Misplaced Pages

User talk:Khoikhoi/Archived: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Khoikhoi Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:09, 4 July 2008 editG-Dett (talk | contribs)6,192 edits →Harassment etc.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:43, 28 October 2022 edit undoDatGuy (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators39,852 editsm Removed protection from "User talk:Khoikhoi/Archived": No need for protection, unprotecting to allow lint errors to be fixed. Requested at WP:RFPPTag: Twinkle 
(396 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive}}
<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 750px;">]: ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']'''.</div></center>

== Ivanov Image ==

Hi there khoikhoi i was hoping to get some help from yor self to align that photo that i uploaded to that entry so it would be in a centre alignment within the box, or is it just going to get deleted? --] (]) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding why the picture had been flagged for deletion in the first place, the image i have uploaded is a cropped photo of the same image which is found lower down in the entry, the original image is copyrighted for public use from the US government however i have not indicated this in the set up of my image onto the commons. Is it still applicable for the image i have added, since it has been cropped and if it is, how do i do this? I hope you can help a new user!! --] (]) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== An image name ==

Hi! I updated an image name on your Gallery page. Tsunami by hokusai is now The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Hope you don't mind. Best regards. ] 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

==WP Zimbabwe==
{{WP Zimbabwe Invitation}}] 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

==]==
{{user|213.178.224.164}} is another ] sockpuppet. ] 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

==Tibetan towns and villages==
HI I need to know who to speak to about this. I am currently as you know adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages such as Infobox Tibetan settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: ] but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on ] at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease respond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Something like this:

{| border=1 align=right cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=300 style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"
|+<font size="+1" face="jomolhari"> style="background-color:#ccccff"| <br><big>'''Domartang, Tibet'''<br><br></font>
|-
| !style="background:#ccf; border-bottom:1px solid; border-top:1px solid;" colspan="2" | ] name
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ]:
| width="135" style="border-top:1px solid;" lang="bo"| {{{t}}}
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ]:
| style="border-top:1px solid;" | {{{w}}}
|-
{{#if: {{{to|}}} |
{{!}} align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;" {{!}} Tournadre Phonetic:
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid;" {{!}} {{{to}}}
{{!}}-|
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| pronunciation in ]:
| style="border-top:1px solid;" |
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ] (]):
| style="border-top:1px solid;" | {{{z}}}
|-
{{#if: {{{thdl|}}} |
{{!}} align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;" {{!}} ]:
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid;" {{!}} {{{thdl}}}
{{!}}-|
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| other transcriptions:
| style="border-top:1px solid;"| {{{e}}}
|-
!style="background:#ccf; border-bottom:1px solid; border-top:1px solid;" colspan="2" | ] name
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ]:
| width="135" style="border-top:1px solid;" lang="zh" | {{{tc}}}
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ]:
| width="135" style="border-top:1px solid;" lang="zh" | {{{s}}}
|-
| align="right" style="border-top:1px solid;"| ]:
| width="135" style="border-top:1px solid;"| {{{p}}}
|-
| align="center" colspan=2 |
|-
| ''']'''
| {{coor dm|30|53|N|94|49|E|}}
|-
| ''']'''<br>
|], ]
|-
| ''']'''
| ]
|-
| ''']'''
| ]
|-
| ''']'''<br>''' Approx. in a 7 km radius'''
|439
|-
| '''Major ]'''
| ]
|-
| ''']'''
| ]
|-
| ''']'''
|
|-
| ''']'''
|
|-
|}

== Hi, ==

I don't see you around, have you left WP? :(( --] 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


== Attention Needed ==

Could you please keep an eye out for these pages, as two users are bent on removing all of the scholarly information that has been added. Pages are: ], ], ], ], ]. Also, it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on the ], ], and ] articles.

The two users are ] and ]

Thank you.--] 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are back. Have you had time to look through the articles I linked you to? I could really use your advise on how to continue with this. Please get back to me, thanks!--] 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] title ==

Hey, this is a <strike>spam</strike> note to anyone who has ever moved ]. A discussion is ongoing on ], which currently appears to endorse a move to "List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada". Consider making your views known. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Can you have a look at the article and help? There is an edit conflict going on. It has been for POV check and peacock terms, but it seemed ok to me before a user added . It has several relevant external links that are well organised and wikified, but someone . Thanks. ] 03:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

==Hello==
Hey I'm back. If you need some help somewhere in Wiki let me know or if you want to suggest articles that need attention. ] 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

==]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. There are question about the truthfulness of the article and whether such a territory exists. Since you contributed to the ] article, I am hoping that you would consider participating in the ] to shed some light on whether the Ahwaz territory in fact exists. -- ]]/] 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

==Mesage to 88.109.14.92==
Hi, thanks for the message :). i've just checked over the past edits by this IP and it seems that it isn't any edits of my doing :). It seems as if someone has a similar IP to mine and is a dynamic one :).
] 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== Personal Attack ==

Hi, I remember you could understand persian. Please check ] and see personal attacks to ]. Thanks. ] 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== Hi ==

So what's up? ] 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

==Armenians in Turkey==
Hi. Could you please have a look at ]? I've added a paragraph with a respectable reference and it is being deleted by anonymous users. I and another user tried to revert to original but it has been a couple of times and I am afraid of violating a rule. Maybe you, as an administrator, do something. Thanks. ] 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

==Pontic Greek Genocide==

Hı, could you be involved in the "discussion" in that article..In fact Kekrops and Nıkosılver discuss nothing, but simply revert anything they dont want to see. The article has been in this shape for months, and ı think ıt ıs fair to have such a format. I dont thınk anybody can claim that sources that i have cited in the article can be claimed to be remotely pro-Turkish, ] and ]..

The other option could be to open up a separate article about the atrocities of the Greek army, presented in an isolated fashion as such being made in this article..--] 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Macedonia Arbitration ==

Hi,

I notice you haven't been editing much, but I recall your work as being neutral, calm, and well-respected in related topics. If you have time, could you take a look at the current ]? ] 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== unprotecting Demography of Afghanistan ==

Hi Khoikhoi. I hope you are doing good. Can you please unprotect the ] article? It's been 3 months now and I think the disputes are over since there are no disputes on the talk page anymore. Thanks. -- ] (]) 06:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

: Nevermind, it's ok now. -- ] (]) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

==Use of picture collages==
Hey dude, what up? I remember going through the whole thing with picture collages and how they are a copyright problem, but I don't recall where the conversation took place. You remember where that conversation took place? Much appreciated and i'll be in touch. Ciao. ] (]) 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== Did you know... ==

...that Jews did WTC? ;)--<tt class="plainlinks">] ]</tt> 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

== Ehud Lesar ==

I was considering blocking Ehud Lesar, but I became hesitant after a number of editors said the evidence for sockpuppetry wasn't compelling enough for a block. Glad to see my initial hunch was correct. Thanks for doing the block. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==] and ]==
This User:Thegreyanomaly is back in pushing crappy POV with fake/offtopic citations on ] and ]. Could you please kindly take a look. Thanks!
--] (]) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'd also like to make it clear that the ip vandal above accusing me has been warned by ] for being uncivil and for not justifying their claims (see User talk:210.0.212.59). ] (]) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

