arbcom |
Blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
I opened Arbcom page. please make your comments. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests] --[[User:Dacy69|Dacy69]] 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
I opened Arbcom page. please make your comments. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests] --[[User:Dacy69|Dacy69]] 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia == |
|||
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|You have been temporarily '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{reason|}}}|'''{{{reason}}}'''|[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:12, 22 June 2007
Aldux
Hey Alexander,
Just FYI I dont believe that Aldux's revert of Battle of the Persian Gate was done using an anti-vandalism tool; he's been involved in the ongoing dispute at that page. --RaiderAspect 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Alexander's right; I used rollback, which was an error on my part.--Aldux 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, seems I was wrong. On a secondary note, if you've got time you might want to look into the talk page of the Persian Gate article; another fresh view is always nice --RaiderAspect 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I Alexander, sorry I appear to have removed some sort of text from the Persian Gate discussion. Sorry for being such a bonehead, I assure you it was completely accidental, Quite frankly I don't know how I did it. Once again, I'm sorry, is it possible to change back, I'd hate to have removed others' writing.--Arsenous Commodore 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
AlexanderPar, I tried fixing the problem, and it seemed fixed momentarily, but it changed back. Please tell me how I may change it back.--Arsenous Commodore 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for rectifying the problem, and I am sorry for the inconvenience I have caused.--Arsenous Commodore 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Tagging Persian Gulf
Hi Alex,
The article, Persian Gulf, is biased and what is so-called compromise didn't consider other side's POV. Iranian users still insist to include non-used name -having political background- in Arabic language as "Al Khaleej Al Faresi" (in Arabic letters) which is not true and not adopted neither officially nor academically by any Arab country. Thus, I would like you to ask them to reach a middle point and let Arab users translate the name as we know our language better than Persians!
In the article's intro, they insist to mention only one old name used in classical Arabic, which is Persian Gulf (Khaleej Faresi) and avoiding all other names (around 5 other names) just to focus on Persian domination on this sea. Hence, I suggested moving these historical names to its correct section: Etymology or Historical Names... as we can't include the USSR in the intro of Russia article!
You can go and see how the discussion is going and no NPOV is reached. Some users pretended that a middle point is reached but they edit later as they like ignoring what is requested in the talk. I, and many other users, still considering the page is biased and has political intro and subsections. Neutrality tag is needed for this article, logically. Ralhazzaa 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you're not aware already, you need to follow a few procedures (i.e. e-mailing Daniel about something) in order to get the ball rolling on the request for mediation, since it apparently will be occurring on a private wiki. See #Decision of the Mediation Committee for more information. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi , you wrote, "10:55, 23 May 2007 AlexanderPar (Talk | contribs) (49,895 bytes) (replacing user-modified map with the original map)" . Did the original map was made by another user? If so then plese explain whyat do you mean? Nasz 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't remove sourced info
Alex!
You r removing referenced info from article Persian Gulf without any explanation. Provided info is not conflicting with the dispute issue. It looks that u r removing sourced info for the sake of hiding info provided by others. It is not good!!!
If u have another verifiable resources, provide it along. Otherwise it will be considered as vandalism to keep removing info not conflicting with any "compromise" and will be reported to Admins!
Regarding the what so-called compromise, have a look at the discussion page and see how that hypothetical and manipulated compromise has been destroyed by some aggressive commentors! Ralhazzaa 12:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- don't u think your repeated removing of referenced info (not opposing, reverting, or deleting any word in the text) is against edit rules in WP? I didn't violate any compromise (though there is none) but u removed resources and extended info from the leading without providing reasonable comment or substitution.
- You can notice that intentional removing of resourced content (resources that are following WP rules) is not good for your conribution history in WP. read the difinition of Vandalism: "removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."! Cool down and provide better info -w/ refs- when u want to delete others alike. Ralhazzaa 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediation account
Hello! Since you have not picked another method for creating an account, here is your account information:
- User name: AlexanderPar
- Password: x6hga92dk
- Login address: http://www.southportbeekeepers.co.uk/medcom/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Waterway:Introduction
Note that you will need to change your password as soon as possible, and then confirm on Wikipedia that you have in fact taken your account, as a security measure.
Thanks, Daniel 10:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing resourced info
Hi,
Don't u think insisting to remove resourced info is not a good thing for you to adopt in the Persian Gulf page? I think removing resourced & more comprehensive info is not what we read in the rules of editing here.
Please notice that there was not any word has been altered or replaced. Only refs (of high quality and standards) were added to verifiy text. For historical names, I added some other classical names widly-used even with refs in the past times as long as one user want to mention classical names but in his own way. Not only one name should be mentioned as it is tending to be of political background. Why you want to adopt the removal of names used for ~100-400 years as shown in the references?
Regarding the consensus, there was none as u can notice now in the talk page. For previous compromise(s), none of the Iranian editors considered sugestion provided by some Arab editors. This is not qualifying the proposal to be a compromise and we considered it manipulated as shown in our comments in the Talk Page.
It is better to keep referenced info and all widly-used historical names to follow the rules of edit in WP and avoid falling uder the vandalism due to repeated removal of resourced and comprehensive info. Ralhazzaa 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you removed the edit I made to the introductory sentence of the Issyk kurgan article. I added "is a burial mound" so that non-technical readers would know what the Issyk kurgan is. Although the article contains a lot of information about it, nowhere does it say what it is. I showed the article to some friends of mine (we are intelligent people but not archaeologists) and none could figure out what it was. The typical guess was that the kurgan was the "golden man" shown in the picture. So, I did some research and found that a kurgan is a burial mound, and I added the text. If the added text is incorrect, would you please consider adding correct text so that a non-technical reader can clearly understand what the Issyk kurgan is as well as where it is located and its significance.
It seems that my edits (which was part of a revert) may also have removed some other text and references that you added back in. That was unintentional ... Thank you for restoring them. Truthanado 17:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
arbcom
I opened Arbcom page. please make your comments. [1] --Dacy69 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)