User talk:Aucaman

This is a good place to leave me a message. If you rather discuss things in private you can e-mail me. --Aucaman 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave a message.

Persian people, Persian Jews, etc.
Racists abound on Wikipedia, much to my chagrin, as do quacks and all manner of other proponents of wanton stupidity. If that statement ever prevents me from becoming a bureaucrat, I'll count it as further undeniable proof thereof. People pontificate and pontificate, and usually those who know what they're talking about give up in disgust long before those who clearly haven't the foggiest notion whereof they speak, do so. This can clearly be seen in what is currently going on in the endless moronic discussion on Talk:Persian Jews where idiots are arguing, with seemingly boundless energy, unfettered by rational thought or the faintest clue what they're talking about, that "Persian Jews" means "Jews who presently live in Iran". I'll look into your request and try to weigh in with a few words of intelligent thought, but I offer no guarantee that they'll be received at all [more likely they'll be completely ignored by the warring ignorami as my input on Talk:Persian Jews has been...] Cheerfully, but disgustedly, in as good of spirits as that can leave either of us, yours, Tom e rtalk  07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page messaging
Hi, it was brought to my attention that you had posted the same message to a large number of user pages regarding the POV dispute on Persian people. I will try and explain how these sorts of disputes are usually resolved so that you can better understand the processes we have in place. First the talk page on the individual article is the first place you should go if you have a dispute about something that pertains to that article specifically, as this does. This may sometimes seem slow, as you will very often have to wait a number of days for a full response. This is normal, and you shouldn't escalate the situation just because no one responds in a few hours for example.

If you are dealing with an article that gets little or no attention, or you are in an argument that you think needs a few more voices use Requests for comment. This is a centralized place for people to see situations that might need further input. The point of both of these processes is to have the information on the page in which it is most relevant. While it might seem like a fast solution to leave a message on 50 people's talk page, it's not looked upon well by the community because it decentralizes the discussion to which everyone might want to be a contributor. For example what if 30 of those people start having conversations with you on their talk page, that quickly becomes unmanageable. I hope I have explained the reasoning behind how these things are usually done. I'm going to go ahead and revert the messages, you should probably list your arguments on Talk:Persian people if you haven't already. If you want to read more about it have a look at the spamming page. If you have any other questions let me know. - cohesion 08:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


 * I've tried the RfC thing before. You know how many people came to the page? Let me count them for you: 1, 2, 3,.... Oh, sorry, ZERO. No one showed up! This was probably a month ago, so don't tell me I haven't been patient with the system. So much for the well-advertized RfC mechanism. It's quiet genius.


 * As for "spamming" these people, I was trying to get people to take a look at the page and maybe get involved. Even if these messages would later turn into discussions, I don't see how that's not healthy thing. You're telling me that I'm not supposed to be having private discussions with anyone outside a particular talk page because that would somehow "decentralize" the discussion?


 * The only argument left is that I've been messaging too many people, in which I case I'd like to know why you've reverted all my messages. Was my first message to User:Apoivre inappropriate? If yes, why? If no, then why was it reverted?


 * At some point you have to admit you just helped these users keep their POV version of the article by blindly reverting all my messages without much thought. The least you could have done was to discuss this with me before trying to enforce something that doesn't even appear to be Wikipedia policy. In fact, the link you sent me seems to only be a guideline on how this should be done, not whether or not it's appropriate.


 * Thank you very much for your close attention to this issue! AucamanTalk 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Spamming" is still the term applied when you message a large amount of users about a topic, and that goes double when you tell them what side of the issue they should be on. This is even more of a serious situation considering that you're currently under an Arbcom injunction against reverting and this could be seen as an attempt to circumvent process. --InShaneee 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider what Aucaman has done appropriate, as he could have used emailing function, and no one could prevent that or revert it!. In effect by preventing Aucaman from using talk pages you are promoting email spams, which is more difficult to monitor. What Aucaman is bringing into attention is the raising on an ugly head of racisim within the pages of Wikipedia. Mehrdad 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What Aucaman is doing is spamming. If he did it by email, that would be email spamming. Both are unnacceptable. --InShaneee 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what Aucaman is doing is contacting people who have demonstrated an interest in the subject in the past...that's quite outside the realm of spamming, which consists of contacting large numbers of people willynilly for some singular purpose. What cohesion has done, on the other hand, amounts to blatantly attempting to censor Aucaman's views by poorly concealing Aucaman's attempts to elicit outside commentary without his [Aucaman's] going to the trouble of filing an RfC, and rampant vandalism of multiple user_talk pages.  I've rolled back a number of cohesion's rollbacks, but I don't have time to do all of them (and would encourage cohesion to do so himself).  In the future, I would encourage cohesion to argue his points on the talk pages of disputed articles and if unable to reach consensus, use the dispute resolution system (that's what it's there for).  Don't go around deleting other editors' posts from talk pages, nor from user_talk pages.  That amounts to worthless "editing" and does nothing to build consensus.  Tom e rtalk  00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it appeared that I am trying to censor his views, I actually have no idea what his views are. I was contacted by an arbitrator regarding this mass spamming of talk pages, and after some discussion with others it was decided that reverting the messages would be the best action. It was felt that otherwise this spamming would be rewarded despite its being against some guidelines, and possibly some interpretations of his Arbcom injunction. It is not appropriate to argue "my point" on the disputed article's talk page because I have no opinion about any argument on Persian people nor do I even know what is being argued. I don't want to sound like I have no opinion about spamming talk pages, because I do, and I think they are made clear above, what I have no opinion on is the POV dispute on that article. - cohesion 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, the fact that you rolled back Aucaman's attempts to elicit discussion are the problem, ... Aucaman is under an ArbCom admonition to avoid reverting, not to avoid seeking others' opinions. The fact that you admit that you don't know what his "side" is, nor anything whatsoever about the issue under consideration, further supports my assertions elsewhere that your blind rollbacks were completely inappropriate.  User:Inshanee's protestations about standing ArbCom decisions, or about the definition of "spamming", are, in this case, completely irrelevant and inappropriate.  What you have done, whether or not you intended it, is to stifle open discourse on a contentious subject by singling out an editor who has raised quite valid objections to the course an article is taking.  The fact that you claim "neutrality" by your profession of complete ignorance regarding the issues in dispute speaks negatively of you, not positively as you appear to imagine.  Don't get me wrong, if Aucaman had actually engaged in something that could legitimately be described as "spamming", I'd be supporting you, without any illbegotten legitimacy the pathetic appeal to authority the imagined infraction of his ArbCom injunction might garner.  I'm not prone to stand up for people who shout "admin abuse" and the like, but Cohesion's actions, and Inshanee's defense thereof, are gross abbrogations of WP's inner workings, including WP:NPOV, WP:CIV and WP:CON.  What the two of you have done is to unnecessarily involve yourself in an editor's interaction w/ his fellow editors by inappropriately imagining offenses on his part, and then seeking to trample him with misinterpretations of his actions and misappropriated claims of infractions against guidelines.  The more I think about this, the more disgusted I'm becoming with both of you, and the more I wish you were equally becoming disgusted with your own misbehavior.  Tom e rtalk  07:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass spamming talk pages is unacceptable, end of story. -- Cyde Weys 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough, but as I said above, that's not what happened here. There is nothing about "spamming" that includes attempting to elicit input from parties who have previously demonstrated express interest in the subject.  The charge of "spamming" is frivolous in the extreme.  Tom e rtalk  07:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was my intention to bring the problem to other people's attention. I personally don't see anything wrong with this and I've seen people do it before. You could say I should have used the RFC mechanism, but I've tried that before and it doesn't seem to work. But it's okay, I won't spam anyone anymore. We keep it down to 3-4 messages at a time? AucamanTalk 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This is still what RfC is for. If you don't think RfC is effective enough, then start a conversation there to modify the policy. Talk page spamming is still unncacceptable, regardless of what quantity it is done in. --InShaneee 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I want to contact some outside users working on similar articles in order to gauge my understanding of this matter and the reasonability of my arguments (most of these users work on similar ethnic group articles). How should I go about doing this without being labeled a "spammer"? AucamanTalk 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're in control of who gets notified that way, it is still considered to be vote stacking of a sort. The proper proceedure is simply to list it on RfC. --InShaneee 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeking input is not "vote stacking", nor can it be so considered, of any sort, especially when there's no voting going on! For the record, the following is the message Aucaman left on a number of users' talk pages:
 * Could you take a look at the first sentence in this section? It claims that Persians are descendants of some "Aryan tribes" migrating from Central Asia. Sounds like outdated racial theories to me. The same source (Britannica) says Persians are of mixed ancentry, but when I try to add this in people remove it. I don't think this is consistent with WP:NPOV. Could you take a look at this and leave a comment? Thanks, AucamanTalk 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No voting. No POV-pushing.  And InShaneee's repetition of the mantra that the "proper proceedure [sic] is simply to list it on RfC" indicates that InShaneee, at the very least, still hasn't bothered to take the time to read what Aucaman's been saying all along: it's already been listed on RfC, and nobody showed up to comment.  Please stop pontificating uninformèdly about violations of non-policies.  Tom e rtalk  00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk page spamming is a VERY clear policy, and one that will be enforced if need be. Again, if you have a problem with the RfC system, take it up with the policymakers. There is NO excuse for circumventing process. Aucaman, if they keep reverting it, then take it to the talk page and ask why they take issue with it. --InShaneee 02:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * InShaneee, that comment is clearly a veiled threat. Not only is it completely inappropriate because of that simple fact, but it's at least doubly inappropriate because nothing approaching the definition of "spamming" has occurred here.  You seem to glory in digging your illogical arguments, with respect to this case, an even deeper hole with every post you make.  Being a dick does nothing to accrue merit points for your increasingly wholly inappropriate and completely unconstructively belligerant remarks.  Tom e rtalk  05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, just a warning, and a very strong one, as I want to make sure that you aren't confusing Aucaman about policy. Just so both of you are very clear: messaging a large group of users to come and do something on a page is considered spamming. Period. This is a very clear violation of policy, and a user can be blocked for it if they continue to do it. You're free to disagree with the policy, but unless its changed anytime soon, that is how it will be enforced. I'd also appreciate it if you kept the personal attacks to yourself. --InShaneee 16:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * InShaneee, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree if such a policy existed, I must point out that the guidelines at WP:Spam quite explicitly say that it doesn't. And last time it was discussed there on the talk page, there was clearly not a consensus to change it to something stricter. If you feel strongly that such a policy should exist (or that it does indeed exist in an unwritten form, if there is such a thing on Wikipedia), then the right thing seems for you to take it up with the policy-makers and change that page. Until then, Tomer's word (as an admin) about what is or what isn't policy is as good as yours, so please be a bit more careful with making overly authoritarian-sounding pronouncments. Lukas (T. 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't 'explicitly' say there isn't a policy, it just says there isn't a clear one set in stone yet. It DOES make clear that it's a bad idea, and there IS a policy that says vote stacking in any sort of context is forbidden. Here's the bottom line: if Aucaman starts spamming other users again, he will be blocked, and if Tomer disagrees, he's free to list the incident on AN:I to get a wider opinion of my decision. --InShaneee 20:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, you persist in misrepresenting things...not only are you presenting a guideline as though it were a policy, you're accusing Aucaman of instructing people on what to do on an article, as well as of vote stacking. If you'd take half the time you spend making these fallacious statements and spend it actually looking into what has happened, you wouldn't be saying the things you are, unless your reason for doing so is in order to avoid admitting that you have erred, eggregiously. There is no vote, so there can be no "vote stacking". Aucaman didn't tell anyone what to do, he requested input from other editors. Simplest way to say it is simply this: You are wrong, and until you demonstrate that you've actually taken the time to examine the facts of the case, nothing you say is of any relevance to this incident in particular. Tom e rtalk 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the recipients of these messages. I'm guessing it's because I've edited some pages on ethnic groups (though no specific reason was given, so it's hard to tell). I don't believe that Aucaman should have dropped this message on a whole lot of people's talk pages: Firstly, the message itself is biased, and intended to bias the reader, and secondly, the link is to the page itself, not to a discussion. I think that a brief, unbiased mention of the RfC page, would have been far more appropriate. -Kieran 11:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian National Socialist Party
I've changed it to a redirect to Sumka who have a similar name in English and are much better known. If this other group eventually proves to be more than just a couple of guys it can always be restored so there's probably no need for a deletion listing. Keresaspa 16:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I've warned the user to be more civil about this. Let me know if he continues to be abusive. --InShaneee 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you persian too?
I'll have a look into it tomorrow (it is 4:05 AM here). Aucaman, a question, you don't need to answer if you don't like. I guess you are either persian or Turk. Are you persian too? Again, you don't need to answer if you don't like. Thanks --Aminz 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pas salam! Man fekr konam ke man hatman hade'aksar shoma rou ba yek vasete mishnasam (choon riyazi mikhoonin). Ehtemal ham dareh ke hamdigaro beshnasim. khoob, dar zamineye controversy midoonin ke iraniya nejad parastan va baghiyeye donya rou adam hesab nemiyaran ;) . man hatman farda yek negahi be maghale mindazam. Shad bashin. Amin --Aminz 11:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Man yek kam konjkav boodam ke ki shoma rou mikhad az edit kardan mamnooe koneh, in comment az shoma rou didam : "payande IRAN! hala boro kashketo besab. mordeparast. bisavade aghaboftade. koorosh kabiretam be joz ye bisavade adamkosh bish nabood. hadaghal oon ozresh movajahe. vali to....??? mozdooram babate"

