Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 29 January 2007

Template:Usertalk-sprotect2

For any new or anonymous users who cannot edit this page due to its semi-protection, please leave me a message here, and I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Mywayyy

Hmm, perhaps it would be better if we extended VoAbot protection to all the articles first? In the interest of "DENY". I'm not sure he's ever really felt the frustration of running up against a bot without us even moving a finger... Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hey there Khoikhoi, how you keeping- looks like adminship is keeping you pretty busy! Just dropping by to say thanks for your encouragement & endorsement on my RfA, which has now completed successfully. I can't promise to be as productive as you with the tools, but will do what I can. Thanks again, and take care, --cjllw | TALK 06:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Reversal

Dear Khoikhoi. The edit's that I've placed on the page were relevant references that reflect a diversity in political as well as academic opinions. Some of the references were mere citations to government records, which are quite relevant to the article.

Also, some of the wording that was used in the article were nonacademic and have strong biased connotations. I believe the changes were quite relevant there as well.

What's the point of Wiki if you'll reverse the 'relevant' edit's with no justification?

Regards,

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.170.71 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the links were not neutral. In highly polarized issues, as the article in question, any statement will reflect one sides opinion. My aim was to reflect the not represented side with relevant references. I believe it's not Misplaced Pages's objective to reflect the language and arguments of one side with no references (i.e, the numbers of citizens quoted: needs credible references, biased language like "forced march=biased" instead of "relocation=neutral", "jingoistic support=biased" instead of "support") as if they were facts. Editing for unbiased language/references should be consistent and unbiased!

3RR report

I hope you don't mind me letting that TedBlack guy off with a warning for now, he's a newbie. - Another thing I always wanted to ask you, why do you have that "plainlinks" in your sig? It doesn't seem to be doing anything, does it, and it clogs up the code? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

M.E.Rasulzade

Khoikhoi, could you please take a look at the Rasulzade page, since you've edited it too, about a week ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/Mammed_Amin_Rasulzade

I've left extensive comments in the Talk page before any changes, but user Azerbaijani, and what appears his socketpuppet Pejman47, made 3 or more reverts. Whilst they have a point that I, along with improving spelling and general flow of the article, as well as improving references by providing exact quotes, am removing "sourced information", it is nevertheless not fair, since a quote by, for example, T.Goltz, is not very precise (he gets a few facts wrong, as outlined), whilst T.Atabaki's quote is outright very misleading (which is fault of Atabaki, not any Wiki user). Also, the biographic page should be just that, not dwelling into some complex details. Otherwise, there is plenty of materials from T.Swietochowki and A.Altstadt books, for example, to start quoting as well, and then the page would bloat and well beyond the intended biographical page. --AdilBaguirov 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, please see the talk page, Adil deleted a whole well referenced paragraph! Goltz is a very reliable source, as is Atabaki. Adil just posted a huge POV and OR paragraph and he claims that he can take out whatever he wants. He has unilaterally removed a whole well referenced paragraph. Please see the talk page of that article.Azerbaijani 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I've done exhaustive research, presented more quotes and sources than anyone before, have pointed out mistakes and inconsistencies with the Rasulzade page -- and have done all this on the Talk page before making any changes. However, user "Azerbaijani" prefers to ignore everything, make accusations, and constantly revert the page. He already was blocked by Dmcdevit on 15 January for making 4 reverts in a day -- and this was BEFORE I even got involved on the page. Now he is using his socketpuppet "Pejman47" for reverts:

1) Pejman47 never edited the page before - didn't have it on his "watch";

2) Pejman47 made the revert virtually the same time (23:29, January 24, 2007), as user Azerbaijani posted to my Talk page with a "warning" not to get involved;

3) Neither one ever left any comments in the Talk page, despite obviously needing to do that. Nor did he justify why he rv to any particular version.

This user, Azerbaijani, is doing the same on a different page, History of the name Azerbaijan . Please investigate the socketpuppet by checking their IP addresses, and review the pages to see that exhaustive evidence has been presented, and user Azerbaijani (and/or his alter ego Pejman47) should either agree to remove the offending and misplaced quotes, or agree to incorporate all the quotes and arguments I have presented over the past days. Thank you. --AdilBaguirov 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told you this before, OR and POV do not count on Misplaced Pages, I have told you again and again to read Misplaced Pages policy before you edit, but you refuse. As far as me and Pejman go, you have no evidence, check Pejman's contributions, what do they have to do with me? Your claim is unfounded.Azerbaijani 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of POV and OR is easy, but substantiating is hard. Compare my contributions to this topic, and yours, and then check your record of violations, and mine -- and it all would be clear. Yes, you and Pejman47 definitely appear to be one and the same, and an investigation of this is most welcome, to clarify it. If you are not -- then you have nothing to worry about. --AdilBaguirov 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, you have made many POV and OR comments and I can prove it (thanks to your long posts), but here is not the place and this isnt the time for it. Ok, keep insisting that me and Pejman are the same, it doesnt matter to me because I know we are two different people.Azerbaijani 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange logic, but it's OK. Yes, my "long posts" consist of facts that are fully cited in accordance with academic requirements -- a concept apparently unknown to some. My "long posts" also expose the mistakes and poorly done citations -- that doesn't make it either POV or OR -- perhaps you need to re-read what all this means. And don't ever involve your alter ego Pejman47 or any other socketpuppet for that matter. --AdilBaguirov 06:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Urartu Military image

Please unlock page, I want to add Urartu military image in the Urartu section Angine 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol its obviously ararat. Nareklm 07:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected your talk page

Khoikhoi, I've protected your page. Two people have alternated edits at least 25 times each (they're not all straight reverts) and I have no idea what this is about. Please review the history and unprotect the page when you get back online. Thanks. Grandmasterka 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Abkhazia

Dear Khoi, I have to ask you to mediate on this User:Sephia karta/Republic of Abkhazia, its definitely a strong POV article and plus redundancy. Why do we need three separate articles on Abkhazia? have a look, Abkhazia, and User:Sephia karta/Republic of Abkhazia and User:Sephia karta/Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia ? Well unfortunately as i see it will cause dispute so I would need your skills to mediate on this issue. Thanks in advance. Best. Ldingley 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry i didn't read this one :) Ldingley 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

Dear Khoikhoi,

I'm very sorry about the Three-revert rule.. I had taken a short look at the Misplaced Pages policies, but it was a short look! I should have been much more careful about the policies, as I will do in the future.. On the other hand, I would not edit the same article over and over for no reason.. Immediately after my edit, somebody else changed it and discarded my edit.. I had deleted "Anti-Armenianism" and "Holocaust Denial" links from the "See Also" section of the article, and placed "Genocide Denial" that would be more appropriate. I'm a newbie, I didn't know much about the talk page and stuff.. Thus now I looked at the talk page of the article, and saw the reason of the user "Aivazovsky" editing my page.. He stated: "Rv - I'm sorry, but to deny the Armenian Genocide is to deny a major part of the Armenian identity. When one denies the Genocide, they're denying the suffering of a people." Well, I have to oppose his opinion. First of all, armenian genocide and denial of the armenian genocide are both theses. I'm not saying that the genocide did happen or not. But they are both these, and Armenian Genocide, though accepted by mostly European countries for political reasons, is not accepted as a 'genocide' according to the 'international law'. Hence, for a democratic platform like Misplaced Pages contains the views of both sides. On the other hand, the user says that Armenian Genocide is part of the Armenian identity. Anti-Armenianism is "hostility toward or prejudice against Armenian people, Armenian culture and the Republic of Armenia, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized persecution." as stated in Misplaced Pages article 'Anti-Armenianism'. Thus Anti-Armenianism is a form of hostility or prejudice. In the article "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", there is no hostility towards the Armenians. Instead, there is an opposing view. If we consider opposing-views as hostilities toward a particular group (ethnic, religious etc.) or idea, then there is no place for democracy: ".. Two cheers for democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism" (E. M. Forster (1879-1970)).. Therefore, I find it irrevelant to put the "Anti-Armenianism" link on the article of "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". To put this link on the article would mean that Denial of the Armenian Genocide is a hostile act towards the Armenians, however, as I explained above, it is not. It is nor a prejudice, because the article has concrete references and proofs. Hence, I recommend you that "Anti-Armenianism" link should be deleted from this article.

Thanks Khoikhoi for warning me about the Three-Revert rule and for reading this long:) message, Kalkim 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock of indef-blocked user

There is a new user, User:Hassifnajima who appears to be a sock of someone you indef-blocked a week ago, User:Najimahassif. The former just created a page called The WikiVandals, stating 'both' users to be members, but the page was quickly deleted. I didn't know of a page to report suspected malicious socks, so I mention it to you as the blocking admin. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof

I have proof Dacy is using sock puppets to maintain his propaganda on wikipedia, See this he dacy always claims that Armenians moved on later and heres an ip addition to that, not to mention adil and he's moves were the same. Also right after the anon entry he appears, , this user adds something, i revert it and dacy comes out of nowhere, , Also on both of them appear to be editing peacefully, while he always reverts other users edits. Not to mention that Adil and dacy here appear to put there thoughts right after each other. See and they always edit right after each other also. Nareklm 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is countless allegations. Please check SilkTork talk page - archive . I believe he checked it already and found this allegations groundless. Check please ips - and the country of origin and whatever else necessary.

