User talk:Big Adamsky

Welcome

Welcome!

Hi Big Adamsky! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! →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]