Hi, I was wondering if you are kurdish. And if you are, then why do you not also support the independence of ChaldoAssyrians :)

Also, can you please show me how you did that, cause I want to post in my profile that I do support an independent Kurdistan.

Chaldean 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey their again, I'm eally not happy about them not having that option. I will ask for it and I am going to work on a page that sheds some info throughout history for an indepdent Assyria.

As for the pics, I took some of them, the rest were by Christian Charity groups whom I have gotten permission from. :)

About the copyright, Yes, actually the owner of the site is a friend of my father. All the Assyrian villages sites are connected through one arabic forum, and I asked them all at once, and all have accepted.

Also, would you know how I would request for a "tag" that says I support a independent Assyria?

Go it, I will try to fix all the pics copyright to what you said.

Got it again, thanks for teaching me all this. I'm new to this :S

Hmmm...the whole issue of where it belongs would appear to be moot in any case. The user "Woohookitty" who professes to be a participant in the Cleanup Taskforce has substantially altered the article purporting to give it a "cleanup" but in fact what he has done is to make it wrong, by removing necessary explanation and inserting misapprehensions and mis-statements. Oh well.

Hello Khoikhoi/Archive 3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Also, enjoy being a part of Wikipedia and don't be overwhelmed! Spend a day customizing your user page and/or finding out the basics of Wikipedia. Then you could concentrate yourself on one or two specific areas! -- Landon 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Ahh, see you're a previous user... Well it doesnt hurt to have a nice set of links on your talk page, does it?

Hi Khoikhoi (ex Hottentot)...does this new account mean that you will be returning? Hope so, cheers, -- cjllw | TALK 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello again, why the change of user name? -- Francs 2000 01:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I can safely say I never knew that... -- Francs 2000 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I never knew that article existed! "Viktor von Dankl" is trying to refer to Viktor Dankl von Krasnik, the subject of my latest article. The phrasing of his name in that way is incorrect. The article also erroneously says that he commanded the entire Russian Front for Austria Hungary...he only led the 1st Army and was later moved to Italy.

Yes, they are the same person but that article should be deleted now -- GregRog 15:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi. I agree that Category:Native American tribes (and a few others which are related, particularly Category:Native American) is a bit of a problem, all the more so since we split up Native Americans into Native Americans in the United States, indigenous peoples of the Americas, and a few others. The whole indigenous/Native American category schema needs an overhaul and consistency review, and my personal preference is for the "indigenous peoples of..." structure. However, I feel sure that there'd be quite a few people wedded to the "Native American" terminology, and so unilateral action might unintentionally stir things up a bit - perhaps the best approach would be to put up a category rename or reorg proposal on the category talk pg first (and/or a category delete/rename proposal), and see where the discussion takes us. If you see Category talk:Native American, similar proposals had been put forward a couple of months ago, but nothing really came of it.

Another point to note is that "Native American tribe" could be interpreted as having a specific meaning, namely that "tribe" refers to the entities which are recognised by the (U.S., in this case) government, and these entities are not necessarily the same as an indigenous ethnic grouping. So it could be argued that this category intends to be a subset of, and is not necessarily synonymous with, Category:indigenous peoples of North America or Category:indigenous peoples in the United States. Cheers,-- cjllw | TALK 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you removed a large amount of material from Papiamento, is there any reason for this? -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No problem, I was just checking. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It sometimes gets confusing what is what with all the vandalism going on here. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You deleted a link to Roj TV from the section Kurdish TV stations in Kurdish languageas "link spam". For all I know thi sis a genuine Kurdish TV station - just now (11:02 BST streaming some sports news in Kurdish language. I The link was appropriately placed and therefore I restored it. Refdoc 11:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please, be patient. Some of them are already listed.-- Untifler 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Howdee Khoikhoi/ex-Hottentot. I've seen your name(s) around a lot and figured I would commend you for all the cleaning up that you do. Also, specifically I like what you did with my empty makeshift ethnic group box at Inuit where I had just pasted in the template but not filled in the blanks. There's more at Garifuna and Uyghur and several more..... =v] // Big Adamsky 03:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

By the way, I recently discovered that there was no entry for ethnic Turks (as opposed to citizens of Republic of Turkey or speakers of the Turkish language or of all the Turkic languages combined), so I created one along the lines of the other ethnic group articles. But it needs a lot of help to conform the the standard of the other articles. Wanna help out? // Big Adamsky 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, logically it should, but it appears to be protected from editing so it still redirects to either the larger linguistic family or to the country. Hm.... =I // Big Adamsky 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Excellent, thanks buddy! So - does the name change of your user page imply that you have gone politically correct? ;p

And what's the great stir at Azeri people? I noticed you removed the disambiguation link to other uses ( Demographics of Azerbaijan). // Big Adamsky 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This user was set up by Kevin but a couple use it currently. I had only edited the one article (and referencing page) becuase it was a new account. The article was not autobiographical as it was not written by Kevin. You may have an issue with the posting as I do work for the company and part of my job is to ensure listings and info for the execs are correct. [My hope was] To keep it from being deleted or being spam like, I did not put a link to the company's website or any products sold by the company in the Wikipedia article and being he is a CTO I figured he was important enough to be listed in Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this. -- User:Nspr 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

hi, how are you? fine? maybe i can give an example. there was a article about leyla zana, and her categories were kurdish people and kurds. but if say kurdish people, than it is not necessary to say kurds, because kurdish people is an subunit of kurds. the same way is for the cities and landscapes. there belong to the categorie kurdistan. so there were al alot of articles, which were mentioned in three categories like kurds, kurdish people and kurdish poltician. i hope i could answer your question. Ciao KureCewlik81 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

There is currently a debate going over whether or not to keep the prehistoric mammals category on each prehistoric mammal's page. Go to the talk page for the category to discuss. Thanks -- aremisasling 17:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You made a good point regarding the need for references for the Turkish people article so I added them in. Let me know if you have any issues it the article as your help on that article and others has been good. Ciao. Tombseye 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Regarding your message, yeah that's me (70.122.73) when I haven't signed in. I notice that we're working on a lot of similar articles about more obscure tribes and peoples (at least from a US perspective). Definitely the things that need it. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the time you make changes, someone comes along and inexplicably decides they don't like the changes and then back to square one. Vicious cycle. Anyway, I liked your criticisms as they were valid so any other suggestions, you let me know as it makes informing others better. That's my main reason for working on wikipedia is that increasingly these articles pop up during google searches and accurate information matters just for that reason alone. Ciao. Tombseye 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, I don't know much people have messed with your edits. I was just talking about in-general. I think the Hazara and Uzbek articles are overdue for make-overs as well. when I get time I'll take care of it. Of course, obviously I make the time for this stuff.  ;) Tombseye 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You recently removed the speedy delete tag from Image:Boatbarkpainting.jpg but did not add its copyright information. As it stands, it should be speedy deleted, but I only readded the No License tag to give you a chance to add ithat information. Please do so, or else it will be deleted in a week. Thank you. ~ MDD4696 ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You are wrong to remove the I Love Syria (www.ilovesyria.org) website from the Shia page. First of all, it is not commercial; it is in fact an educational website. Second, it is a Shia website that explains the importance of Syria to the Shia. This very important to be shared with others because of the current discordances about Syria. So, please read the content of the website, including the purely Shia narrations included in it and put back the link to where it truly belongs. If you have a problem with Syria, please be kind enough as not impose it on others.

It has nothing to do with having a problem with Syria, but with the link amounting to being a personal site, which are, generally, not permitted. If the website was more notable, then perhaps it would make sense to add it, but it dosen't seem to be (looking at its Forum). El_C 07:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

But the forum you have mentioned Forum is in fact empty! Besides, what is wrong with forums? The forum is an opportunity for people to express themselves!

I have explained the objective of the website elsewhere. Please provide more info as to why you did not find it qualified. I personally find it relevant. What are the procedures for resolving such disagreements? It feels like Wikipedia is ran like a dictatorship. Some users force their way on others. Is that true?

Thank you for fixing the grizzly bear taxobox. I tried to update the taxobox from the Brown Bear article, but I didn't really know what I was doing. - Ikkyu2 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You have my support on this. [1] Hall Monitor 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I wonder why you keep removing phallus worhsip part from Dravidian people. I agree phallus worship was widespread throughout the world. However, when it comes to Indian context, it was not part of Indo-Aryan worship. Perhaps, you can browse some of the articles on wikipedia like lingam where it's explicitly mentioned that, Vedas failed to mention lingam altogether.

Manjunatha (21 Dec 2005)

Help me with the article if you can. I started it but it is very limited.

