User talk:Refdoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3

Contents 1 Iranian opposition group site 2 Happy Nowrooz 3 80.227.56.42 changing your comments? 4 VfD request on The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism" 5 3RR rule 6 Back from (semi-enforced) wikibreak 7 Martin + stuff 8 IP range block 9 Thanks a lot 10 "Vanity" and CSD 11 Blocked IP for User:Naturenet 12 Vilnius 13 Baiting 14 Turkey 15 Armenian Genocide Denial 16 Curiosity about name of user you banned 17 Stubs 18 Editing personal pages 19 Blocking users 20 RFC 21 Christian Flight 22 Iranian opposition group site 23 Hello again 24 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 25 Spellings Changes 26 Order of St John of Jerusalem 27 User:Ordrestjean 28 Ismail I 29 HTML 30 IP address 71.96.165.158 31 Ghorban Tourani 32 Shared ip notice 33 Your comment on User talk:195.124.114.37 34 Re: 62.6.139.10 35 Trouble 36 West Azerbaijan 37 Review 38 yekee az yekee bad-tar... 39 indefinite blocks

[edit] Iranian opposition group site

I am glad you finally locked the page about Mojahedin-e Khalq because regime was misusing it as its mouthpiece on an encyclopedia which people take seriously. I was hoping that you could read both the discussion board and the history section of the page and you will see that arguments that me and my friend made, and some other people too, were factual (by which I mean we quoted facts which can be researched on the internet), while the regime-affiliated people who changed the page, at one point even wrote "I HATE YOUR GROUP". That obviously shows that he (or they) have serious POV. In responce to facts we presented, they accused me and my friend of being terrorists (on the basis that I live in France!). I hope you can write me back a message, but I also would like to ask you to revert the page to the unbiased version, which at the minimum call the group by the name they call themselves, PMOI, (You know its on the header of their statements, whereas they never use the term MKO). I say this because I don't like to see facts and history re-written and also because I wanted to show my friends the usefulness of Wikipedia (at present they would sautomatically reject it as a biased site, not a factual one). One last point is that you will notice, I put a lot of effort in writing a lot on the page "Maryam Rajavi", with plenty of facts, but the regime guy has come there aswell and has changed that too. If you just take a look at his version you will see that it is completely biased and to be honest, full of lies. One can tell that he has animosity towards the Iranian opposition group and can sense he is regime-affiliated. --RezaKia 06:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Nowrooz

agha Happy Nowroon!--Sina 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Happy Nowruz. May the New Year bring you abundant progress and success.--Zereshk 18:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 80.227.56.42 changing your comments?

Were you aware that 80.227.56.42 changed your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? In this edit he replaces your references to "JDK" with "TDC". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was me, I don't know who JDK is and I'm sure Refdoc can only have been referring to TDC. Presumed to be a typo so I changed it. —Christiaan 14:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD request on The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

Have you referenced this VfD request on the main VfD page? If you didn't please do so quickly, otherwise, the page will be there for a while... See [[1]]. This is very important. --Edcolins 22:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR rule

I think you are pulling the trigger on this rule a bit fast. I didn't realize this had been elevated from guideline to rule and I had already commented on the talk page that I was taking a break from editing the article. I apply blocks very sparingly, myself, and usually limit myself to warning people which works just fine. Daniel Quinlan 01:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I'd gotten Quinlan's explanation above, and unblocked because of it. I thought I'd left you a note. My bad. Sorry. Snowspinner 13:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back from (semi-enforced) wikibreak

Hi Refdoc, and a belated Happy Naw Ruz to you.

Saw your comment re Martin2000, thanks for letting me know. Haven't had net access for the last three weeks, since I moved here. Only had dial-up, and there was something wrong with my modem-driver too, so I could only use email since 6 March. I just installed my new broad-band service today, so I'm back now.

Re your comments on our mini fracas - well, I don't bear grudges, and as I think I said somewhere, the fact that the Baha'i editing was getting me to the point where I wanted to argue with you was one of the things that decided me it was time for a break. I like to be a reasonable editor, and I respect those who also listen to other people on these pages. You strike me as that kind of person, and that's one reason why I didn't want to find myself shouting at you, while also trying to keep my cool with the less-reasonable people who had gotten involved with those Baha'i pages. PaulHammond 16:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin + stuff

