Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:32, 19 January 2006

Hi! welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the test area.
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not
• If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Misplaced Pages:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Misplaced Pages. Drop a note at Misplaced Pages:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Films

Hello! I hope you don't mind, but I've done some DABbing on your user page. If you're a film fan, have you seen Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films? You might find the project interesting. The JPS 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Problem with another nutjob with the Tajiks page

If you feel that the article should be protected, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. utcursch | talk 13:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Bin Qasim article...

Hi, firstly I would like to say there was no massacre of Hindus or non-Muslims, this is false interpretation of Hindus. If you look at historical documents, you can clearly see that the conquered people were treated very well infact more so then under the prior rule. You being an Atheist, what does that matter does that give you anymore rights on Misplaced Pages? my friend take the carbon copy of your intelligence off and look at facts before you make ignorant comments.

--Street Scholar 11:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This street scholar has issues...--Dangerous-Boy 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

I agree! I especially loved the image of Punjabi children you had in the article. Unfortunately, we have to be very careful with copyright issues. deeptrivia (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan photos in public domain

Here's a link to some great pakistan photos in public domain. I'm sure you'll find some useful stuff. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of these images are under a Creative Commons license. If you see below the image on the right, where it shows "Additional Information" . It says "Some rights reserved", and there is a (cc) logo on the left of it. The (cc) (Creative Commons) mark implies, among other things, that you are free to use this image in Misplaced Pages. Have fun uploading pretty pictures :) deeptrivia (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Pathan vs. Pashtun is a futile contribution and a ploy to promote Niazis on WikiPedia

It is quite obvious from Asim Khan Niazi's futile contribution, Pathan vs. Pashtun, to this page that he is trying to promote his tribe as one of the main tribe among Pathans. The only source which he is quoting IS "The Pathans" by Olaf Caroe and on the top of that he is claiming that Qais had three sons and to make the matter worst, he is putting his tribe on the top.

Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns are ethnicity NOT a liguistic race. It has nothing to do with the language. Only ignorants claim that Pashto is the only language spoken by the Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns.

It is disserice to the Pathans' history by drawing these lines on the premises of spellings as well as any language. Pathans are Pashtuns / Pakhtuns and vice verca.

And last but not the least, WikePedia should NOT be used as an advertisement ploy for tribes. WikePedia should stick to its NPOV guidlines. If one is really interested in Pathans' History then there are more important books out there which were published way before "The Pathans" by Olaf Caroe.

• "Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India" Volume One published by Government Mono Type Press, Simla, India - (Originally Published 1907) ::

• "A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes of the North West Frontier of India" published by The General Staff Army Headquarter, Calcutta, India - (Originally Published 1910) ::

• Family Tree of Qais Abdul Rashid :: Please, click on + signs to navigate ::

McKhan

Turkish people

Thanks, good job! I might ask, however, are you the same person as 70.122.73.105 (talk · contribs)? --Khoikhoi 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. By the way, what articles specifically have people reverted my edits? Just wondering. --Khoikhoi 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi, I disagree that the Etymology section goes beneath the History section. Putting the Etymology first is standard format on every article I have ever seen that has an etymology section. Could you please move it back up?

Also, you quoted one (Western) author who opines that the early history of the name is "speculative". But at the article Ashvaka, if you read all the way through it, it lists at least 5 or 6 historians, Western and local, who agree that the Ashvakas became the Afghans and gave them their name... Producing just one dissenter up front, as if he has more authority than the rest, seems just a tad skewed to me... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Great job again! :-) I'll have it on my watchlist to make sure people don't add incorrect info. By the way, an article that needs serious work is the Azerbaijanis page. I know large dispute is over weather they are a Turkic or Iranian people, because they speak a Turkic language. Maybe you can help out. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, where are the references on the Iranian peoples page? Remember, external links are different than references. --Khoikhoi 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job again. I noticed that the article has a {{disputed}} template on the top of the page. What do we have to do to the article so it can get removed? Should it be re-written completely? --Khoikhoi 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkey number vandal

Hey Tombseye. Can you please do me a favor and revert back to my version on the Turkey page? If I do it one more time then I'll get blocked. --Khoikhoi 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkish people

Happy holidays! :) If we get the page protected, I'm afraid that some admin will notice that I violated the three revert rule and get me blocked, so I'm not so sure if it's a good idea. As for the Pre-Islamic history of Afghanistan page, you should just revert his edits because he has not cited his sources and then try talking to him, if you haven't already.

