User talk:Refdoc/archive3

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Thank you for your reply. As you note, plagarism is a concern - but for everyone who uses this site.

Your original message asserted that I had copied material from another site and implied that my other entries were plagarised. This is incorrect and I hope you will have the courtesy to retract and apologise for this slur.


 * Get a life! I told you that the stuff is a potential copyvio - which it was until you asserted it is not . I also asked you about the provenance of other contributions as I find one copyvio does not come alone. I am glad that you have cleared the matter up for me. I do not see any reason to apologise and I do not intend to apologise either. You should be happy to know that people are watching for the quality of the articles. I am asking people all the time and I will continue - just as people ask me if they find stuff unsourced or odd looking or indeed identical to another website.


 * But - interestingly enough if you assert that that stuff is not plagiarised by yourself but that the other site must have plagiarised you, I would think that this makes said site unreliable dt poor ethics - and said site is used as a primary source in another Wikipedia article. So thanks for clearing this up. And please grow a thicker skin. Refdoc 12:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. No, you didn't say the entry was 'potential' - you said my entry was "taken word for word from another website";
 * 2. However I agree that as an administrator for Wikipedia, you are in pole position to give advice on others getting a life.


 * Its been a pleasure having this discussion. Good bye.

Azerbaijan related articles
I blocked some of the anonymous users and will continue to do so if they repeat their behaviour. I would appreciate if you could help in cleaning up the two remaining articles needing work, South Azerbaijan (possibly merging the good info to Iranian Azarbaijan and making it a redirect) and History of Azerbaijan (possibly creating separate articles for History of the Republic of Azerbaijan, etc). roozbeh 00:56, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Rumi page
Sorry that you felt compelled to remove the link to Serving The Guest, and also that you referred to it as an "advertisement." Perhaps you were not aware that, in addition to the recipes and gallery, it is a collection of essays written from a specifically Mevlevi Sufi perspective. It is also one of the most linked-to Sufism sites on the web. So I believe that it has relevance to the subject.

Also, it is inaccurate to use the term advertisement when the site is entirely free, and doesn't even contain links to any commercial enterprise of any sort. This is not an ad for a book -- the site is the book, and it is not and never has been offered for sale. I thought it would be better to mention this here rather than just reinstate the link and have you remove it again. Would you consider allowing the link to remain on the page? &mdash; DaveSeidel 14:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I got your reply, but I have to disagree, as even I even more strongly disgree with your removal of the same link from the Sufism page. First, it is not a vanity link, because I did not write the material in question (although it resides on my domain). Second, the material being linked to is directly relevant to the subject under discussion. It seems to me that the intent of the prohibition against "vanity" material has no bearing when it comes to external links that are germane. The addition of these links is not abusive in any sense.

As it happens, the "Serving the Guest" site is one of the most popular sites on Sufism and Islamic art on the web &mdash; ironically, its popularity is in large part due to the fact that it is linked on Alan Godlas' site, which you apparently deem worthy of retaining on the Sufism page as an external link. Neither I nor the author have anything to gain by adding this link, but you are being rather arrogant by removing it. Your behavior borders on vandalism. &mdash; DaveSeidel 00:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- I am sorry that I received your message late. My new user name is Erdem Tüzün. I usually write my entries without logging in since it is difficult to copy/paste "u with umlaut" every time I enter some information. I am still active. I find your renewed version of Rumi quite suitable and I don't have anything to add. Besides I am supporting your remarks on ethnicity/nationality issues.

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hi there!
Hi Refdoc,

Thanks for your message. It's great that you are now back. By your past contributions to Iranian issues, I was always wondering why you suddenly stopped your contribution. I hope too that we can enjoy a fruitful collaboration. --Pouya 13:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Persian Gulf
(entry cut and moved to relevant talk page