Thanks for catching and reverting the Turkey vandal. Tbjablin 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Looks like he has a new IP 194.27.151.66. Tbjablin 11:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I think that we should stick to the CIA's numbers for all the countries to keep things consistent, but I think it would be worthwhile to discuss this on Turkey's talk page. Tbjablin 05:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I just put minor changes on the "indonesia" subject. Please trust me that the changes are true.

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've noticed you've been editing some of the articles about Assyrians and Chaldeans recently. There have been requests made to merge some of these articles, but, as I'm sure you're aware, there is some disagreement about the definitions. I would like to invite you to take part in the Assyro-Chaldeans/miniproject, so that we can agree on the best way to let all voices be heard. -- Gareth Hughes 18:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Happy holidays Khoikhoi! I made some edits to the Iranian peoples section that I hope will stick as I also added numerous sources for the information I inputted. Feel free to check it out and make your usual useful edits. The last version seemed to have devoled into redundancy and inaccurate usage (such as the Persians being the only Iranian people). Hopefully, now that I provided some context, people won't keep changing it. Then again, that might be asking too much. Tombseye 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the input. Okay, I'll check out the Azerbaijan page next. It was on my to-do list anyway. Ah, the references were placed in the external links section actually. the written references include my books on Pashto and Persian which also define the Iranian peoples as well as the UCLA website on Iranian languages and peoples which I actually didn't list. Hope that helps. Perhaps the sections can be divided so that more general external links and references are placed separately? Tombseye 22:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey Khoikhoi. Well this may be my last editing of the day as I try to stop procrastinating while I do real work. At any rate, I edited the Azerbaijanis page by adding what I could that hadn't already been said. I added genetic evidence that points to the Azeris possible Caucasian origins that links them to Georgians and Chechens etc. as well as other peoples, but to a lesser extent. I know this might bother people from both the pro-Iranic and pro-Turkic camps, but the genetic evidence seems pretty convincing. Anyway, tell me what you think as I did my best with it as I know this a controversial topic and I doubt people will agree even if there is a mountain of science involved. Basically, like the Turks of Turkey, the Azeris aren't Central Asia for the most part. Surprise, surprise. They are more native than was earlier believed as the genetic tests showed them clustering with Georgians and Armenians. Anyway, that's my two cents and if I'm proven wrong, then so be it! Later. Tombseye 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey Khoikhoi. I did some edits to Azerbaijan, but I think either an administrator should look at the article, too bad neither of us are admins, OR we could take out the disputed label ourselves, but it might just end up coming back because someone will read it and still be bothered. Can't please everybody. At any rate, I kind of did re-format and add some more things. Hopefully for the better. Tombseye 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Deltabeignet 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Be careful. Turkey number vandal is screwing things up, but if you are bitten by the 3RR it will just make things worse. If things look bad, PM me and I'll revert for you. That way the Turkey number vandal will be bitten by 3RR instead of use. Tbjablin 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Someone reverted it before I got there. Have you seen Alpacino? Do you think he is another alias for the Turkey number vandal? Tbjablin 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Why do you revert back the changes on those subjects in which you do not have sufficient knowldege ? As per my knowldege and what ever results i got after 'googling', The Govt headed by EMS Namboodiripad is the first elected communist govt in the world. It is not a contentious issue. If i'm wrong, i'm ready to accept provided you substantiate with proof.After you reverted back i put the same on disussion page for which you have not respond so far.

So i again request you- please don't intervene on subjects in which you are not an expert, else you hampering the development of Wikipedia. -- Gokul 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

That was so gracious...!! thanks

Citation added -- Gokul 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Seems your opinion is that I need some schooling. My thought was that moving people from uncategorized to the people category would allow editors interested in people to further refine the categorization. You seem to disagree. Please point me toward some reading on this janitorial topic? Tedernst | talk 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, but I don't know everything about everything. I know that people are people. Should I have to do a lot of research about each page before I can help improve it? I still think having people in the people category is better than in the uncategorized category. How could it be better to be uncategorized? Tedernst | talk 18:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks, fixed. 'Nother reason why protected pages are harmful (having silly people like me messing with the template, and not the people who know what to do with it). :-) Happy holidays. Dmcdevit· t 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Khoikhoi - I've sorted your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Some of the cutthroat trout pages also need a bit more details to make them understandable, particularly conversion of archaic measurements to real figures ;-) Happy Christmas! MPF 17:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It should be the same spelling for all of them! - MPF 18:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

A quick google check reveals clarki outnumbering clarkii by about 90:1, so I think it's fairly safe to say that clarki is the correct spelling. For absolute certainty, one would need to check the original publication of the species name - MPF 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Sorry, what about it? -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert.... I answered your question on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. -- Bhadani 15:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm Jewish... -- Khoikhoi 17:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Happy holidays. Regarding the Turkish people article, maybe it's time for an administrator to lock the page for a bit so as to fend off the editing war as there appears to be no desire to analyze the data. I left a message at Inana's webpage so we'll see if what I said has any effect. The figures being quoted for Turks abroard include Kurds and the figures for southeastern Europe include non-Turkic Muslims so clearly this information is not on the up and up. Some of the data might be correct on a case by case basis, but not across the board. Is it just me or is every article on regional people controversial because nationalism overrides actually information? Well, back to real work. Let me know if there are any other articles that need work. Oh and do me a favor if you have the time and check out the Afghanistan history section including the pre-islamic section as I'm doing edits there, but what I believe is 1 guy has problems with the information that I put in that is straight out of my reference books and academic work on pre-Islamic Afghanistan. I don't know how many different places Vedic civilization is now being placed. Perhaps next week it'll have emerged in Russia. Ciao. Tombseye 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah pretty much what I've been doing with regards to Afghanistan, but I do want to be fair as much as possible. Too bad we can't do much about the Turkish people page then. Hopefully, given that I increased the numbers based upon credible data, the changes will stick. I'll get to the Pashtun pages when I can, but I still have real work to do so we'll see. Some Christmas. Oh well. At least there's New Year's when I can take a real break and get wasted. ;) Tombseye 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, I will adjust the link; as for the content regarding the naming issue what you are insisting on is just not correct; there is a good background given on that on the "naming dispute" page; the original decree by Reza Shah was in 1936 but later in 1959 his son -after a committee reviewed the whole problem, issued another decree saying that Persia and Iran both would be OK. I am not going to change it again since this would sound like a cheap argument but you are welcome to recover my minor adjustment. Gmotamedi 05:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I do some quick edits for the pre-Turkic and pre-Islamic section of the article from ancient times to the Byzantines/Sassanians. As always some input would be appreciated. Now back to real work. Tombseye 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I would like an explanation as to why you removed the facts in the 'education' section in the article of Cuba.

Why did you add "2009 (est.) from United States of America." to the independence section of the Iraq infobox? I've put the correct value here.

Arun 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Re: User_talk:Arun#Iraq Oh, I see, sorry about that.

Arun 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't appreciate your edit war. Having two seperate pages for Contemporary Assyrians and Modern Assyrians is highly appropriate. As you can see the Assyrian people page is already flooded with useless biased info.

Did you splice those pictures yourself? You think you could come up with more of those with the other articles we've been working on? It sure adds to the presentation aspect of these articles. As for the Iranian peoples page, well you can't please everybody it seems. Tombseye 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'll come up with lists for as many relevant groups as I can and let you know and then you can insert more composite pictures. Ciao. Tombseye 00:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

My suggestion is this: If an ethnic group is strongly associated with a particular state, then use a collage of famous faces (example Russian people). In other cases it might be a good idea to have an emblem or a flag in the image field instead (example Yakuts). In practice this will typically involve smaller peoples of less than a million members and no sovereign state of their own in which they form the demographic majority. How about that? // Big Adamsky 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Look, The Assyrian people article should be merged into the Assyrians article. Stop doing it the wrong way. They will be merged once everyone agrees in the discussion dialogue.