I can't think of any articles that need help right now, but I'll let you know when I do. Actually, right now I've created a Category:Pashtun tribes and have been trying to fix all the articles that I've added to that category, a lot of them need some serious work, especially the pages created by User:McKhan. Maybe you can help out. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article

I'm not sure if you're interested, but the History of Azerbaijan needs a complete rewrite. It's really a mess. --Khoikhoi 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tombseye - thanks for your edits of the Azerbaijan page. I am working on it as well, specifically on Medieval and Modern period, however do not mind your edits, since they look excellent. I am new here, and will benefit from more help on general editing and references

abdullnt - 27 Dec 2005

Hello Abdullnt. Khoikhoi told me about History of Azerbaijan's problems so I thought I'd lend a hand to fix it up. Okay, I think if we divide it up that'll work well as I'm going to continue to work on the pre-Medieval sections until I think they're satisfactory. If you have any images and maps that would be helpful as they would make the article more appealing. Just do your best and try to consult multiple sources, be as neutral and objectie as possible and the article should come out well. I'm aware of the various rivalries and counter-histories that various groups in the region have, so I'm trying to ignore that as much as possible so that the article reflects a more academic perspective. Tombseye 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of Pashtuns

Ethnologue is an extremely uncertain source ... they have been criticized many many times! As for the number of refugees in Pakistan: the total number is something between 2-4 million, maybe 70% are ethnic Pashtuns ... so, the number is something around 3 million. The total number of Pashtuns in Afghanistan is unknown ... something between 10 and 13 million seems to be a good guess. The population of Pakistan is 162,419,946 (July 2005 est.), Pashtuns are ~15% (while the number of Pashto-speakers is ~8%!) . So, 15% of 162.4m is less than 25m. 25m (Pakistan) + 2-3m (refugees from Afghanistan) + 10-13m (Afghahnistan) + 1m (rest) = 38-42million ... in any case, 50million is TOTALLY exeggerated! Just a comparison: ethnic Persians in Iran are only 35-40 million. Even if you add ethnic Tajiks to that number, they are still less than 60 million. Considering the cultural and linguistic importance of Persian language and culture throughout history in the region, "50m+ Pashtuns" looks really unconvincing to me. Tajik 07:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Turks.jpg

Hey, thanks! I created it upon a request by some guy on Talk:Turkish people. As for other ethnic group pages, I need some suggestions by some of the people themselves because I don't really know who are the famous people are for each ethnic group. --Khoikhoi 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll work on the picture of the Azerbaijanis first. :) --Khoikhoi 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind for the first one. I made one for Tajiks instead. Let me know what you think. Also, is it entirely proven that Zoroaster was Tajik? --Khoikhoi 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your support! I just updated the Tajiks picture by the way. --Khoikhoi 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for article

Hi Tombseye,

Happy new year. :) I really think the Sinhalese people needs some help. Perhaps you could help out on fixing it up, like adding all the genetic info that you added to other articles, like Azerbaijanis. I know some of the disputes on the talk page are: their origins, and are they Caucasoid? Maybe you can clear those things up by either fixing up that article or doing a complete rewrite at Sinhalese people/Temp. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I liked your summary of the past few days. Wait, so "The Turkey Vandal"/User:-Inanna-'s a girl? I always refer to everyone as "he" in Misplaced Pages but I guess I'm just sexist. Anyways, I noticed from your user page that you're from Oakland — I am too! Pretty cool, huh? Nice city. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, great job!! Just one thing: technically the Wanniyala-Aetto are the true natives of Sri Lanka, so maybe the 1st paragraph could do some rewording. Thanks for another great article by the way. --Khoikhoi 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, would you be able to check this edit and see if it is accurate? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't really have any ideas. I'll try to ask some people. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

screwed up formatting

Yikes. Sorry about that. Talk:Germanic People. All good now, though. I really cannot imagine what that person thought they would accomplish by blanking my response to him/her/it. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Uzbeks

lol it's me again :P Regarding the pictures in the article Uzbeks: Tamerlane was deffinitly NOT an Uzbek, but a Mongol from the Mongol "Berlas" tribe. He neither spoke Uzbek (but Chagatai language), nor considered himlsef an "Uzbek". This is even attested by many coins from his time, in which he clearly stated that he is Mongol: , Besides that:

• The Timurid Empire (The Islamic World to 1600 / The University of Calgary)
• Timur (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press):

  Timur or Tamerlane  , c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng 
  . He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant 
  of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent 
  his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from 
  his capital at Samarkand. 

