You unjustifiably warned me because of I added a link to the page Turkish Air Force.I added that link because the updated numbers of the numbers in Turkish Air Force were taken from this page (http://warriorsoul.4t.com/airforce.html). That site keeps count of the exact flyable units.(I.E. when a F-16 crashes they change the current number). Warrior Soul(owner of that webpage) also warned this in the discussion page with no real feedback.
If I am wrong and those current aircraft numbers of TAF aircraft are taken from another site listed in the external links section please show me which one. Wikipedia shouldn't do plagirism. N.T. 13.44 7.11.2006
1.If the site mentioned above is an unreliable site then the info taken from there and shown no citation should be removed as there is no source for them. At least citation required should be added to the page
4.Even if it weren't, it says." However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".How many completely reliable sources can you find on Turkish Air Force inventory? Does Turkish goverment or air force itself gave out the exact numbers.
5.The writer is also not anonymous.It joined wiki with warriorsoul nickname and asked for his link to be added in the talk page.
6.The Turkish Airforces page has a serious citation problem. For example 30 new F-16s were recently ordered. If the page were following guidelines it would give a source like this."http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Turkey_06-71.pdf" Official U.S. goverment release.
There are numerical numbers on the topic taken from a the web site mentioned above. If the fansite is not reliable enough to be on the sources list then the numbers taken from it are not reliable enough to be on the webpage.You cannot just take the numbers and decide the website is not reliable to be a source.(Check Wikipedia:Citing sources "Say where you got it")If the information is not taken from the website mentioned above then please show me where were they taken from. 19.05 8.11.2006
Why does does my addition to the John Hunyadi page keep getting deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shield2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 October 2006.
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
It's great to see you as an admin -- I hope I'll see you around often. I see that your off to a (prolific) start. Take care. Saravask19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very busy (like everyone else here). As for the articles--keep your eyes peeled. I don't think I can return fully until December, but I'll still "pop by" infrequently until then. Good luck with the "joys" of adminship (which I'm sure you've discovered by now--(*gag*, *cough*)). Saravask01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw this. I have already withdrawn the AfD (right above your comment), and filed for a merge in the article talk. Since you're an admin, maybe you could close the AfD and remove the template from the article. Then, you can express your opinion about that merge in the mother article Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)#Proposed merge. Thanks. PS. Aside from the debate, do you like the way I styled that poll? Makes it evident which option prevails, and easy to follow up with the comments below, without special formatting techniques (e.g. '#::') needed to maintain automubering while commenting! •NikoSilver•08:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I'm not really used to AfD and I'm not entirely sure how to close it. Also, even though I could withdraw my vote, I'm still not comfortable with closing it as I've been too invovled in this article. Yeah, I liked the way you styled it. What's your opinion on the article? Do you think it should be renamed, deleted, or merged? I think the topic is notable enough to merit it's own article, personally. I would support a rename, however. Khoikhoi18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I've retracted that withdrawal anyway. My position is that any subject, if not elaborated to some extent, does not deserve being a separate article. I cannot assess if it could-would-should be worthy or not, I just see that it presently isn't. There are only 5 lines of unique content in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation and the rest is repetition of background and aftermath to justify existence! So, my opinion is merge and delete. Whoever wants to keep it alive, should work more on expanding it and less on debating. •NikoSilver•19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I have no data to support notability. I would like to contribute in exploring ways of expanding it, but I am too busy these days. Other than that, Richard's proposal for "Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna" (here) does not sound so bad (actually Hectorian had pointed it out too in his AfD comments). Provided there is content in the first place though... •NikoSilver•09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request a check IP to proove that I am not who this user is accusing me of. It is wrong to make such baseless accusations. The issue of Arabs of Khuzestan and Khaz'al Khan is interesting. On the Arabs of Khuzestan article, Korshid et al want to delete content because they claim the referenced author breaches verifiability. Yet on the Khaz'al Khan article, they want to retain a fairly strong statement accusing the man of murder and despotism, but without any referencing. The most interesting aspect of this is that the writer they object to and Khaz'al Khan are/were both Iranian Arabs. I would be interested in your advice on how to ensure consistency in editorial standards.--88.110.190.2118:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey their bro, can you please keep an eye on Assyrian music? This user 'alonzo' keeps trying to promote artists by adding all these links. Please stop him from editing that page. Chaldean23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know the kind of people I'm dealing with [[1]] - the US Congress is not creditable enough for him! Do you see this? I dont know what it is, but some people from Europe are simply anti-Assyrian. Their is no other way to put it. They will do anything to delete the name in the history books and current times. Its usually religious Christians who are upsest with Syriac Christianity. Just something to keep in mind in the future. Chaldean02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for sometimes sounding abit too crazy but you have to understand that us Iraqis are very emotional people :D. When we speak, we always speak with emotions and as if thats not bad, the male population of Iraqis have a very bad temper (Doesn't matter if your an arab, kurd or assyrian.) I will try to be more profession with my comments. Chaldean02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the activity in that vandals do not always automatically revert back but how much more must we keep up with reverting things like these [2] and these [3] by new/anon users?--MarshallBagramyan23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look. Some anonomous user's are tyring to use Bani Torof as a source, and he is very very unreliable. He is neither a historian nor an acadamian, he is an Iranian Arab writer and journalist. Bani Torof also claims that Arabs lived in Iran before the Aryans came, and that basically the Elamites were Arab. If this isnt historical revisionism and propaganda, then I dont know what is.Khosrow II03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and please also look at Khaz'al Khan. There is a list of references there and it looks like the whole articles uses them but the anon keeps vandalizing and trying to censor the article to make the dictator look good. Please also archive this page, its too long. Thanks. Khorshid03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Do you know when we'll get an answer to our check-user request on Snle? It's been a while since we submitted it and it would be good to have this done before the weekend. Judging by his past behavior, he usually starts making a fuss on Saturday mornings...--Niohe15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far use azakhs did only useful things. He even deleted correctly the map from Han Chinese: it was self-drawn poor quality and erroneous (or, say, non-verifiasble, since it differed from claimed source in some nontrivial detail). Azakhs added a CIA detailed map in some other place, so "assuming good faith" I guess here he wanted to replace bad by good one, but forgot. I replaced myself. `'mikkanarxi18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed an Npa3 tag at the user page [4], because, in addition to reverting and refusing to give any explanation, he threatens. It is very hard to contribute in a hostile environment.
I would like to add that I did and still have some disagrements with the user Irpen, who has also been reverting my edits. But with Irpen, I was able to work compromizes on about 50% of issues. Also Irpen has never used threats. So, although I disagree with some of Irpen's edits, and think they are biased, it is apparently possible to keep an "academic" dispute with him.
Mikkalai has errased my npa3 tag without saying a word. I have discovered also that he has completely errased another page that I started: Northern Maramureş. This is the 5th case. I did revert this one, but not the other 4: Romanophobia, Budjak, Bolohoveni, and Battle of Vorskla. By all means, this is a personal attack. Why some users are civilized and talk, like Irpen (even when they have bised POV, it is still possible to talk with them)while others like Mikkalai are so agressive and intimidating? :Dc7617:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you, are you Mikkalai or Khoikhoi? The text that was in Northern Maramureş is only the beggining of the article. Why does Mikkalai not wait for the whole article, and then constuctively copy-edit? I don't claim the article is 5-star, but that's why wikipedia exists. Help if you can! The problem however is not about the text. I have had disagreements with other people and was able to work out with every person.