Also please note that Nareklm removed a big chunk of quotes and references on page March Days. It is vandalism--Dacy69 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to him he removed a part on the Armenian and Azeri part and he is adding bias opinions from Russian references. Nareklm 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

March Days is now considered with third opinion involved. Pls. see talk page.

Vladimir Tismăneanu revisited

Hi, man. Thanks for the feedback on Greier's socks and good riddance to all of them. I need an admin's intervention on this page. At the moment, templates are used to hold the article at ransom. One of them alleges that the article was written according to my POV, but there is no comment on the talk page as to this being the case - just an abuse of tags because I have added fully sourced information that contradicts what those users think about Tismăneanu (not what they can prove or even theorize). The other one implies that certain information is "irrelevant" - one of the users has used the talk page to ask why one should provide details about the circumstances of Tismăneanu's defection from Romania, even though this looks like essential biographical context about a mejor aspect of his life, even though Tismăneanu himself has placed stress on the events in several instances, and even though allegations that he had defected under different circumstances form a large part of the libel that was previously pushed on the page. In fact, at least one of the comments in the article's "Controversy" sections, currently sourced, details a POV claim about the circumstances of his defection, and erasing the info would lead to dropping Tismăneanu's own version of events (which should at least be present, if not take priority). That section also details all sorts of trivial attacks on Tismăneanu, but the other users have no objection for them to be featured there (which, if other parts of the text are to be dropped, constitutes undue weight). Furthermore, the contested account of the I have also asked for the others to look into FAs for comparison of what is acceptable biographical detail, and to make note of the fact that such details are by no means considered trivial. Also, the details of his defection cite the fact that, even though he accompqanied his mother to Spain, she returned; further down in the text, I have added Tismăneanu's statement that his mother was targeted by the Securitate after that date, which would be rendered absurd if one is not to mention that she returned. Currently, two users back each other in placing and replacing the tags without feeling they are accountable for it. One of them has in the past simply erased the sourced information, citing that he finds it "inaccurate", even though it is sourced from two-three sources (you may check out his claim on the talk page, which is that he has personally known Tismăneanu for 35 years...). May I ask that you have a look at the page and weigh in the situation? (Granted, it is a complicated issue, and I thank you in advance for your patience.) Dahn 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started adding tags today simply because you haven't solved your disputes with Vintila Barbu in the talk page (the relevance one, on the other one I argued myself and he conceded with only a slight rephrasing). Also I've noticed many of the past disputes you were involved were "solved" actually when a side abandoned rather than conceded (and unlike you most people do not use tags to express their disagreement, even when a Wiki policy is involved). I've also tried to modify bits of sentences (like "full endorsement" to "endorsement") and I had to struggle much for it (though I must admit, occassionaly I encountered no difficulty, like today when I corrected one of his books to actually be a PhD thesis). I don't even want to imagine how is like to change a larger phrase/paragraph like on Paul Goma. That article is almost a pain to contribute to and in my opinion you're carrying the biggest part of the guilt (though I admit you are the autor of the largest part of the content). Daizus 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is the past POV pushing of an editor, even when that's true, I suggest to limit the discussion only to this article. Specifically, I suggested in the talk page to split the last section into three smaller, each of which should have a clear begining and end, understandable for an outside reader, not an aglomeration of citations and contraditions of contraditions of contraditions of contradictions of whoever knows who said and did what. With such a tactics one might be able even to white-wash Hitler. An article must be TRUTHFUL, presented in neutral tone, but not middle point between the truth and lie. :Dc76 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request

