User talk:Big Adamsky/Archive I

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Big Adamsky/Archive I, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! →Journalist >>talk<< 16:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian people

About the assyrian people article.I'd like to keep the original article since what you added gives a picture that all assyrians have got assimilated which is false.Assyrians have not got assimilated into the arab muslim world if we would get assimilated we wouldnt be here today with our traditions christianity and original culture.--Sargon 10:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi, thanks about the maps :) I use corel painter for making them. Are there any articles which need maps at the moment that youve noticed? Astrokey44 19:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia is an international definition

Please, you do not have to change the Anatolia to Asia Minor. It is an international definition. If you like you can put your argument in the discussion page.

Ethic structure of the Anatolia

I was wondering, if you dare to create page, that will collect the migrations in&out of Anatolia through out time. Maybe you can develop a timeline with referances... That would be ver usefull, and we can put a link to your page under demographics of Republic of Turkey.

Thanks for your response. But do not change the definition of the Turkish people on the main page as it was developed along the political usage of "Turkish" that does not depend on ethnicity. Which I guess goes along what you try to develop in your text. That did not come very definite. It is better to left some terms not to be analyzed in-detail on a main page to stop vandalism of other concepts that goes along with it. I guess you might agree with this. --tommiks 22:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the "ethnic usage of Turkish", which the word "Turkic people" is used. I tried to follow your changes. If you claim that there is no ethnic Turk or "Turkic" in Turkey, you might need to develop a specific page. By the way, I'm just trying to understand what your are trying to change, that is all.--tommiks 22:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I miised anything else, please inform me..

I just read your comment after I drop the message, if that message covers your question that is fine, if not please inform me. By the way, Anatolia is center of many civilizations, you did not need to delete that sentence. That concept is a national treasure and income for the Turkish people, Civilizations are the source of Turkey's truism. :-) Why someone gets that fact out, I have hard time understanding. You could not be that guy, right?

You do not need to tell you will vandalize the page!

No one is stupid, it is not difficult to see what you have changed in the page. [1]

I tried to show a way to developing your POV, which if you really believe to it and spend time to prove it, we might agree on it. Hope, you will calm down, and develop better communication skills. At the end, how you develop your business is your business. but pissing of people, do not take you anywhere. --tommiks 23:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page

No problem, take whatever you need. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentism

This comment concerns your edits to Greater Romania, Greater Serbia, and about half a dozen other articles. While I appreciate that you have put a great deal of effort into expanding the article on irredentism, this does not mean that you should go around placing all occurrences of this word in Wikipedia in bold text. Readers will be happy to click on the unadorned term if they don't understand it or want more information; please be more sparing with your use of emphasis. —Psychonaut 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I get your point. I was simply going on a spree to inter-link actual instances with an extra emphasized link to the page discussing this phenomenon on a more theoretical level. I shall be more more sparing in future. --Big Adamsky 19:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African languages

Thanks for your comments on the map; I have moved them to here and replied there in order to keep talk centralized. On a sidenote, judging from your contributions, you might like Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias. Regards, — mark ✎ 11:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the right club for me, I'll join soon. I am also interested in learning more about how I can submit map images. I feel I have great deal to contribute in the area of maps (particularly thematic maps), but I still lack the means to create and submit my works. Any tips? (I'll copy this to your talk page) --Big Adamsky 11:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graphify!

Hello! I hope you're well; forgive my tardiness in getting back to you. Thanks for your praise! I use many programmes to create or modify images (like, for example, this map of the Toronto subway, etc.): CorelDraw 12 (my personal fave)/Corel Photo-Paint, Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Photoshop 7/Illustrator 9, and Adobe PDF Reader/Distiller. The first of these allows me to easily extract images (or essentially anything) from PDFs; the last of these enables me to create PDFs from any usual MS Office (blech!) application. There are other programmes, too. I rarely use GIS programmes to create maps, but not out of want: I can usually satisfy my needs by adapting or extracting what I need from maps already made.

I'm a marketer/fundraiser by trade, but biologist/political scientist by study. Similarly, I'm dually a jack of all trades and a perfectionist, so I may be subsumed by many projects at once and try to create images of superior quality ... this also sometimes has the effect of me uploading an image mutliple times before I'm satisfied (argh!).

