Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 12 August 2007

Thatcher is taking a short wikibreak. Unfortunately, I am very busy and forced to bring work home nearly every evening for the foreseeable future, so I will be cutting back on my participation. Comments left here will be archived rapidly, responses are possible but not guaranteed. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Azerbaijan naming dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You guys should look at talk:Morgellons and user talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 to see how a group of editors who were previously involved in a nasty fight can work together. Getting involved in the A/A I issues is simply not rewarding as I don't believe it will every be possible to make this kind of progress. Thatcher131 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I took the time to organize my argument and make everything as concise and easy to understand as possible. I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to look over it and make some comments: .

I know that you are probably busy, as I am, but please try to be more involved, otherwise this whole debate will be in vain, as Grandmaster, Atabek, and I have discussed this issue several times already, with no results, and without your involvement, this debate will be no different. I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.Hajji Piruz 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I will try to offer an outside perspective but whether it is beneficial is up to you (all). Thatcher131 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. This single dispute has taken up more of my time than anything else here on Misplaced Pages. I hope it will finally be over and we can make Misplaced Pages articles as accurate and factual as possible.Hajji Piruz 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just read your resopnse and I have several comments:

1) I am not only using 2 or 3 main sources. I simply did not post dozens of sources to make things easier for everyone, but if you would like, I can post over 40 primary sources from before 1918, and dozens of maps from before 1918. Would you like me to? I am more than willing to if it means putting an end to this dispute. I made this clear in my first reponse:

I can literally bring up dozens of sources for every source that says otherwise, but I wont, for obvious reasons (it would take too much time). I'm sure you know of Misplaced Pages's undue-weight policy.

2) You seem to think that this issue has not been represented on Misplaced Pages. There is currently an article titled History of the name Azerbaijan. The Abbot quote belongs there, no where else on Misplaced Pages, as per undue-weight, and the Abbot quote is there.

3) This is about whether the term Azerbaijan should be used in Misplaced Pages articles regarding subjects in the Caucasus from before 1918. If we are to make Misplaced Pages reliable and accurate, Azerbaijan should not be used in that context unless its referring to Iranian Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Abbot quote belongs there, no where else on Misplaced Pages" - is there a Misplaced Pages rule that says you can use one article quote only once? That's interesting, are you placing Abbott on parole? :) Atabek 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages undue weight states that. I suggest you read it. I have copy pasted it many many times.Hajji Piruz 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Look at this. Uzeyir Hajibeyov was born in 1885 and Atabek is trying to say that he was born in the Republic of Azerbaijan: How is this helping Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopaedia?Hajji Piruz 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If I followed Atabeks logic I would change that to Nagorno-Karabakh because that's where Shusha unofficially is. But that would be breaking WP:POINT, so I'll just let it be. VartanM 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please help me?

I appreciate your comments and would like to follow wiki rules and make the Morgellons article more balanced. If you look at the changes I made to the actual article -- they were all discussed in the discussion page and cited. I have spoken about my position on the discussion page, but not in the article. I thought that this was OK. There is a long history of edit wars on this page and people who try to advocate that the disease is "real" are generally banned. I am proposing a short concise article, well documented, that can be blocked until the CDC investigation is over, so that the editing wars can end. There is very little science here -- no real scientific research has been done at all. You have doctors who say that the disease is real, and many who say it is not -- but historically doctors have initially stated that about almost every newly emerging disease. Can you give me advice? Thanks Pez1103 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article will never be locked "until the investigation is over"; that's simply contrary to WIkipedia's core philosophy. I was drawn to the situation by a complaint from someone I generally respect who is generally a skeptic about new medical claims, which Misplaced Pages naturally attracts. (For example, BDORT.) I have not gone through the recent history of changes to the article to get a handle on what has been going on but I am concerned about your open advocacy. Up to a point, advocacy is permitted on talk pages but when it leads you into conflicts with other editors such as calling them "morally reprehensible" or "wiki-bullies" that is definitely crossing the line. I have read the current version of the article and it probably overrepresents and overquotes doctors from the MRF. On the other hand, I also just read Koblenzer's editorial in the Nov 2006 JAAD and found him to be incredibly condescending. (Unfortunately, Dr. Harvey's response in Apr 2007 was short on science and long on soapbox.) It would probably be better to make the article shorter and more focused; sometimes this is opposed by advocates themselves who want to be able to include every anecdote and newspaper article, or by skeptics who think that every affirmative statement must be balanced by two opposing statements.