I am not gonna do anything regarding placenames today, as I was requested:). We will find a solution in the near future, if, this time, all the involved parties will participate. Apart from the "names in the lead" position, which I have explained in detail, be sure that I am not gonna step back from my position to have the turkish name in the arabic script in related articles (id est all, except Western Thrace). If the Greek name has to be in polytonic in Anatolian placenames, I can't see how someone can say that i am wrong or POV-pushing... Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sandbox for anachronistic propaganda... Regards and be OK:) Hectorian 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice:). But I expect from the Turkish wikipedians to provide each name in Ottoman Turkish. I can provide each name in Greek polytonic script, as almost every Greek wikipedian can. If the names in the Ottoman arabic script will not be provided within "a reasonable amount of time", I will remove these names... I suppose I am not wrong; the names the way they are now, are not historical, but modern ones, and it is unencyclopedic, if not POV-pushing, to have them there. They were never used officially and never used by the local population-absolute contrast to Gdańsk's spirit. I find it pointless to make a relevancy with Greek placenames in articles other than Greece-related... U know well, that the polytonic script is used there, and no Greek user ever seemed to complain about. If the Turkish users do not want to remember that their language was written in the arabic script, this is certainly not my concern... Hectorian 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been reforms in the Greek language, from ancient times till now. The last reform happened in 1982, when monotonic orthography was adopted. All these reforms were minor, even if u compare modern Greek with Homerus's works-the average Greek will understand more than 50% if someone reads to him a part, and even more if he sees it written. For the Bible, the percentage increases. so, properly speaking, most Greeks do not only understand modern Greek... I guess u meant to write it is really possible... instead of it's not really possible, considering the fact that they're both written in the same script:). I am not accusing modern Turkish people for not knowing to write in Ottoman Turkish... Quite the contrary; it is others that I could accuse for that... The thing is that since we are talking about historical names, we should not use modern names. So simple. The Latin name is used for places that had been parts of the Roman Empire, not a name in a Neo-Latin language; the Greek name in polytonic is used for places that had been part of Greek states, not a name in modern Greek; so, the Turkish name in the Arabic script should be used for places that had been under the Ottoman Empire. And if I am able to find the names in the arabic script, i guess it is much easier for the turkish users, who can search in turkish webpages. thus, i will remove the turkish names if (and only if) they are not in the arabic script. Hectorian 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sömbeki will be either سومبكى ("Sömbeki") or سونبكى ("Sönbeki"), with the latter for preference inasmuch as the former is just using an "m" to assimilate with the "b" (just like the Persian penbe, meaning "pink", has become pembe in modern Turkish). Taşöz will be طاشوز. Istanbulya will be استانبوليه. I haven't verified these with any direct references (and the Piri Reis maps you referred Hectorian to are, alas, too small to read), but these are basically the only ways these words can be spelled in the Ottoman script (there are a few variations possible for "Istanbulya" based on different spellings of "Istanbul", but the one provided is by far the most common). Cheers. —Saposcat 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Saposcat's post. First of all, I confirmed in a dictionary that سومبكى is correct for Sömbeki. As for Taşöz, I have a feeling that طاشوز might not be correct. My rational is that although Taşöz is evidently a rendering of the Greek Thasos, it also looks like a compoud made of two Turkish words, 'taş' and 'öz'. Put togerther, Taşöz doesn't conform to Turkish vowel harmony rules and therefore, Ottoman orthography is difficult to apply. Normally an internal, 'ö' or 'o' is simply written with the Arabic letter و but in this case I have a feeling that it should retain its initial form, او. Another compound place name, Beyoğlu is similarly formed: بگ اوغلى (note the medial ا). My suggestion is, therefore, طاش اوز. Finally, I concur with Saposcat in that Istanbulya is probably استانبوليه. Normally Greek names borrowed into follow this pattern (Turkish 'ıstakoz', "lobster" is spelt استاقوز). Is it certain that the Turkish name begins with the letter 'I' and not 'İ'? It could be that the second letter is, in fact, ص. Until someone checks an Ottoman source, I don't think we can be absolutely certain about the last two. All the best, Xemxi 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the correct Ottoman names for Ioannina and Samos Island, but I can only guess at Ballıbadra: بالليباطره (possibly بالليبادره). I'll slowly start working on the list of names you mentioned to me. Regards, Xemxi 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition Khoikhoi. I've just added a few more: Thessaloniki, Crete, Lesbos Island, Chios and Alexandroupoli. Xemxi 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure where to write this note, but this seems like the best place. I noticed that the modern Turkish have been removed from the Greek places when the Ottoman version have been provided. I understand the argument against using modern Turkish names when we are giving historical information for places outside Turkey. My concern is that by not using the accented letters of the modern Turkish alphabet (ç ı ğ ö ş ü), we are abandoning the generally accepted means of transliterating Ottoman Turkish into the Latin script. Saying that سومبكى is Sombeki (and so on) is confusing because elsewhere in Misplaced Pages a consistent scheme is being used. For articles which contain names in Greek and other languages, non-English accented letters are used because that is the proper way to transliterate those languages. (see Baghdad, Istanbul/Constantinople or Trabzon for example). Would it be suitable to do something like: "Ottoman Turkish سومبكى " in these cases?