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you've any questions. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 11:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your See Also Links

I noticed that you've been adding "see also" links to articles such as Racial policy of Nazi Germany that include several controversial medieval statuses. I wanted to tell you here that I don't find it neutral to add a whole list of "see also" links to things that are not even comparable, because are you honestly saying dhimmi/jizyah were like the racial policy of nazi germany? Yuber^(talk) 16:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about that. Perhaps these articles are too removed from each other (in time, space, and content) to be linked. On a side note, I would urge you to try harder to see more than just one perspective/point of view when editing. I base that on a quick review of your edits. Perhaps you should keep a lower profile in subjects that are sensitive to you, and refrain from mass eradication of entire paragraphs and instead expland on any particluar aspect that you find to be underrepresented? Remember that Wikipedia is not the personal blog or diary of any one single editor. --Big Adamsky 17:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my edits at Islamofascism, it was because someone had tried to merge the entire contents of Neofascism and religion with Islamofascism, and this destroyed the focus of the article which is just supposed to be about Islamofascism the term. Anyways, I'll leave it up to you if you want to remove the see also links or not. Yuber^(talk) 17:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to that and other articles (I just remember seeing your name, can't really pin-point any specific edits). But just in general, if you have a hunch than someone is going to find any wording objectionable even before you've finished editing, you should try to accomodate this in advance by offering a possible "other side". We're all people, we all have opinions and perspectives.

I appreciate your healthy attitude about retaining or removing the See also links. But since you are the one who found them to be irrelevant to the article, I would prefer to see how you want to improve these articles. --Big Adamsky 17:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Islands

Hi Big Adamsky. I don't think the Elizabeth Islands are really an "island arc". As far as I know, they were formed by glacial processes, not as part a volcanic arc resulting from a plate subduction as described in the island arc article. I'm reverting your changes. Please provide a source if you really do have a credible source that says the Elizabeths are a volcanic island arc. Mike Dillon 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike. Thanks for the input! Bear with me on my rudimental insights in the field of geology and other earth sciences. =] --Big Adamsky 15:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mike Dillon 16:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality Laws of the World

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --TonySt 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't see that. I apologize --TonySt 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) --Big Adamsky 01:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

It involves the GIMP, layers and a lot of work ;). Morwen - Talk 15:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Merger of Aotearoa and NZ articles

The articles were deliberately separated as they are completely different concepts. It would be like merging pages for Great britain and the United Kingdom, or America and the United States. Merging them would be a very bad move and would cause continual edit-wars, as well as losing any of the nuances of the difference between the two. Grutness...wha? 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster

Kelisi, you reverted an edit to the article Malay archipelago with the edit summary "rv -- deletion of pertinent information; insertion of bogus information.", and then proceded to write on my talk-page under the header Homosexuality Laws of the World "I second that. Cut it out! It is not all right to delete pertinent facts, nor is it all right to insert false information." (which I have now removed from my talk page). I think you have made a misjudgment (and a slight fool of yourself). I urge you to consult the edit histories so you know what you are talking about. I also urge you to take a peek at the Wikipedia guidelines and be guided by them. If you wish to contribute to this particular article and if that contribution involves major reverts, please do discuss this at the talk page beforehand. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --Big Adamsky 07:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry your nose was put out of joint by my opinion of your behaviour here, but the fact is that you did remove pertinent information and insert bogus information. Furthermore, someone else has chidden you for this behaviour. So cut it out already. What your other upbraider told you is right. It is vandalism. It was no misjudgment on my part. Bluster all you like. Post daft messages like that one above. Don't expect me to take it seriously. Why don't you consult edit histories. You'll find that I am a major contributor to that article that you butchered. Expect no coöperation from me. Your kind of "editing" does not belong here. Kelisi 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelisi, I just saw your comment here, and was unpleasantly surprised. Are you sure you really mean what you wrote up there? It sounds like you are not assuming good faith on my part ("Your kind of "editing" does not belong here", "bogus information", "your behaviour in here"), and that you intend to disrupt my future contributions ("Don't expect me to take it seriously", "Expect no coöperation from me"). Why not assume a more collegial and civil attitude to how disputes should be settled?

Now, I understand that you had put a lot of effort into the Malay Archipelago article. How about you address each objection you have to the particular edit that made you upset or angry, one by one? Which points in particular felt like "vandalism" to you? Whether you explain this in the talk page in question or right here makes no difference to me, but you would be doing third parties a favour by discussing its content in the talk page.

I honestly think that you're putting way too much energy into trying to offend me ("sorry your nose was put out of joint") instead of just attempting to convince me that your insight and input were more valid than mine. I hope you as a veteran will come to assume a less hostile position towards us rookies. So… should I still not expect any cooperation from you? --Big Adamsky 19:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And as for what you thought was evidence of vandalism up there, User:TonySt apologized two minutes later for that when he discovered the constructive edit I had made (which was simply a geographical reordering in the list of Laws on homosexuality in various states).

You're right. I should be more specific. The deletion of pertinent information that I meant was the specific parts of Malaysia that are part of the archipelago, namely Sabah, Sarawak, and Labuan. Also, there is the fact that the archipelagoes within the Malay Archipelago are indeed considered archipelagoes (they are, after all, listed here, and I notice you've completely rearranged that article, too). The bogus information that you inserted is the point that Singapore is part of the archipelago. It is not, no more than Penang or Langkawi.

