User talk:LeeMulod333

You have now made an absolute mess. I don't even know yet how to fix it, but what you've done now violates

GFDL, a gross breach of Wikipedia policy. I'm going to try to figure out how to undo it, and recommend that you leave the article alone until we work out the whole naming thing on the talkpage. Tomer^talk 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, what I'm telling you is that you're the one who's posting false statements on Wikipedia, and that if you don't stop it, you're going to be blocked. I tire of your petulance. Tomer^talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for harassment of other users and expressions of prejudice that create a hostile environment. Comments like this are unacceptable. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Raymond Arritt 19:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You cannot add your own opinions of what historical events consisted of or what naming conventions and designations are. In the interest of

Regrettably, since you did not respond, and continued to revert without attempting to discuss the underlying issues, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Please do read carefully what I wrote to you above. Many thanks again. El_C 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you are in the middle of a content dispute on

But TShiloh doesn't respect me or any Bukharians. He doesn't listen to what I say. He's ignorant and hostile towards me and I apparently don't appreciate that. I know that in the beginning, I wasn't so kind to him but at least I apoligized. He doesn't even care.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs)

Then I would open up a report on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts and seek a

Nn123645 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a good flow chart for how to deal with a difficult editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Difficult_editor_-_flow_chart.png.

Nn123645 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, something that I should probably add. The ideal page to discuss content is on the Talk page of an article, not in the edit summaries. So I would definatly place a message there and probably go to his user talk page and place a link to the message you placed on the article talk page.

Nn123645 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

LeeMulod333, you know full well that you are lying. I don't have anything against Bukharans. I do listen to what you say. Listening to what you say, however, does not mean that once I've listened, that I am required to agree with you. As you are well aware, you have not contributed anything other than "I'm Bukharian, so I should know what Bukharians are called in English" to the relevant discussion on Talk:Bukharan Jews. As I have explained to you ad nauseum, your say-so may be good enough for your user page, but is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Your refusal to contribute constructively to that discussion has done nothing to elevate your credibility. Your reverting a number of editors who disagree with you, characterizing their edits as "vandalism", and characterizing them as "ignorant", "stupid", "disrespectful" "idiots" does even less to garner any respect for yourself. Your saying that I am the cause of antisemitism because I disagree with you is a real low, even for you. When you remove requests for citation from articles and call the requests for citation "vandalism", you are, yourself, engaging in vandalism. When you are the sole editor reverting people who, if you knew anything about them, you should be ashamed of yourself for reverting and denigrating (and no, I'm not talking about myself), in order to insert your POV spelling, you are doing so in violation of wikipedia policies which I have already listed for you elsewhere. Whining and complaining that people don't respect you will garner you no respect from anyone who goes to investigate, where they will find your path of destruction and probably end up blocking you permanently, something I have not done for the singular reason that I am an involved party, and a perception of conflict of interest might raise its head. At this point, I admit, I think a permanent block is the only thing that will stop your rampage. Tomer^talk 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a permanent block is good for you too. But I'm not doing that. We should leave the Bukharian Jewish page the way it is because it has both Bukharan and Bukharian in the article. I think that's far. As for the notable Bukharians, I think that some of them can have Bukharan in their bio. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 November 2007

As I have said, the name, regardless of whether you like it, most often used in English language primary sources, is "Bukharan". Including "Bukharian" is an acquiescence to the fact that a significant portion of the community itself seems to prefer that spelling. Primary sources, however, overwhelmingly do not. The name used in Wikipedia should reflect what the majority of primary sources use, as Wikipedia is not in the business of advocating a minority spelling--as I have said previously: Wikipedia articles report what it found in primary sources, it does not advocate positions, nor does it prefer minority spellings at the expense of majority spellings. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a place for every minor group to come and carve out a place for advocacy. Doing so would be a complete violation of a great many "NOT"s in

WP:NOT. Using the spelling "Bukharian" may be acceptable in some places, and it should definitely be used in names of organizations which use that spelling, as I have spelled out weeks ago already on Talk:Bukharan Jews

, a discussion you didn't bother to participate in, at least not in anything remotely resembling "constructively".

On the subject of your advocating a permanent block against me, I think you'll have to come up with something more substantial than my disagreeing with your opinions. As for blocking me yourself, I think you will find you can't. Tomer^talk 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to get back to the same subject by you have to admitt it. By saying that there is no such thing as Bukharian is being ignorant to the culture. Can you please explain?

Explain what? You are the one who has said there is no such thing as Bukharan. I have not said there's no such thing as Bukharian. How can I explain something I haven't said? As far as ignorance goes, saying "ignorant to" demonstrates ignorance of English. There is nothing here for me to admit to, so far as I can see. Tomer^talk 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English, both terms are excepted. But Bukharians, especially the ENGLISH-SPEAKING ones call themselves Bukharian Jews, not Bukharan. I heard that Bukharians recently made a Bukharian lobby in the US. The lobby is not called Bukharan. Don't you think that Bukharians would know what they are talking about? And a lot of resources where people do address my people as Bukharans are wrong. Bukharan isn't a term. But to make you happy, I will keep some notable Bukharians as Bukharans and in the article, both names will be mentioned. I'm being more tolerant than you here.