User talk:Khoikhoi

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.

Hemshin peoples- Here we go again...

Hi Khoikhoi,

Here we go again. Couple of hours after I have restored the article an anonymous user has reverted back again to the ancient version. I fear the cycle starts anew. What am I supposed to do? Any advice? Can you do something about it? Thanks. Omer182 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest Khoikhoi. Omer182 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you engaged Khoikhoi, but couple of hours after I have restored the article for the second time since unprotection, the User Namsos has affected a revert. This one is one of the previous four. I will restore the article again but I am nearly sure various identifiable users and anons will revert in turns. This is a clearly recognizable pattern as witnessed by the history of the article.Omer182 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi! The site with the results of 2003 Abkhazian census also has the results of all other censuses, including the 1886 one so I've added this ref.

There are two refs after the sentence 'Most of the Samurzaq'anians must be thought to have been Mingrelians, and a minority Abkhaz' - to the books by Mueller and by Cornell. I'm not sure since I don't have an access to these books now but I think that one of them was used as a source for that sentence (Mueller's one, maybe) and one for the 1886 data but was misplaced later for some reason. Could you check the book by Cornell for the 1886 census data? Alæxis_¿question? 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus cylinder

Please see my request at Talk:Cyrus cylinder#Tags before you dive into the article again. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Pan-Arabism

It is more than obvious that the anti-jewish section is unencyclopedic. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The style is more of a news-flash.
2. It contains information purely cited.
3. It is a strong point of view pushover.
4. There are some grammar mistakes and mistakes in punctuation. ( forgive me for mistakes in my own writing here)
5. It seems like this section is not about anti-jewish racism but instead an attack on arabs.
6. It contains dubious information that is apparently intended to misguide the reader.
7. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN PAN-ARABISM

Contrieng (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Georgia yearbooks

Hi,the 2005 Yearbook is the last one where the Georgian Department of Statistics shows separately four numbers: total population, population in territories controlled by the central government, population in Abkhazia, and population in South Osetia. The yearbooks for 2006 and 2007 unfortunately show only the population excluding Abkhazia and South Osetia and do not show any new estimates for the breakaway regions. So what I say in Abkhazia#Demographics about estimates not published after 2005 refers to estimates of Abkhazia population by the Georgian Dept Stat. If you would like to see the 2005 data (which are not on-line any more), please give me your e-mail and I will gladly send you the page from the 2005 Yearbook with the detailed population numbers. You can find my e-mail on my user page. Hope this clarifies the situation. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip and the demonstration with Internet Archive. I have heard of it, but have never used it before. I will see how to incorporate the link through Internet Archive to the 2005 YB in the Abkhazia (and maybe also Georgia) references. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mani1 is back with his behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran

Dear Khoikhoi Mani1 was punished for massreverting, insulting users, war edits and thretening me physically. I have applauded for your non-partizan formula to block both of us, in addition I retracted legal actions when yoy aksed me. You said he won't fall back in the same behavior because he is warned. Now he is back and reverting 3 users edits, and insults me again. He reverts and says noone touches this after the devbate is over, but is blocking every debate and also insults people. He does violate a longstanding consensus about the issue and disrepct facts and also all users. I think it is a toxic environment. He has had some assets for wikipedia: he uploaded many pictures and he is adding the fa: to the English Wikiepdia. Yet his behavior in persian wikipedia is also very unfortunate (for example reverting back to his edits and not respecting the sources for the pronounciation of Saakshvili and South Ossetia) but Ok Persian wikipedia has other admins (whihc are by the way very friendly to him!). Although he had done some good jobs like uploading pictures and linking the Persian articles to the English wikipedia, I think these tasks can be performed by other users as well. The main fact remains: that he is back again with war edits, disrespecting at least 3 editors intelligence, insults, violating longstanding consensuses singlehandedly, blockading debates and leaving no way for conflict resolution, personal attacks etc... I personally can not handle him any more. respecting you I have not (yet) taken legal actions for his phsyical threats. But By this I demand puntive actions agains him. I hope you take responsibility and I hope you ban him and block his ID/ IP at least for a longer time. Sorry to disturb you with this problem, but I trust you you can solve this problem, by your abilities.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, Physical threats were referring to his late comment that he wanted to challenge me at the Hague's central Station. That's the way often criminal youth in the Netherlands invite for a fight. If I reported to police then he was arrested and interrogated for some days. It is a very sensetive issue in the netherlands, especially among thepolitically sensetive minority groups, with other words Muslims.

But it is not that big problem for me. The main thing is that his behavior has become more and more irritating and disresepctful. Honestly I see these problems, whenever he is around. Some people do not change easily. It remembers me of the banned Sehend1. I do not say that Mani is the same user, but it was also remarkable that the permanently (?) banned Sehend1 did not change his behavior. Dear Lhoikhoi I respect your decision, but last time we both got banned despite the fact that the trouble was caused mainly by mani1. Now he is completely onesided the problem maker and you give him only a warning. I do not think it is fair against me. I think Mani deserves to be paunished more severly. But as always thanks for your efforts.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, mani can remove his threats from his or my talk page but they are there in the history. But answering your question: I have never been affraid of him in anyway. it is only that he should learn to behave well. He has not been around for some times now, I wonder (and I doubt) that he is changed. let's see.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi sorry for bothering you again, but Mani1 is again back and he is again busy with his deletions on Iran article. Knowing his behavior in the past I can imagine he will go on endelessly with this behavior. It is up to you as an independent admin, but I ask gently to ban him again for some time. If he is not punished, then maybe permanently. His behavior is becoming really annoying and will cost us a lot of time and energy to restore his deletions, and perhaps again mass revertings. Thanks--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A#Iran while he has been insulting and attacking me for the last month and I have had said nothing remotely insulting to him, this Mani guy clearly does not want dialogue and meditation. In addition it is not up to him to set the preconditions. What I am asking is his punishment. I MEAN I have been threated unfairly. I have dedicated much time and energy in editing wikipedia. Now because of good will I had agree an initial mutual ban in wikipedia, but now he is violating the truce and has insulted me respeatedly. Seemingly I am not worth enough to be considered. What I want is that he gets banned and I think I am fair. I was banned for no reasion. And as Mardetanha is his friend he has managed to ban me from Persian wikipedia. That was also not fair. I think I am heavily punished while this guy is not. That is not fair. I want justice.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, I just wanted to say that mani1 has vilated the revert rules. depending on when a day begins or ends, he has reverted the Iran page from the consesnsus of the editors to his political POV, 3 or at least 2 times in 24 hours. I wonder if his repeating violations of the rules are not enough reasons to ban him permanently. Thanks.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition next to theatening me and stalking he deletes my own talk page, which is some kind of vandalism.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khoikhoi, thanks for your actions. It is a minor dispute but Mani1 has no intention to resolve it or to cooperate. It was ME who from the beginning assumed good faith and agreed with mediation. It was Mani1 who rehjected all efforts. And unfortunately it is him who is tolerated disproportionately and it is ME who feels left alone and treated unjustly. By the way the dispute is between 5 people and him and he vandalizes my page (He is deleting me in mY talk page, it is not that he complains why I delete my own talk page!) and threatens me. And talking about being calm: It is ME who is calm, It is he who began the conflict and is still busy with his disruptive behaviors. It is HIM who violates one revert rule, not me. I am Calm in all aspects. But honestly I feel not treated justly. Now very nicely it was me who gets the same ban as him. In persian wiki he was even better off, because of his friendship with the admins there. All I say it is not fair and I have certainly no time and energy any more. This is the way some people stop putting efforts in Wikipedia. Thanks --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

Hello Khoikhoi, you left a notice on my German user page regarding an edit in the article Abkhazia back in 2005. However, I surely did not make this edit. I have the SUL account Bjs on different Wikipedias, but User:Bjs of the English Wikipedia is another person so that I had to login here aus User:Bjs-en. User:Bjs, however, seems to be inactive most of the time. Greetings --Bjs-en (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarikamis

Could you take a look at the removal of referenced material by Murat/Hudavendigar. Apparently he/she thinks a simple statement on the talk page allows him/her to removed multiple referenced material. [1] Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I'll contribute to the draft, thanks for notifying me. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request on User_talk:Pukhtunman

Hiya. I was gonna decline the unblock per checkuser, but I'm not sure where the checkuser-confirmed report is. If you get a chance, drop a link by there so it'll make it easier to deal with any other unblock requests. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nono, not doubting that... just wanted to be able to go, "see! look! a checkuser said you are!" by dropping a link in the user's direction. :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rector ASU

Aleko Gvaramia is the current rector, that other guy was the first rector ever of the ASU, that is, he became rector when the ASU was first created back in the seventies. sephia karta 16:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of Tibet

Hi. Some on the french wiki proposed to change the name "Embleme du Tibet" into "Embleme du gouvernement tibetain en exil". Do you have any reference showing that the Emblem of Tibet was used (and therefore created) in Tibet ? With thanks --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing

Hello, lately there have been many vandlaizing attempts on the Assyrian People page. 204.107.82.210 has been putting very disturbing comments on assyrian related topics. He has used profaninty, and he has mocked the assyrian antional heritage with his incompetent posts that belittle and insult assyrian related topics. I am not familiar with how to block this individual from posting these outrageous posts. Please if you can do something to put protection on the Assyrian People page and somehow block this user from editing it will be very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Opis

You might like to take a look at this, especially the talk page. I really don't care if Lambert or Grayson is correct or Cyrus a hero or villain (actually I think it's silly to talk about him as either), but I don't think editors should be making decisions as to whose translation is right or wrong, or that editors should be doing wholesale reversions of sourced text --or that other Admins should block a page just after the removal of all sourced text. I have a real problem with User:Ariobarza as he still doesn't understand WP:OR (see Persian Revolt where he wrote "According to the account of the struggle6 which is most circumstantial and on the whole most probable". Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Khoikhoi, I'm beginning to wonder if you understand WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV as well. Please demonstrate on Talk:Battle of Opis that you do, and please cease feeding the resident nationalists with bogus notions about them being qualified to judge the "credibility" of academics. These aren't obscure areas of policy we're talking about - they're some of Wikipedia's most basic principles. As an admin you can't possibly claim ignorance of those. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhumi district

Yes, those numbers are correct. The Abkhaz who lived there left/were expelled from it in 19th century (Muhajir (Caucasus)). Then Armenians, Georgians, Russians and others were settled there; Georgians left/were expelled after the 1992-1993 war, Abkhaz weren't particularly interested in it (Sukhumi itself and Gagra district were much more attractive) so Armenians became a majority there. The same is true for Kodori Valley (~Gulripsh district) and, partially, for Gagra district. See this site for the detailed results of censuses carried out in Abkhazia. It's in Russian but unfortunately I don't know about an English-language site with the same info. Alæxis_¿question? 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Could you protect my user page? I finished creating it and I don't want anyone to mess with it. Thanks. Neko85 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection is enough. Most vandals are young boys and don't bother to create an account... Neko85 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite, please :). Neko85 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dushanbe synagogue

A very interesting question. My photos are definitely of the old synagogue (which, I think, stands on the far side of the rail tracks) and they were taken on June 23, 2006 at 11 am (Israel time on my camera) or 13 am Dushanbe time. I even have a photo of the gabbai (the synagogue caretaker) posing for me in front of the door and the plaque. I have heard about the demolition, but I don't have any information on that. Maybe there was another old synagogue? I am going to Dushanbe on October 2 and I will do my best to check this out for you. I will let you know after October 10 – maybe with new photos. Meanwhile we obviously have a problem... Best, --Zlerman (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the same subject: please look at the two links from the Dushanbe synagogue page -- Tajikistan’s Only Synagogue Saved in Nick of Time and Web site of the Jewish Community of Dushanbe, news section. Both definitely show "my" synagogues -- the ornate doors are unmistakable; the second link shows destruction in progress around the core of the synagogue, but the core still stands. So maybe all the surrounding buildings were destroyed, but the synagogue that I photographed in June 2006 still stands? --Zlerman (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bukharan Jews is full of a heated controversy about Bukharan vs. Bukharian. I wouldn't get too worried about this, not even to the extent of trying to keep consistency within a single article. I am afraid it's useless.

On our subject, Dushanbe synagogue: my visual memory from June 2006 tells me that there were buildings (small) standing to the left and to the right of the synagogue that I photographed, but everything in front of the synagogue was a huge vacant space. I attributed this to the proximity of the railroad tracks, but now I see that the reason may have been different. In any event, I will re-visit the site between October 2 and 8. Will keep you posted. Meanwhile, we have the update tag and the latest piece from June 2008 (which needs verification and followup). --Zlerman (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakh migrations

The idea of the Dagestanian peoples (not just the Nakh, AFAIK) migrating from the Mid East, and perhaps even being the inventors of agriculture, is not a fringe view, though I don't know how widely accepted it is, or how strongly it's held by those who accept it as a possibility. I think Nichols wrote something on this, but it's all pretty vague right now. kwami (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd have to review what those edits were. We'll see. kwami (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few clods of manure: "Rise of the Sino-Caucasian culture"?? If there were such a thing, which is highly doubtful, there is no evidence for it. And it would certainly be much older than 5-6ka. I haven't seen the ref in question, but I seriously doubt that agriculture was the domain of the Nax, which almost certainly didn't yet exist—it would instead have been NEC. In the 2nd edit, he's conflated Nax & Vainax, a distinction which AFAIK is still maintained in the lit. In the third article you didn't give me a diff; I only see something about Soviet soldiers capitulating, which can be deleted as OR since there's no ref. kwami (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarthaFiles

Hi,

I put two more to checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles who seem to have been missed, user:Malindas (who returned to rvt Sabra and Shatila massacre) and user:Rapidisimisimo (who was already blocked, I goofed). But it occurs to me, obvious sock, could I have just asked an admin to block without requesting the cu? Jd2718 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A subsequent report Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles resulted in two more positives, but only one was blocked. Could you review and block, if appropriate, Carington (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), (abuse of multiple accounts), who is restoring the same edits we've seen before? Jd2718 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Fayssal got to it first. Jd2718 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic States

Could you check the latest additions to the references made by Nostradamus1?

Cotterell, A., The Imperial Capitals of China: A Dynastic History of the Celestial Empire, 2008, The Overlook Press
Paludan, A., Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors, 1998, Thames & Hudson Ltd. Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his reference of the "Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors" is 'supposedly' taken from page 600[2], when in reality the book only has 224 pages!! http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Chinese-Emperors-Reign-Reign/dp/0500050902/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

As for the Cotterell reference, I might have to find it somewhere. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Dear Khoikhoi, there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ChrisO.60s_conduct_2 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on a protected article

That was a really, really bad decision. Please revert yourself and leave the article alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opis

Not sure if you noticed since we were probably working at the same time, but you made this edit when the page was under full protection. Obviously, that's kind of a big policy violation so you might want to revert yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not hearing back from you so I went ahead and put it back to the protected version. I don't want to see you get screwed over what was probably a mistake. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a mistake. Check out his edit summary. He's promoting the same NPOV-violating line that CreazySuit and his pals are - namely that only one interpretation is "true" and all others are "false" and must not be mentioned. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this useful

Although for a long time scholars questioned the authenticity of Cyrus's proclamation, the tide turned in favor of its validity particularly with E.J.Bickerman's vigorous and learned demonstration that it was compatible with what is known from elsewhere about such edicts. -- "From Joshua to Caiaphas", p2., by James Vander Kam

Ezra 1 preserves a genuine edit of Cyrus., -- "The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1", p175, by E.J.Bickerman(1946)

http://www.bh.org.il/Names/POW/bickerman.asp

Kansas Bear (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laz People

Hello my friend :) how are you ? you must read "modern" articles.Cuz in Turkey 250-500,000 Lazs are living today.50 000 peoples were 1983.And Laz language used by 33,000 Lazs at 1983.But now we are living 21 st century.And Protestan cENTER:jOSHUAPROJECT SAYS:153,700 PEOPLES ARE speaking Lazs.Ok please true read.Loves good night.I am "banned" KolxisLaz.Please listen and understan me please :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.54.75 (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Bitlis

My modest additions, all referenced properly and discussed and explained at length, are again sytematically being vandalized here. I have edited this one sentence and 3 references 15 different ways to satisfy all involved already. Some are intent on carrying out an edit war no matter what and make no secret about it. They seem to enjoy an immunity that I do not. Please read the comments and edit history of Bitlis. What exactly would it take to keep these proper references, all vetted, in the article? Note that no one has even disputed the validity of these references, they just "do not like them"! They have not even challenged the references officially, through proper wiki tools but just deleting them. "Report to US Government of Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur Sutherland, 1919, U.S. 867.00/1005", "WWI-era mass grave with 20,000 skeletons found in Bitlis", "Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives (1906-1918), The Turkish Republic Prime Ministry General Directorate of State Archives Departmant of Ottoman Archives Publication,, Publication No: 23, Ankara 1995". Can you at least help keep the sentence and references there until they are succesfully challenged? Thanks.--Murat (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these "references" are from one site. Here is the Sutherland "source"[3] and this is the NY times "source"[4]. The third "reference" is a statement by an official from a hostile government. The Zaman source, with its commentary from "Törehan Serdar, head of the Association of Victims of World War I Massacres by Armenians", is undoubtedly an attempt at POV pushing.. This was discussed:

The majority of editors disagree with the context you have added please refrain from adding unsourced or unaccepted information to articles. We add facts that are verified or that are agreed in the scholarly world. --Namsos (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[5][6]. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the references are real. Facts are real and not personal opinions. If you still find a problem with them, by all means challenge them formally and properly. Personal opinions about the "acceptability" of references is not good enough a reason to delete them wholesale. What is acceptable here is well defined. If the relevant facts I have contributed, all backed by mainstream scholars and easily accesible sources seem incorrect in any way, then by all means expose them, prove them wrong, but keep your personal views and judgements out of it. Be specific about what you find to be incorrect. Best way to fend off POV and propaganda is to confront them with real facts. That is what I try to do.--Murat (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was in Bitlis when the first Armenian massacre occurred...., The Harvard Graduate's Magazine, by William Thayer, p116

..in the summer of 1915, was the town of Bitlis, rapidly made Armenian-free either through wholesale massacre or death-march deportation., Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State, by Mark Levene, p118

But the most extremem fear has prevailed ever since October 26, when the news of the Bitlis massacre has reached us., Report By Dr. Grace Kimball

Simultaneously the massacre of Armenians behind the Turkish lines began. The whole population of the district round Bitlis was murdered, so too were all males in Bitlis itself., Crescent and Iron Cross, by E.F. Benson, p 28.

In the town of Bitlis most of the Armenians were massacred...., Armenian and the Near East, by Fridjof Nansen, p324

1. Bodies were found near Bitlis, no mention as to whether the bodies are Turk, Armenian, Kurd or otherwise.

2. You give a report from people that arrive 4 YEARS after the massacres. This couple do not mention seeing bodies. Although, they apparently talked to "inhabitants" that had lived there during the "massacres" inflicted on them by Armenians. Yet, oddly these "inhabitants" were still alive....

3. The head of the Association of Victims of WWI Massacres by Armenians, is probably the most biased person they could have interviewed. I'm sure with that title his statement is "personal opinion", unless he's clairvoyant and can tell Turk or Armenian from skeletal remains.

4. And the most prejudiced "source", "Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives (1906-1918), "The Turkish Republic Prime Ministry General Directorate of State Archives Departmant of Ottoman Archives Publication,, Publication No: 23, Ankara 1995", which I'm sure clearly explains why the Ottoman Empire was moving Armenian women and children away from the front(clearly they were a threat to the Ottoman Army), yet apparently didn't move any Muslims(see #2, "inhabitants") away from the "rampaging hordes" of Armenians!!

Don't talk to me about personal opinion when your posts mention "Armenian nationalists" and propaganda. You are the only one allowing personal opinion to blind them. Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the user David873 u blocked along time ago

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and for being a bad-hand account. It appears that this is related to my recent edits as well as my sockpuppetry accusations. I confess that I have been involved in a heated dispute with another editor recently over the reliability of sources at Talk:Lý Long Tường and must have over-stepped the mark at some point. I had been trying to explain that state-run sources are not reliable to no avail. In any case, I promise not to edit the said talk page until the dispute is settled by other editors and to refrain from making potentially condescending comments in the future.

I have also been embroiled in a series of incidents which resulted in my accusing many users of sockpuppetry. I admit that I might have taken too hard a line against possible cases of sockpuppetry and promise that I will be more careful in the future should I be allowed to edit again.

Also, given my editing history and the fact that I have not been blocked before, I find it hard to see that I have been trolling or generally causing disruption at Wikipedia. Furthermore, I believe that I had not been adequately warned. After all, the editing history for my user account shows that I am actually interested about the neutrality and factual accuracy of Wikipedia articles rather than someone who is only interested in intimidating or harassing other editors. Therefore, I request that I be either unblocked or that the block be downgraded from indefinite to a fixed duration.

Decline reason:

Your first edits show that you are clearly not a new user. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but a large part of your contributions seem to consist largely of trolling. Furthermore, as Sandstein points out, you did not address the reason you were blocked for in the first place. Please use your main account, whatever it is, and please review WP:GHBH so that you can avoid similar situations like this in the future. Khoikhoi 07:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

well i found his main account- Dave1185

hes up to no good again, trolling, and harrasing me when hes not even an admin!ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

A anon user is changing the map and vital statistics of the Ottoman Empire article without first reaching a consensus. Could you intervene? Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Slovak cities, towns

Do most scholars agree with Kiss on this? What exactly is the current academic consensus according to most historians on Petofi's ethnicity? Because I checked Google Books and many sources seem to agree with the article in that his father was Serbian, but we should try to follow what the current academic consensus is per WP:UNDUE. Do you know if I can obtain a copy of Petofi adattár online? As for the use of Hungarian name for Slovak cities, the reason is that it would be anachronistic to not use the the official names at the time. As far as I know, Hungarian was the official language at the time, so the towns/cities were known by their Hungarian names. Today however the Slovak names are used. Khoikhoi 02:55, 24 August 2008

About the names of Slovak cities/towns. Are you kidding? There are millions of cities where official language used to be whatever in the past, but it is always called by its proper name. And when we talk about official language. The official language of Kingdom of Hungary from c.1000 to 1526 was Latin. From 1526 to c.1700, present day Slovakia, Croatia and part of Hungary formed Royal Hungary which was under Habsburg rule and the official language was again Latin. From 1700 to 1844 in the Kingdom of Hungary, which kind of remained under the Habsburg rule, the official language was Latin. The exception was the short period from 1784 to 1790 when the official language was German. From 1844 to 1849 the official language was Hungarian, then from 1849 to 1867 it was again changed to German and finally from 1867 to 1918 it was Hungarian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasooon (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingushetia

A little help on the "proto-Ingush migration" stuff when you get the chance. I'm at 3RR. kwami (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Looks like we found an acceptable compromise. kwami (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not really. He isn't being sincere in his edits. I can't tell if he's trolling, or just doesn't know the basics of verifying research. 06:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AM stats

Hey, why was Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Armenia articles by quality statistics deleted and how do we go about recreating that page?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Because it's here now: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Armenian articles by quality statistics.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation re Battle of Opis

A mediation has been opened on Battle of Opis, an article with which you have been involved recently. I have listed you as a party but please feel free to remove yourself if you do not want to participate in the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]