User talk:Aramgar/Archive 1

Pervane

Cahen also writes of the origin of the title pervāne, suggesting that it is related to a functionary in Mongol Iran called pervāneji. The original role of the pervāne among the Seljuqs of Rūm was to carry personal messages and distribute favors (p. 221-222). I know that pervane means “propeller” or “flywheel” in Turkish. I have always seen the title translated as “butterfly.” Aramgar 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See for translations of pervane.

Pervane (Today!!! if we dont use mechanically, let say for a people;) means a small moth/butterfly -especially a specific one which goes around light at night. Propeller was not invented at that time. Regards.Must.^{T C} 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Names for the Sultans of Rum

Hi for the those names they do not use Turkish characters so it is a content dispute and does not violate name changing characters so it needs to be the most common name or accurate. --Karent82 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaykhusraw or Keyhüsrev

For several months now, there has been some debate as to which spelling of the sultan’s name is the most appropriate title for the articles Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III in English Wikipedia. The spelling current in English language academic literature is “Kaykhusraw.” Some Wikipedia editors prefer the Turkish spelling “Keyhüsrev,” which is understandable given the sultan’s role in Anatolian history and Turkish civilization. Still, “Kaykhusraw” is the form most familiar to readers of English, and Wikipedia Naming Conventions suggest that we use this form. Below is a list of credible English language sources. All use the spelling “Kaykhusraw.” The first two books in the list are the essential English language references for the history of the Seljuks of Rum.

• ”Kaykhusraw” Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (University of California Press, 1971), p. 134.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071-1330 (Taplinger Publishing, 1968), p. 111.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Stephen Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, 2nd edition (1998), p. 62.
• ”Kaykhusraw” The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, edited by Helen C. Evans and William D Wixom (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 416.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade (Viking, 2004), p. 191.
• “Kay-khusraw” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 2, p. 1117.

The titles of the articles must remain Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III. Aramgar 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of cimri

RE: Jimri: Both of my sources state that Cimri means “the Leper.” While not denying that cimri in contemporary Turkish means “miser,” it is possible that the word has undergone considerable semantic change since the 13th century. One unpleasant quality over time has come to signify another. I would like to keep the translation "leper." Aramgar 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

About edits for Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey)

Hi Aramgar: I meant to write explanations of my edits but forgot and wasn't sure it was worth littering up the talk page. Most of the edits relate to spelling, grammar and style. I removed information about the discovery of carpets and about touching mummified corpses because it seemed irrelevant to the mosque's history. Kafka Liz 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Peruvian meteorite event

Wow, i don't know whether you made an error or if there's a bug in the system , but it seems that you just posted on the wrong talk page: Talk:2007 Peruvian meteorite event#Evil Plot against Alaeddin Keykubad
--Jerome Potts 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the history. User didn't post it. User originally posted the comment to User talk:Cretanforever [1], and the comment was subsequently removed by User:Cretanforever [2], but strangely enough pasted to Talk:2007 Peruvian meteorite event by Cretanforever here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

I've left a reply to your comment on my talk page. Sorry again for not getting back to you sooner. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chormaqan's date of death

I don't know why you kept this statement in the article on Kaykhusraw II, "Baiju and Muhadhdhab traveled to the Mughan steppe in Azerbaijan so the vizier could put his case to the elderly Chormaqan, then ruling the Mongol Empire."

That is entirely inaccurate. Chormaqan does not rule the Mongol empire (Ögedei Khan does at this time) and he has been dead for about two years and that's why Baiju is commanding the Mongol units around that area. Timothy May has extensively done researched on Chormaqan and he gives the date of his death in 1241. Just check his article that he wrote, http://www.historynet.com/mh/blchormaquan/ Lrguy 09:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alanya Castle

Parti Pehlivan ! I intend to extend Alanya Castle considerably in a few days and in the article, I would like to use the spelling for the sultan to Alaeddin Keykubad I. İtirazın yoqsa tabi (if you see no inconvenient, that is...). Cretanforever 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like at Alanya Castle. I would prefer to see 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad, but do what you want. I have seen other disagreements of this type handled in a similar way. If it's okay with you, I will move this section to my talk page. Aramgar 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

40 Martyrs of Sabaste

Hello Aramgar, I linked "God: Sole Satisfier" with the Martyrs because theologically these martyrs reveal the fact, by their lives, that God is the only one to fulfill life's meaning. These martyrs are a witness to the Christian experience of God as Sole Satisfier. Yours Jc3schmi (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Center for Lessons Learned

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusive use of multiple accounts. See RFCU for details and confirmation.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. JodyB _talk 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aramgar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A close examination of my edits and those of Kafka Liz will reaveal that we have similar interests but are not in fact the same person. What evidence do I need to supply so that she may be unblocked?

Decline reason:

Confirmed via checkuser. Please see WP:SOCK and note that meatpuppets are treated the same as sockpuppets. — Yamla (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aramgar, please take a look at this page to understand. A checkuser request was performed, which verifies you are at least editing from the same computer. Please review the sockpuppet policy carefully, and when the block expires, refrain from using alternate accounts in a way not permitted by policy. Ariel♥Gold 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As further evidence, this unblock request and the unblock request of Kafka Liz came in within 6 minutes of each other. Proof? No. Highly suggestive? Yes. -JodyB _talk 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aramgar (and KafkaLiz), I wanted to say that I'm very sorry that you were blocked over this, but I'm glad that it's been overturned. The block was a somewhat harsher reaction than I would have recommended. The main reason that it seems to have occurred, was a matter of really bad timing. :/ Both of you unfortunately wandered into a very controversial situation at a very high-stress time. But for what it's worth, please don't take away from this that it was some sort of retaliation for "opposing" at the RfA. To be honest, the reaction probably would have been the same, even if you had both supported! It wasn't that you liked or didn't like me, it was that the two of you were clearly working in concert to influence a !vote, and that neither one of you normally participated in those kinds of discussions in the past. There are certain "signatures" of off-wiki collusion, and your behavior unfortunately set off multiple flags.

I still have to admit a bit of confusion as to how you heard of the RfA? What it looks like, is that one of the Wikipedia "pot-stirrers" sent you an email to get you to participate. If so, I'm sorry that they chose to use you as a spoon. :/

If you have any further questions about what happened, I would be happy to talk about it, and try to explain just what exactly you accidentally stepped into. For what it's worth, I think that you are both highly knowledgeable editors, and I would very much like to see both of you continue to participate at Wikipedia. Especially with your specialized knowledge on medieval history, and access to (and ability to understand) very complex sources, we really need more editors like you! So again, I apologize for the situation, and really, it has nothing to with your oppose.

If there's anything else I can do or explain, please let me know, --Elonka 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, your note is much appreciated and goes a long way toward easing the concerns Kafka Liz and I had regarding your administration. There’s certainly no doubting your dedication to the project and the overall quality of your work. It says a lot to us that you have stepped forward like to this to apologize on the behalf of those involved.

Regarding how we learned of the RfA: no one emailed or contacted us in any way. Kafka Liz really did just stumble on it, as she said, and mentioned it to me. Our relatively small number of edits does not reflect the amount of time we spend at the site; Kafka Liz, in particular, does a fair bit of reading about policy (and later explaining it to me).

I’m assuming that most of the tension here stems from the Franco-Mongol alliance issue? I am aware of it but haven’t had the inclination to read through all of the pages now associated with the matter, especially when it is so clear that yours is the correct position. I too have little patience with pot-stirrers.

In any case, thank you again for your note. I think we can easily put this behind us now and believe we will work well together in the future, since our editorial interests intersect fairly closely. On that note, allow me to congratulate you on your successful RfA and wish you all the best. Aramgar (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for accepting my apology. And I agree, I too would very much like to have a positive working relationship with you, since we have so many overlapping areas of interest.

As for the reason for tension at the RfA, I could probably fill up pages of discussion on the multiple factions of politics that were in attendance there, of which the Franco-Mongol alliance issue was actually a very minor point! Even if we were talking face-to-face, the discussion could probably take up multiple dinner conversations.  :) Do you ever use IMs? It might be more effective to just chat directly about it.

In a nutshell though: More of the tensions in the RfA involved editors with long long memories for actual or perceived slights, from old old disputes, some going back years. Back when I was a new editor, through my ignorance of some of the subtleties of Wiki-politics, I inadvertently brushed up against some "third rail" political issues, and through sheer bad luck, also tangled with a couple of the aforementioned pot-stirrers. Despite multiple attempts on my part to bury the hatchet, some of those editors have never forgiven me for past interactions, and unfortunately on Wikipedia, some people will seek revenge through the WP political system, by working hard to sink their enemies' adminship nomination, even if it means they need to completely fabricate reasons in order to do it. :/ Further, if someone is really skilled at this fabrication (as pot-stirrers so often are), it can raise doubts in the minds of other third-party reviewers, who will then ever after have that lingering concern of, "Oh yeah, she was accused quite strongly of <list of offenses> back then. I never saw the evidence for myself, but I see someone I trust is still opposing her over it, so I'll oppose too." Repeated requests by other editors to provide proof are unfortunately ignored, and once there's enough momentum, it can turn into quite the mob scene, as you saw.  :/

Don't get me wrong, some of the opposes at my RfA were completely valid. They were thoughtful and reasoned opposes, by experienced and respected editors who had genuine concerns about whether or not my wiki-philosophy was the kind of thing that they wanted to see in an administrator. But I'm afraid that many of the others were not, and fell into the category of, "She was mean to me once, I don't like her," or "My friend doesn't like her, so I'm going to oppose her too." It's an unfortunate aspect of the wiki-culture that this goes on.

Getting back to the Franco-Mongol alliance issue though, I would love if you could participate in those discussions! Even if you disagree with me, it would be so helpful just to have some reasoned and good faith discussion, to try and find an acceptable compromise. To get a quick idea of what's going on, I have a quickref page here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Both you and Kafka Liz are welcome to participate in the discussion. Since it is another controversial page, we would of course need to be careful as to how much weight to give your opinions (as one person or two). But you are still both encouraged to participate.

Specific places where comments would be useful right now would be at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance in the following threads. Which doesn't mean that you would need to participate in all of these, but they are where your comments would do the most good right now:

• #Request for comment
• #Introduction sentence
• #Article rewrite
• #Concerns about Dailliez (wrapup)

Thanks again, and I very much look forward to working with you, Elonka 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd-Jones

I would say nominate it for speedy deletion as it seems like a cut and dry case, but unfortuantely redirects are not speedy deletion eligible unless they're clearly typos. You'll need to open a redirects for deletion discussion for it. Put the {{rfd}} tag on the top of the redirect page (above #REDIRECT) and then add {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~ under today's date heading on this page, replacing TargetArticle and Reason as appropriate. Hope this helps, WP:RFD also has information on the process. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but wouldn't it just be easier to redirect Lloyd-Jones to the new stub? --Elonka 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, found another solution. I took the liberty to redirect Lloyd-Jones to the disambiguation page at Lloyd Jones, where I also added several other "Lloyd-Jones" candidates. If you know of any others, please feel free to add them.  :) --Elonka 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help. Aramgar (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem Mr Senseless (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rûm

Feel free to re-add your material. I actually found a few books that back up the roman stuff after I deleted it from the page. I just haven't found the time to re-add the material myself. The reason I am so interested in Rum is because Chinese Song Dynasty records mention a series of foreign envoys that visited China once in 1081 and twice in 1091. The 1081 records mention a king with the title of Caesar and the 1091 records mention that the envoy returned to "rum". A Chinese scholar speculates that the the contact between Byzantium and China was in an attempt to enlist aid against the turks. Other historians believe it was the turks themselves that visited China. (I am a huge fan of Crusader and Chinese history by the way.) You can read more about this in the Crusades article here. The info begins on the third paragraph down. Sorry if I caused you any trouble. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi, and welcome to discussions at Franco-Mongol alliance! I very much look forward to having someone else in the discussion who is actually familiar with the related history.  :) If you have a moment, could you please review the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence thread and offer your opinion? It's something we've been working hard on, to ensure consensus. It appears that your most recent comment on the page agrees with the previous consensus in the Intro Sentence section, but I'd like to confirm that I have your meaning right. Thanks, Elonka 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other thises and thatses

• I thought I'd mention to you that if you want, you're welcome to blank or archive your own talkpage. So if you'd like to get that old block stuff removed, you are free to do it at any time.

• Also, if Kafka Liz would like to participate in any of the same discussions about Mongol-related things or other topics, she too is welcome to offer her opinion. If she does though, in order to head off any concerns, it would be best if, if there is any question of controversy, that she (or you) clearly states somewhere in the discussion that you know each other offline, but that you are participating as individuals, and not as a "voting block". I would also be extremely cautious in any situations that look like votes or polls. However, as long as you're clear on disclosure, it's probably fine for both of you to participate.

If you have any questions, let me know! :) --Elonka 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk archives

Hiya, I took the liberty of tweaking your talkarchive link a bit, to make it a bit more standard. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back, but this way it'll probably be a bit easier to maintain if/when you have more archives in the future.  :) Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghazan coin

Two dirham coin of the Ilkhan Ghazan Mahmud, Bāzār, AH 701.

Thank you for the great info! This is one of my coins, and it is indeed beautiful. Would you be able to confirm the exact legend? Is it: ﻢﻠﺳﻭ ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﻰﻠﺻ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻝﻮﺳﺭ ﺪﻤﺤﻣ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻻﺍﻪﻟﺍﻻ/ ﺰﻳﺮﺒﺗ ﺏﺮﺿ/ ... ﻊﺒﺳ ﺔﻨﺳ ﻰﻓ Lailahe illallah Muhammed resulullah salli aleyhe. Duribe Bāzār fi sene 701
If so, would you have the capability to fill-in the arabic as well? Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typing in Arabic is a rather cumbersome process on the computers I use. For the sake of time please allow me to use Latin script. Obverse field: Allāh / lā ilāh illā / (darb bāzār) / Muhammud / rasūl Allāh. Obverse margin within the frame: sallā (3:00) / Allāh (12:00) / ‘alayhi (9:00). Obverse margin outside the frame: sana (4:00), ahad (1:00), sab’am… (11:00-8:00).

The kalima of the field is standard on most Islamic coins. The mint is written in small letters above the big Muhammad. sallā Allāh ‘alayhi means “God bless him”; the Allāh is used twice, once in the kalima and once in this phrase. The date is annoyingly abbreviated.

The Arabic on the reverse is limited to the large Ghāzān Mahmūd of the third line down, the tiny Allāh between Phagspa characters I mentioned yesterday, and the date, I think, written again on the right side. The rest is Uighur.

Your coin is a variation of GA-281 in Ömer Diler’s Ilkhans: coinage of the Persian Mongols and #2172 in Stephen Album’s Checklist of Islamic Coins. Hope this helps. I enjoyed identifying it. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nawruz

Nawruz has his own article here: Nawrūz. I created it 6 weeks ago in my attempt to have more info on Mongol generals/emirs, of which Mulay is a part. Regards, PHG (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusades resources

Thanks for the offer, it's very much appreciated. Right now, I just need the books. When I took a class on the Crusades in college, we used Runciman, and that was about it, so I really don't have many books on the time frame. I have a few that are on the early Crusades, the First and Second and Third ones. And that's about it. So I'm looking for new current stuff on the Crusades. I've managed to mostly catch myself up on the Anglo-Norman stuff, finally. So now I guess since I got dragged into the whole Franco-Mongol mess, I'd better start adding to my Crusades library. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Aramgar, could you kindly stop reverting the Franco-Mongol alliance article to a version which has no user consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus)? Thank you. PHG (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, Aramgar is acting properly, in accordance with talkpage consensus. Something that I wish you would start doing. You've gotten warnings from multiple uninvolved admins now, maybe it's time you started listening to them? --Elonka 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Inscription in Sinop Picture

Hi. I noticed that you had made a request for assistance in uploading a picture of the inscription at Sinop at the Kaykaus I talk page. I think the page could use the picture. Do you still need help. If so, I'd love to help you upload the picture to wikipedia. Since you have taken the picture yourself, there shouldn't be any problem with it. If there is any help you need, you can always leave me a message at my talk Page. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for you then mate. Take care. Really looking forward to that pic. If theres any help you need, dont hesitate to drop me a line. I'll try and help out any way i can. Good luck editing wikipedia. Sniperz11^talk|edits 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC

At this point, I am not convinced that this is such a good picture. I took it originally with the aim of working through both the Greek and the Arabic, not as an illustration for Wikipedia. Aramgar (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its an excellent picture mate... dont worry about it. I think its an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Sniperz11^talk|edits 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anadolu Selçukluları

thank you, i edited the page according to your way. i didnt know you are in a discussion with someone in article. i edited because many people(especially turkish users) may redirected to "great seljuk empire page" according to incomplete entance. so, i dont edit the main entrance. respects.--Orkh (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to redirect, by the way you changed the entrance again. you know this shape is not healty for turkish users.--Orkh (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

no, i dont know more names, thanks arkadaşım--Orkh (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seljuk Sultanate of Rum map

Thank you for your kind words regarding this map. It was listed at Category:Former country articles requiring a map and so I saw that the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm, and similar articles in other languages, needed a locator map.

