User talk:Bejnar/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Archive 3
- July 2007-December 2007
To answer your questions...
- Actually, I think a redirect to Top Ramen would be more appropriate. I'd make one, but I'm not sure how... my contributions to wikipedia have been a recent thing, so I'm still getting used to it all. Re: humor - yep, I've found several humorous articles on this web site. It's quite a fascinating bit, really.
Re: unknown bands... see, when I think of unknown, I think of indie - I know/know of a lot indie bands who aren't all that famous but still have a fan following. I've gotten an indie zine started and written actual articles about the bands which I attempted to add. They may be relatively obscure in the grand scheme of things, but are locally (or otherwise marginally) recognized. I do believe John has a point about the fact that what is unknown to some is obvious fact to others. However, after seeing an article about a director I've heard of land up in the deletion bin because he didn't have enough "notability", I don't feel quite so bad about my band pages getting deleted... you know? ;) Also, out of curiousity, how did you find my band contributions in the first place? Did you search for new additions, or what?
Re: mod - I actually meant moderator, as in site administrator. :) Moderate contributor works well, too, though. --RockerGrrrl 02:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sethu Lakshmi Bayi
The quote is found in Freedom at Midnight,a book that deals with the Indian independance movement's last moments etc. I dont remember the page etc as of now. Besides ive read it in a newpaper article as well. Manu
- The one i read was months back from a library...will inform u after i manage to get the book once again. Manu
RE: User:72.224.14.110
I know, but I reported him to the AIV. Either way, the user has to be blocked. He is a big time vandal. Cheers, JetLover 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Gipuzkoa/Guipúzcoa/Guipuscoa
I have also seen Guipuscoa more often than any of the others. (In Spanish it's Guipúzcoa, and in Basque Gipuzkoa.) But, I checked Britannica, Columbia and Merriam-Webster, and "Guipúzcoa" (with the acute accent) seems to see the preferred form (see Talk:Guipúzcoa). On the other hand, place naming is a sensitive political issue in Spain. You are likely getting dragged into edition wars if you change the Basque name. I prefer less sensitive issues ;) Jmgonzalez 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
---
This was something to be discussed in the Basque WikiProject, though I ahve been absent from Wikipedia lately and I don't know what happened in the end. One strong position in this issue was that of English philologist, living in the Basque Country, Alan King, who suggested that Guipuscoa really has no such strong tradition in English language as to support it being kept that way and that instead the official name should be used primarily. He went even further and sugegsted that Biscay should be found by Bizkaia, because Biscay is really amost only used for the sea of that name and not so commonly for the province.
It's a similar case with Gotemburg/Göteborg... where the western Latinized name is in the end no more common than the original Swedish name. Is it Zaragoza or Saragossa in English? Obviously this may be subject to discussion and it's difficult to find the correct midpoint. My personal opinion is that unless it's a very common term in English, such as capital or other worldwide famed cities, or there's no standard native spelling, the official name should be used primarily. And that's the case for Gipuzkoa, a place that is not worldwide famed at all.
In any case, I have nothing to do with any recent changes in that page. Yet I support the form Gipuzkoa, which is the official name, unless you can demonstrate that the Latinized form Guipuscoa is such a widely known term in English that doing otherwise would cause confussion to most users. Remember that nowadays English is not anymore just an ethnic language but the primary international language and hence these issues must have a cosmopolitan and not an Anglo-centric approach.
--Sugaar 04:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The pronunciation of Gipuzkoa (Basque spelling) and Guipúzcoa (Spanish and traditional spelling) is almost the same. The name Gìpuzkoa is the only official since 1991 and the Basque institutions use it both writing in Basque and in Spanish. Guipuscoa was used in English but I think it is out of use now. The issue is political rather than linguistic. I would recommend to use Guipúzcoa in Spanish even if it is not official, and also Guipuscoa in English has it has some tradition, at least until there is some definition within the province itself (Maybe there is a political turnover and then Guipúzcoa comes back, as even if it is not official it is still widely used).