As for what you've done to the Archipelago article, my cursory scan of it just now reveals that for no reason in particular, you have rearranged the island groups. Also, for reasons that I cannot begin to fathom, you have linked Laccadives and put the archipelago's proper name Lakshadweep in parentheses, and unlinked it. Adam, Lakshadweep is what it's called nowadays, and that's the article's title. Check it out. "Laccadives" leads to a redirect — which, of course, leads to "Lakshadweep".

As for my opinion that your kind of editing doesn't belong here, I meant deletion of pertinent facts (the idea at Wikipedia is to expand articles, not shrink them; your "simplifications" aren't wanted; look around; there are articles absolutely crammed with information, sometimes so big that they have to be split into several articles; that's what we like to see here) and the insertion of inaccurate information (I'll admit I've been torn off a strip about that; so be it if someone knows better; we try to be accurate here at Wikipedia, and I accept corrections if they turn out to be right).

As for trying to offend you, I was suggesting that that my opinion had already done that. Do you understand the expression "to put someone's nose out of joint"? Anyway, I rather think the pot is calling the kettle black here, with regards to your initial message to me. Kelisi 04:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy… I think I will respond to your more personal opinions here, and to the factual comments at the relevant talk pages.

Your use of harsh language with many metaphors proves nothing really; that's all just your own interpretations - nothing more, nothing less. When what you probably really mean to say is "you made an edit that I disagree on" you phrased that "you butchered an article with bogus information". So just discuss by providing proof and support for your position, like everyone else.

You must be using the word "vandalism" in a broader, more figurative manner than what is meant by vandalism here. You will find it difficult to prove that any of my edits were in fact ill-intended expressions of sabotage to Wikipedia's entries. When I confronted you with the fact that another user's vandalism warning was a false alarm and that you ought to check that page's edit history as well as his own comment, you denied any misjudgment and just shouted that I should read edit histories myself.

Any edit entails change, and sometimes an editor will remove text if he or she feels that it is best for the article. And so, your continued assertions that such "editing does not belong here" or that my "simplifications aren't wanted", are simply wrong. Please acknowledge that and let's cooperate instead. See you at the talk pages of "our" articles. --Big Adamsky 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy indeed. The fact still remains that you removed pertinent information and inserted bogus information. That rant just above does not address even one of my points, at least not effectively. Adam, the very first sentence at "vandalism here" describes what you did. I think perhaps you are a bit embarrassed because you have discovered, as I claimed, that I am a major contributor to that particular article. I even gave it a major overhaul, wholly changing its subject matter, and no-one saw fit to call me on it (whether that was because everyone agreed with me or nobody cared I don't truly know). Even so, I did not suppress any information. The whole article formerly there was simply transferred to another, new article, where it still remains. And oh yes, I used the talk page, whereas you didn't. As for acknowledging that my assertions are wrong, no way. You do not remove pertinent facts from articles or try to "simplify" them. You are supposed to expand articles by adding new – and accurate – information.

You seem to have misconstrued my purpose in all this. I don't consider this personal – I after all don't know who or what you are – but rather an attempt to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Please don't edit just for the sake of editing. Kelisi 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks! I've noticed your name too when editing South Africa-related articles. You do a good job too with fixing them up. --Khoikhoi 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I was wondering, should the Turks page redirect to Turkish people now? --Khoikhoi 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got it unprotected. It now redirects to Turkish people. --Khoikhoi 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was looking at the Turkic peoples and Turkish people sections and planned to fix them up a bit, but the Turkish people article seems a bit vague. It should perhaps denote more specifically the Turks of Turkey (as I think it does anyway) as opposed to the various people of Turkey. The Turkic people are a more linguistic group whereas the Turks of Turkey, a place I've been myself, are a specific geographic ethno-linguistic group more indigenous to Anatolia then most people realize. The same issue came up when I was editing the Persians and Tajiks articles as many contend that they are identical, whereas I think they vary in ways similar to the Swiss Germans and Germans of Germany. Same language, different history and social conditions and obviously have developed differences over time. Tombseye 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tomseye. Good initiative, the text I provisionally pasted in there is just copied from Demography of Turkey, and needs serious attention. Considering the sensitivity of the issue of ethnicity versus citizenship (see for example Talk:Azerbaijanis and Talk:Tajiks) I suppose it would be a good idea to be more explicit than usual about the distinction. Come to think of it, prominently placed links to Language shift and Cultural assimilation seem relevant to all of these articles. I'm confident that the article is in safe hands under your revisions, but make sure you make it comparable to the other articles of the same "series", such as, say, Slovenians or Inuit. Hakuna Matata! =} //Big Adamsky 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the Azerbaijanis page, I guess I removed the dab link by mistake. I have re-added it. About my username, I guess I changed it out of respect for the Khoikhoi people. --Khoikhoi 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I edited the Turkish people page which wasn't that difficult as it already had a lot of good information. If you or anyone wants to proofread it or contest, feel free as I'm always open to suggestions and comments. Overall though, it is pretty informative I'd say. I tried to make it as fair and explicit as possible, but I'm sure there will be complaints at some point. You can dig up all the books and information in the world and some people will still think the article is wrong. Anyway, have a nice weekend and adios! Tombseye 19:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caldoche