I was very happy to make the adjustment for Sinop, which I have now uploaded. If this is still not correct, let me know.

Regarding the eastern territories, I used William Shepherd's 1911 "Map of Europe and the Meditteraean Lands about 1190". If you have additional or conflicting information, I could review and incorporate that into my map.

I could also look into making a 1236 map, if you felt that was desirable.

Thanks for your own work here at Wikipedia! Sincerely, MapMaster (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aramgar

Hi Aramgar. You know as well as I do that Elonka has no consensus to delete the 120k of content and 300 academic references that have been accumulated over a period of 6 months. I am upholding Wikipedia's rule that, in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail. I will gladly cooperate, as always, with other users, as long as Wikipedia rules are respected and important content is not just deleted away and abusively replaced. I have no intention to give way to Elonka and a few of her friends who are blatantly flouting normal editing rules. Respect existing content, discuss it, and we can move forward from that. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Runciman nor Grousset do specifically mention Viam_agnoscere_veritatis, and they just mention communications and responses to the envoys. Therefore your argument does not stand Aramgar. You can't have it both ways, since you already insisted that Grousset and Runciman's statements should not be connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. Runciman and Grousset's statements stand in their own right. I am getting tired of your partisan accusations. PHG (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Don't talk about ad hominem attacks, you have proven a master at them. These quotes from Grousset and Runciman were specifically deleted by you and your friends from the Viam agnoscere veritatis article because they were not formally connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. They are, however formally connected to Aibeg and Serkis, that's why they fully deserve to be in this article. PHG (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have no intention to do original research to second-guess the statements of reputable historians such as Grousset and Runciman. PHG (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete referenced material !!! [3]. That's a total shame! PHG (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant views should be mentionned, and this is non-negotiable. You cannot delete proper secondary sources because of your own interpretations, or your wish to privilege only one point of view. This is a strong disservice to Wikipedia and goes against Wikipedia editing rules.PHG (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Valley View Ferry

On 20 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valley View Ferry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin translation assistance

Aramgar, hi, could I use your Latin-reading ability for a minute (or three?). PHG has posted the text of a letter in Latin at the ArbCom case.[4] I dispute that he is translating the Latin properly, so, if you have time, would you be willing to post your version of a translation, for the benefit of the arbs? If you don't have time, I understand, but if you do, it could be helfpul. Thanks, Elonka 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I looked into this letter a while back. It will take me some time to find my notes. Aramgar (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Up for a stub?

I noticed you've been working on some of the frontier fortresses. Do you think you could throw up a stub on Terbezek, alias Darbsâk, alias Trapessac, where the Templars got such a beating in 1237? Choess (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wang Khan

The image you are deleting from the Wang Khan article is indeed an image of Wang Khan from "Le Livre des Merveilles". Thank you not to delete it. PHG (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis

Please note that User:Elonka has been making up the story that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam agnoscere veritatis", when I only spoke about one. It turns out it is actually just her own interpretation,[5] and is not corroborated in any way by published sources. These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except her. I am asking an apology from her, and ask you to consider this examplar case of wrongfull accusation.PHG (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG: You created the article Viam agnoscere veritatis as a coatrack for your Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. You adduced the abridged version of Dei patris immensa from a German dissertation, called it Viam agnoscere veritatis, and made false claims about its content. You obviously still fail to notice that there are three letters of Innocent IV addressed to the Mongols that begin either Viam agnoscere veritatis or Viam cognoscere veritatis. Elonka is not the party fabricating and interpreting at Viam agnoscere veritatis. In the future please address your concerns about this article at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Aramgar (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Papal envoys

Hiya, I just created the article Exultavit cor nostrum, sourcing it to some of Peter Jackson's work. When you have time, could you check Papal Envoys and see if there's anything to add? I don't currently have access to it. Also, what do you think we should do about John the Hungarian? I'd like to set it up as a link, but I'm not sure there's enough information about him to warrant an article. Maybe we should create a subsection in Exultavit, and then we can link to it there, like setup a redirect from "John the Hungarian" to Exultavit cor nostrum#John the Hungarian. What do you think? --Elonka 05:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachewiltz writes of the letter on p. 151 of Papal Envoys to the Great Khans but mentions neither John the Hungarian nor the title Exultavit cor nostrum. I am afraid he has not much to add: "Urban's reply was cautious, yet friendly. The pontiff praised the Mongol prince for his humane treatment of the Christians and urged him to accept baptism as other members of his family were reported to have done already." Aramgar (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. In my own books, the most detail seems to be in Jean Richard's The Crusades. I went ahead and created a section at Exultavit cor nostrum#John the Hungarian, as well as adding a bit of info to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I'd appreciate if you could review my work and check it against your own sources.  :) --Elonka 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for all your help with sources, and offers of help. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		You keep to the shadows so much, I felt that you needed a bit of recognition for all that you do. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And let me add my thanks for creating Trapessac. The real challenge will be sorting out Roche-Guillaume and Roche Roussel, a task well beyond my dilettantish powers. The linked webpage associates Roche-Guillaume with Tchivlan Kalé, when in fact the latter may be Roche Roussel. Choess (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Viam again

Hi Aramgar, I noticed that Elonka wondered if anyone could translate the papal letters on the talk page, so I am wondering if you have already done that somewhere. I was going to take a stab at them, but you are a lot more involved in this dispute than I am, and I don't want to step on your toes. I do work with Pope Latin all the the time though, so translating them is fun in a twisted sort of way, and I'd be happy to help. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I haven't started Cum non solum yet so I'll leave that to you. Dei patris immensa is on a subpage of my userpage, User:Adam Bishop/viam; it's a little rough at the moment and there are a few sentences I am still baffled by, so if you have any suggestions I'd appreciate them. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback set

as requested. Enjoy, and keep up the good work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't resist

Joy

Kafka Liz (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ok, so there are cuter kittens out there... Kafka Liz (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you have a cuter kitten. Not, perhaps, as cute as Loki, but cuter than the first one. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ShamanDhia's Notability

sources for notability include:
Buffalo Evening News 1992 (review)
Castellani Museum Article 1996 (1st website for a museum in western ny)
ArtForum International Magazine 1992 (review interactive show)
US Copyright office (evidence of publication in VA)
Why is my notability still questioned, and what do I need to submit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.143.21 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hey again, I've just created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so I thought you might be interested in helping out. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Viam comments

Hi Aramgar, sorry I didn't get back to you, I missed your comments on my talk page. I commented on the gerunds and the end of the letter at User talk:Aramgar/viam agnoscere veritatis. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forget the difference between gerunds and gerundives sometimes, which is quite embarrassing, especially in front of a class...I meant no insult to your pride, of course! And yes, I am a bureaucrat on the Latin Wikipedia, so I can change your name if you want. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. I don't fine la.wiki particularly useful either, except for direct links to Latin papal bulls. It's more for fun, I think, although the average article has pretty terrible Latin in it. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mergefrom templates

The date syntax is: {{Mergefrom|any other arguments|date=March 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. (Note refers to Giovanni da Pian del Carpine.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:53 27 March 2008 (GMT).

Wikisource

Hiya, I took the liberty of creating an English Wikisource page (using your translation) to go along with the Latin one that you created. The formatting still needs some work, but this enables both texts to be compared side by side.[6] Do you like this format? --Elonka 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Nicaea 1077

I realized this was a misleading name but its important to know what happened so I moved it to "Seljuk acquisition of Nicaea" instead. Let me know what you think or if you wish to do some merging of what have you. Tourskin (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Midwest

Yeah, I have it that I live in Illinois right on my userpage, so folks know where I'm from. I don't advertise my religous affiliation though. Hey, the Midwest is much less Christian than the previous spot I lived, Texas. THAT is Bible Belt country! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Çaka Bey

Thanks for the invite to the discussion. It seems you have it but I gave my opinion anyway.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of my knowledge on the Seljuk Turks comes from their opponents (Crusaders and Byzantines) and their sucessors (Ottomans). I don't know much about this Caka Bay. In fact, I just recently created an extra battle for his contributions to the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars. I intend in the near future to buy a book exclusively on Seljuk history. Tourskin (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lol I responded before I saw ur third message. Tourskin (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. I've been looking into how Anatolia was transformed from an Asian Greek Orthodox fortress to an Islamic Turkish one. Tourskin (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the Chrysobull, carissime. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template merge

Yes, the proper place to propose a merge of templates, which is effectively a deletion of one of them, is at WP:TFD. I'm not sure if you put a TfD template on both or just one, but if you scan the discussions on that page you'll see other merge proposals so that should give you an idea. --Elonka 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Indian Christianity Wikiproject/workgroup

Upon discussion and consensus ( see here) , The following changes and decisions were taken w.r.t to Indian Christianity workgroup :-

• The scope of workgroup will be limited to Indian region only for now.
• The workgroup will be renamed to Christianity in India instead of Indian Christianity.
• The changes will effect the project pages, Portal and the templates.
• The templetes will be replaced by a Indian map instead of Tricolor flag picture.

This is FYI - Tinucherian (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raban, Altınaşkale, and Araban

A statement in the section Foundation of Armenian power in Cilicia says that the fortresses of Raban is modern Altınaşkale. I have had no luck finding a Turkish place by that name. Could someone tell me the original source? It seems like Raban is actually the modern Araban. Aramgar (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) --- Get The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia; Robert W. Edwards; Hardcover; $60.00 - simpleton

sorry, I am mainly interested in mongol era castles in iran in 13-14th century and sometimes I also study anatolian, cilician and crusader castles. also destruction of assasin forts in iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.31.146 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive just added a comment about this in the article's talk page. Meowy 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinclair (T.A. Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, an Architectural and Archaeological Survey, vol 4.) considers Araban to be Raban. On page 128 he mentions the remains of a medieval citadel, perhaps Ayyubid or Mamluk, on a small mound in the town. He makes no mention of a site called "Altıntaşkale". Meowy 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW I saw here [7] that you were thinking about the location of the Battle of Köse Dağ. There are a number of "Köse Dağ" in Turkey. The one that immediately came to my mind was the impressive pinnacle that sits between the Aras and Eleshkirt valleys in present-day eastern Turkey, but it's too far east to be the location of the battle. There is another Köse Dağ in the mountain range between Suşeri and Zara - that one seems a more reasonable location. Meowy 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Nicaea (1210) is bogus

The website I based this on is very anti-Byzantine and tried to show the Turks almost succeeding in defeating the Greeks when they were defeated miles off. Check my comments on the talk page too. Tourskin (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandlaism

Please reframe from Vandlaism of the wiki pages about my direct blood line family. Virginia Court records which are held in the National Archives building is by the terms of Wikipedia to be more than acceptable references. 24.30.38.213 (talk)

I have moved this comment regarding the article Melungeon from my userpage. Turks, Greeks, Armenians, and now Melungeons: I must be doing something right. Aramgar (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Smile

User:Eae1983 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Eae1983 (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Where did you saw me calling it vandalism? I just reverted it because I thought the addition was unjustified and I did not label it as vandalism. --Laveol ^T 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask pardon if you have taken offense at my edit summary (here). I realize that you nowhere called the edit of User:85.107.250.251 "vandalism". For my part, I assumed that the primary use of Twinkle was to revert vandalism. The anonymous user's edit seemed to me to be in good faith. I intended no ill will. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Non taken :) Regards, --Laveol ^T 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria Despina Palaiologina

Good news, I obtained permission from one of the Flickr photographers.  :) Are you able to read/translate the text here? Or do you have a source which translates it? --Elonka 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Did you contact the photographer? It says (anyone watching please feel free to correct me): ...ουΤου ΠΑ / ΛΑΙΟΛΟΓου...Η ΚΥΡΑ των / ΜουΓουΛΙΩΝ, ΜΕΛΑΝΗ / ΜΟΝΑΧΗ - "(something) of Palaeologus...the Lady of the Mongols, Melanē nun" Aramgar (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I received permission via FlickrMail, and there's a nice utility that can be used to transfer images straight into the Commons (if the images have the right license). I have added your transcript and translation, thank you![8] Feel free to tweak as needed.  :) --Elonka 05:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some small problems on List of largest flags

Hi Aramgar, some anonymous user has been giving me a hard time on List of largest flags, making a lot of nationalist comments. Could you, if you have the time, look it up and help me out? I feel drowned!! --Eae1983 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I suspect him to be our dear blocked user Aee1980...

Collaborate on Catullus?

It would've been a courteous gesture, before starting your recent purge of "irrelevant" images on Catullus poems, to Talk with the editor who had put them there. Had you done so, you might not have been left wondering about the rationale for the images. I appreciate your feelings on the subject, and I won't revert you in return, but I hope that you admit that you should not have behaved so apodictally, howsoever bold you felt yourself when reverting.

Yolgnu and I are planning on doing serious work on Catullus' poems in the coming weeks. Were you interested in contributing? I'm assuming that you know Latin, although honestly I'd be more reassured about collaborating with you if you would post a significant translation to Wikisource like this one (together with its original to the Latin Vicifons) to establish your bona fides and qualifications. I hope you understand, Willow (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Willow, thanks for contacting me. I had the impression from the message on your userpage that you had left Wikipedia. I would like to work on the Catullus articles, as I am very interested in the topic. I know that you have done a great deal of work on them. What is your plan in the near term? Let me know so that we can avoid duplication of effort. Personally, I would like to start by moving certain sections to WikiSource, while keeping the encyclopedic, sourced portions on Wikipedia. How about you? Aramgar (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop tagging Catullus articles for (re)moval

Please stop tagging the articles for moving to Wikisource. If you've read our discussions, you know that's not what we want; hence, there's no consensus. If you really want to contribute something to the poetry of Catullus and not destroy others' work, then dig up some scholarly references like those that I've placed on the pages you're tagging. If you're incapable or unwilling to do that, then at least please wait until both Yolgnu and I are free to Talk with you about what to do with the articles. Willow (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Aee1980, who else??

I had posted you something about Aee1980 and your Seljuk contributions, but khoikhoi deleted it :( you can find a similar article in Kafka Liz's talk page. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion?

That article has been merged. Look at the discussion and you'll see that it was decided that the TRNC flag is not accepted as the world's largest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.167.231 (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: List of largest flags. Not a flag? Fine. Let the merging parties delete it when they do the merging. Aramgar (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quahog

Was that in response ot the WikiProject? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

VAV

FYI, I went ahead and ported your summary translation over to Wikisource.[9] --Elonka 04:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated Catullus WikiProject

Hi Aramgar,

I updated the Catullus WikiProject this morning, which should give us a central location for discussing things and reach consensus. I made sub-pages for the three main issues:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Images
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Translations
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Coverage

so that newcomers will be able to find out what our consensus is easily. We can add other special topics as needed.

I hope you like what you see, and please accept the invitation to join there! :) Willow (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Project Cape Cod

I noticed that you lived on the Cape and Islands. I don't know if you know that there is a project encompassing the Cape. If you are interested on joining, click on this link: WikiProject Cape Cod. Feel free to join. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Catullus images

Although deleting the Catullus images might seem to you to be perfectly in accord with Wikipedia's policies, other's don't see it that way. Personally, I find deleting the images much more radical than deleting the stubs, and so you should express your argument on a talk page and try to gain consensus. Simply explaining your controversial deletions in an edit summary doesn't cut it, in my opinion.--Yolgnu (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Yolgnu. I do not believe the removal of images by myself and others is particularly controversial. Several editors in the past, notably at Talk:Catullus 5, have suggested that the images are inappropriate. The only arguments I have seen to support their inclusion have been based purely on personal preference. The concept that an image is attractive or illustrates one reader's interpretation of a poem is incontrovertibly POV. I would, however, support the inclusion of notable works of art that are inspired by the poems themselves, provided a citation is given. Better still would be the inclusion of manuscript illustrations. I know that User:Kafka Liz is actively working toward the acquisition of such images; quality images take time. Aramgar (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the time has not yet come to discuss the images in Catullus poems. For my part, I'm willing to let the matter rest until Kafka Liz has had a reasonable chance to find the best possible images for those articles. I also think we should re-activate the Catullus Wikiproject and hold our discussions there.

In the meantime, I think we should focus on improving the articles by identifying and citing the scholarly literature on Catullus' various poems, as I have started to do. Admittedly, that's slower and a more gradual improvement than deleting stubs and images, but I feel that such meticulous work is necessary for making the articles encyclopedic and complete. I hope you all agree and I look forward to your contributions. Willow (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Manuscript images are all good and well, but I doubt many exist - especially with Catullus being little known in the middle ages - and even fewer are fair-use. I can see your objection to modern images, Aramgar, but surely we can decorate the pages with appropriate ancient images? See the image on the Catullus page for instance - although it is not inspired directly by Catullus, it is a picture of a Roman love couple and suitably shows the genre of Catullus' poems; just as the image on On the Nature of Things is a NPOV illustration of Lucretius' subject. Likewise, I believe that this image of a girl playing with her dove, which pre-dates Catullus, is an appropriate image to add to Catullus 2, as it is not a personal interpretation of Catullus' poem but simply evidence of the classical theme of girls with sparrows. I hope we can reach a compromise; I'm really eager to work on Catullus.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the articles can stand alone without "decoration"; any images included should serve to illustrate by being directly related to or inspired by the author in question. The theme of "girls with sparrows" fails with the image of the girl and her dove because the image is instantly recognizable to even the most casual student of the Classics as a gravestone, and thus more evocative of grief than love. Moreover, the theme of women and girls with birds on Classical grave stelai is so widespread that scholars debate whether some symbolic meaning should be attached to their presence. I am more amenable to the addition of Classical images, but then again I believe caution is in order. The casual addition of images because they seem to present a relevant theme to the modern eye ignores the resonances these images had in their original context. The inclusion of an image of Mary Magdalene -- who of course is non-Classical -- at Catullus 13, for example, carries too much iconographical baggage to be useful in any but a Christian context. I stand by my -- and other editors' -- insistence that included images be strictly relevant.

Kafka Liz assures me that free-use images can and will be found. Of the major manuscripts, the Codex Oxoniensis, is visually appealing as well as directly related to the subject at hand. Aramgar (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So do you feel the images on Catullus 4 and Catullus 16 are appropriate? As to the latter, they do fit in with the theme of movere lumbos et pedicabo respectively...

Anyway, unless you or Willow have any major objections we should begin to remove the translations per Talk: Poetry of Catullus.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The image from Catullus 4 does not bother me so much, but the entire article for Catullus 16 is fraught with problems of emphasis. I think we can address those problems later. I would beg a few more days so that I can finish moving the cooperative translations that have accumulated on en.wikipedia to en.wikisource. I have been working for several months on Catullus at la.wikisource and hope to be finished by the end of the summer. There is some proofreading work to be done at la.wikisource, if you are interested. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fas to me to leave the translations on the pages, when they are violating Wikipedia policy so flagrantly. After all, the translations, such as they are, will still be accessible on the history pages, which only takes one mouseclick to access.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to User page of Satyajit Nayak: Vandalism?!

Hey. The changes made by me to the user pages of Satyajit NayakUser talk:Satyajit Nayak was with the purpose to warn the vanalism undertaken by the user with that name. That was just a vandalism warning of L.4. Hope u understand. There has been no malice in that action. --soft (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

re Srebrenica (3RR)

Hi there,

I have invited your man onto the talk page repeatedly, where I have laid out in detail what my logic is, but he keeps ignoring it and doing reverts without any reasoning whatsoever. Just letting you know -- I know you probably won't want to get personally involved in the dispute. Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mason County communities

Thanks for your note and your request: all the communities on the Mason County template, except for your Shannon, are incorporated, and all incorporated communities in Kentucky are cities. I know it sounds odd, but that's how it is. It could be worse; there are tons of cities in Kansas, Minnesota, and the Dakotas that are well under 100 people. Perhaps we could petition the various state governments to change their municipal designations :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really easy to see: several years ago, articles were created on all municipalities nationwide, including all Kentucky cities. Any article that says "_____ is a city in _____ County, Kentucky, United States", except in special circumstances, is incorporated, and anything that doesn't isn't. There are two significant exceptions:

• Cities that have been incorporated since 2000, which was the basis for the municipality articles being created in 2002
• Places that people say are cities but aren't. All city articles were originally created with an intro, a geography section with data about the city's area, and a four-paragraph demographics sections; if these are missing, it's quite likely that it's not a city, so check the article history.

If you want to check a specific community, go to http://factfinder.census.gov and type in the name of the community: anything that's called "[placename] city, Kentucky" is incorporated; anything that's called "[placename] CDP, Kentucky" is a census-designated place, and anything that's not listed is unincorporated. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Latin Vocative case

"Hi, Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. Second declension words with a nominative ending in -us (but not -ius) have a vocative ending in -e. Hope this helps." -- Okay. what then, is the Vocative form of 2nd declension nouns ending in -ius? (please respond on my talk page). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I knew that -ius nouns change to "-i" thus "fili"; what I meant was, how to adjectives agree with this? My understanding is that -us with and adjective would make "amice magne", the 1st/2nd adjective would form -e because in masculine it uses -us forms. So what about "my great son?". Would this form....I'm assuming magnus would stay "magne" because it itself is not an -ius, thus forming "fili magne"? Further, the Vocative form of 3rd declension adjectives is just the Nominative form again, right? For that matter, "-ius" nouns become -i, but do nouns ending in "-ium" change at all or is their Vocative the same as Nominative? (P.S. Really don't know what I was thinking on wondering why "deus" as Voc was unusual; of course it would be expected to form "dee" as a -us and it is notable that it does not)--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

İbrahim Tatlıses

The source used (Rough Guide to World Music: Africa, Europe and the Middle East, ed. Simon Broughton, Mark Ellingham, and Richard Trillo (1999), p. 409.) is classified by Wikipedia as WP:QS (a questionable source) due to the fact that the contentious claims involve claims about third parties (the book publishers are writing about the singer and not the singer about himself). The book may or may not even mention the singer. Therefore, the NPOV comes into question, the verifiability of the claim falls short and there is no original research done by the company. According to Wikipedia in such a case the material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (Biographies of living persons, wikipedia.org). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.162.52 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should stay the way it is until the discussion is settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.162.52 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been notified of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.162.52 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Binkytheclown2

Your reverts to my User Talk page - for which I thank you - were followed by a lengthier and nasty rant, which I then reverted ([10]). However, the IP user in question now has a User handle (User Talk:Binkytheclown2) where he is continuing to be quite hostile. I was hoping maybe you could drop a note on his page mentioning Civility or the like... if he continues to harass me, I will have to open up a report on his behaviour, and at least one other editor needs to have observed and commented on his talk page about his behaviour. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your cookie didn't show up on his page. :-) Format error? Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I have been following his posts since I noticed the vandalism on your page. I plan to post a note to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if that motley collection quotes turns up again. Aramgar (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Swanton, Ohio / CoachEqualizer

I appreciate the link "How not to be a spammer" and I re-read it. Clearly I have done nothing wrong by adding a section called entertainment in a city and adding all of the in town entertainment.

We have a section with parks, a section with festivals, and now a section with entertainment.

Can you explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Baptist_Church_%28Detroit%2C_Michigan%29

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Hut

and how about the external links section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds

Those are clear advertisement's, completely different from what I have done, and as far as I can see know one is stalking those contributor's.

I have now read the rules over 3 times and I have no issues with them.

By the way all of this could have been avoided if the self-important Nyttend would have asked me about it or responded to me instead of trying to force his opinion on us all.

I would like you to look into Nyttend (user here) who is stalking my posts and has brought this legitimate contribution to a childish battle.

Thanks!!

--CoachEqualizer 04:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism... but he did it again, only multiple paragraphs. I'm going to have to report him soon. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)==Re:Orange== I don't know where I found that Orange thing before, but someone else did have it. The easiest way to the North Truro AFS is to take U.S. 6 to North Truro, then turn right on South Highland Road, continue past the housing developments to Old Dewline Road, which you could pass if you don't look behind you since it is easier to spot heading South. If you hit the golf course, then you need to turn around on South Highland. Continue and you'll eventually hit the station. Actually I have never been there before but i'm telling you this by looking at Google Earth. I'll look foreward to see what you can bring back concerning the place. If you live nearby, a Sunday would be a good time to go because all the weekend tourists have left and the replacements come on Friday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No Problem, the orange was really an eyesore anyways. Do you live near the Cape? If you come in from Bourne and go north on Route 6 on the east side of the canal and then re-enter the highway, you can see the entrance to the Cape Cod Air Force Station.

Junta trials

Many thanks for the support and the great suggestion. I didn't really like the old article title at all and your suggestion prodded me into correcting this. Thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

The WikiProject Greece August 2008 newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Himara

Hey there Aramgar,

I think you might be interested in this ongoing discussion: [11]. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on this.

--Tsourkpk (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have been very busy lately with the irl but will try to find time this evening to catch up and comment. Incidentally, I very much like your amendment to Komotini: "notable," though I penned it, was never quite right. "Sizable" seems much better. Aramgar (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

linguistic map of greece

Hi Aramgar,

If you want to take responsibility for Futpers homemade map I'm perfectly fine with that. Can you please answer me the following questions then.

1. I have first hand indepth knowledge of Greece (I've been all over it many times and even lived in Athens for a period... twice). This of course doesn't prove anything but based on that extensive experience I believe the current map crosshatch is wildly distorting the frequency of native non-Greek speakers. If the study was allegedly conducted via scientific methods then it should mean the mapmaker (Futper.. or you if you prefer) can provide me a few actual numbers and the statistical methods used to compile those numbers? (which should mean a legend can also be provided that accurately reflects those numbers to scale)

2.Was language distribution cross referenced with legal immigrant status?

3. I believe the phrase "traditional non-Greek language zones" should be completely removed (or at the very least rephrased to remove "traditional". (too political). Is this acceptable to you?

4. Can you please list me a few other countries with similar designed minority language distributions on their main article page? (i.e. non-official languages)

Thanks.--Crossthets (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Aramgar, I noticed you've been making edits since I've posted the above so this is just a reminder. (Still looking for answers to above questions :) Thanks --Crossthets (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to take the perfectly acceptable option of ignoring you. Your concerns are adequately adressed at Talk:Greece#New_linguistic_map, or are sensibly passed over as nationalist obstinacy. We do not need to clutter my talkpage with the same. As for my own credentials —irrelevant here at any rate— I lived in Thessaloniki for two years and have traveled every road between Orestiada and Gjirokastër. Aramgar (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are being unresponsive/hostile to me. This is especially odd considered we've never talked before. (and I'd like to note you managed to discuss other pages politely with others here. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to ignore an editor... as long as they don't edit/revert an article page. Once they do so they should provide justification for doing it or it's considered disruptive. While I'd agree with you stubborn nationalists can be problem on Wikipedia (especially ones that don't have the integrity to disclose their background to reveal possible conflicts of interest)... being a native of a particular country doesn't support or dismiss the accuracy of any given point. Despite the occasional trolls, foreign nationals are huge contributers to Wikipedia and not only shouldn't be casually dismissed on the sole criteria of their ethnicity... but should be welcomed for their in depth knowledge.

As for you assertion my concerns were addressed... actually no (presumably because there are no good answers in rebuttal to how scientific this map actually is). If you continue to dispute this please feel free to cut and paste text where the where the above specific points were addressed (on the Greece Talkpage if you don't want to do so on your talkpage). I'd also like to note Futper subsequently admitted to someone else that the map was created without "numbers" ... aka a defacto acknowledgment distribution was not produced using scientific methods.... aka... the map is essentially guessing. (because a reference is provided doesn't mean something is factual)

Any how... as you request I won't discuss this further on your talkpage. I will repost these concerns directed at you on the Greece talkpage.--Crossthets (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ilkhanate

Please don't remove MN name of Ilkhanate. Thanks. --Enerelt (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Imam Ali is a VAMPIRE!

The picture in question is a lightning rod for ONE vandal, who just hops accounts and IPs.

It is from a discussion I was participating in on, I think, Twelve Imams or something. Something about the template and showing the pictures of the Imams. Some guy was arguing that the representations aren't accurate and therefore should be removed, and posted as an example that picture with the tagline "YOU CANNOT PROVE THIS IS NOT THE IMAM ALI (RA)".

Well, I just found it hysterical, particularly since the use of images of the 14 Infallibles is pretty near universal for Twelvers - I mean, every holiday, there are people with pictures - usually that exact one, actually. So I sent it to a bunch of friends of mine and posted my redacted version on my page.

It's sort of helpful because it showcases the utter lack of humour people have about religion. People who vandalise my page - which indicates that I am a Muslim and my edits are full of reliability about Islam and Muslim issues - clearly are not to be taken as having a full basket. Humour is halaal, and I won't let the jerks who constantly reverse all my edits everywhere (sockpuppets of User:Klaksonn and the "You're an Ismaili Vandal's Girlfriend" IP sockpuppeteer) force me to go along with their humourless, "fundamentalist" doctrines.

So that's it, in a (large) nutshell. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Emily, Now that you explain it, it is funny. I remember looking in on that very discussion for a few moments a while back. I too can attest that those very images of the Twelve Imams are in fact common: I have seen them in Turkey, Syria, and once in Albania. You are also right about humor. Humor is halaal. Keep up the good work. Aramgar (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice Edit

Nice edit addressing that "tarator" issue, thanks. Now are you going to clarify the bit about the Turkish version being a "chutney"? I haven't looked at Wikipedia's explanation of what a chutney is, but a yogurt dish certainly isn't the first thing to come to my mind. Maybe you're already working on it. Anyway, thanks again. Happy dipping... or not dipping, as per your preferred tzatziki eating customs.

Okay so I had a look... seems a clarification is needed. Most of the chutney's aren't yogurt related...

This bit was interesting though: "The word chutney is derived from synonymous Persian chāshni (چاشنى) which has originated from Middle Persian Pahlavi of çāshnik, sharing the same root with other Persian words such as chāsht (چاشت) meaning a portion of food."(ChocoCereal (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Oops my mistake. I see now you just reverted some vandalism. The issue I was confused about was in regards to "ttalattouri", not tarator which is explained clearly in the article. So I'm still stuck on ttalattouri and the turkish cacik (sp?) being a "chutney". Sorry about the confusion. Have a happy every day. (ChocoCereal (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

:D

:D Kafka Liz (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:D Aramgar (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Kilij Arslan source, could u send a pdf? Email it, that would be awesome. Gabr-el 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I await your response. No need ti apologize, you are the one doing a favor!Gabr-el 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First Crusade featured article review

Hello! Elonka mentioned your name as someone who might be able to help out at the featured article review for First Crusade. I'm afraid I'm rather clueless - I see that Runciman's books are now outdated, and those are all I've ever read on the subject of most crusades - so I'm doing my bit by looking for people who can perhaps help. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think...

...that is the real Heidi Watney editing her own article?? I would bet 50 buckaroos it is. Faethon Ghost (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

proly...third runner up in the 2003 Miss California pageant. I'm happy I got to welcome a local celebrity, no matter how much I miss Tina Cervasio. Aramgar (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are they inappropriate ?

In articles Rostam ‎,Keyumars,Esfandiyar ‎,Rakhsh ,Rostam and Sohrab ,‎Jamshid,Tahmuras and Hushang, you deleted the imaginary depectations of the user:Miladps , what was wrong with it ? Thanks --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alborz Fallah. I believe that those particular images of the characters from the Shahnameh are unsuitable for the encyclopedia because they are one artist's idiocycriatic view of what the characters look like. I understand the need to illustrate these important articles but also feel strongly that any images included ought to be either traditional depictions or artworks inspired by the Shahnameh that are notable in their own right. A more appropriate image for this type of article might be a manuscript illustration, such as the one that appears in the article Rostam (File:Rostam toetet esfandyar.jpg). These miniatures exist in great numbers, are culturally appropriate, and because of their age may be uploaded with few concerns about copyright. The copyright status of the cartoons that User:Miladps uploaded, on the other hand, has been called into question [12]. Aramgar (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ‎

Well , if that images have copyright problems , that's an other debate . But about the imagination , the miniatures are mostly of the Mongol period and a new drawing may also be used . Anyway , I don't insist , but I think that's a matter of preference rather than exact imaging . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you soo much

Well I thank you very much for the help, i probaply need to fix my grammar but I guess it's because i'm from Australia and the way we spell things or say it is probaply differant to American style. I'm also very amazed that you found that Loznani was first mentioned in the late 1400's, even I as a person from Loznani did not know this and I hope I learn much more from you. But all in all your very welcome and I hope I come upon some of your articles. kind regards Kristijan Batispecela (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I noticed your work and probably would have left well enough alone had I not thought to look up your village in this very useful book, Kravari, Villes et villages de Macédoine occidentale. It's been sitting in a pile next to my desk for several months now. I really ought to use it more often since place names and histories can be so contentious in that part of the world. I probably don't have much to add beyond a copyedit once you are finished. Glad I wasn't stepping on your toes. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be my guest and make as many changes as you like if there was anything bothering me then I would tell you but so far you have made it look very proffessional thank you. Ill probaply start making one one Macedonian folklore costumes from tommorrow so I would tell you when I've started. Batispecela (talk)

İsmail Bey Camii

Hi, Aramgar. Sorry, I do not have any personal information about the mosque. But I have just made a google search thereon. The sources briefly read that the mosque is 600 years old and was commissioned by İsmail Bey, maternal uncle of Mehmed II. The mosque is architecturally not so important. It was restored in the year 2007. Here are some Turkish sources I was able to find:

• Altı asırlık cami zamana meydan okuyor
• Devrekani Camileri
• Photo of the mosque
• Kastamonu Cami ve Mescitleri

Happy edits, --Chapultepec (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks for taking a look. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Battle of the Meander Valley

Rejoice! for thine trust, though heretofore little, has been augmented.

To be slightly more serious, I have expanded the article a little and added many more in-line citations. Urselius (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Toponyms

Hey Aramgar, I see you are able to get your hands on a few Turkish sources. If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to find the names of Macedonian places in Ottoman Turkish? Most articles have "name" sections so there shouldn't be any lead problems. Cheers, BalkanFever 09:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkan Fever, I understand your request to mean that you are looking for the names of Macedonian towns written out in Ottoman Turkish orthography. I have absolutely no training in Ottoman Turkish but suppose I could find examples with a little time in the library. I have a pretty good idea of where to look. Are there any towns that you are looking for in particular? I found a few examples from Ottoman coins on line: Kratova, Ottoman Turkish: قرطوه; Manastır, Ottoman Turkish: مناستر; Ohri, Ottoman Turkish: اوحري; Üsküp, Ottoman Turkish: اسكوب.

I hesitate to put them in myself; my few experiences with naming disputes have left me pissed off and disillusioned. I recently took a cursory look at the name section at Bitola and can tell you that it is completely assbackwards. If I had two months and thicker skin I might try to fix it. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried fixing the Bitola section to keep most of the information and trim redundancy. I agree with you that these disputes are annoying, but alas, people are idiots. The problem that I see in regards to places in (Rep.) Macedonia is there are so many names that are (can be considered) relevant. Obviously Macedonian, and Albanian (and Aromanian) in some places. Then there's Bulgarian and Serbian (when not identical to Macedonian). Greek too (generally Modern but sometimes also Ancient). And then of course Turkish, of which I think Ottoman has much more relevance than Modern, even though the names are probably the same. 7-10 {{lang}} templates in a lead is too many.

I will try to integrate the Ottoman names while fixing up the sections, but I don't have a lot of time to put everything assforwards, as it were. If you find any more feel free to give me a yellow bar and I'll do what I can. On that note, don't worry about the "instructions" at the top of my page; reply wherever you find it easier. BalkanFever 01:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Antioch 1084

I don't know why you have sent me this notice; I have already given you the green light to correct my articles.

You must know that when I first created the article Byzantine-Seljuk Wars, it was immediately challenged for its authenticity, and I had to show to the wikipedia users back in 2006 December that there actually was a war. I had few sources. So please, do correct anything. Gabr-el 20:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohrid and Lake Ohrid

So I take it that you have seen my response to the blind reverts by User:ChrisO here. It certainly, very much, seems so. If that is the case, why did you use a name that is not a state party of UNESCO World Heritage Sites program? --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the complaints you lodged against ChrisO, I addressed the one that I felt had merit. Aramgar (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not what I have asked. Are you saying that you do not see any "merit" in using the proper official name in the infobox of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites in these (and all relevant) articles? BTW I'm not too sure what you mean with that "lodged complaints", plural. He obviously blind-reverted as you, evidently, admitted yourself, but this is not such a big deal, well at least to me. However, I would expect better from a senior administrator (especially someone that involved in the making of WP:MOSMAC), but unfortunately a lot of people around here continue to express their/our "unabashed" partisanship around this issue. Anyway, I’ll take the matter in the relevant talk-pages any day now, so, as always, you are welcome to comment there. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Medicamina Faciei Femineae dyk

Hello! Your submission of Medicamina Faciei Femineae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Medicamina Faciei Femineae

On 6 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medicamina Faciei Femineae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus

Thank you for you help on the article. It is a topic with full of pro-Albanian and pro-Greek views. I believe the present article has an carefull npov approach.Alexikoua (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was happy to see that the article maintains neutral point of view and would be happy to see it as a DYK. Please let me know if I can help. Aramgar (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lost settlements in X"

Thanks for your comments. I don't entirely agree with you but let me explain.

The "Lost settlement" categories are an attempt to group together a large number of articles that aren't otherwise coherently connected. A project was proposed but failed to get sufficient support. On the other hand, there have been disconnected categories that cover subsets, eg, Category:Sunken cities Category:Lost settlements in Northamptonshire, Category:Ghost towns, etc, and lists of types of cities so there is an interest in this. It seems right to gather these into a coherent structure and include others.

The preferred name convention would have been "Extinct settlements in X" but as there were already "Lost settlements in X", I decided to use that format. The word "lost" has other shades of meaning other than "location unknown", such as "abandoned", but there is scope for ambiguity. If there is a quick way of moving to new categories or renaming categories, then I would certainly consider it. I don't think that this invalidates the concept.

The categories "Archaeological sites in X" cover a broader scope than just "lost settlements". Take the UK, for instance.Dunwich and Verulamium were settlements, Harlech Castle, Pilgrims' Way andThynghowe weren't. The same argument applies elsewhere, including the Eastern Mediterranean, so I argue that settlements are a distinct type of archaeological site and a distinct type of settlement (ie, extinct), worthy of separate categories.

Sorry for the length. best wishes. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that several other editors have found the word "lost" in your Category:Lost settlements confusing or inappropriate: [13] [14] [15] [16]. If the preferred convention would be "Extinct settlements in X", why should we not expend the effort in moving them through the regular category for renaming protocols? It is not really that much trouble: when categories are renamed, a bot typically swaps the old category for the renamed one within a few hours. Would you agree to have all these "lost" categories moved to "extinct" categories? Aramgar (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your suggestion. I would be v happy with that, particularly if it's acceptable to others. I was unaware of these renaming protocols. What needs to be done - I have a problem in that my usual pc has broken today and I'm relying on an Asus EEE with a 7" screen and me with glasses and a magnifying glass. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've nominated these cats for renaming. If you have thepatience, I'd be grateful if you'd check my work. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Let me know if I can do anything further to help. Aramgar (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Macedoniagreek4ever (moved)

By the way, Fyrom is not vandalism, but calling a country by a name wich is the inherange of another country this is real vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniagreek4ever (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Macedonia will always be greek Forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniagreek4ever (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Art of Beauty

Dear Aramgar:

I would like to resubmit a rewritten article for "Art of Beauty". Please advise what is the best way to proceed.

Thank you Leoreyzis (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Leoreyzis. Sure. Companies are not my area, but I can suggest that you first take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Secondly, I would suggest that you locate several reliable secondary sources which support the notability of Art of Beauty. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest. Established editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion or Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies may be willing to help; think about leaving a note on the talkpages there. Hope this helps. Good luck. Aramgar (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki

Hi! I replaced "around 1881" with "in autumn 1880". I pointed one reliable historiographical reference, but I can add more. However, I hope that you will not need, because "around 1881" not necessarily contradict to "in autumn 1880". Actually, I do not understand exactly which source you mean, but I guess that its author didn't have the documents as Bulgarian historians and therefore he/she wrote an approximate year. Regards,--Males (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Males. Late last month, I added several sentences on the Bulgarian Men's High School sourced to Demetriades book on the topography of Ottoman Thessaloniki [17]. The source you have added for the more precise date is fine by me and certainly an improvement to the article [18]. Let me know if I can be of further help. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenova

Done. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey vote request

Please vote in survey over whether to include text in History of the the Islamic Republic of Iran

Text and dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=274961453&oldid=274952179

Arguements

found in edit summary and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Deletion_by_KneeJuan

Thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dio

• A survey is being taken for the discussion in regard to Dio (Talk:Dio#Survey), I would be appreciative if you could vote whenever you are available. Thank you. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Orkh socks

Thanks for spotting that Huckelbarry (talk · contribs) guy. He's certainly an Orkh sock. Watch out for 195.174.* IPs, that's his known range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you looking into this matter. I doubt that we have seen the last of him so the ip information is useful. Aramgar (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

İbrahim Tatlıses fan?

how do you know he has arab-kurdish origins, and how do you know about seljuks. Aslan is an old turkic word, then who are you, after being a anti-turk?--Huckelbarry (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As an observer, surely Turkish history, art and music is of sufficient interest and import to appeal to people the world over, not just those of Turkish descent. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like İbo, but my personal preferences are not really important. As for my interest in Turkish history, I always provide reliable and verifiable sources to support my edits. I am neither pro- nor anti-Turkish, but strive to maintain the core Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, a policy which I suggest you study before making further edits. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda or ethnic fringe theory; those who come here to advance a nationalist agenda usually do not last very long. Aramgar (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

of course you like ibo, he is kurdish. you are a pure anti-turk. the word "aslan" written in the orkhon scripts, which is built at the time when the turkic peoples have not any contact with persian people yet. atilla was a khagan, khagan means kings of kings in turkic, it has not any special meaning. sure you may claim huns would be original iranians like ibo, but there are sources my friend. and sorry for the bad memories in your turkish trip, but those 25 million non-turks are the shames in our beutiful country. try to meet real turk in your next trip.--Huckelbarry (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided a reference for the Khwarezmian Empire's succession to the Seljuk Empire[19]. Rene Grousset's, The Empire of the Steppes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get myself a copy of this book as it seems to pop up all over the place. Aramgar (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised. I have found it to be quite interesting! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Aramgar: Is that a hint? Kafka Liz (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already voted, but thanks for the notice. Aramgar (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire/archive1

Hi, Aramgar! Sorry to disturb you, but I saw from this category that you are a member of WikiProject Turkey, and the List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire is currently a featured list candidate. If you could take some of your time and review it on its nomination page, I would be very grateful. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikodim Tsarknias article

Could you please explain to me why the article does Nikodim Tsarknias not meet the criteria CSD 7A that you mentioned? I am relatively new here and as far as I could understand deletion was applicable. I also noticed that you are an involved party in the (unrelated to this) arbitration for Macedonia 2, like me. You have maintained a low profile there and I believe we both assume good faith for each other. I have provided a rationale in the talk page of that article, could you please explain to me why it can't be "speedy" deleted? Thanks. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 00:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD A7 says, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." Certainly Mr. Tsarknias meets this very low bar. Perhaps you ought to restore the material you deleted here, in effect his claim to notability, and then turn the matter over to WP:AFD. I would be interested to see how such a process turns out; sometimes it has the effect of spurring interested editors into improving an article. And as you have rightly noted, there is much room for improvement here.

As for Macedonia 2, I have been very busy IRL during the last few weeks, and now the associated pages have become rather unwieldy. I hope to add something useful soon but wonder if there is anything left to add. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The material I deleted I did so because the policy says to delete unsourced material about living persons immediately. I think it would be appropriate to have an AFD discussion but I will hold it for later. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: your book request

I've got the books you asked for. Have you any interest in:

• Ölçer, Cüneyt, Coinage of the Emirate’s [sic] of Aidin: Emirate’s [sic] of Theologues, Ephesus Istanbul: Yenilik Basimevi, 1985.
• Aykut, Şevki Nezihi. Türkiye Selçuklu sikkeleri İstanbul, 2000.
• Erkiletlioğlu, Halit, Türkiye Selçuklu sultanları ve sikkeleri Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Matbaası, 1996.

Kafka Liz (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the Pope shit in the woods? ...er...Evet, teşekürler. Aramgar (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Does a bear wear a pointy hat? See if you can out-miserable this. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to WikiProject Ottoman Empire! We are glad to have you as part of our project, and hope you stay. Also, thanks for reverting my edit on Sultanate of Rûm, I know a lot about the mid to late Ottoman Empire and the early to mid Byzantine Empire, but not a lot about kingdoms between. Thanks, mynameinc 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mynameinc. I have believed that Wikipedia needed an Ottoman History project for some time now. Thank you for starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Please be assured that I will participate. Anatolian and Balkan history is a great interest of mine. Sorry for being so quick to revert: vexillogical anachronism is a pet peeve of mine, and the Sultanate of Rûm has be subject to some serious tendentious editing over the last months. Once again, nice to make your acquaintance. Please let me know what I can do: I have a good a library. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Turkmen people and Turcoman etc

Thanks for the heads up. I undid all of my Turcoman/men edits. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 23:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. For me though, it's easier to just wipe the slate clean since obviously I don't know alot about the differences. I'd rather just do that then take the dartboard approach and try to figure out which ones link where. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The world is still round

Keep the faith, Aramgar. I just finished dealing with my first English ultranationalist(Hundred Years War era). You have done excellent work here, don't let them get you down. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did here, you will be blocked for disruption, and that includes attacks made in edit summaries. hmwithτ 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

Lucas in Griekenland aen een Olijfboom opgehangen.

Please note that Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this [the proposed decision] page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page. If you have material you would like added to the proposed decision of the case, please place it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision or email it to the attention of arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right-O, boss. I'll keep that in mind. Aramgar (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		The presence of this barnstar in this section is purely coincidental, and in no way has anything to do with Aramgar's not even remotely awesome and brilliant edit to the proposed decision page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for this edit summary at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision. Rlevse was very clear in his warning that no further incivility or nonsense will be tolerated. KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense not being tolerated, eh? Then I guess the proposed decision will have to be rewritten to remove all the nonsense. Glad to hear that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense is only tolerated in our articles now, mate. --Folantin (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aramgar's problem is that he didn't call anyone "batshit insane". Had he only stuck to similarly copacetic remarks, he might still be with us. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Return?

It has been over a year and I was curious if you would be interested in returning? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Kansas Bear - the last time Aramgar spoke to me, he was involved in a language immersion course. It's my belief that he is (sadly) not willing to return. Feel free to email me about this if you wish, and I will tell you all I know. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)