Jump to content

User talk:Mukadderat/Talk archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An exeptionally good AfD closing argument

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Mukadderat/Talk archive 1, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 12:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.
Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


RfA thanks from rogerd

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi Mukadderat- Thanks for your support on my RfA. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)

This is hardly a new problem, and there's nothing to clarify. See User talk:Peter S.#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination). Johnleemk | Talk 03:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No consensus does not mean keep. It means no consensus. It only defaults to keep most of the time because people are usually split between keeping and deleting. Regardless of what it defaults to, the essential meaning is still the same -- there's no consensus. And whatever happens, the AfD is not the last word nor a binding decision. It is inappropriate for both sides to cite it as proof for their stance. Also, bear in mind that I have no authority over this. My decision to close it as a "no consensus; keep" is not binding. I only interpret consensus. I don't make it. Johnleemk | Talk 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Yup that was what I meant, I just didn't know a page existed for it on wikipedia :-) Grandwazir 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC) [1]

Personal attack / aladin

Concerning your comment, "Please leave your mentoring tone to your sons" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician). Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA. If you believe that your stand has merit, you should be able to make your arguments without resorting to personal comments. Elonka 07:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Very nice of you to turn things upside down. What do you think about you trying to discredit my opinion by pointing out that I am new? Mukadderat 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack. I am simply pointing out all accounts in the Aladin (magician) deletion discussion that appear to have a fairly new history -- yours included. I am using the same yardstick to measure both "keep" and "delete" votes. If you look at things objectively, the User:Mukadderat account was indeed just started on 2 January 2006, and immediately jumped into the Aladin discussion. Think about it... If you saw someone who was voting "Strong Keep", but had an account that was only just started a couple weeks ago, wouldn't you too raise a sockpuppet flag?
May I ask how it is that you heard about the discussion, and how it is that you felt that you understood Wikipedia policy well enough to nominate a controversial article for deletion, within days of starting a new account? This does not fit the profile of a typical new user. However, your misunderstanding of the concept of no original research does fit the profile of someone who is new, which is why I simply don't make a claim of sockpuppetry. I can ask you directly though -- is this really your first account? Elonka 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You did not answer my question, but did post the following to my talk page: Your attitude to switch the focus from article content to editor's profiles is deplorable. YOu failed to address a single concern I expressed about this article. Instead you started teaching me policies. The same smoke and mirrors as this aladin guy. I am no longer discussing this issue and regret that I got dragged into this discussion. We are speaking different langauges. Mukadderat 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Which concern of yours, do you feel that I failed to address? Elonka 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The concern of notability, I expressed in numerous ways in the AFD page. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). The verifiable facts do not lead to the conclusion that the person is notable enough. To conclude that he is notable based on scant information collected is original research: no one provided a reference to a reputable art critic who says that aladin is prominent. What he says about himself in interviews does not count. His collection of clippings is dubious. If you look into my edits of hisa article, you may notice that I myself tried to search the web about this guy. In fact, it was me who found and added his real name (despite someone else tried to delete it). But after some search I became convinced that this person failed to become prominent. "The Saturday Times Magazine" article is 7 years old. I may well believe that this was a curious piece for a reporter: multiethnic issues in Great Britain were of interest. But there is nothing else. The Saturday Times article curiously says: "You probably never have heard of this person". And I still hear nothing more. Mukadderat 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning notability, this is why I believe he meets the standard. He has verifiably received "widespread media attention," by being mentioned in both print and broadcast media, in multiple countries. He has been recognized by governmental officals (such as the Mayor of London), to the point that his name is included in press releases. His name is notable enough that National Geographic is using it to advertise a documentary. He is also notable because of his relationship to his father, Abul Fateh, a notable ambassador. The discussion at Talk:Abul Fateh shows that both the ambassador and his son are featured on a National Geographic documentary, which confirms the link between them. Taken in total, the son's story as a refugee, son of an ambassador, internationally-known magician, and advisor to the London government, all taken together, definitely make him notable. Elonka 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionism

Give or take, I don't care about "notability" as a criteria, you are correct. I also don't want wikipedia used as an advertising service, so WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM (if there is a policy like that) are far more important to me than the average. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sofia won!

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Sofia was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Russian campanology

Some of the additions you have been requesting need to be proofread and wikified. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 11:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoca Sadeddin Efendi

Hi, you started the article on Sa'd al-Din and mentioned the book "Crown of Histories". Do you know where I can find a copy of this book in English? I need the book to use it as a source for one of my articles. Thanks. --Candide, or Optimism 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!
Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurd stub

Have you seen?

