User talk:Khoikhoi/Archive 33

Picture of Bahaullah

Hi,it is user secthayrabe i was just asking is Wp allowed to show the picture of Bahaullah because in bahai faith you should not have it or show it.here is something about showing the picuter of bahaullah

"There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes" (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 540) thanks please reply on my talk page thanks so much --Secthayrabe (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cappadocia Page

HI there just curious as to why you took down the link that i put up? It has a lot of good information and resources on Cappadocia and on one of the main tourist attractions, the fairy Chimmney. This site is no different than a sacred destinations site, so i don't see why this one was taken down.

Muslim Scientist sounds wrong!

When we talk about Galileo we don't say he was a Christian scientist! All great scientists are known by their nationality not by their religion. Calling Ibn al-Haytham a "Muslim Scientist" makes him sound inferior. As if he is not a great scientist...he is a "Muslim scientist"... Do you see my point?

MA - 20 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I Put years of effort into making this! And YOU delet it!

I'm Joe Hamilton, I was wondering why you deleted my page Mike Kerr? I took a long time interviewing people, researching and perfecting that article. It's OK if you don't put it back on here, but I would like to have the article so I can keep it for personal records. SO PLEASE re-consider re-posting my article or simply sending it back to me so I can keep it in a file. It took a long time to get all the info in with I have gotten.

Thankyou, Joe Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeHamiltonIs111 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nezami

Stylistic edition? Would be very very glad and grateful Sfrandzi (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Tafresh - small town in 65 km. from Qom, it is possible to tell suburb of Qom and consequently, how much I can believe - in sources they are interchangeable: one write "Tafresh", others "Qom" though actually the text to which refer, speaks about Tafresh, and not itself Tafresh, but village about it. But Qom it much better known, and, probably, therefore in most cases prefer to name it. It seems, medieval biographer of Nezami Lutf Ali Bey names Qom, but it is not considered, how the contradiction and the special version in comparison with version of Tafresh. On the second item. Bertels - the unique Soviet reference. Other Russian-speaking references - postSoviet. In any case Evgenij Bertels - the scientist of a world scale [1] [2], and regarding of the message of the facts (and I use of he only for this purpose) he is so reliable, as any large scientist. Sfrandzi (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"The tradition names two Persian-speaking... " and " Academics have named... " In this phrase I meant medieval tradition, i.e. primary sources, i.e. that makes factual basis of a question. And further described is already the attitude to inconsistent messages of tradition of a modern science, "academics". Sfrandzi (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad

Hi Khoikhoi. Since you are familiar with the issue, you may wish to respond here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi agin

Please would you have a look at here. This is my life in Wikipedia. I cannot work on articles that I created because Poco is around. I won't mind if you block me. Thanks. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of Azerbaijan

Good of you to have caught the vandalism with the Kurds and the Udins (also the "Ahiska" Tukrs?). Much appreciated. Could you please also verify (or revert) the change of spelling from Sakhurs to Tsakhurs on 26 May 2008 (institutional IP). Thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Javad Qajar

Thanks for reminding. Sorrowfully I did not notice any relable source for those part of the Javad Khan article before being added some points. First of all you have to source the primary version and then I shall insert the required sources there . The Azerbaijani version of the Wikipedia is full of fabrications made for the sake of pseudopatriotism. Please do not interfere with English version and let it to be maintained out of falsification. Personally learn Iranian history of Qajar period. At the time while Javad khan Qajar ruled his government in Ganja, whole Arran (or Aran-zamin) was part of Iran till 1828. As clear, the collapce of Ganja Khanate took place before the Turkmenchay Treaty. And to direct to the logics, Azerbaijan is a name for Arran land was innovated by Mammad Amin Rasulzadeh after the independency from Russian Empire in 1918. Please notice the difference. Most of the English speaking scholars quite well informed and they rarely search for the Wikipedian knowledge. And also the common europians rare interested in such of personalities as Javad Qajar. He is widely recognized by easterners themselves and we should not deceive them. Javad Khane`s patrimonial properties are still maintained in Khoy,Iran. To cut the subject short, please first source the compounds that you find to be true. Later on apply me and I shall see what can I do. All the best.--Faikpro (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look into a restricted editor's recent activity

Hi. I noticed your comment at User talk:Pocopocopocopoco regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. The user has recently nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion, and I'm trying to assume good faith, but his actions may have been inappropriate. Please look at this and the page history here, then this. He nominated several others as well, though they were mainly misspellings. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at Richardcavell's talk page. Be assured that the nomination for speedy deletion was in good faith as I thought it was a no brainer. If Richardcavell feels that the nomination for speedy deletion was inappropriate I will take it to redirects for discussion instead. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalkin

I'd like to bring to your attention that User:VartanM has been stalking me around. I have always hoped it would stop but his recent comment on my comment here shows this is not going to end and becoming a serious problem. I therefore asked a help via {{help me}} template and Ten Pound Hammer recommended me to ask here. But in WP:AN seems no-one wants to help me. This is really very frustrating and I don't see any good environment around me to stay here. Please have a look at here by putting yourself in my place then advise me what to do. Thank you. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

KhoiKhoi is a Kurd

This user clearly says that He is interested on articles about Kurds. Actually, this is a part of PKK plan to create sick-minded history and fake map for virtual KURDISTAN!!!!. PKK is a terrorist kurdish invader group operating in Turkey and Iranian (south) Azerbaijan,

This user's responsibility is to help hiding facts. Kurds themselves know that they are migrated to west part of south Azerbaijan and are minority there. They know that there tones of ancient maps showing borders of Atropatane (Azerbaijan). But they don't care, because they have this hypothesis: if a kurd one day sleep in a non-kurdish city anywhere in the world, that city is kudish city and we should consider it inside silly map of Fake Kurdistan!! You will see very soon they will say Finland and Sweden are a part of Kurdistan, as there are more than 10,000 kurds there.

Khoikhoi, you and other kurds can advertise some silly maps of a fake land called kurdistan and you can million times edit wikipedia page of west azerbaijan of Iran, but question is can you obtain Azeri lands in reality? I am sure you can't. you are just 5-6 million in iran, but azeris are above 30 million referring to Iranian government reports. you think american and european or even persians will help you?? i say a little,but not too much. Because Turkey is very important for them and they don't want very angry turkey. Persians in Iran definetlay want to support you, but they know Azeris will be mad of this and will destroy entire iran, as they are 40-50% of Iran and they control army and economy in Tehran.

I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users. you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc. simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.

July 24th, Sehend1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.9 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you get love notes sometimes also. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of Vlore

Why are you undoing my article of Vlore?? I'm simply removing the greek neme since this language neither is official in Albania nor there is any greek speaking population in the city. Is there any city of Greece which has the Albanian version of the name? Also there is another error with "locally Vlone or Vlona". The city is refered as Vlone or Vlona in Gheg dialect (a dialect spoken in Northern Albania, Kosovo, Fyrom, Montenegro, e.i. in the northern part of the Albanosphere, while the city falls in Tosk (the dialect of South Albania) are and the locals refer to the city simply as Vlore or Vlora. I am from Vlora myself hence I am absolutely sure for what I am saying. Or at least we should clarify the meaning of the term "locally"; it is refered to the inhabitants of Vlora or to overall population of Albania? Asdreni (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The city was founded by ancient Greeks and has been known by that name for centuries. That alone is sufficient to warrant the inclusion of the Greek name in the lead per WP:NCGN. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, can anything be done about this Asdreni guy and the various IPs? His first talk page comment being "Damn Gayreeks, your names don't belong here!", I can't say I'm too optimistic... 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't like getting admins, that aren't already acquainted with a particular issue, involved for a number of reasons. Thanks, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to get him involved, certainly. I'll stick to "rvv" myself, until he tires out. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Yes, it was me, but I noticed the message only after you had left. If you want to talk, I can give you my IM username. bogdan (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

72.44.80.113

IP 72.44.80.113 is probably sock of Sehend1. [3] He started reverting on Iranian provinces. --Larno Man (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Javad Qajar Khoei

I have some old correspondence and other historic documents in Baku. They are on Javad Qajar's birth history. I have applied to get them by email. Sorowfully limited info on Qajar available via Internet. You may edit my info added to Javad Khan article unless I present facts. All the best. --Faikpro (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdreni sock

I've blocked indefinitely. If he returns, I'll extend Asdreni's block and semi-protect the page. I don't think this guy's made any sleeper accounts, so CU isn't needed IMO. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bitlis

We are at it again. Someone is removing references and referenced paragraphs in Bitlis article. I restored some. I again appealed in the discussion page for more respect to other users. Hope I will not be accused of any wrong doing.--Murat (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The "references" and nationalistic POV being removed are backed by extremely questionable sources. The Zaman source, with its commentary from "Törehan Serdar, head of the Association of Victims of World War I Massacres by Armenians", is undoubtedly an attempt at POV pushing. Here is the Sutherland "source"[4] and this is the NY times "source"[5]. Along with the ultra-nationlistic rants, tall armenian tale website is also historically ignorant. From said website;

"The U.S. wasn't at war with Turkey, but America was certainly allied with the Allies. MARCH 6, 1916"....

Sadly, whoever runs that site is so historically ignorant. From the World War I wiki-source; "....Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917." All this has been discussed on the Bitlis talk[6] page Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. References are real. The events are real. Quesionable only from certain POV. This is all that needs to be said. There was no reference to tallarmeniantale, as that is not the source of any of the references I made. That site may contain valid references itself but was not used by this user. If that concerned about POV pushing why not apply the same sensitivity to the rest of the article, I may refer you to an article about Erich Feigl here also! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

TAT is not and will never be a reliable source. VartanM (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a revert when I restore material (one sentence!) and numerous references that have been outright deleted that I had placed there in the first place? I have not undone enyone's edit but restored the one I had done originally. Should not the same apply to others? There was no revert but restoration of parts removed. Also I always discuss this in the talk page. Results are there for you to see, there is no interest in compromise, though I do not even know what is there left to compromise in one short sentence. By the way, objectors are not even discussing the fact, but just the quality of references. They have recourse to argue this properly, but that was not done. Isn't there any restricition on anyone else to at least refrain from deleting paragraphs and references?--Murat (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this one sentence, which was a paragraph originally I had edited in, was removed, not edited, 7 times in the last two months. I had discussed it at length, provided more references and finally reduced it to a single sentence. It was still removed. Since I had placed the references, is it not the obligation of the party removing it to take it to arbitration instead of continuous deletion?--Murat (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Imam images

In case you are around, GreenEcho (the 12-headed sockpuppetteer now known as User:Enforcing Neutrality) has decided to delete all images from Shi'a pages. I would ask you to investigate as it is against consensus and I cannot revert against him. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Please discuss at Talk:Twelve Imams before reverting so as to avoid edit warring. En Ne talk 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kind request

Since you're interested ancient history, can you please take a look at Talk:Roman–Persian_Wars#Tags? --CreazySuit (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey Khoikhoi. Do you know by chance why is my talk page still listed under "Categories: Temporary Wikipedian userpages"? I thought you might know, since you handled the request. Thanks. (PaC (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks (PaC (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Mirgheca

I said he should use footnotes, use better English if possible, and try (per consensus between Bogdan, Dahn and me) not to create articles on villages, instead including information on them in articles on the commune they're part of. I'll have a look there and add in some categories. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I do wish we had some sources to work off. I'll give it a look later. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My Discussion Page!

