User talk:Khoikhoi

This user may have left Wikipedia. Khoikhoi has not edited Wikipedia since 14 March 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.

hello there[edit]

I see you have made alot of contributions to the Iranian Azeri page. After reading the article, im not sure whether the page appreciates the Iranian Azeris appreciation of their Iranian identification. Fro mwhat im reading, the page is more biased towards Azerbaijani nationalism. please contact me on this discussion, thankyou. User:Megastrike14

SLR direct invitation[edit]

I noticed that you showed an interest in Sri Lanka related articles. Please take a look at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Among other things, we collected a number of recommendations for getting your point across while keeping out of trouble. We're here to help! In any event, we invite you to leave us a message on our talk page.

Happy editing! Taprobanus (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem :) --Bayrak (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dhi Qar[edit]

What is currently written on this article appears to be a copyright violation[1] and needs to be re-written. Also, shouldn't the Lakhmids be the group mentioned revolting against the Persians?[2]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

All the best, warrior. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a possible software error[edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, it seems that the software running the Wikipedia image pages may contain an error. To see this, please click on the photograph on this page: [3]. You will go to the corresponding image page where a deformed version of an earlier photograph is displayed. Click now on the deformed photograph, and you will be led to the correct page, namely this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Brian_Pippard.jpg.

If you copy the address of the deformed photograph (using the address-copying facility of your browser), you will have this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/19/Brian_Pippard.jpg/422px-Brian_Pippard.jpg.

Clearly, the software managing the image page is the cause of linking to the latter, incorrect, image file. I should greatly appreciate it if you would kindly look into this problem. I did some attempt to change the second of the latter two addresses into the first one, but was not successful.

Incidentally, I have noticed that the photograph on the page of Mastan Ensemble has been deleted. I think this must be a mistake, since the photograph could be used under the "fair-use" copyright (to my best knowledge, there is no free image of this ensemble available). With kind regards --BF 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Czech Republic[edit]

Could you take a look at these[4] recent edits? They seem rather contentious and libelous. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed[edit]

Hi, Khoikhoi. I see you're the only admin who edited Denial of Armenian Genocide during the past months. Can you help me and user:Adoniscik out of this conflict [[5]]. I explained my motives at talk and editsum's, and your third opinion can help us. Gazifikator (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Keynesian economics[edit]

I've responded to your question at my talk page. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi, I think the rolling back of Artsakh by anon user was justified and I had that expressed in the talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. --Vacio (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright info needed[edit]

In this edit, you reverted the request for image copy-right to unverified claim of copy-right tag! The CC copy-right have not been mentioned in source page. [6] -- Meisam (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judæo-Persian[edit]

It seems that nobody is against moving Dzhidi language to Judæo-Persian. Please delete the later (to make the move possible). Alefbe (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Also look at [[talk:template:Persian languages]]. Alefbe (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Aragon[edit]

Could you inform GranadasPromegranite/62.56.79.248 that references have to be cited according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_article_does_not_cite_any_references_or_sources.#How_to_format_citations. This was posted in the talk page and subsequently ignored. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Khoikhoi, in the Persian people article ,the Persians are translated as Iranian in Persian, while the term Iranian can be referred to any of the Iranian citizens from Azerbaijani ,Kurd, or Baluch, also Iranian or Indo Iranian is neither correct since Indo Iranians include many ethnic groups who speak Indo Iranian languages , the correct translation for Persian in Farsi is Fars , also Persian people are not excluded to the Iranian borders as shown on the map .just as the Azerbaijanis are known as an ethnic group due to the fact that they speak Azerbaijani Turkic language and ,Kurds are regarded as ethnic Kurdish people because of their native Kurdish tongue ,Persians or Fars people an ethnic group that speak the Farsi language as their mother tongue . Whether this mistake was done deliberately,or simply by misinformation is irrelevant , in either way it should be changed immedeately cuz it can considered as distortion of facts by the Wkikipedia,

فارسی نشانه های اختصاری

سیفارسی . (ص نسبی ) منسوب به فارس که فارسیان و ممالک آنها باشد. (منتهی الارب ). معرب پارسی . || ایرانی . (حاشیه ٔ برهان چ معین : پارس ). فارسی . عجم . رجوع به عجم وفارس شود. || پارسی . زبان فارسی ، که شامل سه زبان است : پارسی باستان ، پارسی میانه (پهلوی و اشکانی )، و پارسی نو (فارسی بعد از اسلام )، و چون مطلقاً فارسی گویند مراد زبان اخیر است . (حاشیه ٔ برهان چ معین : پارس ). رجوع به فارسی باستان ، فارسی جدید و فارسی میانه و زبان فارسی شود. || ابن الندیم از عبداﷲبن مقفع حکایت کند که لغات فارسی شش است : فهلویه (پهلوی )، دریه (دری )، فارسیه (زبان مردم فارس )، خوزیه (زبان مردم خوزستان )، و سریانیه . فهلویه منسوب است به فهله (پهله ) نامی که بر مجموع شهرهای پنجگانه ٔ اصفهان و ری و همدان و ماه نهاوند و آذربایجان دهند ۞ . دریه لغت شهرهای مداین است و درباریان پادشاه بدان سخن کنند و غالب آن لغت مردم خراسان و مشرق ایران و اهل بلخ است . فارسیه لغت موبدان و علما و امثال آنان است و آن زبان اهل فارس باشد. خوزیه زبانی است که ملوک و اشراف در خلوت خانه ها و بازی جایها و عیش گاهها و با حواشی بدان تکلم کنند. سریانی زبان ویژه ٔ اهل دانش و نگارش است ۞ . (از الفهرست چ مصر ص 19). - تمر فارسی ؛ نوعی از خرمای خوب است . - خط فارسی ؛ خطی که امروز در نوشتن بوسیله ٔ ایرانیان بکار میرود و الفبای آن با الفبای بسیاری از کشورهای اسلامی و بخصوص ممالک عربی تقریباً یکی است . در تداول عام در برابر خط لاتین (اروپایی )، فارسی گفته میشود. || (اِخ ) یکی از مردم فارس ۞ . (حاشیه ٔ برهان ). مقابل ترک و عرب . || زردشتی ، مخصوصاً زردشتی مقیم هند. (حاشیه ٔ برهان ). به دین