--alfanje 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: PRS Guitars
Well, I added that a year ago. Haha. Back then the Legal Issues section was a total mess, I was thinking of cleaning it up but I didn't what should be excised and not. So I left it up to other people, I was expecting the tag to be removed sooner or later by someone, not left up an entire year. --Saint-Paddy 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Global Water Partnership, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Schutz 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
For quite some time now, there has been a concerted effort on the part of certain individuals to monopolize editing rights to tens of articles pertaining to Afghanistan. These individuals have continuously shown their leanings towards a subversive political philosophy which I will not go into. My point is that these articles have become nothing more than a propaganda tool through which these people spread their misinformation and slander those who they view as their opponents.
All attempts that have been made to contribute to these articles have been reverted and labeled as vandalism. All sources that I and others have put forth to justify our edits have been rejected by the individuals in question, without reasonable grounds. Numerous attempts have been made to settle these disputes, but all have been ignored.
What, if anything, can be done about this? I am still quite new to the Wikipedia community, but have made every attempt to make meaningful contributions to no avail. The behavior I've described seems like it has absolutely no place here and has greatly diminished this project in my eyes. If you have a moment to spare, I would greatly appreciate any advice you would be able to offer.
Thank you. --Khampalak 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bejnar. For reasons I outlined at talk:Xelha, I think it is better to separate out the material on the Maya archaeological site from the modern water theme park. Accordingly I've set up a separate article, Xel-Há Water Park, for the latter. I also moved Xel-Ha to Xelha as I find the archaeological site referred to without the hyphen more frequently in the literature.
As I also note on the talk page, the water park is a private commercial enterprise, and is not really a 'national park' in the formal sense. On the otherwise fine map Image:Coba-Xelha-Cozumel-Cancan-Map.jpg that I believe you contributed, it is marked as "Xel Ha Lagoon National Park", which does not seem to be correct- do you think you'd be able to change this description on a new version of that map? Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Bejnar (re your post at my talkpg). If it were a National Park, I would expect it to have been gazetted as such, but I can't find any mention of it at the CONANP site[1], or see its decree as one of the areas naturales protegidas listed at CONANP's Sistema de Informacion Geografica [2]. Mexican govt websites are usually pretty comprehensive, so its apparent omission indicates to me that it is not a NP, or at least is not one now.
- As for that sentence, I was planning to redescribe the site's layout, so it's not that I have a problem with it, per se. Although, I think it most unlikely that the mural is a depiction of Tlaloc, who is a central Mexican not Maya deity- the sentence probably is intended to mean Chaak, but I was going to wait until I'd found a specific description in one of the archaeological papers before restoring/updating. Regards, (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
re: Anoshirawan
Yes, Anoshirawan has been a nuisance on the Afghan Civil War and Democratic Republic of Afghanistan articles. His repeated insertion of the Greater Iran template on articles about the history of modern Afghanistan is clearly unjustified. He has provided no explanation for this, bar saying that "Afghanistan was created in the 19th century by the British", without giving any source for this unprecedented claim. I've reported him for violation of WP:3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Hopefully that will get him blocked for a short time, but clearly that's not enough. Making a Request For Comment seems to be the correct procedure, though I don't have much experience with these things... If you take it to RFC, you can count on my support. Regards. Raoulduke47 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for helping in resolving this matter. I have not handled the situation as well as I should. Anyhow, your efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm hoping that we can bring some much needed integrity to these articles. --Khampalak 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would hold off on an RFC until we see if he continues. If he does continue though, RFC is the proper venue to take the issue. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
re: Durrani Empire
I can provide a better justification for using the History of Greater Iran template. However, I'll go by the concesus. Where is this concensus? --Behnam 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about the History of Iran? Where did this discussion take place? The History of Iran template is relevant at least.Hajji Piruz 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Beh-nam and Anoshirawan
I'm not sure how easily this problem is going to go away. Just about every article I've been trying to edit keeps getting reverted. The reverts are removing not only cited, verifiable information and corrections, but also restoring weakly sourced POV material aimed at slandering the subject(s) of the articles. This is a huge problem that's affecting most of the Afghanistan articles. I'm not sure how much longer I can continue, but it seems that these two individuals have devoted all of their time and effort to their misinformation campaign.
For an example, I'd direct you to the Mohammad Zahir Shah article.
--Khampalak 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's really no use. This RFC process is not going anywhere. Beh-nam is brutalizing the Zahir Shah article, seemingly out of spite. I give up. This isn't worth the effort anymore. Take care and thanks for helping fight the good fight. --Khampalak 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Henry Corbin
I would suggest to help out with inline referencing in the article and also getting rid of the many red links. STTW (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabegs of Azerbaijan
This is relevant to the history of Iran. The very name Atabegs of Azerbaijan comes from the name of the Iranian region of Azerbaijan. How could it not be relevant when the very name of the dynasty is Iranian.Hajji Piruz 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. A) How do you judge which is more important, and B) the Azebaijan in the Caucasus wasnt even in existence until 1918, that template is merely titled History of Azerbaijan, but is more about the history of the region than anything.
- Also, Greater Iran is a geographic title, it has nothing to do necessarily with Iran as a nation. Greater Iran encompasses a large region stretching from Iraq to Tajikistan. The template History of Greater Iran is supposed to be an easier way of dealing with history templates, because instead of having several on one page, just that one template is enough.Hajji Piruz 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- So yes, adding the History of Iran template is appropriate in any article that is about the history of Iran, such as the Atabegs of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. See full discussion at User talk:Hajji Piruz#Atabegs of Azerbaijan. --Bejnar 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- So yes, adding the History of Iran template is appropriate in any article that is about the history of Iran, such as the Atabegs of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- So is the history of Iran. You are probably confused about the name Azerbaijan. The name Azerbaijan in "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" refers to Iranian Azerbaijan, not the country now known as Azerbaijan in the Caucasus.
- He had possessed Azerbaijan (Iran), Arran, Shirvan, Djibal, Hamedan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Isfahan and Rei
- In this case, Azerbaijan is talking about the Iranian region. See Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) also. So in this case, the history of Iran template is relevant.Hajji Piruz 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know. Your trying to say that the history of Iran template [3] is not applicable and I'm saying that it is. So both templates should be shown because the Atabegs of Azerbaijan were just as much a part of Iranian history as the history of the republic of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where I get confused. I dont think you know which Azerbaijan we are talking about here. The majority of the territory of the Atabegs was in Iran:
He had possessed Azerbaijan (Iran), Arran, Shirvan, Djibal, Hamedan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Isfahan and Rei
The underlined ones are the territories that were in Iran. So how is the History of Azerbaijan more relevant than the History of Iran template? You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that the most relevant template should be used but at the same time your saying that the history of Iran template is not relevant...Hajji Piruz 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I get what your saying. Where are you from by the way? You know a lot about the region. Thanks for the talk.Hajji Piruz 21:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thats very interesting. May I ask which country?Hajji Piruz 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sefid River!!!
Hi,
About the move, thanks for your note. In fact, I tried to move it, but for some reason it did not work. I appreciate your comment.
However, I am stunned to hear that Sefid River is the correct version! It is definitely not. A simple comparison, like Google search for the former and the same for the latter shows this, even though the correct version of the latter should be like this to include all spellings. Another rule of thumb is that the -rud suffix is not used in its meaning in Persian, just like the city names: Behshahr is not transcribed as Beh city!!! Or like the mountain names: Alam Kuh is going to be rediculeous as Alam mountain or mount Alam!!!!
S I A M A X 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
re: Muhammad Zahir Shah
That is an article written by Pakistanis and ofcoarse will be pro-Zahir Shah. While a newspaper written by Canada will be neutral. With all due respect, anyone who lived in Afghanistan during those times are aware of Zahir Shah's oppressions of non-Pashtuns. The source you provided doesn't count since it is pro-Zahir Shah, please provide something neutral. --Behnam 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Who are these people that you've been speaking to? Again, provide some documentation of his oppression of Persian speakers and non-Pashtuns. This article should have absolutely nothing about politics. So how about checking your opinions at the door, and contributing information that is verifiable by the rest of us. We don't have access to these people who you claim exist. Produce something... human rights violations reports, anything. Lastly, if he oppressed speakers of Farsi, then he would have to have oppressed himself and his entire family. --Khampalak 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
How's this for objective and neutral:
- I think you could use some of your own advice and stop trying to revise history. Everyone who lived in Afghanistan knows that Zahir Shah just like his father was an ethno-fascist. Just because you are from his family doesn't mean you need to cover this up. Regardless, its sourced right there and as long as that source is there that line cannot be removed. --Behnam 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Boggles the mind how this sort of thing has gone unchecked for so long. --Khampalak 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mid sharing my talk page. The discussion is at Talk:Mohammed Zahir Shah#Claims of ethnocentrism and Talk:Mohammed Zahir Shah#Ethnocentrism ? for those of you following along. --Bejnar 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Louis Édouard Bureau
Good work, you might consider to nominate it for DYK. STTW (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiram I
Thanks for the citation regarding Hiram I and freemasonry. Theelf29 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
re: Template:reflist
Ok, thanks for letting me. Appreciate it. -- Behnam 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
MotorcycleUSA.com
I guess I never saw it. Sometimes people create the same article repeatedly with slightly different names every time, and only one gets tagged for speedy deletion. If our search function was a little bit better... Natalie 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
State geological article requests
Hi. I honestly expected wikipedia to have full detailed articles on Geology by state e.g Geology of California or Geology of Utah. I'm not even from the States but I had fully expected a detailed article on each state. Some of the American geological articles are very poor or non existent see Basic geologic features of each state. PLease could your project aim to start these articles and develop them. All the best and thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess -obviously geological landforms exist regardless of frontiers but I was also thinking in terms of soil composition , sediments etc. Surely there must be different forms in different parts. The article Geology of Minnesota is very good -perhaps because the creator is a geologist himself from the state. I guess it would be redundant for some state articles to have an article like this but I am certain more can be done. Why is the main Geology of the United States of America article quite basic? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hotaki dynasty
Persian Cromwell is more reliable because it is written during that time and written by someone who was close with him. -- Behnam 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence is that Persian Cromwell is a work of fiction written in London. --Bejnar 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply
All the article was was a list of the top 10. There was no context, no response, so there wasn't anything TO merge. Unless, you wanted to clog the Rolling Stone page up with crufty lists. As well, Rolling Stone has done dozens of greatest lists over the years, so I fail to see why it was particularily notable. -- Scorpion0422 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
re: User:Anoshirawan
Well sorry for that allegation, but this was done before where a user who has a conflict with another makes an puppet account which he sets up as the user he has the conflict with. I was very upset when that happened last time because he was a great editor, it happened to user: Tajik. So I was a little paranoid of this happening again. Sorry for that. -- Behnam 22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Mirwais Hotaki
Just a comment, you've changed his name from Mirwais to Mir Wais, despite other encyclopedia uses Mir Wais, the correct way to spell is Mirwais, as one word. See Mirwais Ahmadzai. Mirwais is a common name especially among Pashtuns and mostly all spell it with one word, regardless what the name actually stands for. thanks --Dilbar Jan 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Bryozoan
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
hi
and where did you move it?? I couldn´t find it. But i left a text that mayne can bring some lghts on the issue.
Qurdratulla (mohammed bakir) was the name Mirwais´s father..or what do you think?? Turalai Khilji?? --Aspandyar Agha 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Bishops
Well, thanks, we'll see how it goes. Corvus cornix 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Lucky Dube
Hello. I reverted your move of Lucky Dube to Lucky Philip Dube per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). He is globally known by his first and surnames only, thus can see no good reason why we would want to have his middle name included in the title. If I've missed the reasoning somewhere, do let me know. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. About a year ago, you moved the article Michael James Genovese to Michael James Genovese, Sr., and put in a dab page with space for his supposed son Michael James Genovese, Jr.. But MJG's only son is named Michael A. Genovese; see details at Talk page. I have proposed a move back to the original title; if you have any comments, please add them to the discussion. Thanks, Hqb 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn t deleted any source nor any text phrases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.223.93 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hartal
Click on the "Editing restrictions" on the article tag or "Final resolution" on the talk tag and you go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. It's covered as it's in a category named there. As long as your edits are sourced and NPOV, it should not be a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit war on Dari (Afghanistan)
Hi, Bejnar!
Please refrain from reverting Anoshirawan's latest revert of Dari (Afghanistan). Instead you might rather wait for what comes out of this. Just keep cool, and thanks for your positive reaction on my page :-) -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hotaki dynasty
Hi, I'm informing you that the person who is vandalising Template:History of Afghanistan is the banned user:Tajik, using anon IPs from Germany. Any IP starting with 8xxxxx and vandalising Afghanistan related articles is him. See here for solid evidence [4], where he signed his name by mistake. Take the time to make a full report to administrators and they will block his IPs and also ask for page protection (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) to every article in which he is vandalising. He is also the same person as User:Anoshirawan and User:Aspandyar Agha. He's the only person that has been saying that there was no Afghanistan before 1919 since October 2006.--GingizKhan 09:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, this is Kavaiyan. I wanted to follow up this stuff - I hate Wikipedia being used by people to promote their own ideological or nationalist (or whatever) agenda. However, extreme RL work pressure got in my way - c'est la vie. Looks not like it's going to get better. My request to block Anoshirawan didn't work out with the Admins - probably no one felt like touching that on these two days, and then it all got archived.
- 1) Thanks for not continuing that edit war. Patience is always a sign of seriosity (if I may say so). That user who is trying to push through his agenda called you a liar on my talk page. Please keep cool about that, you may feel free to use it later on, as it's a clear breach of etiquette. He shot himself in the foot.
- 2) As you already asked me for advice: I think you can now proceed directly to mediation. You already had a tedious exercise requesting comments from him, and he showed himself not to be constructive in the least - like he did on my talk page. On these grounds, the admins may decide either not to mediate at all, or to shorten the process - and just block that guy and all his sock puppets & his range of IPs. I mean, he obviously edit-wars & vandalizes a number of articles, doesn't he? He seems to think he's the only one whose opinion counts, and if the admins allow such people to get through with that, WP would go downhill. You may refer to this, to the (non-)discussion on the Dari (Afghanistan) talk page, to your and his comments on my talk page, and you may also bring forward GingizKhans evidence produced above.
- 3) I only have some superficial knowledge about your region, but I assume the situation is like this (I mean this as a question, I'm really interested!): either a) that guy is Irani and has a kind of Greater-Iran-attitude towards Afghanistan and Dari-speakers; or b) it's a bit different: during decades of war, cultural production in Dari suffered very much, and for this reason nowadays the cultural influences of Iranian Persian are very strong. Maybe a knowledge (or self-identification) with Irani Persian culture gives a higher self-esteem to many Dari speakers (in order to, like, "culturally compete" with Usbeks etc.); and apart from that (or even because of that), literate people's Dari became more and more "standardized" along the model of Iranian Persian during this time. And that guy may just belong to that fold of Dari-speaking Afghans.
- Well, that's what I would expect; if you like, you may illuminate me on this point. In any way, "sit it out", be patient, you've got the better position. Don't let these people tell the world how the "real Afghanistan" is like, and don't expose yourself by reacting rashly to some troll's provocation.
- By the way: his remarks on German (here, before I reverted that rubbish) show me that this guy (wherever he comes from) may live in Germany, but only has a very sub-standard knowledge of the language. In the end it may well turn out that it's the same with his Dari ... Greetings! -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS. I just realized from GingizKhan's remarks that he called one of his (already blocked) sock puppets Tajik. Maybe really one of those Arianist Greater-Persia guys, who knows ... I guess that between Iraq & Tajikistan / China, there are enough of them around. Let him argue his points properly; if he won't, make him stop filling Wikipedia with his pamphlet wisdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavaiyan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Blancan
Thanks for the correction. I had left the dates as I found them. Geo When has a list of references dating up to 2001 which seem to be the source for their "followed by E Pleisto" dating. Adjust the dating as you see fit. I mainly have to do with earlier Blancan stuff ("middle Plio" of older authors like Wetmore etc) right now. It is good that you told me before I delied on the disputed info. Dysmorodrepanis 01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Magdalena
According to the Census Bureau, Magdalena is a village. You'll have to prove that the Census is wrong. Nyttend 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care what size it is; you'll have to give me a reference that says that the Census is wrong. By the way, the previous link was wrong: this is what I meant. I don't know what size municipalities have to be to be cities or towns or villages in New Mexico, but I know that the Census Bureau is considered a reliable source, more than other sources. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline says that US Census figures are the only things to be used in the Demographics sections: if you say in the intro that it's a town, then we have a discrepancy in the article, and if you change it in the Demographics also, that's not what's wanted here. Nyttend 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want an edit war either. You're the one prompting the changes, and I'm seeking to keep it in line with our reliable source. If you don't want an edit war, then don't violate the consensus that the US Census data is to be followed. Nyttend 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Ohio State Route 571
Thank you very much for making the Ohio State Route 571 page easier for the reader to understand! I'm not the best at wording the sentences right, but I will get better in time. I have good ideas, but sometimes it takes someone else to make them great. I definitely wouldn't mind re-creating the State Route 201 and 202 pages. I am very familiar with them both, especially 202. I would like to get all of the Western Ohio highways up to par in the near future. You will never get in an edit war with me, I appreciate the help very much! Thank you again! Mirage45331 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pridoli
There are plenty of instances in the scientific literature, I'll dig some examples out when I get the chance. Verisimilus T 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pancha Carrasco (DYK nom)
Hi. I've nominated Pancha Carrasco, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on November 17, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Komusou talk @ 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 22 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pancha Carrasco, 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. |
--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion of Dari
Hi Bejnar - I've added my two cents to the talk page of Dari (Persian), though whether it'll do any good or not is another matter. I'd suggest contacting one of the wikipedians in Wikipedia:Third opinion - then know a bit more about resolving disputes like this than I do. Oh and yes, thanks, the exhibition went well! Not as many sales as I hoped, but good reviewsd and lots of good comments about my work. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Afghani & Afghanistani
Just because Afghan is more commonly used, does not mean it is more correct. Have you ever heard of misnomers? Besides, it is sourced by Princeton's WordNet, so all three denonyms should be mentioned since all three are used. For instance, Afghani is used exclusively by our neighboring countries of Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and other languages in the region... Arabs call us Afghani. Keep that in mind please. -- Behnam (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- And stop bringing past discussions into this. We now have different sources and it's totally new discussion. Delete that please. -- Behnam (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't see that the extensive discussion of last July is passé. If you mean by new sources the ones listed by Carl.bunderson, I do not find them very convincing. Yes some English speakers do use Afghani, even fewer use Afghanistani, but by far and away the most common usage is Afghan, and by that as English speakers we do not mean Pashtun, even if Persian speakers do. When we say Afghan it includes Tajiks and Uzbeks and even Hazaras. --Bejnar (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- In that particular Category move I did not have these two sources I have (WordNet and American Heritage Dictionary. Actually I barely gave an argument for that move. So please don't try to manipulate things. -- Behnam (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did not participate in that July discussion. Manipulation is such an interesting word. If you mean that I try to make the Wikipedia as objective and accurate as possible, then by all means use the word manipulate. If you mean that I intend some kind of deception, I don't see how, it is all here in front of us, and anyone else who wants to read it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- In that particular Category move I did not have these two sources I have (WordNet and American Heritage Dictionary. Actually I barely gave an argument for that move. So please don't try to manipulate things. -- Behnam (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's currently the most commonnly used, but it is not the most corret. Well it's a misnomer then. By the way, we are not saying that Afghan should be taken out. As you can see we have listed all three with an or meaning anyone of them can be used. And no that discussion was not extensive. I let that one go and I did not give enough arguments at that time. I just gave it as a suggestion and I did not even attempt to convince those admins. So please take that out. Thanks. -- Behnam (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an academic encyclepedia and we provide what is true and right. If English speakers use Afghan for non pashtuns then they are making a mistake and it should be corrected.Anoshirawan 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)
Anoshirawan, I think we should include all three. That is the best solution I think. -- Behnam (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Karpinsky
Actually, I was not the one who categorized this article as a stub; I merely moved the stub notice further down without giving it much thought. Looking at the article a bit closer, I agree that it may or may not be categorized as a stub depending on the criteria one is using. I have no strong opinion about this particular article (in my view, it is in the gray area between stub and start), so if you feel that the stub notice should be removed, go right ahead; I sure ain't gonna be complaining about that :) You may also want to review the WP:STUB guideline, which is vague but occasionally helpful. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Article titles
Regarding this and other similar recent edits of yours, please note that romanization of Russian names should be done in accordance with WP:RUS. Also, titles should not contain patronymics unless a name is ambiguous. Please move the article accordingly (to Ivan Gubkin) and revert your changes. Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. By the way, if you are planning to work on Russia-related articles in the future, you might find this proposal to be of interest, as it directly deals with the kind of the questions you raised above. It is still in the voting phase, but by the looks of it it will pass. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dari and Parsi-Dari
Hello. Sorry for replying a bit late. I made my comments in the Discussion of Dari (Afghanistan). I have suggested not to use Parsi-Dari for Gabri/Yazdi/Dari of Zoroastrians or for the Parsi of India, please refer to my comments for further explanations/sources. Thank you. Ariana 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I made my last comments and edit. In fact it has been a while that I stopped contributing in wikipedia. But since I came across a point which was not supported in any reliable Persian source, I was obliged to present my point of views. Still if you're not convinced, please refer to the Iranian languages article and then to its Template. Your point is neglected there. In my point of view, it is such an important point that must be discussed and resolved. So please refer to that article and present your point of views and sources, in order to add "Parsi-Dari" in the list. I cannot frequently contribute to wikipedia, but I think in there, there are lots of contributors from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran than can help resolve this disagreement. Thank you. Ariana 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Cordillera Oriental
Hi. Since you started a discussion here back in April, could you take some time add comments to a merger proposal at Talk:Cordillera Oriental#Merger proposal? Thanks. wbfergus Talk 14:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cordillera Oriental--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 16:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cordillera Oriental.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
please stop the Afghan nationalism
Do you understand no one will ever even see these terms were you've put them? Do you understand you're removing sourced content based on your own idea that it's not "preferred"? You do. But you are an Afghan nationalist and according to you people any denonym other than Afghan is against "Afghan unity" and is a threat to Pashtun domination of the country. So you have to hide these referenced terms. Wikipedia is not here to promote Afghan unity or Afghan nationalism and is not here to take sides. So please stop this. --The preceding comment was added by IP editor 65.93.216.199, removed by C.Fred, and restored by IP editor 2007 65.93.211.252 all on 9 December 2007.
- I am neither an Afghan, nor a Pashtun, nor living in Asia. I am not a nationalist of any nation. I believe in objective standards for Wikipedia articles. I did not remove sourced content, I kept it in a footnote. The terms Afghani and Afghanistani are occasionally used, but they are not the terms preferred by Wikipedia editors, see the July 2007 Cfd, or general English speakers at large. Yes, I do have a preference for using the generally used and understood expressions in English. --Bejnar (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute as for whether Afghanistan and Balochistan are fair game to be considered part of the Indosphere. A user:Atari400 insists that it is not, making the absurd claim that it has not been, or only minorly been, influenced by (the rest of) South Asia. Considering that you RfC'd Template:Asian capitals I am requesting that that you put in your input on the matter. Thank you, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aspasia-yearbook-cover-2007.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Aspasia-yearbook-cover-2007.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Categorizing with two sort keys
Hi, Bejnar. It does no good to add a category twice, with two different sort keys, as you did at Fred Grossinger. Only the last one is used. Earlier ones are ignored.
Furthermore, what shows up in the category is still the article's name. Even if it did work, what you would have ended up with is a strange, unexplained "Fred Grossinger" in the listings under H.
Since Fred Holliday was already a redirect, I have created a new redirect from Fred Holliday (actor) and categorized that. Check out how that works, in case you want to use it in the future. (you won't have to create a new redirect if what you want to categorize already redirects to the article rather than being a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
RE: Sanyi, Miaoli
I fixed it. Thanks for the comment.--Jerrch 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Anwar ul Haw Ahadi
You should not use his book as a reference. He is the head the Afghan Mellat party so he is not reliable.
Iranica, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam... those are reliable sources.
Please revert your edits, supporting Ahadi, the head of the Afghan nationalist article... is really starting to show that you support Afghan nationalism yourself. If as you claim you do not support Afghan nationalism, then remove Ahadi as a reference. Padmanii (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have not edited the article on Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi. My edits to Afghan Mellat did not include any book by Ahadi. In the article Afghan, I did cite a 1995 article, not a book, by him that appeared in Asian Review for the limited purpose regarding actual usage in an academic publication of the word "Pashtun" to refer to the Pashtun people. I don't see how that is unreliable. --Bejnar (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
re: Edit wars
Again, you show that you either are an Afghan nationalist or you support Afghan nationalism. I have provided a reference for Farhad Darya being half Tajik. He keeps removing it. Do you understand that that is vandalism? There is little doubt in my mind now that you are indeed an Afghan nationalist. By the way, that user is the sockpuppet of user: Khampalak. You probably knew that though but chose to help out your fellow Afghan nationalists instead. Padmanii (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I warned Historian born 1975 against edit warring, and suggested that he be civil, polite and cite reliable sources. I will give you the same advice. The discussion page for Farhad Darya is the place to work out issues like that, not an edit war. --Bejnar (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
revert your edits
Please revert all your edits on the Afghan article. Your edits make no sense. First of all that is a disambiguation page and you do not need to mention the transliterations for Pashtun. They can find those on the Pashtun people article. Secondly you are using weasel words.
Really poor edits. I would RV them but I don't have enough edits just yet, so you should listen to this advice and RV it yourself back to the previous version. Padmanii (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The points is that ethnologically the Pashtun people are not referred to as Afghans. That is purely a Persian or Farsi (and Persian or Farsi derived) usage, and neither the English nor the Ethnological usage. It is important to make that distinction, since a number of editors don't understand it, and to footnote it for the same reason. --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit really does not make sense, because the the previous version was based on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most authoritative source on Iranian studies. It says:
- From a more limited, ethnological point of view, "Afghān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paštō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paštūn. The equation [of] Afghan [and] Paštūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paštūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. [...] The term "Afghān" has probably designated the Paštūn since ancient times. Under the form Avagānā, this ethnic group is first mentioned by the Indian astronomer Varāha Mihira in the beginning of the 6th century CE in his Brihat-samhita. ( "Afghan" (with ref. to "Afghanistan: iv. Ethnography") by Ch. M. Kieffer, Encyclopaedia Iranica Online Edition 2006)
- The Encyclopaedia of Islam says:
- "Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan." (M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, R. Ghirshman, "Afghānistān", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition)
- Khushal Khan Khattak, Pashto's most famous poet, writes:
- Pull out your sword and slay any one, that says Pashton and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans! (extract from "Passion of the Afghan" by Khushal Khan Khattak; translated by C. Biddulph in "Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak", London, 1890)
- It is indeed who you who got the wrong impression that "Afghan" has not an ethnological meaning. In fact, it does and it is still used as such. In this video of former Afghan president, Dr. Najib (himself an Ahmadzai Pashtun), you can see that he refers to Pashtuns as "Afghan", while he calls the other ethnic groups by their names (i.e. Tahik, Hazara, etc). For the disambiguation page it's totally enough to say that "Afghan" is used by Persian-speakers mainly (that's indeed what the page was saying before you changed it). "Pathan" is only used by Indians and is even more uncommon than "Afghan".
- Your edit really does not make sense, because the the previous version was based on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most authoritative source on Iranian studies. It says: