Jump to content

User talk:Atari400

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atari400 (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 28 December 2007 (→‎Sockpuppetry case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Regarding Asian Capitals

Afghanistan may be considered geographically "South Asia" by many sources, which is perfectly acceptable. What does not make sense, is to double list the capital of Afghanistan, being Kabul, twice within a single template. It is either/or, and should only include a notation of sorts acknowledging the difference of common opinion. Atari400 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not go against academic views on the subject. I have cited many sources claiming that Afghanistan is South Asia. People have attempted to refute me and have given me a few sources claiming it as Central Asia and a few sources claiming it as the Middle East. Many scholars do say that Afghanistan is South Asian. Claims that it is disputed are true, but claims that it is an unacademic view point are entirely false[1][2][3][4][5] Thegreyanomaly 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 10 sources that reference Afghanistan as being in either Central Asia, the Near East or the Middle East:
1 - [6]
2 - [7]
3 - [8]
4 - [9]
5 - [10]
6 - [11]
7 - [12]
8 - [13]
9 - [14]
10 - [15]
Serious scholarly works tend to view Afghanistan in the cultural and social arena of the Near East and Central Asia, and very rarely in the context of South Asia. To do so generally lands in the realm of political political irredentism. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I noticed that you have been requesting input on the subject. You apparently have focused on the people who are reverting my edits and have been unable to make definitive claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian. I hope you come to realize that there is a strong scholarly view that Afghanistan is South Asian and that it is not just "sometimes referred to as geographically South Asian in passing by various English language news services" Thegreyanomaly 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally as a Wikipedia editor, I am seeking a consensus in the matter. As such, it appears that both facts and consensus numbers are leaning towards my side of the arguement. As someone with a connection to the region, I think I have a idea of what I am, and what we are. Tolerating viewpoints that may detour from reality is not in the interest of the Wikipedia project. Tolerating viewpoints that may reflect extremist nationalist ideals as the normal definition of reality are certainly not in the interest of myself or the project, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just to show you that many academic sources do not consider Afghanistan to be part of Central Asian
[16] Oklahoma State, only claims Afghanistan has links to Central Asia
[17] does not claim Afghanistan to be Central Asian
[18] only covers adjacent parts of Afghanistan
Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these references define Afghanistan as South Asian, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok my commentary on your sites. 3 & 4 are the same source. You've got 10 sources, most of them either claims Afghanistan to be Middle Eastern, and the rest of them do not distinguish between ME or CA. You're claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian are not supported by your sources, at most you could use your sources and Beh-nam's sources to put Afghanistan down as Middle Eastern, but by no means Central Asian. I've got more sources for South Asia than you have for Central Asia. All you have done is proven the obvious, that Afghanistan is commonly viewed to be Middle Eastern Thegreyanomaly 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i asked for help and that is your response this was the last dis i sent about the lotar page

  • I did see that you merged my page with the KAPAP page, I do understand what you are saying but It is a direct conflict of interest with my business I do understand that I have a conflict of interest as well with writing the Lotar page but the page kept getting redirected to KAPAP and it makes it seem as though the KAPAP training center is the LOTAR center and that hurts my business I am sure that you would understand this. I have asked for help many times in tiring to figure out how to solve the problem, I do not have an issue with being linked to Krav Maga but I can be linked up to KAPAP due to COPYWRITE issues between us..Once again I have put up the info on LOTAR to be reviewed with an article for source reference. Please review it and let me know if it works to help my issue... Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6969

what you are doing is taking the copywritten name of my company and attaching it to a competetor how is that right...i have asked for help on this as well as including an artical written about lotar from a third party website and this was you response....why..how is this ok... --Ronin6969 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, and I will begin the process of merging Lotar into Krav Maga, shortly. Atari400 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much I do appriciate the help

I do appriciate the assistance and I can and would be happy to give you any futher info to add to the artical which will be merged with krav maga--Ronin6969 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Please view the article on Krav_Maga and Kapap to see the results of the change. Atari400 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but here is a link to a ref artical

ref artical on LOTAR http://www.usadojo.com/styles/about-lotar.htm --Ronin6969 04:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and used your article link as a reference. Atari400 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian War

Well, just to give you a heads up, I am going to add a section on genocide allegations later today, citing about a half-dozen scholarly sources. Any thoughts on the matter? Atari400 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My initially response would be that the Algerian War wasn't a genocide, but I most admit that I am a bit hazy on what exactly is a genocide and what isn't. Another thing, do you have Ethnic cleansing and French colonial empire bit from the result in the infobox, I think any result except the Algeria became a independent state is highly questionably. Carl Logan 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my reason for the addition of the tag is not to say if it was or was not a genocide, but rather it addresses the fact that certain groups and individuals have claimed it as such[19]. It is a touchy subject, and one that tends to garnish an emotional reaction for either side of the debate. Atari400 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians

What reason do you have to add Armenians to that template? There are Armenians who live in Iran because of deportaions of Shah Abbas and Armenians who live in the Middle East because of the Armenian Genocide but that in no way makes Armenians middle eastern. Armenians arw classified as European Americans by virtually all states including California and the Federal government so your addition is borderline disruption if it's not a matter of simple ignorance. Please explain asap.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lets discuss this on the templates discussion page, as I would like to here your input on the subject. Atari400 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'Afghans are white on the US Census' statement.

Some links to prove that statement would be helpful.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go! - [20]. It is an offical U.S Census Manual from 2007, and Afghans can be found on page 3, under white. Atari400 07:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not from Bureau of the Census. It is from National Cancer Institute, and gives two references, both from Center for Disease Control:

  1. [21] (explanation) and [22] (data)
  2. [23]

The first link for reference 1 says that CDC's classification is based on two different sets of categories, from Office of Management and Budget and Bureau of the Census. It does not state that it is identical to one of those. (and even if it did, it could be in error)

Links to prove that statement should come from census.gov. --JWB (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tea

You should discuss this issue with Dark Tea [24].

She has numerous sources to indicate otherwise.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually was shown this source[25] that clearly states Afghans as being counted as "white" in the U.S, by DarkTea. It is an official U.S Census Manual from 2007, and Afghans can be found on page 3, under white.Atari400 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin Mehta

The Asian Americans page rightfully lists him. He is an Indian of Parsi origins, meaning he is Indian. After the fall of the Sassanids and the rise of Islam in Iran, a group of Zoroastrians migrated to Gujarat for religion asylum, later spreading into other regions of India. The Parsis, as their article points out, have been assimiliated and acculturate out of Iranian culutre into Indic culture, while retaining the Zoroastrianism that was greatly abandoned in Iran Thegreyanomaly 07:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see your point, but according to the U.S Census Bureau's SEER Program and Encoding Manual[26], Parsis are counted as "white" in the U.S., and this can be found on page 5 of the manual[27]. Atari400 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit war on Shiraz blood libel. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mercury 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have unblocked. I do not believe it will happen again. Regards, Mercury 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab slave trade

If you want to move an article to a different name, use the "move" tab. Do not cut-and-paste an article the way you did with Arab slave trade. When you cut and paste move the way you did, the page history of the article or talk page is left behind, making it difficult to follow the article history, which is essential for many resons, including GFDL. Also, you need to establish consensus in the articles talk page before you make a move like that. --Ezeu (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus of Indosphere

Prove your claims and show this consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read through the discussion page. Atari400 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested an RfC to evaluate your "concensus" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. Atari400 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the template protected

You wouldn't wait for the RfC, so I had the template protected. The RfC will be here within those two weeks hopefully. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indosphere

You do not have a consensus that Afghanistan and Balochistan are not part of the Indosphere. The fact that no one is around to support you and that you are the only reverting edits should be a clear enough message that you do not have consensus. Accept it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept only cited facts. As of yet, you have given no sources to show that Afghanistan or Baluchistan belong to your notion of an "Indosphere", or a "Greater India". I am sorry, but you seem to espouse an Indian nationalistic viewpoint that as of yet, is not backed up with sources. After all, what makes Baluchistan or Afghanistan part of an Indosphere/Greater India, exactly. That has not even been addressed. More importantly, why do you even feel the need for such an inclusion? Atari400 09:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Islam and slavery

