Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 27 October 2006

/Archive 1

Re: Do not take out sourced info

The section is an exact duplicate of the section from the Azerbaijan article - why does it have to be on both pages? —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But does it have to be the exact same words? "History of the name Azerbaijan" is a sub-article of the Azerbaijan page. The history of the name in general is not specific to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and does not belong there. It's like having a background on the name "Armenia" on the Democratic Republic of Armenia page. Perahps you could re-word the text to make it specific to the ADR. —Khoikhoi 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You two can argue about it, count me out. —Khoikhoi 04:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan etc

Hey Khosrow. I think this issue should be very easy for you to negotiable. You and Grandmaster should be able to reach a compromise. If the main article is clearly linked to, surely the summary can be quite brief. Then people click onto the main article if they wish to know more. Regarding the List of Azerbaijanis, I understand what you're saying. Would you find it acceptable if the introductory section at the top was changed to clearly explain that the list also includes people who were native to the region prior to the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan? I think a compromise can be reached on matters like this. It really doesn't need to be win/lose, one way or the other. Please consider some type of middle ground that you would find acceptable. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. And by the way, I think you should archive some of your talk page as it's a bit of a pain on a dial-up connection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I explained to Larry that it's generally not a good idea to splice comments because it makes it hard to follow who said what. You can find instructions for archiving here: Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. If you need help with it, just let me know. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you still want the page unprotected, you'll have to take it up with the administrator who protected it or else try requesting unprotection here: WP:RPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

User:NisarKand is vandalizing the article Afghanistan. Please have a look at it. Thx Tājik 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Q

Do you have diffs so I can see what you mean? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes etc

I've started a special page here User talk:Sarah Ewart/KII-GM. I wanted to start on the list, but what you are saying about manipulating quotes is very serious and it needs to be resolved first. Can you go to the page and make your case in your section and list the quotes that you think are manipulated. Please be as concise as possible and don't make personal commentary about other people and their possible motives, just stick to the facts. This is important because I don't want it to descend into the personal arguing and bickering that was happening on El C's page. I have access to a Britanica subscription, so I will check the quotes myself. Thanks Khosrow, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm going to go through it now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went through your points and I also looked at the Britannica article. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of it but it is 4 am here, so maybe I'm missing something. I want to let Grandmaster have a chance to respond to your comments about his removal of sourced information before I say anything about that. I think it's important to resolve this Britannica issue and removing sourced information issue first, then we can start on the articles. Is that okay with you? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can comment on anything you like. Just continue writing little sections in your part like you did before. I'm just trying to keep everyone in their own section so it (hopefully) doesn't break down into bickering. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't wait forever. At least we've made an effort and we resolved the Britannica issue, which is good. I sent GM an email prior to starting the page, but he hasn't replied to that either. I guess he's too busy or isn't interested or whatever. Which articles are protected? Are these the ones that El C protected? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GM sent me an email saying he wants El C involved, so I don't really know what to do. I don't mind El C participating if he wants, but it doesn't seem like a very productive way to move forward, or a productive use of our time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions? See: User:Khorshid/Misconceptions

Hi, about the "misconceptions" section on your userpage...

Firstly I'd like to point out that I also agree that Iran is overdemonised. However I feel a userpage does not exist for one to express political beliefs. I would encourage you to remove it. You can for instance put the content to a blog and link to it in your userpage.

The deletion is for the now seemingly obsolite "User:Khorshid/Misconceptions". I would appriciate if you {{db}}'ed it.

--Cat out 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing political about it. Its just a list of misconceptions.Khosrow II 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the US president and/or Fox News would disagree. That makes it political. --Cat out 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Unless you have a convincing argument, I wont take it off.Khosrow II 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, it is all about perspective. That is what politics is about.

I do not have time to "convince" you. It was a mere friendly advice.

--Cat out 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as I am not breaking any Wiki rules, I dont have to change something just because a person doesnt like it, because that doesnt make any sense, just dont look at my user page if your offended. If I am breaking any rules, please notify me and give me the link to the rule. Thanks.Khosrow II 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a rule driven comunity we are not a burocracy. If you really are looking for a rule, it can be removed on the basis of wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Exact quote you mau want to consider is: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Like I told you, I agree with some of the stuff you are saying there, so I am not offended. However I do feel that would be more approporate off-wikipedia.

--Cat out 12:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah!

You can see the whole page here if you want. Thanks for your kind words...please let me know if there's anything I can do (i.e. protecting a page, etc.) for you. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 08:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I have the time, thanks for the link. Khoikhoi 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Please have a look at this ... it's really hopeless! Tājik 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your contriuion. You should also rvert his POV edits in the article. But watch the 3RR ... he himself has just reverted for the 4th time within 24h ... I have reported him. Tājik 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite his 3RR block yesterday, User:NisarKand is back at vandalizing the article Afghanistan. Please rv his changes whenever you notice them. I've already rverted twice ... Tājik 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep Afghanistan on your watch-list ... User:NisarKand is continuing the vandalism. Just take a look at this edit and his comment at the bottom. Tājik 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran Iraq War

The USA was a combatant. It used its navy and airforce against Iran, it funded and supplied Iraq, and helped Iraq strategically. One of the biggest offensives by the USA was destroying the entire Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Please do not take out the information again.Khosrow II 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's incorrect. The U.S. was certainly involved in the war by supporting Iraq with money and weapons but they were not an actual combatant. The combat portion you are probably referring to was the "Tanker War" where the U.S. and the Soviets put all the oil tankers under their flags to stop the Iraqis and Iranians from blowing them up. Since I believe that to be the case I'll continue to remove the U.S. as a combatant. Let's continue this discussion on the talk page for the war. Publicus 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

al-Farabi

An anon IP is getting annoying in the al-Farabi article, trying to "Turkicize" him. Tājik 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)