My personal editing time is limited to an hour or so during the day and a few hours in the evenings, I'm often not active at all on weekends, and this does not put me in a strong position to handle a prolonged argument. I'll have to have a think over any possible participation, and review the history more carefully. Thatcher131 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a question here? A number of the editors, myself included, have also been concerned about User:Pez1103's open advocacy, and the effect it has had on the Morgellons article and talk page, dating back to October of 2006. A notice was placed on the COI noticeboard (here is the original diff: ), and this user responded with COI notices posted against myself and another editor (the latest notice is now under DR). Very shortly thereafter, Durova essentially "overrode" the COI notice by placing a block for making legal threats, a block which was removed shortly thereafter, but after the COI notice had been removed by User:MER-C (diff: ). Effectively, then, the COI issue was never resolved. With the fork you created for Morgellons Research Foundation today, and contributions there from Pez, this is even more direct COI, since she works for the organization. Would it require a new notice in order to achieve resolution? Thanks, Dyanega 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the conflict of interest policy prohibits such editing. It advises against editing because editing where you have a strong personal interest can lead to bad behavior, but ultimately it is bad behavior that will lead to editing restrictions, regardless of whether the editor has a conflict. (If, as Pez states, Herd of Swine runs a Morgellons debunking web site, then he might also come under the COI policy.) I discussed this with Pez on her talk page this morning, now it is up to her to see whether she can adapt to our community or not. In the end, it is behavior that matters. Thatcher131 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference here. My site is essentially just a blog, where I post links to Morgellons information, and my own experiments and opinions. My debunking I try to keep neutral, and focus on verifiable evidence. I have written several articles on how Morgellons is NOT delusions of parasitosis. I have no involvement beyond this. Pez on the other hand, has spent several years actively promoting Morgellons, and seems have have been largely responsible for the involvement of the CDC. I agree it is behavior that matters, but Pez's behavior seems to constitute a direct COI with his work for the MRF. Herd of Swine 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

←Thatcher, I am a neutral editor who helped out on this article following a WQA alert. Now that you and some others are involved, I've stepped back, but when I saw the long post from Herd of Swine with the details about the off-wiki activities of Pez, I thought I should share some information with you in case you had not seen it yet.

I am not defending the actions of Pez, but I question why Herd of Swine brought it up in such detail, as if to prove that if not for Pez there would be no CDC investigation. Why do that now, when there has been excellent progress in improving the article and he could have helped with that instead?

Here is the link to the website that Herd of Swine runs: Morgellons Watch - Resources for Morgellons investigators. Skeptical analysis and debunking. I asked him about it the last time he accused Pez of COI, and his reply is here on the article talk page.

I accepted his response and assumed good faith. But after his recent post, I thought I should bring this up with you.

Although he says his debunking articles are NPOV, I've read them and they do have strong bias. At the talk page link I provided above, he listed 3 links to his own articles, to show his approach is neutral. But the articles are not neutral even though they have neutral-sounding titles, they show a red herring fallacy. I won't go into detail, they are there if you want to read them.

My reason for bringing this up is that after Herd of Swine wrote so much detail about Pez, I thought it important for you to know about his extensive off-wiki anti-MRF/anti-Morgellons activism.

