Again, you seem to miss the point, the article is written for everyone to read, headings such as 1979 doesn't make sense, if it was just the Jews in Iran, and the article is about Persian Jews, it seems pretty relevant that Iranian revolution should be used as the heading of the related section. And whats more silly is that you have renamed it as a 'POV', I doubt any contributers who put that is a Jewish Persian (from Iran, or outside!) --Kash02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the Persian language there are no terms in reference to Persian Jews specifically. In general, Jewish people are referred to by two common terms, kalimi, which is considered the most proper term, and yahudi, which is less formal. Don't you think that this is actually informative and relevant? SouthernComfort19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Persian Jews - it is meant to clarify that there is no Persian language equivalent for terms like "Persian Jew" or "Parsim" (which is included in the beginning). If you don't like that part and think it's obvious, you can remove it, but it's just atating a basic fact. The second part is simply providing the Persian language terms for Jewish people, and clarifying which term is more proper than the other, since the article is about Persian Jews, so why not include the Persian language terms for Jews as well? Why is that offensive to you? SouthernComfort19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, Wikipedia prohibits more than three reverts on any one article per day (see WP:3RR). Please be careful when editing Parsi (ethnic group) in order to ensure that you comply, as otherwise you may be blocked for up to a day. Thanks, and happy editing! Stifle02:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block[1] is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question[2]. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unblocking you on the condition that you use the talk page instead and follow 1RR (yes 1RR) on the article's page until a comprimise/agreement is worked out. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due repsect this is so unfair. The user Aucaman has been warned already three times since Feb. He has also reverted on the Persian people article, please check the history of that page, and he starts many edit wars simultanously. His activities are off-the-chart. Why is [so] much exception being given to him, while other users are blocked promptly? Please look into it, and reconsider your decision.Zmmz08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to him on AIM and he agreed to the conditions. However, if he breaks them, I will have to re-block. There does seem to be some reasonable misunderstanding. I will take previous edit warring warnind into account. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can go here for a review on his activities[3]. I have never seen an editor getting away with so much, as this user does.Zmmz08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know enough about Indian politics to "place" Indian editors when they argue for one or the other edit, but I'm not really tuned into the varieties of Iranian politics, or Iranian nationalism. I'm starting to get a sense that there's a version that believes in Greater Iran and that some of the editors now on board adhere to that. I also sense that Arabs and Jews are not liked, though no one seems to admit that straight out. When I say it, I get denials. But when people want to attack me, they call me an Arab or a Jew.
I suppose it's predictable that if you oppose them you should be accused of being "anti-Iranian", just as those of us "USAians" who oppose Bush get accused of being "anti-American". I just want the best for everyone, and I don't think that truculent nationalism, or militaristic irredentism, on anyone's part, is in anyone's best interests. Zora08:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did withdraw from Wikipedia because the Persian ultra-nationalist editors started calling me a "separatist" because I did not follow their party line. Wikipedias Iran-related pages are ruled by these partisan people. They will not even accept the term "Ahwazi", although it is frequently mentioned in human rights reports. They hate Arabs more than they hate the mullahs running Iran. Thats why they wont have any discussion on the issue. They even want to reduce the Arab population to "half a million" at one point.
I have just changed the population figure for Ahwazi Arabs on the [Arabs of Khuzestan] page to the latest figure mentioned by the US State Department which say 2-4 million or more. I can bet you that they will use their force of numbers to keep it at 1-2 million. It is on this kind of issue that I just give up. Wikipedia's pages on Iran are inaccurate and one-sided, but only the rich Persians in America have the time and money to maintain their lies on Wikipedia. In the end, who cares? In reality they want no Arabs in Iran.
These nationalist Wikipedia editors want a holocaust against Arabs. You know what these types call Ahwazi Arabs? Indians! They think that is insulting. What a joke! Hinduism is a Persian-derived religion! If being Indian is insulting then they are insulting themselves.
We know the truth about Al-Ahwaz and we know abouty cultural cleansing and even the UN and Amnesty document this well. If some Wikipedia editors want to lie then let them because no-one will take these Wikipedia pages seriously if they are just written by Persian nationalists.--Ahwaz09:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with you on Parsi. I think the material on genetic testing should be restored. It doesn't belong at the head of the article -- it's just too complex for an intro. However, it is a dispute re whether or not Parsis really were endogamous, and all sides should be reported. Zora09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dorood bar Iran sarzamin Parsian. Koroush Kabir dar ghabr khud khahad larzid agar befahamad ke yahoodi ke aan bozorgvaar az zanjir azad kard o panah daad, ingoneh namak mikhorad vaa namaak-dan mishakanad. Amaa bedaan ey mozdoor ke koroush asoodeh khahad khabid, ziraa ke farzandanash bidaarand vaa as miras vey paasdari khahand kard! Payandeh Iran!User:201.252.133.159 12 March 2006
You can always spot a fake Persian - this one (with a US-based IP) made three attempts to write in Farsi and it is still bullshit! This kind of abuse is what you can expect when you don't agree with people who have racist views about Arabs.--Ahwaz13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khamoosh ey yahoodi. Agar Koroush adamkosh bood ke tou alan injaa naboodi ke? Tou injaei chon ke koroush be ajdadet rahm kard. Boro tarikh melatet ro bekhun bani-israel!
You will get used to this abuse, Aucaman. There is a deep hatred of Arabs and Jews among some Persian ultra-nationalists. On Wikipedia, I have given up fighting some of it, just the worst elements. You will too because they grind you down with abuse. Take it from me, the person doing this vandalism is a Wikipedian who is too cowardly to put their name to the abuse. It is a tactic learnt from their experience of ethnic cleansing in Al-Ahwaz.--Ahwaz14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sepas kon koroush kabir raa ke ghomaat raa nejaat dad! speaas kon melat Iran raa ke be ghomaat panah dadand! sepas kon Iran o Irani raa ke be tou bee-khaneh khaneh o hoviat dadand! sepas kon!
regarding [4], have you ever studied islamic history? Really studied I mean, not just what islamic revisionists want it to be.
Mohammed's father was named Abd'Allah, because he was to be a priest for the moon deity Allah, one of the hundreds of pagan gods worshiped and enshrined in the Kaaba. This is fact, not fiction, and it should not be hidden just because muslims want to hide their pagan past. BlatherAndBlatherscite00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is absolutely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks--we do not allow attacks on other users, and ethnically motivated ones are particularly intolerable. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Chick Bowen00:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chick Bowen, user Aucaman has a history of personally attacking others[5]; please look into this, because unless his editing privileges are limited, experience shows he or she will continue to submit racially, and politically commets both on discussion pages and the articles.Zmmz00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do not know what happened...i also reverted the article to the last version by Assyria 90...Maybe we did it at the same time...--Hectorian02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been told that you were provoked, Aucaman. I trust Aytakin's translation, and in fact it was essentially the same as yours. The other editor is currently blocked, but I have left a warning on that person's talk page as well. If you are attacked again, please report it at WP:AN/I rather than responding. Thank you. Chick Bowen02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aucaman, thanks for bringing up that issue about the wording re. the Greek alphabet. I think we can easily solve that. - By the way, this just brought me to this weird RfC against you - what the heck is going on there? Couldn't help adding a comment in your defense. Lukas(T.|@)12:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to know that Zmmz has agreed not to edit Persian people for 48 hours in exchange for being unblocked. Please let me or ESkog know if he does. Also, you are on the edge of 3RR yourself on that page, so I'm assuming you'll understand not to try to take advantage of this situation. The whole point is to allow the mediation to continue--we expect all sides to discuss on the talk page before making any major chages to the article. Thanks. Chick Bowen00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I saw it right when you did it, then I opened a tab up to your talk and completely forgot about it for a few minutes :o --Rory09603:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do a websearch on "Ahmadinejad executioner" and you will find
plenty of support for the fact that he is an executioner. —This unsigned comment is by 172.171.130.199 (talk • contribs) .
It might look like his edits were in good faith, but what he was really doing was replacing the picture in the article with a vandalized version. The picture was deleted, and he recreated it twice more to vandalize the page again, desptite being warned not to vandalize. So, his account was indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.--Shanel15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like in principle your RfA standards, but I wonder if the percentage of edits matters so much (since things such as vandal reverts and AWB can artificially run up total edit counts and distort the percentage calculation). In my standards, I also look at the contributions to various namespaces. Are you going to add you standards to WP:RFA/Standards? Cheers, NoSeptembertalk18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't help--I'm actually taking off for a while (see my userpage for details). You could mention it to ESkog, an admin who was party to the agreement with Zmmz; obviously (and you can tell him I said this), it was not our intention for Zmmz to simply renew the same conflict at another page. I'm off--best of luck. Chick Bowen00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep doing exactly as you are doing - when you see edits you have a problem with, an admin will definitely be willing to look it over and figure out what, if anything, should be done. If you have problems with Zmmz which you feel are not being adequately resolved, you might have a look at our other options for dispute resolution. I agree that his edits to your "read/adminship" page are way out of line and I will mention these to him in a few minutes, after I'm done writing to you.
As far as the content disputes directly on pages such as Persian people and elsewhere, I might counsel you to just stay away from those pages for a few days - and I'll ask Zmmz to do the same. The pages will survive for a bit in whatever form; I can't imagine anything's that urgent or worth getting this frustrated about for both sides. If you take even a one-week timeout from those pages, you may find you can come back with a better sense of perspective and try to find a good compromise for the situation. (ESkog)(Talk)02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend placing that in the RfC in your defense. I don't really have a dog in this fight. If you read my comment, you'll see that my objection as stated was not so much that there seems to be some confusion about the precise correctness of the usage, but rather with your tone, volume and vehemence in your attempts to correct others (which often seem to be more along the lines of condescending browbeating). Your approach in responding to me in my talk page does nothing to encourage me with regard to that behavior changing. I will therefore leave my statement in the RfC as it stands. Please understand that I am not explicitly concerned with your correctness but rather with your behavior. Longshot1416:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YOU SHOULD STOP YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENTS AND BEHAVIOUR
- User: Acuman More individuals are noticing your counter-productive, degrading, and negative behaviour and attitude. My advice to you is to reform and stop forcing fictional or misguiding information on articles. What you are doing is wrong. Reform yourself. 69.196.139.25018:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just making a quick house call. I noticed an unfortunately hostile post here by an anon. Please let me know if there's some situation you'd like mediated. Regards, JDoorjamTalk02:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aucaman. I was trying to find a compromise with you and ManiF, and those 4 versions that you listed me for are very different. One of them ([6]) is a minor edit, not a revert. Therefore I did not violate the 3RR. --Khoikhoi02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the first 3 are clearly reverts. The last one is also a revert - you're reverting back to an older version here. But it's not up to me to decide so stop bugging me about this. You knew what you were doing. We're having discussion in the talk, but your name doesn't even appear anywhere.[7][8][9] Instead you're just reverting whatever comes up. AucamanTalk03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts have to be basically the same. They're not in my case. I was trying to work out a compromise and you report me, that doesn't seem very fair. --Khoikhoi03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carry out a compromise by making controversial edits??? Why do you think we have the talk page? As I said your name doesn't even appear there. I've always trusted you as a good editor, but recently you've been doing some questionable things. AucamanTalk04:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to let me know what was controversial about it? I was just using the paragraph from January as an example, and was trying to have my version based on Lukas'. --Khoikhoi04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In those last few edits, you basically took out the footnote placed in by User:LukasPietsch. You know well why this is controversial and you even make a comment about it yourself - saying that you're restoring a much older version. AucamanTalk04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the place to talk these stuff. I've restored User:LukasPietsch's compromise version. If you want to edit that section it would be nice to first read some the latest discussions and maybe respond to a few. AucamanTalk04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have been asked to comment on your edits in wikipedia. I am really reluctant to enter this war, which is mainly driven by stupid nationalism and political desires. However I would like to personally discuss an issue with you. I have just encounterd the following statements by you:
Long live Iran! Now go after your business. Dead-worshipper. You illiterate mental. And your Cyrus the Great was nothing more than an illiterate murderer. At least he had a good excuse. But you...??? And the mercenary is your dad.
Don't you think this is a clear insult to Persians and Iranians ? Do you tolerate if I use the same wordings and refer to Qazi Muhammad and Kurds ? Do you know about literacy rate of today's Kurds, when you are talking about literacy rate of ancient persians ? Aren't Kurds proud of their Dead-worshipping ? Read your statements again. It is not important why and in response to what you used the above statements. Would a cultivated person say such a thing ? Keep in mind that Persians have enough to be proud of and Cyrus is only one of them. If one only considers Persian figures in 20th century, we will have enough to be on top of most productive ethnic groups in middle east. Have you seen the list of famous Kurds in the history ? Haven't you heard of Kurds as a pure race ? There is also something else here. I understand why you and other Kurds think like this. I actually do not blame you. Life of Kurds is mixed with politics. From childhood, you will hear about Kurdish nationalism, Qazi Muhammad, "bastard persians" and so on. You become so much used to these issues that you may automatically think that Persians have also similar views on Kurds. You may think that Persians probably hate Kurds, Qazi Muhammad and Mahabad movements and so on. These leads to accumulation of hate and hostility toward Persians in you. But the reality is not what you may think. I am a proud persian. I have not heared of Qazi Muhammad until I was 30 years old and out of Iran. I had no idea where Mahabad is; in sistan or Hormozgan. Take a random persian let's say from Tehran and ask him/her about Qazi Muhammad. You will probably recieve no answer. We do not grow up while learning about Kurdish nationalism let alone learning to hate Kurds. Just imagine a Persian like me encounters a Kurd who grew up like that. Very soon we will feel that they are hostile to us and blame us for things that we have never thought of. I know it is very difficult to erase hostility toward perians from the mind of Kurds. Still, I hope this will change. I wrote here just because I did not like to join the wikipedia war against you. I thought that this might help more. Thanks for your understanding. Please be more positive on Persians. Thanks. --Sina Kardar10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have put it better in my own words. Will you please just keep your hatred outside Wikipedia, atleast? --Kash11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is one thing I agree with in the critical statement by user:Sina Kardar towards user:Acuman and that is that his comment was a racist one that was not only a personal attack but also a attack on a whole ethnic group. User:Acuman reform, you are damaging the community.69.196.139.25016:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's keep this argument rolling on and on, despite the fact that Aucaman deleted that comment and despite the provocation. Yes, this will go on for months, waste people's time and energy, turn Wikipedia into a battleground and ultimately achieve nothing. I suggest one thing, that if you are interested in some kind of resolution, it is not likely to come about with embittered argument, the deceitful way in which one or perhaps two users published racist language in Farsi and complained about the backlash, it will not come about by sustaining a dispute that has run its course. The offending statement was removed, get on with life now.--Ahwaz17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aucaman, I was a bystander during last few months watching your edits and other Kurdish wikipedians' edits and associated discussions, without interfereing. I have been asked previously to give my vote on the disputes. I voted and I take the responsibility for it. If you read my comments on the same page, you see that I only asked generally all Kurdish wikipedians to revise their view, without mentioning any specific point about you. To me the story was over. However I have been asked again to enter a similar discussion. As I said I was reluctant to continue in this way. I do agree generally with Mani and Zereshk and I think we have very similar viewpoints. I also have no doubt that four Kurdish wikipedians that have been accused of breaking wikipedia policies, they actually did so. And I have no doubt that they are attacking persian pages. About Cyrus, I read also your response which is again unacceptable for me. The guy is a symbol of an ethnic group and a holy figure in Bible. I suggest you not to burn flag of any nation. We should be very careful when we are criticizing respectable figures of different nations or religious groups. National heros, prophets, Gods etc are things that we should comment very carefully on them. Besides, you are by no means an expert on these issues. About your alleged ethnicity, it is not important whether you are Persian or Kurd, Iranian or Russian. You need to revise your views. If you were persian, you would need an even more extensive revision. This is only a suggestion and my personal viewpoint. --Sina Kardar16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin beat me to giving that editor his final warning. If he bothers you again, I will block him. Having read the RfC filed in regards to your conduct, I can see that you're not entirely blameless here.... But that does not mean it is excusable for anyone else to violate policy and harass you. The issues you have chosen to edit are controversial ones, and there is nothing wrong with that. You (and everyone else) should be free to edit whatever they choose, without fear of harassment or even incivility from others. I would only recommend that you make sure to keep a cool head, and do not violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (or, of course, any other policies) yourself, or you too will end up blocked. Right now, this case has gotten the attention of a small handful of administrators who are currently willing to defend you from the incivility of other editors. We will be disappointed if you do not respect the policies you wish us to uphold in judging the conduct of others. This is not a warning or an accusation, so please do not take it as such. If anything, it is a hope that cool heads and good, collaborative editing will prevail. Please let me know if there are any further issues. JDoorjamTalk04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to meddle, but the problem is not that people are against him because he makes controversial edit; it is that unfortunately he writes subjects that do not belong in an encyclopedia, yet, more importantly, he refuses to work with others under any circumstances, and in some way games the system. I really apologize for this, but we just don`t know what else to do; he is being very disruptive, and it is frustrating. Zmmz05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? You and Aucaman could agree that all notable viewpoints deserve to represented in articles. That very often takes the pressure off. All sides give their best case and the reader decides. Insisting that some things are not to be mentioned because they are "controversial" or "anti-Iranian" or "do not belong" is censorship. Zora05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointeed out all your mistakes to you for your own good but you try and have me blocked. That is not right. You are the one who tried to mislead me and other. I only ask you to reform for the good of the community. Those are not personally attacks. Did I ever make racist comments like you did. It was not me who mae racist comments or got into fights. It was you with other users. It is not me that mass complaints are being formed against it is you Acuman. When I ask you to be be civil and behave you try and make it look like I am attacking you. That is not right that is the exact sort of behaviour you are using in the articles that is bothering people. How could you try and say the Nazis are the ones who gave Iran its name when it has been called Iran for thousands of years! Iran was only called Persia in cetain foreign countries, not by Iranians, Central Asians, Far Easterners, the Arab World, Turkey, etc. But yet you continue and say that it is in the name of objectiveness. What you are doing is very not right. ANd by trying to make it look like I am attacking you it is even worst. Instead of racist comments go make peace with the people you attacked.69.196.139.25006:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it says there, that was for 48 hours. He's now been blocked for another 48, though I think that copy/paste was some sort of accident (which I'll remove). --InShaneee06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should imagen that your extending that offfer to me too in relations to Acuman if he continues any personal attacks on me or anyother user or is disruptive too! 69.196.139.250 23:42, 19
March 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to say in my defence I see it as a mistake to try and block me for asking Acuman to reform, to follow Wikepedia rules or not to engage in racist attacks. I did nothing wrong. I never got into a fight with numerous users, over 25 or so I beleive in his case. I have never once made a racist comment as Acuman has. I have not been the object of numerous investigations as has Acuman! I have never had multiple complants as Acuman has! I beleive that you made a mistake in trying to block me due to Acuman's complaints. 69.196.139.25023:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being Iranian is not an integral part of being Kurdish.
????????????????????????????????????????????
being Iranian (of the country)is one thing ethnic classification is
something else when making such claims please state what is the
integral part of being kurdish? and how
its different from being a Lur, Bakhtiari or Gilaki?
its been talked on the talk page but its not resolved
common traditions (norouz etc. ) same language family
common past (kings and queens) all Iranian empires have
had varied contributions from proto kurds (Sassanids kings where
kurds some had jewish wives so when making the case for jewish
and kurdish genetic link state the histoy of iranian jews and that
most of what we have now as imamzadeh shrines could be linked to
and could be the tombs lesser known jewish prophets
whats Corduene compared to the existance of these people
in all the main kingdoms even during the existence of that
shortlived entity it cant be said that all proto kurds
where concentrated there as most would have formed the
core of the bigger iranian empires
why all this rush to erase the Iranian part what purpose
does it serve its definitely not the truth
can you state any historical chronicles that would show that 2
or 5 or 7 centuaries ago the people living in the area you
discuss had more ties with each other than to other neighbouring
tribes.
can you qoute salladin on the essence of kurdish utopia ...please
for the love of god dont qoute and use it as fact
"Being Iranian is not an integral part of being Kurdish".
yes a kurd in turkey may not view the islamic republic of iran
as his homeland but then a kermanshahi kurd too will have far less
in common with him as he would have with a Lak or a Lur or even a
person from Gilan.
ofcourse this is my observation and POV as much as your statement is
but then what makes your claim more qualified —This unsigned comment was added by Loosekarma (talk • contribs) .
