This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
barnstar
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
thanks for blocking editors like user:Good friend100. These editors are rude and are making unreferenced claims on Gaogouli. We need to stop the Korean ultranationlists from ruining the article. DefenseofChina 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this barnstar in good conscience. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3RR Report
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At times you are a delightful and helpful chap, so it sometimes drives me crazy how you sometimes take a very short view of edit histories. The edits Viriditas was incrementally reverting were edits of someone else, not his own. The young man has some rather significant OWN issues, and I think it is in everyone's best interest to take a closer look at the violations. Arcayne(cast a spell) 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:3RR: Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reprotect
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Please reprotect the templage on the PG article since currently there is discussion going on the talkpage.. I believe it will go somewhere. --alidoostzadeh 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The ongoing discussion is free to continue. There's no reason to protect the article and prevent editors from making unrelated changes when there is no edit warring occurring. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool Cat MFD on DRV
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you please take a look at the talk page of this article and User:Pejman.azadi's comments. While he is polite and acting in good faith, he does not appear to understand how talk pages work and is filling the talk page with his opinions which is becoming disruptive. I've tried to point this out to him but he doesn't seem to have understood. Could you have a word with him?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for taking care of my first parole violation block. I had not issued a block before for a prole vio and tried to figure the block length from statements in the AC case-thanks for correcting my mistake. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah... I didn't realize you were still online. I saw the break in your contribution history and thought you were off to do something else. -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
Dacy69 made 3 reverts in two days on the same article, I think thats why his parole was as long as it was.Azerbaijani 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Your right (My mistake, I got confused), but he still made a partial revert by removing information added by another user.Azerbaijani 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
But that was a partial revert was it not? I got blocked for something even less than that. The first edit this user made after being unblocked was to remove sourced information (from Encyclopaedia Britannica), he then tried to justify his revert by making a POV and OR comment. How is my reporting him a stretch?Azerbaijani 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
He removes one word from an article and you want him blocked. Seriously; that's grasping at straws. You two have been far from friendly with each other and now you're looking for an excuse to get him blocked. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not yet once reverted that article, even though I also dispute things in there, so why is it that I can be patient and talk things out while he couldnt? It was a revert plane and simple, he could have waited to remove that piece of sourced information, but chose not to. As you know, we have all been in an Arbcom. User Dacey has also reported people for violation of their paroles and etc... I just reported a violation. Even one word can be described as a revert. Many articles have disputed based on a simple word or two. Is there a policy tha ta revert must be lengthy? If I were to make reverts but they were just one word reverts, would I not be blocked as well? This is not about Dacey and I or about how we feel for each other (I have never personally attacked anyone on Wiki, I've always been about the edits, never about the user him or herself, so I dont see why you think that I may be reporting him out of dislike, when clearly he violated his parole). I got blocked once simply for changing two words. This is why I think based on equality, he should have the same punishment as I did.Azerbaijani 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a revert plane and simple [sic]; he removed one word, with explanation on the talk page. There does not seem to be any evidence that he intended to revert someone's edit; he just made (what he thought was) a correction. I'm not changing my mind on this; I have looked at the article history again and I don't see any way this could be considered a revert. -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, here are the edits for which I got blocked: [1] and [2]
As you can see, I didnt even break 1rr, but I still got blocked for 31 hours. So I dont understand why Dacy69 gets away with this. At the least could you talk to the admins about having me removed from this list: [3]
I just dont understand why the same rules dont apply to him as they did to me.Azerbaijani 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Because you were edit warring over those 2 words, while Dacy was not. You edit war over the words "Azerbaijan" and "Arran" on many articles, and admins noticed it. Grandmaster 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia clearly states: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.Azerbaijani 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
He didn't undo an edit to a page; he removed a word. You're missing the intended meaning of the policy. -- tariqabjotu 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So your saying that if I reinsert the term Iranian, then I will not have reverted the article, and thus will still have a revert if I need to make one? I'm just trying to understand the rules because now you've got me all confused about what I can and cannot do when it comes to reverting.Azerbaijani 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No; you're clearly aware that Dacy just removed that word. That would be an obvious revert. -- tariqabjotu 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well now I'm really confused. So if I make an edit, and someone removes it, thats not considered a revert, but if I undo their removal, than thats a revert?Azerbaijani 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Shocking as this may be, your persistent comments here are not going to change my mind. -- tariqabjotu 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not planning on changing your mind. I'm just really confused here, because you just contradicted Wikipedia's rules and non of you comments are making any sense to me. From what you've told me, I dont know what can and cannot be considered a revert. Is there anywhere I can clear this up?Azerbaijani 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, I understand what your saying now. You could have just been more clear about it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks.Azerbaijani
