Kalasha don't believe in Islam, it is not part of their culture. There are Kalasha forced to become Muslims, but at the time that happens they are no longer part of the community. And isn't it ironic to say Kalasha are Muslims, when they try to keep their independence against all the islamic pressure from outside. (You can answer at my site in the German Wikipedia) --Felix Ufer

I'm sorry that I answer a little late, but I had to back up my arguments a little bit: Like I said, if a Kalasha converts to Islam he is not part of the community any more, which means that he doesn't participate in rituals and ceremonies. And how can you call someone Kalasha, when he is not participating in the cultural live of this tribe? Beeing Muslim means not beeing Kalasha. That's why you can't write Islam as a religion practiced by Kalasha people. --Felix Ufer, 06-07-06 3:55 pm

I will tell you an old parable. The man asks a learned hodja: Kimdir ol velî ki hemşireleri onu kuyuda gark etmiştir? (Who is that saint who was drowned by his sisters in a well?). The hodja says; Not a saint but a prophet, not his brothers his sisters, not drowned but thrown! :-) The section has many inaccuracies. It even claims that sub-Saharan ancestry was brought to Asia Minor with eunuchs. I think it's better to keep it that way. However, I should tell that current population of Turkey was shaped in late 19th and early 20th centuries with three main tenets: 1- Sedentarisation of nomads, 2- Settlement of Muslims from former Ottoman territories in Anatolia, 3- Expulsion and/or extermination of Christian elements. I think a historical perspective should include these three main historical demographic movements. Behemoth 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course I know about them. A few days ago, I was watching TRT and I saw a government notice saying "Each year ... (number) languages disappear on the world's surface." I was shocked to see this as people know the Ubykh language incident that did never concern Turkish authorities. Then, all was revealed, they were talking about "the invasion of Turkish by foreign words" and keeping Turkish alive and pure. The more significant thing was that notice appeared just after the half an hour Kabardian broadcast on TRT3. Behemoth 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I will write you two anecdotal quotes on that "Turkish identity" thing. The first one is from Suyu Arayan Adam, an autobiography of Şevket Süreyya Aydemir. Şevket Süreyya is a nationalist officer at WWI who speaks of his soldiers as "Turks". The soldiers who are of peasant origins duly oppose this naming. They say: "Sir, we are not Turks because we are not Kizilbash. We are Muslims!" The second is from the novel Yaban by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu. Ahmet Cemal, an intellectual ex-officer wants the villagers to support Mustafa Kemal at the "National Struggle" and adds "for it is the duty of every Turk". The villagers say "We are not Turks!" Ahmet Cemal asks them "what" they are and they say "We are Muslims. The ones you talk about live in Haymana!" :-) Behemoth 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't have exact info about the number of Kurdish civilians killed by Turkish forces. I also don't think that Kurds have the number or a "timeline" because these casualties are very very high! You see, Turkish forces never accept civilian casualties. They state that the killed one was a "terrorist" because security forces "found" machine guns, ammunition, etc. along with them. This was the case in 2004 when twelve-year-old Uğur Kaymaz was killed in Kızıltepe by Özel Tim (Special Forces Squad). When, someone claims that these were civilian deaths, (s)he can be condemned for being a PKK propagandist. I can recommend you to contact some Kurdish information websites for figures. However, to start with: 11 civilians in Diyarbakır (including four children) and 3 civilians in Kızıltepe were killed Turkish government forces at demonstrations in March-April 2006. Of course, some may argue (according to Turkish standards) that these are not civilian casualties because they were demonstrating in support for Öcalan. The article also has some contradicting points. If it is about civilian casualties, one can easily assume that most of the deaths listed with rural raids by PKK were village guard casualties, who are technically not civilians. Ciao! Behemoth 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope you guys will have an open mind about Kurdish civilians killed by PKK as well. -- Gokhan 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you know that Khan Wali Khan is listed 3 times as a nominee for a good article? Once as Abdul Wali Khan by Zak. Just thought I'd let you know. Tombseye 03:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey what up dude. One thing, I think Haider also listed it, while Zak's nomination is just spelled differently. I was going to delete Haider's but he might take it the wrong way. Yeah, I was just thinking of contacting you regarding images for the article. You read my mind man. I wrote to Steve Mccurry first off and hopefully he'll be cool with how his picture is used. And yeah if you can find some pictures of Pashtuns that would be great. I did an impromptu addition of pictures, but I'd like to replace Euthydemus as he's not a Pashtun and some pictures (like on the Tamil page) would really help the article. Whatever you've got would be great. Also, if you can make a back up collage replacing Sharbat with either Ghulam Ishaq Khan or something that would be cool. I'd rather have her there, but who knows what might happen. If you can find some female pictures that would especially be great. Steve Mccurry has a ton of great pictures on his website of Pashtuns! Too bad we can't use 'em. Anyway, if you think it's cool, feel free to support the article's ascension to the higher plane known as a featured article. ;) Tombseye 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Look at that sentence again. Why are Mongols, Persians, and Turks given there links to there ethnic group instead to there ancient empire? And by the way, when did the Kurds fight the Persians and Turks? Certinaly not before BC! Kurds and Assyrians have fought in the past 3000 years. By the way, so now your going to give the upmost respect to the Kurds and respect there claim of being so ancient, that they are linked to Hurrians, but your going to deny Assyrian's claim? Chaldean 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sorry. Its just that I feel everyone in wiki is against me all of the sudden, even thou I back himself up with source after source. Chaldean 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I apologize for the temper, its just build in many of us Middle Eastern people for some strange reason :D Chaldean 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks khoi. But, I guess its still unclear or maybe its a 50/50 thing? Chaldean 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

- ah I see. Thanks :) Chaldean 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks :D Chaldean 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Khoikhoi. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, and keep moooooooing. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Battle of Van - at the moment, this seems fairly accurate based on my sources.
• Van Resistance/Armenian Revolution - I don't like this whole idea that somehow the revolt in Van can be thought of as a large-scale Armenian revolution. One revolt in one city does not a revolution make IMHO.
• First Armenian Republic (1915-16) - I think this article is really beyond history. This area of the world was a war zone and was under the direct control of Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich. To say that this war zone was really the location of a functioning republic, a government which really existed... I have read nothing in any book that suggests such a thing was true. A real republic has an elected leadership, a functioning set of government services, an army, and authority. I believe that on all these counts the "government" of Russian-controlled Ottoman Armenia had none of these things.

If I had control here, I would remove both the Armenian Revolution and First Armenian Republic 1915-1916 articles. This article: Democratic Republic of Armenia, though not very coherent, does at least describe a real entity. Suggestions? Cglassey 08:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding First Armenian Republic (1915-16); Confederation of Armenian parties, which had a representation in Ottoman parliament, come together and formed a local governing structure in this region. Ottoman documents define it as a revolt coordinated by Armenian confederation. I'm aware the fact that this area was a war zone, as we know from historical perspective and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich was a fact. However, I could easily see an issue regarding the fact that it was really not different than the origination of TBMM. OR if was not crushed, it could have easily replace the democratic republic of Armenia, as the distinction between them was very diffuse (same people, same party, same military power). I do understand your point, and if you could help, there may be a better way to define it. As far as I can say; it may be in very early stages of becoming a state (from ARF perspective), but it has a political and military structure. Thanks.-- OttomanReference 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

ps: there was an article about how the negotation between ottoman (a german commander) and confederation of Armenian parties was performed, Ottoman units let them have their local control under the pretense that they would not help Russians... Hope I can reach that document again.-- OttomanReference 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

CGlassey writes: While I think the revolt in Van is reasonably worth its own article, I have yet to see any evidence in any research I've done over the last week which suggests this revolt is worthy of the title "Armenian Revolution". One city does not a revolt make. The revolt in Van seems to have been an isolated, and, if I may say, heroic, action by the people in this one town (not quite true, the Armenians in Şanlıurfa revolted in early 1916). Nor do I see any reason to think the Armenian's "gave up" when Van was re-taken by the Ottoman army in late July 1915 (currently the article says "The Battle of Van effectively ended the Armenian Revolution". I don't see any "giving up" by the Armenians. They still had units in the Russian army and they continued to exist even when the Russian army melted away. So, for me, a better solution would be

• to fold in some of the info from the "Armenian Revolution" into the Battle of Van article
• fold some of the info in the First Armenian Republic (1915-16) article into the Democratic Republic of Armenia article (which could certainly use some work, its pretty unclear just what is going on from the current article).

Cglassey 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

CGlassey writes: you ask how strong is the evidence that the Ottoman government acknowledged the Armenian genocide after WWI?

This is a fact. No question about it. The problem is twofold. (1) The Ottoman government was in its last days. The actions it took were soon, within two years, utterly repudated by the new Turkish government of Kemal (later Attaturk) (2) The Ottoman government was both defeated and quite clearly under the thumb of the victorious British (and French). Later Turkish appologists simply say "can't trust anything which was said by the Ottoman governent from November 1918 till its fall in 1920. Period." Personally I don't dismiss the trials conducted in 1919-1920 out-of-hand. But I'm hardly an expert on the trials.