==Greetings==
Didn't see you for quite a while, so I just thought I'd stop by and say hi. So... hi! :-) --] (]) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== Arbitration ==
Hi. Please be aware of ] arbitration case. Thanks. ] (]) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== Bună ziua! :) ==

Dear Khoikhoi: Bună! I am wondering if you could help me translate a very short stub version of 1 or 2 sentences of for the Молдовеняскэ wikipedia? Thank you very much for any help you could provide. I hope to hear from you. All my best, Khoikhoi, cu recunoştinţă ] (]) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Shusha infobox ==

Hi Khoikhoi,<br>
Based on short conversion we had one year ago, I think that you wanted two COAs in the infobox at ]. Can you please review that infobox as I am going to place the single use ] on ]. Rregards, &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> ] 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Tuva Workgroup ==

As a past contributor to a Tuva-related article, I was wondering if you would be interested in forming a Tuva workgroup of ] with me? If enough people show interest, I'll go ahead and create the workgroup. --] (]) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

THis user has requested unblock. As you stated he was an sockpuppet, I wonder if there was checkuser evidence or not. <sub>→]]</sub> 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

== Block ==

Khoikhoi, I am troubled by your precipitous block of ]. Both editors were clearly edit warring, and the new user did not get a warning explaining policy adequately before breaking 3RR. I also do not see an unblock request in the notice you left on his talk page so that he may contest the block if he wishes. Please consider unblocking and having a talk with him instead, as I do not consider this a proper block at all. — ] ] 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:Hmm I see, I hadn't even checked. Didn't mean to overreact, it just seemed like too much ] for one small edit, and I am not even one to fully extend that courtesy because of all the trolling that I've encountered. Thanks for the clarification (I feel like I haven't "seen" you in ages). — ] ] 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


==Spam in ]==
]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is blatant ] for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


==My RfA==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|white}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''My RFA'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |Thank you muchly for your support in ], which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!

Kidding btw. All the best, ] (<small>]</small>) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
|}

==Persian Gulf==
It would appear that the dispute faltered after the mediator, ] withdrew without notice. The mediation hasn't seen new activity since December of last year. I think Cloudnine saw the matter as intractable - people on one side insisting we follow the guidelines (], ]) - to whit, mentioning the alternative name of Arabian Gulf in the Lead as discussion of the nomenclature dispute is both ] and already present in the article. The other side of the discussion have offered successive arguments of undue weight, notability, political maneuvering, ethnic bias and space alien intervention (just kidding about that last one) as reasons to disinclude the alternate name. Frankly, I don't see what to do at this point. - ] ] 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:Will do. Thanks for allowing me to keep you appraised. - ] ] 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

==A little help with the Pashtuns article==
Hey dude. I need some assistance with the Pashtuns article. This user keeps interjecting faulty information which he knows is not reliable just to make a point. Arbitration or what? Hope you're doing well and I'd appreciate the help. Ciao. ] (]) 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:Hello, this request is unnecessary and can be sorted out by further discussion. It mostly concerns the valididty of ''Ethnologue'' as a reliable source. From my understanding, it is widely used on Misplaced Pages and meets ]. Tombseye disagrees. Please see the continuing discussion ]. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::I'm OK with some sort of investigation into the validity of Ethnologue, but some things to consider: they have no bibliography and their figures seem to widely all over the place. Some figures are outdated (they claim 161,000 Azeris live in Armenia which is really outdate even for 1993!), and others are simply unverifiable. I myself used them before I learned more about them. They seem like a nice and neat organization to look at, but produce very sloppy results. As far as I can tell the "Pashtuns" figure for India comes from refugees most of whom are Punjabis, thus further confounding where these figures are coming from. So is this going to be simply, "sure they meet the low-end criteria even though the figures seem completely unverifiable," route? There are, for example, Pashtuns in Germany, Scandanavia etc. (and probably in larger numbers than in India), but no listing b/c we don't know how many there are. This is really a lot of trouble to include a shaky source to include a negligible figure frankly. ] (]) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

==2008 unrest in Tibet article revert==
Hey, saw you reverted the article. Reason for editing: you don't see articles with "THE UNITED STATES Government said..." on it 100 times do you? It's pretty obvious which subject the sentences are referring to. The article uses "Riots" earlier in the article. It makes more sense to refer to the situation as already described.
(]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Kandze ==

Hi. Nice to hear from you. It would be nice to have an article about the city of Garzê, or whatever one calls it. However, I've found it a bit difficult to get good information on that sort of thing, so I don't know how feasible it will prove to be. I suspect that Garzê County might be roughly the same place as the city. As for the spelling issue, this was discussed a bit on ]. There are a couple of underlying issues. One is that we're not really sure how "dkar mdzes" is pronounced. The obvious possibility is , but the ''m'' in ''mdzes'' introduces a bit of a wildcard which could be pronounced different ways&mdash;a lot of sources have an "n" instead of the "r". The "standard" (Lhasa-based) pronunciaton might be different from the local pronunciation, and I'm not sure which we would go with in that case. Also, determining the most common spelling is a bit tricky. I think that some of the Google hits for "Garze" come from sites such as the various weather sites which I imagine mine placenames from some sort of database, so I'm not sure those should all be counted separately. Some of the hits are no doubt also referring to the Autonomous Prefecture, rather than to the city or county. That said, "Garzê" or "Garze" does seem to be the most common spelling in English currently, so I suppose I would recommend using that.&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

== Userpage ==

Hi, you have a nice user page, mind if I copy the layout? ] (]) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

== your comment ==

Regarding your comment That account was not mine at the first palce and the admin who blocked me did not justify his accuastions --] (]) 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please see ]. This user was caught in an autoblock of one of your checkuser blocks of DavidYork71. I didn't want to remove the autoblock without checking with you first. Can you look and make sure it is ok to remove this autoblock or soft block the IP if appropriate? Thanks. --] (]) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)



==Please vote in survey over whether to have article title '''Human rights in Iran''' or '''Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran''' ==

*23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from '''Human rights in Iran''' to '''Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran'''
*Koavf changed the article name back to '''Human rights in Iran''' 9 March 2008,
*Crazy Suit changed it back to '''Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran''' a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

===Arguements===
*'''In favor of ]''', Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just ] or ] and do not include the full formal name of the country.

