Regarding your latest suggestions in Iranian peoples. Instead of trying to delete the page, you might want to consider proceeding step-by-step and challenging the article's contents, not the whole idea. The use of the word "Aryan" is not consistent with the Aryan article, and the references need to be verified. I'm working on these. AucamanTalk16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since very begining I just wanted them to correct that strange defintion of that article, in fact I had been shocked with that new defintion, I never heard such a definition, but waited and researched, then again asked for balancing the article or citiation but strangely they rejected it. So I just want a rational definition of that word.
Some uninformed Iranians esp persians have a passion to this word. but not all of them. after a while they will see that what really it is.
About the word aryan it is one of the most disputed words in the word. i will be following the discussions.
Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much.
DiyakoTalk+22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look Khash, You are not God, until you do not provide a link what is your problem with me your waning marning have no credibility.
DiyakoTalk+02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good reason Khash! I have certainly the right to tagg articles with nonsense. your action is regared as vandalism. You will see soon.
DiyakoTalk+02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to mention it in the article's talk page, you cant just go around tagging dispute just because you dont agree with it personally, which has been established by almost every user that it is just your personal Anti-Iranian POV. --Kash02:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to say why you added the tag on the talk page. If you feel that it is vandalism try WP:AIV and see what they say. --Khoikhoi02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will be blocked and banned on Wikipedia for these attacks if you keep going like this, so I suggest you stop. --Kash02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just looked at the page and the tag seems to be there. If it's removed I'll try to put it back in. You might want to create a new section called "Dispute" in the article's talk page and present your case. I still have to do a lot of research before I can comment on the content of the page. Please let me know if you need help with anything specific. AucamanTalk03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, actually I explained my dspute on the talk page. But they even do not wait! There are many articles tagged, but one should at wait least two minutes. they revert edits even without reading! thank you for info and help.
DiyakoTalk+03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep..dealt with. Do keep in mind that you will be watched for such actions from now on, if you are new to wikipedia and want to learn, start from Help:Contents, any questions, don't be afraid to ask, we are here to help! :) --Kash04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are trying to add some references to the article Mahmud Barzanji but none of them mention him, so how can they be a reference to him? I have removed them for now. --Kash13:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please act civil, and answer my question about your references instead of reporting me for vandalism! I see this as your personal attack because of your strong Anti-Iranian POV. Thank you --Kash13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I ask you again to act civil and stop your Anti-Iranian POV. You don't see it? please see Talk:Iranian peoples and Talk:Persian people for your Anti-Iranian POV. For personal attacks, what don't you see? you have reported me for vandalism instead of replying to me for why you have used sources that have no relevance to pages. --Kash13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Iranian POV! every body can edit wikipedepa pages and ~disscus them on the talk pages. this is again another personal attack that you call my comments anti-Iranian. I leave it for admins.DiyakoTalk+13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have welcomed almost every admin and trusted member I could find to look on your Anti-Iranian behaviour and attacks, hopefully you will be banned or blocked sooner or later. --Kash13:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop your 'Kurdish Nationalist' propaganda on Wikipedia, or atleast stop your anti-Iranian actions, Thanks. --Kash13:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal attack, it is a suggestion, please do stop Your attacks on both Iranian wikipedians and articles, I see fellow Kurd men as fellow brothers and I feel bad that you hate Iranians so much, thanks! --Kash14:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you believe? That Iranian wikipedians generally are all upset because fellow Kurd wikipedians have started attacking our articles? it is true.. --Kash14:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First this is not attack. This is dispute. second the one who started this continuous disputes were Iranians not kurds. iranians for a long while disputed every edit by Kurds on those pages. DiyakoTalk+14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow Kurd wikipedians are questioning obvious matters such as Iranians origins, you are trying to make life hard for Iranian Wikipedians, meanwhile we have never tried to question your many many articles which never have any citations, or any use. Please try to improve Kurd articles instead of attacking Iranian ones, thank you --Kash14:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest peace - you keep to your own articles, and claim that for example Norouz is a Kurdish festival [sic], and we will stick to ours! let neutral users to comment if there is any dispute. Ba tashakor (With thanks), --Kash14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the guidelines and only cite relevant links, I mean you got information from somewhere right? or did you make them up? Kurd articles do need to be checked for this actually, hopefully I will get started soon. The website did not contain much information about the culture, but just a center --Kash14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doroud, If you can read & write Kurdish, this is great news as you know, the Kurdi Wikipedia desperately needs your help [2] it only has over a thousand articles.