Hi Khoi. I was trying to archive my user's talk page,but apprearently I screwd it up. Can you help with that regard? Many thanks --Kaaveh (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

Maybe you can help me with this. I come back here after a while only to find out that the article I had put together about Erich Feigl has vanaished. Did I miss something?--Murat (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I really do not get it. There was no courtesy mssg or any warning. This is rather outrageous. An award winning academician, 60 movies, 12 books, in many other language wiki, and gets booted out because of politics. It is a good thing there are guardians here! Do I have a resourse?--Murat (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant recourse. I could not find the section on Erich Feigl in that link. Can you point me in the right direction, and is there one responsible editor who would be able help me? I would like to direct my appeal to the party responsible with this. Thanks.--Murat (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fatih Terim

damn! Fatih Terim is not Kurdish, in the other hand, he is one of the well known members of Turkish ultra-nationalists society.so your edit is little bit funny, and the source is empty.--Huck Diesel (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ding-dong

A report has been filed at WP:AE related to RFAR:AA2. Early last month, you imposed sanctions for edits at the same article by other editors, so I would like to hear your thoughts. GRBerry 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Trabzon

Hi! Could you please look at that article? An anon IP repeatedly inserts Laz name of the city, refuses to discuss the issue and began attacking me personally today. Thanks in advance. Alæxis_¿question? 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Alæxis_¿question? 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Avrupali_poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Avrupali_poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nyang’oma Kogelo, Alego, etc.

Hi. Alego Constituency and Alego Usonga Constituency are the same thing, but I believe Alego Constituency is the official name. I'm currenly making Wikipedia articles on Kenyan constituencies, and Alego Constituency will be written sometime in the near future.

Some sources say Nyang’oma Kogelo is located within Bondo district, but majority seem to "favour" Siaya District. Since the ECK website (www.eck.or.ke) is currently down, the pollingcentres.pdf file is not accessible at the moment, but it states that Nyang'ma Kogelo primary school is located within Siaya District.

This map of Siaya District recognises a villlage called Nyang'oma that is located just outside Bondo District. I'm not sure whether this Nyang'oma refers to Nyang’oma Kogelo. However, its possible location near the border of these two districts may contribute to s the confusion on which district the village belongs to. And in Kenya, administrative boundaries are seldom crystal clear anyway.

When it comes to the external link you gave, it has content copied from wikipedia's Bondo District article... Julius Sahara (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Kosele is now the capital of Rachuonyo District[7]. It should be noted that most articles on Kenyan districts are somewhat outdated, since scores of more were created in 2007. Julius Sahara (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION

QUESTION Does English language WIKIPEDIA ever ban users who are generally uncivil and have an extremely poor grasp of the English language. Many disagreements arise from what English words really mean. Bobanni (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On User:MiS-Saath

Dear Khoikhoi, yesterday I had some confrontation with the above-mentioned person, the results of which you can peruse here: [8]. Firstly, I fail to understand the motivation of this individual; while she writes very eloquently, her logic rambles from all sides (as her first response here [9] clearly shows, whereas her diction is very rich, her logic is that of a pre-school child). I am not a young person, and my life experience has taught me that in all such paradoxical instances the problem arises from lack of candour on the part of the person who causes the confusion (as Shakespeare says in Hamlet, Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.). I have been very frank with her and told her in no uncertain terms that I have no trust in her motivations. If she were so concerned about Arabs, she could look close at home and undertake something for the Wikipedia entries regarding Palestinians, who are also Arabs (she is a resident of Israel). Her concern about the rights of the Arab population of Iran seems affected to me, given the fact, firstly, that I am not aware of any Wikipedia edits by her on subject matters regarding Palestinians and their human-rights conditions in the occupied territories, and, secondly, from my discussions with her I am absolutely certain that she is tabula rasa as regards history of Iran (she has been editing the entry on Khuzestan Province, in disregard to my repeated protestations [please consult the pertinent edit logs of the latter entry], on the basis of a single report by Amnesty International - as you can verify, I have even suggested to her to consider to open a section in the entry "Iran" concerning human-rights issues in Iran). How such person from 2.5 million articles on Wikipedia has suddenly got attracted to the Arab population of Khuzestan (with no pre-history of such interest on her part to my best knowledge), is just beyond me. For completeness, I consider all human beings as my brothers and sisters, whether Iranians, Israelis, Arabs, etc. With kind regards, --BF 08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my late reply. Regarding your first question, regardless of what we suspect or believe, it is always important to assume good faith. The fact that (s)he does not edit a certain range of topics is not relevant. Users at Wikipedia are permitted to edit whatever topic they want, as long as they do not edit disruptively. The main issue is that we as Wikipedians should not really be discussing other users in this manner. Instead, we should be discussing other user's edits and we are permitted to discuss them in any way we like (as long as we are civil about it). You may have heard this before, but the saying is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If someone adds information to an article that you dispute, it is important that you discuss the information added, its sources, etc. - but not the editor who added the information. Khoikhoi 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for your kind response. You may wish to consider this forum shopping: [10]. With kind regards, --BF 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

An input needed again

Hi, recently you blocked this user for edit warring [11], [12] (48h) and suggested to rethink his editing practice, however after 48h. block expired he starting reverting again the same article [13], It is clear that he did not intend to limit his revert campaigns. Could you please investigate this case additionally, and advise for additional remedies. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Will see how events will unfold in upcoming future. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable block

Khoikhoi, you'll see I responded to your block of G-Dett on her talk page. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see that I have raised the issue on AN/I here. Mackan79 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

Would you care to give your opinion to the removal of the Kinross quote here[14]? When it directly follows the quote by Nostradamus1, then it should be allowable. If chronology is a problem then the entire Kinross quote should be removed. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, is insisting on the addition of a sentence that breaks the chronology of events. The events of the sentence he added are in the following paragraph. Merely changing the style to "According to ..." is not helping. The article uses these sources everywhere why are we switching styles here. There is no controversy as to these events. Kansas bear seems to dislike to have two sentences side by side describing the atrocities that triggered the entire war. Please, try to explain to this user the concept of time. I tried but he is not there. We should not break the chronology of events like this. Shaw and Shaw's sentence is directly tied to the previous one.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes improved the article. Thank you. (I also responded to your questions in bashi bozouks section of the article's discussion page.)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the following addition at the top of the April Uprising section. [15]. It seems like Kansas Bear thinks that he can simply place a sentence anywhere in an article as long as it is referenced without consideration to the overall context. It is as if the section is starting on a suspense. This user claims to be a historian and I can't believe that.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Economy of Romania

Well, Khoikhoi, I've run some searches and it appears quite conclusive that the IP was introducing false numbers into the article. By the way, I've been hauled before AN again on Moldopodo's sockpuppetry accusations - this is getting to be rather tiring. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am, but having troubles

I'm trying to get on via chatzilla. Apologies! fnord :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here! :^)

I'm asking for an input from your expertise regarding the construction of a proposal about a decision making procedure. (Hope how I've phrased this isn't hopelessly cryptic. Anyway, what it is we're contemplating may break new ground, in a way.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply; however, what I'd meant, actually, if maybe for ya to give input about how we should form the proposal(?)

Anyway, I hope to get around to looking at this issue you've asked me, sometime, too. :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Çamlıhemşin

Hello Khoikhoi,
Thanks for your “welcome” on my talk page on 1 August
I understand the Wikipedia policy related to “truth” and “reliable sources”
I wonder whether there is a policy to prohibit submitting info with a reference where info is factually wrong AND the given reference is not supporting the give info.
This seems to be the case , at least partially, in the Article Çamlıhemşin (the language Hemşince)
I will intervene again in the said article but this time put argumentation in the discussion page.
I hope you will have time to see it
Greetings
Cihsai (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome message

good luck to you. Monkey dog2088 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your protection of the Hemshin peoples entry

Khoikkoi, I have placed a detailed clarification of the development of the Hemshin peoples article on the talk page of the entry. In my opinion you have protected a version which was implemented by means of unjustified wholesale reverts (taking the entry back to its version almost a year ago, with no dicsussions or justifications), rather than the version which was actually developed through a completely Wikipedia edit policies complient process (as I detailed in my response on the talk page). These wholesale reverts are implemented by users who had no contributions whatsoever in the entry or the discussion. Such a protection thus punishes edit policies encouraged by wikipedia while rewarding those actually discouraged by it. I hope my detailed response there clarifies the situation and I kindly request that you remove the protection or, if you believe protection is necessary, keep the version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52), which I think is the legitimate one, as the protected version.Omer182 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikkoi,

Thank you for your response. I understand your point that the version protected is not your choice, and that the way out is a consensus - possibly through mediation. I also know that page protects usually end up with one side complaining.

However, I still need to bring the following to your attention.

The practice or rule to protect the “current” version obviously has its merits ….as well as procedures to force edit warring parties to discussion and consensus, or submit to decision of others (arbitration).Implementing those rules needs possibly considering also other rules and policies of wikipedia and a judgement by the administrator may be required.

I call upon you to consider such judgement on this occasion for the following reasons:

1)You have not protected as editors were arguing and edit warring on content but as a group of users were taking turns, for a duration of a week, simply implementing wholesale reverts without argument.

2)The protection has resulted in interruption of a discussion which was taking place between myself and another user. That discussion was, as it should be, focused on a part of the gradually developed version, not on the version that you have protected.

3) The protected version is the version of a year ago: the concept of protecting the current version of an ongoing argument is jeopardised here.

4) This version of a year ago is inserted by users who have neither presented one single argument in favour of that version nor any objection against the properly developed real "current version". Other wikipedia rules are jeopardised here.

5) Those users are several in number but "one" in attitude in concerted action. Furthermore, 3 such reverts just before the protection have been implemented by users who appear for the first time in the context of this entry and just in the action of those reverts. One of them is the user who requested the protection. I guess this issue needs to be looked into as well...

If those issues are not considered and the protection rules are applied merely formalistically, they just serve the purpose of the users who possibly delibaretely violate wikipedia policies. A protection which amounts to a practical endorsement of such behaviour cannot be in line with wikipedia policies and definitely is not your purpose. This would only encourage the unapprovable approach of "avoid discussion/ wholesale revert blindly/force others to revert back/request protection and get it on the version you like".

Instead such users should be led to contibute in accordance with wikipedia rules.. Maybe you in your capacity as the administrator who got involved in the article have the means to secure that. Let me repeat…they have not responded to my frequent calls to participate in discussion.

I kindly ask for your opinion regarding the matter at hand.Omer182 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi, thank you for your response to my above appeal. This is to inform you that I have filed a request for mediation (here) in line with your suggestions.Omer182 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi

You had recommended that I request a formal mediation and had asked me to keep you posted; herebelow is an update:

I have applied for formal Mediation and have named all the 4 users who have created the revert war as involved parties. I have informed them on their talk pages and requested their consent to mediation. None of them has responded. Now my mediation request is rejected on grounds that involved parties have not consented.

I understand that the protection may be lifted if the threat of the revert war is over. Not easy to anticipate what those users may do. Hopefully they have calmed down. I guess I should attempt an unprotection and if succesfull bring the article back to where it was before the protection on an ancient version took place and hope to see a proper discussion and edit process take place.

The other option seems to be arbitration. I feel it is somewhat bizarre that I go into this last resort with those 4 users . May I refer you to my earlier explanations with regard to the particulars of the development leading to protection.

As you got involved in this article in your capacity as a administrator, I kindly ask for your guidance with regard to how I should proceed.

The wikipedia page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection includes:

"If you are requesting unprotection, it is usually a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here".

Actually I had already requested unprotection informally from you earlier but maybe I should repeat it herewith now. I would appreciate your soon response.Omer182 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Valy Hedjasi

hello and good evening mate, how are you? Hope you doing fine and have a nice time. Plz, do me a favor brother. You know the article Valy Hedjasi? Can you please delete the old version and add this new version translated from the German wikip.?

Valy (Persian ولی), with full name Valy Hedjasi (* 29. May 1986 in Mashhad, Iran) is a Persian singer from Iran.

Valy grew up in Heidelberg, Germany. His family, who are also well-known artists are original from Herat and belong to the ethnic Persians (Tajiks, also called Farsiwans) of Afghanistan. When he was seven years old he often played traditional intruments. Later he became teached in various traditions of Persian and Indo-Persian (indian) music-styles. As his teachers count the young died Persian (Tajik) artists Nasrat Parsa (also from Afghanistan) who teached him well in the classical indo-persian music and Bassam Ayyoub. At present, Valy lives in Hamburg.