*'''In favor of ],''' Arguement: some articles '''do''' include the full name of the country - e.g. ] (not ]). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. --] (]) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:The issue would be especially important for China, given the physically separate parts of what they agree is still one China. The revolution has been recent enough in Iran that I'd agree it should be "Islamic Republic", as there plausibly might be an article on rights under the Shah, or even earlier 20th century governments. On the other hand, it might make sense to have one article with the different governments and different rights policies. ] (]) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

== Possible sock/rude user ==

Hi. I'm kind of at a loss as to where to go because no one wants to help. Me and another user are currently in mediation of sorts with ]. Long story short, the user has taken it upon themselves to the other editor (see: Nyan's last comment) and is basically uncivil ''all'' the time. Suggestions? Thanks. ] (]) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, the hogwash comment. They actually the talk page to clean up their comments. We suspect this user is also ] and ]. Aside from the same editing styles, Nyanrunning has made personal comments about the other editor's disability (something Nyanrunning would not know unless they went through an archived talk page of a dispute that ended months ago on an unrelated article). Debbiesvoucher has also told Wildhartlivie to "get some help" on (same thing Nyan just did). It gets deeper than that, but that's the jist for now. Basically this person has these account to bring up issues on three obscure articles: ] (now resolved), ] (we had a dispute that went nowhere with Dooyar a few months ago when she/he decided to go MIA because they weren't winning) and ]. ] (]) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry...as PS, ] and I filed a report on Dooyar in 2007. It basically went nowhere because it was Thanksgiving weekend and they didn't use their account during that time. In fact, it's probably impossible to tie them all in together because they don't use all their account concurrently. Hope this helps! ] (]) 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Awesome. Thank you so much for helping! ] (]) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

==Edit War in progress in article ] between ] and ]/]==

Hi Khoikoi,

I would like to call your attention to an edit war in progress in article ] between ] and ]/].

Also, are ] and ] in fact the same person, may I ask?

Note that recently, while both users are prolific, there are days when ] is prolific and ] is quiet and vice-versa, but both users are doing the same aggressive deletes on ].

Thanks,
] (]) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

== Sadly, there's no ability to protect part of an article... ==

In the case of ], it would have been nice, but I would have been surprised if it had been technically possible. Just for background, the warring over the infobox proper has been going on for months. There may be little point to going on about the history, but the Military History Project is technically responsible for the infoboxes for wars, and various people have tried to get across that infoboxes were intended to ''assist'' in the understanding of a war or major campaign, rather than ''become'' a war in and of themselves. It's been fairly fruitless, with a group of half a dozen or so editors seemingly focused on proving the guilt of the United States by making sure there is a US flag in the ] infobox, focused on arguing the numbers of soldiers and tanks there rather than discussing the nuances of those numbers in the main article or even sub-articles, etc. Ernxmedia, at least, has been put on temporary block over that.

I've been figuratively biting my tongue about the infobox wars, and trying to ignore them, while making attempts to move the feuds into a more productive discussion. On the talk page, I've been trying, in what I hope is a reasonably gentle way, to suggest there is stereotyping about national character in both ways. '''Of course''' there are Americans that are ignorant about Iranian/Persian history, and that for reasons that seemed good to the people involved at the time, did unwise things -- be they overthrowing Mossadegh or seizing the U.S. embassy. It's good to find editors at least talking, but when an editor is saying that the US people and/or government is somehow in the wrong for "permitting" the movie ''300'' to be made, portraying the Persians badly, and this is a reason for enmity, there's what, to take a classic movie line from ''Cool Hand Luke'', "what we got here is a a failure to com-''mun''-i-cate." When Cheney and assorted neocons are even seriously suggesting a preventive military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, when the four-star regional commander has resigned quite possibly over policy, etc., there is a more immediate problem than a movie about the ].

Periodically, I've suggested that people editing in the Iran-Iraq area look at what is being done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project, which has just as strong POVs, but who manage to have a real spirit of internal moderation, have specialized 1RR rules, etc. I had encountered this in a peripheral manner, when I was heavily editing an article on ], and had used Sri Lanka as one example of where terror and counter-terror (and, for that matter, anti-terror), take place. My use of each of those words was as a military term of art, and I kept repeating and explaining on the project talk page. Eventually, with the gentle interpretation of another Project member, it became evident that I was, indeed, using terms in a technical sense, and the editor who originally complained was graceful enough to say that he had literally never heard of a technical use of the terms, but only in the context of politicians assigning groups to the "Global War on Terror". We eventually worked out that what was not needed was additional sourcing of my examples, but a bit of education on how I was using the terms.

My personal feeling is that the Iran-Iraq editing controversy, in large part, has lost sight of the reality that the war was fundamentally between Iraq, the aggressor, and Iran. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I have set up, at least as placeholders in userspace, probably 30-plus countries that supported, in different degrees, Iran, Iraq, or both. I have hoped that will help get across perspective, but there are some editors that seem to want to establish that the U.S. was co-equal as a major belligerent with Iraq, and there is a sense that Iraq would do nothing without U.S. "permission". That, I'm afraid, makes little historical sense. The role of Saddam Hussein seems to be lost in the arguing about American guilt.

While it may be verging on original synthesis, I believe that a reasonable approach, which has significant ] and ], is that at a given point in time, there was an Iran-Iraq war, and also an Iran-US war, the latter often being called the "Tanker War". There were unquestionably war crimes on both sides of the latter, such as the Airbus shootdown, but also releasing drifting mines into international waters. The US, going back around 200 years, has considered freedom of navigation a critical national interest, as evidenceed in the ] and the ].

I would greatly appreciate your independent opinion (email is fine) on whether my approach, which I won't have time to take to completion, about showing specifics of other nations (Italy, France, UK so far, USSR in progress), as well as a major (my userspace) rewrite of US support to Iraq, all showing the intertwining of Iraqi circumvention of international controls '''as well as''' the US "tilt to Iraq", make things much more complex than can be shown in an infobox. I'm frustrated over the time being wasted about assorted reverts in an infobox, and would like to find some way out of this mess. To my amazement, over six months or so, I was able to play a role in getting the conspiracy theories in context and the main ] article back to reasonable size, with a large number of detailed sub-articles. Is there a way to get some of the same recognition of a problem, with different POVs that need to be reconciled, in ]? ] (]) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

==Following around a/k/a community behavior==

Hi Khoikhoi,

CreazySuit reverted me on ] 3 times on 29 March and 3 times on 30 March for a total of 6 times, so you're saying the rule is simply revert 3 times a day and you're good to go:
# (cur) (last) 19:23, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,505 bytes) (fringe view) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:41, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,505 bytes) (It's a fringe view, not supported by
# (cur) (last) 00:49, March 29, 2008 CreazySuit (Talk | contribs) (5,371 bytes) (not rue) (undo)

CreazySuit followed my contributions around, if you look on 29 March he followed me around a total of 10 different articles that I modified to add link to ] as a companion to link ]. In all cases he reverted me, but I guess 10 * 1 is not the same as 1 * 3 + 1 * 3:
# 12:36, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Iraq-gate (Gulf War)‎ (This page is about Iraq-US, it has nothing to do with US-Iran) (top)
# 12:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Project Babylon‎ (It's not, this page has nothing to do with US-Iran) (top)
# 12:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Rationale for the Iraq War‎ (It's not, this artcile has nothing to do with US-Iran)
# 12:34, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Khairallah Talfah‎ (Undid revision 201826583 by Erxnmedia (talk) This artcile is about Iraq, not Iran)
# 12:33, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Anti-Iranian sentiment‎ (US-Iran has nothing to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment)
# 01:35, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Riegle Report‎ (both unrelated) (top)
# 01:34, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Arms-to-Iraq‎ (unrelated to this page)
# 01:29, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Project Babylon‎ (not related here)
# 01:26, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Ruhollah Khomeini‎ (OR, doesn't belong here)
# 01:25, March 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Anti-Iranian sentiment‎ (not related)

I raised the issue to you of ] because it was symptomatic of CreazySuit's interaction with me, which is:
* Aggressive deletes with no discussion to start with. These are done not using the revert key but by cut and paste with a comment, but the net is still a revert
* Continued pattern of reversion over multiple days
* Initial apparent efforts to appease if he gets into some hot water, e.g. a request for dialogue
* Often no response to actual dialogue after making the request for dialogue (see: ] with ]) --- although we did get talking a little bit, finally, but not on the thread of his initial request for dialogue.