user:Azerbaijani continue haunting me on many pages and making false acccusation. This is almost close to Wiki harassment. I am thinking to file report on him. he himself was involved in edit warring, POV pushing and on revert parole upon Arbcom desicion. he is attacking people and country based on ethnic ground. It is enough to look at some of his comments on talkpages.--Dacy69 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You are literally repeating exactly what I have been saying with regards to Atabek, AdilBaguirov, and yourself. Its as if you are copying my comments and posting them as your own...Azerbaijani 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A small problem
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I ran into an issue, detailed here here. I am thinking that the entire article was a template, infobox included, and that is preventing any other infobox from being added. Your thoughts? Arcayne(cast a spell) 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on. You all are trying to make a template specifically for First Ladies? Where was this attempt made and what seems to be this issue with it? If whatever you're doing doesn't work out, there's always Template:Infobox Officeholder which should have enough fields to suit your needs. -- tariqabjotu 01:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Were you talking about the infobox issue here? If that is the case, the problem may be clearer looking at the difference between that and the following version; you put the closing brackets in the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox so that NR's sig could be added at the end fo the infobox. We tried it a number of different ways, but without success. One of the other users suggested creating another template.Arcayne(cast a spell) 01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox... Which infobox? -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
They tried to place it in the "Infobox Person" template, but a signature field didn't exist for the template. I discovered that the "President" infobox did have a signature field. So, I asked Arcayne if he wanted me to create a new template for the "First Lady". Then it became clear that most of the stuff that would go there was stuff already in the "Person" template, with the only things missing being "Signature". When I tried to just create the sig field in the "Person" template, it wouldn't take. It was exactly from the other templates, but for some reason nothing would register in the field. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically that is the "President" template, they've combined all political position templates into the one. They could use the generic "Officeholder", but that's a lot of blank spaces the general template holds. It isn't like they have a "First Lady" section, like their "Ambassador" or "Senator" sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is that a problem? Wouldn't your proposed template give the same result? -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
None, as far as I can tell, but I thought there was some unwritten (or possibly written) rule that you shouldn't remove blank spots from an infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's news to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It was just something that I remember seeing in some edit summaries when people removed bits that had no info. Oh well, the "Officeholder" will work just fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
... even if I disagree. I responded, and I'll be off for some time. Cheers. ←Humus sapiensну? 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thwarting site's plot
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This might do a better job of lessening the disruption, if any, caused by this site. -- tariqabjotu 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ingenious! Do you think it's better to put a comment in the dummy section or just leave it blank? nadav (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That might not be a bad idea. Perhaps something along the lines of the wording in the rally template for those who actually attempt to post there. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Now that I have Firefox, I see why you said the Hebrew and Arabic on your user page have the correct alignment. IE ruins everything. nadav (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Attacking personal page,.. insulting!!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could u plz take a look how the user Gerash77 is doing noxious edits in my personal page, like here [4], that has been a second unjustified attack that folowed this one [5]
Would u plz notice that he is using uncivil language: "why are you trying to bring your "mummy" into discussion". Why should I assume good faith with such uncivil user insisting to destroy (and insult) rather than build up? I'm waiting for a legal action against him due to his intentional and repeated vandalising in my personal Talk Page, and his impolite insults. Ralhazzaa 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... It seems as if every dispute related to something Persian or something Arab eventually gets reduced to an us Persians vs. us Arabs thing. There are many decent Arab and Persian editors who do their best to keep discussions on point, but there's always someone (or some-two or some-three) out there who has to take the low road paved with petty ethnic jabs. Is the nationalism due to something in thewater? Honestly, I'd expect more Arab and Persian editors to be embarrassed that they're being portrayed on Wikipedia as a bunch of toddlers who resort to silly attacks and then cry to their mommies when they get their feelings hurt. I'm neither Arab nor Persian, but I'm embarrassed for you all. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Stevewk possible block evasion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I believe an editor you blocked for 3RR is evading the block by using anon IPs. Would you please consider looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stevewk and the page histories of the articles at which Stevewk was edit warring. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought the appropriate order of events was to do a "suspected sock.." first, and the checkuser as a last resort after the "suspected sock" only if appropriate. Thanks for the reply, I'll request a checkuser.-Andrew c 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser case was verified. Not sure if any more action is needed on my part, but it was confirmed that Stevewk was using IP editing to avoid a block. Thanks for you time.-Andrew c 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago37 comments3 people in discussion
I am writing this to complain about User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who has recently vandalized my user page: [6]. This user follows all my edits and engages in edit wars on practically every page related to Azerbaijan which I edit. My attempt [7] to invite him to follow WP:AGF didn't bear any fruit, in fact, my recent request to do so resulted in clear response from User:Hajji Piruz that he is going to continue the same way and that he does not "need to AGF" [8] in my case. At Safavid dynasty, User:Azerbaijani also supported anon IP sockpuppets of the banned User:Tajik, who were vandalizing the consensus page, and accused me of racism [9] instead. I am not sure how I should go about explaining this user that he needs to stop harassing me, vandalizing my user page, and AGF. Thanks. Atabek 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not vandalism. Atabek has had a sock in the past, its been confirmed: User:Tengri.
