User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive15

Do you know this plugin?
Hi Alex,

Just wonder what this new Ajax plugin was implemented throughout the Wikipedia with popup boxes for the links to articles, history and so on? Could you tell the name of that plugin?

Another question, could I implement my own plugins in Wikipedia enabling their via monobook.js? How could I upload them? I have noticed that all modifications of my scripts could be blocked if they disturb the whole server (I've seen the issue at your bot implementation).

And finally, how those signature scripts are impemented as those guys Swatjester, Radiant use? I know how to create this signature, but how to write the template of signature which would be implemented each time as I type four tildes? Or they don't use templates and do it some other way? Vlad fedorov 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot for WikiProject NASCAR
I love what the bot has done for WikiProject Wisconsin, and I have used it regularly to screen new articles for the past few weeks with great success. Thank you for your work writing the bot - It has been extremely helpful!

I would like to have the bot also screen the new articles for WikiProject NASCAR. There's some inital rules to start with and tweak from there:


 * 1) Any article with the word "NASCAR (Nascar/nascar)" should get automatically included.
 * 2) Other key strings that should automaticlly be included are all the sanctioning body's major series (including alternate names in parenthesis): NEXTEL Cup (often nextel cup or Nextel c/Cup), Busch Series (Busch Grand National), Craftsman Truck Series, Canadian Tire, Whelen Modified, Whelen Southern Modified, Mexico Corona, Mexico T4, Dodge Weekly Series (Whelen All-American). Please include those with and without capitalization of the first letter in the string.
 * 3) Any article in a child category of Category:NASCAR.

I ask you to setup and code the rules. I added your talk page to my watchlist, so please respond here to coordinate. Thank you very much! Royal broil 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done Alex Bakharev 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pleased with the initial run by the bot. I have no suggestions for improvement. Thank you! Royal broil  03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New aricles for WikiProject Classroom coordination
Do you think the bot can deted pages of students, educators and such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab
Dear Alex Bakharev, I write asking you to reconsider your closure of this move request. I'm sorry about the lenght of this post.

Yes, the raw numbers show 14 users wanting to keep the article name as "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" (with 6 of them even contemplating using "Arvandrud" for the title), and only 8 users wanting to change the article's title to "Shatt al-Arab".

But all the arguments expounded to mantain the name "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or use "Arvandrud" (and I do mean all, without a single exception) disregard or blatantly contradict our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines.

On the other hand, all arguments given to change the name to "Shatt al-Arab" reflect our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines (which ask us to simply reflect common English usage, which in this case clearly is "Shatt al-Arab").

The whole list of reasons to use "Arvandrud" in the title:

1). "Arvandrud" is the historically correct name.
 * First, it contradicts the idea that Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive; with article titles merely reflecting common English usage, and not determining what the "correct, right, fair" name is or should be.
 * Second, the affirmation is supported by this link, stating that "[The] ARVAND-RUÚD [is the] name given to the river Tigris in some passages in the Mid. Pers. books and a verse in the [Shahnama]. The use of this name to designate the [Shatt al-Arab] began in the later Pahlavi period and persisted after the revolution of [...] 1978-79."

2). "Shatt al-Arab" is a modern term.
 * Our naming conventions ask us to reflect the terms commonly used in English-language publications, regardless of how modern or ancient that term is.

3). "Arvandrud," being the older name, should take more precedence over "Shatt al-Arab".
 * Our naming conventions make no mention whatsoever about "older names taking precendence over newer ones".

4). The river had been named "Arvand" centuries before Arabs came to the region.
 * Same as before.

5). "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) [is a] term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones.
 * Again, Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive.
 * And, if this argument were to hold water, it would imply that all country, nation or ethnic-mentioning terms should be discourage (is "English Channel" a horrible term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones ?). This clearly is not what our current naming conventions require.

6). This is an Encyclopedia and we should clear the truth, even if the reality is not the popular term used currently. Our job is to put the right term in common usage and not to follow the wrong one.
 * Again, Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive. Our job is exactly the opposite one. Wikipedia should not aim to "correct" what we may percieve as "wrong, biased, unfair" English usages.

7). These are two local names which are used in English, yet neither is English.
 * It contradicts the fact that our naming conventions require that we reflect common English usage, making no exception for "non English names".
 * Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"

8). Per controversial names "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."
 * Let me stress " and there is no good reason to change it ". In this case, following our naming conventions by reflecting common English usage is a good reason to change it.

9). There clearly is a dispute over the name.
 * There may be a dispute among Arabs and Iranians over what the "correct" name of this river is, but there's none in English-language publications, that favor "Shatt al-Arab" by an overwhelming margin.

10). This river is a border line and it is considered one of the reasons if Iran-Iraq war that had near 1 million casualties. So it is very irresponsible to use only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use.
 * How would that argument correspond to our naming conventions ? Does that mean that all articles on border lines in which wars have been fought ought to use double names, irrespective of which one is commonly used in English-language publications ? I can't find that anywhere in our naming conventions.

11). It is an editable encyclopedia, if we choose only one of the names every once in a while someone comes and changes the name to the other one and it never becomes stable.
 * Not a real problem. If anyone comes and changes the name without following the proper procedures and against what our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines state, it can be reverted as simple vandalism.

12). When 2 countries disagree on the name of one place and both of the names are accepted by international community as formal names we can't remove one of them and leave the other and the best order is alphabetical order.
 * Please, show me what part of our naming conventions support this argument :-)

13). Google books which is scholarly material is pretty close in hit results.
 * Actually, a Google Print search yields ca. 927 books using Shatt al-Arab (or Shatt el-Arab, Shatt ul-Arab), while only ca. 40 books using Arvandrud (or Arvand, Arwand).

14). Our naming conventions state that "in a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed."
 * Well... that only applies if editors fail to reach consensus on how our naming conventions apply to an article (not an unusual occurance :-). However, in this case the clause it is being invoked as if "disregard and blatant contradiction to our naming conventions" would equal lack of consensus. That is not true: all policy and guidelines-based arguments show a clear, unanimous consensus in favour of moving the article to "Shatt al-Arab".

So, in the end, the discussion has not been about how our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines apply to this article, but about whether they should apply or not. About whether the article should be named in accordance to policy or following the personal wishes of Iranian editors.


 * If the discussion was a vote on whether or not to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result is a clear lack of consensus for the application: 14 editors voted to disregard policy, and only 8 editors voted to follow policy.


 * If the discussion was about how to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result was a clear, unanimous consensus for "Shatt al-Arab".

So, Alex Bakharev, I ask you to reconsider your closing of that discussion :-) If you want to give me a personal answer, please, do it here, in your talk page, to mantain the conversation in one single place. - Best regards, Ev 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex. I take your silence as an indication that you won't take a second look at that decision. Could you at least explain your reasons for considering that the discussion resulted in a lack of consensus ?


 * This issue is currently being discussed at the administrators' noticeboard, in its "Requested move to Shatt al-Arab" & "At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?" sections. - Best regards, Ev 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would not reconsider the closing. Both side put strong arguments. The strongest for the status quo been that the river was a war zone and we should avoid any editing that makes us appear as we take sides. The strongest argument for the Shatt al-Arab is that it is much more widespread usage than Avandrud, Avans Rud or Avand River. Fifteen wikipedians voted for keeping the status quo while only eight voted to change the name. There were no obvious sock or meat puppets. To change the name we need some supermajority for the change (it used to be ~60-40% requirement). Thus, I closed the voting as no consensus. Personally I would prefer something like Shatt al-Arab (Avand River) but it was not on the table Alex Bakharev 02:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy; and closures are supposed to be conducted on the balance of arguments. The Iranian casualties of two decades ago are not an argument, or we would

Thank you for the explanation, Alex. Of course, I fully disagree with both premises: But, well, from what I'm seeing in the discussion that this whole Shatt al-Arab affaire has generated, it seems that not many editors and administrators agree with me on this :-) Again, thank you for the explanation. Have a nice weekend. - Ev 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That an argument with no backing whatsoever in our naming conventions guidelines has the same weight as the most basic criterion of our naming conventions policy (i.e. "generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize") and the clear wording of our naming conventions on geographic names ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name").
 * That straw polls results trump policy and guidelines — a premise that is at odds with "Wikipedia is not a democracy".

I also find this deeply regrettable. Wikipedia is not a democracy; and the arguments should count; not the !votes; else why come up with them? The Iranian war dead of two decades ago are not an argument we should recognize; or else we would have Great Patriotic War be the History of World War II, or at least the Eastern Front; as it is, the Great Patriotic War is an account of the term. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with your approach, Alex (see Talk:Arvandrud/Shatt_al-Arab). In situations where both sides are supported by naming conventions, looking at the number of supporters on each side may be okay. However, this is a case where one side has used guidelines to support its position and the other side has not. Ev has provide a plethora of evidence suggesting Shatt al-Arab goes with policy. Although not really a deciding factor, a cursory glance at other Wikipedias show the Farsi Wikipedia being the only one that mentions Arvand. The opposition, on the other hand, has... well... historical name, fairness, and a part of the policy that serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. After repeated requests to present some guideline to corroborate their point, they have still have come up short. Does this not count for something? --  tariq abjotu  01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think I have evaluated the consensus on the requested move incorrectly then change it. Honestly, I do not care about this article Alex Bakharev 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot/ChileLog
I can't figure out what's wrong with the rules. The phrase:"Article The Obscene Bird of Night matched rule \Wchile\W 8 points" appears in Chilelog, however the rule "Chilo[eé]" does not appear in the log, despite of that the word "Chiloé" is included in the article. Thanks for your time, Jespinos 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sometimes problems with processing rules with the non-ASCII symbols. I have added \x codes for the letters (just in case) Alex Bakharev 06:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

my RfA
Hi Alex, thank you very much for all your support during my RfA. It is very much appreciated. Er rab ee 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland-related Wikipedia notice board
Would you not agree that a clear reason should be given for posting this on the Polish Noticeboard (and not on any of the other noticeboard)? What is the evidence of any connection here?

I don't remember being involved in any controversy lately, but seeing such cryptic message on a page I read regularly and not knowing what the hell it is about (like most of the others who read that page) makes me nervous. Balcer 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on the board Alex Bakharev 02:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You still have not explained. Snowballing is clearly a bad thing, there is no debate about this.  But why should this be brought to particular attention on the Poland Noticeboard?  Balcer 02:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is the only plausible explanation for almost simultaneously negative votes of almost all the active participants of the Polish board. To the best of my knowledge Errabee did not edited Polish-related articles much, nor did he was involved in POV-pushing on other Eastern European articles. Alex Bakharev 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What defines "almost all" for you? I did not vote at all, User:Lysy voted in favour.  I see four familiar names that voted oppose (out of 31, or just over 10% of the oppose vote).  A quick look at the history of the noticeboard shows that more than 4 active users participate.  Your "almost all" comment has no leg to stand on.


 * If there is a problem here, it affects just those 4 users, not "Polish Wikipedians", or all people interested in Poland. The appropriate venue for the comment at issue should have been the talk pages of those four people.  Not a national noticeboard.


 * I renew my call for the removal of that entire thread. Balcer 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Second. But the thread should stay, for future generations to read and learn :) An apology to the noticeboard would be nice, though - our close to 30 members who certainly didn't snowball one way or another may appreciate it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier
Dear Alex! I think you've made a fine interpretation of the artistic style. The soldier actually have some similarites to the spectator in Gustaf Cederström's painting "The Funeral Transport". Maybe Enn Roos had that painting in mind when he created the statue? --Odengatan 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:3 Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.JPG
Hello, Alex Bakharev. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:3 Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive11. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming policy
I have added my comments regarding your unilateral addition to policy and your "no consensus" decision regarding the article move proposal for Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab. In these comments, I also call for a review of your actions by your peers. I feel it appropriate to advise you of this so you may respond as you deem appropriate. Rklawton 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to the above. I have reviewed the edit history more carefully and see that this is not at all the case.  You were simply restoring deletions made by another editor and propose discussion.  I have retracted my comments and apologized for my lack of thoroughness.  I apologize here as well.  Rklawton 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Work
Hey Alex. Good work on the John Howard article. If there ever was a page that is under attack by leftist scum then this is it. God bless you. Keep the good fight going. Prester John 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to user checkIP procedure for user:DLX, probably 194.106.126.242?
Alex, could you check this IP for user DLX on article Dmitri Linter, or alternatively tell me where I could lodge such request. Vlad fedorov 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCU. Max S em 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MaxSem is correct. I do not have the checkuser permissions and the WP:RFCU is the place Alex Bakharev 23:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

C Праздником!

 * Have you considered nominating this image for featured picture? It is extraordinary IMHO, especially the historical signficance. Sorry if I still had your talk page on my watchlist after the WikiProject NASCAR post above. I will remove your talk page of my watchlist. Royal broil  00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran semi-protection
Out of curiosity, how were you alerted about semi-protecting the Iran article? I ask because someone contacted me on AIM about re-semi-protecting the article. I objected, saying vandalism is normal and noting the fact that there have been several good contributions from IPs recently. He was clearly unsatisfied with my response and implied he'd pursue the matter further with someone else. I'm just worried he contacted you and you took his word without looking at the history. Even if that was not the case, I still believe your semi-protection was premature. --  tariq abjotu  04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr
making 4 revs in 23 h isn't a break of 3rr too? (00:21, 19:09, 23:11, 23:22)
 * Yes, I have blocked him as well. The duration of the block is less than yours as he did less reverts and it is his first block Alex Bakharev 11:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you are Anonimu, then any more edits to this IP would lead to resetting the block Alex Bakharev 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Point
Sure, you're right. Could I expect you warn Irpen as well?  // Halibutt 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide edits I have to warn him for? 06:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go:, , , ... Same scheme: no discussion at talk, no sources cited, only tag-warring. But it's me who get warned for using this tactics once, and not Irpen for using this tactics again and again...  // Halibutt 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see quite a number of criticism over the current text of the articles by User:Irpen and others on the Talk:Przyszowice_massacre and Talk:Institute of National Remembrance. I guess Irpen thinks that the criticism is not addressed. In the case then the reasons for the tags are not clear I would suggest to ask Irpen either on the his talk page or on the talk page of the articles Alex Bakharev 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's been a people vs. Irpen case for quite some time, as Irpen failed to present any sources and his tags are based solely on his own, unsupported point of view. I could follow the very same tactics, add a note on some random talk page that something is fishy and tag the articles. I'd of course ignore people trying to argue with me and presenting their sources (just like Irpen does) and of course I wouldn't present my sources (just like Irpen did not). But still, I guess I'd be warned - and Irpen was not.
 * Having said that, I admit that my action was at least as foolish as Irpen's actions are. I also admit that I have a growing problem with the acceptance of the fact that certain users are allowed to do anything - and remain unpunished - while others are warned the very second they start to follow others' path. Sure, that doesn't make my action right, but that also lessens the moral burden of breaking the rules, so to say. Frankly, except for common decency I see no reasons to abide by common sense when people such as Irpen are allowed to disrupt articles, wage tag wars and revert wars - and receive no attention. And this has been his modus operandi for ages, just check the history of the Talk:Battle of Wołodarka, where the same scheme was applied by the very same person: 3 reliable sources versus Irpen's own judgement.  // Halibutt 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, BTW, by Irpen's standards (and apparently yours as well) my above comment would be enough for me to post some or  tag to your user page - and keep adding it every time my edit is reverted. After all I don't need to post any proofs or sources, do I. All I need to question someone's credibility is... my nose. Or at least that's what Irpen's actions (and your comment above) suggest. Get the point?  // Halibutt 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot/OregonList
Hello, Alex. There is a link to television station K19GC in your new article bot's Oregon list that needs to be updated. I didn't want to do it myself, as I'm not certain what unintended effect it might have. The television station has changed its callsign to KQRE-LP, effective 15 January 2007. You may wish to update your link, as it's the only one remaining to K19GC. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
hey Alex, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Dear Alex, I think something goes wrong and some neutral admins' oppinion needed on this and this. Regards. Must . T  C 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your allegations
I did not "shop" to block an opponent in an argument as you wrongly claimed. In fact, I did not make the original complaint against this Ali Doost Zadeh and gave him opportunities to apologise and withdraw his smears. He did not, but I let the matter lie. But when you chose to praise him and said that his abuse "is directed against the governments not against the particular wiki editors", I pointed out his racial and personal attacks. I added that "It seems that admins like Alex Bakharev believe this is appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia and refuse to even warn editors when they engage in unprovoked racial and political smears." I simply asked admins whether they thought Ali Doost Zadeh's comments were acceptable and why there was not even a condemnation of racist and personal attacks against me, against Arabs and against Sunnis. You have never shown such leniancy towards me, although my "violations" are nothing compared to Ali Doost Zadeh's diatribe.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 14:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)



Talk:PKK
Can you please take a look at the talk page of PKK? Thanks. denizTC 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert to earlier version, at least the lead. Apparently Khoikhoi has no objection. Also please take a look at Republic of Ararat. Please do not protect it with Khoikhoi's version again. I want to AGF. DenizTC 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So? DenizTC 13:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't ignore this anymore. Why did you archive this section? If nobody disagrees, just unprotect the article, if someone disagrees don't archive this section please. DenizTC 23:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1905 2fnl Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.jpg
Hello, Alex Bakharev. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:1905 2fnl Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive11. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1905 Velikoe v malon i antikhrist - Transcribed by RLB v.2-corrected.jpg
Hello, Alex Bakharev. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:1905 Velikoe v malon i antikhrist - Transcribed by RLB v.2-corrected.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive11. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party
Thank you for the unprotection, article can be improved now. -- Cat chi? 01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New articles
Hi Alex, thanks for adding |these these articles to the noticeboard. Now that my long wikibreak is nearing an end, you've probably given me some new material to get working on :) It would be great if you could run this once a month or so and keep adding to the list - maybe you plan to do this anyway? -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An additional thought: can your bot work with images and do a similar job for Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New images? That would be truly great. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

user ahwaz
user ahwaz constantly calls my writing rant in the Persian Gulf page. Furthermore he is constantly insering politics. --alidoostzadeh 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are ranting off-topic: You were warned about this but you continue to write about what Saddam Hussein did, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex can see who just started the politics. It was Ralhazza and Ahwaz.  These users are simply not discussing Persian Gulf, but politics in every couple of sentences.  Several times today the above user has called my writing rant, which is a clear personal attack.--alidoostzadeh 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am hardly talking politics when I ask you to provide sources to support your claim that SCIRI and the Iraqi government use the term Persian Gulf . You appear unable to answer this, so you run off to admins to complain about me and misrepresent me in a campaign to get me blocked.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note the tone of the users. You appear unable to answer this, so you run off to admins ...  I hope Alex keeps a close watch of that article.  I am not going to make his talk page into a discussion board.  --alidoostzadeh 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not providing sources to back up your claims. Instead of admitting this, you make complaints about me to admins and a whole series of misrepresentations about my position, claiming I am a racist, etc. Instead of giving this user the benefit of the doubt and "warning" me for unspecified violations that I have not committed, I hope admins will look at this matter in an impartial fashion and the nature of Ali's contributions.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well! As I have been mentioned here in a non-friendly way without any desire to be involved in such level of "claims & suffer showing", I would like to remind user alidoostzadeh to read back his comments -in chronological order- in the last comments and count how many times he used racial, political and dispersing talks, and behaving like WP is his own territories trying to "dictate" his own narrow POVs and manipulate the articles he is editing. He is always shooting around the bush in the discussions, turning the Talk Page to a political forum full of hateness and ultra-nationalistic level, trolling within his talks and comments to raise the heat up, and always suppress and offend native Arab users to edit and use their mother language to mention (and cite) names used in Arabic (but not with Arabic-language-manipulated Iranian resources)! In my personal opinion, such behaviour is really not so encouraging nor friendly within WP and will help to seed hateness more and more. Sorry Alex, but I couldn't keep watching as I have been targeted here in a bad way by that fellow without showing any desire to clash before as he is launching on me here, otherwise I'm not going to write here or disturb you with this noise. Have a nice day Ralhazzaa 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please cool down. I am very busy n real life, so I might not follow your discussions closely. I think you both, Ali and Ahwaz demonstrate show a middle case of Disruptive editing. Neither Khuzestan, nor Human Rights in Suni Arabic Countries were particularly relevant in the talk about the Persian/Arab Gulf. Ali's reply was longer and probably more disruptive then Ahwaz's. It happens now and then to have some off-topic discussions but then they become disruptive it is no good. In that case it is normal to briefly ask for an apology or ask WP:AN/I or an admin to intervene. On the other hand going to many different fora, misrepresenting words of your opponent (there was nothing racist in Ali's criticism of "Arabic Suni Governments") is wrong and very disruptive on its own right. Hope it helps. No, guys, please stop arguing and back to the editing 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolute nonsense. I did not misrepresent Ali DoostZadeh. He made racist remarks and that was why he was reported to AN/I - not reported by me but by Ralhazzaa (in contrast, it seems DoostZadeh was shopping for a block on me in different fora and misrepresenting me in the worst way possible - something you are unwilling to accept let alone deal with). Afterwards, he decided to cover up his remarks by editing his statements when it was clear that he was engaged in racist attacks. Then he follows up by small vandalisms of my comments, presumably to provoke. I demand that you point out exactly where I breached Wikipedia rules and what I am being warned about.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think criticizing "Sunni Arab Governments" is a racist attack. Neither Sunni, nor Governments are a race (even Arabs are hardly a race AFAIK). At any rate I am happy that you do not think you were involved in disruptive editing and forum shopping. If you do not do it and I was mistaken then it would be easy for you to follow my advise to not be involved in that type of behavior in future Alex Bakharev 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you read through the history of the talk page. Ali DoostZadeh's attack was originally on all Arabs, but he changed the text when I brought it to attention of the AN/I. I think this was devious and obviously intended to make me look like the trouble-maker, while DoostZadeh could claim it was innocent and later changed. What troubles me is that you believed what you were being told - and I think you were acting in good faith - when in fact this selective and convenient "editing" of personal attacks and racist comments in order to avoid a reprimand from admins and cast me in a bad light. There were also a number of other personal attacks on me and on Arabs generally, which I listed here. I've never wanted anything but equal treatment and impartial adjudication on these matters. I didn't request a block for this user, but I was just trying to highlight discrepancies in the application of policy. In such contentious matters, admin bias (even when unintentional and in good faith) can cause bad feeling. I realise this is an old issue and I'm not expecting further action on this particular matter, but I would hope that future disputes on Iran-related articles can be judged in an impartial manner and bearing in mind all the facts and history rather than on assumptions about the parties to the dispute. I am sure that this would help ease the situation and lead to productive editing.
 * As it is, there is a de facto editorial block on me placed by a group of editors stacking 3RRs, AfD votes, etc, and blind reverting even grammatical edits by me. Similar vindictive acts on Iran-related articles have led to some highly productive editors with clean block logs quitting Wikipedia. Unless admins understand the bullying atmosphere on these articles, the quality of articles will deteriorate. Bullying must stop.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is realy funny. The fact is that my change of wording had nothing to do with any of Ahwaz's message or warning.  I changed it simply because that is what I meant.  The users instead of discussing Persian Gulf started non-related topics.  I have nothing more to add here and wanted to point out that the user Ahwaz has broken 3RR multiple times, has used socks and etc and so there is a reason why his block logs are full.   So admins have been acting correctly and fair and Alex figured it out too.  You guys are trying to misrepresent me, but your conducts and messages above speak for themselves and Alex has noticed it as well.  --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ali DoostZadeh: As I recollect, you were warned for your atrocious behaviour on that talk page, with your long rants about politics and how bad you think Arabs are. If admins don't want to take action against racial chauvinism, then that is a reflection on them not me.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1927 Paris Ru emig.jpg
Hello Alex Bakharev, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1927 Paris Ru emig.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive11. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot
Alex, just wanted co congratulate you on the AlexNewArtBot. I only now noticed that it's used not only for Scotland, but also for other countries and projects, including Russia, Poland, Lithuania etc ;-) --Lysytalk 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I may be not following Poland as closely as some might think ;-) Cheers. --Lysytalk 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Avtorkhanov as "Russian Historians" Category
Hey, just wanted to let you know that Avtorkhanov never took Russian citizenship after the collapse of the USSR, and he wasn't ethnic Russian, so I am not sure whether he could be classified as a Russian historian. --Samian 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am uncomfortable with putting him under Category:Soviet historians, but if it would make you more comfortable... Alex Bakharev 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine
Presently it in a state of a hot dispute, can you help a bit? --Kuban Cossack 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New articles
Thanks again for this bot. Listen, there's a slight bug with the update I hope you can fix. It should look like this, with the noinclude on top and the archive on the bottom. It seems to be forgetting to do both. Thanks again. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Thanks for fixing, it would stick Alex Bakharev 06:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kunta-Haji
Alex, that article looks great! I really like it! If you wanted to, I guess you could add an External Links section, but it all seems fine to me ))