Hi Khoikhoi, and thank you very mcuh for stepping in. In the recent history of my user talk page I found this comment by 203.160.1.52 :
Salut! Vei avea probleme cu Mikkalai din moment ce el crede ca tu esti User:Bonaparte, take care he will try to hount you and block you since he has a hatred towards romanians, that's why he was blocked for his anti-romanian attitudes..cheers :)
I will translate the parts in Romanian:
Hi! You will have problems with Mikkalai since he believes that you are User:Bonaparte...
I would like to state clearly that I am not user Bonaparte, and that I have never had an account on wikipedia before september 2006. I have editted other pages before, as I have told you, and they were signed by the system automatically with the 4 numbers. I needed an account when I wanted to upload a picture. I never engaged in any edit war.:Dc7619:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a bit like an ad hominem vendetta? Why do we have articles for Koreans in China and Italian Americans but not Kazakhs in China? Your fervor (and the constant lack of edit summaries or use of "discussion") just doesn't ring true to me. Badagnani05:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, why would you change the Yi people wikilink on the CEG template to Yi, which is a dab page? That just doesn't make sense, unless you are letting your emotions get to you and editing too quickly, without thinking and careful consideration. Sorry to bring up these points, but I feel I have to, because now I have to go there and clean up when I shouldn't have to do that. Badagnani05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was not very clear. I am wikifying Gakhars a Persian tribe that setlled in Pakistan long time ago. They claim to have setlled during the time of Persian emperor Faridoun. I have heard and and read this name in Urdu many times. It may be spelled differently in English by Iranians. Can you also please review related page Kayani it seems to have too much copy righted material.
Hi. The info on his birthplace was found in his autobiography (see the references section). The search problems you encoutered were due to two different facts:
there is an unusual problem with the â in Romanian spellings; even though it is generally considered proper to spell stuff with an â, many sources still use the old î (when diacritics are discarded - they shouldn't be, but they are -, this turns to i; also, while a google search for "Sincatolna" will also automatically yuield links to the diacritic version, the diacritic version will not yield links to the improper but widespread non-diacritic) - see Romanian alphabet for more details on why spelling in my language is still problematic;
sources dealing with various topics in Romania are usually way less careful than they ought to be, and especially so when dealing with sbjects considered "irrelevant"; the link between Luca and his place of birth is not apparently as interesting as criticizing or outright cursing Luca (sites involved in the latter activities outnumber more neutral ones 2 to 1).
We have still not established a clear policy on what language Transylvanian names ought to be given in. If you think that, given his DOB, the Hungarian name is more appropriate, I suggest either "masking" the Romanian link ("Romanian name|Hungarian name" - since the article for the former is likely to appear before a Hun. redirect) or providing the Romanian name in parantheses after the Hun. name, and linking the former (as we did elsewhere). Your call, and thanks for taking an interest. Dahn19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the person spent most of his life in country A, and was born on the territory of the country A, 1) when that territory was under country B, or, 2) the territory does not longer belongs to A, but the person moved to country A, did not stay with the territory, then his place of birth is to be written in the language of country A, and a remark added about B.
For example, Emil Constantinescu was born in Tighina, Romania, which now is a city in Moldova
Another example, someone born in 1960 in Kiev was born in Ukarine, which at that time was in USSR
similar Chisinau, Moldova. You never say the person was born in USSR, but in Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, etc
Iuliu Maniu was born in the county of Salaj in Romania, when that was part of Austria-Hungary. Even though Maniu was first an Austian-Hungarian politician, and then a Romanian one
They even write Herman Oberth was born in Sighisoara, Romania. Even though Sighisoara at that point was in Austria-Hungary, and Oberth has worked in Romania, Germany and USA.
In your case, the logical formulation is Vasile Luca was born in romanian name,which at the time of his birth was called hungarian hame,and was part of Austria-Hungary.:Dc7620:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to alert your attention to the fact that 108059 (talk·contribs) is editing the contents of several articles related to the Qing dynasty, changing a number of names to non-standard forms. See for instance this diff from Qianlong. I've tried to communicate with him/her about this, but he/she doesn't respond and I'm getting a bit fed up. Please advice.--Niohe20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand, don't worry. Anyways, there are already a couple of admins surveying the talk, so maybe my request was a bit rash.--Aldux09:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [5] It is a strange user. Has not even existed for a week. But appears skilled in administrative procedures. Votes for adminships. Wants to mediate. Especially see the first two (just 2) days of the activity of this user [6]. New users are usually not so combative. - Pernambuco06:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khoikoi, i would suggest rename and rewrite. The massacres seem notable and verifiable from the sources he has provided, but attributing it to a genocide seems like original research. Thanks, --A.Garnet12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the March Days article? Without anyone's consent, User:Baku87 added POV information from sources such as Justin McCarthy and the Azerbaijani media then he reverted the article's name to "March Massacre," a name not used by any credible historian but only by the media of Azerbaijan. The name "March Days," however, has been used by several historians to describe these events. Although I reverted all of his recent edits to the article, I am unable revert the name so perhaps you could do that for me (since only admins have the ability to fix a situation like this). Also be sure to remove the redirect "March Massacre" after you've fixed the article's title and place the article on your watch list.
Alright, I've moved it back now. Could you please delete the redirect "March Massacre?" Afterwhich, I will start a discussion on the talk page about it. Regards, Clevelander00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for keeping an eye on my page. A friend alerted me to lots of sometimes odd activity on the page about me. The person using Amoaveni as his/her username is not me, and I consider the use of this username for editing this page misleading and problematic, especially given the vandalism that has been involved. I would appreciate it if this username could be blocked or returned to me. Thanks again for any help you might be able to offer. You can leave messages for me on Shabdiz's talk page. Shabdiz18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ba Dorood-e Faravan. Thank you very much for the quick action. Appreciated. I will let her know and will also take a look at the other users who messed up her page. User Amoaveni specifically messed up with Azadeh's biography and the page of her book. Nowhere else. We may eventually need to protect the book page too. I will get back in touch with you if necessary. Shabdiz07:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had blocked that one already. I have created requests for the others. Or should I create just one request for amoaveni and list all the others under that one request. I guess this is what I needed to do. Sorry. Shabdiz09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I agree with your point on the spelling (although I do not know if the same criteria can be applied in every instance of pre-1918 mentions). Tell me if like the current form. Dahn20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the best thing to protect the page for a while. User:NisarKand is flooding the page with nonsense, POV (claiming that all dynasties in history that lived in what is now "Afghanistan" are to be considered "Afghans", including the Ghaznavids or Seljuqs), Pashtun nationalism, and vandalism. He has several times deleted authoritative sources (i.e. the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the reliable Oxford University translation of the Baburnama).
I have reverted his most recent 20+ POV edits and vandalism: [7]. Please protect the page in this version. Thx.
What did just happened on the article Transnistria? Is there a limit on the number of dayly edits for this article? I just thought to clear it a bit, so that William and Alex can concentrate their "war" on more "serious" stuff. :):):) They fight about names (which is ridiculous to me, because it is possible to state all used names, and end the issue) and don't see that their sentances are alternatively in the present and past, making it very funny article, and consequently unserious.:Dc7600:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---
Saluton,
Bogdan's house (Bogdan estas persona nomo), hungare Bogdánháza, germane Bogenhaus aux Bogeschdorf (bogesxdorf), la domo de Bogdan Stârc is a kind of bird with long beak.