In this diff, your edit summary "Revert - Please do not include statements without a factual link" does not explain all the changes you made. Regarding "Persians," it is sourced to the Encylcopedia of Islam. Please explain yourself. Arrow740 (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "sourced", then source it in the article. I am not about to just take your word for it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time with your agenda. Atari400 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That information is sourced to the next closest reference. Please explain the rest of your edit. It is considered bad form to make massive changes without explanation or indicating that you understand the issues involved. Arrow740 (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is not verifiable, in addition to the fact that the next closet reference does no pertain to the subject at hand. I want to see a source outside of your imagination, that shows a "Persian" aspect to the Arab slave trade. Atari400 09:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove Persian, though it is sourced, that's one thing. The rest of your edit is another. If you don't undo the rest of your edit I'll make a post to AN/I. Your refusal to address this is a sign of bad faith. Arrow740 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sign of bad faith on your part to make sweeping changes without consensus. I only made a single edit of a statement that is unsupported by citation. I look forward to an AN/I complaint, as I will open one on your behavior myself. Your sweeping edits without consensus, coupled with a blatant agenda is not in the interests of the Wikipedia project. Atari400 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I only made a single edit of a statement that is unsupported by citation." Anyone who looks at the diff linked above will see that you are not telling the truth. It is incivil to revert without an edit summary or any indication you understand the issues involved. Arrow740 (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is incivil to revert without an edit summary or any indication you understand the issues involved." - Why then do you habitually do the same, Arrow740? ITAQALLAH 14:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me an example. Arrow740 (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that you frequently revert without edit summary, and many times such reverts are improper. Here's a nice example.[28] ITAQALLAH 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious to you that I know the issues involved. BS is trying to keep attention away from a sensitive part of the Qur'an on a pretext, when that section clearly is pertinent to animals and Islam. I've reinstated that section months ago as well. Arrow740 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of the issue is deficient, as is your understanding of WP:NOR. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Arrow740 inded seems to have committed a 3rr violation. Will you report the user, or should I?Bless sins (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second, Arrow740 almost committed 3rr. The editor seems to have gamed the system.Bless sins (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in the United States

  • For your edit here, that can be verified in the article from Pelle's edit which says:
However, a Pew Research Center survey also found that some subgroups of America's Islamic community -- specifically, younger Muslims and African-American Muslims -- are somewhat more likely than the group as a whole to be open to extremism. African-American Muslims also were far more likely to feel alienated from the mainstream culture and suspicious of the government.
So this was not unverified information. This can be found in the news article. Please explain. --Matt57

Hitler an athiest?

For your edit here I dont think Hitler was an athiest. Do you have any source to back that up? There's no such conclusion here: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs so I'll say its safe to say he was not. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I meant that category for another biography I was working on. Feel free to remove it. Atari400 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which other bio? I didnt see you working on any other bio other than Hitler's. Anyway its ok. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Hawking, but I opted against it without a secondary confirmation. Atari400 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying you were working on the Stephen Hawkings bio? I didnt see any edit of yours to that article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never completed the edit, as the source is twenty years old, and stems from a conversation between Dr.Hawking and the Pope in the early 1970's. Why the interest? Atari400 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete others' comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Shia Islam, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I am very confused. Which part of this do you feel is pointless and/or vandalism? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify, as I had to review that action. It looks to me like an attempt at using an article's talk page as a forum for religious proselytizing of one form or another. In effect, using an article discussion page as an outlet for spamming. That is purely a subjective viewpoint and response on my part. You seem to disagree, and I view the matter as a dead horse. I do thank you for taking the time to explain your action, though. Atari400 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Jewish slave trade

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jewish slave trade shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jewish slave trade

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jewish slave trade, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish slave trade. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kirbytime for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Jehochman Talk 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atari400&oldid=180622231"