Constantinopolitan Office Of Liberation

Looks like I accidentally recreated it by tagging just at the exact second you were deleting it. I've seen this before, where at a certain split-second it will recreate without a warning prompt. Fan-1967 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually you get a warning that says "This page was deleted while you were editing it. Do you want to recreate?" with deleter's name and reason. Very rarely there's no message, and it just recreates. I'm convinced it's a split-second timing issue when the delete and the save are almost simultaneous. Fan-1967 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Greater Iran vs. Iran

Hi, could you please have a look at this: Tājik 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aram Andonian

The first edit removed important info which was that they were used in Talaat's trial. The second edit I have no objections to although its much better to have it a citation rather than mentioning Professor x, a general nobody in the scholarly community and and one of your general run-of-the-mill Genocide deniers. The third edit in Talaat Pasha's page seems OK also but its interesting to note that their authenticity was never questioned during Tehlerian's trial and that the British themselves intercepted numerous telegrams detailing exchanges between Talaat and other Turkish officials, directly incriminating them.--MarshallBagramyan 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just stopped by to thank you for your welcome and the links you provided. I'm still learning the ropes around here, so they're a big help to me. Thanks again and feel free to drop by anytime! --Ann Stouter 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Getae template tags

You have reverted an earlier edit in order to place two template tags - on relevance and on original research. Unfortunately you provided no reason for your edit, and as the page has a RfC on this issue I'd appreciate if you can bring arguments to support your actions and eventually to drop some comments in the RfC section. Thank you. Daizus 09:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenakan & Ramgavar party

Hello there it's me again. Me, Fedayee and OttomanReference decided that we should merge these two articels since they are the same party. I added all the information in the Armenakan articel from the Ramgavar party, but I need your help in deleting the Ramgavar articel and addind all the articel links from Ramgavar party to the Armenakan party. Thanks in advance. ROOB323 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ROOB323 10:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PGG resolution attempt

Hi Khoikoi, an attempt has just begun to resolve the Pontian Greek Genocide dispute through an arbitration committee. Since you have mediated there before, could you please voice your support or objection to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Khoikoi, please check your e-mail. --Mardavich 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

oh

Oh sorry I thought that that was on the main page. For the Aniu people.~~Magistrand~~ 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Public domain

If we have images that are in the Public domain or published before 1923 etc. do we need sources? Nareklm 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nareklm 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That angine shes obviously here to support Ararat arev which is not going to happen. Nareklm 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So far the Urartu image and the language. Nareklm 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the image sorry, its been added here, Military history of Armenia after Ararat requested it with his anon I.P to another user. I probably got confused with this, Nareklm 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway to get rid of this guy? wow man. Nareklm 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But thats still not going to help right? Nareklm 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Hello Khoikoi. Thanks for the clarification. I was actually aware of the acceptability of both spellings. What a wonderful and fluid language English has become! Being a citizen of both the UK and US, I have developed a rather split personality regarding spelling, metric equivalents and the 24 hour clock, along with an understanding of a lot of the subtle differences in usage (e.g. Cel phone vs. Mobile). I have added the English spellings to the (semi-robotic) spelling application on my trusty Mac. I have been an avid user of Misplaced Pages since its inception, but only in the last few months have I jumped into the editing. Thanks for your contributions.cp 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Adana Massacre

Hi, I offered the article to WP:DYK, per your encouragement. Hope I've properly added it to WPDYK, didn't really realize how that stuff works. Thanks!DBaba 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Urartu

User:TigranTheGreat has changed the wording on Uratu page in the section of the Ethnic Composition - he referred to "weasel word". Sources are mentioned and thorougly debated - so this justification is groundless. Well, this section was exstensively debated with the assistance of third party - SilkTork - pls. see discussion page + + + . I don't think that each time we should resume debate if someone wants to change the wording to his liking. And the last edit was by dab--Dacy69 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC) + Also I wonder how TigranTheGreat managed to make edit after your protection.

Socks

I thought you should know that User:Al-Munthir is using two obvious new socks, User:Creeta and User:Wacat, to evade his block. --Mardavich 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I suspect that all the above users are actually related to User:MARVEL. --Mardavich 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of Sock

Khoikhoi, who gave you an assumption that Tengri and myself is the same person. He is my friend, and I did use his computer last week. But it does not mean we are the same person. I realize you have to abide by WP:SOCK rules, but before taking arbitrary actions you should also have legible proofs that we are the same person. Otherwise, this looks more like POV position. And prior to taking "actions" on representatives of certain group, you should concentrate on Azerbaijan Discussion page, and look at opinions of several people against user Azerbaijani, constantly making edits and removing valid references from page, before taking single sided position and trying to block people, who are not the same. In the end, such actions discourage any kind of contribution or interest in Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks. Atabek 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)