Still, before the publication of his first album he achieved by the two singles Bia Tu and Dilamo Shekundi a very high publicity in the three Persian-Speaking countries Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Since the publication of his first album After Love 2007 he is one of the most successful Persian musicians of Afghanistan. Besides the traditional khorassani-style (the Persian-Tajik music traditions) his album also covers traditional iranian music trends for what he was criticized by Pashtun medias (Lmar, ArianaTv and AfghanmellatTV) while he was praised highly by other medias or Persian TV programmes at the mentioned transmitters (ArianaTV). The Album was produced by Kostas Karagiozidis who also produced some albums for the iranian singer Afshin. The Album was published by Avang, the largest iranian record lable.

Shortly after publication of his first album Valy went to his first tour (Bia Tu Tour). It covered five concerts in Canada and the USA. In 2008, a DVD under the name Valy life in America should appearing. Due to the great success he began his second tour World Tour 2008 which extend on four continents and withit the most extensive tour of a Persian artist from Afghanistan. For his success Valy was chosen with the Noor TV Awardss 2008 as a Best artiste of The Year. Valy appeared on the title page of the Persian Sitara magazines in May 2008

Valy is accused by the Persian-Tajik artist Seeta Qasemie (also beeing from Afghanistan) to cover her cooperation up at songs of his album. She claims to be the composer of the song Delbareh Mehraban and that the female voice is not from Persian-Tajik singer Mariam Morid but from her[1].

At an appearance in California in the context of the Persian Nawroz Celebration 2008 Valy announced the foundation the Valy Foundation. It is said The Valy Foundation collected over $2,000,000 in the Spring of 2008.

Like other Persian artists from Iran and central Asia, also Valy´s cooperation with Persian singers and artists from the Persian neighbouring states like Iran and Tajikistan, specially with iranian artists, contributes a contribution to the unfolding of the Persian language and culture and makes the cultural, historical and ethnic relationship between the Persian people of Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan. He represents a cultural link of these three Persian countries, specially for teenagers.

Discography

   * After Love, octobre 2007 (Persian)

Singles (all songs are in Persian)

   * Bia Tu
   * Delbareh Mehraban
   * Dilamo Shekundi
   * Dokhtar e Qataghani (Dokhtar e Kabuli/Herati/Masari...) (original: Ba in Sâz e Qataghan)
   * Doost Dokhtar
   * Hame Karat Doroughaki
   * Khab
   * Khanoumi
   * Zim Zim

Plz, check also the grammatic. Thank you very much and have a good time. With best regards.--84.59.106.190 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please see my comment at Talk:Valy. If we're going to say that he's Persian, we're going to need reliable sources stating this. Remember that Valy is a biography of a living person, so we need to be extra careful when we're dealing with ethnicity and/or nationality. So, do you have any reliable sources showing his ethnicity? The sentence "His family, who are also well-known artists are original from Herat and belong to the ethnic Persians (Tajiks, also called Farsiwans) of Afghanistan" for example is completely unsourced. Thanks. Khoikhoi 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was taken from the site RadioJavanan (Youth Radio), an online informational portal about famous people, their background and other stuff. If you read the article above I had posted you will recognize the first source for his background. In fact, RJ and BBC and Sitara Magazine are the sources for his background information so we do not need really care about his native language which is Persian. Beside that these version is full of informations and sources and much better than the older ones.

With best Regards--88.68.194.26 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan groups are not really reliable sources. Can you please provide the links to the RJ, BBC, and Sitara references? Keep in mind that the RadioJavanan website cites his official website, where he says, "Many people ask me whether I am Iranian or Afghan and why I sing in different languages. It’s difficult for me to answer such questions, because for me it plays no role where I come from." Khoikhoi 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On his homepage he does not say that also Javanan hadn´t written taht. This sentence was modified by some others who are unrelated with Valy (http://www.arianaspace.com/view_profile.php?member_id=177). This is wrong and made by those who hate Iran and it´s population or their culture or faith. He himself is from Iran, Mashhad where he was born and even a citizen of Iran. His mother is half Iran-Persian while his father is a Tajik (eastern Persian) from Afghanistan, Herat (region between Iran and Afgh). His native language is Persian (what should be the other language???). His songs are all in Persians and he is self a proud Tajik (eastern Iranians call themself sometimes as Tajiks). In Herat they are also called as Farsiwans (Persians). The one, Saeid Agha, who made the site for Valy in Javanan is self a worker of Avangmusic lable, the firma where Valy works for. Javanan Radio self belong to Iranian lables and avang is one of it´s supporter.

With best regards bro--88.69.52.216 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Click here, then click on "The Artist" (the link is at the top of the website). You can then see his entire biography, including the sentence that I cited. I know his native language is Persian, you can see at Talk:Valy that I suggested that we say something like "Persian-speaking" or something similar. BTW, you should consider creating an account sometime. Khoikhoi 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand what you mean. The sentence grips his identity if he see himself as Iranian or an Afghan (in that way that the term Afghan, also a sononym for Pashtuns, describe his father´s country, where Tajiks are called by Iranians falsefully as Afghans, since the country´s name is Afghanistan). I can tell you for sure and you can really believe me if i say he is 100% Persian of Tajik (Tajik=Iranian=Persian) descand. If you don´t believe me we can also ask and bring Valy himself here on Wikipedia since a friend of mine from Hamburg is related with him from motherside. We can also use sources like BBC and the Persian sitara magazine. :-) Actually, that Persian is his native language and he is from Herat and presents his native culture it should be proof enough to write him as Tajik, because an Uzbek, or Hazara or a Pashtun or a Turk he can´t be, don´t you think so?

gl--88.69.52.216 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You know Valy? If it's not too much trouble, perhaps you could get him to email me (it's my username at gmail dot com). If you look at the history of the article, you will notice that many different users have been endlessly reverting his nationality to either "Iranian" or "Afghan". I am curious what Valy himself wants the article to say instead of his fans. There was a similar situation when Sami Yusuf contacted Wikipedia regarding his biography. The only problem with saying "Persian" or "Tajik" is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says:

1. Nationality –
   1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
   2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

However, perhaps we can make an exception if we can hear from Valy himself. So please ask him to email me when he is not busy. As for "Afghan", I'm assuming he was referring to the most common meaning of the term, which is "someone from Afghanistan" instead of someone who is Pashtun. Khoikhoi 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best and ask my friend to send him an email with your datas so he can contact you but I do not know when he will have time since he is working for another single, I guess. Concerned to Sami Yusuf, he is an Azeri Tat from Iran, Tabriz. With best regards bro

Ps: Are you an anatolian Turk?--88.69.52.216 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks. No, I'm not Turkish, Iranian, or Afghan. Why do you ask? :-) Khoikhoi 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because your account´s name sounds related to me :D--88.69.52.216 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see Khoikhoi. It's actually a South African ethnic group. However, I'm not South Africa either. Khoikhoi 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi this guy using annon IPs starting with 8 from Germany you're replying to is the banned vandal Tajik. Proof --->[16] If you compare the style of writings then you notice all the IPs with 8 from Germany is him. Further proof is here, you see he edits with 88 and 84 annon IPs.

See his latest edits, where he curses people left and right including administrators and he gets away with it. [17] He is a long time vandal who vandalizes every pages he comes to but you administrators do nothing to him. He is Tajik, Iranian, Persian nationalist and racist to others. He asked to know what your ethnic background is so he can start calling you names later. He is currently attacking mostly Pashtun people articles. Can you please do something about this banned vandal Tajik? Now you know why he won't create a user name and is only using annon IPs. That's because it's working for him, he gets away with it. He has successfully changed peoples ethnic background, see how he changed Ahmad Zahir's ethnic from Pashtun to Tajik. The fact is that Ahmad Zahir is ethnic Pashtun and he has no Tajik parents. See this New York Times article "An ethnic Pashtun who sang mostly in Dari, he won fans in all ethnic groups." [18] Ahmad Zahir's sister (Zahira Zahir) owns a beauty shop in Washington DC and you can call her shop to learn her and her brother's ethnic background if the NY article is not enough proof. Now you see that the banned Tajik is only here on Wikipedia to stir shit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.76.224 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I already contacted my friend, Valy´s cousin to write to you back. I gave him also your e-mail but I don´t know if he wrote to you back. However, I do not write to you because of this but because the article is still wrong. Valy is of Persian ethnic, his parents are full-blood Persians, they have even Iranian citizen. There is no need nor any reason to call them as Afghans. He was not born in Afghanistan but in Iran. Remember what you have written.

• 1. Nationality –

1. 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.

That his parents or at least his father is from Afghanistan does not change his ethnicity. The information that he is from Afghanistan is given but he is not an Awghan. Please use the information that is already posted in the disk-site of the article Valy Hedjasi. If Valy contacts you just ask him about his ethnicity! With best regards.

Valy is an Iranian-born Persian singer. --84.59.193.151 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Whoops! I meant to lower that to semi yesterday, thanks for the heads up. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dagestan

I can't think of an appropriate source off the top of my head, but a quick search produced this useful article, which states that Christians comprised 7.2% of the population in 1998 and that Islam is the dominant religion in the republic. I'll keep looking, but gotta run now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not in the census data, as Russian Census questions did not include questions about religion. The census data are occasionally used to estimate the confessional composition based on ethnicities, but such an approach is, of course, only good for very rough estimates, and I am wondering if the 90.7% figure is one of such rough estimates. Anyway, I'll keep looking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Kolkhianboy (etc.)

Ah, I see. I've seen/read him vandalizing and nationalizing in the past. But in this one case – changing "South Caucasian or Kartvelian (Georgian) languages" back into "South Caucasian or Kartvelian languages", he's actually absolutely right — that language family is never called "Georgian language family". I think you will agree, even though it was done by an otherwise semi-malicious troll. I hope it's thus okay that I remove(d) the "Georgian" from that line.

If you were referring to the question if Mingrelians and Svans an be subsumed under the term "Georgians" (sorry, I'm a bit confused this evening), I'd still like to hear the pro and con arguments for that, as I would list them seperately. I'm not too familiar with the definition of "people" used as a criterion there. — N-true (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds fine. — N-true (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Albert Asriyan

There is a person who is identified by 38.117.188.10 who continues to vandalize and delete sections of my husband's Albert Asriyan page. He does this without discussion or explanation in the talk page. Every time he deletes sections, I revert to the previous and he deletes them again. He is a vandal and should not be allowed to edit that page. You have protected the page from editing, but in current version,it is missing sections that the person 38.117.188.10 deleted. Please review the as his editing is not by wiki standards and should be deleted. You can cross verify with the reference. Please inform us of a way to deal with this. Violin1951 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and clarification. I will keep mind of the 3RR, however I am quite sure 38.117.188.10 does not care for wiki rules. You've asked if the information is verifiable, as in published in a newspaper. There is an article about Albert Asriyan and his death/leukemia from the New York Daily News which can be found HERE. It is also linked to within the article itself. There has also been a press release issued by our attorney stating that there is a case against the doctors. That section that 38.117.188.10 keeps removing is directly from that press release. It is referenced in Albert Asriyan's website which is listed as a source. Is it possible that 38.117.188.10 be blocked from editing the page as he/she contributes no constructive or rule-obligant editing. He is simply a vandal. Although I realize that he may just switch computers and continue. Violin1951 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a link or online reference for the press release, however I do have an email from our attorney Mark M. Basichas stating that the press release has been issued. Perhaps it isn't often that ongoing lawsuits are mentioned on wikipedia, but in this case it is very relavent as Albert Asriyan died very suddently and many of his fans are interested in the case of his death. There have been other ongoing lawsuits mentioned on wikipedia, that i have personally read. If it is public information that is available, such as the case of the press release, it is relavent and should be allowed to be published in this article. And I do beleive it is notable, as he is very popular within the Russian-Armenian-American community. The case against SVETLANA PINKUSOVICH, M.D., MIKHAIL GRINBERG, M.D., ROBIN BARADARIAN, MD. and NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION has not been settled, but the press release states the following "The complaint alleges that the death of ALBERT ASRIYAN a prominent musician and composer was due to negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment of a highly treatable form of acute leukemia". As for 38.117.188.10 and other unregistered users, yes, please semi-protect the page. Violin1951 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

i disagree with your choice Ray-Rays (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Said Nursî

I'm sorry for that mistake, and thanks for your warning. I'll try to find a reliable source. OnurtheAgha (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia map

So, I prepared this map for Polish Wikipedia, but it could be useful for English Wikipedia too. Aotearoa (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have absolutely no idea what link I clicked on to have all this text altered and removed. The only edit I thought I made was revert someone's edit who removed "Shi'a" from the lead. Again, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.133.145 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Himarë article vandalism??

