User talk:Bejnar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archive 4

January 2008 - June 2008

Demography of Afghanistan

While you reverted the edits of User:Beh-nam, you also deleted the following information:

• The term Afghan, though (historically) synonymous with Pashtun, is promoted as a national identity. As such, all constitutions drafted since the early 20th century have declared Afghan as the official nationality for all citizens of Afghanistan. However, this does not address questions of ethnicity, for Pashtuns, Tajiks, Turkmen and others still feel strong ethnic ties. In order to solve the problem, in recent years, the term Afghanistani (analogous to Uzbekistani, Pakistani, or Tajikistani) has been suggested for the citizens of Afghanistan in contrast to (ethnic) Afghans who would be the Pashtuns. The idea is supported by some notable politicians within Afghanistan, for example by Dr. Abdul Latif Pedram.

Please keep the information about Afghanistani and Latif Pedram. I will also add sources to it in the next few days, as well as present a news-paper article by Pedram in which he challanges the word "Afghan" and proposes a general namechange of Afghanistan to "Aryana". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.214 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Latif Pedram, and why is he authoritative? Don't change things until you have proper reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Latif Pedram is not authoritative, but he is a politician within Afghanistan who is challenging the word "Afghan". That means that there is a group within Afghanistan that suggests the word "Afghanistani" instead of "Afghan". And User:Beh-nam has shown you a picture which clearly shows that "Afghanistani" is being used within Afghanistan.

BTW, the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam are authoritative. In case of the latter, you are ignoring sources.

The Encyclopaedia Iranica says "AFGÚAÚN, Ch. M. Kieffer In current political usage, any citizen of Afghanistan, whatever his ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation. According to the 1977 constitution of the Republic of Afghanistan (1973-78), all Afghans are equal in rights and obligations before the law. In an attempt to alleviate the inevitable tensions and conflicts of an ethnically diverse state, the republic discouraged reference to ethnic or tribal origin and prohibited the use of personal names that evoke an ethnic group (such as Afr^d^, Ahámadzay, OÚrmurá, Nu@rzay, Po@palzay, Wardak, etc. ..." So don't change things. --Bejnar (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not changing things but given you the complete article. The same article also 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.

That's exactly what the article Afghan said before you changed it. The different spellings of Pashtun are totally irrelevant in that page and belong to the Pashtun people article where they are already listed. Also note that the article says designate and not designated.

The Encyc. Irania may use the word ethnological, but ethnologists don't use Afghan for an ethnic group. Persian speakers may use Afghan for the ethnic group, English speakers generally don't. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is wrong. "Afghan" is being used as a synonym for the Pashtuns, even among scholars. And the article "Afghan" in Iranica is written by linguists and ethnologists. So you are indeed ignoring an authoritative source just to prove your own point. See for example Jennifer Milliken in "State Failure, Collapse and Reconstruction" who says: "Afghan nationalism is essentially Pashtun nationalism". Here are some other academic sources: [1][2]

Here is another very good source: Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek, Julia Katschnig; "Central Asia on Display". Make sure you read ALL of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.214 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not proved. Just for example, Development and Change is not an ethnographic publication. --Bejnar (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bejnar, but the articles of the EI and EIr are ethnographic and written by leading linguists! So far, you have not proved your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.214 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Grossinger

I don't know who is Fred Grossinger and I don't know the show "Girl in My Life". And I believe the show "Girl in My Life" is not a game show. It was a non-fiction and a classic reality show. According to Internet Movie Database. I'm telling you it is not a game show. You're saying rude comments to me. Please do not send me a message. Steam5 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that I was being rude, if so I apologize. I said on your talk page "You said in your edit of 3 January 2008 on the Fred Grossinger article that "He did not host a game show on his appearance" and removed the category "American game show hosts". However the imdb entry for "Girl in My Life" (1973) shows that he was the host of that program. Do you have a more reliable source that contradicts that? Or is your problem with the fact that "Girl in My Life" was only loosely a "game show", even though the contestants did walk away with prizes?" --Bejnar (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Girl in My Life

According to another website, faqs.org, It was a loosely or a half game show. It was on "List of U.S. game shows". I apologize for my disagreement on a game show. On the previous message just ignore the previous message. So, I apologize for my disagreement. Steam5 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidney & geodis template

Mea culpa. I guess that in this case it was overkill on my part. But then I see that you fixed it. Peter Horn 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan template

I don't know if my suggestions were at all helpful at resolving the dispute but I support what you are trying do to the page there and people keep gutting the template. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raziq Faani

Thanks for the message. In following the debate around the user who is replacing Afghan with Tajik, and Dari with Persian, I've learned a bit more. Generally, though, I don't have a dog in this fight, and just watch this cause I found this article uncatted and a mess and did some wikifing of it last year ( and again recently). Please do what you think is best, but I would suggest that whatever it means in Afghanistan, "Afghan" is what one calls a person from there in English. I'd like to see that in the lead, as the articles from the Afghan Embassy stress this person's importance as a national symbol. I'm happy to help, but my areas of knowledge don't really cover this (which is why it's so interesting to me). Cheers, T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Official denonym is Kyrgyzstsani

According to the CIA World Factbook, Kyrgyzstani (not Kyrgyz is the official denonym (LINK). This is because the government of Kyrgystan distinguishes between ethnicity and nationality (Kyrgyz is 64.9% of Kyrgystan). HouChangMao (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:User:RealAfghan112

This user is no longer changing "Afghan" to "Afghanistani", which as I understand it was the big issue resulting in the ban. I don't know the topic well enough to be confident in blocking RealAfghan112 based on today's edits. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Turco-Mongol

About this your change in Hazara people article: Hazara people arn't turk noway. your edit havn't any References. please not change again. Abtinb (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The references are there. --Bejnar (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agenda?

What agenda? My only goal is to provide accurate information. By looking at your contributions it is clear your agenda is anti-Tajik and anti-Persian. You clearly support both Pan-Turkism and Afghan-nationalism just for the sake of being anti-Persian. I'm not sure about your background. What is your background? Farsiwan22 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan Demographics

Britannica's numbers are from the early 1900s. Iranica is the most reliable and CIA is ok too. Hazara898 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the user that insists on Britannica's numbers from the early 1900s complains that CIA's numbers are not recent enough. Hazara898 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica updated their demographic figures for Afghanistan in 2006. They don't match the 1911 ones, because there were no ethnic figures for Afghanistan in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. So, what are you talking about? --Bejnar (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Point is 2008 version says something else

Not 1911, but early 20th century is where these estimates are from. To read what the 2008 Britannicaa actually says CLICK HERE:

“ ... No national census has been conducted in Afghanistan since a partial count in 1979, and years of war and population dislocation have made an accurate ethnic count impossible. Current population estimates are therefore rough approximations, which show that Pashtuns comprise somewhat less than two-fifths of the population. The two largest Pashtun tribal groups are the Durrani and Ghilzay. Tajiks are likely to account for some one-fourth of Afghans and Hazara nearly one-fifth. Uzbeks and Chahar Aimaks each account for slightly more than 5 percent of the population and Turkmen an even smaller portion. ... ”

Even if those were 2006, 2008 version of Britannica says the above.

Farsiwan22 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you will check back, you will see that your quoted language is unchanged from the 2005 printed version of the Encyclopedia Britannica (the oldest new one that I have handy), and is probably older, as, at a quick glance, the article only appears to cite up to 2001. The World Data sheet was prepared in 2006. --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

They did not include it in the 2008 version so they must have thought there was something wrong it. Farsiwan22 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese in Thailand

Interesting--thanks, are you going to add them to Ethnic groups in Thailand? They're only in the template now. Badagnani (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad village Parri bangla

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Nazir Ahmad village Parri bangla, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

I need your help on the Hazara people article. The article was nominated for good article status and it is very close to passing, but the reviewer has placed its passing on hold because first he wants some changes. He has listed the changes he wants on the talk page of the article. Please review them and fix the things that he requested. I would do it but I don't have time right now. We have 7 days to make these improvements listed. Thanks. Hazara898 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

References/notes

I understand well that things should not be changed back and forth when there is no preference. However, there is a preference for community articles: the guidelines strongly prefer the titles that I've put in. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the header. The guidelines are set up so that each header ("History", "Geography", "Demographics", etc.) is the actual name of a section in the article. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at typical community articles, that's how it's done. The guidelines say specifically not to include anything except either {{reflist}} or <references/> in those sections; that's what the further reading is for. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• See full discussion at User talk:Nyttend#La Cueva.--Bejnar (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is the way that it's done with community articles. If you have an issue with it, you'd do better to talk with the WP:CITY people. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who is not following the guidelines. Heal thyself physician. --Bejnar (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the revision of the guidelines; it might have been months before I noticed it otherwise :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You failed on the Hazara people article

You had a week to help the article become GA and failed. It is very disappointing. HuaijinYang (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure... you put your time elsewhere promoting Afghan nationalism. The Hazara article was not good to Afghan nationalism so you didn't want it to be a GA. HuaijinYang (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rize Again

Good job on not ever noticing user: NisarKand and user: Khampalak, unlike user: Beh-nam who was banned for a stupid reason... these two were banned for long racist rants. And now somehow you manage to miss their sockpuppets as you did on the Afghanistan article. It's very suspicious. HuaijinYang (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

The latest edit in demography of Afghanistan by the sock of User:NisarKand is POV. He is totally ignoring the current and official online version of Britannica and he is deleting the sources from the article. It surprises me that you always revert the edits of User:Beh-nam, yet you do not seem to be concerned about the POV-pushing of NisarKand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of NisarKand. I am not sure what the proper procedure is to clear my name. We, assuming that this charge is being brought by Beh-nam, have previously discussed on various talk pages the "recency" of the Britannica article. I was mainly concerned in that edit with correcting the ethnic statistics that someone had changed from the reported values. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being NisarKand. But I said that you do not seem to be worried about his POV while you seem to be an active user in Afghanistan-related articles. I actually support most of your edits. But you should not only concentrate on Beh-nam. Beh-nam is not the big problem but NisarKand who has a long list of sockpuppets (some 30 socks are already detected and banned!). If yuo are really concerned with correcting the numbers you should support a NPOV version. Very obviously, Britannica has two different numbers which contradict each other. The only solution is to mention both numbers. NisarKand, however, only wants the one he likes - the one sheet from 2000 which claims that Pashtuns (NisarKand's tribe) are 49% of Afghanistan. Yet, the current and official online version of Britannica (from 2008) says that Pashtuns are "less than two fifth" (< 40%), which is also the number given in Iranica (39%). Why should the one sheet be accepted while ignoring the current version? I trust you and I hope that you take care of it once the page is unblocked again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the Britannica, the so-called 2008 version is from 2002 (they have not revised the article since then). The so-called 2000 version is from 2006 (it is a World Fact Sheet). All, I repeat all, ethnic data about current ethnic distribution and population numbers in Afghanistan is suspect. Based on interviews with post 2001 refugees, more Tajiks have fled than Pashtuns, but anecdotal evidence suggests that during the Soviet period this may not have been true. At least, for example, among the Shirani (a Pashtun tribe), many left for jobs in the Gulf States during the Soviet days. I am more concerned with accurate citation to reliable (or as reliable as possible) sources, than I am with the absolute truth. Especially since absolute truth is something that we can argue about for the rest of our lives. See, Wikipedia:Verifiability and the humorous essay Wikipedia:The Truth. --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true. The fact sheet itself is from 2006, but the numbers (as can be shown in the sheet) are from 2000. Click here to see what I mean. Even IF the current online version is from 2002, it is still newer than the numbers of the fact sheet. All the rest about the refugees etc. is pure speculation. We do NOT know the number or ethnic make-up of Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan or Europe who are (all together) some 5 million (!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.85 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comanche language

That's exactly as I was thinking needed to be done, but I didn't feel right doing it myself, since I know little about the subject. Thank you.Civil Engineer III (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cimarron River (Canadian River watershed)

Thank you so much for the Cimarron River note. You've just undone 30 years of assumptions on my part! ;-) I also appreciate your work on Rayado, New Mexico. I was going to write something but what you wrote was much more interesting. I've been trying to fill some of the red links on Philmont (which I'm surprised had not been done before). You might be interested in my new article on Vermejo Park Ranch. BTW, I may wonder back in on New Mexico history as I don't see an article on the 1841 Texas invasion. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Separating references and notes

I actually prefer the term 'references' as opposed to 'notes', and WP:CITE shows no preference one way or the other, but most city articles don't really make much use of actual footnotes, other than using footnotes for references, so I see no reason whatsoever to favor the 'notes' format in the guideline. I would actually prefer if editors would put no-citation-based footnotes in another section altogether. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that that is where our preferences diverge. --Bejnar (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

re

Yes I will. And please keep an eye on Kabul and Ghazni articles. NisarKand is back claiming that Pashto is the most spoken language in those cities (not be confused with the province). Khowsti (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hezbi Islami

Please redirect Hezbi Islami to Hezb-e Islami. That is the correct spelling. Thanks. TruePashtoon (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

please avoid an edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Afghanistan. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czech_town_Jevícko.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Czech_town_Jevícko.png, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Nv8200p talk 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Farsiwan

This edit is certainly contra-productive because you have deleted reliable sources and references. Your claim that all Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan are called "Dari" is wrong. You are once more ignoring (and deleting) the reference to the Encyclopaedia Iranica which does not support your claim.

I do not blame you, because you are not an Afghan and (very obviously) have only limited knowledge of the country and its social structures.

Please READ the edits of others before you revert them. And please assume good faith (as you are doing with the banned User:NisarKand).

• I do not claim that all the Persian spoken in Afghanistan is Dari, in fact the Persian spoken by the true Farsiwan in different from that spoken by the intelligencia in Kabul. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you do. Read the version you have just restored. You also deleted the references to the "Khorasani dialect" (which is spoken in the Iran-Afghanistan border region and is significantly different from the "standard" dialects of Kabul and Tehran. Here, listen to it - it is totally different from the dialect of Kabul), and you deleted the reference to the FACT that Farsiwans also call themselvs "Persians" (locally "Farsi"). You just need to go to Herat. Persian-speakers in Herat who are Immamite Shia in faith are known as "Farsi", while "Farsiwan" is a more general term designating all Persian-speakers (including Hazaras and Aimaq). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.147 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Persian Wikipedia. In English, Farsiwan refers to these people not just any Persian language speaker. In fact the English language resources make this clear. The Encyc. Iranica says in the article on Afghanistan - Ethnography that "The term Farsiwan also has the regional forms Parsiwan and Parsiban. In religion they are Imamite Shiite. In the literature they are often mistakenly referred to as Tajik." Dupree, , Louis (1982) "Afghanistan: (iv.) Ethnography", in Encyclopædia Iranica Online Edition 2006. Similarly, Emadi, Hafizullah (2005) Culture And Customs Of Afghanistan Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., ISBN 0-313-33089-1, on page 11 says: "Farsiwan are a small group of people who reside in southern and western towns and villages in Herat. They are sometimes erroneously referred to as Tajiks." --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cerro-Lipez-Landsat7-1999-11-24.jpg

Hi, Cerro Lípez is not shown in the image. The point marked by the virtual thumbtack is approximately located at coordinates: 21°38′S 67°47′W. The white shaded line is part of the international border between Bolivia and Chile. Jespinos (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

I believe it belongs on the disambiguation page, as it's part of the project. Badagnani (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Kabul University logo.gif

The image was last used eleven days ago in this revision. Let me know if you need to use the image and want it restored. east.718 at 03:00, March 31, 2008

Tajikistan: Kohistan-Badakhshan vs. Gorno-Badakhshan

I am writing because, being a novice, I need your advice in a ticklish situation. On January 9, 2008, User:Anoshirawan (with whom you have crossed swords on several issues) moved "Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province" (Russian name) to "Kohistan-Badakhshan Autonomous Province" (Persian name). As a result, two things happened at that point in time: (a) the article "Kohistan-Badakhshan Autonomous Province" became full of internal inconsistencies and ambiguities involving indiscriminate use of the names "Kohistan-Badakhshan" and "Gorno-Badakhshan"; (b) much more importantly in my view, the main article "Kohistan-Badakhshan Autonomous Province" now conflicts with the terminology used for this province in other Wikipedia pages (most notably "Provinces of Tajikistan" and "Tajikistan"). In my opinion, instead of moving "Gorno-Badakhshan" to "Kohistan-Badakhshan", we should keep "Gorno-Badakhshan" as the main article (for the sake of consistency with other Tajikistan-related pages in Wikipedia) and redirect "Kohistan-Badakhshan" to "Gorno-Badakhshan".

What is your opinion, as an experienced editor? If you agree with my position, how should I proceed? I simply do not know how to handle a change of this magnitude. I look forward to your guidance in this matter. --Zlerman (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the two comprehensive and very useful sets of comments you have placed on my talk page in response to this query. I agree that Gorno-Badakhshan is the first (and probably undisputable) preference in academic literature: this is actually what triggered my letter to you. I will do my best to follow the detailed advice you give me under "Inappropriate moves" on my talk page. Hopefully I will succeed, although I do not quite see what I have to do and what the outcome is going to be. Question of inexperience, I guess. In any event, thanks very much again.--Zlerman (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sehend, west Azerbaijan

Dear Mr. Bejnar I think that you are not fare and not unpartizan. I constantly use the talk page and talk page of the user Sehend. he does not repl and selfishly is going on pushing his POV. I expected a better reaction from yours--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Khajeh/Khwajeh

Hi, in July 2007, you (quite rightly) moved Kuh-e Khwajeh to Mount Khajeh. In the latter name there is no 'w'. Was that intentional or a typo? -- Fullstop (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Umar Bin Hafsun

The translation for his name is عمر بن حفص, copy it from here and paste it in any search engine, and you will never find any references for him, even in christian websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the cited reference works. --Bejnar (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Was I talking to you in spanish when I said "Arabic References"? (I studied spanish by the way, I even used to speak spanish when I was married to Salma Hayek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at History of Islam (Vol 3) by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi. You can read it and about Umar ibn Hafsun in Google books, here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Por favor, dame un solo el "árabe" (no indígena, no farsi o un cristiano) de referencia que garantice que se convirtió al cristianismo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you hate me and always delete my changes? (Do you have anything against me? or you just don't like Salma Hayek?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to speak arabisch?

Hey listen, I would just like to correct your ideas, arabic is the language of 22 middle eastern country, it was the language of those people lived 1000 years ago, they were called Muslims, they were worshipping One God (not a human, not a monkey, not a cow, not a dickhead), and they used this language to document their history, so if you can get any references for Umar Bin Hafsun that he converted to christianity, I would be thankful to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)