Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izzedine (talk | contribs) at 07:55, 17 December 2009 (Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Georgia

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Xizer (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something I will have to explain to you. You are the one who reverts peoples edits and removes referenced and absolutely legitimate materials;not once, not twice but many times.You were even blocked for violating three revert rule by Husond. From someone who is engaged in that kind of violations and many other controversial edits - as one can see on your talk page - I think it is time for you to stop posting this spam like messages on every talk page and look at your own edit history. What you are doing is wrong. Stop warning innocent people against violating three revert rule when you were blocked for the very same violation just recently. --Satt 2 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Xizer

User blocked after violating the three revert rule, again. Thanks for reporting. Regards, Húsönd 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi Satt, that image does not have any author information or assurances that it is not a copyright violation. In such a high profile article we have to make sure we are positive the image can be used by us. --mboverload@ 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sarah-palin.jpg missing description details

Hi, where did you get this image? rootology (C)(T) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sarah-palin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sarah-palin.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Suntag (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 09

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Reference Europe --Snowded 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of changes made to Asia.

You recently removed maps from the Asia article. I have reversed those changes, but am inviting you to discuss and achieve consensus here: Talk:Asia#Offending_maps Manning (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Map of ethnic groups

Satt 2, I was going to write a message on your talk page, but you preceded me. I noticed you used insulting language towards me ("Your ignorant mind", "NOONE gives a slightest f***", "STOP EDIT WARRING !", etc.). I wasn't going to use insulting language myself, and, of course, I will not do that now. That's not my style and, in any case, it is specifically forbidden by the Misplaced Pages. The hysterical tone and flawed arguments you employed in your message on my talk page make it clear that you are not qualified to carry on a reasonable conversation on this subject. However, I am going to pretend I did not read what you just wrote, and try and convince you of why you are incorrect, using a civil tone and logical argumentation.

You seem to imply that the map in question includes Iran and Ukraine, when in fact only small corners of those countries are displayed because of the particular shape of the map. This is a map of the ethnolinguistic groups of the Caucasus Region, of which Georgian is the largest and most representative. That is why it makes perfect sense to show the ethnic groups of Georgia within the wider context of the entire Caucasus region. This has nothing to do with whether you personally care about Iran or Daghestan!

You also ask: "If this was a section about the US demographics, why the hell would I include the entire North America, why??!!!". I wonder if you have ever seen or worked with maps of the indigenous groups of the United States, which as you know, includes Alaska. I have, many times in fact, since linguistics is my field of study, and I assure you that these maps do indeed usually include Canada and Mexico (and maybe even Guatemala). Why? Precisely, because you cannot understand the distribution of the Algonquian or Athapaskan languages in the United States, if you don't also see their distribution in Canada, and you cannot understand the distribution of the Uto-Aztecan or Yuman languages in the United States, if you don't also see their distribution in Mexico. If you don't believe me, please consult with any other linguist and they will be happy to confirm.

The same applies to the relationship between the Georgian language and the Caucasian languages as a whole. If you are not personally interested in languages and language relationships, that's fine, but obviously you cannot presume to speak for the entire Misplaced Pages readership. I find that map very useful precisely where it is located. You cannot tell me "If you like the map take it home, put it on your wall, and stare at it as long as you want." If so, we could say the same thing about anything we are personally not interested in.

I suppose you personally have no interest in the Caucasian language families, or else you would not say, as you say in your message: "Your ignorant mind might think that since all those people in the Caucasus live so close, they are irreplaceable for each other" (where I assume that, by "irreplaceable", you meant "interchangeable"). Those "people in the Caucasus", as you call them, share millennia of life together in relatively close quarters and the question of their ethnolinguistic relationship is very much debated. Since Georgia is the only internationally recognized independent country whose language is a member of the Caucasian language group, a map of the Caucasian ethnolinguistic groups is perfectly relevant in the Georgia article.

You imply that your lack of interest in the above matters is representative of every other Wikipedian. (You say "NOONE gives a slightest f*** about what is going on 1000 kilometers from Georgia.") I beg to disagree. I would say that, in fact, you seem to be the only person who is bothered by that map, I am not sure why. By projecting your personal lack of interest onto every other Wikipedian, you are making a gross error. I did not put that map there. But I reverted your deletion precisely because you seem to be the only user who feels so strongly, in fact hysterically, about it.

In conclusion, your arguments, if I can call them that, are specious and disingenous. I will involve other Misplaced Pages users, who will hopefully let you know that you are the one who is out of line here, you are the one who is engaging in edit warring, and you are the one whose mind is, shall we say, a little narrow. Pasquale (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

People in the Caucasus share milliennia of living together? You are lecturing me like I am a stranger to a place where I was born and lived most of my life. Yes, they live together for millenia, they kill and hate each other for millenia, and I am sure they do not want to see each others faces on the articles about their own damn countries. Roll your tongue back and create another article specifically about the languages you are so passionate about; you can include your maps there. This is exactly the problem with you, you fail to realize that your interest in languages, somehow expressed through ethnographic maps, can not be expressed in its entirety in an article that is not Specifically for languages. You also unjustly imply that I am not interested in Caucasian languages, one of which is my native. You seem to confuse ones interest in languages with how relevant all these ethnographic maps are to this particular country article.

By the way, Georgian is not the largest linguistic group in the provided area, its Azerbaijani language. Just because its not classified as Caucasian for some reason does not mean more than 7 million people can be omitted. Also, I have no idea what you mean that Georgia is the most representative of the Caucasus. Are you saying that the other cultures and languages are so related and/or similar to it that it can represent them? well, if yes, thats what prompts me to call you ignorant - being fooled by a mere geographic proximity like most foreigners that go there --Satt 2 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The term Caucasian languages does not refer to a geographic grouping, but a linguistic grouping. The Azerbaijani language is geographically located in the Caucasus but is linguistically not a Caucasian language, but a Turkic language. Among the Caucasian languages, the Georgian language has by far the largest number of speakers. It is the most representative because it is the most widely studied and because it is spoken in the only internationally recognized independent country whose language is a member of the Caucasian language group. I am not trying to lecture you. These things are all very well known. Just read the articles. There is a large number of linguists among the Wikipedians who can tell you the same things. You keep calling me ignorant, but your statements clearly indicate that you don't know much about what I am talking about. That's OK, except for the fact that you are trying to restrict the focus of this article to only what you are interested in. The linguistics of Georgia and of the Caucasus region as a whole are deeply intertwined and reflect millennia of close interaction. They are of great interest to a large number of Misplaced Pages users. And that map provides more information on that particular subject than could be given in 10 pages. The linguistics of the Caucasus region has nothing to do with politics or with the hatred you are referring to, which has more recent roots than the ancient ethnolinguistic relationships among the peoples of the Caucasus. You think I am "fooled by a mere geographic proximity like most foreigners that go there". That's ridiculous. In linguistics, an evaluation of language relationships is never based on "geographic proximity". Like all language families, the Caucasian language family is not at all based on "mere geographic proximity", but on the morphology and the structure of the languages themselves. I don't how else to explain this to you. Pasquale (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 07:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

listen you little creep. I dont know which handbook you copied this warning statements from, and I do not care to know. all I know is that you have no right to delete things at your own discretion. Want to create a new map? do it, just dont mess with the materials thats been there and agreed upon long before you popped up.--Satt 2 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 07:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)