User talk:Augustgrahl/Archive 1

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Sandbox on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. HawkerTyphoon 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that didn't make much sense. Please try and keep the sandbox intact! HawkerTyphoon 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal Armenia
Hello Augustgrahl, could you please post your newly created articles here: Portal:Armenia/New article announcements Thanks--Eupator 00:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some help
Hi Augustgrahl, perhaps you could help me out on the ‘Abdu’l-Hamid II article. An anon wants to delete this paragraph, but I don't really have a good excuse for it's inclusion unless sources for the claims are provided. I was wondering if you could add them. Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for consulting me on the matter. I've added the references I deem most reliable that I collected while working on the Hamidian massacres article. Hopefully this will help to merit keeping the mentioned paragraph. -- Augustgrahl 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, the anon removed it again, despite this. :( I've warned them for 3RR. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for creating Assyrians in Armenia. Chaldean 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have an interest in both the minorities in Armenia and the lesser known genocide of the Assyrian people. -- Augustgrahl 13:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Past Edits
You may have noticed that I am following proper proceedure and submitted an RfC. None of my edits we ment in a hurtful spirit, and they all are true. However at the time I didn't realize many of the topics were covered in other articles. If would like to discuss the edits in detail, please visit my talk page. :) --Caligvla 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevent what you say your intentions are, committing blatant vandalism and then saying it is all true and meant with goodwill does not change the fact that it is vandalism. Displaying pictures with exaggerated stereotypical racial features and saying it is typical of that group and changing text of a general definition to be disparaging of a particular racial group is malicious vandalism. You have been fairly warned, so I suggest you amend your behavior. -- Augustgrahl 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, that's why I chose to do the RfC. I still dont understand the controversy over the pictures. They are from an academic journal on the Anthropology of Armenians, as you can see on the talk page, I welcomed alternate images form an academic non-baised source, no one provided any. I even captioned the images Circa 1910, 1911, so people wouldn't get offended because the fashions they wore were out of style. The only people should be offended are the Armenian men in the pictures who have been attacked. Please don't jump to the wrong conclusion thanks, --Caligvla 00:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you want me to spell it out for you, the picture that you posted, while it may depict an Armenian man, is atypical of what Armenians look like. He has a very pronounced nose and overbite. While I understand that Armenian people have a tendency to sport large noses, you can see from other photos in the same source, ,, that the image that you have chosen to depict a, in your own words, "typical Armenian", does not depict a typical Armenian at all. Now, if you must go posting pictures of a "typical Armenian," why not use somebody like Serj Tankian or Sid Haig, who shows the typical Armenian characteristics of hairiness and prominent noses without resorting to a greatly exaggerated picture? -- Augustgrahl 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First off I want to thank you for having a conversation with me about it instead of the personal attacks of some of the other users. If you go back far enough I uploaded a picture I took myself of an Armenian while visiting Glendale, CA earlier this year. I was criticized that it did not come from an academic source, so I found the other photos from the anthropoligical journal and it started a firestorm. In this process my point for wanting to add a photo to the Classification section got lost in all the flood of personal attacks. The section compares Armenians to Slavs and Germanincs and I thought it was a bit unfair to compare Armenians to these groups within Europe, why not compare them to another indo-European group closer to home and outside of Europe? e.g. Tocharians and Iranians. This one section is not the biggest deal in the world but if you look through all the articles related to Armenia you start to see a pattern form that might mislead readers into thinking that Armenians are exclusively European. I hope this clears up the picture issue.--Caligvla 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that Armenians are not exclusively European, but keep in mind that Armenia has been heavily influenced by European societies for most of its history, and it exists in an area that is considered part of Europe. Armenia lies on the crossroads of Europe and Asia, so you can acceptably say it's a European, Asian, or Middle Eastern country. There is no one definitive answer, all apply. I must reiterate, though, that doing things like changing the definition of swarthy to target Armenians is not acceptable for Wikipedia and will be taken as malicious vandalism. -- Augustgrahl 02:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Armenian is part of Europe though, it lies outside the borders of Europe, to say it's European misleads people into thinking Armenia is in Europe. However, I don't dispute it has been deeply influenced by Europe, what nation hasn't? Since when is swarthy a bad word? Armenians are swarthy, so are a 1/3 of the people in my own country, Italia. Back to the Clasification section instead of removing slavs and germanics, why not just list all the indo-europeans, Albanians Anatolians Balts Celts Germanic peoples Greeks Indo-Aryans Iranians Italic peoples  Slavs  Thracians Tocharians? Do you think it's a fair compromise?--Caligvla 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You might not say that Armenia is a part of Europe, but a lot of other people would. I think it was unnecessary and innapropriate to change the text of the "swarthy" article to describe Armenians in particular, especially as the article notes that the term can be viewed as offensive. As far as the different ethnic groups go, you haven't specified what article you are referring to. Please clarify what's bothering you in which article. -- Augustgrahl 03:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to Armenians, Classification Section... It compares Armenians to Germanics and Slavs. My suggestions are to;