CGlassey writes: you ask "why are historians are still trying to determin what happened in the Ottoman empire 1915-1918?"

Several problems exist.

1. As a result of Kemal's reforms, the new Turkish state started exclusive use of a European alphabet, making all older (pre-1922) records a foreign language to later Turkish historians.
2. Because the Ottoman Empire was, in many respects, a pre-modern goverment, its record keeping was shoddy to non-existant. Just trying to figure out how many Armenians were living in pre-war Ottoman territory is essentially impossible with the limited records available.
3. Because of the back-and-forth nature of the war in the Caucus region, it is very hard to say just who did what to whom and when. It was a war. Bad stuff happened. Few unbiased observers were on the ground at the location and able to report what was going on. Those observers who were on the ground are bitterly attacked for secret biases which make their reports untrustworthy. Every observer is classed by one side or the other (or both) as either pro-Ottoman or pro-Armenian.

Just imagine the field day the Holocaust deniers would have if the Germans hadn't kept such detailed records of what they did in their death camps. The conventional opinion on what happened is correct as I see it but the Turkish government has fought tooth and nail to deny that the deaths of one million (or more) Armenians was anything other than "a poorly planned population relocation". That said, I'm convinced that a very large number of Armenians did flee their native lands and live under the (temporary) protection of the Russian Imperial army. So I don't believe that 90% of the original Ottoman Armenian population died. No one knows how many fled, nor does any anyone really know the pre-war population. What we do know is: before the war, there were many Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. By the end of the war there were very few, and violence had been inflicted by the Ottoman government against the Armenians on a scale that was incredible. Cglassey 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I know that it's User:3210 (though he was going under the guise of User:Eculum at the time he created the article, because in real life his name was "Eyüp Culum" and he changed the "Culum" to "Kartal" or "Eagle"—a name likely chosen because, according to his Turkish Wikipedia page, he is a supporter of the Beşiktaş football club, whose mascot and nickname is the "Eagles"—because he was tired of misspellings of the last name; a long and complicated story found, in Turkish, here), and I've posted a note on the proposed deletion on his page, too.

I've done searches on the man (as my previous very long sentence probably shows), and he's notable only for the name change—which, let's be honest, is not very notable—and for starting somewhat successful campaigns to get more Turkish Wikipedia articles written, as this article, again in Turkish, attests. This second fact may indeed be somewhat notable, but I (personally) don't think it's really enough for an encyclopedia article about the man (though there are, of course, no firm policies on notability). — Saposcat 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, by the way, the Turkish article on Eyüp Sabri Kartal was also started by ... drumroll, please ... guess who. — Saposcat 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

What?

Hey, Khoikhoi, since you the man, let me ask you this: regarding this recent edit, I'm about 99.9% sure that User:85.98.233.99 is none other than User:3210 (a.k.a. User:Eculum), trying to get around the fact that Eyüp Sabri Kartal is really just a vanity page (in fact, he has made it even more so now); is there anything that can be done about this, I wonder? — Saposcat 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the technical assistance in getting the page up on AfD. I appreciate it. — Saposcat 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, go ahead. Dahn 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you please have an eye on Alisher Navoi and Babur ... a Pakistani user (with very obvious anti-Persian and anti-Shia mentalities) is really messing up these articles!

Thanks!

Tajik 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi, I respect your idea regard to genetic and I am not going to revert it to the previous edition. But, do you agree with order of titles? I see that this article “Azerbaijan people” become a battle field between people with nationalistic affiliations. Some people insist to bring the material related to their affiliation at first. For example look at “Turkic background examined”. None of the paragraphs has any citation. Is that the policy of Wikipedia? Should not parts based on scientific tests become first or at least paragraphs with more reliable references? Are genetic tests are more reliable or paragraphs without any citation.

Hey what up dude. Guess what? Steve McCurry straight up denied the request to use ANY of his images, including the low resolution image of the Afghan girl, on wikipedia. I would have thought it would be free publicity for him, but he simply said no. So, can you come up with some new collage and if you can find any images without copyright problems, then please let me know. What a bummer. She's probably one of the most notable Pashtuns around since everybody recognizes her. Oh well. Tombseye 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, funny thing is I don't know if it's Steve or his manager calling the shots. She actually wanted me to call her to talk about it and then she tells me that Steve would not allow the use of his pictures in the collage straight off. She assumed that the picture of the Afghan girl had been cropped even on the article about Steve, but if we just use the image without altering it, then they can't say anything about it. Hmm, ya know what, that's a great idea! We could just have a bunch of images, only have them separate rather than a part of a collage. I mean they can't fault us for that. Yeah I know it's hard to find images. No pressure man, but you always come through which is probably why I keep asking the next to impossible! ;) Yeah, that damn article has to make it as a feature article now. I mean, I put everything in it, except the kitchen sink. So shall we go with the collection of images sized to look like a collage even though they are actually 4 different pictures (something I did as I didn't have a good picture manipulation program)? I mean I'm down. Thing is too that Steve probably has the best pictures of Pashtuns (and other peoples) on his page too. I wonder if they would qualify as fair use too? Anyway, let me know what you think and we'll go from there. Oh and what is it with people and the Turkish people page? Everybody seems to think up something new to criticize about it. Either it shouldn't exist or it should include the Kurds or it should talk about some mythological origin. Man, the Turkish govt. really did a number on their people. It's like with the East Germans, they were brainwashed into thinking that the bad Germans (connected to the Nazis) were the West Germans (that is succeeding generations). Similarly, the whole nationalism thing has warped some Turks into being unable to criticize themselves. Weird stuff. Well, just let me know if you come up with something, which I have a feeling you will. Heh heh. Tombseye 06:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey what about this site: [1]? They're using some images from Insight Guides: Pakistan, a book I bought before I went there. It's a govt. run website though. also this looks interesting: [www.helene-eriksen.de/ AfghaniEng.html]. Tombseye 07:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm.. I thought we discussed this. Turkish people include kurds. Perhaps it might be wise to merge People of Turkey with Turkish people. 'Turk' is an ethnicity, 'Turkish' is a nationality. -- Cat out 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If that's true why is that the CIA differentiates between "Turkish" and "Kurdish" in the ethnic groups section? — Khoikhoi 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps CIA made a typo. While I do not know why, CIA screwed up big time. However see: under "Nationality", "adjective: Turkish" on the same CIA page you have posted to me. Every citizen of Turkey is Turkish, including Ethnic Kurds, Turks, Greeks and everone else. This is like calling someone a Canadian if they are from Canada.

It is often easy to confuse Ethnicity and Nationality, but I'd expect better from the CIA.

-- Cat out 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well here, check out the U.S. Library of Congress study on Turkey, particularly the Linguistic and Ethnic Groups section. It also refers to "ethnic Turks" as separate group from the Kurds. — Khoikhoi 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You are precisely right. "Ethnic Turks" U.S. Library of Congress talks about are Turkic people living in Turkey, and the aproporate wikipedia article would be Turkic people. Turkic people are indeed distinct from the Kurds to a degree. However, Turkish people (nationality) include Turkic people (ethnicity) and Kurdish people (ethnicity).

I understand the terminology can be a bit confusing as Turkish and Turkic sound similar.

-- Cat out 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I know the difference between Turkish and Turkic. However, the Turkish people article is not about the Turkish nationality and it has never been. That's why is uses {{ Infobox ethnic group}}. I'm not sure what else to say. — Khoikhoi 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no Turkish ethnicity so the article can't talk about it. The infobox and/or the article is probably inaproporate and should redirect just like American people. -- Cat out 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have reviewed the case further and discovered something quite disturbing. People of Turkey, Turkish people, and Demographics of Turkey practicaly talk about the same thing (all 3 exists as a pov fork to a level of degree). I feel all should be refined and merged to Demographics of Turkey. See: Demographics of the United States as an example. -- Cat out 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No I disagree. Let me explain: Demographics of Turkey is not only about the ethnic groups, it's also about sex ratio, birth rate, literacy, etc. People of Turkey is a sub-article of the former that I mentioned, it goes more into depth on the ethnic groups. Lastly, Turkish people talks about the main ethnic group in Turkey (which does not include Kurds). Whether it exists or not is a matter of debate. — Khoikhoi 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Demographics include sex ratios, ethicity ratios etc. I do not see why we need an article that has to focus on ethnicity. Why is there a reason for us to cover Kurds any diferently than how "blacks" are covered in United States? There is an African American article and a Kurdish people article... and no People of the United States (its a redirect to guess what?)