Man nemidoonam ghaziyeh chiyeh, valy rastesh khandam gerefteh bood choon shoma nafare avaly ba'ade khodam hastin ke shenidam migeh koorosh adamkosh boodeh. Hala bisavad boodaneshoo nemidoonam valy ehtemalan mikhi mitooneste benevise. Valy begzarim az in harfa, fekr konam ke ba standarde yek zaman nabayad adamaye zamane digeh rou ghezavat kard. shad bashin --Aminz 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am with you. Saying Persians "are descendents of Aryans" is POV since there are lots of Jews, Kurds, Arabs that are 100% Iranian. We should not write a sentence that excludes other groups of Iranian. I see the article is locked otherwise I would have removed the word "descendents" from there. I have seen lots of injustice on the minority groups through history in Iran which I can do nothing about but here at least in wikipedia I maybe able to do something. I'll join discussion there soon. --Aminz 21:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are obviously not Persian if you think that Persians are a mixture of "arabs and mongols". Only a fool would believe that blasphemous lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.164.158.227 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Dhimmi article
Aucaman, can you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=51648639&oldid=51615364

The fact tag was added to intro since in Farhansher's edit, the literal meaning of "Dhimmi" was "protected" and in Pecher's was  "tutelage". This was reflected in my edit summaries. Pecher removed this.

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

was changed to

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

Because if one looks closely, he could see an implicit unsourced (p => q) in the first sentence. Again this was reflected in my edit summaries.

Section title "==== Aleged Humiliation of dhimmis====" vs "==== Humiliation of dhimmis===="

The sub-titles should not pursuade the reader to any position as the title of the articles should not. Readers can read the text and end up in whatever conclusion they want.

I added the fact tag was added to "Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will" since it talks about "Islamic Law". We have 5 schools of Islamic Laws. This sentence is general and unreferenced.

Could you please help us in this controversy.

Thanks, --Aminz 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be away from Wikipedia for around two weeks or so
Salam Aucuman, You are the first(?), no second persian I meet here. Nice to meet you!

Due to my final exams, I will be away from Wikipedia for around two weeks or so. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman/Proposed_decision. My comment is the last one.

Also, I had a conversation with khoikhoi that you may want to have a look at: It is in his/her talk page and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aminz#Hi

Okay. Movazebe khodet bash.

Ghorbanet,--Aminz 08:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Descent of Persians
I saw your comment at Node's userpage and I took a look at the Persian people article myself. I think it would be best to say "the linguistic descendants of..." etc. We don't have enough DNA evidence yet, but I would guess the bulk of the people in the area descended from people who arrived in earlier migrations: there was probably a significant volkwanderung that left its own DNA signature, but the primary contribution of the Indo-Aryan migrants was language and culture not physical features. It's not an "outdated racist" theory to think otherwise, however - it's just racist. The debate has been going on sometime - I'll reproduce one of the quotes from my userpage here:
 * "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." (Max Müller)

Old Max's dolichocephalic bones have been buried for quite some time, but some people still don't get it. --Jpbrenna 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to hear a knowledgable opinion on this. Maybe we can - gently and slowly - do a bit of work on the article once all the dust from the recent fights has settled there. Lukas (T. 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Aucaman
This arbitration case is now closed and the decision is published.

For the Arbitration Committee. --14:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your query on the topical ban
I answered your query myself, but I've also put the query onto the "clarifications" section of the requests for arbitration page. If any arbitrators want to, they can add their own opinions. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for maximum one week for using sock puppet User:Gadolam to evade ban imposed by arbitration committee
Essjay has confirmed that you used to evade the ban on editing articles related to Iran and the Persians imposed in remedy 1 of Requests for arbitration/Aucaman.

Your Gadolam sock has been blocked indefinitely. I am blocking you for one week under the provisions of remedy 1.

Please don't do this again. If you do, you will be detected and you will be stopped. After five blocks, the maximum block period will rise to one year. That's one year block, at the discretion of a single adminstrator acting reasonably, each time you edit an article related to Iran or the Persians.

If an error has been made you can appeal to the arbitration committee or directly to Jimbo Wales. The email addresses of the arbitrators are on Arbitration Committee and Jimbo's email address in on his user page User:Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

aryan/persian
A while ago, you asked me to give my opinion on the Aryan/Persian discussion. (I don't log in frequently anymore.) I'm afraid I'm in over-my-head and would not be helpful in such a discussion. Sorry!

--DanKeshet 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you Help!
I am having some dificulties with my user page, can you help. I want the small box on the top of the page to small so the Userbox and box don't overlap. I want the writing .to be a light green colour So If you do that I would be extremely grateful Thanks

--Abdullah Geelah 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranian National Socialist Party
RE: Our discussion about the Iranian National Socialist Party entry here in which we agreed to make it into a redirect to SUMKA. I'm not sure if you've seen this or not but I notice that someone has restored it to an entry, with some weeping POV statements. Just wanted to bring this to your attention and to let you know that if you wish to proceed with your original of nominating it for deletion then I wont be opposed. Keresaspa 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD, Enemy of Islam
Hello Aucaman. Could you please leave a comment here: Articles_for_deletion/Enemy_of_Islam? ellol 07:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently
Mardavich thinks that I am you:. The Behnam 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to be inactive. So much more sharing that interesting accusation. The Behnam 09:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
How do I add a comment to the sharia discussion page? My comments do not post in a separate section. FOA 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Greater Middle East for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greater Middle East is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Greater Middle East until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Turkish Kurdistan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turkish Kurdistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)