A.) Remove Germanics and Slavs and replace with 2 Indo-European groups outside of Europe e.g. Iranians and Tocharians

or

B.) List all the Indo-European groups in that section.

as far as the swarthy aticle, I am leaving that one alone, I don't really care all that much, I may come back to it at a later date. It would be cool to have a photo collage of swarthy people from around the world, but not a project I have time for now...--Caligvla 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point of what the article is saying, in that the Armenian ethnic group does not have any subgroups within it, unlike Germanic or Slavic people. It is by no means an exhaustive list of Indo-European peoples. If you felt that strongly about it, you could add in Turkic people, since it's a Eurasian group that can be divided into subgroups. Anyway, this discussion is becoming very long, so I suggest you take any further comments to the talk page of the respective article dealing with it. -- Augustgrahl 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No I got the point, but it's misleading to only include groups within Europe, and if I take it to any talk page, I will get a load of personal attacks and the issue will be lost... Anyway thanks for the conversation, if you think my changes are okay, could you make them?--Caligvla 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Turkic Peoples are not the Indo-European people list, can you add Iranians instead?--Caligvla 05:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenians - Classification
Another guy moved it off the article, so I guess it for the best, nothing to dispute if it isnt there... anyway, thanks for conversation, I appreciated our discussion :)--Caligvla 07:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be back in now, can you make the change to add more Indo-Europeans thanks--Caligvla 03:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you weigh in?
Can we agree to this?

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe and Asia, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

and put it back to it's original location in the Geography section...

-

I posted the above on the talk page, I was hoping to get your support, I think it's a fair compromise. Hope you agree...--Caligvla 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence already in the article is fine. Please do not delete comments on my talk page that you did not write. -- Augustgrahl 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the delete, seemed old and it was my topic that I deleted.

what about the relocation of the lines? once this section became a heated debate, Eupator moved from the geog. section to the top of the article to taunt me can we at least move it back to where it belongs?--Caligvla 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be hard for me to find what Eupator did when so many edits have been done to the article recently. If you want me to look at specific edits it would be useful if you provided links to them. If, like you said, the line has been in the geography section for a significant amount of time, then it may be appropriate to relocate it there. -- Augustgrahl 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He rewrote it and moved it on Oct. 9th 2006 see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&oldid=80447827 for the last 2 years various verions of it have always been in the Geog. section--Caligvla 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkic people
Do not add such retarded nonsense again.--Eupator 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please use civil language on Wikipedia. -- Augustgrahl 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi
hey I haven't seen you around in awhile, hope you are well...--Caligvla 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine. At the moment I just don't know of any areas that would be good to focus my attention on. Thanks for the concern. - Augustgrahl 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Armenians&oldid=84873797 Since you created the article, I though I would bring it to your attention first. It seems that Eupator thinks he is the final authority on anything Armenian. I will defer to your judgment on this and check in tomorrow.--Craig Thomasian 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would like my opinion on the information provided about genetic testing, please tell me where I can find it on the site. The link provided is innappropriate as it is not easy to find the claim made. -- Augustgrahl 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is what I have been saying all along. Let him provide a verifiable source about that dna mna stuff and then we can discuss it ...--Eupator 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Just so that we put this behind us, can you please explain to me why you classified Turkic peoples as Indo-Europeans? It's like saying mammals are reptiles or liquids are gases. Was I missing something? It seems to me that there is no way one can possibly make such an error.--Eupator 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit that it's a personal error on my part. I was just in a hurry to put something down so Caligvula would stop heckling me about the article. I will be less receptive to his demands in the future. -- Augustgrahl 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All I needed to know. I just incorrectly assumed that it's common knowledge when obviously not everyone is interested in IE studies or linguistics. Cheers.--Eupator 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)