--Mais oui! 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Here we go again....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

al-Khwarizmi

Hi, I think it would be a better idea to cover al-Khwarizmi's work in one article, or else we risk ending up with 4+ stubs instead of 1 featured article. —Ruud 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your quest for glory doesn't bother me. But your deletion of a good article does. Mukadderat 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I never deleted any article? Would you perhaps provide some real argument on why you believe the articles should be separated instead of being rude and making false accusations of "vandalism"? —Ruud 22:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleting a whole article [2] on a well-defined and very notable subject without votes for deletion and without a shightest hint of discussion in the Talk page by a relatively experienced wikipedian; please chose your own negative epithet for this action. Mukadderat 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I made it into a redirect which does not require any discussion on AfD. Before I redirected the article it contained several errors, at the moment it just is a copy of the text already in al-Khwarizmi. You still have not given a reason why you believe the articles should be separated? —Ruud 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
And I reverted your redirect, which does not require any discussion, by your logic. I posted a comment in the article talk page about your vicious behavior, and I don't want to discuss anything with you without mediation of other people. Mukadderat 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? What did I do to deserve this treatment? —Ruud 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Because I am old and stubborn and you are young and stubborn. My apologies, let other people say their word. Mukadderat 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies as well, I hope this is just a case of miscommunication. Please leave a message on my talk page if you are interested in resuming (or starting over) this discussion. —Ruud 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

your comment on AfD.

Your comment on here "Why didn't you tell this a day ago to Noble Eagle SWATJester who is "really getting sick" of people who don't like American propaganda?" is very close to being a personal attack. I'll ask you to kindly refactor it. Comment on the deletion, not the editor. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you start from yourself and take a pill against your own "getting really sick" first? Yours was a direct personal attack. Or are you going to "free" wikipedia from me, American Eagle, and with the above comment you are planting an evidence for blocking me for incivility? So nice to kick someone's ass and when the kicked cries "oh, shit" , to very politely ask him to apologize before ladies. Did you get this kind of street education in New York slums? Mukadderat 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"citation needed" tags in Croatophobia

Hello! Could you please explain which part you want to be backed up with sources - the fact that some people have these opinions about Croats, or the fact that some Croats consider these opinions Croatophobic?--85.187.44.131 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. In fact, I searched for the link but did not know the spelling exactly, and so could not link. The character of Nasreddin is quite well known in West Bengal mainly thanks to the work by Satyajit Ray. However, I did not know the exact origin of Nasiruddin, though guessed ir would be somewhere in Turkey. I just added the info in the main article Satyajit Ray, along with a link. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulrophobia

<Sigh!> You have obviously never had to deal with a loved one after an attack of coulrophobia ... having those pictures of clowns on that page may keep some people from ever using Wikipedia again ... or recommending it to other people.

Those images already appear on other pages, but as mentioned on the discussion page, having them on the main page is incredibly insensitive to people with a genuinely crippling and debilitating condition ... there is nothing funny about a fear of clowns, especially after you've seen someone become hysterical in a theater when they show an advertisement for the circus. (I still have a scar on my arm from when they grabbed me.) --Dennette 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you loved one. But censorship is not an option in wikipedia for whatever reason. The pictures do give a good idea why would someone be afraid of clowns, hence they have a reason to be included in the article. BTW I did have to deal with attacks of fear of dogs, and I know it is not fun, but is will not run around wikipedia and demand deletion of pictures with dogs saying that they scare my loved ones and they cannot read these many useful articles. Mukadderat 00:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mukadderat! Are you -sort of- satisfied with my answer on the talk page of the article Pontian Greek Genocide. May I put the stuff back to the article (rather in the form of a footnote, it will be better that way)? By the way, in case there was a misunderstanding, one remark you made leads me to think that there was, I am Turkish:) Cretanforever

Ogórek kiszony

Moved into proper place: Talk:Polish style pickled cucumber#Article title. Mukadderat 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nogeunri

I won't revert any more, if you insist it's a massacre. However, I must point you to WP:NPOV. Chacor 03:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Yenta Claus

In the spirit of fairness a thought: Those interested in using Wiki as a way to memoralize seemingly obscure Islamic characters of uncertain, at least extremely difficult to verify, significance, though seemingly important to some and perhaps more Islamicists, it isn't wise to be tarnish by attacking popular American Jewish holiday characters by summarily voting for their deletion. In the West, there is a notable saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Just a friendly hello a bit of advise. :>)

History of the "Protocols of Zion"

  • "Merging"? Nice suggestion? Can you tell me?