He took himself out of the category which clearly says its for Wikipedia users who have or are suspected of using sock puppets. I'm not even sure if Atabek is allowed to remove himself from the list.
On the Safavids article I was trying to help Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek out by telling User Ariana not to make any edits without discussing them first. Regarding WP:AGF, Atabek didnt even read it, because if he did, he would know that it wouldnt apply to him or me (both have been in an Arbcom and he has had a confirmed sock, WP:AGF clearly states that good faith should not be assumed when it comes to every user). I never even supported any anon anywhere, where is this person even getting the idea (hes just making it up to get me in trouble...same old same old, hes dont this kind of stuff in the past).
Atabek comes around only once in awhile, he doesnt know whats going on in several articles, but only joins in to make personal attacks. If he even knew what I was doing in the Safavids article for him and Grandmaster he would feel really ashamed to jumping to conclusions.
As regards to "following his edits", in the past month I've only been involved in three of the articles that he edited, and not because he edited them, infact, I contributed first in some cases. Tariq, you should know that Atabek has gone to several admins over the past couple months lying in an attempt to get me in trouble. So far, no admin has even considered anything he has said to them as far as I know. He goes from admin to admin, this time I assume he chose you because of the Dacy69 misunderstanding you and I had.Hajji Piruz 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Tariq, check this out: [10] He removed "garbage" from his talk page, he called by comments garbage. I dont know why he is out to get me so bad. I have asked him to bring evidence supporting his claims and here is his reply: [11]. I'm 100% sure this user doesnt even know what constitutes vandalism. He has called 3rr warnings in the past "vandalism".Hajji Piruz 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan, and on all of them POV pushing and wasting contributor's time with unscholarly edits. And I am entitled to consider such edits as garbage on my own user or talk page, it's my right to do so. I have presented all the evidence, requesting for User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani to stop harassing me. The copy of the same notice will be posted to WP:ANI upon persistence to vandalize my page. If he is unable to deal with content issues on various pages, he should request assistance of arbitration or dispute resolution, instead of attacking users. Atabek 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You dont own Wikipedia, I can edit any single article I like. Again, you dont own Wikipedia. I can edit Chinese related articles, I can edit Native American related articles, I can even edit Martian related articles. Who do you think you are that you can dictate to me what I can and cannot edit? I have never POV pushed. As I told you in your talk page, unless you bring up the evidence, do not make the accusations.
What evidence have you posted? Read the Wikipedia Vandalism page and understand what constitutes vandalism. Post the evidence or dont make the accusations.Hajji Piruz 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:
"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
"in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
"users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"
Thats not evidence. But I'll address each point individually:
"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"this doesnt include minor things like adding categories. Interestingly, you conveniently left out the first part of this quote, which states: Other users may edit pages in your user space,
""in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"I never substantially edited your user page, I merely added a category, simple as that.
"users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"I added a sockpuppeteer's category, you were a sock puppeteer, thats what the category is for.
We're still waiting for the evidence of vandalism Atabek. Until you show evidence that I vandalized your User page or your talk page, this is all a waste of our time. I know you cant prove anything, because there is nothing to prove, as I have never vandalized your user page or your talk page, so as of now I'm simply waiting for an apology.
Tariq, also check this out: [12] Remember when I told you that Atabek gets himself involved in articles before he even knows whats going on? He reverted my edits claiming I had no consensus when, if only he had read the sections above him, he would have noticed that there was a consensus. This is what I'm talking about Tariq. This user only gets himself involved in articles to either attack users or make non-helpful edits.Hajji Piruz 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz, you have been clearly explained to stop editing my user and talk pages, per Wiki policy page, and who is "we"? :) I do have a full authority to not allow you to edit my userspace without my permission, period! So you're the one to apologize here for vandalizing my page and actually attacking me personally. Read the rules extensively, so as not to misinterpret them in future. As for History of Azerbaijan page, yes, I followed your edits now, and noticed few content changes where I put my two cents. Nothing personal here, again, don't perceive your right to edit Wikipedia as being the exclusive one. You should concentrate on content rather than on users. Atabek 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No evidence yet Atabek on how I vandalized your page. Still waiting. Also, you fail to realize you have to tell people not to edit your user page before they do for those rules to even apply. In this case, I was never told I wasnt allowed to add a category on your user page. Again, you fail to read and understand Wikipedias rules and policies completely.
Now your accusing of making personal attacks? It never ends does it? Where is the evidence for that, show diff's.
Your telling me not to read Wikipedia's rules? Your one of the only people I know who consistently gets Wikipedia's rules wrong and has to be reminded by me on what the rules actually state (like Wikipedia AGF, Wikipedia NOR, Wikipedia NPOV, etc...).