However, note that:
# ] is in my area of interest, which is why I ran into CreazySuit to begin with. (I.e. general Middle East and war issues.)
# People following each other around is just natural behavior. In daily life, I have observed that in any endeavor where there are 2 or more people in a room, be it film-making, finance, cooking, wine-tasting or what have you, people in a community will follow each around, whether or not they had an initial interest in a subject, simply as a function of how much interest another has in that subject -- it's human nature. Is there a Misplaced Pages rule against human nature, common interest, and the tendency of people to take an interest in what is in fashion in a particular group?

Thanks,
] (]) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

==Checkuser on Rezistenta==
I'm pretty sure that, with his pattern of spelling problems, his half-ceremonious-half-insulting language, his areas of interest, his chauvinism, and now the use of a aimed at me, ] strongly recalls Icar. Do you think it warrants a usercheck? (And, btw, there may be clues that Icar shared something with Dacodava - was he this ever brought up in the blocking process?) ] (]) 15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
:: I read the comment of Icar on top of that talk page of "Romanians" , and I copied his accusation regarding the Trotzkist POV because I found them true.You've reported me 3 or more times before abusively and your accusations were proven wrong. I will suggest to stop because my "mr nice guy attitude" won't last fover ] (]) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

==] and ]==
Khoikhoi, this is a ] to inform you of an ongoing discussion about merging the articles ] and ], and the most appropriate name for the merged article. Your significant contributions to the latter article suggested to me that you might want to contribute to the discussion. Regards, ] (]) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

==]==
Please give your opinion, ''after'' you read the article. ] (]) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

== hey ==

just had a question for the yellow monkey, but you deleted it, innit? turns out his mate samir got shot at the bourbon club, was on Triple J, wanted him to confirm. maybe you can if you know? cheers mate <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Page move: ] to ]==
Hello! Back in 2006, you poined out that "Peter Mogila" was the most common name. Over the last two years, "Petro Mohyla" happened to became more common, in particular, by 2:1 margin by re-running the Google test you used. I've requested the page move, and I'd like to ask for your support of the move. Sincerely, ] (]) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


==EOKA==
Hi, I am proposing to split the article on EOKA into two separate articles. I noticed you have contributed to the article so if you are still interested, please have a look at the ] and add any of your thoughts. ] (]) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

== DavidYork71 & Childnicotine ==

Hi. Can you please point me to the checkuser report on Childnicotine being a sock of DavidYork71? For the life of me I can't seem to find it. Thanks. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

== soapboxing, etc ==

Regarding revert in ], I was wondering what you found to be particularly soapboxing. I think I understand your claim of linkspam, but maybe you could elucidate precisely what you meant. I ask because I want to see the edit as you did, and how it prompted you to remove it as such. - ] ] 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, that is not entirely accurate, Khoikoi. A person cannot be blocked for reinstating a banned user's edits. They just become responsible for them once they are re-posted. So if the edit from the sock was a normal, acceptable edit (and I am not saying it was), I could upload it without worry of "being blocked" for doing so, as per ]:
<blockquote>
::''Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.''
</blockquote>
I note this because if the edit was cited and cleaned up (linkspam removed and whatnot), it seems a pretty good argument. - ] ] 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

== re NPA ==
I was expressing my frustration that Victor keeps focusing on sources which all appear to be of Russian origin and which he uses to bolster that the world is out to "get" Russia. That's really not the case at all. You will note my extremely positive comments regarding Orthodoxy when Victor postulated WWI and WWII had as their goals the deaths of practitioners of Orthodox Christianity. I wish for Victor to see that the world is far more positive than he believes, in the case you cited, that Orthodoxy is truly one of the bright lights of today's Russia. There was nothing in that comment meant as an "attack." Please do not not focus on individual words and take them out of context to attribute motivations which do not exist. If I've offended Victor he may contact me directly. Thank you for your interest, have not seen you around my neck of the woods much lately. Best regards, Peters —] (]) 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

: It does appear that a lot more is taken "personally" than I mean it. There's nothing that I write commenting on editorial behavior that I mean as a personal comment on character, but I can see that being too colloquial can be taken in a way not intended (meant for the person, not for the <u>comments</u> of the person). Can I blame English as my second language? :-) ] (]) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::But I guess it is OK for Victor V. V. to incite etchnic hatred, as in here (scroll down), as eSStonia is considered a racist insult? ] (]) 08:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::Excuse me, that is ''not'' what I am suggesting or saying, Khoikoi. I am not advocating posting comments on behalf of a banned user (and where on earth did you come up with that idea??) I am saying that the user did present some convincing arguments that no one else has thus far. Yes, there was unacceptable content mixed in with it (linkspam and whatnot), but many of the arguments, if properly verified would be appropriate for the discussion and eventually inclusion into the article.
::Aside from the accusation of proxying, can you point to another place within our rules and guidelines that says that I cannot clean up the posts, separating citable info from claptrap and re-posit the argument? - ] ] 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

==Hummus==

Hello, Khoikhoi, I don't know if you're interested in food-related articles, but... in the ] article, there is the claim that hummus is very ancient (perhaps even ancient Egyptian), all based on various Web sources which seem to me completely unreliable, and offer no evidence for their claims. This sounds like the typical sort of unsupported claim made in cookbooks and so on. I have tried to remove or at least bracket these claims as unsubstantiated, but another editor insists on retaining them and in fact recently added another. Though I have tried to reason with her on the Talk page about WP's Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines, she doesn't respond, instead claiming that her references are just fine. Could you help resolve this? Thanks, --] (]) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for your quick response. I'll consider mediation, but I'd hope that the editor would get the picture if you simply said what you said on my Talk page on the Hummus Talk page. No need for long discussion. If it comes to that, then I suppose we have to drag in mediation, which seems like a heavy procedure for a simple question.... Maybe I'll try for a third-party editor to start.... --] (]) 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==Kish Island==
Hi - it's good to see this issue is coming to a head - but I am not sure about the process here. The people who have been deleting the text which is at issue, have not been forthcoming at all about why they have done so during their deleting work (no comments on any of those edits at all when they were made). So it is unfortunate that the page has been locked with the said text deleted. There is no incentive for any of those mostly anonymous users to discuss it, as they've got what they wanted - the text is gone, and the page is locked. Belatedly somebody has made some comments - but the arguement is weak. I have written a convincing argument why it should stay, so my question now is this: What happens if there is no more input? --] (]) 04:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FROM PUMPJACK -

I feel the argument to include the Levinson case is overwhelming and compelling. Since the case is well documented, the only remaining reason for not including the incident is protection of the island’s image. It is not the intent of Misplaced Pages to either improve or detract from the image of any subject being discussed. Rather, isn’t our objective to present a fair and accurate representation of the subject in a way that is NPOV?

I am not claiming that my original post is perfect. In fact, I would be open to any and all changes to my original entry that would lead to resolution of this dispute. I would agree to virtually any iteration of the disappearance and encourage the reader’s to improve it. But, on what basis can we allow a topic to be completely deleted, when the only reason for the deletion is protection of the subject's image?

What is the next step to resolution?

--] (]) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipdia is not the place for current events and missing person notices. ] is there for a reason. If we were to include every disappearance or missing person case on every city`s page, there would be no end to it. --] (]) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------

Levinson vanished over a year ago, hardly a current event. The suggested text is not a missing person notice, but a brief description of the case. Wikinews isn't really appropriate, because it is no longer 'new'. The incident is old, established, and documented. While I agree with you that we can't document every missing person's case on every place's page, I also believe this case is different due to its unprecedented international attention.

--] (]) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

==Spelling: Mosaddeq, Mossadeq, Mossadegh, or Mosaddegh?==

Google search survey:

*40,700 for Mohammed Mosaddeq
*86,000 for Mohammed Mossadeq
*78,400 for Mohammed Mossadegh
*2,010 for Mohammed Mosaddegh

===Proposed name change===

I propose changing the title of the article to ] --] (]) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Alhacen ==

Hi. Maybe you should unprotect the article on ], or at least change his religion because he was a Shi'a Muslim not an Ash'ari. Chears. ] (]) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. I don't think him being a Shi'a is controversial. I haven't found sources that state his religion, be it Sunni or Shi'a but I think it is agreed upon that he is Shi'a Muslim and his name, his birthplace and the fact that he worked for the Fatimids make it even more certain. Thanks again. ] (]) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't notice it. The source said nothing about him being a Sunni. Take care. ] (]) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Reverting my talk page and others ==

Greetings to you. I have to admit I was fairly annoyed when I logged on a little bit ago and found that my talk page was edited by you. I followed the links to your page and see that you also reverted other people's pages as well simply because user pumpjack posted on them. Honestly, I thought that he was following wiki-policy on this as I have no idea about the case that he is talking about on Kish Island, or even honestly of Kish Island itself. I'm an English Lit Major with a minor in linguistics, geography is not my fortay. So when this guy posted on my page, I actually considered ignoring it or staying out of it, as I did with the Fox News article, despite that I was also requested to help there. But, thinking I was followingn wiki-policy, I went and checked out the arguments and tried my darndest to be impartial about it. This despite a part of me wanted to be glib about how the last half of the Kish article read more like a tourist brochure, complete with majestic photos of stunning landscapes. I thought that simply because my input was given that the revert had been done, but it was still annoying. I have a false accusation of puppetry on page and my complaint about it, I figure it is a part of my page's history whether I like it or not. Please put the request for help back on my page. It seems that you have managed to hide the old edit by pumpjack somehow and to be honest I am a bit resentful that my page was changed. ] (]) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

==Little mishap==
Hey Khoikhoi!

Remember me? Long time no write. :-) I just created the article ], but I had first created ] with a lower case "l". What do I do to have the page with the misspelt title removed?

Thanks, ] (]) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:That was quick and easy. So an article like that with a misspelt tile isn't deleted? Well, what do I care, everything should be alright now. Thank you a lot! ] (]) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

::BTW, any copy-editing and/or proofreading of the said article would be greatly appreciated! ] (]) 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Khoikhoi, I don't mind at all. Thanks very much for the work you did there! Reliable as always ... Cheers, ] (]) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

==Please do not revert Edits==

I request you not to revert my edits in the Wiki page on the cricketer Vivian Richards. I think as a non-follower of the game, you are not aware of many facts that are being covered up and many lies that are being spouted as facts on various pages. Please do not act merely on somebody's telling you something. I have been made guilty of reverting thrice or more which is why somebody dragged you in.

I only wish to see this site have good articles that are honest and realistic. Some people just will not allow that. Please co-operate with me. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Your reversion==
Your reversion on my talk page seems to have destroyed the record of the original contribution on the history of my talk page. The contribution contained a personal message to me, unrelated to flags. I wonder whether you could please correct this? ] (]) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:I'd rather you didn't edit my talk page by destroying it, despamming it and then restoring it as the logs show. Thanks, ] (]) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==Canvassing for...==

Khoi could you help me out? There is that user that is a sockpuppuet of a blocked user, that created a new account in the sole purpose of destroying an article I have created, on the purpose that the article is "politically hijacked", and made sentences such as "the author has been involved in other politically motivated hijackings" I do possess no such intention and as stated so many times, I created the vertebra of the article, and it is up to all of us to expand it. I have not got the time nor the wikiknowledge to do the general maintenance etc. Now I am seeking support from fellow wikipedians and am accused of spamming. For example, the message I sent to Aramgar was different from the one I sent to Kafka Liz, but it fot deleted... Won't I be able to even "seek" support? What I am feeling here is that my expression is being cut, that's it. Please show me it is the other way around.

Cheers! --] (]) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


:I am really sorry I did not know. I hope my actions were not "disruptive" :(
:Anyways khoi, is there anything we can do to save the article "List of largest flags" that is up for deletion? Is that vote for which I was seeking support a "referendum" type one where a 50% is required or will an admin look into it to arbitrate?
:I stopped from seeking support as soon as I read your last message. (3 minutes ago). I will also never copy / paste anything again on multiple users.

:--] (]) 10:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


::Of course! I am open for anything! I created the article because no such list was on wikipedia. Now wherever that list is, whether on another article or merged to another list, I'd be happy. This is why I'd like all the users with knowledge on the subject to contribute to that very list, but unfortunately, very few of them did :( Merging it to a larger article would be my best bet.

::Cheers! --] (]) 11:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:::On the other hand, come on you even deleted the personal messages that were not a copy paste. Why is that? --] (]) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

::::I just looked at the table and what I see is: I sent my last messages (the ones you just deleted) to a few users only 5 or so. (more "Friendly notice" than anything else), the message was pretty much neutral, they were invited to vote, whether positively or negatively. The audience was for sure a "partisan" audience (there I give credit to you) but also on the other hand, the transparency was "open", I did not send any emails or so. Is sending messages just to Turks or Zambians or Germans, enough to get these messages deleted? If yes, no problem. But if not, I really want people that are not average americans to express their opinions on that deletion discussion page. for now, it is going pretty much one-sided. --] (]) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think our best bet is to merge it with the ] article, but, how can this be done??
:::::--] (]) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::Khoi, thank you for all your help! I will be ever grateful. By the way, are we *sure* he is "unrelated" to that other user? You noticed yourself how much the behaviours are alike. Anyways I guess he might be using a proxy (I think that changes his IP or something, I am sure you are aware of all these better than I am :) )
:::::--] (]) 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::Khoi, I need your help again, Harry the Dog is not listening and insists on quoting Google search numbers as an academically viable source for Misplaced Pages. Cheers! --] (]) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::PS: Thanks for everything until now!

Look at ] now and tell me what you need now. (Although I am sure that many people will try to revert it) I think that we can ask the help of more expert people like Baristarim et alia on this one. --] (]) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: You were asking for a source, there you go: http://members.tripod.com/kibrisevi/ozel/Bbayrak.htm the actually measured the whole flag himself and also provides us with a Guinness Entry that was refused for political reasons, nonetheless de facto, this flag is the biggest.

== Speedy delete ==

Can you take care of ] please. Its been up for a while, thanks ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==Kewl==
Another one bites the dust :). ] (]) 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

== who are you ? ==

who are you, what's your problem and what the hell do you want from me ? ] (]) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

== Protest to your pro Iranian regime edit of the page on " Massoud Rajavi" ==

'''Very biased protection of the page on "Massoud Rajavi"'''
Sir, You have protected a very biased pro Iranian regime version of "Massoud Rajavi", the Iranian opposition leader. You were impartial, you should have done otherwise. Perhaps this is a reflection of your own political tendencies.If so that is not good for Misplaced Pages.] (]) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


== Problems with the ] ==

Thank for the response regarding the ]. I'm happy that you have intervene with this page. I tried to ask help before but the administrator did not have time I guess. The article had controversial positions, which there is an author that acts against the ]. Takes ] actions. He constantly revers the page to ] version, which is clearly had issues. At the minimum level, citations were not standard. It is impossible to know where the claims are originated. The language has problems with the "Fairness of tone." The article is filled with ], the editor included personal commentary such "treacherously murdered." Is it possible to being murdered non-"treacherously?" This is a violation of representation without a bias. Also it is impossible to know which sentences belong to ] (An IP number replaced a previous editor), which belongs to cited source. I fixed some of the format issues at this version , without adding or removing text, but then other editors begin to ] the article and reverted my additions. Some of the issues have been mentioned in the ] page. I have been working on a to improve the "Varifiability" of the page. I'm sure you will be a good arbitrator. You can reach the version from ]. --] (]) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

::The article, current version does not obey the ]. Without cites, I can not go and say, YOU ARE WRONG. It will be a personal attack. I tried to brought the citations, clearly marked along the ]. Instead of attacking to me, editors can work on the sources I brought forward. That is the base of my position. That is the base of my request. --] (]) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:::I did not add the {{tl|fact}} tags (just helped another editor), there is a user who does not know how to use the tags, . I do not know if those tags are valid or not. If you would like to spend time on my version, you would recognize that I did not delete information beyond one section regarding genocide in Persia. I believe you might be interested in that issue. It is totally relevant to a higher level article that would brought all these together. But if there is not a direct relation to "Resistance in Van", it is better to create another article to unite all these there, and develop the whole picture. At the end this article is limited with the events in one province of the Empire. My version has more facts, and properly worded. You said "If take it you are challenging certain statements in the article?" I do not know what to challenge in the protected version. As a challenge can be "You did not represent the source correctly," "Your source is using secondary information, find primary..." The "protected" form is very poor . I'm saying the protected version, considering the guidelines of wikipedia, is the poor version. I'm not rejecting people bringing their information to an article, but wouldn't wikipedia require ] as a beginning of the editorial collaboration. My version has higher verifiability than the protected version. If the source I used missed a point editors can brought it with their source. SO, wouldn't it be a better position to begin from a version that has more citations than the version that has nearly minimum to none? --] (]) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

::::That is fair. It is about improving the article. Also, I do not claim that my version is finished. --] (]) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

====
I wonder if it's possible to write a bot that will autoblock Bonny based on his behavioural patterns. That'd be so cool. For now... we need to find a way to clone you. ;-) --] (]) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:On the subject of Flueras... for the block. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

::...And for the heads-up. Well played. Best, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Agreed, it was, but A) I was involved, B) I hadn't had occasion to run into Bonaparte before now, and C) perhaps I was lazy. In any event, thanks. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Got your e-mail - much appreciated. Thanks, again. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Likewise. :-) --] (]) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
::And likewise again! :P --] (]) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi, can you please keep an eye on {{User|Praktiker_iunie}}, I think I see the same patterns... -- ] (]) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How about {{User|Pryde 01}}, if he's not Bonny, he's at least sick. Please put him out of missery. ] (]) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:No, it's not Bonaparte. Did Pryde 01 do anything blockable? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

==Question in ]==

Can you give an opinion on a dispute in ]?

Here the situation: I've added a subsection
about throwing acid in women's faces for "immodest" dress. Bless sins has deleted it because none of the articles use the words "Islamic Terrorism" and so to call it such is OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Some_irrelevant_sources

This issue has come up before and I'm wondering if it isn't setting the bar a bit high for what can be used in an article. It seems that many legitimate sources of information will not spell out the word or phrase of an article for any number of reasons - too obvious, too unpopular, etc. For example, would we delete sources from a criticism section of someone if the source did not use the word "criticism"?

The article lead says "Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam." There can't be much doubt that throwing acid in the face of someone is intended to instill fear or terror, and there is little question that the motivation of actors is Islam, even if the sources don't spend much time on Quran quotes and such.

I know you are probably very busy but hope you can spare the time to weigh in. Thanks in advance, --] (]) 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
:I'd like to warn you against ]. If you'd like an outside opinion, please call an RfC. If you want an opinion of some who edits the article, then simply post on the talk page.] (]) 17:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
::Isn't this ]? What's wrong with it? --] (]) 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
::Have added the issue to ] --] (]) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Third opinion should be sought of a general audience. You can't ask third opinion of people who have maintained a particular opinion in the past. Adding something to WP:3O is a good idea.] (]) 20:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

== Hi there ==

Sorry for the delay in answering you. I'm doing fine but I am pretty busy and don't have much time to get involved with Misplaced Pages. I hope everything is going well for you. Ciao! ] (]) 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
:OK, take care. Ciao! ] (]) 14:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

==User:Molobo==
As I've noted ], I very strongly object to this block. I see no evidence of president 3RR violation (there is a single one at Grunwald, and that may be a simple editorial mistake - his edit summaries indicate he was moving content, not removing it), sockpuppetry, even revert warring. Any editors, per AGF and ] has the right to revert every now and then, and I see nothing in Molobo's edits that looks "over the top" (a single 3RR does not justify indef block!).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:Clasiffying part of a larger edit, only in small part concerned with removing information, that was not restored later, as a revert and part of a revert war is a very dubious interpretation of a revert. does not count towards 3RR. is not a revert - new reference (so far unchallenged) was provided, it is a standard part of ]. Therefore I see no grounds for a 3RR violation here. On the other hand, I wonder how {{user|Sciurinæ}}, who seems not to be engaged in editing of ] - but has often warred against Molobo on some other articles - was made aware of Molobo's edits there; I'd suggest running a checkuser comparing his IP (as well as that of {{user|Stor stark7}}) to those of anon's editing this article.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::As I have Molobo's user page on my watchlist, of course I got to know about the dispute. I have absolutely nothing to do with that IP (or any other for that matter). Since you would never report Molobo, and only defend him regardless of his offence, I had to do the reporting (and naturally get slapped by you for doing it). Of course his 3RR violation was valid (the previous one too), and you sometime get informed of what actually is "vandalism". Molobo has never done much else than continue his nationalist agenda of before his block, albeit his activity had reduced, and before his block he has never done much else, either, propagating his views in the forums (that's where the name '''' is from, which was coined after his forum account had already been banned, i.e. his first sockpuppet even before Misplaced Pages). Speaking about sockpuppets, here are to evade his one-year block after having changed the provider, or do you suddenly not remember? By the way, if you want to stop creating the impression that Molobo was your "]", you should not always be supportive of him. Molobo was an of yours, who even now strangely turns up once you have already made three reverts for that day (and after Molobo, another owner of that messenger (Tymek, ) turned up for reverting, and after that (Alden Jones), who even ). Now you, the person who a cry for help about Molobo and who had done long ago to sabotage the first indefinite block, at an archived case that because your humble being is against it there was no consensus.(!) ] (]) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

::Anon's rationale is good for talk, but not for removal of referenced info; I classify such edits as vandalism. In any case, this 3rr case is not clear, and is not the issue here: the main problem is that ban hammer was used on a user who does not deserve a permban. I have discussed the "mass reverts" - which were neither mass nor reverts - at ANI; most of them were justified and he Molobo has the same right to make them as anybody else. If anybody is unhappy about this, he should seek ArbCom, which has the right to restrict editor's rights. No such restriction was made and hence Molobo reverts are perfectly acceptable (I also revert similar vandals and POV pushers, should I be perm banned too?).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Frankly, yes. For several years now, Piotrus has shown questionable behaviour which was subject to several cases. Back in 2005, he controversially unblocked Molobo, and he is still showing sympathy and support for Molobo's acts. For comparison: when I added a comment to a 3RR case (in which I was not involved, but Piotrus), I was quickly placed on Digwuren restriction and subsequently '''' by ] (who is inactive now). On the other hand, Piotrus a closed ANI case which was already moved to an archive, violating ] with statements like ''"his opponent was an IP (likely a sock of some neo-Nazi)"'' (which also violates Digwuren warning "]") and even dares to . If Misplaced Pages has any standards, then Piotrus needs to be edit-restricted and blocked also, without much further ado, just like I was. Or, when the acts of "uninvolved admin loeth" (which include are judged inappropriate, then my name and block notice has to be removed from there, too. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Frankly, Matthead, you are walking on thin ice and are getting closer and closer to a well deserved permban yourself, as shown b the ArbCom restriction you are under.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Frankly, Piotrus, you are walking on thin ice yourself by constantly supporting Molobo in the face of all the evidence against him. Molobo is one of the most extreme nationalist POV-pushers I have come across here. He doesn't have a scandalous track-record of blocks for no reason. If it weren't for the unwavering support by some of his compatriots, it would be even longer. People have been blocked indefinitely for much smaller things. I don't advocate "zero tolerance", people should be given chances to learn and to improve. But there has to be a limit to tolerance somewhere. Do you really feel you're improving people's image of Poland by taking Molobo's side no matter what? Believe me, you're achieving the opposite. --] (]) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus suggests checkuser for both Sciurinae and me against the anon IP who edited strategic bombing, an anon who Piotrus apparently has called "likely a sock of some neo-Nazi". And Piotrus seems to get away with this type of name calling. Just for your information I am completely unrelated to that IP, but let me return the favor by suggesting running a checkuser comparing this throwaway account: {{user|Antyfaszysta}} whose only purpose was to revert me, against {{User|Piotrus}} who used the revert as a base for maintaining his preferred structure of the article.. Further it is rather arrogant of Piotrus to state that he is "verifying" the sources I had provided and that the sock took away. If this is to be the normative behavior then I would like to see a ban on introducing Polish language sources, since it is tricky for me to "verify" them when Piotrus introduces them. As to Molobo, Piotrus has shown his strong ties to him by for example coediting with him on numerous occasions. An example at hand is this ] which to me reads like a theater-play. Piotrus states that the Germans wanted to get themselves killed for propaganda reasons. Piotrus eloquent claims notwithstanding, that is certainly a very tenuous POV claim on his part
, see ,. Then he goes on to claim that one source in the article does not exist, "proving" this by citing the June issue, while the reference clearly stated it was the that had the review by Richard Blanke. Another example of Piotrus support for Molobo is in the justly deleted article ]. This article was by the way created by Molobo just a few days after he had discovered that I was planning to write an article by that title. Really constructive behavior, and really conductive towards assuming "good faith" on the part of Molobo.--] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

== ] got ] banned ==

Hello KhoiKhoi. I hope you're doing well. I'm sure remember Tajik, Beh-nam, and NisarKand. NisarKand was banned for very good reasons I'm sure you remember. What happened later on is NisarKand kept coming back with socks, he eventually figured out ways to get Beh-nam in trouble, through edit warring with him and getting Beh-nam into 3RR trouble. He kept manipulating admins into blocking Beh-nam, eventually Beh-nam got banned thanks to NisarKand. Beh-nam tried to talk to Arbcom about it but they ignored his emails. Beh-nam is not a trouble maker, he is an honest person who wants to contribute. NisarKand on the other hand was a big time trouble maker and made sockpuppets long before his ban. Beh-nam never made a single sockpuppet, he was always honest and only made sockpuppets after he got unjustly banned thanks to NisarKand. Can you please look at Beh-nam's case? You might not like the fact that Beh-nam made sockpuppets after his NisarKand arranged ban, but what else was he supposed to do? Was he just supposed to accept the way NisarKand manipulated admins into banning him?

:Hi Beh-nam. Yes, I do remember them. I also remember why Nisar was banned. I don't know the exact details as to why you were banned in the first place, but this did not justify making ] sockpuppets. If you want to get unbanned, the first step is to stop ], stop creating sockpuppets, and think about how you could've contributed constructively to Misplaced Pages. I don't know why ArbCom did not reply to your emails, but I can see from your talkpage what ] said: "This ban was long in coming, based on Beh-nam's persistent edit warring, repeated disruptive campaigning to unban Tajik, and battleground tactics." I would be convinced that you have stopped resorting to edit warring if you were not reverting me at this very moment. If you can demonstrate to me that you ''really'' contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, I might be able to form a different opinion. But sockpuppeting was the one thing that you should ''not'' have done. You should've tried waiting awhile, and then asking your blocking admin (Thatcher) to give you a second chance. See what another user did ] after a year of being blocked. From looking at your I see a long history of edit warring and incivilty. If you can show me by not using any more sockpuppets and not editing with any more IPs, then eventually I might reconsider my decision. If you are unblocked you would have to change your old ways of edit warring and try a different approach (see ]). I was once blocked many times for edit warring (), but I decided to stop a long time ago because I realized that it doesn't help in contributing to this encyclopedia at all. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

== Trouble with Persian Misplaced Pages ==

Hi Khoikhoi.

Regarding to the abuse of bureaucrat privileges in Persian wikipedia, I asked ] for his insight and . I thought you may want to also see that. Best --] (]) 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== Mazandarani language ==

Hi. The conflict on this page cannot be solved, since one party - ] (]) - quite obviously is lying about his sources.
68.5.250.146 claims to have provided sources for his assertion that . He claims to have provided them .
It doesn't look as if he has ever read them, though. He cannot even spell them correctly. He spells them exactly like on the talk page does, including all in all four misspellings/misspacings (''nor'''d- o'''uest / '''l, I'''ran / Wiesba'''dan''' / Gese'''las'''chaft''). But why would someone who has taken pains to obtain a scientific journal published in 1868 (in Germany!) still not know how to spell it? - 68.5.250.146's explanation reads . - Regards, --] (]) 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
:First off, it's important to ] in this case. You are saying just because the anon did not spell his sources correctly, that he has not read his sources. I have left a comment on his talk page asking him to join the discussion. Once he does you can bring up all those issues at the talk page. However, for the time being please remember AFG. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
::Please have a look at ]'s edit history. Assuming good faith with him has been tried already, it didn't work out. ] has quite a long history of disruptive editing at ]. During a long edit war from February until November 2007 the page had to be protected . ] waged that war using a variety of other IPs (], ], ] and many more) and sockpuppets (], ], ]). Several editors assumed good faith and tried to talk to him (especially ], , and ], ), but to no avail.
:::(if you doubt that ] and ] and others are one and the same guy, look out for edits like . They speak for each other. It's really obvious).
::]/] has been around for one and a half year now. He has been asked many times to seek consensus and use the talk page; check yourself how often he does it. Check how often he has been asked to sign his comments, and how often he does. Check how often he makes edit summaries, and, when he does, how often they . Have a look at his revenge sprees (like , or like her, on March 15, 2008 ). Note how he alters sourced information, even quotations, like . You will, like me, assume bad faith from now on. Regards, ] (]) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Wow, what a record. Ok, point taken. I agree with you that the revenge sprees were totally inappropriate (which also violate ]). In regards to the dispute at ], I got tired of the edit warring and constant page protections. Although the anon has made trollish contributions in the past, this appears to be a valid content dispute from both sides, and not a case of vandalism as Partheva suggests. I have left another comment on 68's talk page, urging him to join the discussion so that this can be resolved once and for all. I don't want to see the page protected, unprotected, and protected again, which is why I am asking people to follow ]. If you don't have any luck with that please let me know. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:KhoiKhoi, If you are the one who actually wants to resolve it, you may saw my notes in that talk page, My notes clearly specifies that this user is nothing to do, but just vandalizing the page, We had too many wasteful disscussions, But the obvies thing is that this guy not awares about where he is adding nonesense staffs, <br>This page will be remained protected, and this is what you like, you stated mazanderanis are persian before, which is not NPOV --] (]) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

== Question ==

Could {{user|1largeatom}} be just another sock of Bonny? ] (]) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

==Seal==
Nope I wasn't aware -redirect will be necessary, regards ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That article was done when we were sorting out dab links so avoid directing to districys. In this case it appears this wasn't the best course of action. Usually those sources combined offer light on whether it is a populated settlement to start them off. Unfortunately for Afghanistan at present online population data for all the villages isn't here, yet.... P.S I would reocmmend you add ing the infoboxes with locator maps for the chinese cities]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

==Turning myself in==

Hi, Khoikhoi. I wonder what should be done about ] -- a user, currently on a month-long block, has a "strong suspicion" that I'm Bonaparte, and requests a checkuser (which presumably he can't do through normal channels since he's blocked). I'm quite willing to undergo a checkuser to clear my name and put his suspicions to rest, should you think it necessary. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:Heh, you had me there for a moment! I wouldn't mind a check (if only to play along with him a bit longer), but I think your idea of giving him assurances first would be more constructive. If he continues his accusations (and by the way, that whole bottom section of his talk page is quite a sight), we can take it from there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

==Erzurum==

I am not sure what cuased the last warning you sent my way. It was my effort to bring some semblence of balance and objectivity to this article that resulted in the backlash of the well known propagandists, and I am sure they are all known by many here by now. In the end, article is now protected with all the flaws, with all my contributions removed. Following the instructions - I am not well versed in all the formats, templates and styles - I made my argument about the photo/painting in the discussion section and still got a warning. I am a bit confused and would like some recommendations on how to proceed.--] (]) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi. When I suggested that the Erzurum entry should be protected in someway, I wasn't actually thinking it should be fully protected. The problem was that every week or so, over the past few months, an anonymous editor would remove, without explanation or edit summary, the same material in the entry related to Armenia and Armenians. Fortunately, after a few days or a week another editor would notice it and revert to restore the material. Can't the entry just be made semi-protected to prevent edits from anonymous users? ] 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Khoi, I only wish you show the same sensitivity when when every single edit and correction I have made (not deletion or reverts and all signed and preceded by discussion entries) to certain articles is removed and reverted every single time. Usually by the same users. If the rules do not apply uniformly, then I should find out soon so as not to waste anyone's time and bandwidth.--] (]) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

== Hudavendigar and Namsos ==

Looks like you had some administrative interaction with ] previously, so thought I should let you know that ] has started an AN/I thread regarding them at ]. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Once more I am confused. Though I have tried my utmost to stick to all the guidelines I am made aware of, much beyond it have acted in good faith, it seems the users so tranparently determined to silence me are winning. Facts and truth does not seem to be of any real concern. Clearly I still do not understand what exactly is prompting these warnings and restrictions. 1- I have not reverted anyone's edits since we last exchanged notes, except restored (not reverted)my own edits and references that were vandalized, or simply removed without reason by pov users, and I have always improved and provided more references. Need examples? I have not removed any references from any article and have always discussed issues first. Please show me an example of "aggressive" editing by me so I know what is meant by that. Please let me know why it is ok by other users to revert my edits and remove references, continuously? Is it allowed for example for me to insert additional info into these articles that is not pov and backed up by verifiable refrences? 2- I have been as civil as one can be here, but I have been constantly attacked personally and targeted specifically. Is that ok? You need examples? Please show me an example of my uncivil behaviour. 3- I would very much like to have my edits to be supervised by someone, impartial preferrably, for example and once it is cleared it would be nice for them to stick. Is that possible? 4- This particular user, Namsos for example has nominated a whole article by me on Erich Feigl for deletion. This is a man who has won awards, produced over 60 documentaries, written dozen books and a search yields typically thousands of hits. Is this the kind of "good" faith sanctioned by Wiki that I should aspire to? 5- I could not even include a recent book, by a well known academician, titled "Armenian Rebellion at Van" included as a reference in an article here titled "Armenian Resistance (read; rebellion) at Van". It was removed again and again, and now the article is blocked after all my edits and references are clenased. Same happened in Erzurum. My application for conflict resolution was denied and none of my contributions were restored and my discussions on the discussion pages have just elicited personal attacks. Same happened with Bitlis and Sasun. Is that the kind of behaviour we should aspire to? I am obviously missing something. I am still not sure exactly what I can do or not do here. Please help explain with some examples.

== Hello ==

Hello there Khoikhoi this user seems to be a sock of Kuntan. --] (]) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:Blocked, thx. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

== Ceha ==

followed your advice at all. :) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Harassment etc.==

Hi Khoikhoi, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--] (]) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Khoikhoi, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but.... I think if you look more closely at the thread you're referring to, you'll agree that what you've deleted is not so much a heavy-handed response to a bogus argument as it is a restrained response to out-and-out trolling.--] (]) 05:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
::There are different ways of dealing with trolls, and yours may well be the best. Thanks again for your input.--] (]) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:43, 28 October 2022

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Khoikhoi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.