Hey Khoikhoi. Thank you for reverting the anonymous user (presumably a Turk or Azeri) after he reverted my changes with no explanation. It was discussed in the Talk page, yet he keeps reverting without giving any valid arguments apparently to push his pro-Turkish agenda. Your alertness is appreciated. -- TigranTheGreat 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey Khoikhoi. Okay, I've found some of the peoples articles that need composite pictures and here are my suggestions. For the Kurds: Saladin, Jalal Talabani, Leyla Zana, Yilmaz Guney. For the Greeks: Alexander the Great, Socrates, Aristotle Onasis, Elena Paparizou OR these alternates- Plato, Eleni Daniilidou. For the Persians: Cyrus II, Khomeini, Omar Khayyam, Shohreh Aghdashloo (not sure about her picture either, but she'd be great as she's well known all over the place). For the Tajiks: Rumi, Zoroaster, Al-Biruni, Ahmad Shah Massoud. For the Pashtuns: Ahmad Shah Durrani, Sharbat Gula, Khushal Khan Khattak, and Hamid Karzai. For the Uzbeks: Tamerlane, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Islam Karimov, and Alina Kabaeva (not sure about her pic either, but she'd be a good addition as she's a gymnast). Lastly, for the Azerbaijanis: Lala Shevket (found at the Azerbaijan page), Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev, Teimour Radjabov, and Ismail I. Whew. Didn't take as long as it would seem. Well that's it for me for now. Let me know what you think and if there are any issues to be dealt with. Adios. Tombseye 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey, great looking collage dude! Sure we can include Zoroaster as a Tajik as he was most likely a Central Asian Persian or close enough anyway. I mean the reality is that the line between Tajiks and Persians of Iran is pretty hazy. I made a big deal once about them being more separate, but I now realize that the two overlap a lot and moved back and forth etc. Most of the time it seems that the Persians claim everyone is a Persian except for the modern Tajiks which makes little sense as it just some form of elitism, which cuts both ways as the Tajiks make wild unsubstantiated claims of being the descendents of Bactrians AND Persians. Apparently everyone is descended from important people and no one comes from a long line of peasants. Whew. In fact, maybe we can just leave the Tajiks and Tati as subgroups in Iranian peoples as they are kind of sub-groups of sorts. I just thought that the Tajiks as their own could claim a geographic area and certain dialects and claim all the historical figures who were born there etc. At any rate, good job. Oh and before I forget, how about adding the Berbers to the list of collages to be considered? I was thinking of several candidates which you can use or whatever else you want including: Zinedine Zidane, St. Augustine, Ibn Battuta, Kahina, Septemus Severus, and Masinissa. Threw in one one woman, but no picture that I've seen. Although I do recall seeing a picture of her that was no doubt made in modern times as an idealized depiction, which is still better than no woman. Anyway, that's it for now. Let me know how things progress. Ciao. Tombseye 09:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey, I started putting some pictures up myself. There are lots of articles that need them as well. Actually, I think Avicenna would be better in the place of Zoroaster just because I didn't realize just how many really well known 'Persians' are from Central Asia and not what is today Iran. Anyway, I put Zoroaster with the Persians already, so if you can switch Zoro with Avi, that'd be cool. And there appears to be some problem with some guy who thinks it's nationalist to put up figures on the Greeks. That's all for now. Ciao. Tombseye 20:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Great work on Pashtuns! Image looks a lot better than my quick improv! Feel free to do the same for any of the others I do. Tombseye 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Sorry for not replying; I was seldom active, and it took me a while to figure the mechanics of the talk page out. Thank you for moving my picture into the Commons; I will continue to move all my images there. Happy holidays. UED77 06:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year Khoikhoi!! Happy editing! -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 10:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

==

Hi. What happened with the dinosaur page and the taxobox template? That's actually one of the pages I was using to test the update - though I didn't realize it was going to be today's FA. There's a 'tab indent' version of the dinosaur page taxobox which got replaced with indent via spaces because the old template couldn't handle it. The new one can, but I didn't want to restore the tab indents while the page is under such scrutiny. -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like Netoholic accidentally broke the <small> tag placement when he converted the template to CSS style. I made a change which should fix it for all taxoboxes. Let me know if you see any problems. -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Take a look at Dinosaur now. Conservation status text size better? -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please make your edit summaries more meaningful than what the...? or "terrible". My inclusion of the Infobox_Language on Aragonese language is part of a pilot. No information is lost.... so please communicate your issues on Template talk:Infobox Language and I will address them. Doing otherwise is impeding an important conversion effort. -- Netoholic @ 09:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Meta-templates are basically "templates used in other templates"; see WP:AUM for a description of them and the problems they cause. My user page refers to the worst offenders.

For the language template, feedback like "doesn't look as good as the old one" isn't very helpful. If you want to describe what you don't like, use the talk page and give some details. I am more concerned right now about how the template works rather than have a perfect duplicate of the old one. The look is easy to change later. -- Netoholic @ 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just one point: Ayatollah Khomeini was not an ethnic Persian. He was of Indian origin ... he was a descendant of Arab Sayeds who had once moved to India. They went back to Iran in the early 20th century (as far as I am informed) [2] [3]. I suggest to replace his face with someother famous Persian. Thx. Tajik 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually Khomeini's family were ethnic Persians from Khorasan and they moved for a time to India and then returned. This doesn't make him an ethnic Indian AND he's an iconic figure identified with Iran so it actually makes sense to have him there. His Arab background sounds questionable too as everybody from Nigeria to Indonesia seems to claim to be descended from Muhammad. I think he's definitely an ethnic Persian and qualifies. There is some gene flow from India into Iran anyway (not that I'm saying Khomeini has any Indian ancestry 'cause I don't know), but that hardly should disqualify people from being Persian. There are no pure Persians to start with. From the Iranian Persian perspective remember, the Tajiks don't qualify as Persians in many cases. Thanks. Tombseye 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see that you have joined the (long) list of people annoyed by User:Netoholic's antics with templates and now infoboxes. You may not be aware of this (I was not until yesterday) but in May of last year the Arbcomm issued a 12 month prohibition on Netoholic editing template namespaces and doing more than one revert per day on articles. He clearly has been ignoring this rule in the knowledge that few knew about it. I have now blocked him for 24 hours for breaching. If he in any way breaches any of the rulings, impose an immediate ban (if you are an admin). If you are not, post details of his breach on the WP:ANI. You'll find details of the admin prohibitions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 14:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Khoikhoi,

I wonder why you have deleted my link about Orca Pictures. I´m shooting images for research Orca research for over 10 years. The Offshore Images you see are very unique and are shared along researchers world wide.

Would you please put the link back in?

http://www.hickerphoto.com/killer-whale-pictures-cat.htm

I believe that those images are as good as the other ones which you have not removed.

I also donated images to wikipedia, so I really wonder why you have removed the link.