The main ethnic group in Turkey is Turkic people which can be explained in the Turkic people article. A good example would be American people (its a redirect)

-- Cat out 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't think people would approve of deleting the Turkish people page, but we'll see what others have to say. — Khoikhoi 01:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not suggesting we "delete" the page, instead just merge. All 3 articles "rant on" random opinions from time to time. Remove those, and you have a decent demographics article. -- Cat out 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I just happened to see this on Turkish people and then saw this conversation here. Khoikhoi is correct as Turkish people is considered a distinct ethnic group apart from Kurdish people within Turkey. Regardless of how the official Turkish govt. feels about it, the Turkish people are a distinct group in that they speak Turkish, a Turkic language, whereas the Kurds speak Iranian language. There are other factors as well, but that's the jist of it. I absolutely am against merging any of these articles as they discuss distinct things and I can also verify that it's all accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana both describe these people as distinct ethnic groups etc. Tombseye 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't agree with your edit in the article, but I'm not going to start a revert war. This is clearly out of context. Ethnicity of no other person is mentioned in the article. Especially given a list of the history of Iran included in this article on the right (how come a Turkish state be a part of history of Iran but not Turkey), this does not sound like anything innocent. Deepblue06 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If it was just this article, I would not mind this small edit. But after reading some other articles, I've noticed strong Iranian nationalistic POV attempts in Turkic related articles (languages, other turkic states, scholars, religion, etc). Selcuks was a Turkish state, but in the article (on the right) there is a history of Iran box. That does not make sense at all. How come they are part of history of Iran but not Turkey. If a list should be included, it should be the list of Turkish (or Turkic, whatever you want to call) states. Deepblue06 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No worries, I was not referring to you. As far as I see there is a group of users who're aggressively pushing Iranian nationalistic POV.

If I haven't had some good Iranian friends before, my feeling for Iranian people would be very negative after reading some of the discussions on Wiki. I think that this place is a magnet for nationalist fanatics. Deepblue06 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe your reversals of my culture edits were clearly incorrect - articles linked were in each case most comprehensive and neutral point-of-view sources of information on the web. They should also be useful in improving Wikipedia articles about these subjects, especially since they had significantly more content and bibliographies than Wikipedia articles. Explain your reasons or I will proceed with reversals.

There is a big difference here - these articles are not primary sources, so using them as references would not be the best option. They are however comprehensive and encyclopedia-like summaries, each with a large number of primary sources cited. They appear perfect for expanding often too concise and weakly referenced wikipedia culture articles and therefore perfect for external links. My other problem with your edits is that you didn't reverse them wholly but just mass deleted these articles. I won't be getting into edit wars, so please look at my edits individually and either let them stand wholly or reverse them wholly, or I will just reverse all my edits. (Rob011)

Hi,

I'm wondering if maybe it isn't time to try again to implement NPOV policy on the Moldova-related pages, first and foremost Moldovan language, but also Moldova, Moldovenism, Moldovans, and the like. Your thoughts? -- Node 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)` reply

Hi. I added a section to Armenians in Turkey, could you check? -- Gokhan 07:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi. Please have a look at Alisher Navoi. An IP is messing up the article by - purposely - replacing Chaghatai language with (Anatolian) Turkish, which totally falsefies the article. He also replaces the word Azeri into Ottoman Turkish, totally denying Fuzuli's Azeri heritage and his Azeri and Persian poetry. Your help is needed!

Tajik 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I've taken care of it (for the nonce, but only time will tell when IP monsters and their ilk arise again). — Saposcat 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You got mail! :) :P -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

-- Nataly a 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi. I noticed you took of the Photo by Raffi Kojian in the Adana article because it is a self-reference, but in this case I don't understand how that can be enforced since I gave the photo a free use with attribution tag. Technically, now the use of the photo on that page is in violation of my terms of use. Can you please let me know what the deal is in such a situation? -- RaffiKojian 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

BTW - I just read the self-references page you linked to, and it means something completely different than using your name... I think you're off on this one. -- RaffiKojian 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey. I beefed up the older history section and made a bunch of copy edits. Let me know what you think if you have a chance. -- Ssilvers 04:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

hi. could you have a look at the hristo botev article?-i tried to fix sthgs up and put a neutrality tag- this is one of the comments i got "from a Turk I can accept to question the neutrality of the article (I would rather question its quality), but, sorry, not from a Greek"

• the paragraph under question is "The struggle for Bulgarian independence"
• it constantly calls turks "the enemy" and theres a luck of citations
• i put the "citation needed" not because what they say is not "true" but because it is exaggerated "The tragedy ignited the public opinion all over the world"

best greece666

You are right-i confused the sections of the article-so i put the pov tag to the next section (april uprising) best, greece666

User:GDP is messing with the Romanian Wiki Notice board. It is Bonny. Pls ban him or something. -- Candide, or Optimism 15:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm... GDP/Anittas. I've just blocked these two for 3RR. Anittas claims GDP to be a Bonaparte sock; if so, he was probably justified in reverting; but I have no way to know if its true or not. Maybe you do - as I just said to Mikkalai. Maybe *you* know... William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Isn't devoting an article to one viewpoint called POV pushing? If i created an article entitled Armenian relocation, and stated "Armenian relocation is a term used mainly by Turks to describe the events of 1915", would this be ok with you? -- A.Garnet 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

So what do we do? Is there an admin you know who can look at it? I've asked El_C but he has some problems at the moment.

Also perhaps you can help me with something. User:Miskin gave me a source from a book called the Killing trap, i've tracked down the passage in amazon.com online reader and want to read the full quotation, but because i have never brought from amazon.com(I am based in Britain)it wont let me read it. Do you have an active account with them to be able to check? The link is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8190395-9477467?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0521815452# - it is p342 i am interested in. If you dont have an account, no problem. -- A.Garnet 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Google books was perfect thanks. I'd like you to read p342 and 343 if you can, puts things into perspective. -- A.Garnet 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well to start with he states "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks simply was not a viable option.". Referring to Refet Bey's quote, (the one miskin used to prove genocide) he states "a strong disjunction between intention and action is found". In his final paragraph on the issue, the one that immediately follows miskins quotation, he states "Massacres most likely did take place at Amisos and other villages in the Pontus. Yet given the large numbers of surviving Greeks, especially relative to the small number of Armenian survivors, the massacres were apparently restricted to the Pontus, Smyrna, and selected other "sensitive regions""

Note that he also refers to Smyrna casualties, which are in a completely different setting (war of independence) to any casualties suffered in Pontus. The author makes clear they did not suffer a genocide, and when talking about massacres, he talks of all Greeks, including those in the wake of the Greek invasion, not just Pontians. I've left a message with Francis, we'll see what happens. Thanks, -- A.Garnet 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Can we have a little respect here..You know when you say Diyako..you mean "Leader of Pan-Kurd Nationalist party", right ;)? Hehe I knew it was him from long ago, sadly check user didnt show that its him..but it showed that those IPs are all used by Unknownable ( talk · contribs · count).. -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Why do you care about them so much? Are you an Ubykh also? Behemoth 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL The real reason is: Look at the assertion Circassians (including the Abkhaz and Abazins). It is because of the ambiguity of the name "Circassian". I had to mention the Abkhaz/Abaza because they often have a distinct identity from the Circassian one usually represented by Adyghe. Ubykh, on the other hand, had become assimilated to general Circassian identity, culturally and often linguistically (through Hakuchi Adyghe). BTW, I'm outta cigarettes, d'you smoke? Behemoth 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That Library Congress thing contained so many errors. I hope the Yanks are not trying to rule the world according to these. :-) I could have provided more detailed info but I have to find where my issues of the review Kafkasya Yazıları I had collected back in 1998 are. Behemoth 02:21, 4 June 2006

Is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparate, and of User:Vlachul, and of User:Greier... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

re: [2] It is a map with a more recent date (2002 vs. 1992) and I thought it a good addition. -- Moby 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Good point, but could try to find one that is less ugly? (no offense) Also, I don't see a huge difference between the two maps. — Khoikhoi 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

True, the basic data seems just about the same and, yes, the map uses a less appealing style. I actually think that the more to-the-point style is better at showing the Kurdish region. Maybe the infobox in Kurdistan is not the best place for this particular image, but I believe the fact that the CIA continues to show basically the same region as "Kurdish" bolsters the claim that this is the region that is Kurdistan. Note also the inset caption characterising it as the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area. -- Moby 03:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

True, but as I said before, it's kinda ugly. Could you find a nicer-looking one? — Khoikhoi 04:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It does kind of look like drippings from a green candle. However, it is a valid and more recent reference. I'm going to drop this whole conversation on to Talk:Kurdistan and see where it goes. -- Moby 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Need editorial help with anything? I'm happy to take a look. -- Ssilvers 05:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Look Khoikhoi me and you don't always see eye to eye when it comes down to the moldovan issue but usually we always find a way to compromise. Now if you would please look carefully at what I have written - you will see that I have tried to incorporate in that article Moldovans not only from the USSR but Moldovans as a whole - that is why I placed in brakets: "(sometimes reffered to as Romanians)". Before saying that I am pushing a certain POV, please look at the fact that insdie Moldova itself, many people call themselves Romanians, while some call themselves Moldovans without discerning a certain difference between the two. At the same time inside Romania, where 43% of the old Moldavian territory exists, everyone calls themseves Romanians as well. I think that the point of an encyclopedia is to offer information, impartial information. What this article should do is tackle the meaning of the notion of "Moldovans" and if that is what your interest is (and not some pro-Russian, pro-Stalinist interest), then you will certainly notice that what I have done is not deny that the notion of Moldovan can mean something different then Romanian to some people, but I simply stated that the same notion of Moldovan can mean "Romanian" to others. [

I also propose that further discussions should be done at the talk page in order to avoid revert wars. [User:Constantzeanu|Constantzeanu]] 07:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the territory of Moldavia in Romania are not usually included in the Moldovan nationality grouping. They are related, yes, and they share common cultural characteristics not exhibited by non-Moldavian Romanians, but the history of Bessarabia is quite different from that of Romanian Moldavia. For example, many Moldovans have Russian-style patronymics. Romanian Moldavians do not.

This is always an issue -- in Romania, they tend to call Moldova "Republica Moldova" or "Basarabia", and refer to the Romanian region as "Moldova", while in Moldova, they tend to call Moldova "Moldova", and refer to the Romanian region as "Moldova romaneasca" ("Romanian Moldova"). -- Node 08:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey again,

It's true that "most sources" consider it "identical to Romanian". However, most of these sources aren't about languages or linguistics, it's mentioned as part of a related topic, for example if an article is about the Soviet era in Moldova (which is often characterised on Wikipedia in a POV manner as "occupation", which it wasn't, considering Moldovans had representation in Soviet gov't and full citizenship rights), it might note a short sentence about Moldovan being "identical" or "viritually identical" (the latter seeems to be the more common of the two).

Most of these references, in turn, refer back to a handful of sources, chief of which is the Encyclopædia Britannica.

If you read actual linguistic literature on the topic, excluding that published in Romania, the general consensus is rather complex but is as follows:

1. If you have two different names to refer to the "same language" used in different places, they cannot be identical because languages are not monolithic entities. If both "languages" have the same body of speakers, no more and no less, and are extremely closely related, that's different. But Moldovan is not the language of Bucharest by any account except that of a madman, although there are many who will tell you it is the language of Rybnitsa, and at least a few who will tell you it is the language of Iashi.
2. There is also the question of whether the vernacular or the standard is being discussed. With the vernacular, there is no question that there are differences, chiefly because in Kishineu, nearly everyone is fluent in Russian and uses it for interethnic communication (a lot, given the Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Bulgarian, etc. populations present in the city), while in Bucharest, very few people claim any knowledge of Russian, and the language of interethnic communication is invariably Romanian.
3. If we are discussing the standard, again, languages are not monolithic entities. People can state all they want that Moldovan and Romanian are "the same language", but this does not change the fact that "odecolonul ista" is acceptable in standard Moldovan (to mean "this cologne"), but in Romanian that would be considered dialectal and maybe even incomprehensible ("odecolon" is not in contemporary use in Romania except due to Moldovan influence). Other various syntactical differences have been noted by linguists in the standard languages, mostly due to the influence of Russian. In most cases, the Romanian form would be accepted in Moldova, but the Moldovan form would be considered ungrammatical, foreign, or unnatural in Romania.

To sum it up, there are differences between Moldovan and Romanian, yes, they have differing histories since the 1800s when French words were adopted for "technical" vocabulary in Romania, but in Moldova, mostly inhabited by peasants, people continued to use Russian loans (although today most Russian loans have been replaced with the Gallicisms).

Regarding undue weight, I have presented many, many sources that agree that Moldovan and Romanian are not "identical". However, whatever evidence I present, people generally attack me ad hominem or say things along the lines of "It doesn't matter if you have sources, what you're saying is ridiculous, so I won't allow it in the article".

For example, right now the article says that "one moldovan linguist" considers Moldovan to be a separate language from Romanian. That's off -- first of all, Vasile Stati, the "linguist" in question, is not a linguist (although he is the author of the "Romanian-Moldovan dictionary" which unfortunately used mostly synonyms, archaicisms, and unknown neologisms as "translations"). Second of all, I provided examples of other linguists who have studied on the subject and do not consider "Moldovan and Romanian to be identical".

In addition, the Romanians did something totally unacceptable: in many cases, they replaced a statement with something significantly different, but kept the same source, for example they changed "nearly identical" to "identical", but kept the same sources I added (which said specifically "nearly identical"), and reverted all of my attempts to rectify the situation.

There is a great deal of study, especially in Moldova (but also by areal linguists around the world), related to the relationship between Moldovan and Romanian.

Most of it doesn't explicitly address whether or not Moldovan is a "separate language", because there are no solid scientific criteria by which this can be determined, and it is of little interest to specialists. Specialists care mostly what is unique about Moldovan speech, the differences between speech in different Moldovan regions, the influence of Russian, Ukrainian, and other languages on Moldovan language, the history of Moldovan language policy, etc. You will be hard-pressed to find a document *about* the languages of Moldova, written by any non-ROmanian specialist in the area, that says "Moldovan is the same language as Romanian", in any way, shape, or form.

Why is it necessary to say that? Specialists never seem to have believed it necessary. Rather than saying whether they are the same language, nearly the same language, different languages, or whatever, specialists have instead elaborated on the differences in history, grammar, syntax, phonology, vocabulary, sociolinguistics, etc.. And after you read this stuff, there is no need for such a blanket statement.

Basically, it's like saying "The Euchi are nearly identical culturally to the Beuchi". If there are differences, they are best elaborated, rather than written off as insignificant. -- Node 08:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well just the same Node ue, saying that "the Romanian ethnic identity is not like the Moldovan ethnic identity" is like saying that "the Texan ethnic identity is compleetely different then the American ethnic identity". About your sources, I am sorry but you have not presented any sources, except Stati that recongnizes that Moldovan and Romanian are the same identical language. The only thing he disputes is the right of Moldovans to call the Romanian language, Moldovan and that is a whole different thing. Constantzeanu 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That analogy is perhaps backwards. Saying "The Romanians are nearly culturally identical to the Moldovans" is more like saying "the Texans are nearly culturally identical to the Americans". Why would you say that? You wouldn't. Instead, you would describe differences between "Texan culture" and "American culture", and let the reader judge for themselves. I'm not convinced that's a good example though because of the fluidity and non-concreteness of much of American culture (for example, there is no such thing as "traditional American music", "traditional American dances", or "traditional American folktales", at least not the way the exist with the Romanian and Moldovan ethnos). I presented other sources, look in Talk:Moldovan language's archives to find them. I will give you a hint, they included a Moldovan linguist of Bulgarian descent, and a Moldovan woman who has written in both pre- and post-Soviet periods about language and identity in Moldova. -- Node 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, you seemed to be a reasonable guy. Two weeks ago you agreed to a format that would please all sides. You seemed back then more understanding of the fact that the OSCE observers advised that Moldovan census data should be used with care. I pointed out to you back then a great deal of organizations that have done just that and you understood that wikipedia should do the same. Don't you think that backtracking all the way, you are putting yourself in the pro-Soviet camp, which does not do very well to your credibility as a serious and mature partner in this dicussions? Nor does it help with your image as a wikipedian that tries to solve the issue from an objective point of view?

I do not know what your relation is to Irpen, Mikka or Ghirlando but I think it is clear as day that just like Bonaparte has his own POV, so do they, the only difference being that Boni is more vocal and obvious in his POV-pushing. Constantzeanu 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Notice how Constantine follows Bonaparte and Anittas in describing his opposers as "the pro-Soviet camp". I have never said one thing good about the USSR. The USSR did many bad things in Moldova. He has called me a Stalinist, a Communist, and an anti-Romanian, when I am none of the above. Yes, communism is certainly an attractive idea, but it certainly didn't work well for Moldova during the USSR era. The modern communist party in Moldova seems to be helping the economy, but their policy isn't really communism. Stalinism, I definitely do not support. You are told by the Romanian media that communist leaders such as Voronin are stalinists and are dictators, however Voronin was democratically elected. Why would sane people vote for a communist?!?! Because they felt that the other parties had their chance to help Moldova and they didn't work well. Stalinists do not support democratic election of leaders, they support communo-fascism in the style of Kim Jong-Il, which I most certainly do not. I will celebrate the day Stalinism falls in North Korea. And I am not anti-Romanian. Yes, Romania has some problems, but so does everyone else, Moldovans, Americans, Russians. Just because I am a Moldovenist, does not mean I "hate Romania", although some Moldovenists do. You also seem to think that Moldovenism means Russophilia, which it doesn't, because about half of the Moldovenists have an equally passionate hatred of Romania and Russia. -- Node 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Node is a liar. He claims to speak Moldovan at Level 2, but doesn't even speak it at Level 1. He's learned a few phrases, like the parrot that he is, but cannot converse in Moldovan. He tried to be clever with Oleg, another Moldovan, but he told him off. It's really sad that he doesn't have an identify of his own and most steal the identity and history of some obscure nation in Eastern Europe. Node is a Jew, not Moldovan. -- Candide, or Optimism 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Judaism is a religion (from the Reform point of view), so it is possible to be a Moldovan, Frenchman, German, American, Turk etc of Mosaic persuasion. It would make more sense to say "Node is an American, not a Moldovan". -- Telex 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Jew is also an ethnicity. -- Candide, or Optimism 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Should this page be archived? -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change the picture of the chess player, you can add Shiren E in his place. Frankly I find it very hypocritical the lame excuses they are making