http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-c4407b040598473a99122acce128f89b-fa.html with regards (CyrusPars). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyrusPars (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On photographs[edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, could you please look into the destructive activities of User:Meisam? He seems to have set out on a crusade of tagging all photographs ever uploaded by me for deletion (what he does with the works by others, I do not know). One of his latest "achievements" is tagging and removing the photograph of Ebrahim Golestan What is wrong with this photograph? Is it not time that someone puts an end to the destructive behaviour of a person who seems totally out of control? Meisam has not contributed a single sentence to the contents of the English Wikipedia, yet he seems totally devoted to the obliteration of all Persian photographs from the English Wikipedia! When is something going to happen? The irrational behaviour of this man is just making me mad! --BF 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Regarding this photograph, please note that the appropriate copyright statement is given, the reason for using the latter statement is provided, yet User:Meisam has used the deletion tag stating that "This image or media does not have information on its copyright status." This is utter madness! Idiotic to the utmost! If Meisam cannot read English, what is he doing here? Is it not time that someone put this person in the place where he belongs? --BF 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, could you please kindly find out what underlies the erratic behaviour of OrphanBot? It says that "The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image", where "The image" refers to this (please also note the idiotic sentence "The image ... the image"; what is this sentence supposed to convey? A sane person would say: It has been identified that the copyright status of the image has not been specified.). There is a copyright statement there, clearly and unequivocally specifying the "status of the image"! Thanks in advance for the trouble. --BF 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change of the copyright statement. --BF 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, you should be very familiar with Wikipedia:Civility. Calling my correct edits, destructive is against civility. You also have not answered my former comment yet [7]. Waiting for your answers to both comments. TIA -- Meisam (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These images need source for being published in 30+ years ago too: File:Iraj_Pezeshkzad.jpg, File:Morteza Neydavoud.jpg, File:Fereydoun Hoveyda.jpg because none of them have been died 30+ years ago! :) -- Meisam (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of dying is not relevant; what is relevant is date of publication. As for the photograph of Iraj Pezeshkzad, if you had any dealing with the literature, you would have known that the photograph at issue was used on the back-cover of Pezeshkzad's book before Revolution (Pezeshkzad is now over 80). The Revolution being 30 years old, this photograph was published more than 30 years ago. As for Morteza Neydavoud, he was born in 1900, i.e. 109 year ago, and in this photograph he is at most 15 (looking at his face, one sees that he is just a teenage boy - no sign of hairs on his face). The photograph is therefore more than 90 years old. Aside from this, this photograph has been in the public domain (in various forms) so long as any living person can remember. With two exceptions, this photograph on the Persian Wikipedia coincides with the one on the English Wikipedia, the exceptions arising from the fact that the former photograph is manipulated: they have taken out the man standing to the right of the frame and they have introduced false colour. As for Fereydoun Hoveida, this photograph was widely available in pre-Revolution Iran. Aside from this, Fereydoun Hoveida being born in 1924, and this photograph showing him as a man of at most 30, the photograph dates from early 1950s at the latest. It follows that the photograph is at least 50 years old. Even when one disregards these facts, not only was Fereydoun Hoveida's brother executed in Iran, but also the Iranian state confiscated in 1979 all that had belonged to family Hoveida; this photograph is therefore by definition a public property in Iran. Be it as it may, it is perverse, and farcical, that in 2009 one should be haggling about a dingy photograph of a dead man by the name Fereydoun Hoveida.