• "The Timurid states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries", M.S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds. (Paris: UNESCO, 1998):

  The disintegration of the Mongol Empire left a power vacuum in Central Asia into which stepped one of the most notorious
  empire-builders of all time, Timur, popularly known as Tamerlane. He was born probably in the 1320s in the Mongol Barlas
  tribe, which contended for power in the region around Kesh (Shahr-i Sabz) south of Samarkand. He fought his way to power and 
  secured it in part by marrying true royalty, that is, a woman who descended from Chingis Khan.

I suggest to replace the picture with that of Rustam Kasimdzhanov (... although I am not sure wether Mr. Kasimdzhanov is an ethnic Tajik or ethnic Uzbek!?!)

Tajik 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your reply (in my discussion), but - this time - I do not agree. I think it is very important to present a correct picture of the people. For example: Atatürk was born in the Balkans, but this does not mean that he was Macedonian. Palestinians consider themselvs Arabs and part of the Arab heritage, but it would be wrong to portrait prophet Muhammad's picture in th e"Plestinian" or "Syrian" article. The "Uzbeks" as an ethnic and linguistic group entered Central-Asia and South-Turkistan in the 15th century under the leadership of Muhammad Shaybani. The Uzbeks were fierced enemies of the Timurids - in fact, they were directly responsible for the fall of the Timurid Empire. They defeated Sultan Huseyn Bayqara in Herat, and later crushed Muhammad Babur's army in Ferghana. Putting Tamerlane's picture in the "Uzbek" article is like putting some Ottoman or Seljuq picture in the Kurdish, Pashtun, or Persian articles. Instead of Tamerlane, the picture of Muhammad Shaybani should be put into the article. Tajik 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

VOTE!

Please vote for Roma people for the Article Improvement Drive. Thanks! --Khoikhoi 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Help

Perhaps you could help me out here. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, forget about that. See Talk:Georgian people for more details. --Khoikhoi 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I got into an edit war with some Georgian guy. It looks like those Georgians aren't too happy about the Stalin picture. They do have to realize, however, that the Georgian people page isn't only for them. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If I ever make a picture for the Han Chinese page, I'll have Mao Zedong on it as well as historical figures and of course Yao Ming. :) --Khoikhoi 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I know, talk about propaganda... --Khoikhoi 06:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory

-Hey Tombseye, I really need your help for an article. I dont know if you remember me. It's me Afghan Historian from the Afghanistan and Pakistan threads. I was making some changes to the Aryan Invasion Theory page and I got a lot of opposition from a Hindu Nationalist of sorts, Shivraj Singh. He continuel removes my edits, giving all sorts of questionable genetic proof disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory. Since you argued well on Afghanistan I was wandering if you could successfully make the changes in the AIT article as well as show that an AIT did occur. Genetic proof exists even. Also find a way to debunk Shivraj's genetic data. It's relatively new to me and I havent heard of it before until now. I would be really appreciative.
-User:Afghan Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.141.79 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Help on Moldovans

Hi Tombseye,

There's a bit of a problem on the Moldovans article. It seems that many Romanian nationalists are trying to bias the article, and I'm trying to not let that happen. However, the version that I support right now, is, according to User:Bogdangiusca, full of weasel words, such as:

are considered by some Pan-Romanianists...

they allege that such a classification...

they allege a new identity...

Perhaps you would be able to help me fix it so it doesn't use them. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! this is the version that I supported, so I hope that people will stop reverting. --Khoikhoi 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would rather of had it if you had edited my version, and fixed that up instead of editing the pro-Romanian version though... --Khoikhoi 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I did want a rewrite. It's fine the way it is actually. I'll ask User:Node ue what he thinks, ok? You don't need to change it. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, both Romanian and Russian churches belonged to Eastern Orthodoxy, so I removed the "most Moldovans became followers of Eastern Orthodoxy". Hope you are ok with it. --Just a tag 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep cool man! Tombseye you have to read first to understand. User:node ue is a well known troller. 213.179.243.4 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. Node ue has been an editor since 2001, and is only considred a troll by Romanian POV-pushers, such as yourself. He has edited many articles, such as ones about minority languages. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually...

I was wondering, sorry about this, but I think I've changed my mind about the Moldovans page. Instead, I am requesting that you edit this version of the page - eliminate the weasel words that I mentioned above and make it generally more NPOV. Thanks a lot, not only about this but all the shit that you've backed me up on. I really appreciate it.

Oh, as for the dude on the Turkish people page who keeps changing the picture - I can't even understand what he's trying to say on the talk page. Do you have an clues? Peace out.

P.S. If you're ever into a good laugh I highly reccomend that you see this video. LOL.

--Khoikhoi 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll see what I can do on the Turkish people page. --Khoikhoi 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. My main concern is that it stays NPOV. --Khoikhoi 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you add a request on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection for the Turkish people page. Meanwhile, I'll make sure it stops getting vandalized. --Khoikhoi 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans

Replied to you on my talk page. --Just a tag 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Just a tag 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans...

Hi... it still looks like an attempt to NPOV-ify the version advocated by Romanian nationalists. Perhaps you again edited the version by Just A Tag rather than the version by myself and Khoikhoi? However, I must say, it's certainly better than the version they advocate. --Node 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL

Me again :) This time it's about the Azeri people:

a) the number of Azeri is deffinitly not 35 millions in Iran ... that's totally exeggerated! b) Shah Ismail Safawi was not really Azeri, but rather Kurdish. He was just adopted and raised by Azerbaijani Turkmens (Kizilbash) after his father was killed in battle. Newest researches (both Iranian, Western AND Turkish) agree that the Safavids were of Kurdish origin, but allied with Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan. See: Safavids.

-Tajik 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting link regarding the origins of the Safawids: . Also very intersting: de:Diskussion:Safawiden

-Tajik 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans

Well, first of all, you removed the specific number of Moldovans in the Ukraine which was taken directly from the Ukrainian census.

Also, the phrase "were broadly included as" strikes me as overly generalised and bordering on weaseling.

It should also be noted that Bessarabia was under imperial Russian control since the early 1800s, and that this has been cited by Moldovenists as the original separation between a Bessarabia-Moldovan and a Moldavian-Moldovan identity -- Romanian nationalist feelings came to the forefront of Moldavian conciousness in the mid-late 1800s, but by this time Bessarabia was part of the Russian empire, and nobody really cared (see some of the quotes at Talk:Moldovans).

I also don't think it's fair to say "emphasized 'distinct' "Moldovan language"" -- in Imperialist Russia, Bessarabian intellectuals were arguing about whether they should use Romanian for their literary language, or forge a new "Moldovan" language, which was actually quite different. The "Moldovan language" of the Soviets, however, wasn't really distinct from Romanian -- rather than using any real local features characteristic to the linguistic patterns of Bessarabia, the "Moldovan language" of the USSR was basically just the dialect of Bucharest, with perhaps a dozen modifications, except written in Cyrillic.

Moldova actually already had a separate history from "Romania" -- Romania, as such, did not exist at the time that Bessarabia became a part of the Russian empire; when the Boyars voted narrowly to unite Bessarabia with Romania, the peasants had no knowledge, and even after that the union lasted for only 20 years.

"Many modern Moldovans, due to life under the Soviet Union and other factors" also strikes me as distinctly POV. The motivation of Moldovenists is not for you or I to judge. Moldovenism predates the rise of the Soviet Union, so it seems a bit strange to directly associate it with influence of Soviet propaganda. --Node

Spanish people

Hey. Yeah, true, the whole article needs to be re-done to refer to only Castilians. I don't know how any data will be able to be gathered on just who were and were not Castilian Spanish out of all the Spaniards who immigrated to the Americas. The only knowledge I have of it is that the the region of Spain with the highest emigration numbers to the Americas was Andalusia which is considered Castilian. I think the article is fine for now until someone gets enough information and sources to create separate articles for the Catalans and for the Galicians. Ciao, Epf 11:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

I'll see what I can do, I'm pretty busy right now. Can you please do me the favor of reverting the vandalism on the Turkish people page when I'm not there? Reporting it was obviously not a good idea, because it got me blocked for 24 hours. There must be something else to do... --Khoikhoi 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to need your help on Turkish people again. Just revert Hybridlily's edits so both of us don't violate the 3RR but Hybridlily does. Then, we can report him on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Khoikhoi 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man. It seems some people don't get what NPOV means. Those two shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. Also, I have no idea why that guy wants to delete the French people article. I mean, he's obviously French, why would he want to have an article about every ethnic group except his?

Maybe you could copyedit McKhan's articles. That guy seems to have a problem with me because I added the copyedit tag to the articles he wrote. He claims that the English is fine, I beg to differ. --Khoikhoi 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It makes you wonder what Turkey is teaching their kids in schools - is is nothing propaganda or is there some truth? I bet they say nothing about the Armenian Genocide. But of course, there are many different opinions about that. The Turks say that it was just the casualties of war, while the Armenians compare it to the Holocaust. It seems that we'll never know what REALLY happened. Oh, and what did User:-Inanna- say about Armenians? What article talk page is it at?

That fool Hybridlily's been making personal attacks at me, but it's not as bad as what happened a couple months ago one time. LOL. I pissed off this Indian dude by deleting his nosense articles, and he said he was going to "kill my mother and sister". Makes me wonder how he knew I had a sister. Oh well. ;) --Khoikhoi 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I liked the "hillbilly" bit. :) Wait, User:Cool Cat was your flatmate? Yeah, the pissed of Indian user's name was User:Rajiv101. If you check his contributions, you can see some of the stuff he said. It wasn't funny back then but now looking back at it, it's pretty hilarious. --Khoikhoi 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for a bit of mediation

Hi. I am hoping I can draw on a bit of your time to try and help mediate a solution to an on-going war I seem to have stumbled unwittingly into with some articles on tribes (Wur, Tarkani, Salarzai and Mamund. A quick synopsis of the history - McKhan and Khoikhoi have been having a revert war over a copyedit tag on the articles. I copyeditted the Tarkani and Salarzai articles as they needed work. Khoikhoi and McKhan are having a mud-slinging abuse-party at each other other the articles, and I now seem to have become a target too, for no reason other than I was trying to help out. I note from your contributions you have worked with Khoikhoi before and you seem to be interested in this field. Could you try and mediate solution please. My proposal is that the articles need the input of good language, and the input of someone who knows the field. I am happy to do the language bit but do not know the field. If you look at the history of Tarkani you'll see I proposed a copyedit'd version, hoping someone would check the facts, but that simply resulted in it being rv'd by McKhan followed by a tirade of abuse. If you've not got the time, just let me know and I'll try and find someone else. Thanks. Kcordina 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input in this area. I am, however, trying to sort out the refusal of McKhan to accept any edits to the articles. I have just noticed that he has rv'd a useful edit that added to the Mamund article for no apparently sensible reason. I am lodging a request with the mediation cabal as this is all getting out of hand. Kcordina 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish people

I just don't have time to do anything with this. Fred Bauder 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits on Turkish people

Hi Tombseye,

Would you please be able to review the stuff added by User:DivineIntervention on Turkish people? See this link for what he/she added. It seems like some of the person's edits are pretty good, but they took out a lot stuff about the Armenians, Kurds, and Greeks. I don't really know why. Revert if you feel that it is necessary. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tombs! Just wanted to commend you for your patience and willingness to understand others and to have others understand you. You would make a fine teacher or diplomat! =} //Big Adamsky 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree! By the way, I'm pretty concerned about DivineIntervention's edits on the Turkish people page, mainly because of the above reasons and the fact that Hybridlily's all overjoyed. I'm thinking of reverting, but I'm not really sure yet. --Khoikhoi 08:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you look at this comment you can see that Hybridlily really has no respect for Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Apparently you're a girl according to him. --Khoikhoi 08:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in your sex. Actually, it is not my business. And nobody accused you to be a Kurdish Terrorist. We just called you that you are a Kurdish. Again, Kurdish doesn't refer to a terrorist nation. We have some problems with fundamentalist Kurdish people. I can't understand your attitude. If you have an issue with me, let it be with me --85.99.147.107 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not been made clear that one can support a group without actually being a member of said group? Tombseye 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and try helping out on Mamund and Turkish Cypriot. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you be able to revert the two pages that I just mentioned? I don't want to violate the 3RR. Also the Bulgarians page. --Khoikhoi 21:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much again. Don't forget about Mamund and Turkish Cypriot. I really want to report him and -Inanna- I'm afraid that I'll get in trouble to because I engaged in their insults on Talk:Turkish people. I couldn't help it. Apparently now I'm a Kurdish terrorist. --Khoikhoi 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you have a comment on the Sinhalese people talk page. It's the one titled, "this belongs in the sri lanka article". --Khoikhoi 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. One of the things that I've noticed that that there's a MUCH larger number of Tamil editors than Sinhalese ones. I think that's because instead of speaking Hindi in southern India, people speak English a lot more, such as in Tamil Nadu. Because of this, the Tamil-related pages are a lot longer than the Sinhalese ones. See Tamil people and Tamil language, for example, and compare them to the Sinhalese people article before you expanded it and the Sinhala article. --Khoikhoi 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You know how the whole idea of having the pictures of people in the Ethnoboxes started? I think some user added it to one of the pages about one of the peoples of former Yugoslavia. Then of course all the other ethnic group articles got them because of nationalism, and before you know it, all the ethnic groups articles had to have them! --Khoikhoi 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of nationalism, Inanna reverted on Turkish Cypriot again. Hopefully we can get her for the 3RR this time. --Khoikhoi 23:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I reported her for violating the 3RR on the Bulgarians page here. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are Kurds an Iranian people?

Hey Tombseye,

I haven't been able to stay out of trouble, but my block is over now, and I was asked a question at the bottom of Talk:Kurdish people. Bascially, there's this user called Heja helweda who wants proof that the Kurds are an Iranian people (I don't think he believes it). He himself is a Kurd. Please help me out here. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also see this new comment by AverageTurkishJoe at Talk:Turkish people. He's proposing to change the first few paragraphs... I personally don't like it. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! I hope people stop reverting on the Turkish people page. --Khoikhoi 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please help me out on Smyrna, Turkish Cypriot and Turkish people! --Khoikhoi 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that same guy here is waiting for your reply on Talk:Sinhalese people. --Khoikhoi 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man. :) It looks like we have a new problem on Persians and Talk:Persians though.... --Khoikhoi 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. I think maybe it's time to let this stuff go. We can't change the world and people want to see themselves in what they view as a positive light. I think the whole discrediting Khomeini as a non-Persian thing is more about not liking the guy than anything. A lot of Persians in the US hate the guy and project the view that MOST Persians never liked him. That might be true, but he did have a lot of supporters and a lot of Iranians, probably not a majority but who knows, do think like he did. Although, the Turkish page is just blatant misinformation by including Ottoman subjects though, replacing Khomeini with Mossadeq isn't horrible. It's just that most people will look at his picture and go, "So who's the bald guy?" Of course these are the same people who insist that every famous Persian born in Central Asia is not a Tajik. Ya know, I figure at this point why force the issue? People can edit this stuff at will and more neutral figures is probably for the best. Just not inaccurate stuff is all we should press for. I mean obviously Stalin and Hitler killed a lot of people and caused a lot misery, so not having them isn't the end of the world. Obviously, Khomeni's a divisive figure, but still an iconic figure and I think it adds nuance to have him there, but at this point why bother ya know? Better to work on the article's contents. The Turkish page though, Roxelana's not an ethnic Turk so her inclusion is just plain ridiculous. That's what we should try to press I think is accuracy rather than selectivity as this just becomes endless ya know? Tombseye 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know. :( But wait, what's wrong with the Turkish people page? Ottoman subjects? Is that the stuff that DivineIntervention added? If there's any misinformation I can just revert to the last good version. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)