Thanks
Hi Refdoc,

I appreciate your impartiality and neutrality in the Baha'i related articles, especially making sure that all the "claims" of Baha'u'llah are clearly stated as being claims and not truths for everyone. It makes the articles much better. -- Fadeaway919 20:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists
Please revisit the discussion here and look at Welsey's comment and my proposal -- we should reach some acceptable decision soon. Please help, Slrubenstein 19:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the edit you did to the first paragraph -- thanks. Also thanks for helping with Tigermoon. Slrubenstein 19:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i talk pages
Oh dear - I can't believe Amir has started laying into you now. I get the feeling that this is a bit of an odd time for the Bahai pages. They've recently been given featured article status so a lot more exposure... Amir and Martin seem to be some of the more... interesting characters. I'm really not sure what their agendas are but they do seem to have something against Baha'is. Not sure why they've got against you though. Don't know what the anti-Baha'i bit is all about. Its kind of upsetting how agressive they can be. -- Tomhab 22:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No prob for the note. I don't mind people adding facts to pages as long as they're willing to compromise on issues. Its just funny how some people can be so militant. -- Tomhab 01:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is distressing to read Amir's latest comments. But thanks for your positive attitude, which encourages newcomers like me. Meanwhile, I have no idea how people find the time to make so many contributions to Wikipedia; coffee vendors must be happy! Occamy 21:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Afghani Jews
Yeah, it is sort of weird isn't it. I am being serious however, there were only two Jews until a couple of weeks ago. The last few families left during the Soviet occupation, with a few staying to maintain the synagogue in Kabul. One of the last two remaining Jews died the other week. Quite a big deal was made in the Israeli media about it. The man hadn't left Kabul in 25 years, and had lived in the synagogue with the other remaining Jew. Evolver of Borg 20:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your admin app
Hi. Thanx for your message on my talk page. I took a quick look on the pages and my initial impression is that your view is balanced whereas Amir1 is pushing a non-NPOV. I really have not got the slightest idea about any of the topics in discussion so this is a fairly general impression. --JuntungWu 18:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've moved my vote from neutral to support after reading the talk pages concerned. --JuntungWu 19:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on Bahai articles
Since you have decided to be involved in editing the Bahais articles, please do not put misinformatin in the articles. You added the following to the foto of Bahaullah:
 * This passport photo of Baha'u'llah's was taken in 1852 between his release from Siyah-Chal dungeon and his going into exile. Baha'is prefer to not view this.

This is clearly incorrect. Even one look at the hat he is wearing should have been enough to know that it is from his Ottoman days, and not from his Iran days. You have probably just blindly accepted a lie from some Bahai about this, because they want to say he looks bad because he had just come out of a Siyah Chal !! LOL --Amir 11:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You got it wrong. If you look at the page history you will see that it was Geni who introduced the information onto the page and Raul who moved it into the caption. I tried to rearrange the two actively disputed versions (picture at bottom/top) instead of the wrong distinction (nopicture/picture at top), but failed miserably as I did not get the templates right. I explained this on the talk pages. So my edits have nothing whatsoever to do with that bit. I did raise the issue of teh origin of teh picture on teh talk pages, but I am not convinced enough about the origin to transfer it onto the article. Refdoc 11:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. Did you question Geni for sources of his/her obviously wrong claim, the same way you stop me every step of the way and ask for references, or you somehow magically knew that he/she was right? It appears that you not only didn't ask that person for references the way you did with me, you even moved that piece of misinformation around in the article. Are you always so inconsistent in life? It appears I was correct after all, you were harrassing me. Not a good quality if you want to become and admin, you know! --Amir 11:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

 * Right, I apologize, I just found them questionable at first. But after re-evaluation I noticed my error and now support you.  Best of luck. :-) Apollomelos 12:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My recent edits to Baha'i articles
Refdoc, I note that some of my recent edits to Baha'i articles have added to your sense of exasperation. I'm sorry about that, that was far from my intention and I had no idea that you would react that way to what I did. I consider you to be one of the more reasonable people working on those articles at the moment, and I appreciate your efforts at creating a balanced article on a subject which is only a peripheral interest to you. I've admitted elsewhere to a passing feeling that I should just go back editing uncontroversial Doctor Who articles, and letting people write whatever they like over those Baha'i articles. The trouble is, of course, if the moderates give up on an article that leaves the field open for the extremists with agendas to push, on both sides. PaulHammond 14:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just to express my appreciation too for your extensive contribution to the Baha'i-related articles. There is so much potential for constructive dialogue on the Wikipedia site. Thanks again. --Occamy 15:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

???
Refdoc,

How do you add to the dynasty list inside the { {Iran} } box on the History of Iran page? Im trying to add the Elamite Empire to the list. Thanx.

--Zereshk 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to add my congratulations as well. Prior to voting to support your RfA, I did quite a bit of checking of your edit history.  Your calm, polite way of handling disputes constantly impressed me, especially considering the nature of the articles you get involved in.  You have been a voice of reason, consensus and compromise.  I hope you continue to be so.  Congratulations on your promotion to admin.  SWAdair | Talk  08:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has supported my request for adminship!!! This is abig honour for me and am particularly impressed by the effort so many people made to check out my edit history etc before making their decision. I am also grateful for the encouragement given by so many. Unfoirtunately I have this week very unreliable access to the internet and hence can not leave direct and personal thanks on the various user pages. I guess I will become active as an admin in about a week time when normal access is restored. Refdoc 23:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Refdoc wrote: "WRT to the vote count - a minor mistake happened there - User Apollomelos changed his vote from oppose to support and has been counted twice subsequently."
 * Well, that's water over the dam now, and correcting it seems like a very bureaucratic thing to do, but, since I'm a bureaucrat, I did it! (Working toward my gold-dusted plastic watch at retirement...) -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations Refdoc - I just noticed this from roozbah's talk page - but I've been working this weekend so came to late to vote for you. PaulHammond 21:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! I wasn't around since Feb 4 so I couldn't vote. Anyhow, it's great to see you as an admin. --Pouya 11:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Turkic vandalism
Refdoc,

This guy 62.139.122.71 is going around vandalizing pages on "Persia" and Iran.

He has so far totally destroyed the The Persian Encyclopedia, and completely took out the Safavi section, after my last revision on the Persia page.

He also took out all links about Iran on the Azerbaijan page. See his record to trace all his vandalisms.

I dont know how to revert back a page to an older revision. How do u do that? Thanx.--Zereshk 02:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isfahan The Movie
Refdoc, Did you see the "Isfahan the Movie" animation that I have linked at the bottom of the Persia page? I think it's brilliantly made.--Zereshk 02:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong way to message you! You wrote to me about the Iran page, the always clever distinction between "fact" and "opinion" - don't get me wrong I'm not an Axis of Evil bloke. But surely Iran ain't democratic? If I left out this evaluation, and said simply, "power concentrated in Religious elite's hands" would that be acceptable to you? I mean what is a relatively progressive Parliament (until Mr Bush opens his mouth and lumps them all into the same boat) contrasts to the, what I would consider, barbaric Ayatollah's politics. Surely the banning of political parties also deserves a mention? Please put this back in the page if you agree. User talk:Wikidea

Timeline of Fionavar
You forgot to make a subpage for this deletion request. ;-) Mgm|(talk) 12:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Baba sharmandeh farmoodid
Hi,

Thanks for your happy-birthday message. That was really kind of you.

I created 2005 Zarand earthquake and try to update it regularly. Add any item you came across regarding this event. It's also linked in In the news section of the Main Page.

Taa ba'd, Fe'lan bye, --Pouya 13:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They never give up
On the Talk:Iran-Iraq_War page, Peregrine981 is trying to change the article in a way that puts the blame of starting the war on Iran as well.

Honestly, I'm a bit tired of arguing facts. She's (or He's) accusing the "Iraq started the war" statement as POV.

Could u throw in a line please so it wont look like it was just my "opinion" that Iraq started the war? Thanx--Zereshk 21:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct Refdoc, it seems to be two different translations of the same poem. I didnt catch that. How should we clean it up? Perhaps pick the better version?--Zereshk 01:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3rr
yeah I am aware. I've only done 2 reverts today though. I'm just fed up with Martin2000 bullying everyone by persistently imposing what he views as right without using the talk page. Look at his edits. He is trying to edit the titles of a page to "restrictions on personal freedoms" rather than "publishing restrictions". He's based it on a tautologous statment that "you can't communicate with the excommunicated" which is covered elsewhere anyway.

I know I have a bias (I am a Baha'i), but I'd like to point out that I suggested that paragraph, and then wrote an article on Baha'u'llah's family including a reasonable sized section on the controversy of his third wife. Martin has done nothing but include rhetorical statements which are hardly NPOV in an attempt to deface the religion and aggressive replies to anyone who disagrees. I know we must include the good with the bad (bad with the good?) but yikes.

Although I don't believe in reverting (its often unproductive) I certainly don't believe in letting someone push us over. I will not break the 3rr rule though (knowingly at least). -- Tomhab 02:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As said I certainly have no intention of breaking the 3rr rule. Thanks for the warning though. -- Tomhab 02:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Persia input
Hi Refdoc, if you have the time, could you please drop by and give your vote on the discussion at hand between me and Fishal at Talk:Persia? What do you think we should do? Your input would be appreciated. Thanx.--Zereshk 02:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

inaproporate warning
Can you please enlighten me what about the warning is inaproporate? --Cool Cat My Talk|undefined 03:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Put it into the talk pages if you must, but not into the article. Refdoc 08:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Idealy people look at that first. But idel conditions are a myth. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proxy IPs on Baha'i page
If you take a look at Bahá'í Faith, you'll notice some interesting activity in the history.

Not exactly sure what can be done. I know we disagree on beliefs and views and stuff, but this can't be right. Any suggestions? -- Tomhab 16:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks with your help on that. I figured if I just kept reverting (even if it could be counted as vandalism which I'm not sure it could) he'd simply get kicks out of it so wouldn't go anywhere. -- Tomhab 21:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule
Thanks for reminding. In fact one of the reverts was not entirely a revert. Huaiwei has been reverting many of my edits on many topics. &mdash; Instantnood 23:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * (Re: Talk:Macau) Thanks a lot Refdoc for bringing us to a break, though probably a temporary one. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 00:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Iranian physicists category
Refdoc,

If you go to Dr Mahmoud Hessaby's page, you will see that the "Iranian physicists" category has a red link (i.e. doesnt exist). Could you please fix this problem so that Iran is listed here? Thanx.--Zereshk 08:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revert war with Huaiwei
Hello Refdoc, I would to have your assistance to help relieving a long-term revert war by Huaiwei on my edits. He is starting to revert as many as my edits as possible, no matter what changes I have made to the pages. This recent one over Category:Airports of Macau is particularly annoying, not to mention his words "  you are in the mood for rv war episode 2? This is simply getting lame.  " in the edit summary. He's simply ignoring what have been changed.

I don't know exactly what you can help, but I believe you're in a much more neutral and unbiased position to deal with the issue. &mdash; Instantnood 18:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Refdoc. &mdash; Instantnood 21:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood...again
It is unfortunate, but in an update of the above exercise, the above user has taken upon himself to make the same controversial edits which has sparked previous rounds of revert wars. This is despite your advice that previous concensus in the form of a voting process should be respected, and User:Mailer diablo's attempts to resolve the matter by returning the categories to their previous state.

The categories are:
 * Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China
 * Category:Airports of Hong Kong
 * Category:Airports of Macau

I am now returning them yet again to what they once were. I do hope admins may step in should he continue to revert them again?

As an additional note, he has similarly made some controversial edits to several other categories and pages which were clearly under contestation only a few minutes ago. I noticed he marked them as "minor edits" despite them obviously facing opposition from some quaters. They are:


 * Macau
 * Hong Kong
 * Category:Cities in Taiwan
 * Category:Cities and towns in Hong Kong

I hope by bringing this to the attention of admins, and more amicable means of solution can be archieved? Also, if they are any other possible avenues..maybe to another admin more familiar with the ongoings on this side of the globe, I will be most glad if you may suggest them to me. Thank you!--Huaiwei 18:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been tired with all these long battles, and yet there's always something that you cannot surrender. Huaiwei has shown no sign of reaching any consensus. What is controversial to him could be the best option for others, but he simply carries on enforcing his perceptions. And indeed, I cannot understand why he has been keen on editing stuffs that are not related to his home town. It is not his business and it's meaningless for him to spend so much time on it. He'll never be as familiar as the locals, unless he becomes one some time in future. What makes the situation even worse is that he doesn't seem to respect the locals.

While consensus building through discussion is impossible and the 3RR has to be followed, the only way out is to edit these articles and categories roughly every three days. I understand it might be a nuisance to some users, but I am afraid I cannot be fully responsible for what is happening. I do, however, have the confidence that administrators will make fair judgements, and are capable in doing so. &mdash; Instantnood 18:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc, when his above actions clearly shows how he made those edits despite you coming to a judgement that concensus should be respected, I suppose his actions speaks louder then his words. The preceeding statement that he wishes to persist in thoes edits, even if it means having to do so every 3 days, is, in my view, a reason for concern in itself. I have confidence that you will make your judgements with due fairness.

Meanwhile, I do find it slightly amusing for him to insist that we have to demonstrate the relevance of anything to our home town before we can make edits. I dont subscribe to that kind of provincial thinking, and if that is what he is truly believing in, than I do wonder why he engages in so much discussions on Singapore related issues, unless he is a Singaporean? Whatever the case, I do hope that will not become policy in this site!--Huaiwei 19:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iraq Liberation Act and 3RR
I've had to put up with more crap than you'd like to know about from User:TDC. I wouldn't be surprised if it was TDC himself who made that "convenient" edit, just in an attempt to make it look like me. You might notice that he had already violated the 3RR rule when that edit was made. —Christiaan 00:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Sorry if I wrongly imputed motive to what you said. My apologies. I personally think that 3 reverts are tolerated, and anything more is a major offense, rather than think that you are entitled to three reverts, and if you go over, well...ooops. (This seems to be especially the case when admins are judging other admins).

And congrats on your elevation to admin. Guettarda 18:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD request on The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"
Thanks for your note on this on my discussion page. Even if I read it too late to do anything... i am no longer much present here (and am now trying to avoid interacting with User:Jvb as much as possible. But not to the point of not voting.) What was the result of your action ? --FvdP 20:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)