem in the Persian Jew article is because of you. Yes, I think it has originated as a means to balance what is percieved as your attacks on other articles. No offense, but you have a share in the blame. It is a shame that people have to go to such a level to counter or defend what the beleive is a worthy cause. This is why i asked you to reform yourselves. Persian Jews are now being victimized and things that need not be mentioned are being pushed. You see for every action there is a reaction. I will defend the truth and guard that article. I hope it is not in vain with other user:Diyakos or user:Acumans. Like I said this is a sad matter, but there is also a lesson to be learned. I ask you now to clear your slate and coperate with myself and other editors to achieve a feeling of community and understanding. If we can all put aside our differences as individuals that is a step closer to a juster world society. We can notspread propaganda, becuase beleive me it is minute but has a share to play in strife. 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Aryan[edit]

Sorry about that. It seems I was looking at the wrong user. The discussion is so large, I cant tell who was speaking or not. I will help to the best of my knowledge though. Afghan Historian 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

Are you doing it right?[edit]

It may be that an RfC or an RfAr are the only possible steps at this point. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)