As I said, I am not defending the actions of Pez, and also, I am not trying to cause any trouble for Herd of Swine. I do ask though that when you read the comments from Herd of Swine, you consider his long-standing bias and his ongoing, off-wiki conflict with Pez. --Parsifal _Hello 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent much of last night thinking hard over the details of Pez' activities regarding the CDC investigation, and I keep coming back to two statements: one above "it is up to her to see whether she can adapt to our community or not" and the one about "Don't bite the newbies". There is a history of uncooperative and policy-violating editing dating back to October of last year, over 1000 edits' worth, and I hardly think the "newbie" tag applies after having other editors explain WP policy to her repeatedly for 9 months. Why I find the CDC thing particularly troubling is that her comments about the CDC's neutrality and the suggestion that their involvement indicates that they themslves believe an investigation is needed is - all things considered - disingenuous, since she is clearly aware that the reason the CDC is involved is because of advocates like herself lobbying people into action. Clearly aware - yet she never once disclosed this, and up until Herd's posting, continued portraying her belief in the altruistic motivations behind the CDC's involvement as if it supported the legitimacy of her edits, when she knew otherwise. I cannot convince myself that she is capable of divorcing her advocacy from her editing, or willing to "adapt to our community", and the evidence is quite substantial, this CDC matter being just the latest case. Dyanega 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to attack Pez. I brought up the subject of her extensive involvement in lobbying the CDC only after she had made many, many edits regarding the CDC, without disclosing her own involvement. I have no off-wiki conflict with Pez, she has not posted on morgellonswatch since last december when we had a discussion of whether dermatologists examine the skin of patients who exhibit signs of Morgellons (See: posts 82 and 84 - I post as "Margellons").

I ask you to look at my referenced post regarding pez's Lymebuster activities solely in the context of her edits regarding the CDC investigation. I apologize for posting so many quotes, but that was really only a representative sample. There are hundreds more. I have no doubt that Pez can make valuable contributions to the article, but other editors have raised COI and POV concerns before.

Regarding my site being a similar COI. There is some difference. The MRF is an organization, currently soliciting over $300,000 in donations, actively involved in lobbying. My site is simply my blog, where I give my opinion regarding the evidence surrounding Morgellons. Because I express my opinion elsewhere should not preclude me from editing here. I have no vested interest - in fact i would be delighted if it turns out that there was some treatable infectious disease. I write on my blog to reflect evidence based medicine - so yes, you could say I am biased in my blog entries, in that I support evidence based medicine, especially evidence based treatments. That's what blogs are for - expressing opinions. But I write on Misplaced Pages to accurately reflect what the secondary sources say regarding the situation.

Herd of Swine 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments about your COI were not intended to preclude you from editing.

However, you've written conflicting statements about your own position. You wrote just above:

I have no vested interest - in fact i would be delighted if it turns out that there was some treatable infectious disease.

But yesterday you wrote the opposite, at this diff:

Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill.

That sentence shows you have already reached your personal conclusion. You followed that with a perfunctory with "Perhaps they are not , but..." disclaimer, but the substance of your intent was clear, and matches your writings on your website.

If we combine those words with the fact that you invest considerable time in running a website devoted to proving that Morgellons is not a physical disease, it's very hard to accept your assertion that you have no vested interest. You call it moregllonswatch.com and you say it's a debunking website. How can you then say you don't have an agenda?

I don't understand why you are doing this or why you feel as you do; though it appears you are sincere and you feel you are doing the right thing.

But you are not unbiased and we should not pretend that you are.

I am not trying to limit your involvement in this discussion. My concern is that you've been focusing so much on Pez instead of the article. And at the same time, you so have an agenda to debunk the condition that the MRF where Pez volunteers is trying to research. Why don't you just drop that and do what you said you want to do: write on Misplaced Pages to accurately reflect what the secondary sources say regarding the situation. ?

This replies to anyone else who has been focusing on Pez as well, not just to you. If Pez violates policies or causes trouble, we will all see it and it will be resolved according to Misplaced Pages policies. As Thatcher said, in the end it's the behavior that matters. Discuss the article, not the editors. --Parsifal _Hello 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill. - how exactly is this not true? EVERY SINGLE STORY in the media portrays it as EXACTLY this situation. Perhaps you misread my intent there, I was attempting to characterize the secondary sources' reporting on the subject, in order to provide context for my having mentioned Leitao's statements about Munchausen's. Herd of Swine 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's simply not true that every media story says those people are mentally ill.

It appears you revealed your true feelings with that comment, not just what sources have reported. And what you revealed is exactly what you have been propounding on your website.