And who is going to do it? You? What do you know about the topiv? Anything?

I know some thinds. Do you know the Karachai?
How about Feza Gursay-sorry for the improper unTurkish "u".
Also, do you know another turk, Sultan Catto?
can you help there?

And I sign my name--so you know who I am.

Yours truly, ---Ludvikus 01
28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mukadderat I appreciate your suggestion. But can you give me the grounds of the suggestion? Also, WHO and HOW will the MERGE be done? PS: The History is that of the Book & Title only--not the CONTENT of these. Do you understand me? Thanks, --- Ludvikus 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I wrote you: the main article has only a single small section on the CONTENT. The rest is History, from beginning to our days. Do you understand me? You can merge the content yourself. Mukadderat 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer

Hello. I'm taking this up here because I have a strong preference for us to stop reverting each other, and I can't tell if you've read the Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages or not. It does seem that we're talking past each other. Please, if in what follows I misinterpret any part of MOS:DP, or if you consider Peer to be a special case requiring departure from the guidelines, let me know.

I take your point that the first line was incorrect, thank you. However, I prefer to fix it in the classic manner ("Peer may refer to"), which has the benefit of not violating other parts of the MOS:DP.

In particular:

  1. From Individual entries, fourth bullet: "Try to link to the disambiguated page with the first word in the line..."
  2. From same, eighth bullet: "Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments."
  3. From same, ninth bullet: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."
  4. Piping: "Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed..."

Order of entries has an example that illustrates what I was aiming for. I agree with you that the goal isn't to have a list of every article that has peer in the title. Instead, the goal is to have a list of articles someone might have been looking for when they typed in peer, and to make it easy to scan the list of links for the correct article.

As for specific issues concerning Peer itself:

  1. Peerage (disambiguation): I can go either way on its placement. It's likely the main usage (strong argument for top of the list), but it's a disambig page, which tend to be placed in the See also section. Either way, we shouldn't pipe the link, and we should make the link the beginning of the line.
  2. Concerning peer-e-tariqat, the general page of the Manual of Style prefers italics over bold-face for loan words. Considering that bold-face is also deprecated for bullet headings in MOS:DP, it seems clear that we should be italicizing peer-e-tariqat.

Thanks. I'll wait a day or so, and if I don't hear a follow-up from you, I'll revert Peer back to its earlier format (which I do believe is closer to the preferred style for DAB pages), but with the first line corrected per your annotation. Sanguinity 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

May be my English language is poor that youp did not understand my explanation. Let me rephrase: The sentence "Peer may mean ... Peer group" is false. "Peer" does not mean "peer group". Any format cannot supercede common sense. It is unfortunate that in this case we don't have articles Peer (networking), Peer (sociology), etc. But this does not mean you have forcibly twist the list in some fixed format. All rules have exceptions. Please read the section at the very bottom of the MOS:DP you quoted.
By the way, the example given in this section of MOS-DB is maximally close to my format; suffcient to delete repetitions of bold word. Mukadderat 02:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mukadderat 02:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I believe I understood you: a phrase that begins "Peer may mean" can't continue with "peer group", because a peer (a person) isn't actually a peer group (a group of people). A peer is even less so a "peer review", which is a process. Was that a fair restatement of your concern, or am I misunderstanding?
As I said above, I agree with you. The version of the page that began "Peer may mean" and continued with "peer group" was a typo -- I was focusing on the entries, and missed the opening line.
The usual way of fixing that however, is not to use anchor notation, which you'll see in the order of entries is what you do for weakly-related pages. The usual method is to change the initial line, such:
Peer may refer to:
In standard English usage, "refer to" implies that we're talking about the word peer, and not a peer itself. The passage above reads thus: "(The word) 'peer' may refer to 'peer group', 'peer-to-peer', or..."
Thus, good English, typo fixed, lines begin with links, and links are unpiped. Sanguinity 12:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I see it inadmissible to abandon clear and inambiguous language "Peer may nean a nember of a peer group" in favor vague and unclear "peer mey refer to peer group". The main goal is to make the page useful, not looking nice. Mukadderat 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And the main way to make a disambig page useful is to place and label the links so that they are easy to scan. It's far easier to glance down a column of un-piped and left-aligned links than it is to scan each individual line in search of the link and then read the explanatory text surrounding it.
If "may mean" is more useful than "refers to" (which I don't see), it's a fairly trivial amount of usefulness compared to having the links formatted for easy scannability. Anchor notation is something that should only be used when we have no other choice. Sanguinity 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You have a point here. May I suggest a compromise solution:
Peer may refer to:
This form is used in some reference works, e.g., where alphabetizing is done by the main term of a phrase. Mukadderat 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, sounds good. :-) Sanguinity 12:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

james barnett

he was expelled not deleted, he was a high school studentm not college, and he is trying to contest it in court, but its a constitutional case, since Texas doesnt protect gays from discrimination. and even if it was perfectly ok to expell him, it made the news which makes it notable it got national media coverage, i ask you to change your vote to keep Qrc2006 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

erection index page deletion

In my opinion the erection index is an important concept to document so I am working on reintroducing a corrected page with edits. Your objection on the deletion log "no verifiability" does not make sense to me. This term is explicitly used in two references. There may be a question of what references are reasonable or not to use, but when a term is appearing in print in well read journals with explanations that are essentially the same the claim of "no verifiability" appears to make no sense. Do you have a specific exception?

Sorry this is awkward. I am pursuing dispute resolution as per documentation. -- M0llusk 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

James Barnett

Regarding you're vote for the deletion of James Barnett I think that you should reconsider, the page has many links to the mainstream media where he is mentioned, this clearly makes him fall under the WP:BIO guidelines, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," please reconsider.Cholga 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DOn't try to get funny

Don't try to get funny with me. --Street Scholar 16:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

re: China water crisis

That seems like a somewhat biased page title, see WP:NPOV. I think that's why I redirected it... plus it was an orphan article that few people would see because of the lack of incoming links. But I felt like it could be better covered at an article whose title wasn't inherently tilted towards one viewpoint. --W.marsh 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

water crisis merger ideas

it sounds like we agree more than disagree on this topic. we seem to agree that only two articles need to survive. if you favour Water crisis and China water crisis, i can concur with you. regards Anlace 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

People of ottoman empire

Why did you create a different cat for people of ottoman empire? demographics means the same thing... There can be thousands of listings under people of ottoman empire :)) What about the women of ottoman empire, I saw that it was AfDed some time ago, i think a different name would be more appropriate.. Such category names generally get deleted.. Just letting you know :))Baristarim 05:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Or we should create more cats like Ottoman journalists, Ottoman authors etc.. Baristarim 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that it is used for scientific purposes, that's not what I meant, I think a more appropriate way would have been to create more cats like ottoman poets, ottoman journalists, ottoman viceroys etc, then list them under the corresponding cat like military, culture, art etc.. I still couldn't create the cat:arts in ottoman and cat:religion in ottoman, i have been trying to clean all the articles that were just referred there by just ottoman empire :)) Baristarim 05:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Even per cat:people it should have been ottoman people..anyways..cheers! Baristarim 05:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
True, it does sound a bit fishy, but for ottoman it might not have sounded as much since it was an empire and that there was no ethinicity.. it is not your english-there is a diff :).. Anyways it's no prob :)) I will try to create the other cats and clean-up the rest later.. On the other hand I have to wait for two renaming votes for ottoman military and ottoman military people.. I just hope that people don't refer articles there by just cat:ottoman empire anymore :) Baristarim 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me a hand, the whole cat:ottoman empire needed a clean-up! I also couldn't figure out how to stop articles with the history template from linking to cat:ottoman empire, i just had to change the template apparently, d'oh! :) Baristarim 06:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of faux pas AfD

Howdy, you have recently voted delete in this AfD with concerns about the article choatic structure and difficulties to verify. The article has undergone a substantial rewrite since you voiced your concerns and I would like to invite you to take a look at the new version. I have restructued the article, adding references to over 80% of the content and deleting alot of the vague or hard to reference items. It is still a work in progress and I would appreciate any input on what more could be done to possibly sway you to reconsider your position. Thanks and I appreciate your time. Agne 06:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pontic Greek Genocide. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. •NikoSilver• 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please all of you refrain undoing edits of other peoples repeatedly. I am trying to find a neutral version that suits both sides, and you all are reverting all my attempts by trying to present an unverified information as a statement of fact. Your attempt of intimidation is disgusting. (And as I remember your habit of arm-twisting was already discussed elsewhere.) If you persist in pushing your nationalistic POV, I will request the artricle to be protected again, because Greek editors do not allow making their additions more neutral and factual. Mukadderat 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
YES IT IS neutral and factual... That source does say that. Saying "alleged" is POV, see WP:WTA.--Tekleni 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree. But hoiw do you explain that my factual and neutral text ("neither author nor time and circumanstances are known") keeps deleted? Unless you prove that this statement is wrong, I can explain this only by orchestrated POV pushing. The wikipedia readers are left with the impression that the caption of this photo is an indisputable fact, while these may well be Jews from Mauthauzen. Mukadderat 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's being deleted because it's unnecessary, redundant and POV. What does the identity of the photographer have to do with anything, are you claiming or implying that the photo is a forgery? Such claims require sourcing. All we have to do is say "the UOT says these are the bodies of Greeks murdered by the Turks". It's up to the reader to decide whether they believe them (they are a Greek source after all - how seriously will they be taken). We are not saying that they are the bodies of Greeks.--Tekleni 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with the fact that the photo is unverified, because no one knows where it originally came from. If my phrasing casting doubts, it is because the photo is doubtful by itself, because its origin is unknown. Anyway, I see I am preaching to deaf. Since almost no one from Turkish editors cares of this article, I am going away from this issue too. May Allah be merciful to (or punish) all participants in this article. Mukadderat 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's none of our business. The Greek source cited is vouching for its authenticity by claiming it is a picture of... Again, it's up to teh readers whether they believe it or not. Unless we have a source challenging its authenticity, then we're violating both WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR by indicating that it is.--Tekleni 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some reason in your words, but I am still very reluctant to see dubious sources just because no one else challenged them. By your logic oine may refer to any bullshit found on web simply because serious people don't have time to debunk each and every dubious item floating in internet. Mukadderat 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with Mukadderat in this case. That source is the very model of what is not a reliable source, no matter if it's hosted by webservers of a university or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Bulgarian (slang)

Your recent edit to Bulgarian (slang) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 09:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot everted. Mukadderat 09:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Mukadderat, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Zeybek

Hey Mukadderat, I offer some books from "Halikarnas Balıkçısı", for roots of Zeybek dance. Regards Mustafa AkalpTC 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hey Mukadderat,

I remember you said awhile back at Talk:Pontian Greek Genocide#Misleading googole count:


As of two days ago, there's a new article called Circassian genocide—and I just wanted to know what your thoughts are on it. Regards, Khoikhoi 08:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was severely mistaken. It looks that I made a typo when I searched google for the words "circassian genocide". It happens all the time with me. Actually, nothing surprizing. the word "genocide" is very popular today for all who wants to measure rivers of old blood. I am wondering when they move this term all the way down to Ancient Greece and Hunnu. Mukadderat 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
While the article is written in a typically dramatic, naive, and one-sided way, the history was even worse. behavior of Russia was not better or worse of that of America with respect to native population. It was a typical attitude towards "savages". It deserves coverage, but the hysterical tone of the article actually hurts the cause.
Like I said, the general fate of muhajjir was even worse than written in the "genocide" article. They were starving in Turkey, sold into slavery right off ships. Able-bodied males could do well in military, but one may easily guess it was no fun, and mortality rate. I am an occasional contributor of no much help here. I even abandoned this Pontic Greek topic, because I consider stupid and pointless to argue without solid references at hand. Only fanatics do this, to promote their cause, to destruct their enemies, no matter what. And if you have no facts, a fanatic will always beat you. Mukadderat 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's fascinating. Actually, now the original author decided to change the title to Circassian ethnic cleansing, so it's not really an issue anymore. Thanks again, Khoikhoi 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
After re-reading my chaotic response I must add that the term "slavery" is also excessively dramatic. As applied to Ottoman world slavery was not the same as the slavery in America. People could sell themselves into slavery, eg. for 10 years, and after this time thay earned enough money to marry and have family. So when I wrote "sold in slavery off ships" it could mean that chilhdren were sold by parents into slavery for much better fate than starvation. I wish I could have enough knowledge to write an article Slavery in Muslim world (I've just noticed it acttually exists: Islam and slavery) but I only created a category:Slaves of the Muslim world, and if you read these articles, I don't think that American slaves ever had such possibilities. Mukadderat 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess I'll read that article when I have the time. :-) Cheers! Khoikhoi 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mukadderat/Talk_archive_1&oldid=1141458451"