It is remarkable that you seem to have gone on a crusade of removing all Iran-related photographs from the English Wikipedia; in many instances you would not have done so it you had made the slightest effort and checked the sources given in the relevant copyright statements. An example is this photograph; in total disregard of the explicit statement (written in Persian - one assumes that you can read Persian) in the lower part of the source page (that is this page), you tagged the photograph for deletion. I am utterly dumbfounded by your behaviour. What is mystifying is the fact that all the photographs on the English Wikipedia that you have tagged for deletion turn out to have been uploaded by me. It raises the serious question whether you have something against me personally, given the fact that tagging these photographs prove to be nearly your sole "contributions" to the English Wikipedia, aside from inserting the "fa" tags into English articles ([8]); I seem to be on your "hit list". --BF 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BF, Its not important when the photos are taken. Taking photo do not mean its publication. Please add source for these images publication in 30 years ago to images description page (not your source for image as they are not 30 years old). I'm admin in fa.wiki and we have lots of problems due to copy-vio of re-uploading your images to there. Honestly I don't have enough time to accurately check your above comment. JUST ADD SOURCE TO IMAGE PAGES. If you could not found the 30+ publication source, change the copy-right tag to fair-use please. I don't intend to delete these images. Thanks in advanced. -- Meisam (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam, there are over 70 million people living out there in Iran, and they seem not to feel any responsibility for sorting things out (that is, insofar as Wikipedia is concerned). I am sitting 8 thousand miles away, with the additional handicap that almost none of my e-mails to Iran gets responded to, and you are talking about not having the time to sort things out! Some English-Wikipedia administrators are in a position to tell you the extent to which I have been communicating with people all over the world in order to place the things in this Wikipedia on solid legal grounds (and for all of these, I have not become one penny richer). In one case, when I asked a self-declared "feminist" to provide me with a photograph of Bibi Khatoon Astarabadi, her response was (and I am not exaggerating) that she (i.e. this "feminist") had a career to think about and that I could copy the requested photograph myself there and there! (If she had looked at my e-mail address, she would have realised that I had no access to "there and there".) This is the level of co-operation one receives, notably by a "feminist" for whom Bibi Khatoon Astarabadi must be as Jesus Christ is for a Christian. You seem not to have any idea of what you are talking about! You yourself have been instrumental in removing all traces of two main monuments in Tabriz, without ever thinking that as a person living in Tabriz you had the moral responsibility to find substitutes for those photographs. You have been instrumental in removing the dingy photograph of the graveside of Howard Baskerville. Frankly, I stand aghast with your attitude! What is that propels you through life? (Your latest "achievement" is the complete removal of the photograph of Ebrahim Golestan, a man almost 90 years old.) These are not rhetorics! Those dingy photographs that you have so successfully managed to delete, were the results of my many hours of search on the Internet! Most seriously, I would be deeply ashamed if I were you! If this is uncivil language, your behaviour in the course of the past several weeks has been anything but civil. You have been acting as devil's advocate, without at any time feeling responsibility towards even the city you yourself are living in; you have laid waste to the English Wikipedia entries that I had put together at the expense of hours of my time! Just check the description of the Behnam House on the website of the University in Tabriz. It has been written in such a faulty language that no normal human being can understand what they are talking about. I have gone through tens, if not hundreds, of documents to write that short entry. The same applies to the Amir Nezam House.

If you have problems at fa.Wikipedia, try to resolve them there! Don't come over to here and act like a vandal! Yesterday I left a note on your fa.Wikipedia page. A person named Raamin got himself in. Remarking that my note was addressed at you, he has taken revenge (just like a Mafioso) by coming over to here and tag for deletion another photograph uploaded by me. Of course, you yourself have also not been sitting on your hands: you have posted a "last warning" to my fa.Wikipedia page, accusing me of uncivility. What is wrong with you Iranians? I tell you: uncivility is responding to someone's note addressed to someone else; my note was placed on your talk page and not on Raamin's talk page. Uncivility is behaving like a Mafioso (as Raamin has done) by coming over to here and tag a photograph for deletion because I told him that he should mind his own business. As for Farsi being the language to be used on fa.Wikipedia (you admonish me for having written in English), that is a novelty to me! Not a word of thanks for having spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of my precious time to present a humane face of Iran to the rest of world on the English Wikipedia (those faces that you are/have been so eager to remove, are supposed to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Iranians are also human beings!), but only ugly gestures from a group of self-serving people who find being addressed in English as a violation of norms of civility.

Now, please leave me in peace and stay where you are an administrator. I have totally lost my patience with you and your fellow fa.Wikipedians. In the meantime, you may consider to ask those 70 million people living in Iran that they might (just might) do something to introduce their country and culture to the rest of the world, in a time when that country is being portrayed as a terrorist nation by the public media the world over. This is a serious matter; in the opinion of many outside Iran the difference between "Iran" and "Iraq" is the difference between "q" and "n". Once you get bombed, in the manner of Iraq, then you will get spoken to like this (which is supposed to be a motivational speech). You all have your heads deep into the sand and do not realise it. --BF 13:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalidi AN/I[edit]

Please note that I have made a report to WP:AN/I regarding the edit warring / WP:BLP issue concerning Rashid Khalidi, here: WP:AN/I#Historicist edit warring on BLP violations. This is a courtesy notice only because you seem to have been involved in some edits or discussion on the subject recently. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Hai[edit]

You protected Ching Hai due to edit reversion warring. It appears that a single editor with polarised views regarding the subject matter of the article kicked this off by dismissing a significant number of incremental edits that did not align with their personal opinion. Can I request that the article be unprotected to see whether a constructive dialogue can ensue to address any significant areas of disagreement. Blocking unwilling participants rather than protecting the article may produce a better outcome. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alishah85[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi, I hope you are fine. Please keep an eye on User:Alishah85, a relatively new member who pushes for POV and writes long, pseudo-scientific theories on various talk pages that may be interpreted as racist propaganda (for example in Talk:Tajiks; I have removed his comments by now). After asking him to stop, I restored his text, claiming that a talk page is a "discussion forum", clearly violating WP:TALK. Thank you. Tājik (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with User User:Mussav edits[edit]