That's fine, you are welcome to your viewpoint. But it's not scientific skepticism, so don't pretend that it is. A skeptic does not assume one way or the other until the research has been done.

I have no idea of if it's a disease or not. But likewise, there is no proof that the sufferers are all mentally ill.

I suggest we drop this thread of discussion. You made your point and I made mine. I am not trying to get you excluded from editing. --Parsifal _Hello 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made my point but perhaps not clearly enough. I absolutely agree with you that the media stories do not say people are mentally ill. I did not say that either. What I said was: people with morgellons are trying to persuade their doctors they are not mentally ill. According to the MRF, 95% of people with Morgellons have been diagnosed as delusional. Those people are trying to convince their doctors they are not mentally ill. That is what the articles are about - that struggle, and all the media stories reflect that. Find me ONE that does not. I'm not saying that anyone is mentally ill. Herd of Swine 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one:

You are clearly very intelligent, and I believe you are well-intended. But you do maintain a debunking website and you have written that you don't believe Morgellons is a new separate physical disease. You've written that maybe it's a combination of other diseases and/or mental illness, or both.

You could help me to see you more clearly as a neutral party if you remove the word "debunking" from the subtitle of your website and make a new subtitle that displays true open-minded inquiry. That would be an interesting development.

I'm not going to continue with this thread. I've aired the issue and see no reason to go on about it.

I acknowledge I may be completely wrong about you. But with my limitations as a person, I am unable to see a way that you could be neutral about a topic on which you run a website with a stated debunking position. Others may not agree with me; I may be wrong; but that's how I see it. --Parsifal _Hello 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unfortunately responding on your talk page, I'm sure Thatcher has had enough of this. Herd of Swine 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Azizbekov, please see everything

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm afraid I no longer believe that these disputes can be resolved by my acting polite and listening to all sides and offering an occasional opinion. Requests for enforcement of arbitration remedies should be made on WP:AE. Disputes on article content should be resolved through request for comment or third opinion. If, after soliciting comment or third opinions, one editor or group of editors refuse to accept the outcome, you can request that the editors be banned from editing the article in question, assuming the arbitration case currently under consideration passes. Thatcher131 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Part I

Hi, I am new, and I hope I am posting this in the right place. I am wondering if the Azerbaijan article can be protected and a mediator added. Some users have aggressively edit warred, and even vandalized the page, making things up. There is almost nothing from those reverts on the talk page, and their edit summaries do not make sense. They have also taken the attack to wikimedia commons and other articles about my sourced information. Please see history, and also this comment I added on the talk: I see some users are bent to attack me and remove information about Azeri-German collaboration and the picture. I am reverting this, even though this is my 4rth time. As I understand wiki rules I read, we can revert more than 4 times if it is blatant vandalism, which I undertand it is. The Article on Germany is a featured article, and they show 3 images under WWII sections. So, what is wrong with this one having one for battle of Caucasus and another for Azeri collaboration. Also, why are they starting to put information about Armenians and Georgians in this article? Not only Soviet citizens but europeans like the Dutch served in SS and wermacht, should we mention all? If anything should be mentioned, it should be about Uzbek and Turkmen, who served under same unit. I also do not understand how the picture is not important when at least 18,000 to OVER 30,000 azeris served in the Armies, and participated in Warsaw Uprising to very significant level. I do not want to fight, so I reported to Administration about this, maybe they will help.Azizbekov 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC) For example, both users Parishan and Atabek blindly reverted on the article and then self reverted, before finding a reson to revert me. Clearly bad faith vandalism. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azerbaijan" Thank you to those who listen.Azizbekov 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I have a strong suspicion that Azizbekov (talk • contribs) is a reincarnation of some banned user. He is very well familiar with Misplaced Pages editing for a newbie, and his contributions are basically limited to inserting the image of Azerbaijani volunteers in Nazi army to every article about Azerbaijan. The image has copyright issues, and I see no real point in canvassing the same info all over the articles about this country. I would like to ask the admins seriously investigate this user’s behavior. --Grandmaster 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Regardless of the status of the user, content disputes are not blatant vandalism. Vandalism doesn't mean "I really, really, really disagree with that edit." Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Thank Seraph, basically I removed that image from Azerbaijan article page, seeying strong disagreement. I never deny that I never editted wiki before, but I have been anonymous. neither is my contribution limited to collaboration of wermacht. It is my main interest for now, but I cant write about it forever can I? I have other interests too. Azizbekov 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I would like to ask for independent review of situation at Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations. Azizbekov adds dubious info to the article such as this: First they took part in massacre of 50,000 civilians in the Wola massacre, then moved to the Old Town (another 5,000 sick and wounded murdered after the Polish forces withdrew from the area, the remaining 35,000 being sent to concentration camps) and then to Czerniaków and Powiśle - along the Vistula. and fails to support it with any reliable source. Moreover, he reverts any attempts to request a source or remove unsupported claims from the article and makes personal attacks on other users: --Grandmaster 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) That image was removed from the article Azerbaijan by users Kober and Pejman47 , among others, for the same reason. However Azizbekov has only reported Atabek and myself, i.e. users that mostly contribute to Azerbaijan-related articles. I see an obvious culture/ethnicity-driven decision here. Parishan 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I'd like to draw Admins' attention to unacceptable behavior of Azizbekov (talk • contribs), who has made two personal attack now. Please see his insulting use of language in edit summary . He refuses to provide a source for a specific part of the article, and when requested to do so, keeps using aggresive and insulting language. (!) Ehud 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Part II