Keep up the good work! Samian

Civility
Don't wave around your admin stick, please. You're hardly an unbiased observer, judging by your comments on the AfD page in question. And as Petri Krohn has been editing up a storm with widely disputed and rejected statements from a highly biased, pro-Soviet viewpoint on a number of Baltics-related articles, calling him a Communist apologist is descriptive instead of slanderous. He's systematically using Wikipedia as a soapbox for his far-fetched political and historical theories, and that deserves to be pointed out. I'll refrain from descriptive terms regarding him, but I'll consider it fair game to instead cite examples of his extreme biases in the future. Unigolyn 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon new articles feed
Hi, Alex. I've attempted to create a new feed for your new articles bot to find Cameroon-related stuff. If you get a chance, please check out #129 on the bot page to see if I did everything correctly. Thanks! — Brian ( talk ) 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did everything right. I have limited short town names from both sides. Lets see the results Alex Bakharev 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex, the bot does not appear to have reported the results of its search at Africa-related regional notice board/New articles/Cameroon. Am I supposed to manually copy and paste the results? Thanks, — Brian ( talk ) 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have transcluded the bot page to the project page Alex Bakharev 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Brian ( talk ) 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clodt von Jürgensburgs
Hi, Alex! All these individuals should most certainly be listed under the names they were using. Since Clodt von Jürgensburg is technically not a disambiguation page but a page about a family, using a uniform scheme is not that important; what's important is that we list people under correct names. With that in mind, patronymic should only be a part of the title for those people who used the same first/last names. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no 2 million Russians in the USA
The census talks about Russian citizens, while the article is only about ethnic Russians. Most of the Russian citizens living in the USA, infact, almost all, are Jewish. Ancenstry here means the country the man came from. For exemplem Israeli 106,839. But there aint such a nationality Israely isn't it (they are Jews)? This census is NOT ethnic. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten RFA
Sorry to disturb your wikibreak. In any case, this is not urgent, as it has been going on for soem time now. Before he withdrew from English Wikipedia, User:Ice201 forgot to withdraw his RfA. Judging from your and another admin's comment on his talk page, there may have been something wrong administratively with this Rfa, which would explain why Ice201 is not listed among failed admin candidates. However, as you see two people have voted on that page AFTER Ice201 withdrew from English Wikipedia, probably reaching the page from one of the links on the Ice201 talk page. Basically, I do not think it is a good idea to leave that page in existence if it was not a regular RfA. If it was regular, someone must close the RfA, so people stop voting there. --Pan Gerwazy 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the invalid RfA Alex Bakharev 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine
Привет! What about unblocking it? Кое-о-чём вроде договорились. Alæxis¿question? 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Alex. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. Max S em 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Autotravel
I'm interesting in your opinion. Alex Spade 12:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Estland
Need help here. -- Petri Krohn 11:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the result of Articles for deletion/Estland was to keep the article - whatever the technicalities may be. This decision should be binding on everyone and should be enforced by adminstrators.