Yep, now it's your turn to start the Kanak article ;-) User:Behemoth

Done! ;v} //Big Adamsky 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References done on Turkish People article

Well I added some references for the Turkish people article that I hope is informative. Didn't take too long as there are plenty of sources. We'll see how long the article stands though before someone puts up a POV sign though! ;) Tombseye 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders' opinions wanted

Hi, I just though I might ask you. Currently there is a debate whether to move Partitions of Poland to Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first one is shorter and looks like it is more commonly used. The second one is politically & historically correct. Could you voice your opinion on the talk page? Because now it's all Lithuanians and Polish who fight each other :) We need someone "unbiased." I would very much appreciate it. Renata3 12:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Renata. I would be delighted to mediate in your naming debate, I just need to brush up on my history a bit first. My spontaneous reaction is that all school books and encyclopedias use the term "Partitions of Poland" as something of a fixed phrase, but of course that doesn't automatically endorse this version as the more correct of the two titles. I shall get back to you guys soon.... =J //Big Adamsky 17:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi there. It looks like you have the option to "mark all edits as minor" ticked in your preferences - perhaps you should check? Palmiro | Talk 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there bud. Yeah you're right, but most of my edits are minor. Maybe I'll de-tick that option and see how it works for me. //Big Adamsky 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As for Occupied Territories, I would argue that it might equally well be applied (in English) in an Indian context or in a World War II context. In the context of Cyprus, it is in the singular, but still aslo capitalized.

Regions of England / Regions of Denmark

Hi. Am curious as to why the link, and not also, regions of France or regions of Italy? Morwen - Talk 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morw. I guess mostly because the Danish regions were modelled after the English ones. The regions of France are much older (although they are based on the same political philosophy, more or less). :-J //Big Adamsky 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Is that explictly in that Danish politicians talked it about it? If so it might make an interesting addition to (both) articles. I can see why whoever removed it removed it - it did look a bit random. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they had similar debates and controversies, including the lack of continuity with the traditional cultural regions. Random maybe, but the "see also" links are meant more as suggestions for further reading on a related topic, right? See also Devolution, Regionalization, Decentralisation and Political geography //Big Adamsky 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strip of land

Hi there. Could you tell me how linking to strip of land helps anyone trying to read and understand the Sunset Strip article? Links should not be added unless they actually enhance the context of the article or provide information about obscure terms. I doubt anyone needs to know what the article means by "mile-and-a-half stretch of Sunset Boulevard". Besides that, links should not usually be made to dab pages unless it is actually not clear what the author meant. Mike Dillon 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. You know, it is entirely voluntary if one wants to learn more about this particlar minor feature of political geography and see other examples of it elsewhere. And since some people will find such information useful I simply wikified the word and polished a little extra on the dab page it leads to. You won't have to search long to find a word that you feel needs no further explanation or definition or exemplification. No big deal, but still worth keeping it. //Big Adamsky 23:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)**[reply]

West Frisia

Hi. I noticed that you made the West Frisia, which I guess includes Friesland but other parts of the Netherlands, right? However, then I noticed that there's also a West-Friesland article and a Westfriesland article. Apparently the last two are different, but it's not stated in either article why West-Friesland is smaller than Westfriesland. Do you have any ideas what we should do with these articles? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. I made the article West Frisia simply to refer to the lands of Dutch Frisia, extending (historically) from somewhere in modern North Holland and up to the German border. I admit that the articles are a bit confusing, and I myself don't know the exact difference between the two small southwestern areas, including whether the hyphenated one is a modern administrative unit that is somewhat coterminous with a historical district with a similar un-hyphenated name - or whether it is in fact the other way around. My intent was to create an article that would deal with all of Dutch Frisia under one single header, and not just the modern province, similar to the two other areas. Hm.. now I'm confusing myself too. Try posting a request for help at the relevant artcle talk pages instead! =J //Big Adamsky 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Can I still submit cartographic images from my own computer even if have no memory of where I had found these files? I have about 3000 such image files, many of which are of superduper quality and extremely relevant to articles that you and I both keep coming back to.

About the images, probably not. Try finding the sources for the images, because if you upload an image without a source, some guy will slap a no source tag on it and it will be deleted 7 days afterwards. I'll post comments on those pages by the way. Also check out my comment on Talk:Frisians. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 01:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advising, M. I'm not too much of a bad-bootie boogeyman, I just glide around and do my lil thang in here, but I might try out some of your test-templates on some random would-be vandal someday. 8-] Big Adamsky 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for tat!

Hello! Thanks for your praise and feedback; as you are likely aware, I've encountered mild resistance when trying to refine said content in Wp (for example ...). As well, I know: I need to better familiarise myself with the edit summaries and their proper use. In my lexicon:

ed = edition, generally a minor one (and so tagged) neither here nor there
ack! = f*ck, usually spawned by clickitis and perhaps OCD! :)

I'll be more diligent hereafter. Please let me know if you've any questions. Happy editing! E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little bit like myself then, except that my eds and acks usually don't make it into the edit summaries... ;] //Big Adamsky 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be consistent, but I'm not a paragon of virtue either. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi languages

Why do you continually remove Kurdish (spoken by Kurdish Jews) as one of the Mizrahi languages? I'm putting Kurdish back in. I hope you can put whatever prejudice against Kurdish Jews aside. Al-Andalus 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Andalus. Well, now that you've confronted me on the matter, I shall try to put all my intense prejudices aside. ;]

By the way, I think the elders in this particular group of people speak/spoke various forms of Aramaic amongst themselves, more so than Kurdish.

Andy, you seem like a really knowledgeable fellow in a number of subjects — but why do you edit so uncompromisingly? //Big Adamsky 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethnic group}} images

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, especially for very small groups. --Khoikhoi 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us will be hard pressed to come up with just one famous Yakut anyway... ;P

By the way, might it not be a better idea to not have portraits of controversial/infamous personalities in the famous Germans image field? See Talk:German people. //Big Adamsky 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, I did come up groups who could usage collages though as I think they have historical continuity both geographically and linguistically. The following need collages, as I noted at Khoikoi's discussion page: Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Greeks (I can't believe they don't have one!), Pashtuns, Persians, and Tajiks. The others that are smaller and might be too tough to do for now, I left alone for now.

As for the use of Hitler at the Germans page, I think you gotta have him. You guys might have heard of a game called Civilization which features various rulers. Well they didn't include Hitler. I'm not a big fan of the guy, but he is kind of well known and is a German. I mean if you ask people to name 4 Germans, he'd make the list every time. It'd be like not including Genghis Khan at the Mongols page. Controversial, but he is kind important. Just my two cents. Adios. Tombseye 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AoC

Hey, just saw your rv of my edit on Age of consent. I guess there's a division on opinion on which continent Turkey lies (poor turks ;) ). My edit was a precursor of sorts of my intention to sugest a revamp of that part of the page to make the list more user friendly.

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping out here? I see two ways to go; either simply put an alphbetical list of all countries with no regard to their geography; or to order them by some other geographic system that negates the problems of demarcated regions like Turkey.

Any thoughts? Monotonehell 13:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mono! If you browse through Transcontinental country you will discover that there is little divergence of opinion as to which continent Turkey has most of its land and people: Turkey lies mainly in Asia — and the Turks are not really any more or less unfortunate than any other countries, whether mono- or transcontinental. (See also Asia Minor, Europe, Middle East, Balkans, Continent, Subregion). Reorganizing the list alphabetically would of course make it easier to find a single country that one might want to search for in the list, not unlike thumbing through the yellow pages. But if you just want to browse randomly, the geographical ordering by continent seems more logical, and so I don't agree that the strictly alphabetical order is necessarily more user friendly. In any case, only a fraction of all states in the world are listed, and of the transcontinental ones, only Turkey is currently listed twice. So perhaps what this article really needs is to be expanded instead? //Big Adamsky 03:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I was joking that the Turks were "poor" because others were arguing over which continent they lay in. ;) Well okay - seeing that you put a good argument against the alphbetical list perhaps you can help with a more logical geographical framework? Posibly one of the other pages on wikipedia has such a thing already that we can plagiarise? Bear in mind that eventualy the entire section will be converted from the simple list to a slightly more verbose discussion citing law, similar to what I have made for Australia (at least that's the plan if enough reliable information can be sourced). Monotonehell 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enclave

Another logical problem with using the UK as an example is that its largest landmass has no borders. This would be akin to calling Madagascar a single-border state if it had a small enclave on the African coast. We don't mention Iceland, Madagascar, Japan, Philippines, etc. on this article, and the UK is no different, except that it shares a small part of a different landmass, whereas Ireland's large landmass is the one with the border. It's so much easier to use other examples, like Haiti, Dominican Republic, Canada, Qatar, etc. --Golbez 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip the Arab

Hello Big Adamsky. I have nothing against Philip the Arab as he was born in a town not too far from where I'm from, but the "See Also" section of the Arab article should not go from Arabia, Arab League, and Arabic language to an article about one person in history. See Also sections should not be filled with clutter or individual articles that have little relation to the subject. Yuber^(talk) 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey wassup,

I was wondering, are the Nubians the same people as the Nuba? --Khoikhoi 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this perhaps there is a connection:

The other Nubian languages are found hundreds of kilometers to the southwest, in Darfur and in the Nuba Mountains of Kordofan.

And the Nuba article says this:

Nuba is a collective term used for the peoples who inhabit the Nuba Mountains, in Kordofan province, Sudan, Africa.

--Khoikhoi 07:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I would guess that the Nubians are the remaining modern descendants of the ancient Nubians, and that other groups that also speak langauegs in the Nubian language family may also be just that. Not my core field of interest this... I just felt that since these people still exist as an identifiable group they should have an article in the ethnic group series.

So, what's your field of interest, bud? :] //13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Melchior

No, it's not that important, but the comment was made by the national secretary of Zionist Organization of America and that it's quite a prominent group, at least in the US. It's just trivia. Delete it if you want. // Liftarn

Reply

In my opinion, that user should be banned. She started editing Wikipedia by vandalising pages with false numbers that favor Turkey, and she has made very few good contributions. She and some other Turkish nationalists have been vandalising the Turkish people page for weeks. Perhaps you could help me out there, or else I'll get blocked again. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you please be able to help me out on the Turkish people page? User:Hybridlily is reverting agian. --Khoikhoi 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BA, thanks for the kind words, but I couldn't be a diplomat as that would mean supporting and promoting the Bush administration, although academia is a possibility at this point. You've done pretty well with the mediating yourself and I give you props for your world view which looks to be very similar to my own. Not sure how the Turkish people or French people page is going to go though. Looks like ethnic perception really varies and I can't really criticize the French for wanting to be inclusive and leave behind the notion of ethnic groups altogether either. Wikipedia is an interesting look at how people from all over the world think though. Gotta give it that much. Tombseye 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Cypriot

I have to say that I disagree. Having the ethnic group template there will just confuse people into thinking that they are a distinct ethnic group. Yes, I know that they maintain a separate identity, but they still consider themselves Turks, such as our lovely lady Inanna pointed out.

Thanks for the advise. I know I shouldn't be getting into their childish remarks, but it's just very hard to put up with that crap after being insulted like that. Apparently I'm a Kurdish terrorist and Tombseye is a girl. :p --Khoikhoi 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare other ethnic groups that are arguable part of a larger group (and counted as such) (e.g. Overseas Chinese have many subgroups and is itself covered under Han Chinese). There is also the concept of overlapping or non-exclusive identities which leads to certain populations being doubly counted (cf. Berbers and Cape Malays).

It is probably a fair assumption that Inanna is below college age. But hey, there are far worse cases to beware of... :] //Big Adamsky 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should only re-add the ethnobox when we get cited numbers. --Khoikhoi 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Papua

Hi again,

I have a another question: You'll notice on Western New Guinea#Geography and Papua (Indonesian province)#Geography that they both have a little table on the right with the same data. Given the fact that Western New Guinea comprises both Papua (Indonesian province) and West Irian Jaya, one of these pages is incorrect, but which one? --Khoikhoi 05:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the Papua article also mentions Manokwari as one of its regencies, located in the Bird's Head, I would speculate that the article was started prior to the split. And so my guessing is that the figures are based on pre-split data. Try subtracting from figures given at other pgaes on the provinces and islands and states down there - math exercises make such grand fun! ;) //07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've tryed to update the two articles. Feel free to help out if necessary. --Khoikhoi 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaanses

I don't think that there is a word called Afrikaanses. The language is Afrikaans and is spoken by Afrikaners. Please see Dictionary for Afrikaans --Jcw69 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word is a fairly recent neologism. Afrikaners might occasionally be used for any speaker of the language regardless of race, but such usage is contentious. See this. //Big Adamsky 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that article does talk about the language group Afrikaanse but that article is written in afrikaans and I have used it too when speaking in afrikaans about the language group, it is like saying Suid-Afrikaanse in afrikaans as in english South African. As far as I know and read in that article that the word Afrikaanses has not been carried over directly into english as have Afrikaans or Afrikaner has. I don't think english has a word for that means Afrikaanse or Afrikaanses nor has it ever been used around me.--Jcw69 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My firm understanding is that Afrikaner does not refer to the language community, but to the ethnic group. I could be mistaken, but this is what I have been taught to be the preferred and more modern and PC usage. The italics in the article is not meant to denote emphasis but the introduction of a non-English name or term, or a quote or a title.

So, how else can one refer to the language community in English then? =J //Big Adamsky 07:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, we need a word that refers to the afrikaans language community but as I said I don't think there is such a word in english that refers to the afrikaans language community. I have asked a number of afrikaners and afrikaans teachers and all say that Afrikaanses does not sound correct, they would either use Afrikaners or Afrikaans speaking people to discribe the english word for Afrikaanse --Jcw69 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coloured" identity politics

Thanks for the note, Big Adamsky--that page is a difficult balance of critique of a category many people reject conceptually along with an acknowledgement of its reality on the ground, so I'm sure there are more tweaks that can be offered. Joewright 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Cwen

Hey BA. Sure I'd be happy to help out, especially since you've lent a hand with lots of problematic projects as well, and plus it looks like this article could use all the help it can get. I have read up on the Ugric peoples in Scandanavia in the past and I'll see what I can do to help out. I think, minus the two dissenters, we've also been reaching some sort of concensus with the Turkish people page. Perhaps the problems are all cyclical and perpertual anyway with something like wikipedia. Tombseye 19:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you already asked Tombseye for help. I'll check it out also. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a tough time finding anything about the Cwen in the library that would help the article. Mostly minor stuff. When I get a chance I'll look some more. I've only seen mention of them a few times when reading about Finland etc. As for the Americans (?!) ethnic category I have no idea what's going with that. It isn't an ethnic group and clearly belongs in the cultural section or whatever and shouldn't be its own article. Tombseye 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irian Jaya

Hi BA,

I just redirected the Irian Jaya disambig page into Western New Guinea for reasons stated in my edit summary. I tried to incorporate some of the info in the former dab page into the Western New Guinea, but it doesn't sound so good. Would you be able to copyedit the first two paragraphs of the Western New Guinea page for me? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's great! Oh, as for the Cwens page I really have no idea what to do. To be quite honest, I've never even heard of them before. Since it has so many tags, I suggest a rewrite by neutral authors. --Khoikhoi 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Er, thanks for your corrxn ... I've been mildly preoccupied and am trying to walk a fine line here, no? :) Any commentary or support is appreciated. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for YOU any day of the week, Pluribus! ;) //Big Adamsky 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(blush) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Similarly, I largely support your proposal regarding Ireland, but with some comments/tweaks. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norway Maps

Hello Big Adamsky! Thank you for the input on the maps I am creating for Norway municipalities. I would definitely be interested in designing similar maps for the traditional districts - as long as there is valid and legibile data to use for compilation (for the Norway municipalities, I mainly used my dataset plus the pictures located on [[2]] to ensure as much accuracy as possible (of course, I am always improving my dataset). Contact me via email directly (wiki option) and we can discuss this more (my time is freely donated for this).

As far as the cartographic conventions - you know as a fellow cartographer that sometimes you make certain decisions based on sacrificing convention for legibility, etc. (makes each map unique). But I promise to go back over these maps and 'tweak' them (adding the numbers in, formatting the page for the best look, etc). I don't really want to abbreviate - I've already chosen to use the localized names (instead of romanizing everything), so I may have to resort to numbers. If I should be following a certain convention for each country, please let me know and I will conform the maps to the convention. Look to see updates in the next week or so. Thanks again! Rarelibra 11:06 26JAN2006

[Replied by email.]

Ottoman Flag and greatest extent

Hi, could you please give me your views on the revert war at Ottoman Empire. There is this new user with a made up flag and a propaganda map POV pushing there - you have expressed interest is subjects such as these in the past, I thought, this may ointerest you as well. Cheers, Latinus 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid

I really think the POV section re. language apartheid should be removed entirely - totally "original research". Constitutional bilingualism can in no way be "apartheid". Your comments, please? --Janke | Talk 13:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actuaclly reintroduced a short mention of the use of the term "Apartheid" to mean not just racial laws in South Africa during the Cold War era, but also less strictly and more figuratively non-racial laws elsewhere and at other periods (e.g. language policy). I have come to realize that some people will use Apartheid and Bantustan in a more non-literal and anachronistic sense. Cf. Apartheid Wall. //Big Adamsky 15:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subdivisions

...thx for your comment. fromm your talk page it looks as if you are editing globally. So you may like to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities which also has a little template section. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kvens

Well, I have no personal knowledge of this subject (perhaps because I live in Southern Finland ;-), but a Google on "kainulaiset" (a term I vaguely remember I've heard, but had no knowledge of), did turn up a site: http://kunst.no/alias/HJEMMESIDE/vadsomuseet/en/?The_Kvens that might be worth looking in to. Hope this helps! --Janke | Talk 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finland-Swedish

An anonymous editor (obviously pushing an agenda against the Swedish language in Finland; see contribs at Special:Contributions/84.231.217.70), repeatedly re-inserts a section about Finland in Apartheid_outside_South_Africa, claiming our country's constitutional bilingualism constitutes "Åpartheid". This is utter nonsense, and has been repeatedly removed by logged-in editors. This anon. also inserts POV material in Finland-Swedes, and posts mock vandalism warnings on reverting logged-in users' talk pages. Please keep an eye on this, thank you. --Janke | Talk 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try other spellings rather than Cwen

your searches will further improve with other spellings, such as Kven --Signed as "Heather 02.02.2006" by User:213.216.199.10