Hello Mr. Thatcher.

I am a recent editor that by now half of Misplaced Pages has been alerted to my edits, regarding Azerbaijani-Germany connection. At the moment, I am most interested in this topic and I am most active in it. I seemed to have angered many users with my edits, I have posted on an Administrator board, and also I have had posts about me posted. While I have disagreed with more than several editors, only a few of them started a personal vendetta against me.

Therefore, I decided to stop editing for a day or so and stalk their edits as well as of some users I recently talked to, and all seemed actively involved with you. I am hoping you will be able to solve this once and for all since these users are active with you and you administer this website.

First, I posted comments from my commentary in Announcment Board. I first strongly disagreed on the Azerbaijan article, but finally got pressured into removing the image. However, some of these same users also continued stalking and wiping out my edits on the Azerbaijani Legion and Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Units page. Those are the ones that frustrated me the most.

Also, checkuser of me being some users was called for. I was called someone named Rovoam and Artaxiad, and some Robert or something. and this check was declined. I am wondering can you or some other administrator conduct this check or analyze me for copycatting, so this silly notion of me being someone I am not will be put behing me. I am not sure what article about Ziya Bunyatov has to do with WWII Azerbaijani-German historical connections. How can it be a smear campaign if all the stuff I have written is true and from books and sites n stuff. Do you see where I am going with this?

First, I noticed most of these users are in an Arbitration case, where they were invited. I was so dissatisfied with some of them, that I would like to present my opinion about them there. I am wondering if I have to be invited to participate or can add whatever I want.

Second, one user who seems to be a very strong dirty liar is someone named grandmaster. Please see for example the talk on Azeri Waffen SS article, he claims he cannot see the link picture when it is really there, and I provide link for second time with something more specific and then he is quiet, not even courtesy response. I looked at stuff he wrote in arguments and he lies a lot.

Also, someone named Ehud Vandalized the Azeri Waffen-SS article. He claims he is jewish, but he removes mention of nazi atrocities claiming he is NPOVING these articles. The only thing about such WWII tragedies is that someone has the nerve to create fake jewish account and say he is removing stuff about massacre to make it more neutral. I gave him all sources, and told to read, but he doesn’t, what can I do? He edits wars on this article in vandalism. I reverted more than 3 times too, but Idid vandalism, so obvious vandalism is ok.

Then, I stalked this ehud’s edits, and appears on edits every time some guys like Grandmaster come into conflict, and he was named in recent Arbitration, and some believe he is banned user of someone named Adil Baguirov.