So now your admitting to following my edits when just previously you were accusing me of following your edits? Interesting. And no, if you had read the talk page, you would have known that a consensus was achieved. You didnt put yoru two cents in, you reverted consensus edits.
Even more hilarious is that you are telling me not to "perceive your right to edit Wikipedia as being the exclusive one" when you are the only person who has ever dictated to me what I can and cannot edit or what I should and should not edit. You think you own Wikipedia articles.
Atabek, its as though you are reading what I'm saying and trying to copy me so that you dont have to face the fact that you were wrong. Your using exactly the same argument as me all of a sudden, didnt you think people would notice? LOL.
I'm waiting for either an apology or the evidence.Hajji Piruz 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You think too much, as I said, calm down and AGF. You're the one who needs to apologize and ask permission before editing my userspace. Did I ever edit yours without asking permission or ever at all? No. So indeed you were the one to vandalize my page, because your harassing behaviour in deliberate editing of my page without my permission falls into several of Wikipedia's own categories of vandalism [13]: userspace vandalism, spam, excessive lengthening, silly vandalism, and sneaky vandalism. Anyways, it's obvious that certain things you just can't comprehend on, so I would rather leave the judgment to other people. Not interested in any further verbal exchange. If you have problems with my edits, address them on appropriate talk pages and get the appropriate response. Atabek 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Either bring the evidence or dont make the accusations. Are you going to bring evidence? If not, then you should apologize for your accusations. If you persist without bringing up the evidence to support your claims, then what your doing could be considered a personal attack. You still have failed to bring one shred of evidence that I have done any of the things you accuse me of doing. Where are the diff's if I have done all of these things?Hajji Piruz 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you both have your own user talk pages. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tariq, that's the problem. I wrote to this page only with the intention of reporting the fact of Azerbaijani, a.k.a. Hajji Piruz, editing my user page without my permission. It's part of his larger scale attack upon myself and several other users on practically all talk pages. In return, to cover up his misdeeds, Hajji Piruz opens a new thread of annoying and useless exchange trying to demand for some kind of apology from me, for the fact that he edited my user page. This is sort of sad and comic at the same time. My request was this, since the user is unable to AGF, how should I go about responding to his attacks. Atabek 01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop using my argument and trying to pass if off as your own. Also, if you cant back up your accusations with evidence, then what do you think you can achieve here Atabek? Your just wasting everyones time, including your own.
Tariq, its funny actually, Atabek removes my posts on his talk page and calls it garbage, so I dont see how we can discuss this on our own talk pages. Sorry for these long posts on your page though.Hajji Piruz 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Tariq, just like I told you, Atabek has now gone to another admin making false accusations: [14]Hajji Piruz 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, just like I told you, he has gone to yet another admin in the very same day: [15]. Tariq, the reason I tell you this is because you are now familiar with this user, is there any suggestion you can give me on how to handle this situation or can you discuss this issue with the other admins? If you need more information, just ask.Hajji Piruz 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you both go to Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation; that process seems perfect for this. I would suggest that you both go to Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation; that process seems perfect for this. In the meantime, I'll leave a comment on Atabek's talk page because I believe his allegations are unfounded. -- tariqabjotu 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. His allegations are unfounded, as I have asked him several times to bring the evidence, yet he has never done so. I will listen to your suggestion and try enforceable mediation. Also, cant his attacks be considered personal attacks, as he is making all of these accusations against me without bringing any evidence to support his claims?Hajji Piruz 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tariq, thank you for your note. But if you just scroll above, my concern addressed to you prior to Hajji Piruz's ad hominem, was simply due to the fact that he editted my user page without my permission. That's not quite polite and he should have been cited for that. I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz, I only cited the fact that he also verbally supports IP socks of user Tajik, which were already identified. Seeing lack of your interest in this issue, and obviously with continuous abuse of Safavid dynasty page today by IP socks, I did report to other admins, User:Dmcdevit in particular. The issue seems to be resolved for now.
Also, I didn't claim that he is a sock, I only showed in my posting here [16], that Hajji Piruz posted a "warning" on my talk page about History of Azerbaijan page, and immediately after some User:Houshyar, who practically never appeared on that page, suddenly came and reverted it. Perhaps, it's a coincidence, but considering lack of any form of AGF on behalf of Hajji Piruz and his long history of revert warring on Azerbaijan-related pages, I very much doubt it. I think he should follow your suggestion and pursue dispute resolution. Perhaps, someone there can explain him that he needs to discuss and agree on his edits, before actually making them (or having them made). Thanks, meanwhile, I will work discuss further edits with IP socks of Tajik on the talk page. Atabek 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I dont think Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation will work unless there is a third party being directly involved to review whats being said and make a final decision on what remedy should be put in place. Atabek doesnt even have enough respect for me to keep my comments on his talk page, he deletes them and calls them "garbage", so I dont see how he and I could solve anything by ourselves. He is also not completely knowledgeable on all of Wikipedia's policies and rules (as evident by him continuously misunderstanding or misusing these policies and rules). He also contradicts himself, accusing me, then saying he didnt accuse me, then telling me what to edit and what not to edit, and then saying that I dont own anything on Wikipedia, etc... Where can I find someone who can participate directly or is there something else you can suggest?Hajji Piruz 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There are third-parties set up for the purpose of reviewing CEM cases; they are listed on the request page. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, here is his statement taken from his last post just above mine: I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz, I only cited the fact that he also verbally supports IP socks of user Tajik
I dont even know if this is the same Atabek, he changes stories so many times. Now he says he didnt make any accusations against me. I can bring dozens of diff's showing every accusation he made against me, right here on this very page alone. He also says that he cited the "fact" that I support IP socks of Tajik, yet we havent seen any diff's yet, and I certainly have not supported Tajik in anyway other than saying that his grammer, spelling, and wikilinking fixes were improving the article.
Obviously, we need a mediator to monitor things, review each of our statements, and make a final decision on this issue.Hajji Piruz 23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we need a mediator to explain you finally, that you CANNOT EDIT MY USER PAGE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION! I don't know how many times to explain you that before you stop annoying ad hominem. I didn't touch your page, you did. If you need a diffs for that, here they are: [17], [18],[19]. You're the one attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions. Atabek 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting? -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did revert this [20], which was obviously done for blackmailing me, when we already went through the ArbCom and this was discussed at length and clarified. Doing this on my page, in the middle of content disputes in which he is involved, especially without permission, is nothing more than intimidation and harassment of personality. Also the rules for user page editing are laid out here [21], where it clearly states: "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission....The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so.". So why don't you, please, ask Hajji Piruz to first read these before he tries to intimidate me on my user page, and before him further accusing me of attacking him. I didn't see any note from him on my talk page PRIOR to editing my user space, only a note afterward that hopefully I don't mind him inserting sockpuppeteer category in my user page. Isn't this intimidation? Atabek 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you've been very helpful.:)Hajji Piruz 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Tariq, I see that you have read Atabeks latest comment, and its a very absurd comment as he is accusing me of "attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions" when I have done no such thing and he has no proof! How am I blackmailing you Atabek, how am I harassing you Atabek, how am I attacking you Atabek? Show us the proof, the evidence, the diff's, something...what you are doing now is personally attacking me, because these false accusations are personal attacks if you cant back them up with evidence.Its you that is doing this to me. You have even tried canvassing to get me in trouble.
Tariq, I'd also appreciate it if you would also make some comments on the mediation page when it comes to that so that the mediator knows other users have seen how Atabek makes false accusations and personal attacks. User:Bushytails has also commented on Atabek's disruptive editing here: [22]
Tariq, his false accusations are personal attacks right? Cant you do anything based on what you've seen here? I will definetly go to mediation though. Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side).Hajji Piruz 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
They're not really personal attacks. I might comment on the CEM, but I wish you'd all continue this discussion on your own user talk pages (or wherever else appropriate) instead of cluttering up mine. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This will be the last comment I make regarding this issue on your talk page as per your request.Hajji Piruz 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tariq. Sorry for cluttering your page, I won't write here any more. I only intended to post the first message and ask for advice. Today I responded only to what you posted on my talk page. No other concerns, I just don't like when someone tries to intimidate me in bad faith on my user page, and then claims I am attacking or even demanding an apology :). This is simply ridiculous. Atabek 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you should know, Atabek canvassing again: [23]Hajji Piruz 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([24]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.Hajji Piruz 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- tariqabjotu 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is why CEM wont work: Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much.[25] In CEM, we're supposed to make our own punishments and come to a conclusion on our own...How can we do that when one user simply makes accusations (wihtout posting the evidence to prove them) and personal attacks? I have asked Thatcher131 if we could possibly re-open the arbcom, if he says no, then I will do a RFC (but which diff's should I show proving that you and I have commented, should I just post the link to this section?).Hajji Piruz 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Good call on asking requesting the RfArb be re-opened. The decision was partially intended to resolve this kind of tussling between you, Atabek, and other users involved. Obviously, this has failed (and I'm not putting the blame squarely on Atabek). An RfC may be the best alternative if that does not work out. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But I dont know how that will turn out, as Atabek is the only person involved, along with me, its just us two. I'm not sure if they'll re-open the arbcom for just two people.Hajji Piruz 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Critikal1
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Look what he did when he returned from his block [26] .
Paulcicero 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I find this unacceptable that such POV-based users can fill an article with blatant spam and then be protected by moderators/admins
I provided a source and they wont except it but only accept their lies and vandalism, this is very disappointing that this site protects these kinds of users and denies lovers of honesty and TRUTH. Critikal1 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Honesty and truth? Do you call the site you provided truthful? That is one of the most biases sites that I have seen in my life. Have you ever been to montenegro critikal? Many in "your" country are proud of their serb legacy and you can´t deny them that based on your own opinions. If you want the article to be changed please discuss it first instead of just removing everyting that has to do with serbs out of montenegro articles. Paulcicero 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
William Gaillard
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Accepted 3RR. Was looking at that page myself to report the fella for vandalism. He is a MANU fan. He was removing cited sources. I'll steer clear of the article. Alexsanderson83 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The vandal seems to have issues with the page again, refusing to accept that Michael Howard is a British Official for example. EdCoomber seems to want to make the article extremely sanitised, removing statements that are sourced and cited, quotes that support and go against Gaillard. To me he is vandalising the page. Alexsanderson83 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look at these articles, but take note that your continuous reverting on all of these articles has been nothing short of disruptive. Please stop. I'm not going to protect multiple articles because certain editors (including you) feel the only way to work on an article is by persistently reverting. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tariq, well we did have a discussion at ANI and, with the "neutral observers" that Taprobanus was looking for (ie, people not from the two ethnic groups involved in the fighting), six people think that these sites are not reliable, and only one does not, as I noted at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message in my talk page, you are correct but can you also warn the other editors including an admin concerned that reverting and getting friends to revert so as not to violate 3RR is also disruptive as I am more than willing to follow the wiki proces such as ANI, discussion at WP:RS page then on to rfc, rfm and rfa to resolve this matter. Infact what precitated all this is a message on User:Blnguyen's talk page requesting him and me to resolve this difference of opinion via the wiki process instead of reverting. I think in fairness all involved parties including the admin needs to reminded to refrain from reverting these articles till we resolve the reliability issue via the wiki process. Thanks for your consideration. Taprobanus 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3RR again by TingMing
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I added to a previous report for this user on the 3RR noticeboard. I added a note to the report here, as TingMing has started edit warring right after the block you imposed ended. Is that ok, or do I need to file a whole new report? Maybe if the latter you could "deal" with it, as I'm going offline now. Thanks, John Smith's 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
He has been blocked for two weeks (albeit by someone else). -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Tariq, I promised not to write on this page and bother you, but now I am not sure what the objective of the thread above discussing me. As I previously said, I am not interested in User:Hajji Piruz, if he stops bothering and annoying me. The whole debate started because of his editing of my user page, which as clearly stated above, was an intimidation and should not have be done without permission. Regarding [27], I am not canvassing, but looking for the mediator for CEM, the same way as User:Hajji Piruz was doing here [28] and [29]. The initiative to mediate came from him, so if he does not want to mediate now, in light of my request from User:Bobak, then good luck to him. As long as he does not dare to edit my user space ever again without my permission, I have no interest to listening to or to bothering with him. Atabek 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing Piruz contacted Durova and Navou because... I don't know... maybe their names are listed under the community mediators section on the requests page. It seems like you and him are just searching for excuses to hate and sling mud at each other. Would it kill you two to actually talk to each other, calmly, on your own talk pages, without removing each other's comments, without ending every sentence with an exclamation point, without threatening admin intervention, without saying how difficult the other person is? Look, you're both being difficult and obnoxious. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar much with CEM, so that was reason why I wrote to Bobak, actually it could have been you or anyone else. I apologize for this ignorance, but it frankly is immaterial to me who the mediator is. I don't hate Hajji Piruz or anyone, in fact, I asked him many many times to AGF, last time right here on your page, [30], to which his response was [31], yet again intimidation and attack. And that's the reason why, I wrote yesterday on the page, that the only solution I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him. So, I tried both ways, AGF and ignore, I don't see a third method to reigning in this person to stop concentrating on me as user, and instead discussing content on pages that we both edit. Atabek 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
RFC
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have opened the RFC. Cold you please sign your name, as per the two user requirement: [32]. I'm not done yet, I still have to post a lot of evidence showing this users disruptive behavior and refute his allegations against me.Hajji Piruz 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Tariq, I'm not sure if you accidently over looked this, but I think you need to sign your name acknowledging that you tried to solve this dispute. Otherwise the RFC wont be accepted. I think you have to sign here: [33].Hajji Piruz 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not overlook this. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats for background information on the users previous disruptive edits. Before I applied for the RFC you yourself told me that you and I would count as the two necessary users. So now that you wont sign, what should I do? What can I change on the RFC to make it more on base?Hajji Piruz 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I guess your right. I'll change it to only include things pertinent to his accusations and attacks against me. Then you should be able to sign also as it will be more with regards to our discussion on your user page.Hajji Piruz 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I removed a lot of information not pertaining to Atabek with regards to me. So now it should be more on point. You made a good point. If you have any more suggestions on what changes I should make before you're ok with it, I would really appreciate it. Also, if you notice, I havent listed it yet, one reason was to work out things like this and then list it.Hajji Piruz 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Question: Do I list the RFC in the "Candidate pages" section or the "Approved pages" section? Or do I put it in the Candidate section and an administrator will approve it? The directions arent very clear, they just say that the candidate section is for RFC that havent met the two person criteria while the approved section says its for the articles that have met the criteria.Hajji Piruz 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood the RFC with comments supporting Atabek. So far, Elsanaturk, who hasnt been active since June 5 all of a sudden appears and his third edit is on the RFC...Please see this: [34] Also, see Elsanaturks comment on the Atabeks summary. Elsanaturk blindly apporves of Atabek and points the finger at me despite the fact that I am the only one who posted evidence. This kind of blind support will only make things worse.