Good morning or evening. Please help me on what to do regarding this edit (note the edit summary which is not fine with me), also this comment] a kind of violation of good faith and also WP:NPA. Thanks. --Xashaiar (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I apologize for my previous behavior. Xashaiar Please let me ask you to forgive me. Sir, Mr. Khoikhoi if you want to block me then it's okay because i deserve it but please I hope you to be unbiased admin, we both break the rules... but if you read my last edit, i said I won't edit that page because I gave up, and I also deleted my attacking comment. So should we let all this behind? Sorry for making trouble Again. But still, I still think I have a point and I will continue defending it on the discussion forum, maybe you can give us your opinion about the whole issue... Your opinion is appreciated. Mussav (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Horde[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi, it's me again. Please also take a look at Golden Horde, where a user (User:Mttll) is inserting a totally irrelevant language into the article. He is ignoring the criticism of at least 3 other users (see Talk:Golden Horde). Thank you. Tājik (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Dy yol[edit]

Hello Khoikhoi. Dy yol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 14:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - yes, of course, the block is fine. But possibly it can be lifted in view of the blocked user's statement not to continue editwarring? Sandstein 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geber[edit]

Pasitigris ignored tens of edits and reverted large portions of Geber aricle to a previous version. I've wrote to him here. I don't object reverting my edits but he can do it edit by edit not after I and others make tens of edits without objections, someone will come and revert all of our work suddenly. I didn't revert the article and will not revert it in the future. Dy yol (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration needed[edit]

For these [9] [10] [11] and this. -Thank you --Wayiran (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Wayiran is working with Israelis to kill Palestinians.

He is biased and does not represent the Islamic or Iranian POV. Neutrality needed.John Cho (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

good morning. the user user:Fullstop has commented here which bothers me (also his answers to others as seen on the talk page). I think his actions are against the wikipedia rules WP:OWNER that no one is owner of an article. He removes sourced materials like here. His reason is "nietzsche is not an authority on Zoroaster" however the previous version of the article that included his OR by quoting the same Nietzsche was OK for him. This contradicts his reason for removing my addition. his edits on persian related articles concerns me. Please help. Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he has again reverted the sourced materials.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Arabism[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi - I see you deleted a previous incarnation of a pan-Arabism article which seems to be resurfacing under variant names, and is now at Arabism and criticism of racism. This doesn't read to me like an encyclopedia article - do you have any thoughts on whether/under what criterion it should be deleted? Gonzonoir (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laz people, Laz language[edit]

I applaud your bold decisions on Laz people and Laz language. Let's hope this puts a stop to the spate of persistent vandalism in these two articles. --Zlerman (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazs[edit]

Khoikhoi What's your problem about Lazs and their language ? Laz was spoking by 33,000 persons in 1983.You know that very well.But now is 2009 !!! And read that the last one:Article of UNESCO 21 February 2009 work [12].Unesco workers say "130-150 000" !!! And what's 50,000 people ? Where do you live? Don't world ? Lazs one of the most important ethnical people of Anatolia-Turkey !!! Read that again both of you [13].Please, please and please !!!

And look from the 3 rd edition of UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger [14]

Help on Iran page needed[edit]

On the page Iran the user User:Bestofmed has added the sentence "The availability of a vast new scientific, philosophical and antiquity work in Arabic" (here). The reference is to what I had added previously. The reference (here) states explicitly Islamic science came into being in the 2nd/8th century as a result of the vast effort of translation which made the scientific and philosophical traditions of antiquity available in Arabic. As you see this sentence contradicts what the user User:Bestofmed claims. I guess this is a serious violation of wikipedia rules. Would you please do something about this. Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad of Ghor[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi. I hope you are fine. Please take a look at this: [15]. User:Bejnar is falsifying sources by reverting to the version of a banned user (most likely User:Banigul or even User:NisarKand) - the sources, however, are very clear. The same IP also vandalized/falsified the article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), and his edits are identical to those of the banned user in that article. Keeping that in mind, what Bejnar is doing is basically meatpuppetry for a banned user. This is not the first time, unfortunately. Tājik (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see comment by that IP user. Tājik (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Iran[edit]

With all due respect to you but I do not think that I am the one who is not respecting the three-revert rule. If you look at the page's history you will notice that others are reverting my edits which were accompanied by sources. I have not done any revert only additions or modifications (I removed my edit about International Iran as there is an ongoing WP:CONS on the talk page). Second I was preparing to follow the dispute resolution guidelines with the user Xashaiar. Anyway, I will continue my discussion on the talk page and will ask for a third opinion than see if I can proceed to other alternatives. Finally, to be honest I expected a notice on Xashaiar's talk page from you as he kept reverting my edits every time. Bestofmed (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Message[edit]

You are wrong. See my response on my talk page as to the how and why. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are wrong, Khoikoi. See my response on my talk page as to how and why. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I've responded to your message. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re 216.165.12.158[edit]

You blocked User:216.165.12.158 with this message: "User:Hetoum I making crazy reverting spree"

How could you tell? Was there a checkuser, or was his pattern of edits simply obvious? I would love to be able to block the nationalist edit warriors on sight but I'm still not sure what all I can do under the revised terms of ARBAA2, and while this was an obvious case, I erred towards only warning and keeping an eye out. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evading block[edit]

I think a mistake has been made. (this is boogalouie) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BoogaLouie&redirect=no#Blocked I did not revert anything while blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.55.61 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a suspicious activity[edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, could you please have a look and see what User:Alefbe is up to? See e.g. this and this. I have just left a message for this user here. Thank you in advance for the trouble. --BF 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might we have a display of your resplendent wisdom?[edit]

Seeing as you have voiced doubts my ability to participate politely in article discussion, might you be persuaded to share some of your magnificent wisdom and awe-inspiring civility here? I think the usage of Iran and Persia is redundant, and have said so no less than four times in article discussion (politely). As well, it might be worth noting that the user's only other edit to the article was in December, wherein he reverted another user's characterization of Osama bin Laden from "infamous" to "famous".Of course, there is little in the way of discussion to seek a consensus before any of these edits, but that goes without saying. Or maybe it does.
I encourage you to participate; I would be delighted to witness how you would handle matters, and might even find it insightful. If you find yourself unable to participate, please let me know, so I may proceed in another direction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't escape notice that you had plenty of time to respond to my post on my user talk page, and yet still seem to have missed addressing a problem in an actual article. Interesting... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am - and I think I am not the only one- tired of Arcayne's behavior. He deletes every warning to him on the talk pages. Even he deletes every thing which asks him be civil or even read more about the subject before he comes with big statement. What I see is that Arcayne either does not much about the subjects he editd or is doing it intentionally. Assuming gtood faith, the first possibility is more probable.. Then he goed to userpages and writes intimidating stuff. He tries to divert a discussion about the content to personal attacks and wars. Another bad habit of him is that he tends to interpret the sources. As he has said many times: he "does not belive", his "interpretation" is different. And having this authoritarian character he only accepts his own interpretations and in general things he belief. His behavior is totally disrespectful. He does this not only to Iranian editors but has also problems with many other non-Iranian editors.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bax, you have been the largest source of uncivil behavior and personal attacks in the articles. I do not have to be steeped in the knowledge of Iranian articles - clearly, many of the people editing have little in the way of authority about Iranian topics beyond ethnicity. When I go to your user page to wartn you about your behavior, I usually provide a link the the policy or guideline you are violating, or assume you know how to find something as simple as "personal attacks". You are supposed to address the edits, which you can do without attacking the editor, calling them a racist - which you have done in the past. My interpretation iof our policies is rock solid; if anything, I am more of a hard-liner than many of my contemporaries when it comes to citation, reliability, verifiability and neutrality. While I acknowledge that sometimes I am less willing to molly-coddle folk when it comes to enforcement (when being nicer would likely work better), I have often found that it wastes time when folk are only interested in their point of view or an agenda. Case in point: you were determined to add info about an attack on a hair salon based on anti-Muslim behavior, characterizing the attack as anti-Iranian. It took several editors over several weeks to point out that the sources didn't say that. I am still sure you do not feel you were wrong.

My behavior is respectful. Assuming good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior, and your personal attacks have not helped you get any faith from me. Consider that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Arcayne. DO NOT TOUCH MY COMMENTS AGAIN. ok? then to say something: Please do not spam my usertalk and I am not interested to which policy you refer. YThe only thing I know is that you will be banned and I hope it if you go on like this. And about that case: No one has called you a racist and honestly I think that would be useful. I myself hate all race-related discourse. Another thing is that editors truely think that your knowledge of Iran is not accurate. I still feel that I was right abot that hair saloon issue, because the source said Iranian, and did not say Muslim or any thing. It was again you who insisted on the interpretation of sources. Editors were kind enough to let you have your POV once but now you insist on your interpretations, use fool language, spam and attack people personally. So behave well, it is now you against at least 4 editors.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will not remove your personal attacks again; if they recur, I will simply report you and you can explain your personal attacks to someone else. I have never spammed your usertalk page; clearly, you cannot provide proof of that. I do not care if you do not trust my knowledge of Iran. I don't expect my knowledge to be trusted. I expect citations, not your or my personal knowledge. Until you learn that, we are going to always be at odds. And, no, the source did not say that the attack was motivated out of hatred for Iranians, but rather Muslims. No one is kind to anyone here in regards to allowing POV. My edits are guided by policy and guidelines, nothing else. I don't care whether you are Iranian, Iraqi or Martian. I just want you to maintain some professionalism and not insult me or other editors. This isn't a new request, but one you seem to think doesn't apply to you. This means calling people fools, racists (and yeah, you did call me one) and attacking them.

And do us both a favor; do not ever presume to counsel me about behavior: I find it offensive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said you are racist or something. Do not make things up. I howver, and I think most other editors, will go asking for your ban. And your lack of knowledge about Iran indeed dioes matter. Someone who thinks Iran is a new name does not deserve to delete a source about Sasanians. And the hair saloon source told that the victim was Iranian. Nothing that the motive was Muslim or so. And the Dutch university ban was against Iranians not all Muslims. Uou have this idea that there is an islamophobia and there is nothing called anti-Iranianism. Well two things can be connected, but still there are other motives for being anti-Iranist. Speaking about citations: I did see how compromising you were toward the Panarab POV pusher in the Persian Gulf naming dispute! So: next time there will be no warning for you to behave. We will go directly for your ban. Then there will be some peace in Wikipedia's Iranian-related pages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume good faith that you have simply forgotten these things, Bax. If you want me to, I will be happy to provide you with Diffs and links proving that each statement you have made here is incorrect. I did not say that Iran is a new name, only that Iran is the proper name for Persia, and has been for less than 100 years; maybe its the fact that this is your second language that causes you to make these mistakes, but frankly, I am starting to wonder if your inability to be polite is motivated by something other than language problems.

And please, don't bother warning me yet again. You don't even know the difference between a block and a ban. Maybe you might want to learn it before tossing around threats, Bax.

Golly, Khoikoi - see what only warning one person does? It sends a message that empowers others to act like jerks and condones their behavior. Excellent job. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with feeding into this bs. Khoikoi, you should be ashamed and de-sysopped, and not necessarily in that order. You've handled this rather extraordinarily poorly. Bax, the warning stands: next time you make a personal attack, there will be repercussions. Full stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very hard for any body to see your arrogance. And next times no personal attacks to people. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment -- I see nothing wrong with Arcayne's behavior in any issue I have seen so far. He does seem to be singled out a lot.