Please can you revert and lock for sometime the editing of Himarë article as 24.185.86.249 and Taulant23 are repeatedly altering and deleting the article from 12 August and on?I can not do this myself because they have altered the whole article without any reliable references and deleting everything regarding the history of the region including reliable references.Knonis

Hi, it looks like the edit war has cooled down recently. Do you still want the article protected? Khoikhoi 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, protect for some time the article from unregistered users. 67.81.33.135 has started again altering key features of the article> I didn't revert him, so please revert and protect the article.Thanks. Knonis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.10.117 (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Previous comment was mine.I have new user account Knonis1 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Yes, I agree with you, the second version is much better. The name can also be displayed as Ludvig or even Ljudvig. Taamu (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Taamu (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

No problem. I wish i had more time for contributions. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical

Hi, Khoikhoi! Judging by this edit of yours, I take it that the line you edited in the infobox does not wrap automatically for you? I've been trying to reproduce this bug for almost a year now without success (in all of the browsers I am able to test the lines wrap automatically without expanding the actual infobox). Could you, please, let me know which browser/operating system you are using? I know for sure Firefox had this bug prior to version 2.0—is this what you are using? Any feedback you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang, MacOS is one environment I don't have access to. Thanks anyway; at least now I know where the problem is. Would you mind if I bug you occasionally to take a look at some test infobox in the future? I do intend to fix this bug.

Regarding your other question (citing Dagestan's confessional composition percentages), I've so far been unsuccessful. There are plenty of references citing Islam as the dominant religion of the republic, and a few that put number of Christians in the 5-10% range, but while all this seems to be more or less in line with the percentages cited in the article, I am not finding any specific figures. Perhaps the sentence can be reworded (as per available refs) until the reference used for the cited numbers surfaces?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll re-word the sentence, unless you have any English-language sources you can use for this purpose (mine are all in Russian). Also, feel free to delete the screenshot above if you have no other use for it—I saved a copy locally in case I need to refer to it again. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The names of districts/inhabited localities include the full name of the federal subject when the disambiguation is required. That was done primarily for consistency (short names such as "Komi" and "Karelia", for example, are ambiguous without the "Republic" specifier), and the whole disambiguation scheme of the Russian places currently relies on that convention (it is hard to keep track of stuff as is; would you also want to have to remember when to use "republic" and when not to?). My recommendation in case with Prigorodny District would be to take heart in the fact that some other titles are even longer and leave it at its current title :)

As for the "Roksky Tunnel", it is a Russian transliteration, but since I don't know Ossetian, I cannot discard a possibility that it may also be Ossetian. On the listing order, I have no opinion. For places in Russia, we normally list Russian first, then the rest of the official languages, then other languages of some special importance. By that analogy, in case with the tunnel I would put Georgian first, then Ossetian, then Russian, but, of course, considering the recent events let's just say I'm glad I don't have to decide on the order of anything in this particular case :), but I trust Russian should be last in the list regardless of the order of Georgian/Ossetian. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin

The Jughashvilis were Osettians relocated into Georgia by the Tsarist government after a minor rebellion that JS's great grandfather was involved in. Relocated Ossetians are still Ossetians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The text requested is as follows:

'Beso’s grandfather, Zaza, was an Ossetian from the village of Geri, north of Gori. Zaza, like Stalin, his great grandson, became a Georgian rebel: in 1804, he joined the uprising of Prince Elizbar Eristavi against Russia. Afterwards, he was settled with other ‘baptized Ossetians’ in the village of Didi-Lilo, 9 miles from Tiflis, as a serf of Prince Badur Machabeli. Zaza’s son Vano tended the Prince’s vineyards and had two sons, Giorgi, who was murdered by bandits, and Beso, who got a job in Tiflis in the shoe factory of G. G. Adelkhanov but was headhunted by the Armenian Josef Baramov to make boots for the Russian garrison in Gori.'

You can find a copy of the first 20 pages of the Young Stalin here: http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/extras/SimonSebagMontefiore_youngstalin.pdf The section is on page 17 of that imprint.

Rsloch (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (BST)

As the Caucasus is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in Europe I doubt many people living there are 100% anything.

Unless one is being really, really exact Beso was Ossetian.

Rsloch (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Abkhaz People

I'll have a look at it day after tomorrow, first I need to write an exam tomorrow. :) sephia karta 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bagapsh

I'm afraid that I have absolutely no idea. I wrote that article long before sources were even common on Wikipedia, let alone required - I have no idea if they're even still available. I have a suspicion I may have used a database I had access to back in high school that had some useful stuff, but I can't even recall its name.

I'd probably take out the paragraph about Ardzinba's relationship with Bagapsh on WP:BLP grounds, at least if no one can turn up the source I actually used. The whole section about his time as Prime Minister could really do with a solid rewrite/new batch of research.

The section about the 1998 war, however - we should be able to use the sources from the (actually sourced) article on that conflict, so I don't think that should be a problem. Rebecca (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! The database that I'm pretty sure I used was eLibrary (http://www.elibrary.com/). It was often a bit random in what it did have, but it was useful for some of these things in that it had a lot of 90s-era magazine feature articles, as opposed to the more straight news content of databases like Factiva that I'm more inclined to use these days. I'm not sure where you could get access to it, though - my uni doesn't bother with it, and I've never heard of it anywhere apart from my old high school.

Thanks for fixing up the sourcing on the 1998 war section. I agree with your changes on South Ossetia too; now that the 2006 alternative government appears to have become a government-in-exile, probably permanently, it doesn't work to have so much detail on it in the lead. (I find it interesting that Sanakoyev doesn't seem have said anything to the press throughout this entire conflict - is he even still alive?) Rebecca (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Amtsakhara - eep. It, like most the articles I wrote about Abkhaz figures really could do with a rewrite - while there's nothing in there that stands out as problematic, it was also written before Bagapsh took power, and thus needs quite a lot of work. One further source which I suspect I may have used, looking at the Amtshakhara text (and which is free and useful in terms of English content) is IWPR's Caucasus Reporting Service (www.iwpr.net) - that could be a decent place to start in terms of sourcing the thing. Rebecca (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question (2)

I'll try to find out the Ossetian name for Roki Tunnel. Taamu (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Roki Tunnel will be "Ручъы тъунел" in Ossetic. Taamu (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I know for sure that Roksky pass will be "Ручъы æфцæг", than I guess "Ручъы тъунел" is correct. Taamu (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion terms Roksky pass and Roksky tunnel are not the same. The passage that you have provided: "Серги гуыргæ Чеселты ракодта, Дыууæдонастæу 1916 азы зæхкусæг бинонты ’хсæн. Цыппар азы йыл куы сæххæст, уæд райдыдта гуырдзыйы уæды геноцид æмæ Ручъы æфцæгыл йæ ныййарджытимæ ахызт Цæгат Ирыстонмæ") refers to the year of 1920 when there was no tunnel, because it was completed in 1985. Do you agree? Taamu (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Lotta work to do here...Wikipedia isn't going away anytime soon and I want to improve this site as long as it is here. And I use this site so much, even when when I'm not editing. It's something of a big thing, no site has come around to rplace it. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm confused by your statement that I am trying to sell something to Wikipedia users. I am simply trying to share literally thousands of encyclopedic-type photos of remote sites that are freely viewable without purchase with other Wikipedia users. Could you explain what the problem is because I don't understand why you have a problem with my free photos? Rex Geissler Rexgeissler (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkey/Ottoman Empire

Hi Khoikhoi. I've seen your moderation on Wikipedia and you seem like a good person to come to when there's a problem that needs resolving. OK, enough pandering. Now on the page Turkey at the 1908 Summer Olympics and 1908 Summer Olympics, the name "Turkey" appears where the "Ottoman Empire" should. Now apparently, the official reports from the Olympics used "Turkey", so I appreciate why this should be mentioned on these pages. However, my edits to the effect of "... the Ottoman Empire was incorrectly called Turkey" have all been reversed on the grounds that Wikipedia can't determine what is or isn't correct. As you can see in Turkey at the 1908 Summer Olympics, other official teams at the 1908 Olympics were: "Australasia" and "Holland" -- but the article still speaks about correct countries ("New Zealand" and "the Netherlands"). Why can't Turkey be corrected too?? Best, Ordtoy (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sándor Petőfi

Hi, I edited the article about Sándor Petőfi yesterday because there were mistakes in it. You changed it back to previous version. Why did u do it? Do you have any information about Sándor Petőfi? Do know the history of central Europe? Thank you for answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasooon (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources according to which the father of Sándor Petőfi was a Serb are not relevant. They just believe the lie which started in the past. His father was a Slovak. There is a guy who was studying this particular problem for years. His name is József Kiss and wrote a book - Petőfi adattár. The ancestors of Petőfi came to what is now Slovakia some time in the 16th century. The only reason why there exist myths that his father was a Serb, is that the name Petrovics is Serbian. So his father can be a 1/64 Serb or maybe 1/32 Serb but not full Serb, not even half Serb... Also the family tree of Sándor Petőfi says that the ancestors of his mother as well as of his father were Slovaks down to the year 1685.

Other things - since his father was a Slovak, he spoke Slovak as a native speaker. Of course that he also spoke Hungarian, because all the documents, offices, schools, courts used Hungarian language. Another thing - I don't understand why should the names of Slovak cities, towns in English articles be in Hungarian. They should be either in English or in Slovak. It is the same when you write about German cities in English article. You do not use their names in Hungarian, but either in English or in German... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasooon (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda

Hey. Can you help me keep an eye on the Rwanda article? I've allowed significant yet wholly unsourced demographic claims to sit for a week+ with various tags, but nothing happened (for e.g., one of these asserted that the Muslim population in the country has tripled since 2001, due to various unsourced reasons, which may or may not prove to be true). I could use a 2nd set of eyes to help me enforce these terms. Thx. Best, El_C 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources are in the main articles. I really don't want to bother writing it up, but am annoyed that El C deletes material he knows can be sourced merely because he doesn't like it. kwami (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm annoyed, because it's your responsibility to source it, since you're restoring it. I have no problem with the material. Why would I? El_C 02:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the mistake of treating this like a content dispute —but that's over now— partly because I thought, hey, he'll click on WP:BURDEN and figure out it's his responsibility, I'll just give him a week to get the sources up and running. Little did I know... El_C 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, El C threatened to block me if I add the refs without rewriting the article, which I just did. Since you're the one who said "no one's asking [me] to rewrite the article", I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on things.

BTW, El C only came up with his "unsourced" argument when I refused to buy his original rationalization for deleting info from the article: "please observe due weight — the length you accorded to that issue is just proprotionate (takes half the section) to other, similarly if not more improtant issues in that section", "it's excessive to devote over half the demographics section to a group that makes up 13 percent of the population". No mention of it being unreliable until I insisted that "undue weight" doesn't mean we have to turn the entire article into a stub just because some sections within it are stubs.

