Hi Khoikhoi. An unknown person is removing referenced information about Armenian presence in the Iranian city of Tabriz (Azarbaijan province), and replacing it with lies. I told him (192.147.67.12) to discuss the changes in the talk page, but he simply continues vandalizing. Could you please protect the article? Thanks. -- Davo88 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered him on the talk page. Cheers! -- Davo88 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank again, man. Those Romanian site couldn't care less, and, not knowing any Hungarian... Btw, if you could quickly review this: I had the same problem with other UDMR ministers, so if you would follow the green-colored names and correct them if necessary, I'd be grateful. Dahn 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a second look, and it seems that the only one left for now was György Tokay (corrected by me from "Gyorgy"). But you are still my go-to guy for this stuff, so expect me to pester you with this stuff in the future :). Dahn 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the UDMR site was quite an obvious choice (feel free to edit a doh in your message). I relied on google searches, and they prioritize Romanian sloppyness (it's rather amusing to see what metamorphoses the name Béla Markó endures in the Romanian press - I still have trouble remembering which of them is his given name...). Dahn 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but, as you yourself noted, a given name is often turned into a family name. And it is just to tempting to assume that "Marko" is a given name... Dahn 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess that, had I lived in Transylvania, these things would have been more familiar to me (unless I was brought up as one of those secluded nationalist freaks). Alas, I am Wallachian to the core (which means that I can teach people more about how to eat polenta). Dahn 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You told me to contact you if I have any questions. Yeah, I do. You edited my edit from the "Romanians" article, saying "Restored range". First of all, there was ABSOLUTELY NO RANGE there before my edit, and none after either. It said plain and simple 28 million, no range at all.

And second, 21.6 million (the official population of Romania according to the 2002 census that is cited as a source there) + 10 million (the total number of Romanians living abroad, including Moldova, according to the last site cited right there on that same page) = 31.6 millions. I put it 31 without messing with the 0.6. You put it at 28. Be serious, you know 21.6 + 10 = 31.6 and 21.6 + 10 =/= 28! Mindless reversing IMO.

Later Edit: You do know I have proof. Official census site and Romanian World Council site agree with me. You can put there whatever, but the truth does not belong to you. Official census says 21.6 actual population of Romania. Romanian World Council says estimated number is 10 million Romanians living abroad. The lowest estimation is 8.2, and I've seen even higher than 10. Again, 21.6 + 10 = 31.6 . My edit saying 31 is reasonable. And here were people complaining about this even in the talk page, they said "we got ridiculously high numbers, like 36 million, and now we get ridiculously low ones". Exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, jeez. Why won't people understand that not all inhabitants of Romania are Romanians? Dahn 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

His edit was not about that. Read the history of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

You add 21.6 to x number, right? Well, let me tell you this: the article is about ethnic Romanians, and not all inhabitants of Romania are ethnic Romanians. I also don't know where you get your 10 million from, but has it occurred to you that "people living abroad" does not mean "people who are no longer counted at home" (e.g.: virtually all Romanians in Italy are counted in the Romanian census, because they are not citizens of another country, and because most left after the census was taken, and because census-takers were required to ask if you had relatives living temporarily abroad). IMO, the Romanian World Council is a sham, because it falls into exactly this sort of sophistry. Dahn 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of ethnic Romanians in Romania is estimate, also. He contradicted the information I put, which is taken from two official and legitimate sites, cited already by others before me on that exact page. And if you say "most left after the census was taken", it means you don't agree with the census. Sorry, but encyclopedia content must be verifiable. This is not even original research - it's original assumption! Go complain about this at the census takers supervisors or at whoever leads this kind of actions in Romania, as I see you are from there. This is supposed to provide accurate information. Instead, it got deleted and replaced with some numbers only God knows from where are taken. Yeah I'd call that lack of professionalism and blind editing. Honestly sorry if you do not agree with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Let me try to be a little bit clearer: the census' job is to count all Romanian citizens, and look into their ethnicity. This means: a) that all ethnic Romanians are to be deducted from the total number, resulting a total of 19,409,400 [1]; b) that Romanians who do not have another citizenship, as well as Romanians who have several citizenships, of which one is Romanian, are part of the 19,409,400 people (since the census counted these as well, regardless of whether they were living abroad at the time); c) there are Romanian communities reaching a number of x people - when determining that x, one has to exclude those people who are temporarily living abroad, all of whom, at least in theory, were counted among the 19,409,400. The "World Council" is by no means an official source, it is merely an NGO. One would have to find a source that clearly mentions all of these criteria, and estimates on the basis of them, not on mixing apples and oranges. I can only hope you see my point. Dahn 20:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll say that that is enough for me. I don't actually care so much about this article as to go into some heated argument with someone on wikipedia. But still - there was no range before, it said just 28! Now it says 21-28, and he said "restored range". While there was absolutely no range there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

There was no range in the version at that time because the page had been disrupted by people who messed up all possible criteria. Again, the "9 million" provided in the 21-28 range are likely to include, in one go, Romanian citizens irrespective of ethnicity who live abroad, Romanians irrespective of ethnicity who have another citizenship, and Romanian ethnics who are not/no longer citizens of Romania (not to mention problematic mentions of Moldovans). That is to say: the number of 28 million is not at all too low, but it may be too high. Doing all the proper maths with reliable and logical data will likely result in something between 21 and 28 million, not more, and probably not less. Dahn 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for nice welcome. Nice to know.--Borath 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not start Category:Terrorism in Turkey, Angusmclellan did. Please keep this in mind. If you believe this category violates WP:WTA then nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD. Otherwise please stop removing the category. KazakhPol 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Baristarim 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, László Borbély is the correct spelling for Laszlo Borbely. About the other guy I'm not sure. Both Gábor and Menyhért can be a last name and a given name too (Menyhért is somewhat rare, but Hungarians in Romania often have given names that are rare or old-fashioned in Hungary), also, Hajdu (which is definitely a surname) is usually spelled as Hajdú (but both spellings occur). If he had two surnames, they should be hyphenated, at least that's the Hungarian custom, but I don't know about Romanian laws regarding last names. This source lists him as Hajdú Gábor Menyhért and this source names him as Hajdú Menyhért Gábor, so I think it is quite likely that Hajdú is his surname and the other two are his given names but I'm not sure about their order. Hope this helps.

– Alensha ^talk 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose we can postpone the issue of "Menyhért" being his given name or his second surname, since he is seldom cited with the full form. Dahn 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Birtalan" is probably related to Bertalan (the nickname for which is spelled "Berci" in Hungarian, not Berti), but since it is a last name here, I don't think its etymology is really relevant (in Hungarian, as in many other languages, lots of surnames derive from given names, with all kinds of different and archaic spellings. Birtalan is certainly used as a surname, I know people by this name.) "Francisc" is not a Hungarian name at all, the only spelling of this name in today's Hungarian is "Ferenc" (and the only variation I've ever encountered is its old spelling "Ferencz"). So "Francisc" must indeed be a typo for "Francisco". The English equivalent is Francis/Frank. The most common nickname for Ferenc is Feri, its pronunciation is similar to that of the English word "ferry". regards, – Alensha ^talk 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If he lived in Mexico, it's possible he changed his original name to a Spanish one. I don't know any names that are pronounced as "fedie", it's likely that the guy you knew was named Feri (but the "r" in Hungarian words is not as rolled as in many other languages). The only similar name I can think of is Frédi, the Hungarian for "Freddie", but Feri is a much more common name. – Alensha ^talk 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on Francisc Baranyi: "Francisc" is actually [also] the Romanian form of Francisco/Ferenc etc. The man is either from a multi-ethnic background or has adopted the Romanian version of his given name - either by being baptized this way or by allowing the name to stick. This is a habit with some tradition: leaving aside aside from Vasile Luca and Ştefan Foriş, who went and changed their names for a particular reason, we seem to have the sculptor Géza Vida, who is often rendered as "Gheza Vida", Iuliu Baratky, Vasile Gergely etc. In another community, but relevant for this habit: János Mattis-Teutsch (known as Hans, Johannes and Ioan).

It goes both ways: a rather well-known Romanian entertainer goes by the name Ioan Gyuri Pascu. (Btw, looking through the UDMR in government page provided by Khoikhoi, I noticed that one of their representatives is named "Anton Niculescu", a Romanian name if I ever saw one).

What is certain is that Baranyi appears to condone and perhaps prefer this version, since mentions of him under this form are overwhelming (I don't know any Hungarian, but it would seem that there is no mention of him as "Ferenc" anywhere to be found). Dahn 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob, any time. Oh, who was it, btw? The First Consul of the French Republic or the schoolboy from Canada? I'm guessing the latter (given the pattern). Dahn 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that, too, but he deleted the first warning and went right back to being uncivil and assuming bad faith in the talk area. It doesn't help matters. The second warning was to suggest that first one needed to be taken to heart. With any luck, it has sunk in this time. Arcayne 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it has not. He considers warnings for civility and AGF to be harrassment. Perhaps it might be a lapse in my recollection, but that seems pretty indicative that the tag warnings aren't addressing the issue. Contrary to what you suggested, he doesn't get it. Thoughts?Arcayne 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This and this is what led to the first civility warning. After he blanked the warning, calling it "baseless", I figured that the point had been made. Blanking it means that he acknowledged receipt of it, and that was what was required. While conceding that - despite the rudeness, he had a point. I added the statement from the article (which had been the source of contention for two weeks) into the list of choices, and furthermore reset the choices in an entirely new section. This specifically addressed his concerns, and I didn't mind doing it, seeking an end to the bickering.

However, it did not end. Less than two minutes after blanking, he was accusatory and uncivil yet again here and here. It was here that I placed the second warning on his talk page for incivility. Accusing me of manufacturing proposed statements in a public forum is pretty uncivil, and certainly violates the principle of assuming good faith. While I had proposed one of the choices days earlier, the other six choices were ones introduced amidst the bickering. He was reminded of civility and AGF in the Discussion page yet again, offering him an opening to simply apologize and move on. I did everything necessary to address his concerns.

Rather than noting these concessions, he decided to instead address the civility warning here on the talk page, threatening to initiate an RfC, and demanding that the whole process be begun again (the new section had just been created by myself to do precisely that, had he taken but a moment to notice). Moments later, he addressed the new section, demanding that everyone be allowed to introduce proposed lead statements again, again reintroducing the accusation that I had chosen the proposed statements myself.

I have bent over backwards to accomodate Mardavich, and yet I am still getting uncivility and a failure to receive an assumption of good faith from him. I have held off on presenting him with a third warning because it would trigger an admin review and likely block. I am aware of his other Wikipedia troubles, and don't think that a block would serve the intended purpose of cool down, as the previous ruling has not accomplished. I am frankly afraid that the complaint would be seen in refrence to his other issues, and would inevitably work against him. I have had troubles with him in the past, and have learned from him that he does excellent work in many other articles when he does not respond defensively. Unfortunately, the defensiveness and not the excellence is the single trait he has shown in the 300 article. I am concerned that if he cannot focus his clear talent enough while also working with others in the 300 article, another editor will certainly do what I am holding back from doing. And that would be a shame.

I am not out to get him, or any other editor, but I am simply tired of dealing with the repetitive accusatory and disruptive tone of some of the editors. There is a general feel of 'us' versus 'them' amongst many of the pro-Iranian culture editors, and both sides are blaming the other (and of course, I know that Khorshid and Nader blame only me for all the problems in the article), which results taking weeks to address even the most basic of edits. As there are increasingly stiff penalties for a lack of civility and AGF, perhaps using the carrot of Reasoning and Compromise need to be replaced with the stick of being blocked for not extending the basic courtesies to a fellow editor, at least for the time being.

I hope that addresses your questions. You of course should feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions.

- Arcayne 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The civility/NPA problem appears to be occurring again with Mardavich. I think it is time you addressed the matter, please. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...for protecting Dalmatia... I thought my voice was being ignored back there.