I think if people thought this before, we now know it. It is disgusting how this “Ehud” hides behind a fake Israeli-Ashkhenazi identity can edit in such a Neo-Nazi way. How did he suddenly “find” this article I was writing after being inactive in so many days, among all other articles of controversy he fakely edited to. I think this is more than enough of coincidences.

It is interesting how he “incidentally” appeared to edit same articles as proven Adil socks I found, like smone name Dr.Alban: http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_AdilBaguirov

Also, another account just started to edit against me. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Aghpet

It looks almost identical to one of Adil characters sock puppetls name Naharar, even how his page became started !!!!!!!!!!!! All articles he edit were done by adil or his banned fake user id's.

I stalked this adil person and what he did very good I think it is same one.

Another user who disagreed with me was Atabek, but not as much. I was going to write about him, but I saw what he was editing and he was reported 2 times to Administration who were more responsive to Armenians and Genocide removal claims than to me and Azerbaijan article, so I chose not to get involved and be on his bedside.

I also look at your activity a little bit, and saw something saying about banning users, wich I tough was funny. But I also see you mention Hajji Piruz. He is one who welcomed me and was very friendly to me, please to do not ban him, he was nice and friendly to me and welcome to wikipedia like some other editors did not.

Please help me. I already have self-reverted some controversial things, and I am trying hard to please everyone and be a good editing citizen on wikipedia. Azizbekov 07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how User:Azizbekov, established merely 4 days ago and already notorious with his disruptive edits on Azerbaijan-related pages, would be so experienced and well versed to know who User:AdilBaguirov is and claim that User:Aghpet's edit is similar to his, or that User:Naharar is supposedly a sock of Adil. Moreover, assume bad faith, and claim that user Ehud is of "fake Israeli-Ashkenazi" identity. This sounds like a very experienced user to make such claims. Thatcher131, could you look into this issue? Thanks. Atabek 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you can wonder all you want, but do not act foolish. I found a bout this adil carachter here: http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/91_folder/91_articles/91_news_movers.html

I do not know very much about him, but like I said, I took a day from editting and stalked all people I have been in contact with because I seem to have many problems.

I was most shocked by a "Jewish" person removing stuff about massacre and Nazi ideology and then saying they are making "article fair." I even noticed someone on his talk page write You edit EXACTLY LIKE HIM.

Finally, I like how you say assume good faith. After you act like an asshole to people you say be nice to me, not to mention you or your friends who attacked me did not assume this "good faith" you say every time you act like an asshole to other ppl.Azizbekov 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A little help on User Talk:THF?

Thatcher, I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left? Thank you. --David Shankbone 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have wide latitude over their own talk pages, and there is no basis for forcing him to comply. I see however that another admin asked and THF has removed the comment. If something like this happens in the future, I would suggest adding a second note after the first that you withdraw your previous comment, and say the same in the edit summary which can't be modified even if he hides the withdrawal. Then leave it alone if he reverts or otherwise modifies it. Thatcher131 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of the Progress Party (Norway)

Hi Thatcher,

I noticed you too attempted to clean up the Progress Party (Norway) article. It is currently heavily politicized. The party is somehow even labeled as "radical right-wing", based on a collection of ten year old quotations from foreign authors who never studied the party, but probably heard a rumour somewhere.

Hope you will help with the article when you're back from your wikibreak!

Heptor _talk 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On Azizbekov

Thatcher, apologies for "polluting" your page. I'd just like to get your attention on User:Azizbekov who keeps on his personal attacks. He and some other Armenian users have tried continuosly harm my image calling me a sock other Azerbaijani users. This is getting really tiring. Azizbekov has been trying to provoke me with remarks on my "being a Nazi", "disregarding lives of my ancestors", etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations&diff=149920016&oldid=149918634), (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations&diff=149924287&oldid=149924146). From his edits on the article on Azeri Waffen SS you will see his biased attitude where his main objective is to present everything Azeri as barbarian. Please read my explanation on talk page to better understand his edits . Despite irrational remarks and "conclusions" he has been making calling me a sock of someone due to rather cheap analysis on when I appear online and when I don't, I am requesting your immediate attention on this matter and ask you to warn him to refrain from personal name-callings on me and anything related to my ethnicity. Ehud 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)