User talk:Nasz/b

No, please retain your talk page discussions - you are making many controversial and disruptive edits and we need to track your history clearly in one place. Thank you for your co-operating on this. -- Stbalbach 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please do not delete entries from your talk page. You are making a lot of controversial and disruptive edits to Wikipedia. People are warning you and it makes it difficult to track those warnings when you delete it from your talk page. -- Stbalbach 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ar

deletion of content

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarmatians. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is my answer. The map is false. Nasz 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the map again seems uncivil. Personally I will follow a practice of not repeating a reversion. I suggest that you take the matter up on the talk page for the article in order to build more agreement on your edit. Buddhipriya 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of this difference of opinion to archive may look suspicious to some. Would you please keep active disputes visible so others can assess them? Thank you Buddhipriya 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning

here is your requested source, would you like me to print it out and fly over to deliver it personally? I ask you to stop trolling the article now, or face a block for disruption. If you have a case to make, make it in coherent English, on a talkpage. Also stop blanking your talkpage while I am talking to you, it is discourteous, and considered dishonest. dab (𒁳) 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have no objection to Image:R1a EU distribution.jpg except that it is copyvio. You just ripped it from a commercial website. This is not good faith editing. If you sit down and redraw it, I will thank you, since it is a good map, but you'd need to cite the studies it is based on as well. Editing Wikipedia is work, not random prancing around. dab (𒁳) 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now your writing makes sense. I apologize the way I prompted you (Burrito from 2005) to revile sources in this post. Next time try giving the sources at once. I will do correction. I think when you examine the data from other sources you will modify your picture. Its difficult to blindly accept your words the data is not "correct", ... That's how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter what you "know", but if you can cite other sources, we can include those too .I just get impression that you know that the source you use is not confirmed fully by other scholars including those from India. I think you use this source because it fit your POV you trying to force in WP. Does it matter for you to sincerely report the information and to make the best effort to not highlight the false data?

Nasz 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two finger salute

I can't tell what your up to with this article, creating a section title called "LiV" (what is that, a secret code?) and an edit comment of "1 + 2 = OR :)" it doesn't look like a good faith effort to improve the article. Just because you found some old pictures of people with two fingers raised doesn't mean they are giving a "two-finger salute" as it is described in the article. If you can find a source which says these pictures are of a two-finger salute then please do so. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hittite bagpipes link

I removed the link you added to an image of Proto IE bagpipes to the Bagpipes article. Please refer to the Bagpipes talk page to see why the link was deleted and what you can do about. I think that you can get it back in, but you'll need to do a little more work to justify it. See my comments on the talk page for more information. Best +Fenevad 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Hittite.Stormgod1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hittite.Stormgod1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

	For more information on using images, see the following pages: 	 
	* Wikipedia:Image use policy 	 
	* Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking

I'm likely to head for a community ban if you do not stop blanking this page. I don't appreciate disruption. Blanking this page if people said it was OK would be fine, but you are continuing after many have asked you to stop. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to get across it to keep this talk page, without deleting every piece of critism into a hard-to-find place such as the page history. Please do not blank this page again. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time there are question marks to answer. Would you be so kind to do so?

Could you next time at least read the relevant Talk pages to see detailed explanations why you were reverted before you re-insert the same contested facts or poorly formatted tables full of errors? And could you stop blanking your Talk page after every comment posted here? If you wish to reply, please do it here - I do not like discussions scattered on several pages. Thanks in advance. --Friendly Neighbour 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disruptive, please

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. From: Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blatantly disrupting Wikipedia by continuing to blank this page, and refusing to collaborate and communicate politely with other users. Please leave this page alone. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R1a1

F:Could you next time at least read the relevant Talk pages to see detailed explanations why you were reverted before you re-insert the same contested facts or poorly formatted tables full of errors?

N: Do you like now the tables in R1a ? Please check it, I accounted 1 meiotic error (36 one line up) & 3 spell, if you see more let me know I promise to fix it. Nasz 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasz,

I asked you politely not to move the discussion to my page. Why had you to do it?
Can't you read in English? I have a big notice at the top of my Talk page asking for not fragmenting the discussion.
If you move discussion, please leave the signatures and dates. Notation like "N:" four yourself and "F:" for myself is not the way we do it on Wikipedia.

Therefore, I moved to back here where it started. In future, if you do not like discussion on your Talk page, please discuss the matter on the article Talk page. People will fin it.

Concerning the tables in Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), they are better now. Not ideal but good enough to stay there. General the whole tables from the two papers should be copied to Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and only referenced from the specific haplogroup articles. That would make more sense IMHO. But as long as it is not done I believe your tables can stay.

Regards, --Friendly Neighbour 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you reverted my improvements to the introduction (I had corrected the list of countries and added percentages). You also removed the reference I added (the paper you found!). And you still insist that Russia is part of Central Europe. I'll repair this and I hope you will not revert me without explaining why. --Friendly Neighbour 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasz, remember: We should not link directly to outside graphics on Wikipedia articles. This is what you did in the introduction to Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA). This way it is hard to know the source of the figure and how reliable it is. You should just cite the paper or web site as source. --Friendly Neighbour 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptions from User:Nasz

Can you explain why you reverted my edits on two articles:

You reverted me on Variable speed of light, an article from a branch of science you never before edited about, back to a vandalized edit. It is obvious that the sentence you changed contradicts the paragraph below in your version.
Your revert of Mohawk nation restored an un-encyclopedic version with the following gem: Not all Mohawks followed this practice, as it was a violation of their Great Law of Peace. Joseph Brant is considered a traitor among the Haudenosaunee for turning his back on their Longhouse religion. He was stripped of his Pine-Tree chief title, which was only an honorary title that was given to him for his abilities in translation only, and carried no voice among traditional council nor was the title hereditary. He had abused this title.

Do you agree with the self-contradictory edits on Variable speed of light and the abuse of a Joseph Brant on Mohawk nation or did you simply tried to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Yuser31415 warned you explicitly against this. BTW, you blanked his warning twice since he posted it.

I suspect you did not even read the relevant paragraphs of the articles you reverted. I will report your ctivity on the administratrs' noticeboard. Friendly Neighbour 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will be blocked if this behaviour continues. It is unacceptable. You can consider this your final warning. --Deskana (request backup) 14:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scythians

Do not insert your pseudo-scientific theories. The Slavic word sokoli you mentioned means "falcon, a kind of bird". You should know it, since you seem to be a Russian or Pole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Bargit (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Codices

This list is getting so long it should be in a separate article. I'm a bit dubious about it frankly as most very famous Codices are called something else (xxx bible, xxx gospels etc). It isn't much use without a line of brief description - date , place of origin, type of work, why it is famous etc. Is there another list of manuscripts that overlaps?

Johnbod 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Kells

Most of your revisions to the captions in the Book of Kells have been reverted. Regardless of what the symbols may look like, they are intended to be a man, a bull, a lion, and an eagle. These symbols are drawn from the text of the Book of Revelations, and are quite fixed. Insular artwork is known for not presenting "realistic" images.

The Incipit for the Gospel of Matthew is traditionally called "Liber Gernerationis", which are the first two words of the text in Latin. "Generationis" is correct. The following "i" belongs to the next wordManuscripts of this date tended to not put spaces between the words, especially in presentatition text such as seen on this page. Dsmdgold 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Proto-Germanic language, Proto-Greek language and Proto-Indo-Iranian language

You reverted me on all three articles adding again that the languages are "reconstructed" and "hypothetical". None of them is reconstructed. The usage of the word reflect probably your poor grasp of English (I do not believe you claim they are actually reconstructed). Also, none of them is actually hypothetical. They are defined as the (last) common ancestors of the relevant language groups. Unless you claim the language groups are not related, you cannot say the ancestor is hypothetical. It's assumed and largely unknown but not hypothetical. There must have been a common ancestor if we believe the langiuage are related. If you know you are related to somebody your common ancestor may be unknown but (s)he is not hypothetical. Do you agree?

I changed all three definitions removing your adjectives and adding - as a compromise - the word "assumed". I compared our usage with two other English language encyclopedias (Brittanica and Encarta). One of them never adds any adjectives to descriptions of proto languages, the other sometimes adds "assumed" but most of the time does not. Therefore, let it be assumed - as a compromise I can reluctantly stand.

I am worried that I need to spend hours researching your edits only to learn the are based or nothing (which I suspected from the very beginning). Please help us all and do your research yourself before editing. Also try to spellcheck your edits, especially those on the article pages.

Again, if you choose to respond, do it here and not on my Talk page. And please, do not delete warnings from your Talk page - this is not believed by the Wikipedia community to be polite. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Vandals

Please do not add highly POV statements of poor grammar and vocabulary to Wikipedia articles. You claim that Some school of Archology (sic!) assign the Vandals with the Przeworsk culture, and the Goths with Wielbark culture. The Goth identification (not assignement!!!) with Wielbark culture is not questioned by any sane scholar I have heard of. The Przeworsk culture identification with Vandals is not a consensus yet but it is the mainstream theory. The weak link here is the Lugii -> Vandals part (Przeworsk culture cannot represent anyone but the historical Lugii because of its geographical spread and the amount of iron the culture produced). Vandals were most probably at least a part of the Lugii tribe confederation. Anyway, I do not understand why you add the "some schools" sentence and then criticize it and therefore move it down. It does not make any sense to me.

If you choose to respond, please make it here and not on my Talk page - I will have yours on my Watch list. Friendly Neighbour 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing content from your talk page

Your behavior is disruptive. Please stop it. Buddhipriya 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another warning

I see you have added gibberish to Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) again. I have patiently tried to talk reason to you, but at this point further debate seems wasted, and if you persist I will block you from editing without further warning. dab (𒁳) 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding disruptive nonsense links

Please stop adding disruptive nonsense links that go nowhere as you did to Antiochus of Syracuse. I see that you have once again removed all the current warnings from this page. You were previously asked by an administrator not to do so. Buddhipriya 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahram_V&diff=next&oldid=110228327

1

EU Hun areas? What does it mean. European Hungary areas? This is nonsense, because all of Hungary is in Europe. I don't think molecular genetics is pseudoscience (despite that as a Muslim I reject evolution). You have to write in intelligible way, in proper English.--Al-Bargit 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes you are right EU usualy (I) mean Europe. 'Hun areas' in Europe in the article Huns are marked in green clolor

. But if you like you can change it to 'Areas inhabitated in Europe by Huns' it will be more wordy and les fuzzy.

Do you really believe Al-Bargit that PNAS is the source of pseudo science ? PNAS is a kind of newspaper of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Nasz 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day's journey

The topic is hardly notable - but it has potential. The tag says if someone comes by and fixes it up a bit, adding sources, adding more info and other stuff, then it won't be deleted.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/ 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:R1a_EU_distribution.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:R1a_EU_distribution.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

temporary block

alright, after a string of warnings (now buried in page history), I am blocking you for 24 hours, for your consistent additions of gibberish and imperviousness to warnings or attempts to communicate: this is disruptive in the sense of Wikipedia:blocking policy. You have also violated WP:3RR, reverting four times in 24 hours on Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA). Please review the advice I have given you earlier. If you persist in your erratic behaviour, subsequent blocks will be of longer duration. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mierow.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Mierow.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —An gr 11:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]