Also, he is not policing an edit war, as he falsely claims. He's the one who originally deleted the material as "undue weight". Since he's not going around gutting other articles for this reason, and there are plenty of other fact tags in the article, I can only assume that he takes issue with the content of the material itself, not undue weight or proper sourcing. kwami (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you take issue with any other unsourced content in the article, and someone else would continue to restore it, ignoring wp:burden, I would act exactly the same. El_C 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I guess wikilawerly-wise, he has a point, but I just try to keep the peace across so many articles, hundreds and hundreds of them, it's hard to remember. But in fairness, I did withdraw for a week and told him to go ahead and just add the four or five citations. But come to think of it, does it make sense to devote half of that section to Muslim-related developments. Clearly, if the Muslims have grown three times in size, that deserves mention, but for the demographics we are talking about for the entire country throughout modern history, including the Genocide, and so on. So, does it, in fact, make sense to devote over half the section to just that one issue? El_C 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd forgotten that you're the one who started blanking the section, and later saw it as a fresh dispute you were not involved in, then I apologize for my suspicions. I've certainly done that myself. But as for undue weight, it's absolute, not relative. By your argument, if an article has a section that's just a stub, then we would need to reduce all its sections to stubs. Hardly any articles would ever get developed with that approach. Two very short paragraphs about the conversion of a substantial portion of the population to Islam (Evangelism also needs to be mentioned) after the genocide is hardly undue weight for the subject, and if it's disproportionate to the rest of the section, then we need to develop the rest of the section, not gut it further. The reason I don't want to rewrite it is that it will take a lot of work, and research, in subjects I know next to nothing about. kwami (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Country articles need to retain a measure of stability. It becomes undue weight because a reader goes to the demographics sections and sees one paragraph that's a general summary and then two other paragraphs about how conversions to Islam grew three times in less than ten years (from 5 to 15 percent), which is significant, and yes, recent, but so significant so as to overwhelm everything else? So it needs to be further summarized, linking instead to the broader discussion, until the demographics section has more than just a tiny paragraph about everything else. That more substantive discussion was overshadowed by you, on the one hand, insisting on restoring the content, which was unsourced (even after a week that I withdrew), because you didn't want to edit the article? Well, if you restore it, those are the breaks. And adding the sources in subpar way becaue you don't want to bother is not acceptable, either. Note that you violated 3RR (no, I did not: because I only reverted twice & Khoikhoi reverted twice —you reverted 4 times to out four), yet I did not report you. Which I'm beginning to regret. El_C 22:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you had summarized it and linked instead of just gutting it, I'd've had no problem with it. I'm well aware that the section needs major revision, but deleting information is not the answer.

Ah, I see I didn't do my homework. You made four edits in six hours with edit summaries that suggested they were reverts, but only three of them actually were reverts. But I reverted three times, not four, letting your last deletion stand. So we were both playing the 3RR game. kwami (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Khoikhoi is keeping out of this. Why don't we stop bothering him with our bickering, since you say you don't need me to rewrite the section? Any point in continuing here? kwami (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert four times. I made four edits. Two continuous ones, and two non-continuous ones. So it is a physical impossibility. Whereas you, reverted four, or even five time, counting your blanking. El_C 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And thirteen reverts in the week? Are you going for a record? El_C 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to respond to your misrepresentations, but I think we should take this elsewhere. (And whatever happened to your promise not to speak to me any more today?) Perhaps you're merely careless, but counting up to five is not difficult, nor is reading two lines of a comment you're responding to, and I'd appreciate it if you bothered to do this before making allegations.

You reverted the article at 12:43, 18:19, and 19:03. Let's see ... yes, that's three times, just as I said. I reverted at 13:08, 14:19, and 14:43, which is ... hmm, also three times. I don't quite see how 3 = 2 for you, but 3 = 4 for me. kwami (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Contemptible; I truly hope I never have to encounter this abusive editor and his bizarre double standards. El_C 02:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, can you please help me with an image. I am a bit confused what will be the copyright tag for Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Will Template:Non-free magazine cover be more appropriate? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also can you understand who will be the copyrightholder of this image? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On Unruled Paper (film)

Dear Khoikhoi, please note that I will not tolerate that User:AzureFury, who in my opinion is an adventurer seeking conflict with me, to use my text to parade his ignorance; as the final messages of this user show (on the talk page of the entry at issue), this person is trying to take the entry as hostage with the aim of forcing his ill will through. If he adds a single word into my text, I will sue Wikipedia for exposing my work; as far as the above-mentioned entry is concerned, I will not grant that Wikipedia exposes my text if User:AzureFury inserts even a single word into my original text (he is naturally free to write the entire entry by his own). In order to avoid repeating myself, I refer you to the talk page of the above-mentioned entry as well as the messages that I have just placed here: [19] (please see the bottom of the page) and here: [20]. For completeness (I have already written this to User:Stifle), my Wikipedia article has been apparently good enough that on the basis of it last week the editor of a prestigious film magazine in Canada commissioned me to write an extensive article on Unruled Paper (he has asked me that my commissioned article be at least twice as extensive as my Wikepedia article). Kind regards, --BF 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Khoikhoi, please note that User:AzureFury is taking the entry as a hostage. In using the word "sue" I am expressing my revulsion at seeing that a person is using legal loopholes on Wikipedia for forcing his will through by vandalising my text. The fact is that by his own admission, this person has not even seen the film; he does not know any of the artists, etc. (for instance, there being no review of the film, except that on the English Wikipedia, this person cannot even claim to have his knowledge from an external source). How can such a person suddenly set about and start changing the entry beyond recognition? Please note that if this person had even the slightest qualification, I certainly had not acted the way I have: my point is that now that this person has decided to attack me through vandalising the Wikipedia article, I want to have this blackmailing weapon removed from his hands. The only legal means at my disposal is to sue Wikipedia if Wikipedia decides to ignore the background to the problem and allow User:AzureFury to blackmail me in such a blatant manner --- mind you, I never undertook to change or remove the tags, thus acting fully in accordance with the principle that while a discussion goes on, one does not change the facts on the ground (please note that this person effected his changes, prior to the discussion being concluded). For me the possibility of suing remains on the table so long as User:AzureFury uses the entry at issue as a means of blackmailing me. Kind regards, --BF 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

If you take a look at the talk page, you'll see that BF has refused to remove what he admits is POV language and original research. Several people have explained to him that these are violations of Wiki policies. Therefore I removed all statements that OBVIOUSLY violated these policies and put tags on some of the really questionable sentences. BF reverted my edit, telling me to see the film before I editted the article. There is no Wiki policy outlying policies for the removal of unsourced or POV statements. Edit warring is in appropriate, but I don't see that there is any question of who is in the right here. If you must protect the page, I ask you to rollback the page to my edit which is the only one without blatant original research and POV language. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The "ramming" thing was derived from using Osama Bin Laden as an example of a fundamentalist, to contrast the difference between "Fundamentalism" and asking someone to remove POV language and original research. This was not a personal attack, I think it was taken the wrong way by both him and you. I wasn't trying to connect the entire Middle-East to 9/11. I'm about to write up a response to your compromises on the article talk page. The preview, "they don't solve the problem." I agree that admins really shouldn't (but sometimes do) pick the version they think is more appropriate before blocking a page, but BF isn't even disputing the policy violations. That's why I think it's appropriate to at stick with my version and why I think I'm not being biased or hypocritical in asking you to do so. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that you would get complaints from the other side. That's true. My counter argument is simple: I'm right. Come on, look at the guy's edits, look at his counter-arguments. I can recognize a questionable issue such as the on-going debate over whether or not to include the Star Wars Kid's real name in his article. I understand and respect the other side in that debate. This one, however, is not questionable. The dispute with BF is perhaps the most transparent, one-sided debate I've ever been involved in.

You offer mediation. Admittedly, I've never been involved in mediation before. As I understand it, mediation is simply a method of helping two disputing editors communicate? I don't think that is appropriate in this situation as I've expressed my willingness to co-operate whereas BF is denying me the right to use his writing on Wikipedia. I think a RFC on a user is order here, and not surprisingly. I took a look at this from his talk page: [21]. Admins called him a, "nationalist problem editor." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, first "peacock terms" does not apply here. I have repeatedly said that people like Khosrow Shakibai (deceased), Hadyeh Tehrani, Jamshid Mashayekhi, Jamileh Sheikhi (deceased), Soghra Obeisi, etc., have for two generations defined what we call "good acting" (Hadyeh Tehrani is relatively young, so that the "two generations" does not apply to her); they are just the measures against which good acting is measured. Where I have said that the cast is "stellar", I can therefore not have unduly referred to the latter people as "stars". Even calling these people stars is in a certain sense a disservice to them; they are the very best not only in Iran, but everywhere. I suggested to User:AzureFury that classical music, or even our present-day music, being so much influenced by Bach and Beethoven, we cannot just consider these people as ordinary people and consequently cannot consider the positive qualities attributed to them as being "peacock terms". Interestingly, he wrote in response that I had made him to read the Wikipedia entries on Bach and Beethoven and found a great deal of "peacock terms" in them. Incidentally, this just shows to me this person knows absolutely nothing about even music (the fact that he has not re-written, better, assaulted, the entries on Bach and Beethoven, just proves to me that he must have a very low opinion of Iranians; Iranians must be somehow inferior, deserving their texts being edited by someone who demonstrably knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter of the text being edited).

I have been told by my musicologist friends that even to this day, the greatest musicologists cannot comprehend how Bach can have humanly written some of his musics; the Mass in B minor is one of them, that the greatest musicologists cannot imagine to have been written by a human being. The same goes for Beethoven. For instance, without him, and Bach, piano would be a very limited instrument. Given these facts, how can the positive things attributed to Bach and Beethoven be considered as "peacock terms". The same applies to Einstein, etc. Now, take Hadyeh Tehrani in the film Unruled Paper. She is just awesome (always, but in particular in this film). I would not have used the word stellar were it not for the fact that all the main actors in this film have played at the highest level of professionalism. I therefore do not accept your point that one does not need to have seen the film or known the actors before editing the entry. Please note that film is a visual art; one cannot have any opinion on a film without having seen it. The editing by User:AzureFury of the present entry is on a par with the editing by an elementary-school child of the entry on "string theory".

There is no content dispute. The dispute simply arises from the fact that I told User:AzureFury that he is inconsistent; that his remarks are offensive and racist (conflating Usama Bin Laden with Iranians, ramming planes into buildings --- mind you, the film under discussion could have been a Chinese film, had I been an expert on Chinese films; the reason that I wrote the entry was not because of my nationality, but because of knowing the Iranian culture (including films) and literature and history relatively well, enabling me to act as a reliable guide to those consulting Wikipedia in regard to a piece of Persian culture). User:AzureFury has also acted impertinently by making derogatory remarks on my Comments, one of which was addressed not to him, but to User:DGG. I believe that the problem is just resolved when User:AzureFury leaves the matter to those who can have opinion on the subject matter. As it stands, he is just emphasising on a narrow point, without having the slightest ability to play any positive role in what may be a problematic wording of the text at hand. If he wants to make a positive contribution, he should at the very least watch the film for at least three times (the film has some "fractal" property and this can only be appreciated by watching the films from several different perspectives - by "fractal" I mean that the film shows several identical phenomena on different levels). As the discussions on the talk page show, User:AzureFury has been on the talk page in order to pick a fight with me (if you read his statements, you will realise that none of the things that he states have bearing on the subject matter of my "Urgent Proposal" - we call a person "reactionary" because that person always reacts to proposals, but never offers any proposal of his own; thus "reactionary" people are almost always also "fundamentalists" in the broad sense of the word; in my opinion, the role of User:AzureFury in the whole episode has been that of a reactionary fundamentalist, in the senses just defined). Kind regards, --BF 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

I don't know how effective a compromise will be as the only things I deleted were undisputable (and undisputed) violations of Wiki policy. I'm always willing to read a compromise. I just don't see this as a normal, honest, respectful dispute. I'm trying to adhere to Wiki policies, he is not. It's that simple. Any steps taken in his direction are away from Wikipedia. The way I'm imagining it, compromising in this situation would be analogous to compromising with an IP vandal who wants to say something like, "John McCain eats babies," (a recent edit I reverted) and someone who wants to delete it. But give it a shot...I guess. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be willing to compromise, but on whose behalf? Who gave you the right to opine on things that demonstrably lie outside your area of competence? Why do you think that people must be waiting for your opinion on an Iranian art-form? What are your qualifications? Last week you said that the entries concerning Bach and Beethoven contained a large number of POV words; why haven't you been editing the entries on Bach and Beethoven? Are Iranians fair game? Do you think you can have just opinion of Iranian art-forms because they are Iranian? --BF 06:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Khoikhoi, as I have said for a number of times on the talk page of the film, I am not aware of any review of this film in any language known to me. For some reason the film seems never to have been reviewed, even in Persian. Please check on the Google. It seems that my article for Wikipedia is the first review, reason why last week the editor a film magazine, published in Canada, asked me to write a very detailed and extensive article on the film. He explicitly wrote to me that he liked all aspects of my Wikipedia article but wanted my article for them to be at least twice as extensive. I repeat, there is nothing out there concerning this particular film (to my very best knowledge); if you want external sources, you will have to wait until my review article for this very respectable film magazine is out. Had User:AzureFury not caused the present mayhem, I had written my review article in the course of this weekend; writing reviews for a film magazine being just a side activity of mine, I really do not know when I will have the time to complete my review. This User:AzureFury has proved to be by far the most destructive person I have ever encountered here on Wikipedia; what animates such people, is just a mystery to me. I sincerely believe that senior editors of Wikipedia have to act mercilessly against those people who clearly are not here to advance the cause f knowledge (believe me, any single word that I type here, is at the expence of my professional work outside Wikipedia and I do not gain a penny for my work on Wikipedia). With kind regards, --BF 07:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for your message. Late last night I found, after some extensive search, a scanned Iranian film magazine, dated 2002, on the website of a fan of Ms Hadyeh Tehrani. The issue contains considerable amount of information on the film (I did my extensive Google search on the basis of the comment placed yesterday by User:CreazySuit at the bottom of the talk page of Unruled Paper: [22]; explicitly, he wrote: "Otherwise, I've seen plenty of reviews of this movie in print in Kurdish and, Persian."). It covers all aspects of the Wikipedia article; thus far I have only read one of the articles in it which is very much in the spirit of my own text (on some points we differ, but the differences almost all concern the issues that I have included in my extended text and are not part of my Wikipedia text). The film magazine can therefore serve as the general reference of the Wikipedia article. The details are as follows:

Māhnāmeh-ye Film (The Film Monthly), in Persian, No. 288, year 20, Mordād 1381 AH (July-August, 2002), 132 p., Tehran, Iran. ISSN 1019-6382

Note that it is "ISSN" and not "ISBN". The copy is definitely illegal, but in the event that you wish to consult it, here is the address of the site: [23]. Following the addition of the above-mentioned reference, User:AzureFury, or anybody else for that matter, has no reason to consider the statements in the Wikipedia entry as being un-sourced. At some later stage, the above-indicated reference can be expanded in order to attribute various statements to named authors. Kind regards, --BF 06:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for your message. To my best judgement, there is no disputed sentence in my text; if some claim to the contrary, that is because they allow themselves to talk on matters about which, by their own admission, they know absolutely nothing. The whole thing would be just a farce (how people can be so blind to their ignorance is just beyond my comprehension) were it not that the matter is so serious. As for editing the entry, right now I feel just exhausted; I wrote an entry, but was forced by a group of self-appointed "guardians" of culture to write ten times that amount in the course of the past week in defence of two or three words. Have you ever watched Fox Channel? How pathetically this news channel simplifies the most intricate international issues, is just unprecedented in the entire history of the human race (I do not go into the inhumanity of this channel; they once had a round-table discussion - at least one that I saw with my own eyes - in which the participants were most seriously discussing the positive economic consequences of bombing Iran; they unanimously agreed that it was a good thing and had to be welcomed with open arms). That fellow Bill O'Reilly has made it a fashion just to be ignorant and then be proud of it. I suppose that it must have dawned on some people that the world is as trivial as presented to them by Fox News Channel; no doubt, there must be some people around the globe who just emulate O'Reilly and his ilk. To summarise, at this very moment I feel sick when I hear or see the word "Unruled Paper", so for some period of time I will have to leave the matter to rest before I return to it. With kind regards, --BF 14:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Nogai Horde

Thank you for your help. I fixed the statement about sources, which I now see was misleading Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Isn't it a conflict of interest for you to edit Eduard Khokhoity? Ha... Ha... Unfunny joke..... -- Y not be working? 13:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for the two references of which I had not aware. I have now read one of them (I do not know whether you read Persian) and have been confirmed in my belief that Iranian critics have a very unpleasant tendency, namely that rather than understanding a work of art before writing about it, they almost always write about their limited impressions of that work of art; this is so unprofessional that I have no word to express it. It is like reading Ferdowsi and constantly saying how Ferdowsi had to have written a particular verse. My favourite film critic is Philip French, who for three decades has been the film critic of The Observer. His writings are always insightful and aim at shedding light on aspects that are likely to be missed by the casual viewers of the film that he writes about. Iranian critics almost always write like frustrated men and women (I have always thought, following Freud, that this must be a reflection of the sexual frustration of these critics). Recently, I read a Persian review of Masud Kimiai's feature film Hokm. This review discussed everything except the film itself (the film has many technical problems, but even none of these were discussed in this review). For your information, the language of Kimiai's films is poetical, and those who are not aware of this very fundamental fact are most likely to misinterpret Kimiai's films. In contrast, Abbas Kiarostami has almost always poetry in the images that he creates; Kiarostami "talks" by means of images. When I have some free time, I shall incorporate the contents of the references that you have kindly provided in the Wikipedia text. With kind regards, --BF 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Great, more original research, lol. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, you have made a habit of it to get yourself involved into matters about which you demonstrably know nothing; apparently, you do not care about the image that this (unpleasant) habit creates in people's minds. What I wrote above concerned Masud Kimiai and Abbas Kiarostami, while up to now you had been getting yourself into issues related to Naser Taghvai. Its seems to me that all Iranians must look the same to you. For clarity, Naser Taghvai (the director of Unruled Paper), Masud Kimiai and Abbas Kiarostami are three different people. Given these facts, what sense, if any, does your above comment make? What is that makes you commenting on something that I have written for someone else? My above text is explicitly addressed to Khoikhoi. You did exactly the same thing on the talk page of Unruled Paper; you commented on my writing that was explicitly addressed to User:DGG.

Incidentally, last week you wrote that the entries concerning Bach and Beethoven overwhelmed in POV words. How comes that I have never seen you removing those words in the latter entries? What is that makes you so concerned about the Iranian personalities and culture? Could it be that the Iranian culture must be so debased and unsophisticated that even someone without knowledge about it can opine on it? You should clarify your interests for us to know. I have not seen you editing any other entries but the Iranian ones, excluding some entries pertaining to Senator John McCain. To be honest with you, I cannot comprehend the attachment of someone to a subject matter about which that person knows nothing; one cannot be attached to something that one does not know (attachment to something is always a direct consequence of knowing that thing); it makes me suspicious of some ulterior reasons on your part. Let me tell you something about myself. I know the American history quite well; I know the American Constitution in detail; I have read on the interpretations of the American Constitution (e.g. the writings of Orestes Brownson). Yet, in spite these facts, since my knowledge of American issues are mainly through secondary sources (books, films, research articles, newspapers, magazines, novels, etc.), I have never felt that I am qualified to get involved into such activity as editing Wikipedia articles that have direct bearing on the American issues; at most, I may have corrected some spelling mistakes in these articles (although I have been to the USA, I have not stayed long enough there to claim that I have a direct understanding of things American). From this perspective, I am totally mystified by your behaviour. In the case at hand, you have not seen the film (I am of the opinion that you may even never have seen an Iranian film), you do not know the actors, you do not speak the language, etc., and yet you have your mind fixated on an issue that lies wholly outside your area of competence. If you had edited the entries of Bach and Beethoven, I was prepared to accept that you may be driven by a sense of idealism. For one week you visited every day the talk page of Unruled Paper, yet in that period you never wrote anything that would suggest that you knew anything about the subject matter. Please enlighten us about your extraordinary concern with regard to the quality of an Iran-related Wikipedia article. Why for instance the German composer Bach has never received your attention? --BF 00:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Please watch this IP. He adds libelous propaganda to pages about Hindu spiritual leaders. Neko85 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for moving an article

I am going to move History of Tabaristan to Tabaristan. I can't do it unless an admin helps me. Could you please move this page and then redirect History of Tabaristan to the main article (Tabaristan). FYI, Tabaristan is the hostorical name of the Northern parts of Iran (Caspian Sea region).--Larno (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Khoikhoi. Let's first warn 93.177.151.101 for 3RR. I think he was essentially fighting clear vandalism and POV-pushing. I warned IP's opponent User:DonaldDuck but he still continues his one-against-all edit warring. Should not he be blocked as well? --Kober^Talk 06:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll talk to ip then. Duck's position seems to be intractable given his comments on the talk page.--Kober^Talk 06:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Khoi. I agree with your decision. Best, --Kober^Talk 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unruled Paper (film)

I would like to bring to your attention that when you protected Unruled Paper (film) you froze a version that had removed the POV PEACOCK and OR tags which so far had been supported by 3 editors and rejected by 1. Was this your intention? In any case I would like you to reconsider and replace these tags. This article is in clear violation of WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV and WP:OR and lacks WP:V many of the core policies of wikipedia. Myself and other have shown extreme AGF in not AFDing this article. I do not want it deleted but I do want other readers to at least be aware that it does not adhere to wikipedia's policies. --triwbe (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Triwbe, why didn't you participate in the discussion? Now you have come back to stab me in the back? Weren't my extensive texts on the talk page sufficient (you write as if nothing has happened in the meantime)? And if so, why didn't you tell so on the talk page of the entry? I find this behaviour on your part totally unacceptable! I repeat, restoring the version by User:AzureFury will lead to my demanding of the entry being removed from Wikipedia altogether. The choice is yours; I am not going to allow my text being plagiarized by someone who has proven to know absolutely nothing on the subject matter! --BF 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

I do not request that the edited version is restored. I wish to see the pre-edit war version restored and then the article improved by consensus as is the Wikipedia philosophy. All discussion about the article contents should take place on the article talk page and not here. --triwbe (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of simply tagging the page, would you be willing to participate in the mediation that I have offered on the talk page? Khoikhoi 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I will give it a go, so long as it does not get personal again. --triwbe (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Hello Khoikhoi. The Translation reqwest is still actual. Geagea (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean - do you still need the translation ? Geagea (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

What the titles of the Azerbaijan articles should be is always available to consensus; the "problem" didn't exist until they were created and they had to be created somewhere. I have used as guidance, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says use the widely known English name if there is one, otherwise use local official. These villages don't have a widely known English name (like Munich, Rome, Moscow, and Jerusalem vary from their official ones), so I've used local official as best as discernable - and made redirects elsewhere. if consensus emerges around an Azerbaijani standard as there seems to be for some other countries, the articles can be moved (or kept) per that consensus, but for now it seems that there isn't one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How was edit history destroyed? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not destroyed, now, hidden? I put a blurb in the edit summary about authorship; this is typical in merges & splits - if you want to combine the histories, it can be done or I can remove the material you don't want there. Let me know either way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I recall. Again, all you had to do was ask. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Verify source

