User talk:Jorge Koli

Welcome!

 * }

Please stop
Please stop making additions/changes to the Sexuality section of Pashtun people. There is currently an RfC going on regarding what should be in that section, if anything at all. Your edits make it extremely difficult for people to discuss the issue. Before you stop, please fix the specific problems in the edits you just cause: specifically, your last sentence stating that homosexuality is punished by death needs to be removed until such time as you can provide a reliable source to support it, as well as the claim that Pashtuns deny the accusations of homosexuality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the wording was very bad and I got tempted to fix it.--Jorge Koli (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Military expenditure
See my comment on Talk:Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. Mar4d (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you remove those Kakazai images without discussion?
Your "reasons" are not valid enough. I am adding them back. You are not the sole editor of that page. You gotta respect others' contributions too. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided relevant reasons not to add those new images. You need to first provide evidence that he and she were Pashtuns, we can go from there on what should be done. I want that article to remain neat and free from propaganda or nonsense.--Jorge Koli (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence? By the same token, I want you to furnish the evidence that all those pictures which are on that page truly belong to Pashtun people. You are the one who is making edits to that page on the basis of propaganda. You must assume good faith. You are NOT a scholar on all the Pashtun topics. 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakazai Pashtun (talk • contribs)
 * They all are Pashtuns, the evidence is already provided in their personal articles. No, I'm not making edits on the bases of propaganda. The sad part is that most notable Pakistani Pashtuns do not have free images for us to use in Wikipedia and that shouldn't stop us from putting mostly Afghanistan's Pashtuns' images. My intention is to use high quality images, it makes the article stand out. Why do you type these things when you don't even know me?--Jorge Koli (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of those pictures, the "evidence" has also been provided with those images (on that very page as well as on the other pertinent Wikipedia page) too but you refuse to look for them based upon your preconceived notions. There are other images too on that very page (e.g. Bacha Khan with Gandhi) which are of "low quality." That page is cluttered with Afghan-Pashtun personalities and yet you have got objection on two images of Paksitani-Pashtuns? It is Wikipedia, you must assume good faith and please, don't make any edits to those pictures wihtout proper dicussion. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave you my reasons. The image of Malik Ghulam Muhammad being in the "Putative ancestry" is not a good idea, he was a politician and according to his article he was Pashtun so it belongs better in the "Modern era" section.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You make the edits first and then you offer your "reasons." I answered to your "reasons" too. Please, feel welcome to review the Edit History. You have been on that page for days now making all sort of edits without proper discussion. And all I did is to add just two, I repeat two pictures, of Paksitani-Pashtuns to that page which is cluttered with the images of Afghan-Pashtun personlaities (and yes with Afghan-Pashtun politicans as well) and you couldn't bear them? Malik Ghulam Muhammad was the 3rd Governor General of Pakistan, thus, his picture should be next to Ayub Khan who became President AFTER Malik Ghulam Muhammad. Thanks. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have more important things in life than to be thinking about "Pakistani Pakhtun / Afghan Pashtun". The problem is that there are way too many free images of Afghan Pashtun Kings, Presidents, Politicians, etc, but very few of Pakistani Pakhtuns. Do you see in the article images of All the Pashtun Kings of Afghanistan? All the Presidents of Afghanistan? All of the Politicians and all the other notable Afghan Pashtuns? Answer is "NO". If Afghan Pashtuns come and decided to add all of the images into this article then what do we do?--Jorge Koli (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jorge Koli, Well, you should be celebrating that Shukriya Khanam's image has been deleted by one of the admin / editor, thus, you don't have to worry about going back-and-forth regarding Shukriya Khanam (Her name is even Pashtun. How many non-Pashtun Pakistani women has got such a name?) and / or her Pashtun ethnicity and thereyby the "evidence" and "proof" in due course. (I just regret the fact that there are still some people out there who would rather show to the world that Pashtun women have NOT achieved anything and still living in the stone-ages rather being proud of one of their daughter who became the FIRST Pashtun female who got the Commercial Pilot Licence - CPL in Pakistan.) I have seen your edits which carries