So what do you say, we offer you peace and even help with your articles, if you stop attacking ours? Iranians love Kurds and we're ready to help. Please see the suggestion above and think about it in a civil manner, Ba tashakor (With thanks) --Kash14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.:Kurdish wikipedia has many well known wikipedians who all are well known writters or authours. Also there I'm one of the active wikipedians. But here in English wikipedia which is an essential source for all other wikipedia we have few active Kurdish wikipedians in adition some neutral wikipedians who are not Kurdish but understand our situation and help Kurds.DiyakoTalk+14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly if by 'situation' you are referring to mistreatment of Kurds in different countries, I suggest you stop thinking it is fault of Iranians, and therefore you need to punish them by attacking their articles as well as getting other wikipedians to support you. Thanks --Kash14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't have a Iranian keyboard/labels for my keyboard so I can not contribute effectively. I can not believe that you have gone as far as Iranian wikipedia to prove your points. I really do suggest you give up pushing your personal opinions and views on wikipedia. --Kash14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the Iranian Wikipedia maybe, but on here it is basically because you are questioning things that are fundamental to Iranian's identity, and this has caused a lot of time being wasted, because no matter how much we assume good faith, you guys don't seem to give up, and you refer to us as nationalists and pan-iranists! it is just ridiculous. I really hope we can put an end to this, or your articles will be targetted in similar manner, --Kash15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of 'pushing my POV' without any reference. I am not going around wikipedian articles trying to create disputes, thats You and your fellow Kurd wikipedians who see Iranian wikipedians as enemy, because our government has mistreated you. It is not our fault, this is the same mistake that terrorists make when they attack western countries. Please, we Iranian wikipedians just want peace.
About the Persian people article please contact an active Wikipedian on the Iranian side. Wikipedia has become a tool for anyone to push their political agenda in to the world. --Kash15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me, after all this research on Kurds, what did you find out?
To be fair, Britannica seems to have confused and contradicted its self, because as Kurds have mentioned, they have said they are currently an ethnic group "whose ethnic origins are uncertain", however it also says "Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC."
If Kurds are descendants of Aryan tribes, and they also speak an Iranian language (which I don't think was result of force), and they have traditional dresses similar to those of Iranian dresses, as well as having traditional music similar to those of Iranian's, also as well as celebrating same or very similar traiditional festives such as Norouz..
Then we are pretty much brothers (I mean this is common-sense to me) and Now, I understand fully why Kurds want to unite, but to be fair, what you guys are doing is trying to promote national identity on Kurdish articles, which is ofcourse a clear POV and since Kurds do not have have a 'nation', the whole ideology wont really work.
What has this research of yours showed? and why do you feel that you need to express it by force on Wikipedia? --Kash17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion: Will you admit that you are a Kurd nationalist and a pro-separatist? This is just to show your political orientation, and I hope you don't take it like its offensive as many Iranian Kurds would, because they love Iran too much! (R.I.P. Dariush Forouhar). This will just make things easier. --Kash17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First article: Interesting read, the article does only mention the term ONCE and ONLY in the title, and does not describe where exactly these lands called the 'Turkish Kurdistan' are, it is clearly only mentioning Turkish Kurdistan to refer to Kurds in Turkey. Second article: Again, does mention the name but only to refer to the people, not any specific lands and does not describe the term, clearly these are just referring to the Kurds in Turkey. Third article: A travel blog? I asked for academic references. --Kash20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know I am not going to leave this alone, so you might as well try and come up with some sort of explanation ;) --Kash20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please know you have submitted numerous amount of writting in many, many discussion pages that relates to an article; Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Please know that according to Wikepedia`s policy, in good faith I have to warn you and any other user before I report them to an admin for violating any of the policies. Over-excessive writting in these discussion pages may be grounds for a temporary, or a permanent block. That would be up to the admin in question.Zmmz01:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which dispute have I changed?! all the disputes are clearly put there, you just need to explain it if its different, talk page was going in circles, you have become another Aucaman. --Kash02:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding [[3]] - I have no way of verifying if you wrote it or not but if you did, it crosses the line with
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, -- Tawker00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and mediate the Iranian peoples dispute here could you please post your arguments there and we'll try and come to an reasonable comprimise -- Tawker00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems apparent that some name calling has been going on, but continuing to point fingers at each other over who did it first etc isn't going to help improve what Wikipedia is about (the article). I hope you both can simply exchange wiki handshakes, realize that something happened that shouldn't have and consider the matter closed -- Tawker00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.Yes, I had forgotten it untill tonight he rewrote it to you. also i have several times told them that we are not enemies, I'm not from CIA, we are all wikipedians but they act systematically against us (few Kurdish wikipedians). I also do not reply them so much, look at my talk page there are many threats, many boggus warnings by them for no good reason but I do not reply.DiyakoTalk+00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to copy paste the entire argument and leave it on Zereshk's talk page, I don't know if comments for other users on my talk page are read by the intended reciepients Tawker00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Removing articles from Wikipedia is not easy and is considered vandalism if not done correctly. They can try to remove them, but it's not going to work.
As for other issues, I encourage you to remain calm when dealing with some of these people. Just ignore the personal attacks and the arguments that don't make any sense. It seems like they're just here to stop people from contributing to Wikipedia, and we can't let them do that. AucamanTalk02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