This dispute will not be solved if non-neutral users are the ones that comment and attempt to flood the article. Is there anyway we can only have neutral third party users discuss the RFC along with Atabek and I?Hajji Piruz 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
[User:Assault11] is repeatedly reverting sourced information on this article. [35]
The information is clearly cited yet he deletes it. He seems to delete information that he doesn't like, whether they are unsourced or sourced.
Assault is also deleting warning tags calling them vandalism, and is breaking Wikipedia policies. [36]
I am tired of his stubborness and I am requesting administrative action against him, thank you. Good friend100 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Source clearly does not support his claim. No where in the source has there been any indication that tributes ended in 106 CE. I have provided sources (both primary and secondary) that confirms the exact opposite (see talk page). Good friend100 has been criticized by other editors regarding this issue [37]. Assault11 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Tariq, as I said, I have no interest in getting into dispute with this user, he is. My concern was posted and its in regards to him editing my userpage. So this is clearly an attempt to get me banned, but I will provide sufficient counter evidence. It's just this is all a waste of community's time. I was never blocked since ArbCom, never caught with socks every since that incident, while Hajji Piruz was several times, and changed his name from Azerbaijani to clear block log and now hunting after me, Dacy69 and Grandmaster. And I don't understand why you support this effort [38].
All that had to be done, is Hajji Piruz must have been told to respect people's userspaces. This looks more like a campaign directed against myself. Thanks. Atabek 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not supporting him; I am merely supporting the fact that the dispute exists. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're not supporting him, then why didn't you leave your endorsement under Outside View section instead. As I said, there is no ground for this RfC, because I never rejected CEM in first place. He is the one who wants disputing and mediation, I am not, and I stated over and over, that I will ignore him. This is obviously the attempt by Piruz to further his attack upon myself, and it's sad that it's getting support now, despite my efforts to disengage from this waste of community and personal time. Atabek 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not sign under the section that said I endorsed his summary; that's the section after. If other users are uncertain about my position on the matter, I specifically said I was not supporting Piruz (although I'm not supporting you either). -- tariqabjotu 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You yourself stated several times you wanted to go to mediation. Infact, you said that I was the one that didnt want to solve this dispute. Now again your changing your story? Again, stop making more accusations without the evidence. The not only about the user page incident, its also about your continued attempt to destroy my image on Wikipedia through canvassing and false accusations. And for the record, I changed my name to get away from your attacks, but that didnt work. I clearly stated that that I wanted to change my name in an attempt to stop attacks when I requested the name change. Also, Grandmaster and I made the necessary changes so that the arbcom admins knows that I'm Azerbaijan: [39]Hajji Piruz 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Should I assume good faith now? He has gone to Dacy69 and asked him to make a comment, just like I had predicted: [40] This is direct evidence that he is trying to flood the page. Hes already canvassing! Please do something.Hajji Piruz 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
He has also gone to Grandmaster, just like I had predicted: [41]
When will the admins say enough is enough? Please do something to stop him from sabotaging the RFC.Hajji Piruz 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Enough of this. I have reported this to ANI. On another note, why have you not been posting on Atabek's talk page? Talk to him and stop using my talk page as a battlefield. -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My last proposal regarding Atabek's behavior, I will also post this on his talk page: [42]Hajji Piruz 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Flag
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I can't say I agree with you on this. The flag is only being included on entries that are already "declared" as Israeli, and of all the points of contention on Jerusalem, I don't think that this is really the most important. Anyway, it serves a function as being the only such flag on pages that aren't stubs. Let me know, TewfikTalk 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you saw this, and put the flag bag in. If you just missed the comment and actually disagree, then let me know, and we can discuss (by the way, I'd still like to comment regarding Shatt-al Arab, but I'm not sure if/where to do so). Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going to be happening about the Shatt al-Arab case; the planned mediation was cut short. I'm commented on the flag on the template's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 11:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
You recently closed a 3RR report with the comment that 3RR requires 4 reverts. There are 4 reverts there, very clearly described - please count them. Isarig 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you are currently activeon the 3RR page. Please review my comments there, as well as here, and provide a response. Isarig 00:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hold your horses; I was in the middle of writing a response. -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You said As an admin, [Raul] must surely be aware that 3rr refers to ANY 3 reverts, so I thought you were conceding Raul's point that two of the "reverts" are really one and believed three reverts were enough to make a 3RR violation anyway. Obviously, that was not what you intended. Regardless, I'm going to concede Raul's point that those two reverts are really one, with Raul just not using the preview to make them in one single edit. As I said in my response to the WP:AN3R piece, Raul does not have a history of edit-warring, especially in regards to this article, so there is no need to cut him off at the knees for three reverts. As for the protection, as you mentioned in your impolite comment on WP:AN, since there were more than two editors involved in the edit war, it is certainly appropriate to protect the article instead of blocking every party (including you). Please stop telling me to count the number of reverts or suggesting that I didn't look at what you wrote; I did count, I did read what you wrote, and I can count to four. -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "I'm going to concede Raul's point that those two reverts are really one, with Raul just not using the preview to make them in one single edit." How woudl using the preview make them one? There is one revert of one of my edits, then and edit by me, then another revert by him. 3RR policy is very clear cut. there are 4 reverts here. Isarig 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's pretend someone wants to make multiple edits to an article (especially if those edits are in different sections). One might decide that he or she will edit one part the article. Then save. Then edit another part. Then save. Then edit another part. Then save. Then edit another part. And then save. In reality, that person could have done all four of those edits ([43], [44], [45], [46]) as one. In fact that second and fourth one probably should have been done at the same time (this is where the preview button might have been able to be used, but maybe the preview button is not the issue). Now let's pretend another user changes (or reverts?) a part of the article betwixt the third and fourth edits. Should the fourth edit count as a revert? No; it's a continuation of the first, second, and third; all four edits occurred within five minutes of each other. -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with the "preview" button. What you are saying is that there was a way for Raul to avoid making 4 reverts - he could have made reverts 1 & 2 in the same edit. That is certainly true, but is true for any case of 4 reverts which are not of the same section. If that was the intent and the proper interpretation of 3RR, then there would be no need for WP:3RR to explicitly and clearly say "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." If your interpretation was correct, 3RR would explicitly say "only the same reverts are counted " - because any none-same reverts could have beeen made in a single edit, the way you are saying Raul has done. With regards to Raul's clear violation, this argument is moot- the page is protected, and I'm reasonably sure he'll be more careful when the page is unblocked. However you should note that you have incorrectly applied a very clear WP policy here, and not do it again. Isarig 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Howtoedit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw the extra text in {{pp-dispute}} when I made the change, however, it didn't really bother me. If you really don't like the break, feel free to remove it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I made this change instead. I'm not really fond of the line breaks anywhere, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a closer look would help
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hey, I was asked to render a 3rd Opinion on the Manchuria debate, and dealt with some pretty uncivil behavior there, specifically from Assault11. This argument appears to be identical in form and pattern as that of most other articles relating to China that he has contributed to. Anotehr editor pointed out to me Assault11's first contribution to WP. In itself, that sort of attitude bears closer scrutiny of the user, as one's first post is likely an unguarded view into what makes an editor tick. I am not saying you are wrong in your current navigation of the subjects you have spoken on. However, I think that Assault11 has pretty much painted himself into a corner with his behavior and has made no attemtp to rectify the situation. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have previously admitted to my uncivil behavior in the past[47]. Truth be told, my first edit - before committing myself towards editing Northeast China-specific articles - was a direct response towards the anti-Chinese response made prior to that, aimed to inflame the offending party. Of course, granted that my reply was of equal caliber in terms of its offensive nature, many people were clearly offended by my unfortunate choice of words. Clearly, my emotions got the best of me and my subsequent behavior was unacceptable. To this, I stand corrected. Again, apologies if you felt offended by my past behavior. Assault11 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure to what this is in response. I was thinking that maybe I rejected one or more of the 3RR notices posted to WP:AN3R, but I don't think I closed any of the reports involving Assault11. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've started discussion now on whether to include the flag in the title bar of the template.nadav (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
about your user page
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
can you read Hebrew/Arabic?--Gilisa 10:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I cannot read Hebrew or Arabic. I got two editors, Nadav1 (talk·contribs) and Anas Salloum (talk·contribs), to translate for me. I do, however, plan to learn Arabic (and potentially Hebrew as well) once I start college this fall. -- tariqabjotu 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don’t really speak English as you can see (i.e. terrible grammar)- I liked your user page very much.Best--Gilisa 12:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Tariqabjotu has one of the prettiest pages around, and he's helpful too. Not a bad combo, inmy book. :) Arcayne(cast a spell) 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; not a bad combo. -- tariqabjotu 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