Hi Khoikhoi ! Could you verify source credibility of reference n°18 of Turkish Hizbollah? I suspect it being from a fringe group.. (done). Cheers! (I've worked recently on Human rights in Turkey, Ergenekon network and JITEM, you might review it for corrections or additionnal infos). Tazmaniacs (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On Unruled Paper (film)

Dear Khoikhoi, I do not dispute your arguments, nor have ever disputed similar arguments by others. Those who are really concerned, have the moral obligation to see the film for themselves and improve the text where they to their best understanding consider my text as erroneous. Until they have done so, my text remains the most authoritative text on this film in all languages (just by definition), barring Persian. Two things. Firstly, I am, contrary to your suggestion, an expert on films; certainly for the past ten years whatever film I have watched, I have studied in considerable detail; for any film I have read almost everything written about it by all experts around the world; entertainment is perhaps the tenth reason why I ever watch a film. Secondly, I did not take the task of writing the present entry lightly; I watched this film for perhaps six times before I wrote about it. I suggest that if people are really worried about the quality of the entry, they should write their own; I have already proposed that Wikipedia simply remove my text from Wikipedia, if it is deemed not to be up to the standards expected of Wikipedia articles. I have done my best and I am not prepared to accept that the piece that I wrote were in some ways misleading (the text is by no means finished, since after reading that Persian film magazine that I wrote you about, I will have to include my new insights gained from it into the text of the entry). I emphasise, if my present text is misleading, just remove it from Wikipedia; it is my text and I simply donated it to Wikipedia for the benefit of the English-speaking world; if it is deemed not to be good enough, then I take it back. Clearly, I should not be crucified for something on which I have not earned even a single penny. To paraphrase a saying, I offered a hand in friendship, now they want my whole arm. Please just delete the entire entry and bring this nightmare to an end. I am truly deeply depressed by this whole episode (I have really started suffering from sleep disorder - I simply cannot comprehend the mentality that prevails here on Wikipedia; I have been constantly under attack for almost ten days; the other day some one wrote some rude remarks to me here on Wikipedia, and it later transpired that he was reacting to what I had written to AzureFury; this is completely a mob mentality: you get beaten up because you may have offended someone else's chum [24]). Kind regards, --BF 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Khoikhoi, thank you for your kind message. I am not, and was never, against consensus. However, consensus meaning agreement or unity of opinion, I was insisting that such agreement or unity would have to be conditional on all parties knowing the subject matter at issue in some detail. Viewed from this perspective, there could never have been a consensus between me and all other parties who have not even seen the film. Such consensus, if it existed, would be at the expense of devoiding consensus from its meaning. And this only for the sake of appearing nice to others!? Incidentally, there are some very good Iranian films that are unforgivably absence here on the English Wikipedia, such as Mādiān by Ali Zhakān, Mosāferān by Bahram Beyzai, or Yek Bus-e Kuchulu by Bahman Farmanara. If you have not seen these, then you are absolutely missing some very fundamental things. Thinking back on the events of the past ten days, I should be absolutely mad ever to undertake to write on these films for Wikipedia. There is a tendency here to gang up against the people who dare to deviate even slightly from the perceived rules of Wikipedia (i.e. from the rules of The Orthodox Church of Wikipedia), which kills all creativity just in the bud (one sees exactly the same tendency in religious communities, no matter what the religion). With kind regards, --BF 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC).

Yaknow, I'm kinda worried about the next people to interact with BF. He has not demonstrated an ounce of respect for Wikipedia policy or even other editor's opinions when they contradicted his own. There's no doubt in my mind that he'll continue this trend in the next dispute he's involved in. Are you sure we shouldn't RFC him? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "monitoring his contributions," I saw one dispute he was involved in (before he deleted any mention of it from his talk page). We know that in extreme cases users can be blocked for incivility and personal attacks. My point was that I see him doing the exact same thing here as he did in that conflict. He knows the policy, he chooses to ignore it, and then attacks without apology anyone who disagrees. If he is going to continue this pattern, he should not be editting on Wikipedia. He's even asked to be blocked. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:No personal attacks: "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored." " pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban." "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning." I'm reporting him. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might get a laugh out of this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, yours is funnier. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unruled Paper

I saw that you have copied a draft of that article on your userpage for NPOVing, may I edit that page? --CreazySuit (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleutheropolis

It appears to be Ἐλεύθεροπολις, cf. the river Eleutheros is Ἐλεύθερος. My usual guides (Ptolemy and Josephus) use older names: Βαιτογαβρά and Βήγαβρις, respectively. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The breathing marks and accents in ancient Greek show some variability among authors - most keeping to the convention of a single one per word. Also, as noted in the encyclopedia the "polis" often hangs as a separate word. It is probably as well to use what can be verified and if sources in other (ancient) authors come up, they can be identified as variants. I was not entirely convinced in looking at poorly copied text, but the 1911 seems easily readable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My best reading of a poorly copied text. It appears in Eusebius. You may be interested in what Smith has to say about the place:

BETHOGABRIS or BETHAGABRA (Βαιτογαβρά, Ptol., Βαιθγαύρη), the Betogabri of the Peutinger tables, between Asealon and Aelia, 16 Roman miles from the former. It is reckoned to Judaea by Ptolemy (xvi. 4), and is probably identical with Βήγαβρις (al. Βήταρις) of Josephus, which he places in the middle of Idumaea. (B. J. iv. 8. § 1.) It was afterwards called ELEUTHEROPOLIS, as is proved as by other evidence, so by the substitution of one name for the other in the lists of episcopal sees given by William of Tyre and Nilus: as suffragans of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. (Compare Reland's Palaest. p. 220 with 227.) That it was a place of considerable importance in the fourth century is proved by the fact that it is assumed as a centre (by Eusebius in his Onomasticon), from which to measure the distances of other localities, and the district or region of Eleutheropolis, is his usual description of this part of the country. It has now recovered its ancient name Beit-Jebrin, and is a large Moslem village, about 20 miles west of Hebron. The name signifies the house of Giants, and the city was situated not far from Gath, the city of Goliath and his family. The large caves about the modern village, which seem formerly to have served as habitations, suggest the idea that they were Troglotides who originally inhabited these regions. It was sometimes confounded with Hebron, and at another period was regarded as identical with Ramath-lehi (Judges xv. 9-19), and the fountain Enhakkore was found in its suburbs (Antoninus Mart. &c. ap. Reland. Palaest. p. 752); and it is conjectured by Reland (l. c.) that this erroneous opinion may have given occasion to its change of name, to commemorate in its new appellation the deliverance there supposed to have been wrought Samson. St. Jerome, who gives a different and less probable account of its Greek name, makes it the northern limit of Idumaea. (Reland, l. c.) Beit-Jebrin still contains some traces of its ancient importance in a ruined wall and vaults of Roman construction, and in the substructions of various buildings, fully explored and described by Dr. Robinson (B. R. vol. ii. pp. 355, 356. 395-398).

have fun... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On Consensus

Dear Khoikhoi, let me start with your question with regard to Jahangir Mirshekari. He has been the sound manager (Sedā bar'dār) of the film Unruled Paper, as has been indicated on the pertinent web-page of Sūrh: [25] - incidentally, I have cited this web-page in my text. Jahangir Mirshekari has been in charge of almost all good Iranian films that I know of; he completely dominates the "sound" part of the Iranian film industry, and in fact he plays himself in the film Mix by Dariush Mehrjoui (by seeing this film, you can get a glimpse of how he works in reality) - incidentally, although Mix contains some very good moments, I don't like it very much (to be honest, I rather dislike it), as I believe that somehow Mehrjoui has created this film on a rather narcissistic premise (the main character of the film, played as always masterfully by Khosrow Shakibai, is actually Dariush Mehrjoui himself; the films that in this film are shown to be edited, or Mixed, are almost all Mehrjoui's own films, such as Hamoun, Pari, etc. Now, why I did not cite Mirshekari in my text? Well, that was just a slip of the pen. Please note that, within 5 minutes of saving my text on Unruled Paper, the entry was tagged by all negative tags available to an editor; the most damning tag, which was removed by the editor himself within some ten minutes of its addition (I addressed this editor with some very harsh words on noticing the tags - I think to remember that he had added some six tags in total), marked the entry as "Advertisement", to be removed within a short period of time (it just demonstrates how "knowledgeable" some of the Wikipedia editors must be). Since the entry became a disputed entry, I never attempted to add to or remove from it anything substantial; I did not wish to change the facts on the ground while the entry was being considered as a disputed one (you can check the veracity of this statement by looking through my edit logs of the entry - even though at the time I was the sole editor of the entry, I was very systematic in describing things in my edit logs). Please just think of it: over ten days of my time was wasted for absolutely nothing, while I could have used this precious time to make the entry a far better entry than it is now.

Now as for the statement that people like AzureFury knew the Wikipedia rules rather well. That is why I called him and his ilk as "fundamentalists" in the true sense of the word. As you can read on my talk page, somewhere I paraphrase Oscar Wilde from his play Lady Wintermere's Fan, namely: "A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". It is very true that there are some who know very many rules, but rather than using their knowledge as a basis for acting creatively, they use it to subjugate people to their whims. I have real problem in my real life with people of this category (to avoid misunderstanding, in my real life I am a very law-abiding person). As I wrote earlier, it amounts to an abuse of the word "consensus" when one of the two parties knows nothing about the subject matter about which s/he seeks a consensus. An example should illustrate my point. Taken to the extreme, an equitable consensus between one person who says 1+1 = 2 and one person who says 1+1 = 3 would apparently be 1+1 = 2.5. Is this a meaningful consensus in the true sense of the word? No, it is just a cowardly act on the part of a person who gives in to the demand of someone who knows nothing about the way numbers are defined. To summarise, no matter how many times you write to me, I am not going to change my view on the edits of the people like AzureFury; if this person had at least seen the film, I would not have been as inflexible as I may seem. I repeat, I will have that entry removed from Wikipedia and not have a single word added to or remove from it by AzureFury. Can you imagine that this person edits the entry on string theory? For me understanding Unruled Paper demands a similar level of technical expertise as understanding string theory. Yet, for some strange reason, AzureFury and his ilk are seeking a "consensus" on a matter about which they know absolutely nothing. Finally, I have decided to stay away from Wikipedia for some time; needless conflicts here have started to have a very destructive effect on my normal life outside these pages. With kind regards, --BF 06:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

My talkpage

Hello Khoikhoi. It has been a long time since I haven't been in wiki. But, as soon as I get in wiki, I started to feel a bit angry to you:) In the history of my talk page i noticed a edit summary of 02:45, 2 June 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) m (21,387 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eae1983 (talk) to last version by GimmeBot) (undo). And I cannot see the edit performed by Eae1983, which means that somehow both my talk page and its history are altered. What is this supposed to mean Khoikhoi? I have told you once again in the past that I hate people editting my talk page and you take one step further and changed also my talk page.

I don't want to sound harsh before learning the details of your action, but it really pissed me off. I mean no offense to you, but am waiting for an explanation for editting somewhere private.

Have a nice day Caglarkoca (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Khoikhoi, but please don't do it again. I perceive the talk page as a sort of e-mail address which must be private. If he spams me, it is my problem, and I usually don't respond them except on Turkic people which is a subject which I know well:)) So cheers Caglarkoca (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So I took other measurement~s (Khoi)² Have a nice day:) Caglarkoca (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hemshin peoples. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Clarification on Wikipedia naming standards

Hi Kohikoi,

You just left a message on my talkpage where you immediately threatened to block me out of the blue instead of a friendly suggestion or attempt to discuss/investigate. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia admin code of conduct guidelines specifically state...

threatening a user with an inappropriate block is just as bad behavior as actually making that block

admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others

To deal with your concerns though. From my standpoint I just corrected a breach of Wikipedia naming standards that appear politically motivated. However,you just suggested the current version of these pages are the result of a long-standing consensus between several users. Do you have evidence of this consensus? (i.e Where exactly is it reported on Wikipedia?) As far as I can tell the page for naming conventions of Greek and Turkish named places specifically states...

"This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump."

Furthermore, I have to ask why is there suddenly a special page only for Greek/Turkish naming conventions in the first place? The standards proposed on that page appear to directly contradict broader Wikipedia naming standards which state...

Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

I'm a a hotheaded newb so perhaps I'm missing something here. Any insight would be appreciated. Crossthets (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

...

Thanks for the quick response Khoikhoi. I was quite impressed with how level headed your second reply to me was (you didn't immediately go into a defensive ego trip like some others I've bumped into. Very much appreciated. A rare quality :). I will take your advice and will refrain from doing such edits temporarily. If possible though I still would like a little more clarification on the matter before I make any final decision on the matter.

While there are occasional exceptions, a visit to virtually any article on any city in the world (new or old) doesn't show the pattern of a long list of multiple old not in use historically insignificant foreign names on the first line. For instance FYROM/Republic of Macedonia's title lists Macedonian: Скопје, pronounced [ˈskopje], Albanian: Shkup, or Shkupi)[1] (their two largest demographics). There is no mention of older Turkish and ancient Greek pronouncement for Skopje). So it seems very fishy to me that obscure Greek islands are seemingly being prioritized with old Turkish occupation names over major cities.

Also I would like to note the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) specifically states

"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names" (i.e. not "must" be)

It further clarifies the point (with regards to use of older historical foreign names on the first line)...

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3).

Unless you can demonstrate that these obscure alternate foreign language name qualify as "Relevant foreign language names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or used by a group of people which used to inhabit the geographic place"... I don't believe an obscure set of Greek islands remotely qualifies for this rule of prominent display. And this point of sensitivity to names is further clarified at the head of the geographic naming convention article where it explicitly states...

Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

Notice the words "and should be used in articles with caution". I think it's pretty clear that the Balkans are an extremely sensitive area with regards to names. (it stirs the pot for old ethnic conflicts)

I think perhaps you've misunderstood my motivations here a bit. The issue for me wasn't whether the names could be mentioned (they obviously always should be in there somewhere)... but exactly where in the article they are mentioned. Unless it is historically important (e.g. Constantinople) any mention of older historical Turkish or Greek occupation names should only be added later in the article in a historical or etymological context.... not be given equal airplay upfront with current names or historically unimportant names. Doing so is both bulky and highly provocative to sensitive political regions. (and incidentally the same rule should apply for inappropriately using historically insignificant Greek names for Turkish cities)

I'm sticking to my guns that my edits were kosher according to existing Wikipedia geographic naming conventions and current widely observable conventions. I'd even go further and suggest leaving those old historically insignificant foreign names prominently displayed is far more disruptive than removing them (both in a Wikipedia sense and in a human toll sense) I therefore would like to once again remove those old names from the first paragraph but will delay pending your response to me (to confirm I have (or have not) convinced you of the accuracy of my assertions)

Thanks in advance for all your help.Crossthets (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

...

Hi again Kohikoi. Could you please address the following points individually rather than skirt the issue by continuing to repeat a "consensus was reached". Nothing personal. I'm a newb so I wasn't privy to any such conversations. Hopefully you can understand why I'm looking for written proof of that.

1. Do you disagree with Wikipedia:Greek/Turkish_naming_conventions that specifically state...

"This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear."

2. Current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) state...

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3)."

Can you demonstrate that those old historically irrelevant names are used by 10% of sources in English language or that those names are used by a group of people that used to inhabit those areas?(Which was centuries ago, which means they are all deceased right?)

3. You mention this is why we have a current consensus that should not be broken unless there is a general agreement of most editors to remove the names from all those articles.

Can you show me an actual Wikipedia page (and most importantly the specific text) where this consensus was reached?

4. As far as I can tell, the issue of when (and if) historical name are to be used on the first line is decided on a case-by-case basis (not an absolute rule). Wikipedia geographic naming conventions clearly state...

"Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution"

Can you demonstrate where those names are "frequently used" or justify how they are "valuable to readers"? (i.e. to all English users.... not just a few that come from Baltic states)

Thanks again for the feedback. Crossthets (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check this person's activities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emperordarius This person has been removing referenced material from numerous sites. Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird additions

Several *sculpture* figures are being put in articles related to French historical personnages: princesse de Lamballe, Mme de Montespan, Mme de Maintenon. They do not belong there. Checking the contributors' IP address - all beginning 75.106.192. with last two numbers different - reveals a history of vandalism. Would you mind checking this? Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action on removing these weird things. Frania W. (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

e-mail

my e-mail is faikpro at gmail.com you are welcome.--Faikpro (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question

Hi Khoikhoi. No, they are not identical. SO is larger than Samachablo which includes a dozen or so villages. There were several other Georgian princedoms which now make up SO, but Samachablo was incorrectly generalized to refer to the whole SO early in the 1990s. And, yes, Samachablo lies entirely within the breakaway enclave now.--Kober^Talk 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources are indeed very contradictory. Official estimates put it at 10,000. But some independent analysts say the death toll amounted to 30,000. I think the truth is somewhere in between. --Kober^Talk 09:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Khoikhoi. I think it was Svetlana Chervonnaya but I'll need to check it out.--Kober^Talk 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Altai Khan again

It is very likely that User:NPOVfan6 [26] is the banned user Altai Khan--Larno (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

I left a note on the talk page about the possibility of sourcing the statements in question directly to the (former) Presidential Palace. Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kaghaze Bikhat.preview.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaghaze Bikhat.preview.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flowertable.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flowertable.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

regarding the template WPKU.

Oops! Thanks for notifying me. I will go ahead and undo my mistakes. Gbeebani (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Beh-nam

Bless you, for the quick response. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tapuria

Please move the article Tabaristan to it's former name, Historically tapuria has been used in english, Tabaristan is an islamic and modern persian form of tapuristan, Just a search (even in google) retreivs that Greeks mentioned Hyrcania and Hyrcanians, Tapuria and Tapurians, Specially see the stories of battels between iranians and alexander, Thank You --Parthava (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[27], [28], And the Book of The Annals of the World By James Ussher, Larry Pierce, Marion Pierce. --Parthava (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The first reference provided by Parthava is a mirror of Wikipedia reflecting previous version of the article. Regarding the common name, Hyrcania and Tabaristan are much common in scholarly sources comparing Tapuria or Tapuristan--Larno (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism5

Template:Uw-vandalism5, which you created, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion with the concern that it will cause confusion as it is a redirect to a blocking template in the format of a user warning template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New add of Dalai Lama

I add something with source,why my new section was undo by others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Hemshin peoples" entry (again)

Hi Khoikhoi, I had posted a message under the heading "Regarding your protection of the Hemshin peoples entry" (item 42) on this page on September 2, where I had given updates regarding the mediation request on the entry and had raised some questions. Having not heard from you, I wondered if you actually noticed my message there. So if you have not seen it yet, could you please have a look, as I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Omer182 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi,

Your suggestion is practically that I mediate in my own mind between myself and those four users, and create a new version which is neither the ancient version protected nor the gradually evolved version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52). I could not get myself to say "OK" to this suggestion due to the following (you might find some, if not all, to be repetitions of what I had already stated earlier).

Those four users have not given any clue as to what they oppose so I have no means to judge between more or less controversial.

Moreover, they have staged a concerted action of reverts and created a background leading to the protection of an outdated version. They have not only ignored my repeated calls for discussion before the protection but have also blocked a mediation request thereafter. Even assuming good faith, I find this attitude to be unacceptable and I don't think this attitude should be rewarded by any means.

I believe the more proper option is that we start from the fully referenced version 9 August 2008 (15.52), which was gradually developed over a time period of about a year and which was still under discussion at the date of the protection. Those four users would join the discussion if they wish to contribute... Given the situation I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on this entry for some time to come and help that edits are affected preferably after discussion and by no means in wholesale manner.Omer182 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the unprotection. Thank you.Omer182 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hi Khoikhoi, There is an ongoing discussion about moving Ossetian war article. Could you please provide some advise and perhaps an administrative help? Thanks,Biophys (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Khoikhoi, i'm very sorry for the late response, I'm sill very busy but will get back to your question and references soon. I think the number should range from 10,000 to 15,000 however, more people were killed in 1998 which adds up the numbers. I'll find the references and more clarity on numbers. BTW somebody told me that you think I'm Soso. Well im not Soso and my name is George (Giorgi) if you want to know. Thanks and all the best. Iberieli (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BehnamFarid

You deleted a fair comment by an admin, with no indication that you had discussed it with the admin. Don't be accusing people of trolling when they try to enforce the rules, or you'll end up getting blocked yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I read what the admin wrote in the edit summary, and I read your patronizing comment when you deleted his comment. By itself, it was out of line. I'm done with that user's page now. BehnamFarid commit a gross violation of the rules, he won't admit it, and he's done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the problem is that the user either doesn't know or doesn't care why users issuing legal threats cannot be allowed to edit. It's simply that such a threat is a bullying tactic, intimidation against other users. If someone actually wants to sue wikipedia, we can't stop them. But they cannot be allowed to edit. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Anyone using wikipedia is expected to obey the rules. One of those rules is no legal threats. Another is that any text posted here is freely given and that the user essentially relinquishes copyright. The user's argument, about giving up constitutional rights in order to edit wikipedia, is a misapplication or misunderstanding of the law. You can't be forced to give up constitutional rights. But you're not forced to edit at wikipedia. You voluntarily edit at wikipedia, and voluntarily agree to its rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, silly me, I hadn't realized you were an admin too. I'm not interested in getting into any admin crossfire. :) And I do recall the Empire State Building discussion. :) I want to point out that I don't like to see anyone get blocked here. I'd rather see them straighten up and fly right. But if they won't, they bear the consequences. I don't have a clue what that guy's motivations are. Maybe he just doesn't understand English. I called him "that guy" previously, and he claimed I was trying to call him his buddy. That's not how "that guy" is used at all, it's just a generic, colloquial comment. In any case, the issues were explained over and over again, and he simply wouldn't accept the explanation. And dat's dat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For 2-plus years on here, he didn't seem to get it, but it could just be that he was angry and lashing out. I went through that once. It's not worth the energy. Teams? Well, it's somewhat situational, but at heart I'm a lifelong Cubs fan. (Talk about wasted energy - although they're doing well this year.) I also situationally root for teams like the Twins, Red Sox, White Sox (gasp!) and even the Dodgers from time to time. The only teams I really dislike are the Yankees and Mets. The Dodgers are a team with a great tradition. Looks like Manny has found a home. Given how the Yanks basically dumped Torre last year, it would be funny if the Dodgers made the post-season and the Yanks didn't. So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point I don't what's going on with that guy. When you say "first place" compared with Tampa, I assume you mean for best record in baseball. They've been going back and forth all season. I think Tampa's got it at present. If you're thinking of getting a Manny tattoo, you might want to make it the removable kind, as he seems to move around a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, a guy who remembers the Cubs dynasty. Well, that settles it, they just gotta win it this year, for that guy Altman. As for Bartman, if the Cubs manage to get to the World Series, I could see a scenario where the American League winner would offer Bartman a chance to throw out the first ball. His answer would maybe be something like, "You don't have enough money to pay me to do that." Maybe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Enemies of Azeris", eh? Well, anyone who goes looking for enemies will have no trouble finding some. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Today's activities demonstrate that the guy is lurking around his talk page, waiting for anyone to comment so he can smack them down with some more angry remarks. Basically he's engaged in trolling, and several of us have concluded it's best to simply ignore him, and he'll eventually get bored and go away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User subpage for major revisions?

I keep trying to make a huge revision to an article, but my comp keeps crashing and I lose all my sources open in other windows. I created a subpage to save it until it's ready to publish, but Wikipedia:Subpage#Disallowed_uses says that's not allowed? I thought I read somewhere else that they recommend that, and I know you did it so...I'm confused. Is it ok for me to use a subpage for a major revision? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)