Appreciate your comment Rolf

Hi Rolf,

I removed your link because it appears you were trying to promote your website, which looked like it was commercial. Remember, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. -- Khoikhoi 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year. Hopefully, no major hangovers eh? Found that the Portuguese didn't have a picture caption! Added some pictures. Also, looks like the Basques don't have one. Anyway, I'm not sure how long the Kurds pic will last as that page is pretty unstable. Tombseye 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop edit warring. If you insist Spaniards aren't Germanic, provide a source. NSLE _{( T+ C+ CVU)} 05:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, Macedonians (ethnic group) seems fine to me. You will have to convince many Wikipedians (including me) that your move is justified. Here would be the place: Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Alexander 007 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see any Wikipedia policy that says Macedonians (ethnic group) is unacceptable. Alexander 007 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright cool. Requesting the move is the better choice. Thanks. Alexander 007 08:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be fixed now. What happened is that the single 'taxobox' template was set up slightly incorrectly. It had the 'image_caption' parameter being used in the template as what I would call the image description... the text which pops up when you hover the mouse over the image. That text can't handle markup and links (such as on the Sperm Whale article) and thus was not displaying properly. I switched it so that the caption passed in is now properly printed as a caption below the image. I also added a new parameter, 'image_description', which if set will display as the pop up text (default pop up is just the image file name). Unfortunately, whatever bot converted old style multiline 'taxobox begin' templates into new style 'taxobox' templates didn't copy over this 'image_description'... so they've all been lost. I restored the "Scarred Giant detail" pop-up text on Sperm Whale (it was in the link to the old version you supplied), but I'm sure alot of other taxoboxes have lost this pop-up info. -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey seeing as how you have a picture editing program and I don't at the moment, can you do me a favor and replace the English people picture by replacing Captain Cook with Queen Elizabeth? She's much more famous and these pages should reflect as wide a population as possible and that should mean in my opinion one woman if possible. By the way good stuff on the Japanese people page and others. You've done your shadowing work well! Keep it up. Tombseye 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for helping out with that article. One thing I couldn't help noticing: "end of story" sounds a bit confrontational for me. I don't mean to be condescending and I'm not reverting your edit -- however it would be helpful if you at least acknowledged what was said on the talk page before commenting ;-) Best Jbetak 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Happy New Year m'man! Well, I'd be glad to take a crack at it tomorrow when I get a chance. While 'working' on and off, I seem to have become quite addicted to wikipedia during the holidays. Well it could be worse, like crack I guess. Anwyay, I might as well do what I can even though I've probably pissed off quite a few people already with my edits, regardless of what information I link. By the way good job shadowing my Japanese people edits and fixing it! If nothing else that page now officially kicks ass because Toshiro Mifune is there representin'! Heh heh. By the by thanks for the English people edit too and I think the Turkish chick is bothered that I didn't take to her 20 Turks picture as opposed to the clean 4 Turks picture you put up. Hey what can I say, I'm a Nazi when it comes to good presentation. ;) Tombseye 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just guessin' the Turkey vandal's a chick, er, I mean female because his/her page said Innana Goddess of something or other, teflon maybe. Apparently, we're not Americans which hey that's cool. I always think of myself as a citizen of the world anyway. Yeah born in Oakland and lived in Cali most of my life, except for some time in Germany, then England. Holidays with my parents in Texas (not a big fan and don't anyone here but it's temporary). I'm all over the place lately. I miss California though. Hey small world that you're from Oaktown too! Guess that might explain our irreverent attitudes eh? Anyway, I'll work on the Sinhalese manana as I've gotta sign off and do other things besides edit wikipedia! Ciao. Tombseye 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What up Khoikhoi. Well I managed to do the Sinhalese people page during the course of the day. Let me know what you think. Ciao. Tombseye 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks for the stamp of approval. Now just wait a bit and we'll see how the Sinhalese wikipedians take it. I'm telling you, I can post all the references in the world and somebody's going to tell me that I'm wrong. Ah, ain't life grand. Good to see you support peoples autonomy. I think the exact same way with just about any group that shows an inclination towards statehood since nations are highly arbitrary. Fight the power! Tombseye 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh and one other thing, any candidates for a picture page for the Sinhalese? I mean I'd feel like the article was incomplete without the usual montage of 4 people. There's the politicians and maybe a singer who could make it on there. Later. Tombseye 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Fixed up and categories added. Jtmichcock 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the guy who edited the page is treading a fine line there. The article wasn't attributing geographic 'types' per se so much as saying that Turks are diverse and looks vary somewhat. In this case less is more I'd say and people move around etc. Tombseye 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright before I no longer have so much spare time on my hands which will be soon, I'm going to take care of that Roma page and hopefully it'll at least resemble something more presentable. That is before it's chopped up, discredited, spammed, and ultimately right back where it started! Ah, wikipedia, why do I torture myself?! Ciao. Tombseye 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sick unto death of your constant reverts on the Armenia article. The Armenian flag image you're using on that page is awful, the colors are way off. I merely replaced the current flag with the correct one, and you reverted. I can see this is a usual thing for you, but why switch back to what is incorrect? Milou ge 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't know you were preventing Turkish vandalism. Sorry about that. Now I understand why you revert so much. How tiring. Milou ge 07:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why not start a discussion on the reverts on the talk page for Georgian people. I assume you are aware of the three revert rule...no more than 3 reverts in any 24 hour period, aside from vandalism. Are you reverting a vandal...I'll need to you to explain as I am unfamiliar with the topic.-- MONGO 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If it was vandalism, you should find an admin ASAP after the vandal reverts. The world will not end for the short while it takes to get someone to help. -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neto is right: it would have been better to get someone to help you, It was a difficult situation, and the little compromise you found might hold for a while. With issues of ethnicity, neutrality can often be elusive: internationalists believe they are scientifically neutral and nationalists believe they are immediately right. Sometimes compromise is needed, but the bartering is always tough. Community consensus goes a long way: use the article talk page to voice concerns, get in touch with other users and try to limit and space out your reverts. If the user on the other side of the argument does not engage in discussion, they will likely gain no support from the community anyway. -- Gareth Hughes 13:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"You can't vote, you nominated the article." I was chastised before for not voting on a nomination I made (see User talk:LuiKhuntek). I'm going to reinstate my votes on Oyirad and Jüün Ghar -- please post a rules citation on my talk page if I'm wrong. LuiKhuntek 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, been a busy day today and I just came on to see what's up. Looks like all hell's broke loose while I was away just one day! What have you got yourself into Khoikhoi? Well I put in my two cents at the Georgians page. Might as well be democratic about it and see how it goes from there. Tombseye 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah need to try telling that to the Han Chinese too as Mao's just not being taken on. People do come on here and stake out a claim and then resolve to keep up that claim. Plus, you have neigbhoring countries claiming each other's historical territory as their own. Tombseye 06:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Man, I'm already envisioning a Georgian-like debate with that. The folks decided to put up Elaine Chao's who Chinese American instead of Confucius! I threw in, for the pretty factor, Zyang Ziyi though and the emperors I added got zapped. Now it's Han Chinese are the best looking and tallest people on earth page rather than an historical overview! Ain't that grand. Tombseye 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If you have a concern, please bring it to the template's talk page, but do not violate WP:AUM by removing that template. The color choice is not in any way official. Color should never be used for conveying information, since colorblind people will not be able to see them. -- Netoholic @ 07:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. The flag is, as far as I know, the flag of the region of Ingria, or the historic Swedish region of Ingermanland. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. • 辻斬り ^? 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoi, thanks for the help on the image. I knew there was a better way, but I just copied it from the McDonald County, Missouri article. I haven't looked, but I would bet that most of the other county images are done this(the wrong) way - at least Missouri counties any way. I think someone had a bot do them. I had planned on going back to figure out a cleaner method, but you beat me to it. Thanks again. BTW, should I change others like this as I find them or would that be biting of too much, like on the Caucasus ordeal?-- Master Scott Hall 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm still waiting on ChrisO. I will let you know what he decides. Meanwhile, I'm removing the request from RfP. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why this user doesnt support the independence of TRNC? -Inanna-

I'm asking you politely not to write offensive edit summaries. -- Just a tag 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we should discuss the Spanish article here rather than in the "history" of edits section on the Spanish article.

Ok, I think based on the picture that it's only refering to Castilians. -- Khoikhoi 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Which picture would that be ? And how can you support Catalan independence ? The Catalans are just as much founders of the modern Spanish state as are the Castilians. Epf 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The picture on the Spanish people page. I support Catalan independence because I believe that every ethnic group should have a right to rule themselves. -- Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The only picture i see there is the four portraits right above the population figures. I dont know what your talking about. As for ethnic groups, where do you draw the line between ethnic groups ??? Do you want all 2000 or so ethnic groups in South East Asia to each have their own country ? Maybe each type of American should own a different part of the United States ? Many ethnic groups arent as dinstinct and are grouped as part of a larger more distinctive group. In the case of the Basques, they are quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian population but Catalans and Castilians share many common traits in cultures and have almost the same history and origins. Epf 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's the picture I'm talking about. Where do you draw the line between ethnic groups? I remember a time someone told me about this. It bascially boils down to, "whatever they want to be". If the Xibe don't want to be called Manchus, so be it. It's their decision, not anyone elses.

What does this picture of four Spaniards have to do with saying the page is only on Castilians rather than all indigenous Spaniards ? Epf 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I never said that I want all ethnic groups to have their own country. I said that they should have the choice, something that the Tibetans, for example, don't have right now. I also didn't really say country, I said "the right to rule themselves". This can mean any form of autonomy.

I know there has been a large independence movement for Catalonia - they should be given what they want, same with the Chechens. -- Khoikhoi 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you ever consider that what "they" (who may only be a certain proportion) want may be harmful and contradtictory to the opinions of others within the ethnic group as well as neighbouring peoples? Some peoples like the Catalans are simply too intertwined with the Castilians to be considered distinct enough to have their own lands. If the Catalans get what they want, then any group of people that has even the slightest differences of others will want their own country.