BTW how goes the case with Emir Arven? --PaxEquilibrium 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia-related articles... many, many Croatian islands. You reverted linkspam from it. :)

By the way, could You please delete an image I created (I'm correcting it): File:Karta Bosne.gif

It has errors. Thanks in advance! --PaxEquilibrium 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gergely is a given name, but can be a surname as well. It can't be determined from this name what his Hungarian given name is; Vasile doesn't have any Hungarian equivalent as far as I know, and László has no Romanian equivalent. – Alensha ^talk 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced these names are equivalents of each other. It might be that he just choose a Romanian name which approximately sounds similar to his original name. :) – Alensha ^talk 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since his hometown was part of Austria-Hungary at that time, it is more probable that his name was written in the Hungarian form when he was born, but to not confuse readers of enwiki we usually switch the name order, so yes, it should be László Luka. (Your talk page is quite a crowded place btw, this is my second edit conflict here today :) – Alensha ^talk 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! I have many questions about Wikipedia. Where can I post my questions? Grumpanelli 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see his comments on this users talk [2]. How many times will Arcayne single out users because they are Iranian and involved in the talk page of "The 300"? His attitude is beginning to really become aggravating and seems intent on scaring away users who oppose his POV. This is really bad. Khorshid 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is zero, Khorshid. I don't care what someone's ethnic origin is - the anonymity of the internet makes such consioderations fairly moot. I don't know what your ethnic background is, for example. And call me crazy, but I don't really want to know. I have said on at least 5 different occasions when I know you were reading (as you responded to part of it), my POV is NPOV. I am not on either pro-nationalism side; I am on Wikipedia's side. I certainly hope that this time, the meaning of those words, like seeds upon fertile soil, find purchase with you. The user in question had posted twice before (w/two additional minor edits) small clarification facts - quite useful, actually - and a suddent appearance at a vote seemed odd. To wonder if meat puppetry is occurring is natural, I was not uncivil in my post, and I followed it up with an apology for taking any of his time.. That Khorshid seemed to show up moments later is unusual, as if he were stalking me edits. However, I don't really have any edits that I need to worry about, so he may stalk away, if such is the case.

I am glad that Khorshid took the time to bring this to your attention, as the concern of meat puppetry was a delicate matter to bring up in the first place. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, can ya help moderate the Van resistance under the talk page? (Hetoum 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

I have been looking for an admin who was active for an hour :) Can you approve me here - I have been having problems with my VandalProof and wanted to start using NPWatcher for a long time but didn't know the procedure (apparently I had to list a request at that page :)), so I kept on leaving notes at the wrong places. I have been doing vandal and new-page patrol by hand and it is getting tiring! Baristarim 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Baristarim 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you undeleted this image while its undergoing a copyright discussion on commons? -- Cat ^chi? 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For agreeing to move on. Regards, —KingIvan 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Khoikhoi, On the topic of Tibet, you can not just delete other people's addition without giving a reasonable reason. Please give a clear reason. Thanks. xiaoliang1

Hi, Khoi, I think you will love the admirable work of our common friend William Mauco:--MariusM 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[3]

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [4]
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [5]

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary and words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [6]

   Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [7]
5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[8].
2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [9]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [10].
3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [11]
4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [12]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[13]
5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[14]
6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[15]
7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[16]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[17]
8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[18]
9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [19] [20]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[21]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [22]
10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [23]
11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[24]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[25], [26]
13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[27]
14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[28]
15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[29]
16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [30]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [31]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[32]
17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [33]
18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[34]
19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [35]
20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [36]
21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[37]
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[38]
23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[39]
24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [40]
25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [41]
26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[42]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[43]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [44], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[45]
27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[46]
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[47]
29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[48]
30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[49]
31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[50]
32. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[51]
33. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[52]
34. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [53]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [54]
35. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [55]
36. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[56], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[57], "I see. That's bad news"[58]
37. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[59]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[60]
38. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [61]
39. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [62]
40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[63]
41. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [64]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[65]

Hiding evidence

1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [66]

Howdy Khoikhoi. I was checking an article I edited recently, TGP and I noticed that it could might be an article which may need moderating of external links. I noticed another article pizza which does the same. How would a person build consensus for this? Hope all is well. Jsderwin 11:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Archived, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Tibet article is ubder attack from User:Xiaoling. Does he not know an encyclopedi attem[ts to provide a neutral view? P.s Also habe you thought yet about joining WP Tibet -THe Tobetolgoist has also joined now . I welcome you fully ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at this please: [67] and [68]. Despite my bringing up legitimate grievances of the article I am attacked as being "easily offended" even they are promoting conspiracy theories like Eurabia by Bat Ye'or as "criticism of Islam" and calling Pat Robertson a "critic" of Islam (he calls Muslims devils and believes Muslims will burn in hell) even though they are clearly bigots. The double standard here is that if Bat Ye'or was promoting a similar conspiracy theory about Jews taking over Europe, she would be labeled a anti-Semite not a "critic" of Judaism. Can you please help there with the bullying or at least raise the issue with other admins if you don't want to look into it? Merzbow's actions in particular are reprehensible with his pasting of "This guy is a Christian, I'm easily offended" all over the place and calling me a troll. Khorshid 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly why the project has two banners one for Tibetan buddhism (historical, religious and cultural issues which are clearly not CHinese and one for WP china tibet for geo places. THis way it avoids the conflict!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think it should remain at Oszkár Jászi. Oscar is the Anglicized form, which he probably used when he lived in the US, Oszkar Jaszi is basically his original name without the diacritics, which should be a redirect as not everyone has those letters on the keyboard, but in WP we usually use them in article titles. Oscár and Oskár are definitely incorrect IMO; these seem to be Czech or Slovak names rather than Hungarian.

The English-language Google doesn't differentiate between a and á, so the majority of the hits it gave for your search on Oscár were Oscars. If you search for him on www.google.hu, which does differentiate between a and á, you'll find that there are only 10 hits for Oscár (all refer to the same book). The spelling Oskar occurs only in German context, which is not surprising, since this is the German variation of the name, and maybe he used it if he ever published something in German. – Alensha ^talk 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi. I tried several times to go here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand and add User:Aero stud24 by following the instructions. But when I add {{subst:Newcheckusercase}} to the top of the page, nothing happens. Can I do it manually by copying and pasting the previous cases and editing it? I really need to do this soon because he getting very annoying. --Behnam 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you please check these edits [69] I suspect is Bonny. Sorry, I don't know what's the procedure for checking this. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 07:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Help? Man... why Wikipedia doesn't forbid anon edits? -- AdrianTM 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I started to have doubts about the identity of the guy, but I think he manifests the same (more or less clinical) symptoms... -- AdrianTM 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I promptly added the {{User anti-anon}} tag to my account :) Unfortunately much time and effort on Wikipedia is wasted on reverts of anon vandals. -- AdrianTM 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit warring over Mjolnir (comics) has stopped. Someone else requested a "check user" action on Asgardian's sock puppet. He admitted that it was his, but since he didn't use it for nefarious purposes, no action was taken. However, he is now edit warring over Galactus, Mephisto (comics), and Thanos. I have requested temporary page protection for these pages. However, if the edit wars continue once the pages have been unprotected, what next? --GentlemanGhost 09:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you see his comments on his talk? First he calls me a troll and refuses to acknowledge my criticisms (calling me incivil, despite my anger being justified at this Islamophobia in the article - again if I was a Jew or Christian would they still be talking like that?) but now he also again calls me "incivil" and refuses to acknowledge the criticisms, and on top of that claims I am a sockpuppet of somebody called "H.E" Have you read the article Criticism of Islam?? Why should anti-Muslim bigots be allowed to get away with this prejudice, and then on top of that, why should they be allowed to ignore legitimate criticisms from legitimate editors??? I don't know if "talking" with him would help anything, but if you can get them to stop removing the dispute tag from the article and to seriously begin acknowledging the bigotry in the article (which is not "criticism" but "let's beat on Islam and Muslims"). People like Arcayne, Miskin, Merbow, etc etc all get away with making anti-Iranian or anti-Muslim (in Merzbow's case) comments and people here back them up, even though WP is not here for "free speech", but is an encyclopedia for education. Thats messed up that this type of editors are tolerated. Khorshid 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow again calls me a troll for a second time [70] He should be blocked. Khorshid 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Khorshid, regarding the edit that led to Merzbow's dismissal,[71]: Such statements as, "Muslims are the devils, after all, right? According to our Christian friends, we're all going to hell, so who gives a crap, right?...Damn right I'm easily offended...But I urge Muslim editors not to give into this bullying...So much for "Christian tolerance". Ha, what a joke," assume bad faith, attack Christians and urge Muslims to view Wikipedia as a confrontation between religions. Please take the time to review our civility policy as well as the other links I've included. Minding them will help us all get along, give your fellow editors a reason to take you more seriously, and prevent situations like this from arising.Proabivouac 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my words. You yourself saw C. Logan's patronising comments to me. You go read the civility policy - you single me out yet ignore what others say and do. If you guys don't take me seriously, that's fine. I really don't care and I won't play these games. Go ahead and do what you will with the Islam articles - if the neutral and Muslim editors are fine with that, then that's their problem. I did my part in raising the issues of bigotry in the article. It's up to the others to decide whether or not to confront it and deal with it. Khorshid 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And in addition, the fact that you justify Merzbow's attacks against me speak volumes. Khorshid 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I proposed a paragraph for Iran that I thought was very well sourced and reasonable. Ten citations for eight sentences, by and large from what I imagined to be sources who's reliableness is unimpeachable, when attributed correctly. Mostly the United Nations' High Commission on Human Rights .. anyways. The editors who had previously rejected anything about Iran continued to do so, with arguments which seemed quite flimsy to me. I made a request for comment, and all the feedback was very positive about the section, and the RfC editors generally believed the no section on Iran arguments didn't hold any water. Anyways, I'm kind of stuck. It seems clear to me that section I proposed was entirely reasonable and there were no policy based reasons to reject it. But with external editors difficult to get, and the disputing editors apparently content with the article locked as is, it's hard for me to make any progress. I don't think that it's really at a point where I can request mediation, which would be the next step in dispute resolution, but I can't make any progress otherwise. In short, I'm stuck. It seems to me that you've put me in a situation where there's nothing I can do to get the article unlocked. Are you content to leave the article locked forever? Please take a look at the section I proposed and the comments before drawing any judgement - it may not otherwise be clear why I think there's nowhere I can go. WilyD 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the addition of the somewhat odd section "Block me for 3RR" on User Talk:DESiegel. Why did you do so? I have reverted, restoring this section. In general im prefer not to remove content from my user talk page unless I archive it -- still less do i wish others to remove it for me, whatever its nature. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps an edit summary would clarify the purpose of such reverts in future. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for a quick response. I basically wanna rewrite the Van Resistance article - I wanna delete all the stuff that diverts from point of the article - going on to talk about some administration of Western Armenia and so forth until 1920, when Armenians acted in self defense ONLY in spring of 1915. The whole thing occurred over a course of a month, and the rest about administration makes the article look like a major headache. Can we at least agree the body of the article should deal with the ACTUAL resistance, and a history of the Van vilayet can be discussed in a separate article? I think the Administration for Western Armenia article does this. The article is called Van Resistance, but talks about the history of the Van vilayet and further diverts into politics of the time and the Democratic Republic of Armenia. Can we agree for the article to cover only the actual fighting period? (Hetoum 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Because of serious backlog in the report page, can you please enforce this? Thanks.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out Domitius' userpage. Also the image itself in question.--Doktor Gonzo 13:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think that makes it less offensive. The future of Turkey: Islamic Republic of Ottomania? Bosnia: Hercegovinan Sultanate? I've seen such remarks get deleted before.--Doktor Gonzo 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are the admin, I thought that was your job, not mine. I saw you reporting Maestroka's userpage and you reverted mine because I added a sentence that contained "Armenian nationalists" without pointing any finger to any certain Wikipedian. Anyway, it is ok, I think I know.--Doktor Gonzo 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After a year of editing, I finally decided it was time to dive in a little further and create my 1st article. A few day later, I was disappointed to discover that my article had disappreared from WP... without an explanation (I thought at least they would drop me a note). It was on a great little community theater with 1st class quality entertainment. Recently it had won national recognition for one of its annual shows. Although it is for profit (I thing), I don't have any conflicts of interest with it. See Hale Centre Theatre for more info. How do I go about finding out what the real reason was? Thanks. Leon7 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is under attack again by Ararat arev, can you semi-protect it? I know it is not going to stop him, but let's try.. Baristarim 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Khoi, but are these kind of statements ok in edit summaries? [72] [73] - the guy is just coming of a block.. Am I supposed to get insulted every single time I try to edit an article? Baristarim 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) I have to go out as well.. Baristarim 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

... but it would be entirely unjust if you didn't get it too ([74]):

I am being blind reverted on this article, with dispute tags removed and even my edits that should not attract controversy, such as translation of the man's name into Farsi and wikilinks, being deleted [75]. As two users are doing this, it appears there is a determination to stack 3RRs to prevent me from editing the article. As it is, the subject of the article is non-notable and as such could qualify for deletion anyway. What should be done about this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Either the admin in question should open an RFC or remove that subpage at once, as it constitutes an attack page against me. The admin in question is targeting and singling me out for discussing his bias and prejudice against Iranian editors. Khorshid 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See also my comments on his talk. His own comments on my talk contained veiled threats. Khorshid 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've invited the other disputing editors to come view the responses from the Request for Comment, since there've been a few. It's taken this long, so I'm prepared to sit on it for a few days (at least) and see what develops. In the meantime if you're amenable to unlocking the article, I'm willing to forgo working on the Iran section and work on cleaning up other sections. I don't know, maybe it's best to leave it locked. I'd like to work on cleaning up and sourcing the other entries, but I'd like to move past this dispute too ... anyways, you can leave it along for a bit, and I'll get back to you in a few days if I hear from the disputing editors (or not). WilyD 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[The end of an era ] lol. Their are more, still looking for them.. Chaldean 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You've blocked Weiszman as a puppet of AdilBaguirov.

19:08, 10 April 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Weiszman (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{SockpuppetCheckuser|AdilBaguirov}})

But Weiszman wasn't mentioned in the checkuser case you've cited. Can you clarify for me? Thanks, Ben Aveling 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Only because you appear to be away from keyboard at the moment, I've raised this at WP:ANI#User:Weiszman. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, I just want to be sure that no mistake has been made. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Ben Aveling 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where exactly you saw Gaziantep is a Kurdish city in the google book you forwarded to me? The part concerning Turkey is not there, it says it is not a part of the preview.--Doktor Gonzo 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way it wasn't me who removed the Kurdish name from the article.--Doktor Gonzo 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-wise we don't know who is what in this geography because we don't divide our population into ethnic groups since the days of Ottomans and I doubt the author made any scientific researches himself neither (unless you show me). As well as Turkification (which is actually nothing more than accepting the Turkish nationality) there are arguments for Kurdification. Some Westerners consider and treat the whole Eastern Turkey as Kurdish for example; what about the Turcomans, the yoruks or even the Arabs? Turkey, east and west, is very ethnic complex, Arab, Slav, Iranian, Mediterrenean, Kurdish, Turkic, you name it, that's why I don't like the way some try to divide this country into ethnic groups; that's definitely not in the Ottoman Turkish tradition.--Doktor Gonzo 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well after the results of inviting the other disputing editors to come look, nevermind what I said earlier. Leave it locked for now. If you want to offer informal mediation, that's great, or I can try the mediation cabal or something. WilyD 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Clement of Ohrid, again User:Martin taleski, reported for 3RR
2. Economy of Romania, Bonny is back.

  /FunkyFly.talk_  21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM is not needed for that move (Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators.). For controversial moves, the discussion should be placed in its talk page and it's already done. Jahangard 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibly controversial move and that's why I proposed it in its talk page. There hasn't been any objection in the last 5 days (in the corresponding talk page). About the vote, usualy the polls should be the last option (when there is no clear concensus in the discussion). If someone has an objection, he/she should participate in the discussion and justify his/her objection (that's what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say). Now you have effectively locked the title without considering the discussion in its talk page. Although I don't see any reason for locking the title (because there wasn't excessive move war), even if you want to lock it, you should consider the last discussions in the talk page (locking the title or the page should be a tool to persuade people to talk, instead of edit war). Jahangard 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This user, whom you have indefblocked as a sockpuppet, is asking for unblock. Are you certain that he is a puppet? Does not appear on checkuser.--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is why, as a fairly new admin, I asked you before doing anything stupid.--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it locked for the time being. I'll look at/think about formal mediation. Thanks. WilyD 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi,

Do not edit on Turk and Turkish related pages again, your edits as being an anti-Turk has been perceived as a provacative vandalism. Your future edits on these pages will be taken to legal status. You are free to edit an other pages including Iran.