 * In principle I am open to the suggestion, that Estland would be a dab page. This is however what needs to happen first:
 * User:Digwuren, or someone else, must propose another name for the existing old article.
 * A consensus must somehow be reached
 * The page must be moved to make page for the dab page.
 * Until this happens, the page should stay with its old content, and the dab page should stay at Estland (disambiguation). As we now have a closed and enforcable AfD, administrators should enforce it against deletions, page blanking and other forms of unconstructive editing. -- Petri Krohn 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please restore the MoS compliant dab page, that was deleted as part of this madness. -- Petri Krohn 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinsk massacre
Alex, where did the link say it was a local hospital ? Please see the discussion at the talk page of the article. --Lysytalk 08:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot

 * Second that. Now, a suggestion. How difficult would be to modify the bot so that it runs its out page, checks and compares whether the entries are added to the proper noticeboards, and if yes, deleted the duplication from the output page. No biggy if it is too difficult... --Irpen 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ghirla and Irpen. I will think on Irpen's suggestion Alex Bakharev 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vilna - nothing to merge
Alex, please, check the talk pages first. There is nothig to merge: the material removed is either off-topic, controversial and unreliable, or simply belongs on Wikiquote/Wikisource. When a section starts sprouting comments about 'barbed wire torture', 'executions of children and women' and such, this indicates serious problems that should be resolved by careful discussion at talk, not by reverts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Estland
Your history of unwarranted undeletion of Estland (disambiguation) is grounds for considering you to have a conflict of interest in matters of Estland. Please recuse yourself, and have a random administrator look into appropriateness of protecting Estland, as well as interpretation of the withdrawn AfD's outcome. Digwuren 07:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Alex's vote to Keep in the AfD Articles for deletion/Estland  indicates there may be a conflict of interest here. Martintg 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Vilna offensive
Alex, Piotrus, consider this. Both of you are administrators and you both should know better than revert warring, right ? --Lysytalk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian
Hi Alex. I don't think there are any red links because I replaced every talk page tagged with the Persian template with the new template. I was pretty hesitant on deleting the template, but went ahead and did so because I thought there was consensus on using a unified template (two other established users in a CfD). My apologies, I will revert my changes. — An as  talk? 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I know these lame wars and have seen them before; usually I don't get involved and, in my present conditions, wouldn't want to risk drowning in one. So, for now, I have restored everything to the way it was before. Additionally, having giving it some thought, I think no changes are really necessary, since many have already gotten accustomed to using Persian template. Thanks for understanding too. — An as  talk? 13:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Virginia trioli.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Virginia trioli.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\talk 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IP vandal
Dear Alex, An Ip user User:80.250.128.5 is vandalising many pages now.I reported it at Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism.İt continue reverts. I reverted many pages back, but I am afraid to violate 3RR.Please take a look.Regards. Must . T  C 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank for response.I have no idea about GreekWarrior, I am checking some articles and some talk pages.But this is very interesting points; See here, [User:Baristarim] share your idea. I will try to supply some material soon.
 * I reported him at 3RR page(He has 4 revert).
 * )How about my grandson(see photo in my talk.):).

Regards. Must . T  C 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concensus on Estland
Alex, you protected Estland. You were also a party to the original AfD on the side of keeping the article. You maintain that protection will remain until consensus is achieved.

I have requested on the talk page of both the article and 's page for a verifiable published reliable source that supports his synthesis that Estland is something more than Danish or German for Estonia. However Petri has been unable to provide any such evidence to date. In fact he has totally ignored all calls for such evidence.

As you argued in the AfD in support of Petri, I ask you to provide such a source support the claim that Estland is something more than Danish for Estonia. Please do post it, so we can discuss it and achieve the concensus you require.

However, if Petri, you or anyone else cannot provide such a source after repeated requests, then the conclusion must be that the article is an unsourced synthesis which is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, regardless of what Petri may believe and lead you and others believe.

