User talk:Konstock

Thanks for the note. As my high school German was not up to the task thirty years ago (and less so now) I must rely on others. My sense at the time was that they did not help, but being able to piece out a word or two here and there is not enough. Looking at your comment on the AFD, that's kinda what I felt at the time. As the AFD discussion has closed at "no consensus," it is water under the bridge. Hopefully, good verifiable sources can be found. I'll keep you in mind for my German-English translation needs. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim  14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh
Rather than edit-warring over this article's introduction, perhaps you could contribute to the discussion at WP:RSN? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Cyrus Cylinder
I have opened a thread at No original research/Noticeboard concerning Nepaheshgar's apparent attempt to introduce original research into this article concerning the Josef Wiesehöfer piece that you contributed to the discussion. As the editor who provided that information, you may have a view on whether N.'s approach constitutes OR or not. Any views or advice that you might have on this issue would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Konstock,


 * Rationale for your reverts?


 * To start, I notice that you made a number of revisions in one feel swoop which makes it difficult to analyze and address your changes.  By the way, how did you do that?


 * Specifically, reverts that I would like rationales for.


 * 1) Why did you revert the article to state that the British Museum "owns" the Cyrus Cylinder. Dr.Persi brought up the issue, and I think that an appropriate "compromise" was found.  After all, institutions such as the Musuems do not OWN artifacts, it is more appropriate to state that they are in possession of artifacts.  Possession implies “Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership. (www.thefreedictionary.com/possession).”


 * Possession seems to satisfy Persi’s concerns while remaining true to the facts, as the word possession is descriptive without judgment.

ou
 * 2)	Why did you move the line, that "it is regarded as part of Iran's cultural identity" to a lower part of the article? Shouldn't readers wanting to educated be informed that Iranians, Persians, those of Persian descent highly regard the cylinder especially due to the individual to whom it is attributed: Cyrus the founder of the Persian empire? GoetheFromm (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, would you like me to bring this up on the Cyrus Cylinder page? GoetheFromm (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact the sentence has to go altogether, per WP:Weasel and WP:SOAP. --Konstock (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure that I agree that it is either WP:Weasel and WP:SOAP. Are you disputing that it is an integral part of the history of Iran?  Because it is quite clear that it is. Shouldn't readers be informed of that fact? May be it might be helpful that we include references to support the statement?  Would you like to do that?  best: GoetheFromm (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am interested in gaining a better understand of your position on the Cyrus Cylinder article...GoetheFromm (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After writing what I wrote right above, I started thinking. And had some questions:


 * You still haven't explained your rationale for first moving the sentence to another place (point 2)...Now you want to remove altogether claiming weasel, soap? Huh?


 * Why did you change possession to owned (point 1), I notice that you've dealt with this question before.


 * Regarding sources, I notice that you are wedded to appropriate sources for articles (which I agreee with) such as:
 * "I removed material based on two sources provided by Xashaiar. Hedrick's The Arts of Leadership and War is the first book by "a former U.S. Air Force officer" who has (check the foreword) rewritten Xenophon to turn the Cyropaedia into some sort of guidebook for "business executives and managers".[3]. Jacob Abbott was a writer of children's books, his History of Cyrus the Great was first published in 1850. - Konstock (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)"


 * But then you seem to want to keep the Lendering source which is simply an online article that is not peer reviewed. Nor is his online source a reputable news institution.  Nor, does the Lendering source even provide in text citations/references for its position on the point.  Lastly, the point in the article is sourced anyway.  Why the keep Lend. source given these points?  I notice that you've been steadfast on this point in the history page.   Rationale for this please.


 * On this comment:
 * "08:38, 15 November 2010 (diff | hist) Cyrus Cylinder ‎ (Undid revisions by NBTPro & 144.131.133.99 - the usual nationalist trolling again)"


 * What do you mean by the usual nationalist trolling? Are your actions related to this position?


 * In the "scholarly views" section, you refer to one side of scholars as "many," and then to other as "some." It should one or the other.  Again, what is the rationale for your actions?


 * In sum, there are 3 points about which I am asking... GoetheFromm (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this thread: Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. Check the talk page history of Cyrus Cylinder. Read WP:PLAGUE. Heed WP:POINT. Stop trolling. Thanks, Konstock (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Konstock,
 * 1)Thanks for directing me to the noticeboard, which I already know about. And I'm gonna point out that my question was to understand what you mean by nationalist.  Wanted to clarify and now I know.  Thank you.


 * 2) You still haven't provide rationale for your edits, which makes it extremely difficult to work with you. Simply citing wikipedia guidelines doesn't mean you've demonstrated how the guideline is applicable to the edit, for heaven's sake.


 * 3) I would like to remind you that saying that others are trolling is a violation of talk page guidelines and civility. So, you read [WP:PLAGUE]] and heed WP:POINT on top of Talk_page_guidelines as each one of those standards are to prevent disruption of wikipedia.  Moreover, I've been very careful to address each and every person's opinion.  Whether you are anti-nationalist or not is immaterial to me, my concern is to allow information on wikipedia to be as accurate, useful, and clear as possible. Stay cool and please address points,  GoetheFromm (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Category (Accusations of racism)
Please see below for two points that you have not addressed despite your largely unsupported edits...

Konstock, Please do not edit or undo work without properly citing your reasons for doing so. My addition of the category was cited and sourced. If you have problems with that, then please address accordingly. As it stands, Lendering is the subject of accusations of racism, a fact that is related to the reason why he is even considered notable in the first place! (see above the talk page for the controversy if he is even notable) A good number of BLPs address facts such as the one now being discussed...

Konstock, Again I'll say it, please do not edit or undo with properly citing your reasons for doing so. Also, please don't simply undo my edits, please appropriately make the revisions necessary. I've addressed the one concern that you brought up of one of the sources not being appropriate and I replaced it with another, from a university professor (who has PhD, unlike Lendering). You happy now? 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Dbachmann here. --Konstock (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder Source
Despite the fact that I am turned off by your curt manner and, for all intents and purposes, violation of talk page guidelines Talk_page_guidelines, I'd like to to inform you that DougWeller has currently put the Online Lendering source to RSN. Since you've been involved in editing/reverting the source, would like your feedback on Cyrus Cylinder talk page, and on RSN. Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

More shenanigans
See Talk:History of human rights. -- Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some vs. Many
I've noticed that you haven't provided rationale for your revert. So question? Why revery "some" to "many." Many is a judgment of quantity, which is not appropriate for encyclopedic material. Moreover, "some" entails "many" and where as "many" does not entail "some." Thus the word "some" is more appropriate in article. In addition, on this specific issue regarding the human rights questions, some has been advocated as the correct usage by editors. The talk and edit record indicates this. Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that you need this, but I refer you to WP:WEASEL, in which the unsupported use of "most" (ie, many) is considered weasel. Yes, the word "some" can also be considered weasel, but the word "some" is only weasel if there is not a reliable source indicating that there is at least one reliable individual that believes it.  The burden for the word "many" requires a source to indicate that it is the majority or prevalent view. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of the human rights page, the issue as to who or how many are in support of the Cyrus Cylinder being a a declaration of human rights, is up for debate (as evidenced by the continual talks regarding it). As "Many" requires a gerater burden of evidence to be utilized, the word "some" with all its limitations, seems to be the right choice on the issue.  Tell me your thoughts on my argument.  GoetheFromm (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire please provdie rationale
Please provide a solid rationale for your removal of an entire section on the Achaemenid empire. The talk pages that you have referenced (I believe) were in reference to the Cyrus Cylinder and Human Rights. Your current edit is only marginally related to that issue. Moreover, the material that you are removing is sourced material, which should sparingly removed. If you believe that such material should be removed then you should, as with all wikipedia material, discuss it on the talk page. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Konstock,

I noticed you keep cutting out pieces from articles without explanation, and only those pieces that seem to go against your general assertions. You can not cut pieces left by other professors, authors, or writers, in favor of a certain group of authors that you believe to be credible. This is a Wikipedia, and so has to reflect all attitudes. Please refrain from this sort of behavior. I have no problem with you giving a reason for your changes, but you can not just selectively censor certain parts of Wikipedia pages without either offering an appropriate alternative, or giving a reason. Thanks and happy holidays! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

On your not responding to talk page comments...
Konstock, I'm really confused. There are a myriad of contribs associated with you that you have not provided explanations or rationales to. You have been approached on a number of occasions by myself and other users on your talk page and well as on relevant discussion pages. Can you explain your reasoning? How is anyone supposed to communicate with you re: your edits? GoetheFromm (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Farrokh
Hi, there is a thread at the WP:BLPN about this redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology
Hi Konstock. In case you wonder, this edit of mine was an accident. I hit the all-too-accessible revert button on my watch list. Immediately afterwards, an IP edited the article, so I cannot self-revert. I have no real opinion about which version is better. Sorry for the mess. Sheepishly, Favonian (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism
Dear Konstock ,

The templates do not make any sense and are not verifiable that is why i will continue deleting them. Dms77 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lendering
Thanks for getting the rest of it rv'ed. I removed the criticism stuff piece by piece as I noticed the sourcing sucked, and didn't check for bad edits in other sections after. Kevin (talk)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for stepping in. I wonder if we should take the Rozaneh issue to the RS noticeboard, just in case it pops up again? Konstock (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Friend, I was surfing through links to my page and saw one of your pages where you refered to me as an "Iranian nationalist." Please change that. We are all on wikipedia to learn, read, and add to the world to the best of our ability. Every edit we make is intended to increase the public understanding of topics we feel passionate about. There is no doubt that each and every one of us (you as well) harbor biases, but it has always been my attempt to never judge other editors and to resist the temptation of wanting to be agaisnt them and it has always been my goal to work in congruence with others to make a page better. Frankly I dont care how the job gets done as long as it is along the general wikipedia regulations. I really like to work WITH everybody not against them. I really welcome criticism and comments and I have always tried to reflect that in my work. I do however get this negative sensation when I see people labeling me when in fact I dont even know them or have never been disrespectful to them. In short, we are all editors, we are all in the process of bettering wikipedia one edit at a time, and we are all in this together, as brothers and sisters editing for the benefit of humanity (or at least that is my naive view of it). So please do not refer to me as a nationalist, because I really am not. I am however a passionate amateur historian and whatever flaw I harbor I try to correct as I go on. I rather work WITH you and in congruence than agaisnt you, and I really expect you to feel the same. Anyhow, I am making a request to perhapse rephrase your page. I have no issue with you questioning changes or sources as that is every reader and editors' inherent right, but to go beyond in the realm of judgment, when in fact you absolutley know nothing of the other person, is unfair and unencyclopedic. That is all! I hope you understand and I have been severely attenuated in terms of my recent additions unfortunatley and as much as I love to add more in the medical literature and history, my hands are tied by my daily responsibilities. I do however like to still be active when I can and I really like to have if not a friend, at least a person to keep me straight and to question me now and again, but what I do not need is for a person to link to my page multiple times calling me names. Thank you and have a wonderful weekend! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)