User talk:JBOC

Hi,

I removed your edits to Paul Wolfowitz because they were not written from a neutral point of view. The sentence, "Paul lives on his salary and consequently does not have the money for expensive haircuts and a huge wardrobe", was also not factually demonstrable.

The information doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia, either. There aren't many allusions to public figures' hair and wardrobe in other Wikipedia articles, and the wording of your contributions to the Wolfowitz article was inflammatory. Please keep this in mind when you make contributions in the future.

I hope my comments do not come across as harsh or rude. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines from now on.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 02:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) --- Hi, Regarding the patriot thing, I could go search for references to his patriotism, though it is my belief that anyone who serves this country is a patriot. But that is besides the point, putting words like Cock and Balls in an article, as one wikimember had put in the wolfowitz article, is COMPLETELY uncalled for, no matter what your opinions may be.

Is Jonathan Pollard a patriot
Hello, I do not advocate objectionable language on Wikipedia. In fact I am surprised that you used words that you objecvt to here on my page. If it is not appropriate on Paul's page why is it appropriate here. What I asked you was for a clarifiation of your unsubstantiated assessment of Wolfowitz. You replied: "anyone who serves this country is a patriot" So then Aldrich Ames, or Robert Hanson or Jonathan Pollard are patriots? JBOC

Accusations against me
Explain you accusations against me (being anti-Iranian, lying about where I live), please. Also, please note that most of your edits were reverted because they were either advertisements for the sw-asia website, or were exaggerating. I reverted the link you posted to your weblog entry about me, because I considered it a personal attack, which is againt wikipedia's policies (see No personal attacks and Remove personal attacks).

For some examples of the second case, let's see your edit to the Mohammad Khatami. In a very short article about him, you were suddenly mentioning that ''Under the Iranian Constitution the President has the power to make appointments of Vice Presidents. In 2004 Khatami apponited Seyed Hossein Mar'ashi Vice President and chairman of the Organization of Cultural Heritage and Tourism.'' But Khatami already had seven other vice presidents! How is Marashi that different the he deserves special mention?

Or let's get your edit of the Mohammad Javad Bahonar article. I reverted that because you mistook the assassination of Mohammad Beheshti with the assasination of Bahonar. If you compare dates, you'll see that Beheshti was killed on June 28 (where more than 70 were killed), while Bahonar was killed on August 30.

Then there is your very late edit, that of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. There, suddenly out of nowhere, you mention in a grammatically problematic sentence that: July 22, 2004 the brother of the Supreme Ruler announced a surprising show of support for Rafsanjani, "A number of pro-reform groups have found fault with him. We have objection to them. Criticism should be constructive,". Who is this brother? What is his name? What is his inclinations? How is this important? What is the background? Why should this be in the first paragraph that is explanatory?

Also, see the comment above, by Acegikmo1. It was also reverted because it was out of sync with the rest of the article and non-encyclopedic.

I would restate that I'm not anti-Iran, as many other Wikipedians would confirm. I'm not even against you, since I have incorporated some of your useful contributions, like those on Rafsanjan and Hossein Marashi. I would appreciate if you remove the comments from your weblog. Roozbeh 02:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answer by JBOC
Hello Gentlemen I see you uncensored your changes to this page but Refdoc and to a lesser extent Roozbeh have had a good time removing my contributions from other pages. As to Roozbeh's questions I did make a mistake on Bahonar but you trimmed in many places not just that,. It really does not matter what I write is not that important. However what you write is important, You are an Admin in this encyclopedia and you are unfair, biased and hateful towards Iran. Take for instance your revisions on the Imam Khomeine: http://en.Wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&dive=2354186&oldie=2278594 I cannot find one, not one shred of fairness or decency. I am a Christian and I have some deep theological differences with the teachings of the Imam Khomeine (PBUH). Should I lie about him or try to exaggerate about him? May God forbid this thing? The truth is enough! When you write about Iran you do not need to shade the meaning. In the Khomeine example you changed "Islamic dress code" to "strict dress code". Obviously because strict has a negative connotation while Islamic is more neutral in the context of dress codes. Later you take "punishments" and make it "very strict punishments" again you compound a negative with a reinforced negative. You follow this reinforced compounded negative with, "In the immediate aftermath of the revolution there were widespread allegations of systematic human rights abuses, including torture."

I can see in Wikipedia that Admins will not allow Paul Wolfowitz to be called a "neoconservative" because it might give a negative impression but you as an Admin are free to attack the memory of the Imam Khomeine (PBUH). I will be in Tehran in August and I will be glad to explain to you what I mean in more depth over a cup of coffee or tea. I did not look for your worst attack on Iran I just picked one at random and your own words indict you. I certainly do not expect that you would replace my links so I will stand by my fair and balanced posts about you as an Admin. Roozbeh my comment about where you live was sarcasm. You sound more like Langley then Tehran to my ears. JBOC


 * It wasn't me who had done the wording you mentioned from the Ruhollah Khomeini article. I was simply reverting an anonymous edit that was removing lots of information. It was only the original article that I restored. But on the difference, please note that when one says "there were allegations that there were abuses", he doesn't say that "there were abuses". These are different. Also, some people believe that the dress code was not exactly Islamic. You know Iran is the almost the only Islamic country in the world that requires non-Muslim foreigners to respect exactly the same dress code for Muslim Iranians when they are in Iran? Another question is: while Islam only requires the covering of the genitals of men as the male hijab, don't you think enforcement of more than that (requiring short hair, long sleeves, etc) was not "Islamic dress code"?


 * Anyway, I have not used my admin powers to restrict what your edits. What I did, every other non-admin Wikipedian could do. Roozbeh 22:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anwser by User:Refdoc
1) I removed vanity links (i.e. links inserted by somoneone to his/her own websites). I do this all the time,whenevr I stumble over them. Your unmotivated attack onto User:Roozbeh made me stumble over yours. Don't call it censorship, but rather learn to be a bit less pushy with your own sites.

2) I am not really sure on which planet you live if you think Iran had not its fair share of "systematic human rights abuses" after the revolution. Not seen the corpses hanging of the cranes ? Not heard of Khalkali's mass executions in Kurdistan ? Reuters has a "nice" picture of some of these. This isn't even controversial stuff. And actually the article says it much weaker and much more neutral - it talks of allegations. Which is very true, just open the site of any human rights organisation - full of "allegations".

3) What pisses me really off is your approach to the whole thing. This is a wikipedia - so by all means edit what you do not like. I am new to this place, I do not own it and I have nothing in my hand to force an article into the shape I like it. Roozbeh is longer here, is Admin - which gives certain responsibilities, but he will be damned if he uses any of his admin powers on his own editing controversions. Instead of participating in editing you go to your blog which acc to you is read across whole of Iran and accuse - on very flimsy grounds - someone by name as a anti-Iranian simply because he does not wear your blinkers - and probably knows more about things on the ground where he lives.

4) Anti-Iranian/american/whatever - what does this actually mean ? You come from a country calling itself a democracy - so you should appreciate that one's loyalty to one's country might actually include fierce criticism of one's government - I remind you of one called Michael Moore, but also of (maybe) less controversial figures like Martin Luther King.

5) Wolfowitz - I think you transfer your grievances against other editors on other articles onto Roozbeh and me and blame us very unfairly - I have no clue whether he is neoconservative or anything as I have not heard of that bloke - America is hardly teh centre of the world - at least not where I live. People edit all teh time each other and tis is not a personal affront. If everyone edits and deletes your stuff maybe there is something wrong with your contributions.

6) Christian - if it was not all so ridiculous you would give me the creeps. One of the first things you should remember from Luther's catechism is to be careful with your tongue - or probably here your keyboard - and not to accuse and people unjustly - you have done so on your blog. You have many better ways at your disposal to sort out any bias you believe in any of the articles. You chose this one. Shame on you ! I think at the very least you owe Roozbeh an apology and rapid removal of this stuff from your blog - particularly if it is read indeed by so many people in Iran. Refdoc 08:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---
 * Hello Gentlemen, I will take it that if you edit this page you wish to continue. If you want to let things die down then we can stop otherwise we can escalate this. Best wishes, JBOC


 * Hello again, JBOC,


 * Just so that you know, it's generally considered impolite to remove other users' comments from your talk page. So the restoration of an older version isn't regarded as censorship by most people.  Instead, it's an attempt to make previous discussions visible.  If you sill want to remove the contents of the page, I don't have a problem with it.  I would suggest that you leave a message explaing why you did this though, as this would make it less likely for other users to revert the page.


 * Still, I don't think that Roozbeh or Refdoc's restoration of the content of this page was in any way meant to escalate any dispute. The users are simply tring to explain certain policies of Wikipedia and respond to your questions.  If you want to leave messages or information that other users won't edit, perhaps you should do that on your User page.  It is general Wikipedia policy that other users should not edit your userpage.


 * I encourage you to continue editing Wikipeida. I think you've made some good edits, and I agree with some of the things you object to others removing (e.g on Talk:Paul Wolfowitz).  Please don't think that another user's removal or editing of what you've written is an attack on you, though.  If you think an article is biased, discuss it on that article's take page, and then make the necessary changes.  Just try to ensure that those changes are encyclopedic and reflect a neutral point of view.


 * Cheers,


 * Acegikmo1 22:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- I am not exactly sure what and why you are threatening. I have directed you towards the appropriate ways of dealing with perceived bias. If you decide to continue to use inappropriate ways, good luck! I will have wasted my words. Refdoc 22:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---
 * ''The following paragraph has been edited to remove personal attacks. Roozbeh 02:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't attack people
Do not make personal attacks on the Wikipedia, or they would be edited out. See No personal attacks and Remove personal attacks for more details. Roozbeh 02:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully diagree with your editing of the paragraph above and on JBOC's userpage.  JBOC wrote, "my readers are surprisingly interested in Roozbeh..." etc.  If this is factual, there is no actual malice.  If not, then it's tactless, but I don't think it qualifies as a personal attack.  The policy of removing personal attacks is controversial.  Perhaps you should simply dispute the accuracy of JBOC's comments instead of censoring them


 * Acegikmo1 02:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But he is talking about me being anti-Iran (where I'm proud to live), being related to MKO (on organization which I hate), Israel (which I don't care much about, but am certainly unrelated to), and the American government (which in its current form I don't like at all). That is a personal attack, and in order to remove the minimum information from his comment, I removed my name. Feel free to remove the personal attacks your way (I would really appreciate that), but it is a personal attack. Also, I don't see the relation of actual malice, a US law term to this. This is not a legal discussion, but a simply attack on my person in Wikipedia's pages. roozbeh 02:53, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Roozbeh here. The allegation of being in the pay of MKO is grossly offensive, though this might not be obvious to people who do not know Iran. Since the MKO took part in the Iran-Iraq war on the side of Iraq they are considered by many if not most Iranians as scum and traitors of the worst kind - a bit like Wlassow or Lord Haw-Haw in the second world war. Refdoc 10:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't attack Roozbeh but Roozbeh can attack Imam Khomeine and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Hello Roozbeh, I wish you would read what you write. To cast you in a potentially negative light is something you will not allow. You will not even allow the truth. However reading your edits about Iran and Iranian leaders it becomes apparent that you are willing to cast them in a very negative light. I showed your attack on the Imam Khomeine but what about your contribution to the Majlis Election. You added:
 * "There are rumors that some voters were transferred to Tehran or other big cities from other areas by some of the parties, and a claim that the Municipality of Tehran, whose Mayor backed the same alliance, was advertising for the alliance illegally, using the government's budget".
 * You offer no proof, no citations, just unsubstantiated rumor. Do unsubstantiated rumors belong in a Wikipedia article? If you said Time Magazine or the Tehran Times or the like said those rumors it might belong, but instead you just attack. Do you expect us to see you as a bumbling stooge who has no idea of what you are doing. Over a substantial period of time you constantly work to put Iran in a negative light

You have even made questionable contributions to the entry for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. You wrote: "


 * Many reform bills have been vetoed and many reformers has been barred from running for office by the Council of Guardians whose members are chosen directly or indirectly by Khamenei.

You write from a very strong position. Who are you working for? [...] Time to come clean Roozbeh. JBOC


 * You should mention these in the respective articles' talk pages, not your own talk page. Period. roozbeh 11:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)