12, 30 Okt. 2006 (UTC) Vikipediisto:Zetey
Hi, khoi khoi. I would be very happy if we could have your input / moderation to the discussion about the new Turkey location map started on Talk:Turkey. Please accept my congratulations with your adminship by the way. Atilim Gunes Baydin15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't restore the changes I did on Turkish.
see: [[8]] is Historical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.104.55.241 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 October 2006.
Hi, Khoikhoi. I learned that you're adminship was approved. Congratulations, I had your e-mail, and appreciated too much. I already commented on the page about this but unfortunately lately. Cheers E10442121:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am being accused of vandalizing Afghanistan's article....because the accusers are all jealous of me hahahahahahahaha. User:Tajik accuses me of vandalizing Afghanistan's article but in fact he or she is the one vandalizing the article. It wrote under the NAME section on Afghanistan's article that Afghanistan's first constitution was in 1964 and wants the world to believe this lie. Here is 1923 constitution of Afghanistan -------->link You know what?...since now I am convinced Wikipedia is all false information written by people who enjoys spreading false information to the world....I give up on editing Afghanistan's article. Afghanistan is ruled by the majority Pashtuns and the whole world is fully aware of this...so it doesn't matter what you write in the Wikipedia on Afghanistan. Wikipedia has nothing but low life losers who don't have nothing else in life but write false information...hahahahahahahaha. Shame on you all for writing false information. User:Tajik lies like an old Persian rug...nobody even bothers looking at it. User:Tajik is a racist Shia...I can easily tell by his actions...and so can everyone else. It refuses to acknowledge that Sunni population is about 90% while Shia is less than 10%. I came to make the article more proffesional and more easy to understand for people with reliable sources....but I am being prevented...so I just give up...it's not even worth doing it. I am now beginning to feel really ashamed of being someone from Afghanistan...because of people like User:Tajik. So go ahead write all the BULL you can write about Afghanistan...I give up on it...besides...not many people take Wikipedia serious and there is nothing interesting to write about Afghanistan. The fact remains that we Pashtuns rule the country with the help of Pakistan, which is equipped with 100s of nuclear bombs and very supportive of Pashtuns...hahahahahahaha NisarKand 09:32, 31 October 2006
Why you insist on keeping that reference at Orhei article? That reference is about the Hungarians in Moldova and it is not about the Hungarian at Orhei. And also it is a reference with a lot of mistakes about the presence of Hungarians in Moldova. For exemple it is incorrect to say that the Hungarians were subject to Hungarian kings. The historical documents say that they were subject (after 1360, of course) to the Moldavian princes (check the historical sources collectioan Documenta Romaniae Historica, series A, Moldova if you do not believe me). That is why I think that reference is not ok, beeing a partisan article (it is a propaganda problem between Romanians and Hungarians). Sorry for my English. Mihail ioniu10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the one who added the Orhei reference. The reason for that is that it provides a source for the etymology of the name of Orhei, although I agree that the site has some inadequacies. Nevertheless, I don't want to leave an unreferenced statement in, so if you can find support, please exchange that for the current ref. TSO1D12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can block Heathzhao for spamming, if there is any room for that. He/she has spammed before and has not been particularly communicative about it...Niohe12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Khoikhoi! My amendments - at all POV, they are based on documents and the facts. POV - that was earlier because article it has been written by Azerbaijanians. Unless not POV - to write, what Susha is in " Nagorno-karabakh region of Azerbaijan "? It is the most obvious to any. Further - Armenians are presented as recent immigrants in Karabakh, and Azerbaijanians - as aboriginals though all is on the contrary, at least concerning Mountain Karabakh. Reflect, why the author of previous clause writes about nomads in Karabakh and nothing writes about farmers lived in the same place, ремесленникх, dealers? Because nomads were Azeri. The statement that in 1920 was not massacre, and "counterattack", will not be coordinated to any sources - compare that Russian write, at me is resulted. The statement, that Armenians, having attacked the first, have started to set fire to houses of Azerbaijanians - an impudent invention. I not the Armenian - can not trust me - but i am revolted with the bald lie and falsification. I apologize for bad English.Sfrandzi16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the licensing info at commons:Image:IonAntonescu.jpg is not very helpful. Someone has pasted the Romanian version of publicity rights, which doesn't have anything to do with copyright. We'd need to know who took the photograph and when that person died in order to say that the photo is in the public domain. According to List of countries' copyright length, the author needs to be dead for seventy years (the EU standard, but no references at the list). It looks like photographs of twentieth century Romanians are going to be a challenge to get properly licensed. Jkelly19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Jkelly16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left {{sofixit}} above purely out of whimsy, but it is also true that I really don't mind people editing my userspace... anyway, I archived my talk page. Thanks for the reminder. Jkelly18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I think the SNLE sock puppet case is unfair. I've reported this case to the Administor Board and Jimbo Wale. Please stop deleting constructive comments or edits. User6873221:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of editors are bloked for editing controversial articles. It seems to me everyone will be considered a sock puppet who edit these contraversial articles. User6873221:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the reason for you to decide whether SNLE has sockpuppeted is on a shared IP address. That will be wrong, because many of the accused editors don't share any similarities at all.User6873221:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to show me some examples? If it's an anon it's most likely Bonaparte, which would therefore give me the right to block him. Khoikhoi06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are the ones who engage in the lame edit wars on Talk on several Transnistria-related subjects (my specialty and area of expertise). They have taken to studying my contribs now. Anyway, I don't want them blocked. It is disruptive, of course, but if it gets too out of hand I think that the next step will just be an RfC or two. Hopefully it won't even come to that. - Mauco06:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering. It gets tiresome to be reverted all the time, of course, but I don't think it is getting out of hand yet. I have found that the page protections have helped, but of course this is not what we should strive for here at all, since the principle is that we should be open and all should be able to edit. So I am reluctant to wish for them (and have never once requested one, myself ) - Mauco06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how about adding a name section in Thessaloniki, Crete, Chios, Rhodes... and the literally countless of Greek articles which mention Turkish names right in the head? Unless of course, Bitola is some kind of exception to the rule, now is it? Miskin15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will two alternatives names (Greek and Turkish) make it crowded? Have you checked what's happening in Thessaloniki? I'm not falling for such an excuse. Aldux reverted me claiming "duplication of info", but in Thessaloniki too the Turkish name is well mentioned in the damn body of the article, yet no-one claimed a "duplication of information". I'm going to add those names back, and if other editors insist on removing them then I'll start removing foreign names from the heads of Greek articles too. I'm getting the impression that some certain ethnic groups get special treatement because people feel sorry for them or because they just bitch too much. I don't really care to examine the reasons, but it's a clear double-standard policy which I'm not going to tolerate. All I'm asking for is justice. Miskin18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a second opinion, since you have been involved in this longer than me- how do we handle the Arab-persian edit war going on recently? Protecting the pages doesn't seem to help, as nobody is talking, and I know that if I unprotect they'll just keep on revert warring. Borisblue21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: could you do me a favour an correct a typing mistake in the article (the part about the language). It should be: "... the Persian language is the mother tongue of roughly 1/3 of Afghanistan's population ..." and not "... only 25% ...". It was a typing mistake, and it contradicts the numbers given in the same source (and in the article). Thx Tājik00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism from my user page. This guy is way out of line... I wonder why he/she doesn't take a break and then work on his/her cred on Wikipedia by writing some good article or sth...--Niohe01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note on the question of Overseas Chinese at Talk:Zhonghua_minzu#Overseas_Chinese. Would appreciate it if you could have a look and maybe comment.