--User:TheGrandAmanin (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bayrak sockpuppet?[edit]

I remember you previously dealt with disruptive User:Bayrak in an impressive manner. I think he is responsible for starting the most recent Persian Gulf-related argument under the account User:Ioj. Upon creation, Ioj jumps into the same disputes as Bayrak did, with same views, and a poor command of English similar to that of Bayrak. Bayrak has already used several sockpuppets. Could Ioj be another? What do you think? A baby turkey ^{[citation needed]} 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bestofmed again on Iran page[edit]

Good morning, How are you khoikhoi? The user Bestofmed that you have warned here on an Iran related issue. Has come back and accuse us of being biased and of Violation of the principal of NPOV and non relevant claims , ,.,,. His/her comment is here. This can be ignored however there is a quote ("Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.") in his comment. This is really concerning and humiliating Iran and Iranians, as far as I can understand. Could you please help once more with this user? Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see why clarification that someone isn't being called a "miserable fool" needs to be placed, I think that Schopenhauer's quote was originally written to denote precisely the same sort of blind allegiance that we are seeing occur in many of the articles. While - again - no one should be addressing individual failings of individual writers, it is important to note that historical revisionism is not part of this encyclopedia, and those who would use it as a platform for such deserve the stickiest end we can provide. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quilliam Foundation - issue of a block[edit]

Now that my block is expired I'd like to ask you to have a look over what got me blocked - the Quilliam Foundation article and edits by one Jk54 starting with text such as:
"Hailing from Bangladesh, after failing his GCSEs Husain drifted between Islamic groups achieving little of note.[3]"
(the "source" cited for that is Husain's book the Islamist) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey vote request[edit]

Please vote in survey over whether to include text in History of the the Islamic Republic of Iran

Text and dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=274961453&oldid=274952179

Arguements[edit]

found in edit summary and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Deletion_by_KneeJuan

Thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming[edit]

Please review WP:DR more carefully. The idea is that going to a third party should only be attempted after all previous steps fail to resolve the dispute (i.e. once you make a clear attempt to get a consensus with your fellow editors). This type of mass-spamming can be considered canvassing and therefore unacceptable.

My idea was to get input from editors in the Iran wikiproject as it seemed there weren't many other editors in the History of Islamic Republic of Iran article (besides people checking spelling and such) in recent months besides myself. I had no reply from KneeJuan - the person who was deleting what was as far as I could tell a good despription of the IRI - and I thought people familar with Iran would be in a better position to judge how suitable the text in question was to the article, than something like Editors willing to provide assistance. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do it again, as it is a blockable offense. Once all previous attempts at dispute resolution have truly failed, please try Wikipedia:Third opinion instead. Khoi khoi 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you're watching me for blockable offenses and I don't want to make any false moves. I've found the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a time consuming, less-than-helpful maize. What exactly would you deem a permissable way to resolve the dispute besides Wikipedia:Third opinion? And BTW, if you have nothing to say about my question Quilliam_Foundation could you refer me to someone who might. Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Nevill Mott's photograph[edit]

What could be wrong with this? --BF 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. If placing the photograph in another entry (i.e. in that of St. John's College) is jeopardising the existence of the photograph at issue, I propose that the photograph in the latter entry be remove. Incidentally, I have another photograph of Sir Nevill; is it possible that I upload it and replace the present photograph in the entry of St. John's College with the new upload? --BF 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the URL I had referred to and you asked for. I have already taken the photograph of Brian Pippard from this same URL - I could have taken the image of Nevill Mott also from this address, however the problem is that the image of Mott at this address is rather darkish (something that is likely not to reproduce well on less-than high-quality computer screens). Even despite this fact, I think given the circumstances the image would serve the purpose of the entry of St. John's College, Cambridge, well. --BF 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes. I believe that the person who had tagged the image (for its additional use in the entry of St. John's College) had been in fault: s/he should have done what you have done, namely eliminated the secondary use of the image, instead of tagging the image for removal. I think the people who thrive by tagging images for removal should be instructed to be more mindful of their actions; had I failed to notice the latest tagging, also Nevill Mott would have been defaced by now. It worries me a great deal that I need to die myself and in the shortest time the images of a large number of people on the en.Wikipedia will follow me to grave. Can one ever be certain that certain things will not just disappear from the pages of en.Wikipedia?! --BF 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did know that the culprit was a bot. But bots are written by human beings, and thus inherit the characteristics (often the most unpleasant ones) of their writers! Think of the Daleks: Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate! --BF 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uer:Bestofmed again[edit]

Dear khoikhoi, I have reported several times the edits by User:Bestofmed on Iran page (see here that shows how stable was the Iran page before his attacks). Now I have restored to an earlier version to see what Bestofmed means, wants... But one thing is out of my blood control level: the edit here is not acceptable. It had been a long discussion on that redirect. He-She deletes that without any explanation. I hope you see how serious is this kind of edits. I ask you please do something about this user and ask him-her to get WP:Cons before editing one word on that page. That page is the work of so many people with so much discussion. Allowing someone to come in and do the following

an edit that changes the content and still gives reference of the previous version is acceptable to you?
an edit that again changes the sentences to the way the user wants and not the references say. Is that acceptable?

I would like to know, up to when I have to revert this [User:Bestofmed], when in the Talk page it has been mentioned what are the sources what are the reasons...--Xashaiar (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Kan[edit]

I'm responding to the following post at my talkpage:

Hi, I recently did some brief copyediting for the Naoto Kan article, and I was wondering if I could ask you some questions (as you appear to be the main author):

The article says, "Kan also wrote a best-selling book Dai-jin (lit. minister) in which he tells the minister responsible for the Emperor." What does this mean?
It also said, "His action was completely unprecedented and was applauded in public media." Did you mean the public and the media or the public through the media?

Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Khoi khoi 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry abut the lateness of my reply. For the first one, I meant to say that the minister is accountable to the Emperor not the prime minister. For the second, I meant to say that his action was applauded in mainstream media. Hope this helps. -- Taku (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but I'm still somewhat confused. Kan is saying that the Minister for Health and Welfare should answer to the Emperor instead of the Prime Minister? Is this he a neo-imperialist or is there a different reason why he would say this? I apologize for my ignorance, I don't know much about Japanese politics. Also, I see that his actions were applauded by the mainstream media, and therefore the public began to see him as a hero and an advocate for the people, right? Khoikhoi 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he wasn't arguing for any particular change. According to him, the correct interpretation of the law is that since ministers are appointed by the emperor, not the prime minister, they have to answer to the emperor. (The emperor appoint ministers according to the "advice" from the prime minister; The emperor is however not allowed to overrule the advice. This is what is in the constitution.) As for the second, yes, there was a lot of media coverage favorable to him. This led to his popularity; that is, he is a kind of politician who fight for people. Bear in mind, though, that this happened a long time ago. -- Taku (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming Y-DNA articles J, J1, & J2 articles[edit]

Proxy or IP 74.60.14.141, this user insist on marking the place of origin of:

J1 as Yemen instead of the Arabian Plate (Arabian Plate includes Yemen is a better geographic term since we can't prove that J1 originated in Yemen!)

J2 as Anatolia instead of Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Anatolia or Mesopotamian Levant is still Mesopotamia), While Anatolia includes coastal Med regions with low J2 % & no supported evidence of J2 origin.

The same user also insists that J originated in Anatolia! Which is mind boggling since he also insists that J1 originated in Yemen! Instead I used the term Southwest Asia to be safe.

The user is presistant & refuses to open an account or discuss the edits! Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples[edit]

Hi Khoikhoi. Please take a look at Iranian peoples where User:Ddd0dd is not only trying to destroy the article's FA stsus, but also insults others on the talk page. And, if you have time, please also take a look at User:Omidirani who is most likely another sockpuppet of NisarKand. I have asked for a checkuser file, but no one has replied yet. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi. Here is one diff-link. Thanks. Tajik (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

I saw you post something to arcayne (talk · contribs) about his behavior. He is doing similar things to me and another person in the Captain Kirk page. The other person is currently blocked from editing pages for 24 hours because of it while Arcayne hasn't been punished in any way. He also also deleted the notices that were placed on his discussion page against abuse and edit wars. Is there any way you can help?

On the images of the Amir Nezam House and the Behnam House[edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, just wish to mention that the above-mentioned photographs have now been restored, thanks to your tireless efforts - thank you! There remains only one problem which I mention here. Kind regards, --BF 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The issue is resolved! --BF 14:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reverting of sourced material in Iran's article[edit]

I hesitated too much before posting this. I want always to avoid contacting admins and the admins' noticeboards. But you told me that I can leave a message on your talk page if an issue arose. Since February 25th, we started a discussion to improve Iran in the Middle-Ages section on Iran's talk page. But I am sad to tell you that some editors resort to quick-reverting of all my edits including removing inline-sourced material. They did not violate the 3RR rule but clearly engaged in edit war to revert any contribution I made. I do not want to go deep into the discussion topic, but editors agreed on putting efforts to balance the section. The user Xashaiar in particular is refusing any edit (although I told him there is no ownership in Wikipedia). He reverted many times my edits: here here (twice) here here. As you might have noticed I avoided touching the section for almost 2 weeks engaging in discussion to reach a WP:CONS. Following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I asked politely the Xashaiar to refrain from quick-reverting here (he removed the message later). Well I am asking you to mediate or point me to a solution in order to stop the edit war. My next step after following most dispute resolution methods is informal or formal mediation. May be you can help us resolving the issue quickly as you seem to be interested in Iran related-articles. Thank you. Bestofmed (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes khoikhoi, It would be nice if you can help us. I reported the User:Bestofmed here on your talk page(1, 2). The second one has a personal attack. I guess you did not react to my reports. Now in Iran page he has made lots of edit, and almost everybody on the talk page is against his edits and in the last 24 hours he has made three reverts (3, 4, 5). Note that the last one is "actually a revert". The reason why his addition is not acceptable is explained in 6. Note that I have showed, by using other edits of others, that his source is not reliable. That is one sentence that he keeps adding is wrong (look at point 1 and 6 of my last link). So what is then an RS? A source that has wrong, contradicting most of the sources (including the Cambridge History of Iran) can not be RS. Moreover, the user bestofmed changes the sentences the way he-she likes. (look at point 6 of my last link above). This is against wikipedia rule to include something that the source does not claim it. I mentioned this in the talk page but the user has repeated the addition of the "quesionable source". Now I suggest and ask you to look at iran's talk page and see how the user bestofmed acting against most of the editor (not only me). Moreover he-she accuses me of the ownership of the article. Please count the number of my edits of that page. Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User:Bestofmed block[edit]

Hi. I agree with the block, however - I'm thinking that 48 hours is a bit harsh. The user has never been blocked prior to this and has been around for several years. In addition, 24 hours seems to be the duration for most first-time edit warring blocks. This duration is even suggested at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule where it says "Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance.". What are your thoughts on reducing the block length? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 31 hours seems better. I did notice that he seemed to simply ignore your comments. Hopefully after the block he'll pursue some sort of dispute resolution. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Babakexorramdin[edit]

Don't you consider removing sourced material as vandalism? Also look at the history of Persian Gulf. He insists on including external links to non-reliable websites that are merely relevant to the subject (they are only relevant to its name and for that, we already have a link to UN). This was also discussed before. Alefbe (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should answer these two questions 1- Why you insist on your own transcription, while it has not an offical status any where? 2- Why you remove other editors sources? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alefbe, I remind you that I had already written to you, here, regarding your rather incomprehensible cleaning of external links. Methinks you have some ulterior reasons for your actions, as none of your statements seem to conform with reality. As I have mentioned to you earlier, I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms! --BF 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the Armenians article?[edit]

Two anon editors are edit-warring over population figures. I don't know who's right. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention[edit]

Dear Khoikhoi, I should like to bring this to your attention. I do hope that you will kindly give it the consideration that it deserves. It is my considered opinion that some people on Wikipedia are abusing their administrative privileges; sadly, I have been reminded of Mafia practices. Kind regards, --BF 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

user:94.192.38.247[edit]

This user has already violated 3RR in Nowruz. Also, it's very probable that this IP is associated with a registered user. Alefbe (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malicious decoy complaint from User:Alefbe. My IP is a static IP and is associated with no registered user, it's very easy to point your finger at anyone and shout murderer! but do you have any proof? User:Alefbe is edit warring unconstructively to the point of pure vadalism on the Nowruz article. Ironically it is me who has him under suspicion of using socks, and I have proof to backup my soon to be made sock investigation of him. For more information see the edit history of myself, User:Alefbe and the article Nowruz. Furthermore, my edits are mainly layout centric and don't constitute the addition of any new or controversial material. Isn't it a shame that some people like to waste their own and other peoples' time. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoi. This IP's edits are very disruptive. He does controversial edits and calls all other editors sock (WP:Shout)? He has reverted at lest 5 times today in Nowruz--St. Hubert (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our edit histories and make your own judgement. I'm not wasting any more time with this. I have more constructive things to do. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians"[edit]

Let me know if you need it. Regards --Vacio (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to address this?[edit]

Accusations of being "Anti-Turk" and/or Taner Akcam, demands to reveal my "true" identity, the member of a group of Armenian falsifiers, or all this nonsense: Are you by any chance 1)an Armenian? 2)related to an Armenian by blood, marriage, or freindship? 3) Are you benefiting from the genocide industry directly or indirectly by payments of cash or in kind ( in return for your services and in the form of salaries, fees, book sales, reviews, panels, speeches, essays, travels, gifts, awards, rewards, films, documentaries, grants, scholarships, aids, and all other forms of personal benefits too long to list here?)[16]. I don't believe this response is necessary when I've posted information stating that Akcam did his academic research for his doctorate long before his employment with the University of Minnesota. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity of Abo & Bernard Obama[edit]

I think it's on page 180.

Also here is another news source that mentions it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/barack-obamas-1.html Cladeal832 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian people[edit]

Hi there, hope everything is fine. It has been that for a long time genetic page was criticized for not being complete, not by myself, but from many other users for many different reasons, being the admin you probably are aware of that. I have some knowledge of the matter, and tried to make changes. My changes were reverted over and over again by User Tajik, this person over and over again accused my edit as POV and further accused me of trying to destroy integrity of the page. Further going on the discussion page on how "crappy" my version was, and Tajik claimed that s/he has been through all 10 genetic research papers I attached. Now this person has "no" knowledge in science in general, does not know a thing about what I was talking about. He/she then mentions that they have not even actually read the papers, not that it matters because they do not have "any" knowledge in the subject anyway. I did not get into edit war or try to enforce my ideas over other editors, however ignorant they are. But I spent so much time and effort on my edit, and I believe my edits should be varified by a person with even a little knowlege in the matter, not a total ignorant in the subject. what bothers me even more that this user actually doesn't know what I'm talking about, yet accused me over and over again of POV, crappying the page, etc. I stand by calling this user a complete ignorant, as s/he truly meet the definition. But none the less I see what you mean, and I personally did not pursue this argument. Please read the whole argument between me and user Tajik. --Ddd0dd (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning[edit]

Thanks, I didn't realize that. We should've taken the issue to the talk page, but I don't think User:TheTriz would complay with that. Iraqi (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reminder[edit]

Portrait image of Ichirō Ozawa[edit]

Hello, friend. Mr.Ozawa has been a powerful in Japan. But he is not a popular man. Because he is a schemer. Wikipedia is a fair site. Portrait should be a nice one if he is a evil politician. Thank you.122.26.95.13 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Khoikhoi. You have new messages at Fullstop's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Fullstop (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Bali[edit]

Hi. I just noticed this good save. Good-on. fyi, we've met before when I was editing as User:Moby Dick. G'day, Jack Merridew 06:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have the issues sorted. I expect you know much of the story here; nose about my user space for back story, and feel free to email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]