Am on holiday at the moment hence my lack of activity on the Baha'i wiki pages. When I get back I'll help with the RFC etc. Fully support you though. 10 min time limit on this comp though :( -- Tomhab 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000 page, what exactly is the distinction between "certifying" and "endorsing" of the summary? Despite my comments and objections to this person's behavior, I really haven't edited on those pages much, nor made a detailed study of what has happened on them in the past. Just a quick look at the existing commments and edit histories though is quite revealing. ~ Achilles 10:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went to add my name to the "endorse" list, but noticed the comment: If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -- Technically I did try and fail to resolve part of the disputes, (about the photo) though without much hope of an actual immediate resolution, just an adding of my own opinions. It is probably best that I "certify", despite not being anywhere near as involved as most of the others seem to have been. ~ Achilles 11:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP range block

Regarding your recent comment on Talk:Vilnius. While I agree that an indefinite block in this case may be a mistake (because of the dynamic IP assignment), can you explain why do you think that a range block would be inappropriate ? The vandal in question is the only user using the 85.206.192.0/22 range. Lysy 06:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who participated in the earlier discussion there it is obvious that the edits are by the same person. Please, do not step in the middle with your judgement. Take your time to read the history and compare all the edits, then you'll realize what was going on. I'm sure that any constructive advice on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Lysy 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the addresses after seeking guidance from Jiang as to the clarifications of the IP address.

I wrote on his talk page:

How do you deal with a problem user with a Range IP?

An anon user has been using ethnic slurs against Halibutt at Talk:Vilnius. The anon was repeatedly warned that he would be blocked if he continued his behavior. However, he is using the 85.206 range and therefore can only be blocked for 15 minutes. I have blocked him for 15 minutes, and will do so again when/if he uses another ethnic slur. At some point, if not already, that's going to be laughable. Is there not some stronger action that can be taken? Please advise. -JCarriker 14:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page:

Where does it say the 85.206 range can only be blocked for 15 minutes? It's not part of the AOL or NTL ranges. It seems this guy has a dynamic IP. Given that all of these IP edits are restricted to vandalize a single page (meaning same user), I wouldn't hesitate to hand down a longer block. --Jiang 01:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given this vandals history to not only use ethnic slurs and to advocate viloence, e.g. "slaves- to gas chambers", I did not hesitate to block him indefinitely when he appeared again. If the information that I used to reach this information was flawed I welcome the opportunity to rectify the situation and any advice you can offer will be appreciated. Please note that his situation was persued cautiously and with a great deal of dialogue between the regular users and the two admins who responded to the situation; therefore I must protest your accusation of "abuse of admin powers", as there was no deliberate effort to violate wikipedia's guidelines. -JCarriker 22:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I apolgize for my brevity in this post but I haven't much time to respond. Now, as I said your asistance is welcome but I have three brief points:

1. I responded with 15 minute blocks, I sought clarification and the information I recieved was wrong.

Pardon my intrusion here, I have no intention to extend this discussion that seems to have ended, but I have to diagree - the advice from Jiang was correct and perfectly valid. Only not the whole range 85.206.0.0/16 should be blocked but 85.206.192.0/22 with a shorter netmask. Any comments that this range belongs to the "largest ISP" are ireelevant, given that it is used by a single user only and only in order to abuse english wikipedia. Does a block affect other language wikipedias ? In spite of what Refdoc claims, temporary blocking 85.206.192.0/22 would be the correct action to be taken. Hopefully this is over now. Just my 3 cents. No response needed :-) Lysy 06:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. I will condede blocking a ISP permanently rather than a user name permanently was poor judgement on mypart. However if you check, the block logs you will notice many users who have been blocked indefinitely for being sockpuppets ect., this may mean that this incident is not a aberation but the symptom of a larger and instittuional problem.

3. In my dialect "abuse of power" always implies an intentional act; e.g therefore from that view- blocking you because I oppose you changing spellings from color to colour is an abuse of power. My dialect, the Midland South of American English, is widely spoken and I think you should be aware of the ramificatrions of using can be interpreted. Cheers! -JCarriker 23:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cetainly, we're on the same team, likewise I have made a mental note of your input about your own dialect for future reference. Cheers! -JCarriker 20:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot

Thanks for your effort in mediation. Frankly it's very tiring to be engaged in such a long battle, and I do want to have a good and solution which is acceptable to everyone. But I'm a bit pessimistic. — Instantnood 10:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Vanity" and CSD

"Vanity" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If a page makes any plausible claims to notability, you should take it to Vfd. Kappa 00:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked IP for User:Naturenet

I'm pleased to report the block is now lifted. Thanks very much for your prompt response. I hope I have not inadvertently impeded your sterling work in keeping Wikipedia safe and clean. Keep up the good work. Naturenet 19:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius

Thanks for keeping an eye on Vilnius article and for your attempt to solve the crisis there. As you seem to be interested in working on the content of the article itself, you might want to have a look at our current discussion at User_talk:Lysy/History of Vilnius which is less nervous and hopefully more fruitful. Lysy 16:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Petjka Chuječny - Propizdonsul" it's the signature of "Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus" turned into Russian obscenity by our multiple-personalities guy. Should be blanked. You could not know this, but I think you're feeding the troll now. Lysy 08:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I admire you for trying to talk reason to our troll, but I am afraid you are wasting your time. It has been going for several weeks now and the only 'progress' I see is the troll expantion on other articles from my watchlist. I believe a long range ban is the only way to prevent us from wasting more time unvandalising the articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's too early to unblock at that moment. A while more shouldn't do much harm, and I'm not that optimistic even in spite of your success in eventually getting him to start discussing thing (bravo!). Ignore my comments about the ip blocks for now, I attempted to induce some pressure to move things into your direction. Maybe you could persuade him to register ? All this pretending he's different persons is quite annoying (and against WP rules I think and certainly not a proof of sincere attitude). I sense he would like to register, maybe he just needs some guidance, but probably would not take it from me as he thinks I'm one of the local Polish nationalists in Lithuania or something similar. Maybe you could try ? I'd only be afraid of creating more false personalities this way ... Lysy 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am rather satisfied with progress regarding Vilnius article, it seems that many disputed points are solved. Of course dealing with anonymous trols is difficult, but that's another issue.Dirgela 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baiting

What are you referring to? I can't say I understand your comment, could you be more specific?

Cheers. Halibutt 07:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I were you I wouldn't unblock the article as of yet. But we could try.

However, my patience has ended and it would take only one insult more for me to request that user to be permanently blocked. So far he insulted seriously and on several occasions both me, my country, my nation, my part of Europe, my language and even my ethnic sub-group. This, together with his conduct, makes me think that his blocking would be quite easy - be it by any of the admins or by ArbCom. One insult/vandalism/revert more and I'm going to ask for arbitration and blocking. Halibutt 19:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

Hello, welcome to wikipedia, I like to have your explanation on why you removed sme material? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide Denial

Hi, I noticed some of your edits to Turkey and thought I'd invite you to look over a few links: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Fadix vs User:Coolcat, User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat, and my talk page. Thanks for your time. — Davenbelle 22:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; here are a few other handy links: User:Fadix/Evidence, User:Blankfaze/CoolcatDAO. — Davenbelle 22:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity about name of user you banned

You stated that the name of "Dubistdas Letztearschloch" was "extremely offensive" in German in the block log when you blocked that apparent sockpuppet of some guy or other, and this inquiring mind wants to know what it means. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Just asking about this edit which removes the stub tagging from Mullá Yusif-i-Ardibili - a relatively minor character in Babism. I left stub on because its quite short and I've not yet added more detail on him. Is my understanding of a stub incorrect? I notice the same user's contributions are basically removing lots of stub templates. Should I just revert this one? -- Tomhab 11:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't tell if you've been online and seen this but don't worry - someone just came along and reverted it all anyway. Cheers and sorry :) -- 23:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing personal pages

Hi, I notice that many admins are very intent on preventing changes in user's personal pages. On numerous occasions, when I have tried to change my personal page, I will click back a few seconds later to find that an administrator has quite promptly reverted. When I have asked why, they say it is in order to preserve the page (a circular response). I find this quite irritating. I have had several usernames on wikipedia, and having gotten frustrated with tough personal attacks in edit wars, and I have wanted to change my username on several occasions. I have never been able to do so, so rather than change my username, which is now impossible, I get a new one, and then get attacked for having had so many usernames in the past. On several occasions, my username has been banned permanently before I've ever been able to use it, as was the case with Jesus Christ, which is banned apparently on the basis of its sullying the immortal reputation of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. Several of my usernames have been labeled "sockpuppets" and banned on that basis before I ever got to use them, on account of my having other usernames (which I would like to delete, but there is of course no mechanism for deleting a username, the usernames must remain). My point is, I would like the opportunity to delete the personal pages of these dead users, on account of their being dead and allowing me to get a fresh start. I don't think it is any business of administrators to involve themselves with my own personal pages, all the time they spend engaging in edit wars, banning other users, and changing personal pages could be better spent on editing articles. So I respectfully ask you to grant me permission to delete my dead userpages, so that I can have a fresh start: Apollomelos2, Apollomelos3, 5440orFight, and Jesus H. Christ III. Thank you. BlasphemousBlasphemous

I have blocked you indefinetely for obvious reasons. Refdoc 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Blocking users

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that you don't have to prefix "User:" to whoever you're blocking (don't block "User:Frazzydee", block "Frazzydee"). If you check Special:Log/block, you'll see that doing so blocks "User:User:Frazzydee". Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it just translates User:User:Frazzydee into User:Frazzydee, but not prefixing User: will save you some keystrokes anyways :) (it'll also look better in the logs). -Frazzydee|✍ 00:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the User:Frazzydee thing was just an example...please don't actually block it, it's my account :P -Frazzydee|✍ 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Come to you as very capable of expressing a neutral view. Could you read this:

Baha'is use what they call a representative democratic voting system which is split into 3 stages:

• The Baha'i masses vote for a regional delegate.
• Regional delegates votes for a few National delegates.
• The National delegates in turn vote for a worldwide body.

However, nominations, campaigning and affecting a delegates vote are all strictly prohibited. Although discussion is allowed, delegates are not allowed to disclose their preference to others. As such, a Baha'i on the lowest tier cannot vote for a delegate on the condition he votes a certain way (which is present in most representive democrasies) as this is against the spirit of the election. No canvasing is allowed as this may disadvantage people. Delegate weighting is not performed (so a country such as China has the same voting power as Spain dispite being 200 times bigger - I'm not certain about smaller countries such as Luxembourg or Monaco).

One editor has questioned whether the term Representative democracy is misleading since, in effect, the lowest tier can put no direct vote to who gets voted in (assuming they don't get voted to a delegate level). If it is misleading, is the term Democratic also misleading?

The guy has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the Baha'is for some reason (24.6.117.96 contribs and 67.188.7.127 contribs), but he's toned himself down somewhat and I'd appreciate a comment from yourself. This isn't so important that it needs a formal RFC. Although I have seen criticisms of the election process this complaint is a new one to me. See Talk:Bahá'í Faith for any other details that you'll need. -- Tomhab 14:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just checking on some spellings... You put it as:

• Councilar-republican

but did you mean:

• Councilor-republican
• Counselor-republican

Or were you right first time...? Sounds really stupid but may as well get it right :) -- Tomhab 01:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Flight

Hello Refdoc, I've started a new article that is called Christian Flight. It talks about the migration of the Christian people around the world. I thought that you might find this article quite interesting, because I've noticed your contribution to a lot of Christian related articles. Regards, --Gramaic 00:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian opposition group site

I am glad you finally locked the page about Mojahedin-e Khalq because regime was misusing it as its mouthpiece on an encyclopedia which people take seriously. I was hoping that you could read both the discussion board and the history section of the page and you will see that arguments that me and my friend made, and some other people too, were factual (by which I mean we quoted facts which can be researched on the internet), while the regime-affiliated people who changed the page, at one point even wrote "I HATE YOUR GROUP". That obviously shows that he (or they) have serious POV. In responce to facts we presented, they accused me and my friend of being terrorists (on the basis that I live in France!). I hope you can write me back a message, but I also would like to ask you to revert the page to the unbiased version, which at the minimum call the group by the name they call themselves, PMOI, (You know its on the header of their statements, whereas they never use the term MKO). I say this because I don't like to see facts and history re-written and also because I wanted to show my friends the usefulness of Wikipedia (at present they would sautomatically reject it as a biased site, not a factual one). One last point is that you will notice, I put a lot of effort in writing a lot on the page "Maryam Rajavi", with plenty of facts, but the regime guy has come there aswell and has changed that too. If you just take a look at his version you will see that it is completely biased and to be honest, full of lies. One can tell that he has animosity towards the Iranian opposition group and can sense he is regime-affiliated. --RezaKia 06:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Been a while, but I thought I'd just ask some advice perhaps. Take a look at Bahá'í apologetics. I have been really busy recently and barely on wikipedia but a couple of editors have been really busy which is good. I'm just not sure about the encyclopaedic style and layout etc.

I would be interested in what an experienced person thought of it. The content seems (at a rough look) to be reasonably good, but... an odd topic for wikipedia and an even odder method of writing. -- Tomhab 21:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Hi, would you take care of vandalism from 219.93.174.105 on pages of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Pahlavi II? Do you have any suggestion? Perhaps would you lock those pages? Thanks in advance!--Sina 12:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spellings Changes

Hi Refdoc, Received your note on spelling changes. I recall correcting some spellings, which involved mainly the name Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani. It appears some mainly Persian users are re using a much less used spelling for Azerbaijan, perhaps due to transliteration habit or on political ground to disguise the continuity of the term for an ethnicity or its geographical region. In this case I noticed few users have spelled stablish form of spelling for "Azerbaijan" as Azarbaijan or Azarebayejan and similar spellings. The current spelling of “Azerbaijan” and “Azerbaijani” and in its abbreviated form “Azeri” are established spellings in English for decades. Although the other spellings are used mostly by Iranian government and Iranian sites but the one backed by major Encyclopaedias seems to be the first version.

As an example I refer you to the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica of Columbia, where it describes “Azerbaijan, region, Iran : http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Azerbaijan

Encyclopaedia Britannica, acknowledging other spellings, yet only the “Azerbaijan” version is used within the articles. http://britannica.com/ebc/article-9011538

(md 09:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Order of St John of Jerusalem

Hello, I noticed your revert of my anglicization of the latin in Knights hospitaller. The reason I anglicized "ordo militae etc" is because their is a bogus order run by a fake german prince that uses the latin name. Since nobody officially uses the latin name besides the bogus order, I thought I should anglicize it to the more common usage which also includes the legitimate "Johannitter" orders in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. I will be changing the latin back to english shortly. Ordrestjean 21:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ordrestjean

I saw that you left a message to this user on their user page. To send a message you should write it on their talk pages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Ismail I

Hi Refdoc can you please look at the article Ismail I. the user Timbit change it without any reason and discussion. I am anonym (sorry) and I wrote some available source in the talk-page. but the user Timbit beleive that (see the Talkpage):

Syfavids dynasty was a Turkish dynasty and Iran was only a colony from this empire (see talk-Page)

and he write his personal idea in the article without any source and argument. can you look there and (wenn possible) warn ihm. thanks and regard 141.2.247.138 19:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HTML

Just to let you know that the useful little tool that tidies up HTML in sigs has been disabled temporarily, meaning that talk pages and utility pages all over the project are not displaying properly as a result. Things should be back to normal asap. -- Francs2000 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP address 71.96.165.158

keeps reverting on the Anthony Kennedy page without stating a reason in spite of talk page discussion, etc., on the issue. It is now more than three times; I invite you to look at the history log and the talk page. Can somebody please take some action?

Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Write onto his talk page, see if s/he engages then. Many anonymous do this thereafter. It does not appear to me as outright reverts, otherwise the 3RR rule would apply and s/he could be banned after the next revert. Having said this, you might want to check whetehr the IP address is an open proxy. many admins kill open proxies on sight. I do. Refdoc 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghorban Tourani

I have removed your clean up tag. If you feel the style needs changing, do so (as you did with the date - which you quite inexplicably americanized). Thanks Refdoc

Thats the whole point of a clean-up tag! When someone spots a poorly written or formatted article but does not have time or the interest to clean it up themselves. Its clearly written like a truncated newspaper obituary, which is not appropriate for wikipedia articles (when this is corrected then the clean-up tag should be removed). The time I took to write this I could have cleaned it up myself, same goes for the time it took you to write the above message. But it was the principle that you removed a clean-up tag for a poorly written article. Don't remove clean-up tags for badly formatted articles please! (Unless of course you clean it up first.) And the reformating of the birth/death dates was to put it in parantheses, as is wikipedia standard, I made it an American format because thats what I'm used to, switch it around if you like--I could care less--just keep the standard form: name (birth date - death date) beyond that do what you like, if it makes you feel better to have a different date format make it a different date format. There is no wikipedia policy on date format as far as I'm aware, American is not inferior to other date formats. --Brentt 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shared ip notice

RE: User talk:62.6.139.10. When you encounter a sharedip, please use {{sharedip|name of organization}} for easier identification. People doing RC patrol do not have time to read each talk page, but such a warning is easily recognizable and will help us in not blocking shared IPs for long periods. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on User talk:195.124.114.37

I can't work out which point of view you're endorsing ... *grin* Anyway, whichever, I hope you agree with my opinion that widespread naming changes should be generally made only after soliciting discussion. Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I read the version prior to your fixing the indentation. No problem in any case; he's ceased doing it since the last thing he posted on the page. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 62.6.139.10

Well, of course I know that. But is it too much to *hope* that the vandal will notice it? :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that "yes, it's too much to hope" or "yes, it's right to hope"? :-{ Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble

Hi RefDoc,

I see that youre back.

User:Diyako (who is pro-secessionist Kurdish) is running around making trouble on West Azarbaijan and Iran articles that you, me, SoutherComfort, Pouya, Roozbeh, Mani1, Amir, Aytakin, and a bunch of other guys have been working on for the past year.

He constantly engages in edit wars, and makes changes without discussing them.

Im getting tired of this guy pushing his POV nose into all our pages and making trouble.

Please monitor him.--Zereshk 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

baba eivallah. Az shomaa ham deegeh ba'eed bood.

If you wish not to get involved in the ethnicity disputes that constantly plague Iranian pages, then please introduce me to an admin who is willing to get involved in disputes involving his own expertise (i.e. Iran).

Do you beleive in the integrity of Iran-zameen or not?????

Why is it that I have to bear the responsibility of defending the controversial pages of Iran while you and Roozbeh and all our supposed Iranian related "Admins" constantly chicken out at such times? I end up spending WEEKS fighting a full spectrum of aadamaaye ahmagh that wish to see Iran in pieces, condemned, or unfairly portrayed.

Why is it that I have to spend time defending Iran in every goddam dispute (e.g. kordestan, Azarbaijan, Sistan Balchestan, Elam, Safavids, Arabs in Khuzestan, Islamic Conquest of Iran, Jundishapour, Khzestan, gays in Mashad, etc)? I probably have 2000 or more edits just from disputing Iran-haters. My total edits should be close to 9-10 thousand.

If Im wasting and killing time here on WP, it is only because I'm trying to help reverse the widespread stereotype against Iran and Iranians, despite political tendencies.

Know this: Many political decisions are made by judging the waters of popular opinion. I know this because I worked as an interpreter for the likes of Ahmad Khomeini. WP controls popular opinion more than you think. Ive seen its material (on the WP Iranian articles) used directly for articles on Washington Post and other news sources several times. And popular opinion dictates whether or not prevalent stereotypes lead to actions like this. I know the power of the media. I worked in IRIB. WP's Iran related contents get pulled up more than any other source in overall google searches.

The only time Iranian WP admins actually contribute to anything on WP is to slap copyright tags that have no whatsoever legal implications. Or they tell me to be "civil" as you did with this trolling editor Diyako.

SoutherComfort was the only editor here that helped me, and he got into a mess thanx to hurricane katrina. God knows what happened to him.

I expect more from you. WP is not a hobby. I have a seriously demanding professional life. WP is an attempt to affect political decision making at base levels, whether you believe it or not. That's why many of its pages are banned in Iran.--Zereshk 01:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were using WP as a "platform for my convictions", things would be very different, since I bitterly oppose the system currently governing Iranian politics and culture. I dont even believe in the modern Shia doctrine of Velayat Faghih. The whole system is rotten to the core. And yet here I am, with close to 10000 edits, trying to fight the stereotype, because it directly affects the lives of both me and you.--Zereshk 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Example: I spent a month fighting gay editors on the Mashad page. Look at what they had on top of the page: [2]. Read the caption of the image. That dispute took a month of my time. Being "calm" and "civil" toned begs for its proper audience. Not idiots who are here either for defamation, or to play games. Taraf e moqaabelet baayad liyaaqat e ehteraamet ro daashteh baasheh.--Zereshk 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] West Azerbaijan

That's good to hear. I'll relay that information to the Mediation Committee. Thanks, and happy editing. Tom Lillis 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Hi Refdoc, I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yekee az yekee bad-tar...

I'm a bit worried for User:Striver receiving posts like this. Please keep an eye on this lunatic who calls himself User:Haizum. He seems highly confrontational and rude. Im sure youve seen his spectacle on the Iran talk page (deftly handled by Charles).

Im also gald we reached a balance on the West Azarbaijan page.--Zereshk 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] indefinite blocks

G'day Refdoc,

a user from Austin College recently contacted the mailing list requesting an explanation of a block she had received, when she had never edited Wikipedia before. This is fairly common, and a necessary evil of blocking IP addresses; however, the block she was complaining about occurred back in October 2005 ... seems the IP was blocked indefinitely, by you, for a single edit.

Please remember that individual IPs are often used by many different users, and long blocks can harm users who had nothing to do with the original vandalism. I find that blocks of no more than 24 hours (except in extreme cases), and even anywhere from 15 minutes to three hours in the case of AOL users or bored school students, will usually suffice. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)