You are a reasonable person, I appeal to you to use your common sense and see this whole issue is as nutty as claiming Russland is something more than German for Russia. Continuing to protect a page that represents an unsourced synthesis is not a wise course, so perhaps you could discuss this with Petri and get some sanity back into this situation. Thanks. Martintg 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex, thanks for starting the discussion. Could you replace the current "title-dispute" tag with the "reversionwar" tag. This dispute is no longer about the title, just the purpose and content. Thanks. Martintg 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Estland
I added a third option (keep) to the section, and moved your vote there, as you do not seem to be suggesting a rename. Did I misunderstand you? If so, my sincerest apologies. -- Petri Krohn 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Help
Hi, i have created this article for wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Tragedies_%28Band%29 Ut's Russian, so i think it's importent that this page will also be in Russian, the problem is i don't know how to write Russian without mistakes, and it takes me an hour to write a word. Could you please translate the English page into the Russian one here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B8_%28%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%29 I asked you because you know Russian, thanks :-) M.V.E.i. 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Beatle Fab Four 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex, could you please take a look? WP:AN/I I added my view.Beatle Fab Four 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
What is Wikipedia policy on editors using their own websites as references/sources to support their own case in editorial disputes and inserting them in articles?--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the user claims I own a website. That is not completely true, I write for a website which is owned by several people.  Furthermore, the articles in those websites are not my own.  And furthermore, they simply introduce books and responses.  The books and responses are not even cited in the main article of dispute or quoted in any way in the article.  They are simply mentioned as such: These published books are responses to Pourpirar with a link and those books have nothing to do with me or any website.  They are simply published books and they are simply mentioned in the website (Author, title, cover page, publisher). --alidoostzadeh 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I have not mentioned your name here and yet you appear to have followed my comments and admitted, at the very least, that you contribute to a non-verifiable website that you continually use to back up your POV, both in writing articles and on talk pages. In fact, you have written here that azargoshnasp.net is your home page (صفحه خانگ) and uploaded an article to this website  to prove your point on talk pages . Moreover, it seems that you are determined to blind revert any and all changes I make to the Nasser Pourpirar article, including removing fact tags. This article has already created concern over its violation of WP:BLP. Nevertheless, you insist on using your website and unverifiable blogs as the sole sources for the Nasser Pourpirar article - an article that should not exist because of a lack of notability, as you yourself have admitted but changed your mind saying "such revisionists should be exposed", as if this is the purpose of Wikipedia. I leave it up to admins on the best way forward to resolve this issue, since it is obvious that whatever I write will be blind reverted by you and like-minded users.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the website is not mentioned in the article. But books published against the author which have nothing to do with the website are mentioned.  And yeah I contribute to the website along with others.  That does not make books (name, author, published, couple of excerpts from the book) without any comment from me, unusuable for wikipedia.  The books will be introduced some how, weather in the page itself through the reference or through a website.  The other two weblogs.  One is Pourpirar's webblog.  The other is an address of a book in response to pourpirar.  So your claim does not hold.  Because the website and weblog in question (with the exception of the weblog of the author itself) was not quoted.  And of course I can write for any website I want and I can put my responses in those websites with verifiable sources.  I did not quote my responses in wikipedia, so your claim is simply baseless.  The website has material from over 100+ authors (Iranian, English, German and etc.).  As long as I am not quoting myself in a wikipedia article, (and in this case I am not even quoting the website, but I am introducing links), then there is no reason for your objection.  And yes of course I as one of the writers for that website will allow myself  to use the website's resources for  talkpages in Wikipedia.  Your point is basically that I can not be quoted.  I agree.  Even the  website is not quoted despite the articles mentioned having different authors.  But books published against the author have been introduced in the website and thus they are mentioned (not quoted!).  Mentioning published books with their author and etc.. is not the same quoting a wikipedia users opinion  in the main body of the article.  Albeit those books actually can be quoted if necessary.  The other objection you had was to a weblog.  In Iran many people now use weblogs to introduce something.  In this case the weblog mentioned has no entry except one.  And the entry again just mentions a book, publisher, date, author.  Thus your objections are goundless since only the weblog of the author (pourpirar) is quoted and that is perfectly fine.   --alidoostzadeh 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically Ahwaz objects to this portion (he removed it):, but as Alex can see, that portion, nothing is quoted. Simply books are mentioned that have been published in response to Pourpirar.  And none of the articles were written by me.  I contribute to a lot of websites by the way besides wikipedia.  --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If a site just publish online copies of books and paper articles it is better to refer the books and articles stating available online at ... Obviously the book is not become any worse if it available online for our convenience. Personal sites are not reliable sources, some online publications with some editorial boards and fact checking facilities are good sources, some are not. If the assertion is challenged we have to discuss it Alex Bakharev 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Ahwaz's objection is to here: []. Basically there is no personal opinion on that wiki-page with regards to that site.  It just mentions several books that have been published (book author, name,.. ) and couple of excerpts.  I can of course transfer all that information(author, book, published, excerpts) to wikipedia if necessary (with the exception of the nicely done coverpage of the book).  But I do not see a ground for objection if the site is not quoted.  For example check out this portion of the site:.  The owner has put some important books about Avesta.  Or here: .  As long as I am not quoting myself (which I never had except in the talkpages), I do not see really any ground for objection of mentioning some other books that are mentioned in the site.  I can easily even ask the author of that site to remove my own enteries, but my enteries have nothing to do with mentioning those books.     --alidoostzadeh 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to add in links to blogs as well as your home page, despite being told by an admin that "Personal sites are not reliable sources".--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also can I consider what Ahwaz has done (publish my e-mails and other information) without my consent as illegal in wikipedia? I believe users can get banned for such acts. --alidoostzadeh 00:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have published your email address throughout Wikipedia, on talk pages. I've never published your email on Wikipedia, so please don't lie. You have said on another website that azargoshnasp is your home page. It is quite clear.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that alidoostzadeh is removing fact tags on unsourced POV statements in the Nasser Pourpirar article, which include claims that he is a conspiracy theorist and anti-semite (claims which breach WP:BLP, as well as beliefs attributed to him. I am not removing these allegations from the article, just asking for citations - this user is simply reverting these tags. What is the way forward?--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR rule on Persian Gulf
Hi, Ralhazaa. I have noticed that you reverted the article Persian Gulf seven times during 24 hours period. It is strictly forbidden by the WP:3RR policy. The only exemption that might permit such an edit war would be simple vandalism, that was obviously not the case. WP:MOS does not permit cluttering the lead of an article with irrelevant or hardly relevant non-English names. So while referring to one or two foreign names (e.g Arabic Gulf in Arabic and Persian Gulf in Farsi makes sense, cluttering it with a great number of hardly used names is not. Maybe we should make a separate section for all the names but putting them all to the lead is absurd.

Please in future:
 * avoid labelling vandalism good faith edits
 * obey 3RR policy Alex Bakharev 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

The difinition of Vandalisim saying it is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

What I did is to protect the article of evacuting of resourced info, that may not make others happy.. but it is the fact.

Could u explain for me what is the difference between 3RR and protecting article from deletion (partially or in total) by IP users? You may easily notice that I did semi-protection for that article, but that IP registered user looks still able to edit!... shoudln't we focus more on this before saying 3RR?

It is clear simple vandalisim to remove text and resourced info by IP registered user repeatedly without explaining or discussing it (this happened for at leat 5 times). Another time, a Silly Vandalism has been done by user Gersh77 by inserting nonsens to the article lead (This Gulf also called in Arabic as the American Gulf) that is obvoius silly vandalisim has nothing to do with good faith as he is estblished user but of different POV. (note that he even throw some trash in my Talk Page without reason or comment, just for revenge). I don't consider my protecting of the article is 3RR as no one of our busy admins give it a look since a while. By then, IP users, socks puppet and other editors were playing political game here. Can you tell me if somebody changed the rule of WP to not consider Refs as good thing? What u r going to call an edit of inserting a word like "UK is also called as the Tail of USA", or "Khomaini is also called as hte Great Antichrist in Farsi Language" or such sill words about Ukraine?? Isn't Silly Vandalisim or not?

Please note that I inserted more historical names because users of the other POV wanted this statment in the lead. I opposed this, and still, but they want it for political reasons.

I would like to ask you for taking an intiative and keep only one name in Arabic: Arabian Gulf, and Farsi: Persian Gulf to end this edit war. Actually, I asked for this many times in the discussions, but Iranian users pushing us (Arab users) to call this sea as Persian Gulf in Arabic!!!... while u can see the refs I brought up (UN documentaions in Arabic, Academy of the Arabic Lang, Arab Geog. Soc., Arab League' documentations, wide media reports (Aljazeera, Alarabiya..). However, when they insisted to insert the name "Persian Gulf" as Arabic name, I tag it with Fact, as it really not true and lacks refs and we shouldn't mislead our readers here. Ralhazzaa 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Attacking my personal page,.. insulting
Could u plz take a look how the user Gerash77 is doing noxious edits in my personal page, like here, that has been a second unjustified attack that folowed this one

Would u plz notice that he is using uncivil language: "why are you trying to bring your "mummy" into discussion". Why should I assume good faith with such uncivil user insisting to destroy (and insult) rather than build up? I'm waiting for a legal action against him due to his intentional and repeated vandalising in my personal Talk Page, and his impolite insults. Ralhazzaa 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, I would like to turn your attention that Gerash77 is still posting harassing and trolling comments in my personal talk page, throwing away all what has been told about civility and etiquette in Wikipedia. I don't want him to touch my personal talk page in such illegal and harrasing way, and to stop his open & continous personal attack. Ralhazzaa 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: stop-sign methodology
Hi, Gerash.

In an editorial dispute the winner is usually the person who provides the strongest argument not the person who put the largest stop sign on the opponent's talk page. Please comment on content rather on the contributor. Alex Bakharev 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I have to agree that my stop-sign methodology was an unproven containment method for stopping violations. However, I had to experiment with this pedagogics to draw empirical evidence as to whether the size of these signs have a more sounding effect on violating party, rather than the usually ignored "strong arguments".
 * In any case, you seem to be right on this issue based on his "canvassing" that resulted from this particular methodology. --Gerash77 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with this "methodology" is that it can be considered vandalism and get you blocked Alex Bakharev 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be debatable as the warning signs are chosen to be under 95 pixels. However, I think a block is necessary for an editor's repeated canvassing and violations of WP:3RR, per blocking policies.--Gerash77 10:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is suppose to be an electric fence, so please report the violations to AN/3RR or to me if I am online. What do you mean by canvassing? Alex Bakharev 10:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't report AN/3RR incidents directly to 5 different admins, contrary to WP:CANVAS. See Admin Alison's comment at: User_talk:Ralhazzaa--Gerash77 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well.. we should firstly focus on your behavior and what did u insert in the lead of the article (this sea also called as the American Gulf in Arabic), which is considered nonsens and non encyclopedic, that is in difinition: Silly Vandalisim. Also, we should focus on your "Warning Removal" from your talk page as another action against the rules of WP. What r u calling 3RR in that article was protection of simple vandalisim by IP user for 6 time, and u did the 7th, that were intending to supress writing a name, insert false political info and removing resources. That was the start Gerash77! Later, u did a Personal Attack and filled my personal Talk Page with unjustified warning tags and insulted me as well. Your uncivil behaviour should be our recent discussion in this section. What Alsion said is his own idea as he didn't show a reaction toward u so I raised the issue of your personal attack and uncivil behavior to other admins. Ralhazzaa 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi
I think this should clarify. Please let me know if not. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! After chat with Gnaggara and this evidence I decided to unblock the guy Alex Bakharev 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A messege from M.V.E.i.
Hi. Your an administrator to. Could you please talk to Neil of making my punishment smaller, ot at least remove my user page from the Temporary Wikipedian userpages, because i don't wan't it to be deleted. You just know the case. I write from my regular IP now but if you want to say somthing to me you can leave a messege on the M.V.E.i. talk page. Just please understand. i'm half Jewish half Russian, i had many who fought against the Nazis and who were killed by the Nazis in the вeath squads in the mass graves, so when i hear someone say things like "the Estonisn SS didn't kill Jews" and "Estonians didn't participate in the holocaust" please try to undertand why i loose my temper. Please, your an administratorm talk to Neil or do somthing. I know you don't have to, but what other administrator can i turn to? Thank you.

Estland solution
I've created the article Baltic Noble Corporations, which includes the Estonian part. That should satisfy all concerned: we can have an article on the feudal Estonian Baltic Corporation and also turn Estland into an re-direct. Martintg 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts Alex. I think it was the best possible compromise under difficult circumstances. Martintg 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Noble Corporations
Hi, Alex. I originally listed Baltic Noble Corporations for speedy deletion as a copyvio of: and noted your comment on the talk page. However, whilst the opening paragraph was plausibly a changed version, the following sections are almost complete copy/pastes of the links I listed which made me suspicious that the opening paragraph may have been copied from another source. Consequently I've removed the definite copyrighted material and but will leave the remainder. CIreland 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, but one last question
A month is fine with me, at least it's better than what it was, so no i won't evade this block, but i still have a request: On my user page, could you delete the blocked indefinitely template and remove my page from the Temporary Wikipedian userpages category? And about the Russians article page, this gouy doesn't care about the article, he insist on keeping false information. For example, 2000000 Russians in USA. The same link that shows this also shows a nuber of Israeli people for example, but their ain't such a nationality Israely, which shows that the census is about Citizenship and not about ethnicity, while the article is about the ETHNIC group Russians, so now you see my objection to what he does? In order to keep the "law" in Wikipedia, he hurts an article, while the whole idea of law in Wikipedia is to make shure that articles don't get hurt. Anyway, thanks for your understanding. After i writre this messege, for this block month i won't even write from my IP. M.V.E.i.
 * Done. Really can you see the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox, when you open my user or talk page? Can you click on it and send me an email rather than violate your block rules? Alex Bakharev 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Kurdistan/New article
Hi, i think there is a problem. Despite i have put the portal Name into the list, there is no a reaction. Whould you check it. Thanks. --Bohater 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is run daily. You have missed today run, hopefully tomorrow the bot would find something for us Alex Bakharev 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)