Merge of Devolved government into Devolution

On 21 December 2005 you put templates on the two articles proposing a merge of Devolved government into Devolution. Seems a good idea to me - why not add your own comment to the talk page, and if there's no opposition within a week, go ahead. ...dave souza: talk 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is at Talk:Devolution. =J //Big Adamsky 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kven

I started writing a detailed answer, then decided it is worth to put it into the very Talk:Kven. mikka (t) 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai people

I wrote up the Thai people page and added as much info. as I could and just wanted to get feedback from the 'regulars' since I saw that you had some involvement with the article when it was a stub. Feel free to edit or add to the page to improve it. Thanks. Tombseye 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mapquest and ire...

Back at ya! Thanks for your note. I'll help if I can: I've the ability to proceed as you suggest and long for standards too, but timing may be an issue for me (i.e., sloow turnaround). I'll keep you apprised and will comment s'more soon.

Regarding Éire, I've replied to your prior comments there. In any event, a vote modelled on the Georgia vote is a great idea. I currently see six options:

your proposal
my three proposals
status quo
other

That being said, I think we can resolve the finer points about language (e.g., "British Isles") afterward. Thoughts? If there are no objections, I will devise the vote before week's end and advertise. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Given the above etc. can you take a peak at this, which I propose mounting and advertising in the next few days. I've alphabetised the options and hope the structure makes sense. Please feel free to edit, after which I'll place it on the RoI talk page or similar.

As well, be careful about 3RR regarding continent; I'll monitor the situation there to ensure propriety.

Thanks again for your help! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and praise – I'll place the poll shortly. Also note that, as per the vote stipulations upfront, you can only vote for one option, not two. I'm unwilling to express my preference just yet. ;)

And I hear you about provocation: just take a look at the America dab, and you'll realise how out of proportion some 'discussions' can get. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TY. I'm on a wikibreak (ha!) for a couple weeks, but I decided to stop by to resolve minor issues. A few more remain, but I suppose they'll be here when I return. I'll still be available through e-mail, though. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TTYL ... oh: talk to you later! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge-tunnel

Thanks for fixing my error. Vaoverland 10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. :-] //Big Adamsky 10:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am clueless about those other locations. Mark Vaoverland 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritimes

Hey there. Usage in Canada is "the Maritimes" or "the Maritime Provinces" as there are three provinces and its a region. It is always plural. So I am not sure we need the disambig page. Your thoughts? Please respond on my page... cheers WayeMason 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

Southern Cross Flag Inge 13:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maps

Hi Adamsky, I will have some more free time next week so I will have a look about those maps you asked for. I love the writing systems map on your user page by the way, very cool! Regards -- Astrokey44|talk 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.

I'll check that stuff out. I really do try to be more of a casual wikipedian, but seem to end up getting embroiled in nationalist arguments. Oh and I saw your suggestion on Khoikhoi's page and I'd agree that every identifiable group deserves an info. box. Now filling it in is another story... ;) Tombseye 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sub-ethnic grups

Yeah, I agree. It's their choice if they want to be considred an ethnic group or not. --Khoikhoi 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Melanesia.png

===>Thanks for saying "hi" I can see that our interests do overlap, and I'd be happy if you wanted to make the image more robust, by adding a light green to areas of "Outer Melanesia." Thanks for asking, and here's looking forward to collaborating on more geographic, vexillogical, and/or heraldic information. -Justin (koavf), talk 15:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>A sticky wicket While you may lack the means to edit this map, I lack the knowledge. I'll try to read up on Melanesia and edit the picture accordingly. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>How's about now? Is this more accurate? -Justin (koavf), talk 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

I removed the english on Image:Greenland counties.PNG, but there is no way for me to do stripes on the program I have.:/ I did however do a separate map for Northeast Greenland National Park -- Astrokey44|talk 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nix

Please, post only information relevant to the topic. Axeman89 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for the mixup! Axeman89 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Don't mention it man. You deserved it. ☺ To archive a talk page just copy all the stuff in your page that you want to take out, then add a new link at the top of your talk page that says: [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]. Then paste all that stuff into that page, and you're done. --Khoikhoi 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continent

I do not know what you mean by Western Europe, but I can assure that in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium, etc (pretty much all of Western Europe it seems to me) everybody knows there are only 5 continents. Also, nobody calls it Australia, that is a country, the continent is Oceania, and includes Australia and New Zealand (plus other smaller states)

Please, see previous post. Just buy any European geography schoolbook. I do not know what you mean by western Europe, but if in Scandinavia they teach differently, maybe you can add Western Europe except Scandinavian Countries. [unsigned]