Also, a large proportion of Catalans do realize how connected and intertwined they are with Castilians and the differences aren't significant enough to have complete independence. Almost all Catalans have some Castilian ancestry and same goes for many Castilians with Catalan ancestry. The Castilians, Catalans and even Galicians to a degree can be grouped together as the same group of indigenous Spaniards, especially considering they were very similar long before political unification 600-700 years ago. Epf 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Not to butt in, but the current world system seems to look to independent states as a last resort. The US basically supported Indonesian sovereignty over Papua New Guinea and even gave them arms to hold on to it in the name of the Cold War. Personally, I think it had more to do with US interests rather than fighting communism in Indonesia though. Although probably a lot of Americans back an indepenent Tibet, thanks to our links to Chinese labor and industry as well loans, there will simply be a policy of 'peaceful' resolution which is a euphemism for we don't care what you do to Tibet. This can be applied to lots of states and if you're an American ally you can definitely get away with murder. Literally. Tombseye 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What up Khoikhoi? I did a quick fix by mostly rewording the Moldovans disambiguation page. Let me know if you think it reads better or not. Tombseye 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Tombseye, it's good. -- Just a tag 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem Justatag. Khoikhoi asked me to help out. Tombseye 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As for Khoihkoi: It seems that many Romanian nationalists are trying to bias the article, and I'm trying to not let that happen FYI only Bonaparte there is from Romania (Anonimu made just a small edit related to the church). Wjoysl is from Ukraine and I'm from Republic of Moldova. Node_ue and you are both from US, what nation is in the majority ? And your edit summaries like You know Bonaparte, there's nothing I hate more than Romanian nationalists. Your country is NOT the shit. and how do you say "stop" in Moldovan?... or according to you guys, Romanian? I personally find very offensive. -- Just a tag 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. So Bonaparte's the only problem... -- Khoikhoi 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I still don't quite get it, why do you consider it to be the Romanian POV ? For example in your version are considered by some pan-Romanianists to be the same ethnicity this is POV as it relates to what supposedly is, and refers to pan-Romanianists without caring to explain what exactly is meant by that in the first place, then you have when they allege a new identity was forged by Stalin where is that from ? So the man himself, Stalin, had nothing else to do but create new identities for people, right ? And then you say that this version is NPOV by saing "I think" not backing up anything with any kind of sources and going against a silent consensus (Node_ue being the only one who was in disagreement). And then you start to blaim everyone who reverts you of being a Romanian nationalist without even caring to have a look at involved editor's user pages. The final bit being making fun of the language, FYI we study "Romanian language" in school, not "Moldovan language". -- Just a tag 02:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Your version is pushing the fact that Moldovans = Romanians. -- Khoikhoi 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you always answer like that ? You never even try to elaborate on your thoughts ? They must be taken as given or something ? -- Just a tag 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Looking at the section above you'll see that I don't. Anyways, I answered your question. -- Khoikhoi 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, a very long answer showing precisely the paragraphs you find to be pushing a Romanian POV. That makes you just another POV pusher in this matter. Good bye. -- Just a tag 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Salud. -- Khoikhoi 03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey my bad, dude. I thought you wanted a re-write. Tombseye 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh right, gotcha. Hopefully the way I wrote it is neutral enough though. It's straight out of most reference books on Moldova and I've read Soviet history, including a recent book on Eastern Europe with sections on Moldova so I don't think I made any mistakes, but hey as long as there aren't any complaints I'm cool. Tombseye 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, I like the rewrite. But, it was a rewrite of the Romanian nationalist reverted version, so there are a number of essential facts it omits, and it still sounds slanted towards the Romanian POV (although not nearly as much as the version the Romanians are pushing). -- Node 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I responded to your question here. -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'll try to do a compromise edit that includes all pertinent information. Perhaps the Moldavians could use a sub-section under Romanians similar to the usage of Vlach etc.? By the way, it would seem that the Turkish nationalists have shown up to claim the page as their own. I copied and pasted your picture file so I was surprised to see it not show up. Regardless we need an administrator to decide this as these people seem to be intent upon some glorious presentation rather than an encyclopedic rendition. By the way, very strange video. Tombseye 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I did some editing on the Moldovans page and tried to keep it neutral and brought in the conflicting POVs without taking sides. Let me know what you think as there's just no pleasing anyone it seems! Tombseye 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh and I think an administrator perhaps should be called in for the Turks page as these people don't listen to rhyme or reason. Apparently, if you set foot in the Anatolia, you're a Turk. I mean seriously, I'm the one who wrote the disparate origins of the Turks on that page, but people who just immigrate there still have their mother tongue and a process of assimilation that is usually not complete until the next generation. Sheesh. Nationalism seems to be in vogue everywhere. Tombseye 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Done with the request. We'll see how this plays. No doubt, we'll both be accused of being anti-Turkish and conspiring with wikipedia. Man, some people.

Hi. The recent edit you made on Template:Redirect creates an extra white space on all the articles that it's in. Instead on having the <noinclude> on a separate line, it should look like this:

:<span class="dablink">'' "{{{1}}}" redirects here. For other uses, see [[{{{1}}} (disambiguation)]].''</span><noinclude>

Thanks. -- Khoikhoi 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe I have now fixed this, -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The violation was on Turkish people. You must use dispute resolution, and not edit warring to respond to conflicts. Hybridlily has also been blocked. Feel free to respond here (courteously) or email me if you would like to dispute the block. Dmcdevit· t 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I just saw your comment you made the same time as mine. I'm looking over it again, but you clearly made four reverts in 24 hours. Dmcdevit· t 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Inanna's only made two edits to that article in the last five days. That's no 3RR violation. Dmcdevit· t 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

But the 3RR doesn't apply if you revert vandalism. See what I was doing. -- Khoikhoi 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Most of the reverts involved that image and a few disputed sentences. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, and especially What vandalism is not, I find it hard to attribute those edits to a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It looks like a mere content dispute to me. Dmcdevit· t 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well how long am I blocked? -- Khoikhoi 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

24 hours, like most usual 3RR blocks. Dmcdevit· t 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you at least revert the vandalism on Budapest for me? Thanks... -- Khoikhoi 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, Hybridlily just violated his block for the 3RR on Turkish people. (He changed the picture again and blanked most of the article) [4] I quite frankly don't think this is fair. -- Khoikhoi 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

He did it again... -- Khoikhoi 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

...and again...-- Khoikhoi 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why you say Azeris and Turks share a common religion ? It is like saying British and Irish people share a common religion Shia and sunni are as different as Catholics and Protestants and Turkey predominantly a Sunni nation has a long history of opressing Shias, shares only the so called turkic ethnicity with Azeris .Then again which is not the only reason prompted Turkey to put an embargo on Armenia. The article discusses only the ethnic cleansing done by the Azeris and in fact both sides have done many atrocities against each other, and is silent about the part played by Russia in the conflict.Lets better keep the "Neutrality" by not mentioning either sides and is discussed elsewhere. Van is a lake in Turkey not in Armenia. So Hatay once part of Syria, should be written in Arabic too , I agree that the deleting of the Greek name of Bursa was by mistake. But I will revert all your edits unless you have a convincing reason for me not to do so. Remind you Wikipedia is no propaganda tool.-- Keralite 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. In wikisource there is a text of the Livonian anthemn. You had some remarks in the talk page. Coudld you please tell me some more information on the anthemn, if you have it? I am also a contributor to the Czech Wiki and i could place it there. Was it ever an official anthemn? When made? What impact today? Does somebody know it? etc. Thanks, you can reach me also on Wikisource as User -jkb- or on the Czech wiki as cs:Wikipedista:-jkb-. -jkb- 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

P.S. Could you make a translation into englisch??? -jkb- 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello again,

I was just curious as to how you were able to merge all the photos into one ? It looks alot better now. Thanks, Epf 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've noticed the little revert war you and user McKhan have been having over copyedit tags on the Salarzai and Tarkani tribe pages. I've now copyeditted both articles as I was in agreement with you that they really weren't up to scratch. Hopefully I've correctly extacted the useful information, but if I've made any errors please correct them. Hopefully this will resolve the dispute and let the articles develop. I've also labelled them as stubs so hopefully someone will pick them up and develop them further. Kcordina 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please see my response to the debate sparked by these articles on McKhan's talk page, where I propose a solution. Kcordina 09:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• In view of the absence of progress in resolving this dispute, I have lodged a request with the Mediation Cabal, who will hopefully be able to help everyone arrive at a sensible conclusion. (see request here.) Kcordina 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

K-k, you might wanna read this posting. I strikes me as slightly mocking and deliberately confrontational, and serving no constructive/informative purpose. Perhaps worth reporting? // Big Adamsky 15:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, what up Khoikhoi? If you get a chance can you do me a favor? Well, a favor for wikipedia would be more like it, but the picture on the Azeri page, can you fix it so that it's consolidated with your program? Looks like you've got a lot on your plate though. Keep up the good fight! Tombseye 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well I didnt know you could make one on our own. I did, but I dont know how to make it into a tag. But you can still put it in your profile ;)

I dont know how you did it, but THANK YOU! :D

You see that is exactly the problem with WikiPedia that amateurs here like to think that they are experts. If you don't know where the Salarzais or Tarkani live then why would you even touch those pages? And Pashtuns live all the way from Georgetown to Sydney and Los Angeles to Jo'burg. So, why would you think that there are no Pashtuns in India? Did you bother to look at the sources? How much do you know about Pashtuns? And what about the independence of Palestine or Kashmir? I can see that you have been previously blocked. I would strongly recommend for you to not to touch those page which you know nothing about. McKhan

I will make sure that you get blocked because you think that you are an expert on Pashtuns. I am taking this matter to the higher level. McKhan

Let's tone it down a notch, shall we? I have a question: why are any of you adding {{copyedit}} tags to articles consisting only of two lines? Thanks in advance to you both. Regards, El_C 06:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If you look at the articles you'll notice that the English is terrible and they are hard to understand. Apparently McKhan took it personally. -- Khoikhoi 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Which is to say, if it's that brief, I'd assume you'd just do the copyediting on-the-spot as oppose to adding a copyedit tag, no? El_C 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not really that good at copyediting. I'm better at formatting articles. -- Khoikhoi 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see. Thank you. El_C 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I posted those articles and the original text was written by the British Intelligence officers almost 100 years ago. But Khoikhoi considers himself to be a "copyediting-tag" cop. So, he had to jump in and VANDALIZE those pages in the name of being "native" speaker, first, and then when he couldn't do that then he invited Kcordina to do the "copyediting" job. Ironically, Khoikhoi and Kcordina know almost NOTHING about Pashtuns and yet they love to "copyedit" pages. This is precisely the reason that WikiPedia is NOT taken very seriously. McKhan

Hi McKhan. I'm looking at Wur and I have a question. In the lead, which reads "fellow Pashtun tribe of Kakazai, (3,000 ; Bajaur, principally in Watelai valley) - A division of the Mamund, Tarkanis": [1.] What does fellow refer to? [2.] What is Kakazai? [3.] 3000 is the population, right? [4.] Where is Bajaur, the Watelai valley, and Mamund Tarkanis are? [5.] What sort of division? Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Accusing people of vandalism when there isn't any proof (even if you did, are you sure it meets Wikipedia definitions?) is serious, do not do it again, McKhan. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't ask Kcordina to help me. He saw the copyedit tag and did it himself. If you consider adding Template:copyedit to pages vandalism, then that's fine with me, but I've asked you awhile back to give the tag a chance, and you kept on removing it. -- Khoikhoi 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just posting here too for good measure, I have blocked McKhan for 3 hours for incivility. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I still don't know why he had a problem with the copyedit tags. -- Khoikhoi 07:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's important to ensure that he understands their function, or better yet, to point out to him what copyeditable issues exist, so that he is able to correct himself and improve. El_C 07:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have explained it to him awhile back. See User talk:McKhan#Template:Copyedit and the next 2 sections. -- Khoikhoi 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Stop stalking my edits. You've never edited Fasile before, and that is true for many of your reverts of my work. You're obviously looking for occassions to screw with me, and using my contribs for that purpose. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.
2. You are reverting efforts which, whether you like it or not, must come to pass. By reverting my sample conversions of language templates, you are in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates.

If you do not stop this behavior, and reserve your comments to my talk page or one of the talk pages related to these projects, I will gather evidence of both offences and present it to adminstrations, WP:RFC, and beyond. You are a persistent revert warrior on many pages and against many people. If you are unable to control yourself, controls will eventually be put on you. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I wasn't stalking. I noticed your comment on Template talk:Language and that's how I found out. -- Khoikhoi 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Precisely my point. I converted a single article as a demonstration, and you disruptively reverted that single change within minutes... not even allowing people to look at the template in context. My warning stands. If you continue to do this, I've told you what will happen. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Fine, I won't revert anymore, as long as you promise to stop threatening me. And what do you mean, "precisely my point"? Your point was proven wrong!-- Khoikhoi 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The point being that you're being disruptive, interfering with a conversion that is mandatory, and doing all that without even bothering to participate in the discussions related to the conversion. -- Netoholic @ 07:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just saying you'd be a complete hypocrite for reporting because I'm being disruptive. -- Khoikhoi 08:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

... which is still against Wikipedia policy. So please stop it. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 08:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I will. But please tell Netoholic to stop pushing policies in people's faces. -- Khoikhoi 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree on this point, Netoholic, there has to be compromise, so I think you should just let it slide a few times until it becomes so blatant. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 08:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you really think labeling your edits "1st revert", etc. would work? That's 4.... or should I say 5? -- Netoholic @ 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The previous edits before my "1st revert" edit were not reverts - see for yourself. -- Khoikhoi 08:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please explain why you reverted that template to the "licence" version again. Nobody ever gives any explanations. - Sikon 11:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kcordina wrote to me regarding some conflict with the Tarkani article and wanted me to intercede if possible. McKhan's reference, I think, refers to pre-partition British India, which including the Pashtun territories that are now part of Pakistan so the reference is about a region in what is today Pakistan rather than India. You're correct about Pashtun name usage though and McKhan probably should have just explained his reference usage, but hey tempers seem to flare here quite a bit. Oh and I reverted Turkish people, but doubt that'll be for the final time and the French people seem to be going through similar problems. Don't let the Turkish posters get to you as we know there are obviously many Orhan Pamuks out there who defy convention and willingly stand up to voice their opinions even if everyone else has already passed judgement. You'd think they'd admire the guy for having the balls to start a debate on a controversial topic rather than just condemning the guy. Later. Tombseye 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lol, that's just funny. Well, I'll go through as many of McKhan's edits as I can that don't read well. Yeah I don't get the French people deletion thing either. Looks like something's up with Turkish people though. I believe Big Adamsky, who started the article which I thought was a good idea, has put in a request to protect the article. Is it just me or at these people really obtuse? I keep explaining the reasons why it's believed Turks are largely indigenous and they keep taking offense to any mention of Greeks, Armenians or Kurds as if I have some agenda to promote. Not to mention the conspiracy theory on the part of Canadian universities to undermine the good name of historical Turks. Man and that comment about Armenians by -Inanna- was not cool. Maybe there was something lost in translation as I know these guys aren't native writers of English, but man that's just wrong. Late. Tombseye 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh she said, and I quote, Armenians are already degenerate people.Nobody knows what they are. Charming nationalist ain't she? There seems to be a combination of truth and made-up statements such as Barbarosa's deal. Someone edited his page to say that he's a descendent of some Jannisary now. The Rumi thing's bizarre too. He's a Persian writer so how he's Turkish I don't know. Yeah the Armenian issue is tough to figure out, but I believe the Turkish forces 'punished' them for aiding the Russians and through forced marches killed a lot of them. The Armenian rebels did kill Turks as well, but not on the same scale. Regardless, these guys are delusional if they think Turkish treatment of minorities has ever very accommodating. I think if we relate the term multiculturalism to them, then the response will be, multi-what? No such thing, Turks accept everyone! Still though, these people aren't representative of all Turks. I had a flatmate who was Turkish and he was cool cat. He even talked about the Armenian Genocide as if it were possible, which surprised me. Good attitude as he was open to talk about rather than dismiss it. Hybridlily's making personal attacks, eh? Maybe that name should be changed to hillbilly if that's how it's going to be. Now, that's just hilarious (and disturbing) that some guy threatened to kill your relatives over a wikipedia article. Very strange that he guessed you had a sister. Well the odds are pretty good and it probably beats saying he'll kill your brother I guess. I haven't gotten stuff that extreme yet. You get all the luck with all the weirdos. Heh heh. Tombseye 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey again, thanks for grouping the Scots photos into one. I was wondering if you could possibly do the same for the Welsh people page as I put four photos from Wikipedia up theres as well. It was difficult to find Welsh people photos but the current ones of David Lloyd George (ex-British PM), Tom Jones (singer), Christian Bale (Batman), and Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic from F4, Lancelot from "King Arthur") I think are decent. Thanks again, Epf 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed, I think at least two of the three contemporary ones should be there though since all of them are quite big stars. I was gonna pick Anthony Hopkins but Hannibal scares the crap outta me, lol. I'll continue the search for an older prominent Welshman. Epf 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I added the famous inventor of that lovely mathematical formula of Pi, William Jones, as well as scientist Alfred Russel Wallace who was integral in the development of the theory of evolution along with Darwin. I could not find photos of older eras of Welsh people. The famous Welsh princes such as Owain Glyndŵr did not have any portraits or images of any sort on Wikipedia. Let me know if the current selection of photos will do for you to merge them. If you want an image of a Welsh person from the middle ages, it will be hard to find and will have to a certified photo to be uploaded from somewhere on the net. A number of English kings were born in Wales but they would hardly be considered Welsh by most Welsh people, especially the ones who fought wars against Welsh independence (eg. Henry V).

You cannot decide how pages must seem like according to your own values. If you want to change something, please share your opinion which can be supported by valuable resources.

Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing this from a POV-vandal. -- Khoikhoi 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

it is your opinion. ı always show my resources. Unfortunately, you don't read it, even for once.

What resources? -- Khoikhoi 08:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I was not suprised to know that you didn't read any discussion at Talkpage. If you don't mind reading it, please read them first, then answer.-- hybrid lily 08:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks to your user page, last week I read a lot about West Papua :-) I saw you moving in PK, could you post a comment to Talk:Districts_of_Pakistan. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I went through and looked over the changes made by Divine Intervention and didn't think they were too bad actually. I made some changes though to clarify a few things and of course the picture edit war continues. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the Greeks were Greek-speakers as he's correct that while there was large-scale ancient Greek emigration into Anatolia along the Ionian coast, most of the rest of the Anatolians were Hellenized, while the Armenians and Kurds were much smaller regional peoples. I made some changes that may also please the Turkish nationalists, although this is not my intent, as I changed the beginning section to simply Anatolian rather than Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds just to clarify the sometimes confusing situation with the Turks. I see you've been quite busy though. The problem with some of these Pashtun 'tribe' articles is that they seem to just come from one very old source and it's not clear as to the population figures' source either. Some of these are minor khels or clans and not actual tribes either. Obviously, editing this stuff is tough as there is conflict over the usage of Pashtun vs. Pathan etc., but the Mamund are Pashtun. One of the sources is just some guy's page and the references are in Urdu, so I'm not sure about the reliability of that kind of reference either. Frankly, the Pashtun page has seen an explosion in the tribes section with tribes I've never heard of or read about. It's becoming quite a mess, but I'll see what I can dig up. Stay out of trouble. :) Tombseye 20:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, reverted Bulgarian page and read Lily's comments. What a little kid. Geez. Talk about misrepresenting things. He compromises on nothing and then has the audacity to accuse me of things I haven't said or done. Definitely a language barrier. Thanks for the heads up. Tombseye 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Their comments are really bizarre on Turkish people page. They don't understand what I'm saying clearly or are so enamored by nationalist beliefs that there is no room for compromise. As for the comment on Sinhalese, how different are the stats going to be since the Sinhalese clearly dominate the island. The stats might come out higher actually if we exclude the Tamils, but I think we need some section that talks about the Sinhalese socially. Gotta keep it. Tombseye 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Right, that's not surprising at all since in addition there are a lot more Tamils in the world anyway. Obviously, some degree of hostility there. Not sure why anyone would be offended with the Sinhalese page as I got through saying how closely related they are to each other. It's never enough it seems. The language barrier is a major issue here. The people who know English as a 2nd language seem to misunderstand a lot of usage or take offense without much consideration of context. This would be one reason why I don't want to edit pages in German as my German's about as good as their English. All the pages are devolving with nationalist emphasis too that paints their neighbors as villains and unrelated etc., while there is an emphasis upon the gloriousness of whatever group in question. What a wacky world. Tombseye 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lol, that's funny. Ya know this guy from the Han Chinese page made a good point about pictures on the people page. He said that it actually makes more sense to put up pictures of ordinary people as opposed to famous people who aren't really representative. What's interesting is that, for example, you go the vandal who keeps insisting that 'Afghans' are not worthy of being counted on the Persians page etc. also no doubt insisting that anyone famous from the past is a Persian, whereas the modern Tajiks aren't even if the famous people of the past were born in the areas where Tajiks now live. It's just bizarre how much mythology and nationalistic rhetoric goes into ethnic identity. If nothing else it's an interesting social experiment just seeing the reactions. Belief vs. proof. Propaganda vs. open debate. Hell, not taking a solid stance can be construed as weakness on one's position. Tombseye 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The stats for Turks in Cyprus is insane. How is that there are more Cypriot Turks than overall Cypriots and the figures for ex-pat populations aren't verifiable as the link Inanna gave is just some guy's essay that doesn't cite where the figures come from. Plus, the numbers are being stated on both the Turkish people page and the Turkish Cypriot page. I just don't get it. Hell, if there are that many Turkish Cypriots I have no problem with it, but some evidence that isn't just some guy's opinion page would be nice. Tombseye 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, Inanna's right on the figures for Pomaks (Bulgarians) in Turkey. Just checked it out and ethnologue backs it and the stats are referred to in the article I cited on Turks in Bulgaria. First time for everything. Tombseye 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey you know who reverted the Turkish people page and seems to now believe that Russian Jews are Turks anyway. For the love of the gods, this is freakin' nuts. She broke the 3RR rule by the way. Not that it'll make any difference. There's just no reasoning, just looking for justification. Tombseye 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it makes perfectly good sense to regard Turkish Cypriots as a distinct sub-group within the wider Turkish nation. The original Turks of Cyrpus (dating from the Ottoman era) maintain a separate identity from the people who moved over from Anatolia in teh past two decades.

Oh and, a word of advice: No troll-feedin', please ;). // Big Adamsky 05:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

They are harmful to the community. Even if your content is justified, it's better to let it pass for a moment and let other members of the community handle it. I am blocking you for twenty-four hours because of your revert war with and violation of 3RR -Inanna-, who will also be blocked. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem is that -Inanna-'s IP changes all the time, so the block won't take any effect. -- Khoikhoi 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll let you know when this happens. -- Khoikhoi 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Inanna is using the sockpuppet 81.213.97.244!!! -- Khoikhoi 01:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If someone else sees this please let User:Natalinasmpf know! -- Khoikhoi 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Noted. If this is confirmed sockpuppet evasion I will extend the block. Sorry not seeing this earlier. I've asked for a CheckUser just to confirm, as it seems very likely, but I need it just for procedure. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem is that Inanna's IP changes all the time. If you extend the block, she will just use another IP. -- Khoikhoi 05:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If this resurfaces this will be dealt with. In the mean time, stay away from revert wars. Cheers! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 06:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppet evasion continues at 85.101.234.127... This person edited an image that Inanna uploaded, so I know it's her. -- Khoikhoi 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have to say that I did not expect such antagonism towards the standard inclusion of Kurds as being one of the Iranian peoples - as I have stated on the talk page, this is absurd to no end. The article itself clearly articulates the definition, and this deletion only fuels the modern idea that "Iranian peoples" primarily means "Persian" or "Iran" which of course is not true. This sort of thing is getting pretty old, but what can be done. ;) SouthernComfort 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, these are recurring problems with many peoples pages, especially when dealing with age old animosities or nationalism. Unfortunately, both Persians in Iran and other Iranian people relate the term to modern Iran. What's more, Persians prefer to emphasize a relationship with the Azeris and Kurds and often want to dismiss the Tajiks (except for important historical figures whom they want to claim as their own for nationalist purposes). None of these things make an academic sense. It's just nationalism. The Kurds are broading included as Iranian peoples due to their language, which is clearly Iranian, and in part their ancestry which is also partially derived from the ancient Iranian tribes that gave them their language. That's it. The Kurds need to understand that the usage of the term Iranian is like Germanic. This doesn't literally mean only the Germans of Germany. It's linguistic, in part based upon some common ancestral ties in addition, and some discernable historical currents such as the Saxons invading England and genetic tests that have verified that the English are roughly 50% of Germanic ancestry. that's all this is. I thought we'd conveyed this point on the Iranian peoples page so let me know if this is not clear because I don't know what else can be said at this point. Tombseye 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

- for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. -- Janke | Talk 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, what's life with a little trouble, eh? Been busy, but I looked into what you were told me. Well, I wrote Averagejoe a response, but we'll see if he buys it or not. The replacement theory's not very likely and isn't supported by much other than elite transfers and military invasions which have rarely led to mass population replacement. Plus, the genetic evidence links most Turks not to Central Asia, but to the eastern Med. Same is true with the Azeris who seem to show even less Central Asian ancestry, at least with preliminary tests, so anyway that's the deal. As for the Kurds, the main criteria is their Iranian language and their PARTIAL Iranian ancestry. They genetically cluster moreso with the Caucasus and then secondarily to the Iranian peoples. That's a connection as it shows some Iranic peoples imparted both their language and their genes to a larger Caucasian population. Same is true in Sri Lanka, where a small Indo-Aryan speaking group imparted their language to a much larger group and then vanished into the population. If the Kurds can't be considered Iranian people, then the English aren't Germanic even though their language is. It's not meant to be an absolute, but a general category based upon numerous factors, emphasized by language and at least some partial ancestral connections. Man, nationalism sure makes dealing with these pages tough. Tombseye 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I just mean that picture Inanna keeps putting up with the multiple famous 'Turks' which includes Roxelana who was not from Turkey and was a not Crimean Tatar or a Khazar or whatever she's claiming. It's ridiculous. Even after she knows that she had it wrong, she insists on putting her picture up as if she was a Turk. That's what I mean by Ottoman subjects as with the Barbarosa brothers. I mean come on. There are numerous books and online references and instead all we get is, no these were all famous Turks including Rumi now. It's like talking to someone from the Soviet Union days when many Soviet citizens would claim that everything from the wheel to the automobile was invented by a Soviet/Russian. All I gotta say is nationalism blows. Still though, you've been diligent in trying to curtail it. The pictures thing should just be accurate and we should just leave it at that at this point, which the multiple Turks picture is clearly not. Tombseye 06:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Totally agree on nationalism and fundamentalism. It's really rampant too. That's hilarious with the picture dude! They are going to be so steamed and frustrated, at least for a while. Tombseye 06:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see you did the old switcheroo with the Persians page. If and when they get rid of Khomeini, I'd say let it go though. I mean if he's this divisive, it's probably better to just have a picture of some famous Persian that isn't quite as controversial anyway. No big deal. Khomeini's inclusion is probably as offensive to people as the Shah's picture would be. Might as well just let it go. Hell, I'm surprised it stayed up as long as it did! Tombseye 08:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the replacement of Khomeini with Mossadeq is okay. He's not that divisive a figure as he was democratically elected and then ousted by the Shah (whom many Persians dislike and is quite divisive) and then Khomeini got rid of the Shah etc. Mossadeq's removal kind of marks the decline of democracy and the Shah's efforts to wipe out democratic groups led to the Iranians favoring Khomeini just because many of them just hated the Shah. In terms of modern political figures, he's up there with Khomeini and the Shah in the minds' of many Persians I'd say. Yeah, the removal of Hitler and Stalin isn't a great loss and no need to bother people. I'll do what I can for the Georigans otherwise. :) And I agree on the Turkish people page. They're not even listening at this point and when proven wrong, keep persisting as if we have some anti-Turkish agenda, which frankly I don't have. I liked Turkey when I visited there and didn't think ill of the people at all. Not that they'd believe me. Tombseye 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, let the Pamuk thing go dude. Just my recommendation as I know we fought to have him there, but there's no reason to be divisive and throw this stuff in peoples' faces either. What we need to insist upon is that non-Turks not be put back up like Roxelana as representatives. That's definitely a POV issue and one that we are definitely right in contesting. Otherwise, just let it go. It's a democratic thing anyway and it looks like more people want Pamuk gone (or just don't care really) than want him in. For his detractors, its' their loss frankly as he's a brave guy for questioning what everyone else has mindlessly accepted in the name of nationalism. Tombseye 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Khomeini is not 3/4th Persian. His mother is Indian and his black turban indicates that he's descendant from Arabs from father's side, so at best he's 1/4th Persian.

Not true, see Persian discussion page.

Tombseye 08:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi,

Iranian origin does not mean Persian. Unless you have a source that explicitly calls Khomeini a Persian, you are vandalizing and bullying. ManiF

I am left speechless at the absurdity of this situation and while I am indifferent to whether or not he is included, to argue that Khomeini is not Persian is just stupid and implies in a very racist (and totally false) manner that Iranians were so simple-minded and naive that they put a foreigner into the most powerful position of the nation. That is just stupid. As Tombseye has stated, he is definitely a divisive figure and it would be best to replace him with someone else, but at the same time Khomeini is the most iconic figure associated with Iran (and as a result, of Persians, who were his primary base of support - again, for better or for worse) in modern times. Mossadegh is not an ideal replacement because he is not iconic and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who is iconic (from the perspective of the average Western reader), is just as divisive a figure as Khomeini.

I have no idea who to suggest as a replacement (of someone from modern times) since we are left with two very volatile extremes. My suggestion is to include more than four people (shrinking the photos down even further), and including Khomeini, the last Shah (or Reza Pahlavi), and a couple of artistic figures. We will never be able to satisfy everyone. What do you think? SouthernComfort 09:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that the treatment of Khomeini is now bordering on the absurd. The source regarding his 'foreign' origins is a joke. The author doesn't even discuss his background in-depth and plays with his name being Hendi as evidence of his origins, which is not being kept a secret, and then looks to link him to the Sikhs (?!) based upon only symbol similarity. Just like the Shah, who had more political motives. Come on. My source is at least reviewed in the New York Times and has academic credibility. Geez. You know what, taking him off the Persian page is okay, but in no way should this be an indication that we're agreeing that Khomeini was not an ethnic Persian. Mossadeq's okay, but, like Southern Comfort, I'm not liking this idiotic assertion that Khomeini was not an ethnic Persian. I mean how ridiculous is this? I also find it kind of funny that this constitutes a credible source, whereas my attempts to link numerous sources are apparently not evidence enough. Like I said, nationalism sucks. Tombseye 09:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Next thing you know we're going to have someone who has a problem with Mossadegh because he was of Bakhtiari background or that Shohreh Aghdashloo is of Azeri background. Where does this end? IMHO these are all BS excuses brought on by those who just want to create problems and disrupt WP. Is there any way to replicate what has been done on the Tatar article? I don't want to satisfy those individuals who want to further some bizarre agenda. SouthernComfort 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah I know this nationalism thing is really stupid. Persians are a very mixed up people and to have someone insist that Khomeini is not Persian based upon a half-assed source that doesn't really say anything other than harp on his last name is beyond ridiculous. I think the 4 people picture is okay and its accurate and it reflects how all the other peoples pages are. Let's just not give up anything else and definitely not let these people mess with the Khomeini page just because they hate the guy. I'm okay with taking Khomeini down, but given the ridiculous insistence that he's not a Persian I was also inclined to let him stay just as a protest, but that's not the point of wikipedia and so I think it's better to let it go. Thanks for the back-up and those of us who aren't fond of narrow nationalism need to help each other out whenever this stuff comes up in order to make some points and hopefully get people to think outside the box. Tombseye 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

Stop reverting to that offensive image! Rumi is good enough! Why do you insist on putting someone who is not neutral? Why do you wish to offend? What is wrong with you???? Kordestan 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

And I find it disturbing that you want Khomeini! He hated Kurds, he hated Sunni, he cut us out of the revolution and betrayed everyone! Why do you want him there, tell me? Maybe you are the one wanting nationalistic anti-Kurdish purposes! No one likes him! Kordestan 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is neutral, so should the picture! If you keep putting his picture, then you are anti-Kurd! Why you not ask everyone else and take vote? Kordestan 08:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I left a message for ManiF, asking him to communicate properly and stop making absurd arguments about Khomeini's background. I don't agree with that, and while I have no problem seeing Khomeini out of there, I don't think Mossadegh is a good replacement. If it's a choice between Khomeini and the Shah, I'd take the Shah. But how about this, why not have another woman? There's already two men. Rudi Bakhtiar perhaps? SouthernComfort 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL. I have to tell you, this sort of thing on Wikipedia just keeps on getting better and better. Incredible. SouthernComfort 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We could go on with "editing" forver. So I think we should take Southern Comfort's suggestion and make Persians page's picture like Tatars page with a collection of 20 or 40 pictures including Khomeini, Shah, Mossadegh as well as artistic figures. Propose a list of names and I'll make the photoshop. -- ManiF 08:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

40 is rather excessive. 8 would be better, since it would provide more range, but if that is not possible, Ebadi is fine. Though she is actually of Azeri heritage. ;) SouthernComfort 08:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

How about Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi?

http://iranian-studies.com/Shirin%20Ebadi.jpg

You put Khomeini back up! What is this??? Why do you wish to offend Kurdish people? You say you are pro-Kurd but still love Khomeini? Because you must love him when you keep putting his picture on there!

Khoikhoi,

We'll replace Khomeini with Shirin Ebadi, good? -- ManiF 08:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As I've stated on Talk:Iranian peoples I think this whole issue has grown way out of hand. The term has become twisted and distorted to mean something completely different than it's original meaning and perhaps there is some communication barrier or whatever, but with all the hostility lately, it's a bit too much. SouthernComfort 13:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Check out User:Diyako's racist additions to ajam. There is absolutely no validity to this nonsense. This is something else. SouthernComfort 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Heyheyhey. I know that you are probably already fully occupied with the other "peoples articles", but I'd really appreciate it if you would have a look a this and tell me/us what you make of it. // Big Adamsky 19:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, when it rains it pours with the articles. As soon as I get a chance I'll do what I can for the Cwen and the Ajam. So many peoples so little time. Tombseye 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, just a quick question. What was POV about the map you removed from the Iranian Azerbaijan article? It's not my map, so I'll take your word for it. I'm just not clear how a map can be POV. If it's inaccurate (as you said), that's reason enough to take it out. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliment and the explanation. Would it make sense to include this map on the Iranian Azerbaijan page instead? I like the idea of a map to make it clear where in Iran we're talking about, as long as we find one that's NPOV and accurate. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, don't let me talk you into it if you're not comfortable. I found it on Iranian Kurdistan, so I thought it might make sense on this article too. Either way is fine with me. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply