Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 16 May 2007

Hello Atabek! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Safavid dynasty

You are correct; the source does not mention Safi Al-Din. It is better to provide an explanation in an edit summary for these things. You are also correct that unsourced claims should be removed (see this email by Jimbo). However, let's see if sources can be provided first. You might consider making a comment at Talk:Safavid dynasty and Talk:Safi Al-Din. Regards, Khoikhoi 07:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

References on Musavat

Those references were put in on Adil's requestion. Plus, there is no harm in mentioning references. I suggest you reinsert them before Adil Baguirov decides to take the information out again.Azerbaijani 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I said, the nature of Musavat is mentioned at length on Musavat page. No need to reinsert the quotes on every single page related to Azerbaijan, as it's only a political party. I suggest rather coming up with other useful references than using same block of text inserted on every single page. Contribution is essential. Atabek 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OldMusavat.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavids

Salam. Do you agree with my edition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Salam. Yes, I do so far. Totally agree with top part, except you might want to change independent Iranian state to Iranian empire, as that was part of the consensus. Also, the background of Safavi order has lower priority than founder section, because the page is devoted to Safavid Dynasty, and the founder of Dynasty was Ismail, who was of Safavi order. So it should first introduce the founder, then about his background. But in general, I agree with your balanced edit. Thanks for doing this. Atabek 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ignore my opinion on swapping background and founder sections, it looks good the way it is. Thanks. Atabek 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Shah Esmail poems:Although I'm Persian but I like him, I found that the poems of him is duplicated.

There is written in "Founder of the Safavid empire" that"Shah Ismail is also known as a poet of primarily Azerbaijani language, while fewer Persian language verses also remains, all under the nickname of Khatai. The collection of his poems written in Azeri Turkic were published as a Divan" and again in "culture" we can see "Shah Ismail I himself wrote most of his poems in Azerbaijani, as well as in Persian and Arabic, while Shah Tahmasp was a painter. "

Do you agree to move all of this to culture.--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should move to Culture section only the second sentence "The collection of his poems ...", and add the reference back to the end of sentence "...Khatai.", but leave this first sentence in Founder shortened as "Shah Ismail is also known as poet under a nickname of Khatai". I think it's fair to indicate in the "Founder" section that he was a poet, the details we can move to culture section.

Another note:

Culture flourished under Safavid patronage. Shah Ismail I himself wrote most of his poems in Azerbaijani, as well as in Persian and Arabic, while Shah Tahmasp was a painter. Shah Abbas II was known as a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani..

You may want to change both "Azerbaijani" and "Turkic verse" to say "Azeri Turkic" or "Azerbaijani Turkic". Let's say:

Culture flourished under Safavid patronage. Shah Ismail I himself wrote poems primarily in Azeri Turkic under a pen-name of Khatai. The collection of his poems in Azeri Turkic were published as a Divan, while few Persian and Arabic verses of his are also known. His son, Shah Tahmasp was a painter, while their descendant Shah Abbas II was known also a poet, writing Azeri Turkic verses under the pen name of Tani .

Thanks.Atabek

I edited the article and copied this debate in Talk:Safavid dynasty.--Sa.vakilian 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ismail I

Do you even check what you're reverting? Nobody has removed anything from Ismail I, "Ismail's advent to power was due to Qizilbash Turkoman tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan" is right there in the article under "Life and Political History" where it belongs, in the paragraph about his rise to power in the correct chronological order. Please do not make blind reverts. --Mardavich 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Musavat covenant

Hi, Atabek that covenant is surely the first draft of covenant of Musavat of 1911, but the real, FIRST covenant was accepted after musavat merged with turkish party of federalists in 1917. the translation of tahat covenanat is given in Aydin Balayev's book as an appendix, but I also have its text in original language(azeri turkic) published in one newspaper in 1990s. i am going to translate essencial parts and create an article about it in wikipedia. then it will be evident as tthe sun that this party is no panturkist or panislamist in any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsanaturk (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Atabek,I have a certain deal, what do you think, we should gather together all our arguments against panturk+panislamist accusations of User:Azerbaijani and his biased sources, because as I see all our arguments are dispersed among various talkpages, and when all these dispersed arguments would be collected, I do not know how, but, some among you, experienced user would request for mediation. because this guy has a certain intention to distort azerbaijani pages, and no talkpages can stop him/her from his "activities". so i think the only way to stop it by wikipedia administration Elsanaturk 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've send this message to Adil, I'll send this message to other wiki azeri users Elsanaturk 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavids

Atabek, you edited the old version, starting a new edit war, without discussing the issue. And now you ask others not to make any changes?! I proposed a new intro and friendly asked you not to revert at least for 1 or 2 days and to express your thoughts on the new intro. After that, you could have easily reverted.

We have discussed the current version for at least 10 days, without reaching any compromise or consensus. Why do you block the new version now?! Do you really expect others to accept the current version although all discussion has failed in the past 10 days?

Your recent revert is no help at all. I tried to improve the article by doing some changes. The first change was reverted by Khoikhoi who wanted to revert a vandal and not me. And now you automatically reverted my proposal without any discussion, although I had asked you not to revert it for at least 1 day.

That way, we won't reach any compromise, simply because you are so much focused on your own version, not allowing anyone else to express their thoughts. Tājik 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, I am not starting an edit war, but you should not be editing the page, when we are involved in an unresolved dispute on talk page. That's normal way this page has been operating to avoid edit wars and all consequences thereof. Disputes are resolvable, and the version currently there is not even final by me, but by Sa.Vakilian and supported by Ali Doostzadeh and few others. Even Kiumars agrees with many points, while you try to change very sensitive information without final decisions. Let's get back to discussion and exercise some patience and understanding of opposite points, just like most of us do. Atabek 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

I undid your report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR because you inadvertently erased mine in the process. Bobanny 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As you already know, calling other editors vandals is considered incivility. This and this are unacceptable, particularly in light of my previous remarks to you about this very matter. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DmcDevit, I haven't called the person vandal, I called his action vandalism. It's sad that despite reports you take no action to protect the pages, the content of which was competely removed, but rather concentrate on just plain blocking of personalities. It seems as though you feel quite powerful having admin "stick" in your hand, but pay very little attention to the content of edited pages as well as contributions of users. Atabek 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have opened an arbitration case regarding the current editing dispute you've been involved in. Please make a statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan concerning the conflict with the other parties listed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks removed, they sometimes recur so please place another request if this isn't resolved. --pgk 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re

Done. Khoikhoi 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Qazakh

Hello Atabek. I think it's time that the dispute at Qazakh be resolved. Please let me know what you think of Aivazovsky's compromise proposal:

Under the Russian Empire, the rayon was a north-eastern part of the Kazakh uyezd of the Elisavetpol guberniya. With the fall of the Russian Empire, dispute over the region arose between the Armenians (who made up 39% of the population) and the Azerbaijanis (who comprised 57%). When the South Caucasus came under British occupation, Sir John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus, decided that assigning the Erivan and Kars guberniyas to Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Elisavetpol and Baku guberniyas to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) would solve the region's outstanding disputes. However, this proposal was rejected by both Armenians (who did not wish to give up their claims to Kazakh, Zangezur (today Syunik), and Nagorno-Karabakh) and Azerbaijanis (who found it unacceptable to give up their claims to Nakhichevan). As conflict broke out between the two groups, the British left the region in mid-1919.
After the British left and more fighting between Armenians and Azeris ensued, Bolshevik forces gained control of the region and annexed it to Bolshevist Russia. During the process of Sovietization, the borders of the Transcaucasian republics were redrawn several times. By 1927, the territory of the former Kazakh uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines. The northern region, including the town of Qazakh itself was given to Azerbaijan while the southern portion, roughly corresponding to the present-day Armenian province Tavush was given to Armenia. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia gained control of Yukhari Askipara and Barkhudarli, the two exclaves of Qazakh. Besides this, neither country has disputed the boundary since.

1. W.E.D. Allen (published 1927). New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus. The Geographical Journal. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Feel free to reply on my talk page. Thanks, Khoikhoi 10:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I think I've addressed most of your concerns, which I have highlighted in bright yellow. The only one that is still a problem is the sentence, "After the British left and more fighting between Armenians and Azeris ensued, Bolshevik forces gained control of the region and annexed it to the Soviet Union." I've added "according to Armenian sources" to it for now, but it needs to be cited which Armenian sources specifically. We can perhaps add another sentence beside it showing the alternate POV. Also, we don't have to use Andersen in the article, I think Aivazovsky has already stated this. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to purge Misplaced Pages of everything by Andersen right now, especially because it might start new edit wars, something we should avoid. Regards, Khoikhoi 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made all the changes except for the the last one. The reason why is because I think the word "controlled" in this case follows WP:NPOV more. Armenian sources might use the word "liberation", so I think "control" is sort of a compromise. Also, I've changed "Sovet Union" to "Bolshevist Russia". Please let me know what you think. Khoikhoi 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, see Military of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for example. Should we change the TRNC article to say it is occupied as well? I have no opinion on Andersen. Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The United States government also says that the PKK is a terrorist organization, but on Misplaced Pages, we tend to avoid that word. My main point: is the word "control" NPOV or not? Khoikhoi 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not questioning the sources. I'm just saying that the word "control" is NPOV. This is the word that most Azerbaijan-related articles use anyways. It's not like it's Armenian POV or anything - Armenians would use "liberated", right? Khoikhoi 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in which you have been named as a party. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. The case remains open for the submission of evidence or proposals. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitration evidence

I'm writing again as a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee. You have placed responses or rebuttal in another user's section on the evidence page. As the instructions indicate, each user should place evidence in his or her section only, and subject to a length limit of approximately 1000 words. Since as far as I know this is your first experience with arbitration, rather than simply going ahead and removing the threaded discussion I am giving you 24 hours to remove what you have put in other people's sections and incorporate it, if you see fit, in your own section within the overall limit. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, I'm pleased. Regards, Grandmaster 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Qazakh

Hey Atabek, I see you've been ironing out some issues with my compromise version of the Qazakh article with User:Khoikhoi. Just to let you know, I approve of these changes and I'm glad that you wcould work with someone on them.

Regarding Andersen, I will be willing to remove all references to him from the article, if you promise not to remove any other Andersen references from any other Misplaced Pages article (right now he's serving as a "glue" holding together many articles on Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian history). If Andersen is suddenly removed from every article presently involving him, then that will create a huge rift with the Georgian editors, which I don't think either of us want. In fact, Andersen was recommended to my by Georgian editors when I was looking for an NPOV source for the Nakhichevan article which I worked on with User:Grandmaster and several other users this past summer.

Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Andersen's map cannot be removed from the ADR page. It is a neutral map that represents the reality in the Caucasus at the time. The Paris Peace Conference map represents wishful thinking and a pan-Azerbaijani dream to take over more than 50% of Armenia. -- Aivazovsky 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the big issue most Azeri users have with Andersen's map is that it claims that Armenia eventually assumed controlled over the disputed territories. What if I altered Andersen's map to remove this? Would you agree to keep it then? -- Aivazovsky 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Georgian sources mention their claims over Zaqtala. If you don't believe me, ask User:Kober or any other Georgian user here on Misplaced Pages. -- Aivazovsky 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I'm open to compromise, but I will never agree to use the Paris Peace Conference map. I would rather the ADR article have no map at all. -- Aivazovsky 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have been in contact with Mr. Andersen and trust me, he is no racist. He is sympathetic to both Armenians and Azeris. Also ask Kober or any Georgian user that knows the guy. If we cut Andersen from Misplaced Pages, then we will be dealing a blow to our neighbors of the Caucasus. We also risk ruining our relations with Georgian editors. -- Aivazovsky 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, if I altered Andersen's map to remove the text regarding Armenia taking over the disputed territories than would you agree to keep it then? Please, I really don't feel like opening up a can of worms by putting all of Andersen's sources at risk. -- Aivazovsky 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Andersen's map is the truth and it is not "directed against Azerbaijan." -- Aivazovsky 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting User:Khoikhoi and User:Kober involved in this. No matter what we come to agree on, I still stand firm on my earlier position: I will never agree to use the Paris Peace Conference map. -- Aivazovsky 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan

Robert599 is actually not banned; I only blocked him for 3 days. He is no longer blocked right now. I've warned Zurbagan anyways. Khoikhoi 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have CheckUser, so there's not much I can do. I guess just wait. Khoikhoi 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issues

I'm cross-posting this response to the note you left on my talkpage to make sure you see it promptly. I believe you have misunderstood me. I said that I would be more flexible than some other people about the word limit for evidence on the arbitration pages— not about enforcing contributors' rights of privacy. In fact if you are familiar with my work as an editor and an administrator, you will know that I place the highest importance on protecting people's privacy. I hope this clarifies the apparent misunderstanding. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Huseyn Javid on DYK for 11 March 2007

On 11 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huseyn Javid, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! — ERcheck (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What?!

The link goes to Iranian Azerbaijan anyway, what are you doing? You are trying to manipulate the facts. The Safavids were from Iranian Azerbaijan!Azerbaijani 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harassment policy

In general, anyone that actually reveals their name themselves is no longer protected from discussion of it; there is no violation of that particular policy in the cases you note.

The other issues will, as I've said, be considered by the Committee in due time. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Qazax

Talk:Qazakh#Compromise?? Khoikhoi 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting. I was just concerned because we were still discussing the matter of Andersen, and although we've agreed that he doesn't need to be in the Qazakh article, I don't think there a consensus yet if he should be removed from all of Misplaced Pages. Maybe you could start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources. Khoikhoi 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it. My point is that it's not a good idea to go on a rampage, which might make things worse. :-( Khoikhoi 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the 1RR injunction imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabəy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You guys have taken no action regarding my reporting of 1RR violation by User:Vartanm who is clearly involved in the case prior to Penwhale removing it and with evidence Vartanm presented at . I am puzzled by Penwhale clear attempt to remove legitimate statement and proof that user is well aware of his participation in ArbCom case. User:Artaxiad was the first to revert the page . I am very disappointed by the amount of side-taking and inbalance in this case in favor of the Armenian side. Along with harassment , User:Artaxiad has now even been caught meetpuppeting and calling for edit wars in Wiki, outside of Misplaced Pages, in HyeForum.com . Yet I am the user being blocked, while they're walking free, given encouragement and continuing to abuse Misplaced Pages rules.

Decline reason:

Is it your claim that you deliberately violated the 1RR injunction to prove a point? If so, you are guilty of a WP:POINT violation as well. If not, your statements here are irrelevant to your violation. — Yamla 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbitration

The arbitration committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is way over. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. You should be able to present evidence of disruptive editing, personal attacks, or other matters for arbitration with a few representative diffs of the best (or worst) examples. It is also important to keep in mind that Arbitration is meant to solve disputes, or failing that, to remove disputing editors. Arbitration is not simply another page to continue your battles. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In response

In response to your email, while I do realize that it is easy to get frustrated during an editing dispute, the continuous edit warring has already apparently been disruptive enough that ArbCom saw fit to issue an injunction. If other editors are conducting themselves disruptively or violating the injunction, report them. I certainly have no intent of taking any side in this conflict, and to be quite honest, I couldn't tell you which side any of the given participants is even on, nor do I particularly care to find out. I can't comment on the other report you made, as I was not involved in the process of making that decision. I do hope that you'll return after your block to edit constructively, and I hope that everyone involved in this situation can work out their differences. Remote a possibility as that may seem now, it's always possible. Best wishes, Seraphimblade 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Armenian terrorism

Merhaba Atabek. Apperantly we can't have a category with terrorism in it, it is Wiki rules. I'll try to make a more appropriate cat later. Thanks.--Doktor Gonzo 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a research, there is no category for Irish terrorism nor for Basque terrorism neither. I don't think there is any discriminations concerning this. But as I said we can make another category or article for these events. The list of bombings, murders and assassinations against Turks by armed Armenian groups is a pretty long list.--Doktor Gonzo 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

Please remain calm and assume good faith. Comment on the article, not the commenters. Thanks --AW 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: March Days

It appears this is no longer an issue. Khoikhoi 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your comment on this debate. --Scientia Potentia 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

The arbitration case involving you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has placed you on standard revert parole for a year. This means that you may revert only once per article per week except to revert obvious vandalism. Furthermore, you must explain your reasonings for content reverts on the associated talk page.

You may review the full decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr , checkuser clerk, 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Template:Do not delete VartanM 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

socks

This has nothing to do with you per se. They are socks; of whom, I don't know. I'll apologize only for including your name in it without evidence, as there is none of that; however, they are still socks, and you should not defend them. (to be honest, I mostly got you and Artaxiad mixed up. Too many A names in all of this.) --Golbez 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)