the basic underlying theme of Afghan-nationalism consisted upon the mythe that "Afghan-Pashtuns are somewhat "better" than the Pakistani-Pashtuns." Had you not cared about "Pakistani Pakhtun / Afghan Pashtun" so much, you wouldn't have been "fighting" with me tooth-to-nail over the addition of those two images which were simply intended to demonstrate to the world that we, Pashtuns, have also produced female pilots and Governer Generals rather being associated with the Talebans. I can only hope and pray that one day we, Pashtuns, will become united and start thinking beyong the lines of Afghan-Pashtun, Pakistan-Pashtun, Pashto-speaking Pashto, non-Pashto speaking Pashtun etc. Take care regards, Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, you misunderstood me. I have nothing against Shukriya Khanum, I didn't like her image because it is very old and bad quality as well as copyvio. When adding images to articles you have to consider many things, the women section in Pashtun people needs images of good looking Pashtun women and that is always the aim in all articles. At the same time the quality of the image must also be considered. For now it shows very unique images of Pashtun women... the 1st is cute looking young Pashtun girls from a village, this is typical scene in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.... the 2nd is the wife of a "current famous world leader" sitting with very important women, don't forget that she was a doctor and living in Pakistan for decades.... 3rd is a young pretty Pashtun lady who's shown in "today's work force"... and 4th is good looking Pashtun lady politician.... and all these images are "high quality". Adding more makes the section (or article) look silly, but we can swap any of these with something much better in the future. There is nothing controversial about the current images in the women section, they represent the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nothing about her name "Shukriya Khanum" explains her ethnicity. The first name "Shukriya" is also used in India (i.e. Shukriya: Till Death Do Us Apart). There is even a famous song called "Shukriya Shukriya" in the Indian movie Hamara Dil Aapke Paas Hai.--Jorge Koli (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you are missing the point - as well - that I didn't even upload that image. It was uploaded by some other editor (I know you have accuesed me of being that editor as well, although, I am not.). All I did is to simply search for it while searching for Ghulam Muhammad's image on Wikipedia and when I found it, I added that to the page with good faith. I didn't expect that another editor will take it as a "challenge" to his editorship and "fight" with me toothe-to-nail over it. You must admit that that page has way more Afghan-Pashtun images than Pakistan-Pashtun images even some very unneccessary ones. I find your observation about adding "cute" and "good-looking" Pashtun girls to the women seciton very absurd and bizzare, specially, when as a Pashtun, I know that the Pashtun women don't like to be seen by the strangers let alone having their picture up on the World-wide Web (WWW). And your defintion of "world leader" is also debatable but I have no time for that. There was nothing wrong with that image (except that it was old and black and white just like the Bacha Khan and Gandhi's image), whatsoever, including the copyvio clause as there are plenty of pictures on Wikipedia which has got some serious copyrights issues. You are even trying to "argue" that Shukriya Khanam is an Indian name "too". If that IS the case then there are plenty of names in the Muslim world which are used all over the Muslim world. Well, it seems like that all you simply intend to do is to put down and discourage other editors to comtribute to this page (and other Pashtun-related pages) that you could have a monopoly to edit however you like that you could pursue your Afghan-nationalist agenda. Good luck with that. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Images
The link to the blog which you are giving (which has the same pictures as on Wikipedia) is dated February 2009. Whereas the images on Wikipedia have been here since 2007. How can it be copyright infringement? Mar4d (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. It's for admins to decide. If you want to argue over this do that in the talk page. The uploader didn't provide how he got a hold of these images.--Jorge Koli (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither have you provided a reason how images licensed under Creative Commons since 2007 suddenly become copyright infringements. Mar4d (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They will be deleted like how the other of his images were deleted "F4. Lack of licensing information". --Jorge Koli (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and nominate them for deletion, but don't provide bogus links to blogs which appear to be newer than the image's upload date on Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That includes incorrectly putting the 'no-license' tag when the image clearly has a license provided. Mar4d (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thank you.--Jorge Koli (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)