[3] :-D -- Telex 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Precisely. -- Illythr 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought we've been through this khoikhoi. I'm not aware of any Turkish article which mentions the Armenian or Greek name for historical purposes in the head of the article as you demand to do in the case of the Aegean islands. I'm only aware of Turkish toponyms of Greek or Armenian origin such as Izmir or Manzikert, which mention the name in the body if the article because they're obliged to do so (as the Turkish name is a corruption of the original). To mention the Turkish names explicitely of islands close to Turkey is in my opinion not done for historical purposes. So unless we add the Greek name in all toponyms of Greek origin (Istanbul, Adrianople, Izmir, Trabzon etc etc) I'm going to revert back. Miskin 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll only leave the Turkish names in the head of Greek islands, only if the Greek names appear in the head of Turkish cities that were inhabited by Greeks. The majority of the Greek names of Turkish cities doesn't even appear in the body. In the case of the Greek islands, even it's a 5-line article, the name will appear in the head. It appears to me that a certain editor went through all the Greek islands off the Anatolian coast and expressed freely his personal land-claims. I won't let it pass. Miskin 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The Greek name is mentioned in the opening paragraph of many articles about Turkish cities, including Ankara, Bursa, Turkey, Iskenderun, Izmir, Iznik, Diyarbakır, and Konya; the Armenian name in Diyarbakır, Kars, etc. though missing from Elazığ and others where it belongs. The Greek and Armenian names should be in more of them. Many Greek islands do not have their Ottoman names listed anywhere in the article, e.g. Mykonos, Delos, Euboea, Naxos, Karpathos, Patmos, etc. even though they were part of the Ottoman empire for centuries (some until 1912). The Dodecanese should also have the Italian names listed. The Cyclades and others should have their Latin (Venetian, Genoese, etc.) names listed. It is doubtless true that some editors add names for nationalist reasons, but that is not a reason to remove them if they are in fact historically relevant. -- Macrakis 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: Despite what Turkish editors would claim, the Turkish language is an invention of the 20th century, and it's unintelligible to the Ottoman language which would have a real historical connection to those territories (yet irrelevent today). Furthermore the Turkish name of Crete or Lesbos is not anymore important than the Turkish name of Thessaloniki or Athens. I honestly don't know how can you support this. This doesn't happen in any other similar case, nor it will ever. Pointless to mention that the Turkish editors will never accept Greek names on the heads of Turkish articles. So I don't even know why we're discussing this. Miskin 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Modern Turkish has certainly changed a lot compared to Ottoman, and almost no Turks today can read Ottoman or even understand it in Latin script. However, Ottoman placenames in both Rumeli and Anatolia are pretty much the same as modern Turkish, modulo spelling. -- Macrakis 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry to get involved in something that (probably) is none of my business, but just to get the facts straight: though Turkish as spoken today is, to a very small extent, a creation—via the language reforms of the 1930s and 1940s—it is only to a small extent. Ottoman Turkish, it must be remembered, was more or less strictly an administrative and literary language, and was not understood, except to a quite limited extent, by the vast majority of the Turkish-speaking populace of the Ottoman Empire. — Saposcat 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok but those are new edits, I couldn't know. You'll see it won't last, they'll be removed eventually and the Turkish names will stay. How come Constantinople is not mentioned in the head of Istanbul? And how come has wikipedia decided to call use the name "Istanbul" since 1453, whereas in reality the name was changed from Constantinople only in 1930...? Miskin

I added the name in Istanbul, which by the way has a Greek minority with the same rights as the Turkish one in Western Thrace (which has all of its cities bilingual). Miskin 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Personally I'm a bit skeptical of all this name adding. While there are Turks in Rhodes and western Thrace, and so the Turkish name must be there, I'm not so sure regarding the other places in Greece.-- Aldux 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Once i had thought that it is right to have the names of cities or islands in other languages in 4 cases: 1. when this particular place is close to the borders of another country, 2. when it has a minority population, 3. when this place is of special historical importance for the people of the second country, 4. when the name of that place comes from another language. if we accept these 'principles', Constantinoupolis fits perfectly in this category! I agree with Miskin in this case: if the greek name will be removed from Istanbul again, i will find myself in the really awkward and un-encyclopedic position to remove the turkish names from all the articles related to Western Thrace... -- Hectorian 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hectorian, I agree with your principles. There are two more, I think, which are missing:

• The name(s) used by its government(s) historically. So, places in the Austrian Empire should have their German names, places in the Ottoman Empire should have their Ottoman names, places in the Roman/Byzantine Empire should have their Latin and/or Greek names.
• The name(s) used in English at various periods.

As for the idea of 'retaliating' for removal of Constantinople from the heading of the Istanbul article, I don't agree. We just need to create a clear, good-faith consensus about the right way to handle things so that neutral third parties will support the correct, uniform treatment of all placenames. Retaliation will not help convince fair-minded third parties. -- Macrakis 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I know it won't help... But i have seen the greek name been removed several times from Istanbul, although the turkish names in western thrace have been left more or less untouched! i am always trying to work on a consensus base, but there are limits in everything. at the moment all seems to be fine and i have no reason to make any further change in any related article.

Concerning what u said 'bout the historical names used by the government that ruled those places in some point of history, i disagree. it would be really messy to have the official names used for every city that has a history a couple of millenia old... How would it be like having the greek name in Kabul or Ravenna, or maybe the turkish name for medieval Bucharest, or even the english medieval name for Nicosia in the first paragraph...? it wouldn't make any sense... -- Hectorian 00:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It is recent, at least for Smyrna. I don't care about small cities, I care about places with official Greek presence, such as Istanbul. As for Athens, yes I would think it should include a Turkish name if it had been excluded from a population exchange. See treaty of Laussane in Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations:
"Article 2. The following persons shall not be included in the exchange provided for in Article 1: a) The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople b) The Muslim inhabitants of Western Thrace."
It isn't fair to have every single toponym of Western Thrace in Greek and ignore the case of Constantinople. The only reason it's not there is because Turkey ethnic cleansed our minority down to 2000. And you still haven't answered my comment on the anachronistic usage of Constantinople over Istanbul 500 years before the name was coined. I'm not some stuck-up Turk-hater but Turkish editors here in wikipedia are just giving me a lot of shit (excuse my French). They won't recognise genocides, they're POV-pushing Turkish names and land claims and much more which is just too much to bare. Once the Greek names are removed from Istanbul and Izmir, I'll remove all Turkish names from all Greek articles, Thrace included. I really don't see what the "historical significance" is, as I told you earlier they're not even speaking the same language. Miskin 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

yes we are speaking the same language. Ottoman Turkish was something alien with arabic and persian words and people had to hire translators to communicate with the palace, just like the english royal family spoke french for hundreds of years. Please have some knowledge before you are insisting on something so much. By the way, im currently allowing the former greek names on cities of Turkey, AS LONG AS former official Turkish names for Selanik and Atina remains. If you want to say Istanbul was officially Constantinople on the heading, you must say Athens was officially Atina. Just to be equal and encyclopedic. Metb82 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What did you do to earn all these enemies? -- Telex 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, I have a question on the subject of the article Hood event. If you look at the caption under the photograph, it reads, "Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade detaining suspected Iraqi insurgents in Operation Bayonet Lightning in December, 2003. The raid on Sulaymaniyah would have probably looked similar to this.". Is this a valid turn of phrase for a photograph caption in wikipedia, "would have probably looked similar to this" ? I contributed lightly to that article in the past but haven't touched the caption. Still, I am puzzled over it. Regards. Cretanforever

Thanks for the response Khoikhoi! In fact, someone added what he claims to be actual pictures from the Hood event to Turkish wikipedia [4]. I thought over adding one, but the source seems problematic. There could be a point in adding a picture if the actual one in that article was also problematic. But finally I think "the game is not worth the candle" as they say in French. p.s. Don't start with people by asking "Are you Laz?", it's considered very bad manners. If someone wants to tell you his origins, he will do so himself. Amicably. Cretanforever

Ciao Khoikhoi, thanks for reverting the turkish name of Kastellòrizo! It's already the third time... I wonder what's wrong with it! I wrote or enhanced a couple of stubs about turkish towns along the mediterranean, adding the greek names, and none complained about it. Regards, alex2006 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. You added the information "..slightly corrupt bureaucrat..". Firstly, he was and is not a bureaucrat whatsoever. He was a politician. Secondly, your accusation about his corruptness has to be proven. Citation is needed. He was brought before the high court, but he was not sentenced at all. I guess, this explanation is sufficient for you to revert your edit. CeeGee 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If I would like to come back, shall I be blocked? Tell me my chances. -- 200.46.151.236 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You removed my Bodie link without explanation, I thought my pictures provided good background, why did you remove the link? Isewell 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You reverted a bunch of changes I put in, all without a single character of explanation. Please see [5] (which you link to yourself on your home page). I'm relatively new here, at least take the time to explain reverts - or drop me a note - so I don't make the same mistake again. If I had evil intentions and was just trying to spam wiki, why would I even bother logging in? Please point me to the rule that clearly says that my gallery links and images aren't useful, because I certainly don't see it. Isewell 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. However, I still don't see why you consider it spam. I am trying to bring relevent links and pictures to articles I see - be it links to wikitravel, my own site, or other sites. I am not trying to game search engine results. If I include "nofollow" tag, would this convince you? I do not think that wikipedia should be an online photo gallery, and so, if a reader is more interested in pictures, then a direct deep link to a photo album with relevent pictures about the place in question would be helpful - to me, it falls under the Acceptable external links category "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." . Please let me know your thoughts on this interpretation. Isewell 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Khoikoi. This user is VERY OBVIOUSLY pushing for an extrem anti-Persian propaganda. After vandalizing various articles regarding Alisher Navoi and Babur, he has now taken on the Ulugh Beg article. He has even changed the quote from Britannica in order to make his pan-turkic version look "right": [6] While the original text of the Britannica 1911 says "Persian scientist" [7], he has changed the word "Persian" into "Turkish" and claims that his change was based on the info available in Britannica.