Hey, Khoikhoi. Since you were a recipient of Cretanpride's lovely little email back in September, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new proposed policy under discussion at Wikipedia:Death threats. I've put in my two quadrantes, but I thought you'd like to know as well. See you around! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the AMA (Association of Members' Advocates) currently acting on behalf of User:Caligvla, who has named you as one of the participants in the dispute over whether Armenia is in Europe or Asia. Caligvla has listed a number of reference sources classifying Armenia as an Asian country. He claims that the only sources quoted by your side of the dispute are 1.) an obsecure Canadian website that places Armenia in Europe, and a BBC article that mistakenly places Armenia in Europe. Can you please respond to this and give your side of the argument (preferably on my userpage)? Under the AMA principle of audi alteram partem, you have the right to be heard. (NB Copies of this message have been placed on the talkpage of all those who Caligvla has named as participants in the dispute.) Walton monarchist8909:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
most of my edits were straightforward cleanup of offtopic material and unsourced fanciful claims. There may of course be disputes about them, but such dispute must be firmly grounded in WP:CITE and WP:RS. dab(ᛏ)11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khoikhoi, sorry for the late reply - I've been quite busy the past few weeks. I dug up whatever I could about those Hungarians in Turkey and posted what I found out on Talk:Karapinar. Happy editing, KissL11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.
I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.
Dear Kars/Khoikhoi,
Please check the article, especially mitological Bakhus(What is the correct spelling for that Anatolian plentiful/wine god).
Roots of Zeybeks are not Thracian(there is no any evidence for that), Anatolian people.Especially,they comes from yörük and turkmen villages and some Greek villagers.They acted against unjustable applications of legal authorities.(Except some a few bandit group which they were themself-not other people-also zeybek).Very smilar history/action like as Robin Hood.
Please check and correct my English also.
Regards.
Mustafa AkalpTC17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no any source that origin is Thracian.There is self evidence regarding the geography, names etc.So to keep Tracian here without any source is not so logical. What about Bakhus, can you help?
Thanks. About Bakhus; in history there was ceremonies/rituels in autumm for the name of Stin Bakhus(probably zeybek name related with this; Stin Bakhus->Zeibekus->Zeybek/Zeibek).Many years ago, I read a research on the roots of Turkish folk dances which was pointed that zeibekiko comes from, the wine producing rituels. Foots press the grapes and arms up to the balance. I am trying to find this source.I think "Halikarnas Balıkçısı"-Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı's books also a source.
Imbros, Please warn hectorian about rv. He reverts article deleting all contribution. I put my comments his talk page,(please see my message) but till to now no any action. I have some material to add,but I prefer to wait in this position.
Hi Khoikhoi. I know that those changes will be reverted back immediately. I did not expect them to stay. But I hope you are not serious when you say that Armenian genocide is accepted by the majority of historians (said differently, questioning the Armenian claims is the minority view). If you say media coverage, I can agree with you. But when you say historians especially the ones who specialize on this subject, I really doubt that Armenian claims have any wide-scale acceptance. To this opposite, if you restrict yourself to top 20 US university, you'll have a quite difficult time coming up with a list of historians that support armenian claims. On the other hand, one can list many that are supporting Turkish claims. By the way, when I say real historians, this of course excludes people like Balakian, Charny etc. who have no proper training in history and who are not respected by historians. 69.134.220.5003:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Khoikhoi. I think Ahvaz article should be revert to my last edit, you know there's something which I can't say because of racism, but all of them are true anyway; just trust me ...
p.s.: give them 1 and then they want 2, give them 2 then they wanna 3 ... so never give them anything.
Sasanjan05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...for you support of my recent RfA. If I can ever be of service with my fancy new buttons or just as an impartial, disinterested reviewer of an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, user E104421 keeps taking out sourced information regarding the origin of the Hephthalites. First they complained that the source was wrongly represented in that section, so I formed it to match the source directly, and now they still take it out... Please have a look. Also, look how they kept that same sourec and added their own information. This is definetly POV, please have a look ASAP.Khosrow II17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I see things going on, I'm not one to just let them stand...you know? If a user is going to replace sourced information with unsourced POV information, then yes, I will dispute it. Anyway, hows your Persian coming? Oh and by the way, the reason I go to admins first is to prevent edit/revert wars.[User:Khosrow II|Khosrow II]] 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
After explaining that I believed the edits of User:Caligvla to be of a racist nature, the administator User:Inshaneee has accused me of trolling, on my own user talk page. Can you please request that he restrain his aggressive behavior while trying to chastise me for my frustration at Caligvula's vandalism and racist remarks? -- Augustgrahl18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, he seems to have a clear pattern of using his powers to threaten Wikipedia users, make questionable accusations, and impose arbitrary punishments. This is simply not acceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. -- Augustgrahl20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe what a joke it has become at the article Chile. And by the way, I'd like to "thank you" (laugh) for your unjustafiably blocking me (yes, unjustafied according to wikipedia policy) for 31 hours for my having to revert Antarcticwik's vandalism. I'm still waiting for an apology, or maybe you could redeem that action by this time actually helping out appropriately.
I want to clearly express to you, that the problems at Chile, and Latin America, and Andalusia, and Quechua, and Southern Cone, and all the other articles Antarcticwik or any of his IP's and/or sockppuppets have eddited, are not content disputes, as you have suggested. As for the Chile article, Antarcticwik hasn't engaged in discussion nor is his actions based on a dispute, he merely deletes all sources and text, mainly in the demographics and economics section. And he has reverted yet again. When will it stop!
I just want you to see the vandalism that his edits do to the page:
From:
"
...fell from 46% in 1987 to around 18.8% as procclaimed by the then president Ricardo Lagos in 2005[11] Critics in Chile, however, argue true poverty numbers are considerably higher than officially published figures.[12] In 2006, according to statistics released by Chile's CAS Informática, around 58% of Chileans lived near or below poverty levels; 20.6% in extreme poverty.[13] Despite enjoying a comparatively high GDP compared to most other countries of Latin America, Chile also suffers from one of the most uneven distributions of wealth[14] in the world, ahead only of Brazil in the Latin American region and lagging behind even of most developing sub-Saharan African nations. Chile's top 10 richest percentile possesses 90 percent of the country's wealth. On the national level, 6.2% of the population belonged to "Grupo ABC1" upper economic bracket, 15% belonged to "Grupo C2" middle economic bracket, 21% to "Grupo C3" lower middle economic bracket, 38% to "Grupo D" lower economic braket, and 20% to "Grupo E" extreme poor economic bracket.[15]"
To:
"...fell from 46% in 1987 to around 18.8% as procclaimed by the then president Ricardo Lagos"
From:
Demographics
Population of Chile from 1950, projected up to 2050 (INE)File:Niños Chilenos.JPGChilean children during the annual Fiestas Patrias, or National Celebrations
The Spanish conquest of Chile and the subsequent intermarriages between colonial Spanish immigrants and indigenousAmerindian tribes "began a process of racial and cultural mix which gave birth to the Chilean people."[16] The country's population is thus relatively homogeneous, with most being of mestizo[17][18] — mixed Spanish and Amerindian — descent, although in various degrees of admixture. See Population background below.
About 85% of the country's population lives in urban areas, with 40% living in Greater Santiago. Chile's population growth is among the lowest in Latin America, at around 0.97%, it comes third only to Uruguay and Cuba.
Population background
The ethnic composition of Chileans is marked by a socio-genetic gradient where Amerindian admixture typically correlates to social levels. [19][20] Amerindian contribution tends to be strongest in the lower echelons of society, with the middle majority presenting a more balanced degree of both European and Amerindian ancestry, while the upper echelons of society tend to register the lowest degree of Amerindian contribution. Almost the entirety of the population, however, presents a racially mixed origin, and only a small minority can truly be said to be unmixed European or unmixed Amerindian. The unmixed Amerindian population is in fact said to be now extinct.
Nevertheless, based solely on physical appearance, between 5 and 10% of the current population would be classified as Amerindian, some 30% would be classified as white, and the remaining majority, between 60 and 65%, would be the discernably mestizo population that has a certain tendancy towards a slightly greater input on the European side and averages a racial mixture not much lower than the average ratio for Chile's overall population.[21]
According to the Program of Human Genetics of the University of Chile, the average ratio of racial mixture for Chile's overall population, calculated by the use of nuclear markers, is approximately 60% European contribution and 40% Amerindian, depending on the socioeconomic level. [22][23] According to Rothhammer (1987/2004), that average ratio stands at 57% European contribution and 43% Amerindian. [24]
According to the 1992 Chilean census, a total of 10.5% of the total population declared themselves indigenous, irrespective of whether they currently practiced or spoke a native culture and language; almost one million people (9.7% of the total) declared themselves Mapuche, 0.6% declared to be Aymara, and a 0.2% reported as Rapanui.
At the 2002 census, only indigenous people that still practiced or spoke a native culture and language were surveyed: 4.6% of the population (692,192 people) fit that description; of these, 87.3% declared themselves Mapuche. [25].
Immigration
Relative to its overall population, Chile never experienced any large scale wave of immigrants.[26] Compared to neighbouring Argentina or Uruguay, where European immigration doubled to tripled their existing populations, the total number of immigrants to Chile, both originating from other Latin American countries and all other (mostly European) countries, never surpassed 4% of its total population.[27][28] This is not to say that immigrants were not important to the evolution of Chilean society and the Chilean nation. Small numbers of non-Spanish European immigrants arrived in Chile - mainly to the northern and southern extremities of the country - during the XIX and XX centuries, including English, Irish, Italians, French, and Balkans.[29] In 1848 a small but noteworthy German immigration took place, sponsored by the Chilean government with aims of colonising the southern region. With time, and although undertaken by no more than 7,000 people, that German immigration influenced the cultural composition of the southern provinces of Valdivia, Llanquihue and Osorno. The prevalence of non-Hispanic European surnames among the governing body of modern Chile are a testament to their disproportionate contribution to Chile. Also worth mentioning are the Korean and especially Palestinian communities, the latter being the largest colony of that people outside of the Arab world. The volume of immigrants from neighboring countries to Chile during those same periods was of a similar value.[30]
Currently, immigration from neighboring countries to Chile is greatest, and during the last decade immigration to Chile has doubled to 184,464 people in 2002, originating primarily from Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.
Emigration of Chileans has decreased during the last decade: It is estimated that 857,781 Chileans live abroad, 50.1% of those being in Argentina, 13.3% in the United States, 4.9% in Sweden, and around 2% in Australia, with the rest being scattered in smaller numbers across the globe."
To:
"Demographics
Population of Chile from 1950, projected up to 2050 (INE)
Chile is a relatively homogenous country and most of its population is of predominantly Spanish origin, with varying degrees of native Amerindian admixture, the product of the racial mixture between colonial Spanish immigrants and the native Amerindian tribes. About 85% of its population lives in urban areas, with 40% living in Greater Santiago. Chile's population growth is among the lowest in Latin America, at around 0.97%, it comes third only to Uruguay and Cuba.
Indigenous communities
Those belonging to recognised indigenous communities (2002)
According to the 1992 Chilean census, a total of 10.5% of the total population declared themselves indigenous, irrespective of whether they currently practiced or spoke a native culture and language; almost one million people (9.7% of the total) declared themselves Mapuche, 0.6% declared to be Aymara, and a 0.2% reported as Rapanui.[31]
At the 2002 census, only indigenous people that still practiced or spoke a native culture and language were surveyed: 4.6% of the population (692,192 people) fit that description; of these, 87.3% declared themselves Mapuche.[32]
Non-Spanish European immigrants arrived in Chile - mainly to the northern and southern extremities of the country - during the XIX and XX centuries, including English, Irish, Italians, French, and the Balkans. Smaller waves of Danes, Dutch, Portugese, Romanians, and Greeks arrived as well. In 1848 a small but noteworthy German immigration took place, sponsored by the Chilean government with aims of colonising the southern region. The German/Swiss immigration influenced the cultural composition of the southern provinces of Valdivia, Llanquihue and Osorno. The prevalence of German, French, Italian, English and Yugoslavian surnames among the governing body of modern Chile are a testament to their contribution to Chile. Also worth mentioning are the Korean, Japanese, and especially Palestinian communities, the latter being the largest colony of that people outside of the Arab world. The volume of immigrants from neighboring countries to Chile during those same periods was of a similar value. Chilean ranchers and farmers settled vast expenses of Mexico in the early 1800's, while thousands of miners from Chile and Peru emigrated to California in the 1850's during the gold rush.[citation needed]
Currently, immigration from neighboring countries to Chile is greatest, and during the last decade immigration to Chile has doubled to 184,464 people in 2002, originating primarily from Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.
Emigration of Chileans has decreased during the last decade: It is estimated that 857,781 Chileans live abroad, 50.1% of those being in Argentina, 13.3% in the United States, 4.9% in Sweden, and around 2% in Australia, with the rest being scattered in smaller numbers accross the globe."
Note that every single source and reference, all from Chilean sources, including the Chilean Census, Chilean Embassy, University of Chile, other Chilean university's website, Chilean science genetic magazine, Migration Statistics website, etc. etc. etc. have been deleted with text and all, including a whole subsectio, and whatever text he has kept, he changes the figures to his own unsourced ones. The format of the sections he vandalises are also un-wikified in the process, with all hyperlinks removed. And then he has the audacity to come to you and tell you to block ME again! I'm surprised that you didn't, seeing that you had already misued that admin privalege overme once before in spite of what was obviously going on at Chile and who the vandal was.
CieloEstrellado has countless times resotred the info box whose figures keep being affected by the reverts, including the deletion of the national motto. The entire layout of the article, positioning of pictures (one ontop of another, poking into sections and text, and horrendous paragraphing and punctuation horrors throughout, put simply, the overall structure of the article is destroyed by him. Just compare them; Antarcticwik and normal edit
As I have said before, and will say again, this is blatant vandalism, and NOT a content dispute or edit war. Other users have tried to keep up with his constant reverts to his mutilated unwikified edition. He has refused to engage in dialog, and I have indeed posted to his user page but only to recieve no reply. As you are probably aware, the only pearls (in Spanishin Spanish) I have recieved from him were three personal attacks full of racism to every human ethnic/racial group immaginable other than Europeans, even Spaniards were attacked as filthy african, arab, semites (ie, Jews). He even said whatever "minor" (according to him) Amerindian admixture in Chileans is "compensated" (a word he used) with "real European" German blood (as he himself put it), or so he has made himself believe. Please, lets not even get into the proportion of non-Spanish immigrants that ever made it to Chile (never surpassing 4% of its population, only half of which were Europeans with the other half being other Latin Americans, and which all sources back up including every single Chilean source, and which btw is also text and sources that he deletes) or how "minor" the average Amerindian admixture in Chileans actually is (ie. between 40 and 43%) that is supposedly "compensated" with German blood. He has even tried to encourage others to join in his "MANO DURA" ("Heavy Hand") approach, as he so called it (in Spanish). Will you now do something to resolve the problem with him and the situation he has created? I think more than enough has been perpetrated to justify all his IP's and main account to be permanently blocked.
Also, if you are trully intent on helping to stop vandalism and protect verifiable content, then you may want to check out Hispanic too. There's an IP there that is determined to take out sources and content that attest to the make up of Argnetina's colonial population. Al-Andalus23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with Antarcticwik. Not only he is a POV pusher of the worse kind but he has made several personal attacks, generally in Spanish (reason why he could get away with murder, I guess). I would suggest Al-Andalus to let it be but I will be keeping a close eye on Antarcticwik. If his behaviour does not change, I am more than happy suggesting a community ban for him and any sockpuppet. If any of you have ever listened to the song titled "Las casitas del Barrio Alto" by Victor Jara, you will understand the sort of uppity that could perfectly define his negationism... Regards, Asteriontalk11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khoi. I have a content dispute in the article Renewal (Transnistria) with Mr. Mauco. I don't agree with his position that this is an oposition party, as this is the main party (has the majority in parliament) and didn't put a candidature against president Smirnov. Can you please block this article until the dispute is solved? Thanks.--MariusM12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Khoikhoi,
Please check the stuation. I confuse a little bit.
A new user, was declared himself as admin and member of ArbCom. see and was making vandalism by putting a block tag to another user talk page. see .
I posted him here
Later an admin only cleared the user page, nothing else.
I'm in confuse about wiki rules. Is it enough.No need any other steps.
Since you know more about the rules,Please clarify/explain me.
Regards.
Mustafa AkalpTC15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you please watch this article? I added up the total number of all the Turkic peoples listed in order to come up with the 120-150 million number (which actually matches what the article has been saying for months), yet an anon user claims I "fabricated" the numbers and reinserted the exagerated POV number. Please keep an eye on that article, thanks.Khosrow II16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick google search and couldnt find anything, however, it is allowed for Wikipedia Users to combined several sources to come up with a statistic or a map, etc... What I'm doing is not wrong, and it is not breaking any rules. Infact, as clevelander put it, its encouraged for users to do this stuff when information is not abundant. The numbers I came up with are sourced, and its simple mathmatics. If you dont trust my math, you can grab a calculator yourself and plug in the numbers. I will also bring to your attention that the article for months has said 150 million (first sentence here: [33]), and my calculations show that the original estimate was indeed accurate. Zaparodjik has a history of putting in propaganda and POV, take everything he says with a pinch of salt.Khosrow II05:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that apply to numbers and addition? Technically, those numbers each are about the respective Turkic peoples. Therefore, adding them up would give us the total population of those respective peoples combined. If the sources about each of them is accurate, then their some would also be accurate, dont you think? If there a source says there are 3 of me in the USA and another says that there are 5 of me in China, than my total population, according to those sources, would be 8.Khosrow II05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went to those articles, and used the sourced numbers they had there. Simple as that, they were all sourced. What is so hard to understand about the process I went through to get that number? All the numbers are sourced, and I added them up, simple.Khosrow II05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All Wiki articles are created using many different source, most of which talk about different things, but are put together to create one article. Then according to this, all of Wikipedia is a synthesis. Sourced information is sourced information, and adding up that sourced information makes it total credible. Its funny, you havent questioned for one second about Zaparodjik's number, by my number, which is sourced, is getting all the attention... Khoikhoi, this is really not that hard to comprehend. Bringing together several sources to create something that otherwise cannot be found on the internet, is not against Wiki rules.
If all the numbers are sourced from credible sources, then their total sum also constitutes a credible number. I did the same for the Iranian peoples article and no one complained, because I used sourced information.Khosrow II05:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your an admin, and this is a pretty clean and cut case, I dont understand how Zaparodjik gets off scot free everytime with no one questioning his edits, yet everytime I try to fix something, the whole world turns against me.Khosrow II05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all, thats not what I'm suggesting at all. Im suggesting that you fix the number on that Turkic peoples page to the only credible number we have so far. Tell me this, if we have one source that says the population of Martians on Earth is 500, and another that says the populations of Venetians on Earth is 1000, but no source that tells us the total population of Martians and Venetians on Earth combined, can we or can we not say that the total population is 1500 just by adding those two sources?Khosrow II06:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any user would easily agree with this. Who else do you want to show this argument to, anyone, be my guest. But what are you going to do about Zaparodjik's edit while its still in the article? You are an admin, you can make decisions yourself now cant you? I brought up my argument, and we all know Zaparodjik's argument, he got his number from another Wikipedia page (which actually also puts the number at 140 million, Zaparodjik decided he was going to add 68 million to that number for some reason...) which he says is more credible than "an Iranian".Khosrow II06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zaparodjik and Karcha are reverting your edit to the page. Also, I will have you know that Karcha has called the Iranian wikipedians "Perso Nazis". I'll let you deal with that how ever way you see fit: [34].Khosrow II23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Regarding this [35], you should have read the talk page.
The user user:Inahet went to the library and borrowed the book: E. J. Holmyard (ed.), The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan. He also took the time to type it down on his user page for others to read (thank you Inahet!) [36]. Instead of being greatfull for the effort of this user, you automatically jump to the conclusion that he is a liar and that he forged the citations!! or as you put it diplomatically "This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations"... Cheers Jidan17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Holmyard:
"One of the tribes whose members were present at Kufa in sufficient numbers to be assigned a definite quarter was that known as Al-Azd, a celebrated tribe of South Arabia. From this tribe there sprang, towards the end of the seventh century A.D., a man named Hayyan, who carried on the business of a druggist"
The Al-Azd tribe home is yemen. The author used the term south arabia, a term used very often for ancient yemen. For example, Himyar is a south arabian kingdom, although they it was centered in todays yemen.
Whilst in Arabia, he studied the Koran, mathematics and other subjects under a scholar named Harbi al-Himyari, of whom unfortunately we have no record
Hi, after all again the same issue. There is a consensus on the Talk:Altaic_languages that the Altaic is a proper name to label these languages. I changed the "disputed" as "see also Altaic controversy" because it was not clear what was disputed with the previous "disputed" notice. Furthermore, the Altaic Languages page contains enough information and sources about the issue (will be improved considerable in the near future). Regards. E10442112:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you still misunderstand the issue. The consensus i mentioned is here Talk:Altaic_languages#Altaic_Controversy, the name is proper to label all these languages. If you write as "disputed", it is not clear what the dispute is? Furthermore, my notification "see also Altaic Controversy" is more convenient. AtilimGunesBaydin is also pointed out the same (see my talk page). The information about the controversy is given in the Altaic Languages page. I'd like to know why you are so insisted to keep "disputed", the issue is a minor one. This is totally misleading as i pointed out before. Future Perfect Sunrise also commented about the issue. Even Ante Aikio stated there that the dispute issue should go to Altaic Languages. I do not see anything wrong by writing as "see Altaic Controversy". If there is i want you to explain it clearly. Regards E10442117:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi, the language template is not a place to discuss these issues. I'm not a native speaker, what is the difference between the "disputed" and "see Altaic Controversy" which implies the issue is controversial. Why you are so insested on the word "disputed"? You're the only person insisting on this. Furthermore, i do not think that you're a linguist, cause if it is so, you should have given scientific sources not the encarta. Regards E10442117:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In linguistics papers it's written as Altaic Controversy not the Altaic Dispute or Disputed Altaic. If it is a better wording, can you explain the difference as a native speaker? E10442117:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are the same, i'm replacing (with pleasure :)) the dispute with controversy cause it's the way used in linguistics and also we have "Altaic Controversy" section in Altaic languages. Don't worry, i shall first wait your comments. Kind regards E10442118:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha, Khoikhoi, the issue (if you read the Altaic controversy section you'll see more clearly) is related the genetic relationship between these languages not related with any language with itself. The "disputed" notice alone does not make sense without Altaic language classification. Please also read Talk:Altaic_languages#Altaic_Controversy for more comments. I can also provide you detailed information via e-mail. I think by denoting "see also Altaic controversy", we also invite users to read what the controversy is about. I think that's enough. In my opinion this makes the notification more clear. Regards E10442118:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not only implying the controversy, but also showing the place for them to get more information. This will lead users to have a look at the Altaic Controversy section. Putting the "disputed" misleads cause "what the dispute is about" is not clear in that kind of representation. Actually writing both "disputed" and "see also Altaic controversy" together clogg-up the infobox. That's why i'm offering to remove "disputed" which has the same meaning as controversial. Now, i'm getting ready to do the changes, ok? E10442118:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i could not replied on time. There was a heavy cold yesterday and i had to leave with my friend earlier. For the Altaic issue, i agree. Although there is still an ambiguity with this solution, that's alright, probably the tags in themselves do not give much information to the general reader. As a trial, i applied our solution to Turkic Languages article. Kind regards E10442112:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is requesting unblocking; their original 1-week 3RR block would have expired, what remains is the extension for evasion that you gave for the contributions of 203.187.235.106 (talk·contribs). I think you made a mistake here: I'm not sure why 203.187.235.106 added Nixer's name to the WikiProject on Armenians, but [38] this edit (203.187's first) was a revert clearly perpetuated by User:Caligvla; Caligvla had reverted 3 times already in 24 hours. Up to you, though. Mangojuicetalk12:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, up to you. But I would think, just tell him not to evade blocks; having to have a discussion first will make things go too much slower. Mangojuicetalk18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please unprotect this article. This article has been scene of Indian writers rewriting the history of Pakistan and has been protected by an Indian admin with Indian version. Can you please also check why I cannot edit Babur page.
Siddiqui16:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for your warm welcome; also thanks for your 'interventions' at Aegean Sea and the article I just created (I realise it isn't much). I hope to stick around and to contribute much more in the near future ... particularly regarding (but not limited to) geography. Let me know if and how I can be of assistance. Thanks again! Psychlopaedist18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can u provide any reliable sources for your rv? I mean, the Amnesty article was nice, but it did not say anything about the correct spelling. In addition, Amnesty article is not a source. For example I am a member of the Rotary club and I can just write anything I want and that does not mean that Wikipedia should follow my opinion. Sosomk20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I INSIST I AM NOT CHILEUROPIDE, PLEASE DO NOT OFFEND TO ME. CHILEEUROPIDE IS A INVENTION OF AL ANDALUS, TO ATTACK ME AND HARM ME.Antarcticwik 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SPECULATIVE
1 ANDALUS WAS BLOCKED BY 31 HOURS
2.COINCIDE the AIM OF the BLOCKADE WITH the CHILEEUROPIDE BIRTH.
3. AL ANDALUS PRETENDS THEIR ENGLISH BADLY.
4. IN DEMOGRAPHY OF CHILE CHILEUROPIDE IT DENIES THE INDIGENOUS EXISTENCE OF CHILE I NO.
I INSIST I AM NOT CHILEUROPIDE, PLEASE DO NOT OFFEND TO ME. CHILEEUROPIDE IS A INVENTION OF AL ANDALUS, TO ATTACK ME AND HARM
Antarcticwik00:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still sometimes reverts users with 25+ edits which (among other things) it should never do. It seems to do that sporatically, but I still cant figure out why.Voice-of-All02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I understand that you reverted Bonaparte, and it was good that you did so. However, Mikkalai is POV-pushing in this case, and I would like you to look into the matter: I have done a lot of work creating, expanding, managing, and styling that article to reflect the most neutral version one could come up with. It was not contested by anyone, and the relations between Moldova and Moldavia are made as clear as possible, without imposing a Romanian POV.
Primordially, the word "Moldavia" is used in reference to the present-day Romanian region - other regions are "Moldavian" only by way of being Bessarabian and Bukovinan - both of which [sub]regions have separate articles which [should] clarify the matter in specific areas; moreover, the references to them as "Moldavian" point to their political status as parts of the former principality (before the 1500s; before 1771; before 1812), and it is hard to discern whether there is real agreement over their belonging to the geographical entity. Such relations are, however, made clear in the second line of the text... (just how much does one have to cram in the first sentence?).
I think Mikkalai is doing this because he misinterpreted a comment I made a while back, when I told him that, no matter what POV to take on the matter, it would still have to be a paradox that the Moldavian/Moldovan identity was preserved not in Moldavia, but in a part of Bessarabia. Interestingly, his edits unwittingly reflect the POV of Romanian nationalism ("Bessarabia=Moldavia"), because he came to advocate them by way of wishful thinking and its consequences. Please tell me you note the uncomfortable position I'm stranded in: I have to quarell with some Romanian users over the "Romanian-speaking states" category, and, at the very same time, I have to answer to Mikkalai when he accuses me of being a nationalist and of supporting the incorporation of Bessarabia (I have already told him, several times, that I do not) when I am writing down the first accurate and neutral version of a long-neglected topic... Dahn21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the reasons are many, but none other than the usual ones heard: it's not much fun any longer; yadda yadda yadda; dealing with this or that type of person; falan filan (Turkish for, roughly, "yadda yadda yadda"); real life; falan feşmekan (a slightly more, to my ear, euphonious alternative to falan filan); etc.
Basically, that's the reason I'm taking off. I'm not sure my leaving will be as entire as the Flann O'Brien quote now on my userpage suggests (I'll still try to "defend" at least the pages I nurtured from unreasonable and/or silly crap of the sort we are both aware of), but it should be pretty nearly so. It's just that I recently realized, while writing my latest minorpieces (Layman Pang and Katsu (Zen)), that the energy and research spent on such work could be better directed than towards Wikipedia ... not that I have come to entirely doubt the value of the project, just that I have come to doubt the value of the project's influence on me (ooh, that sounds positively Pynchonian) and, more specifically, on other work that I feel I should be doing.
Nonetheless, it's hard giving up, ain't it? Post-leave, I made one content edit (anonymously) of a section that I had written myself for the Samuel Beckett article, and of a sentence that is with about 92% surety original research (if for no other reason than that I was in whiskey-soaked epiphany mode when writing the whole section so as to get the article up to speed for main page featured article day, 13 April, which the article wasn't otherwise ready for yet). Anyhow, the post-leave edit was promptly reverted, proving that the hawks are watching, and so I did as the hawks asked and simply tagged it as "citation needed" (under my own name). So, it's nice to see that the whole Wiki-process is still going strong.
In the meantime, I wish you all the best of luck in all your endeavors (and a belated congratulations on becoming an admin—you, as far as I can tell, certainly deserve it, since you were all but doing an admin's work anyhow). Cheers. —Saposcat22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unable to edit this page. Is it possible that someone has changed some setting. Also please upprotect History of Pakistan page. This page is target of Indians writing history of Pakistan from their perspective.
Siddiqui22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked and I still can't edit Babur page. Is there a user lock for my account ?
Now it worked !! I eas trying to revert it to revert back to version by REcheck for days but it never worked. It was very odd. But it started working. Thanks.
Hello Khoikhoi:). I noticed that new edit- revert-wars are about to break out concerning placenames in Greek-related articles. I added the Greek name in the top in Bitola again. I can't see why this article should be "excluded". if it's the 'Name section' that it has, tell me so, so i can create such a section in Thessaloniki as well... I honestly why some users see the placenames issue as "revence", "50-50" or supposed "equality". A place (town, city or area) has to have some basic characteristics in order to have a name in another language (establishment, first inhabitants, historic or modern importance, present minority, past or modern usage of that name in english, etc...). if we are about to say: well, greek placenames are in turkish or fyromian articles, so we "should" (huh?) add in those languages the greek articles, why not adding in all greek articles the name in arabic? greek names are already in Alexandria, Lattakia, etc. or maybe lets write Thessaloniki, Ioannina, Xanthi, Epirus in italian, for the greek name is in Naples, Sicily, Syracuse... This eye-for-an-eye attitude makes me sick! (but what i am talking about? the Italians do know history, as much as the Greeks do...). Regards Hectorian23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a comment on that talk page, and i would appreciate a reply on that:). Ioannina shares no similarity with Istanbul, and i have explained the reasons many times. btw, do u know what 'Ioannina' means? well, it means 'the city of John'... how strange... a christian name used by its "muslim" inhabitants... A corruption of the original name that some want to make it as important as the original one... Hectorian00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? aromanian name? check this out: in Greek or or Janina, in aromanian Ianina! it is the same, for crying out loud! i could also add Thessalian: Ianena, cause this is how in my area we refer to the city. i do not think that adding dialects and idioms in the lead we offer anything good (apart from desperately searching for hidden supposed minorities...). This way we can add in Thessaloniki: Official and most used Greek name: Thessaloniki, Alternative Greek name: Saloniki, Greeklish: Salonika, Slang: Thes/niki, Internet Slang: Thess. and so on... As for the name in Albanian, are there any Albanians? do they have/had large concentrations in the city? is the city of major historic importance to them? do they have a distinct name for it? did they ever rule the city? did they found it? to all the above the answer is 'no'. so? Hectorian00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are Mycenaean language, Cappadocian Greek language, Tsakonian language, Griko language, Pontic language seperate languages, or just former forms and dialects of modern Greek? I am puzzled by the usage of the word 'language' here in wikipedia (i can list other dialects from other languages as well, that here are considered "seperate"-funny enough, only English language is considered, despite its widespread usage and the diverse backgrounds or its speakers and its long history as one language...- All the others, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, Greek have been "butchered"...). Anyway, not mentioning the name because the Aromanians call the cities 'Thessaloniki' and 'Ianina', just like the rest of the Greeks, and I, myself an Aromanian, have never heard the name 'Saruna' in my whole life! I do not know for other articles...
As for the Albanian name, there actually are (Cham) Albanians living in the city: what are u talking about? where are they? never seen one. apropos, they all left following the WWII, and, btw, Cham is the region of Thesprotia, and there is where they were living, not Ioannina! let me clear something as well: Greek: Ioannina, Alternative Greek: Ianina or Janina or Janena or Ianena (if u prefer in the Greek alphabet, Ιωάννινα or Γιάννινα or Γιάννενα). 'Janinë' does not seem that distinct now, does it?;-). Hectorian01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said: remove the aromanian name because it is not different than the greek. on whether aromanian constitutes a language or not, that's another case... I won't compare anything with any Turkish user in any Trabzon article... Because, those things there are sources. btw, i can't understand why today i find myself twice in the "awkward" situation that u should had learnt french...:p. though i can't read much of the link u gave me (for i don't speak french), i can understand some things... One of them is this: Ioannina: de rares villages dans la zone limitrophe de la Thesprotie et du département de Prévéza [un village situé au nord de Konitsa est également albanophone]. This is not about the city of Ioannina! it is talking about the perfectural borders with Thesprotia and one albanophone village, north of Konitsa, near the borders of Albania. so, no reason to have the name in albanian there... Hectorian01:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! If i say i did not expect this, i would be lying;-). I knew u would find something about Ali Pasha and present it as "evidence" of albanian rule... He was an Ottoman appointed governor, so what? we won't add the albanian name just cause the city's control was taken by an albanian (appointed by the Turks on the ground of religion)! i bet u know that there have been Greek, Albanian and Slav (Serbs and Bulgarians) Grand Vezirs or the Ottoman empire... id est, they were ruling all the empire (also on the grounds of religion and not ethnicity). so, Mecca was part of the Ottoman empire back then... İbrahim Edhem Pasha, was Grand Vizier... may i add the Greek name in Mecca (Μέκκα-i know it is almost the same, but it doesn't seem to be a prob, right?), just because a greek once ruled (among many) this place as well? Hectorian02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i would have;-). On which ground do u want to add it? on the ground that once upon a time they had control of the city? on this ground, would u object me to include the Greek name in Kabul, Cairo and Jerusalem? btw, u want to add it in the arabic script? cause this is what the Ottoman Turkish name was... I see the Greek name added in some places in the polytonic system, and i have no problem with that! why the turks do not want to see their own former writing system? lol... Hectorian02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Greeks stayed in the Holy Land many more years than the Ottomans ever stayed in Epirus. the same applies for the Greeks in Bactria and Egypt... I must say that if we are allowed to add names according to how much time a nation controlled an area, i can add thousands of Greek names in approximately 20-30 modern countries... I know u know it is in the arabic script, but in which script do u intend to add it? Hectorian02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if i wouldn't mind u to add it, soon, a turkish user would appear and filled with "disgust" would alter it to the modern turkish writing system... (it has happened before). i think it's better to let it aside for the moment... Btw, u Jews have also been all over the freakin' world. but in another concept, more peaceful;-) Hectorian03:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... I may believe in some conspiracy theories (e.g. the Assasination of JFK), but not in this one;-)... It's all about money, oil and lobbies... in some periods of history a certain lobby is more powerful than the others... later, these things alter... (money makes the world go round, as an old american song says...). If the Jews control/led the world, they would had created Israel much earlier... Anyway, an Ottoman Turkish wikipedia could be created, why not? who would object to that? there are Latin, Aromanian and Esperanto wikipedias for Christ's sake!;-)... (id est: a dead language, a language that has never been written and an artificial one!). Hectorian03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoi, you may want to stop using rollback against regular editors, or we all know that sooner or later, due to some user or other, you'll end up with an RFC up your rear end. Take care ;-) --Tekleni23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
