Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.162.66.250 (talk) at 05:02, 11 November 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)

InShaneee already got it, it looks like. Ba’adan mibinamet... Khoikhoi 23:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the anon was you, but Farsi e man bad ast. :-) Khoikhoi 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I learned all of my Persian here on Misplaced Pages. I guess that's what editing Iran-related articles can do to you! Khoikhoi 01:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing man. Khoikhoi 02:56, 28 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)

Template:Turkish History Brief

Hi, I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to explain your reasons in the talk/discussion page of the template, before reverting. If there exists any controversy, you should mention at the right place, providing reliable sources, concerning other users. E104421 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

?

WHY?

Oh i get it, you're ENDENIAL. All of them work. --24.211.184.243 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NisarKand again

LOL Take a look at this: Tājik 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sun Language Theory

Hi, the paper (actually a book) you suggested by Hilaire de Barenton is actually not the one that constitutes the basis of sun language hyphothesis. It's something different. I'll dig more resources on this and try to get back to you. Regards E104421 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing two different issues. First, Hilaire de Brenton is a historian focused on Sumerians. Second, this book is related with a guess on Sumerian language connection with Turkish. Thirdly, it was Hermann F. Kvergić who initiate the hypothesis. Please, do not revert, cause you're removing the information and the sources. I recommend you to check the sources section. There you'll see an article on Hermann Kvergić, Jens Peter Laut (originally from "Turkic Languages" 6 (2002) (120-133). Regards E104421 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Which sources? I never erased but removed your pov push! E104421 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, have you ever read the book? also the references? As i told you above it is not related with the sun language theory, but a hypothesis which states that sumerian and turkish were related each other. You already removed other information about the Hermann F. Kvergić and pushed yours. Newspaper content is not a reliable source. Look at the reference section of my version. E104421 17:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hephthalite

I think you are missing an important point, i already commented on Talk:Hephthalite. I never edited the text of the article. When i first saw the article, i recognized the "factual accuracy" warning and commented about this at the talk/discussion page. After doing so, i put "POV-check" tag and removed the "factual accuracy" tag, cause there is no dispute at the talk/discussion page about this. However, you erased some parts and pushed your version. For this reason, i reverted back, not to favor any version, just to prevent the information to be deleted. You did not need to erase other arguments presented there, but you could try to balance them with neutral statements and sources. One more note, i'm only responsible for my own edits, do not try to accuse me for other's edits. Your statement "...an anon, who you obviously have some connection to..." is definitely a baseless personal attack. What obvious is your impolite manner. For the Huns article, the issue is quite different, i'm not edit warring but trying to neutralize/paraphrase some of the sentences. If you're interested in see Talk:Huns, but be civil at first! E104421 07:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(to Khosrow) I'm starting to get tired of these little disputes (that seem to happen almost every single day). I'd rather not get involved for this one. Sorry. Khoikhoi 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Hey, my Persian is coming along... I understand what you mean—do you want me to protect the page or something? As for the Turkic peoples page, I guess what I'm asking for is a source that says, "the number of Turkic peoples is..." I'm just more comfortable with that rather than you doing your own math. This applies to Zap as well. Ciao, Khoikhoi 05:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but WP:NOR specifically says:

Also, just because something was "up there for months", doesn't mean that it's true. See Wikiality. Khoikhoi 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify: you went to every Turkic people article and got the numbers from there? As much as we would like to think, we cannot use Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. Also, are all the numbers from these articles sourced? I guess I could go to WP:VP and ask about the numbers there. Khoikhoi 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But were all the sources the same? If they weren't, it's considered a new synthesis of published material... Khoikhoi 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude, continue your little edit war. I don't care anymore and have better things to do with my time. Khoikhoi 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Block Zaparodjik? Khoikhoi 05:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a convincing argument Khosrow, but is there a problem with confirming this with other users first? Khoikhoi 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to 300 (film)

Your recent edit to this film article consisted of a biased POV. Furthermore, the claims made were not verifiable by any kind of reliable source. If there are independent, published sources that address this so-called controversy, then it can possibly be included. Be warned that biased statements will not be tolerated, as you were vigorous in your remark on the talk page about including criticism of which there has not been published articles. Furthermore, I doubt that the film will adhere to such a black-and-white perspective -- if you read the article, you'll see that there is a character called Ephialtes, a Spartan soldier who had been mistreated by the "defenders of freedom" and betrayed his side to the Persians. The film is directly based on a graphic novel, which deliberately took artistic license in writing about the Battle of Thermopylae. In the future, if you want to include criticism besides your own, please cite accordingly. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq war

You need to go sign the arbcom. This has gone to arbitration and the info you are pushing for will be reverted pending the outcome of the arbcom. L0b0t 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been filed in regards to the failed mediation. As an involved member of the mediation, you have been named a party in the Arbitration request. Thank you for your time. ^demon 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkic peoples

Well, I'm an admin too, and although I certainly don't have an issue with Khoikhoi's edit (I was actually just trying to revert vandalism which ended up re-inserting that number), you should know that just because someone is an admin doesn't necessarily mean that they're right (although here I think Khoikhoi was right). _└  / _talk  20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont know how to sign this but i fixed the reference request you insisted on at the Ataturk page.