Tajik 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Just one problem though. The map, Zereshk points out is an original creation and thus may not be objective etc. Do we go back to the old map then or what? I see you are inundated with requests for help! ;) Tombseye 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See, now this is why I always call on you to find something, you always come through. That is a damn good picture man. I have to give you props for finding it. Say, do we just put back the old collage only as 4 separate pictures do you think? Yeah nationalism does blow. Everyone gets into this warped thinking process and start to believe that their 'rights' are all that matter etc. I used to work with this Serbian chick, man she was hot but married, and we used to hang out. Anyway, she would always say that 'their' rights were violated as all of Yugoslavia was theirs or something to that effect. Perfectly rational, claimed to be an atheist, nice as hell, and yet you bring up Yugoslavia and she'd say stuff like "Milosovic" was only protecting us. Boggles the mind. Anyway, I like the map, but is it okay to use in an article? I personally prefer it as it's far more comprehensive. Yeah GM also contacted me about Azerbaijani people. Now that my two other projects Iranian peoples and Watchmen seem to be on their way to FA status, I guess Azeris are next. I just hope I can do it without pissing off everybody! ;) Tombseye 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Say you should ask which of the other pictures we can use too. Ask the guy which of the other pictures also have Pashtuns and we're in business! No more Buddha statue! Tombseye 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi. It is disputed by a tiny minority, please have a look at these: [8] [9] [10]

Regards, Grandmaster 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ciao Khoikhoi, thanks again for cleaning and tagging the Article about Yesilköy. I am new in Wikipedia, and I must still learn a lot! Regards, alex2006 07:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks again ~for your offer of support Khoikhoi! Actually, I don't think you are a chauvinist. Chauvinists cancel all the signs of the past which don't fit in their - idealized - idea of nation (in Italy we had some example about it before WW II ;-) ) . Ciao to you and CA (I've been there almost two years as student :-) ).

alex2006 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Motto was "Mussolini ha sempre ragione!", but History showed that was not so...

I was in L.A., at U.S.C., where I got a M.S. in Electrical Engineering. My best friends live in Petaluma (Novato County), where they run a ranch...They are actually cowboys! ;-) ~

alex2006 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I really don't know who criticised USAK or its publications for being "nationalist", no one needs to because that's what they are! Those USAK people are very sensitive about being considered as nationalist for the fact that the institution they see as their greatest rival (another strategy think tank) ASAM is overtly nationalistic. So, they want to style themselves as "centrist", "liberal", and whatever, shortly as a more "refined" and "civilised" bunch of guys. On the other hand, I guess Wikipedia is the place where USAK gets the highest coverage. Apparently, all members of their staff are now "contributing" to Wiki :-) Ciao! Behemoth 10:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. -- digital_m e^{( t/ c)} 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for defending my user page against vandalism. Timothy Usher 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Dude, those are also awesome pictures! Man, you are the man when it comes to finding pictures. You mean use the one that you showed me yesterday for the infobox? Sure, I have no problem with that since we have all these copyright issues to worry about all the time. Let me know when we can use the pictures OR just upload them and place in the article as you see fit. I'm sure you'll do a good job. Hey as long as nobody brings up the map as the reason to oppose Iranian peoples ascension into FA status, I got no problem! Yeah, I just wrote up a general opening similar to Pashtuns and Tamils, the only featured ethnic group articles. there's a 3 paragraph minimum so I complied. I don't want to emphasize contentious stuff, but I will, with sources, do the article. I'm thinking of starting over with it as it's frankly a mess. Here's the general table of contents:

History

Ancient period

Pre-Islamic

Islamic

Medieval/Modern

Origins

Turkic theory

Iranian theory

Caucasian theory

Demographics

Azeris in Iran

Azeris in Azerbaijan

Azeris in diaspora

Culture

Language, lit., visual arts

Religion

Performance art

Music

Dance

Plays and Films

Sports

Institutions

Women

The end. I'm a little burnt out tonight, so I'll pick it up tomorrow, but I think a lot of the article as it is now will get nixed as it's just a convoluted mess.

They do not live in Crete now, so they are not a minority population. -- Hectorian 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope... They were part of the population exchange of 1923. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, Crete was not excluded. On the contrary, the Greeks of Istanbul were excluded... -- Hectorian 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. it says that the Cretan Turks were tranfered to Turkey. why? -- Hectorian 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hehe... won't she ever be tired of trolling?:p. u were sure that it was her and u were right:)... pfff, she is so predictable! -- Hectorian 04:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Isn't that funny and miserable at the same time? she thinks that by minimizing the numbers, reality can be altered!:p -- Hectorian 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

ok!:) Adios -- Hectorian 04:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What infos are you expecting from me exactly? Thanx -- fz22 08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It wasn't my contribution :) I never pretended that there was a direct ethnic cleansing ... they practiced a more sophisticated technique. The new settlers were - of course - partly moved into the newly nationalised houses and also in the newly constructed prefab quarters -- fz22 07:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, have you checked the discussion on the Iranian languages page lately? Your input is needed. Imperial78

Hi Khoikhoi,

What is your idea about the last edition made by Johnstevens5 in Azerbaijani people specially "examined Turkic origin" [ [11]]

I like that somebody could add citation to this part, but I read changes and I think before adding this qoutations we need to reach an agreement on it. I am not sure editor's interpretations from given quotations are completely correct. I may revert them and them to For example:

Or some of them are very new and I have no idea about them, maybe we need a more reliable refrence on them; for example:

Dr. Alireza Amir Nazmi Afshar states that Turkic tribes and nations are native to central Asia, north/west and southwest of Caspian Sea. One of three languages that the Elam inscriptions were written in has Aral-Altai roots, proving the Turkish presence in the area for approximately six thousand years[16]

What is your idea? -- behmod talk 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry to barge i! But Elamites were not Turks.. Unfortunately these sort of psuedo-scholarly theories abounts in Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan. -- Ali doostzadeh 05:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

After a quick glance, I support your latest changes to Armenian Genocide. If someone wants to present all of those claims, they need to place it in a coherent framework (in terms of integration, sourcing, etc.), as well as adding these to Ottoman Armenian casualties when applicable. Regards, El_C 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you around? Raul654 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Check your email, please. Raul654 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI, I want to announce soon, so if you could email me back ASAP I'd be grateful. Raul654 02:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, but here is User:NorbertArthur, not Bonaparte. I think you made an error. I cannot log in. My userpage has to be unblocked first.

Are you serious? Wow, that's cool ! But are you an American of Romanian ancestry? BTW:they unblocked my userpage, you can write there now. Arthur 8 June 2006

My spider sense is tingling and telling me that the article's got a shot at making it. Now if I could get paid for doing this stuff... ;) Tombseye 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

In solidarity of your work in extremely tense situations in nationalistic arenas and combating racism on wikipedia. I can attest to it's hard work - I've just dealt with such a situation. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Mail delivery. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See here for an explanation. As they say in Turkish, Hastayım, hasta—canım ister pasta ("I'm sick, sick—and I really want some cake"). — Saposcat 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey congrats for being one of the two most prolific editors of the 1000th Featured Article of wikipedia. You are there in the press release :)-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Walaikumsalam, brother. I think there are some big problems there and I dont like to see injustice and falsehood. But my english is not very good and so I am not that good at argument. Khorshid 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am very to see The Iranian People's page become a featured article and to add on, the milestone article! A job well done Khoikhoi! --( Aytakin) | Talk 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on having written the 1000th FA. Hopefully, we see many more. Cheers, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi can we get some intervention here. The fact of the matter is that Nezami's other half was not a Turk and can never be proven. -- Ali doostzadeh 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

...dear sir for your warm welcome :) 85.0.32.97 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article

Heh you are famous now. I kida envy that. Congrats. -- Cat out 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Haha yeah man, congrats, well deserved -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, so I guess the cat's out of the bag. Funny thing is that Iranian peoples is now getting more copyediting than it did back when it was nominated. Imagine that. More evidence that we work well together though, eh? ;) Not sure if this constitutes actual fame, but definitely credibility. Oh and how are the pictures for Pashtuns coming along? Before they put it up as the FA article of the day, it'd be cool to have those awesome pictures you got. I'm gonna work on and off on Azeris today (great thing about working as a substitute teacher for the summer is that I really don't have to do much other than play around on the internet and tell high school kids to stop molesting each other!). So the banner of the 1000th article thing has gotta go on your user page right? Heh heh. Ciao. Tombseye 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Man, good timing. I was about to log-off after a long ass day. The Azeri article took up a lot of my day, but luckily I got paid during my editing! I say we use the images then since the guy says just mention his name and that's all we have to do. What's the harm? Not like he can sue us. Wikipedia maybe...I kid, I kid. Yeah Azerbaijani people is my next FA candidate. I did some major edits and nixed a lot of the repetitive stuff and overemphasis on Turkic Iranian conflict. Yeah maybe turkification could be used for azerbaijan too. Man, you sure know about a lot of articles, gotta give you that. Yeah, tell me about the high school kids, one of 'em, a girl mind you, said she'd smack me if she saw me outside school for telling her to be quiet during a test. Kids today... ;) Anyway, feel free to edit whatever grammar mistakes you see on Azerbaijanis and put those Pashtun pictures up whenever you can. I can't wait to see how the page'll look! Ciao for now. Tombseye 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright cool deal, we'll wait on the admin. Say, can you dig up pictures for the Azerbaijani people page that are just regular people? I'll ask GM and see if he can as well and perhaps Kash if he can find regular Iranian Azeris. Oh that brat got written up and probably got in trouble with her parents as she was on some kind of probation for bad behavior. Man, talk about the bad seed... Oh and when I yelled, "Jesus Christ, this is a test so stop talking," she yelled back, "it's against the law to take the name of our lord in vain." Man, loud, abnoxious, and dumb as a post too. She'll make some guy real happy some day. ;) Tombseye 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See the Nizami article from Mr. Adil Baguirov reverted 3 times in one day.

Hi here is the histories

(cur) (last) 18:48, 8 June 2006 AdilBaguirov (rv., user:Tajik is continually vandalizing the page and falsifying the contents) (cur) (last) 15:30, 8 June 2006 Tajik (rv of vandalism by User:AdilBaguirov) (cur) (last) 15:09, 8 June 2006 AdilBaguirov (rv. - stop vandalism and falsifications about Qom, etc.) (cur) (last) 04:20, 8 June 2006 Ali doostzadeh (cur) (last) 03:39, 8 June 2006 AdilBaguirov m (rv.)

That is 3:39, 15:09 and 18:48, all within the same day and thats three times.

-- Ali doostzadeh 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

He uses so many proxies it's kind of hard to tell. Is he being a serious nuisance? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It looks like he's been blocked for a month. If you don't mind, could you remind me when the block is up? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

ВорчIами Хъойхъой,
Thank you very much for your barnstar. I really appreciate that and it feels good to know that there are some people who actually noticed my entry. =) And there is still work to do. If you have any suggestions, please tell. Thank you! — N-true 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Joe,

I saw your name at the talk page of the Gokturks article a lot—do you think it would be a good idea for the page to be moved to Göktürks? After all, it is the correct spelling. And even though this is English Wikipedia, look at all the Polish city articles that use accents. Anyways, I just wanted your input. — Khoikhoi 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd have no problem with that. The article name predates the time when we were using UTF-16 to store our data. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Khoikhoi, hope you're fine. Could you please provide me information on how to start a new wikiproject. Thanks. Ozgur Gerilla 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi, thanks for all your help. Ozgur Gerilla 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought that 3RR rule considers reverts on each day. My last revert is on June 9, the others are on June 8. But if one looks at any 24 hour interval (including reverts on consecutive days) then I indeed violated it. Anyways, thanks for the reminder, and there would be no hard feelings if you report it. If I violate a rule then I deserve the punishment. Deepblue06 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No we don't wanna switch to the old. I like the new one too (a lot). I gathered all requests from all users for improving the bugs. The Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Summary of proposals explains everything briefly. The most interesting features are 1.4 and 6 (particularly 6.2). The others are details.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Congrats on the feature article!! :)

Svetlana Miljkovic 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Add my belated congratulations too! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK} 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have explained on the articles talk about the problems. There are some which Zereshk and others would know more about but from what I know 100% is that the information about Khuzestan is not right especially when looking at CIA, ethnologue, taheri and other #s on the ethnic politics of khuzestan and arabs of khuzestan pages. north of khuzestan is majority non-arab (very few arabs are there) and only southwestern part of khuzestan (circling ahwaz, khorramshahr, abadan, howeizeh, shadegan) has significant #s of arabic speaker and ahwaz and abadan (two largest cities in province) are majority persian-speaker. eastern part of khuzestan has mostly bakhtiari tribe and small # of tribal turkic-speaker. it is very complex which is why i suggest to imperial78 that such a map is a bad idea. it can become very political if not done with care. Khorshid 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, d'you really think we need this? Behemoth 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought it was conventional to mention the South Caucasian languages-speaking peoples other than Georgians within their relevant linguistic article. Now, you also triggered Megrelian people and Svan people articles and latent discussion with Georgian nationalists! Behemoth 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we shall have articles on those peoples also but I only wanted to warn you :-) I just deleted the line on Georgian people page that refers to Lazistan as a "historical Georgian region" [12]. You see, smal nations usually have big nationalisms in that region. BTW, I somewhat reedited the Cheveneburi article, I guess you might want to take a look. Behemoth 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, he did not like Chveneburi either. A Georgian irredentist. He wants to make believe that majority of Georgian population in Turkey live on the border with Georgia. Behemoth 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hearing the "vandalism" thing is good. Thank you for the fix, unless I would not care to take a look, thinking that my edits were convenient. Behemoth 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you inform the Library Congress that their Peoples of the Caucasus page was BS? Even Levzur would not claim that Abkhazians are Georgians :-) Behemoth 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I can understand "read books" but what about "visit my beautiful, beloved country", is he a tourism consultant or what? Tourism and nationalism hand in hand. How it resembles a country I know so well. :-D Behemoth 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I was talking about my "beautiful, beloved country" but the pattern is almost identical everywhere. I loved that picture and the commentary! LOL Behemoth 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Huhh? Some of these cannot be serious. A Turk with self-pride does never eat lizards! He will always keep his appetite for the real deal of mangal, the chamaleon. Behemoth 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, what's the gag about "numerous moles"? I have at least ten of them in my garden anyway! Behemoth 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I found it here. -- Telex 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

So you think that makes it unreliable? -- Telex 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The word I used (âzrîlr - Arabic text seems to have a tendency of omitting half the vowels) appears twice in that text. -- Telex 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Very nice - when you finish, could you take a look at Greeks. I think that article focuses too much on history. -- Telex 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Holy crap! I was just rewriting the terrible demographics section when suddenly I see a zillion pictures up! Pretty good selection, in particular the menacing one with Babak who looks like Conan the Barbarian's mean younger brother. Say though, can we put back the Bey instead of the gold scythians just cause the Scythians seem somewhat minor in comparison and better off in the history article? Oh and GM (and some other folks hopefully) say they will get some pictures of regular Azeris so that the celebs don't get all the attention. And how about some women?! It's like a sausage fest in that article! Tombseye 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, do me a favor real quick since you're still up (well where I am it's 1am whereas you've got some hours to go) and read the Azeris in Azerbaijan section. I wasn't sure what to put so I gave a quick rendition of some current things there. Not sure I should keep it as the Tamils article for example just talks briefly about where they live and whatnot. Stumped or maybe it's just late. Either or. Tombseye 06:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There is that one anon who keeps adding more and more to emphasize the Turkic background of the Azeris who is driving me crazy. Not only is the writing bad, when I google it I find that it is simply lifted from some website, usually of an Azeri nationalist character. Then on top of that we have a few Persian editors who think no one born in Azerbaijan before the Oghuz is an Azeri even though they claim that the Azeris are an Iranian people as if that makes any sense! And now the Iranian people page is a target since it made it as a FA. Sheesh. Yeah I'll try to reword the sentence and I'm gonna see what GM says as well. Just wasn't sure what to put there, but I do know what to put in the Azeris in Iran section. Ciao. Tombseye 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Just checked my mail. Funny stuff. Okay that helps a lot as I wasn't sure who was doing what. I actually have been changing those edits and I'm going to keep an eye on things as I want the article to make it as a FA. I do so promise and don't worry I'll never tell! ;) Tombseye 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Great pictures yeah. I've seen them before when I worked on Uzbeks though. Did you see the pictures for Azeris though? Pretty good huh? Which reminds me, let me know the status of the pictures for Pashtuns as that page could really use a make-over. ;) Tombseye 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I'd go with the close-up. I like the menacing pictures you choose. They look like land pirates! Definitely put it in the article. Tombseye 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I was just trying to make some changes on Azeris and lost the page cause my computer froze. And then I hear about this on Iranian peoples. Sheesh. Can you believe that guy? He's saying I'm risking the FA status of the article when I freakin' nominated the article in the first place! Freakin' johnny come lately. You can revert his changes too as he's playing the nationalist game. I'm going to add citations tomorrow though to keep him from messing with the article that he had no part in creating. Well, guess I'll be having a good night's sleep. Tombseye 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Took care of that. I know exactly who said that the Persians mixed with locals and it was Richard Frye Prof at Harvard. Plus, the guy's pushing POV. Anyway, that takes care of that. Nah, I've never seen her around. Of course I can't be too scared of a 110 lb. girl, unless she's packing that is. ;) Tombseye 09:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey GM has a color picture of the menacing duo you put up. I say we go with color! Tombseye 09:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi I wanted to share with you some of the nasty comments I am getting from THOTH such as here or at the bottom of here, basically I just share my opinions and he tells me to go edit Britney Spears pages instead. I don't know how I should proceed with this, can you help? JorgChire 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Much appreciated, thanks :) JorgChire 04:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I was watching an Ed Wood movie and gave a little break to sneak into Wiki and found something way funnier [13]. Ciao! Behemoth 05:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

They only get indefblocked if the blocking admin or another feels like doing so. I've never seen a policy saying they had to. The vandalism was silly, and if the person feels like coming back and being silly, I'll indefblock them, if they don't feel like coming back, then that doesn't matter, and if they come back and are positive contributors, then that's cool for everyone. (I have a feeling this one won't bother coming back) Mak (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up on the argument over my map. I have Nagorno-Karabakh on my watch-list (precisely because I put the map there) but I hadn't noticed the discussion. -- Golbez 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

And thanks for the revert of vandalism to my user page. - Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This paragraph in Iranian peoples promotes racial purity. The article needs a careful and thorough review.

Moreover, the Iraqi Kurds are an eclectic Iranian people who, although displaying numerous ethnolinguistic ties to other Iranian peoples (particular in their Iranian language, and some cultural traits), are believed to have mixed with Caucasian and Semitic peoples, while the Iranian Kurds are of more pure Iranian stock. Heja Helweda 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting his edits. Editing this article is like walking a tightrope :). Heja Helweda 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I recommend an earlier movie : Yol. This one is even more depressing :( . Heja Helweda 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. [14]. Heja Helweda 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for the opinion: since (as far as I remember), the user's talk page was empty (with no history), I remained cautious in warning them whilst trying to point them in the right direction.

Thanks for the heads-up, anyway! I'll try and patrol the article more frequently.

EvocativeIntrigue 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Roger that: I'll get round to adding {{ subst:SharedIP|Organization }} to the pages that made the edits unless you do first! EvocativeIntrigue 20:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I mean to say rv last to you. Fad (ix) 20:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As I know you're a fan of including alternative names, could you please guard the Turkish names at:

• Alexandroupoli
• Komotini
• Xanthi

Of any alternative place names in Greek articles, this is where you start. Check the statistics in my subpage User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. There is an actual (and large) Turkish minority in this area ( Western Thrace), and the Greek government agreed to preserve it (under the Treaty of Lausanne) in return for Turkey keeping Greek minorities in Istanbul, Gökçeada and Bozcaada. That's why your can use Turkish when communicating with public services and in certain state schools the medium of education is Turkish in that part of Greece. I suspect someone (anons and n00bs) will be removing the names constantly, so further assistance may be required. -- Telex 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yup, no need to let that go on. However, try to warn editors next time also, so that we can use 3RR blocks if they go over the treshold. (Which they did not do yet I think)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would indeed remind them about the uselessness of revertwarring and the consequences it can have. And I would try to point them to the source of theri problem, lack of sourcing as far as I can tell. Thanks for alerting me, I have watchlisted them both and see how the disussion is going. One reminder to give there at times might be that the page will get unprotected in time, and that protection is not a guarantee that the page remains as it is now (for the editor who might feel vindicated at the moment and does have less of an incentive to discuss). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess I am an interesting one indeed. I grew up as an asocial child, became a gang member as an adolescent, then got assigned to a Hoxhaist organisation, more recently became a lawyer and I currently believe that the project USA is the ultimate mistake of modernity and gender confusion is the ideal dope for a cure. Ciao! Behemoth 06:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ciao Khoikhoi, sorry for bothering you again, but someone moved the turkish and italian names of Kastellorizo again. After that, I reverted the voice. Now, I don't really understand this story. I put the names there only because they are important for the history of the island. The same is done for example in the voices about the border cities in Venezia Giulia. Trieste, on the italian Side is also Trst (slovenian), while Izola, on the slovenian side, is Isola (italian), altough almost no italian live there since WW II, and none finds that this is a problem. There is something wrong with it? There is an official policy of Wikipedia about Geographic voices and names? What happens if a revert war (which I don't want to begin) starts?

Thanks,

alex2006 09:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You can do it if you want. BTW, nice picture! ;) —Khoikhoi 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try looking through the IP addresses at some stage and doing osme WHOIS searches, but probably can't do it today.

I wonder where that picture came from!

EvocativeIntrigue has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

EvocativeIntrigue 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

In the trail of Lazistan-related articles and images, I came across this:Image:Flag-Lazistan.gif rather suspicious-looking image. I found a more flag-like image here:Image:Flag-Lazistan.png. The first looks like (copyrighted) clipart to me, but I'd appreciate your opinion...

EvocativeIntrigue 11:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

---

The IPs are apparently in Berlin. Just use this website. As for the copyright status of the images, simply list them as WP:PUI and tag the images appropriately. Thanks for the smile! :) — Khoikhoi 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

---

Ah, so many tags, so little time! I'll get round to it soon then. EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 13:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I can provide a picture of Coast Veddas but it will take me some time to find/scan/upload.

-- Jdart

I'm cool. Check your mail. Tombseye 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

DO NOT remove my legitimate comments and DO NOT falsely accuse me of attacks. I have not made any attacks but I find it interesting that you do not say anything about PERSONAL ATTACKS MADE AGAINST ME. The next few days will be interesting at this article. Kouroush 23:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It all started here: [15] where he came to the article and claimed that Zoroastrianism was "wrongly followed" and 99.99.9999.99999% of the people are apparently Muslims and "...Why that spider mark should be in artile but not a sign of our true religion, the holy Islam?..." -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Kindly elaborate this. According to any wiki's policies? Thanks! - 219.79.166.129 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI, Kauffner seems the first one who starts making comment on content page. Anyway, I appreciate your help, Khoikhoi. - 219.79.166.129 02:57, 12

June 2006 (UTC)

Ben anlamadim sen kimsin, Turk, Kurd, Ermeni..? Ve bununla birlikte benim icin hic fark yok. Onlarin hepsi bir Hamurdandirlar (Manav-ogullari!). Fakat anliyamadigim sudur: sen,HOI, nicin Avarlara dair safasina STALIN portresiyile gelmeye curet ettin? Sen Stalini o kadar seversen git Stalin temerkuz kamplarina! Senin yerin ordadir. Senin Stalin'e o kadar heyran olmak hakki varsa benim de o kadar da Hitlere heyran olmak hakkim da vardir. Sen Wikipedia'da nicin Stalinist propaganda yapiyorsun? Sen kendi turk-kurd-ermeni (Manav ogullari) etnik ve tarihi problemleriyle ugras. Avarlari ve Kuzey Kafkasyalilari birak. Cunku sen bu konuda cahilsin.-- 80.237.35.244 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

From your friendly (though not always 100% accurate) neighborhood translation service:

"I don't understand, who are you, Turk, Kurd, Armenian..? And anyway it doesn't matter to me. They're all made of the same stuff. But this is what I don't understand: you, HOI, where did you get the nerve to come with a picture of STALIN to a page about the Avars? If you love Stalin so much go to his concentration camps! That's where you belong. If you have that much right to admire Stalin then I have just as much right to admire Hitler. Why are you making Stalinist propaganda on Wikipedia? Go and deal with your own Turk-Kurd-Armenian ethnic and history problems. Leave the Avars and the North Caucasians alone. Because you're ignorant on this matter."

N.B. He uses the term "Manav-ogullari" twice; I don't know what this means in this context (try asking Behemoth; he's a better translator than me), but literally it means "greengrocer's son" and it's about 95% sure to be some insulting term, I'd say. Cheers. — Saposcat 12:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I could translate that, I suppose, but the harangue he left on Talk:Caucasian Avars tells me he's got at least enough English to be able to figure it out.

By the way, have you heard about this? A Turkish journalist—one of my favorites, actually—has the gall to say that conscientious objection is a human right, and bam! she's faced with 3 years in jail for (as the law says, to paraphrase very slightly) "using the media to discourage the people from military service". Great country I've picked to live in (actually, it is—certain institutions aside). Cheers. — Saposcat 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the support. BTW you might want to think about archiving your page again – this is the 100th section (do I get an award?) – Gurch 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply