User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 5

Ugg boots

Thanks for pointing out the German and Spanish ugg boot articles - that's changed how I feel about some issues. :( I'm not sure how to proceed, but the Spanish article in particular is of interest, and I'll need to keep it in mind. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hodwy TMCk, I've just semied National dish due to persistent vandalism; I understand you may be pissed, but, please, edit summaries such as this are highly inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance

I was struggling to figure out how to undo my edits that broke the CRU emails page. I think I have it right now. --News Historian (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

please go to section I have started explaining the rationale for the edits on MoMK at the talk page HERE.Overagainst (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You gave a rational only for one of your edits there but neglected to at least source this edit within the article. Another problem with Follain as source is that he is the only one using that term and every single other RS is not. If you check on the translation of the Massei report (which is of course not a RS either but still helpful in determination of facts) you'll find that the Italian legal term of "Concorso" was translated to English as "Complicity" with a footnote that explains the term further. The English term of "complicity" in legal terms doesn't fit the more correct term of "murder in company". there is indeed a big difference and we don't want to confuse our readers with giving a false impression, don't we. So either show that more RS's reported it using the same translation or [what I think would be possible and the only way to go into a detail not reported as such in the mainstream media] use the Italian term in the article with a footnote explaining it.TMCk (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. I just went back to check his contributions, saw he'd over-written an existing reference and when I got there to fix it, you had done it already. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually was edit-conflicting with you when I tried to undo those edits and so I just replaced what was missing. It's always such a hassle when spam or vandalism doesn't get reverted right away. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy 2012 !!!
		Dear TMCk, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot SMM. What a nice surprise. Same to you, TMCk (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dana Loesch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

Hello, curious I see where you want to keep the nasal irrigation section free of unintended advertising and I guess that makes sense but than why are both Alkalol and Nasaline advertised in the content. These are both commercial tradenames and not product descriptions. Nasaline is simply a manual syringe irrigation device and Aklalol is a herbal saline based mucolytic irrigant. If you are to be consistent the decriptions of the products should be used an not the tradenames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubdrink44 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article needs indeed some clean-up re promo and other. You can fix it yourself (that is what WP is all about) but if I find the time, nerv and "lust" I'll work on it. At the time I just removed the most recent and most obvious promo-spam but were reluctend to go further.
BTW, you seem to have edited under at least two different accounts (user:Bubbles0101?). Please choose one, retire the other(s) and make note on your userpage that you'd used this/those account. It is considered wp:sockpuppetry which is a blockable "offense" even if no harm was intented.
If you have further questions just ask me and I'll give you a hand or show you where to find one (depending on the issue.) Cheers, TMCk (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've checked and removed the promotions you've mentioned.TMCk (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

I understand why you reverted my change to this article, but I was trying to fix a much larger flaw. If you read the "Movements on 1 and 2 November" subheading of the Rudy Guede section, you could draw the conclusion that Guede never went to Kercher's home on those two days. But DNA evidence indicates he was there, as does the court decision. Is it relevant that Guede went to Kercher's home during the time period that the subheading purports to cover? It is so misleading as it stands that perhaps that section should be removed entirely. (BTW, I leave this message here because the article's talk page is protected, although not the article itself, which seems quite strange) 66.66.149.221 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Responded at IP's talkpage.TMCk (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Watch article

Hello. You reverted, without discussion, a book reference I had added to the watch article. Although the published book is called "Practical Watch Repairing", it's got a lot of historical, technical, and background information useful to the article. I've put it back in with explanation. I also explored WP:EL and didn't think it prohibited this particular case.

• De Carle, Donald, (Illustrations by E. A. Ayres), Practical Watch Repairing, 3rd edition, New York : Skyhorse Pub., 2008. ISBN 9781602393578. Significant information on watches, their history, and inner workings.Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'll leave it there. Also not much about clocks history itself, I think that enough readers are interested in the inner workings of a clock (like myself) and this seems to a very interesting book to cover this side. And sorry for the late response.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

Hi,

When I deleted the source backing up the claim that "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers", you referred me to WP:RSN. As you can see, I placed a request there, however, without any response. What would be the right next step now? Imho, it is quite obvious that an article written by "Di LameDuck" is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Regards, LevelBasis (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the reliability of the source it will be determent at the RS-noticeboard. You being most likely a block-evading sock will be dealt by other means. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And what if there is no response at the noticeboard?

I am no sock.

Grtz, LevelBasis (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

9/11 RfC

Since you contributed to discussion on this issue please comment at this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Two years in a row

You got me two years in a row! However, this time, I have an additional defense. When I looked at the edit it was not April 1st in my part of the world, and I had way too much wine for dinner.

I am surprised, though, that you bothered. My last attempt to be nice to you was met with not so nice edits. [1]

Having said that, we seem to by on the same side of issues more often than not now that the trial is over. (see the Martin shooting article).

Cheers for getting me again.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(passing by) Funny as hell... <snickers>
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's way easier to be nice, for both of us, when article content isn't involved. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
@BH: Glad you liked it too :) TMCk (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which 9/11 issue you're referring to

...but my position is the same. Weight should be based on its prominence in reliable sources. Granted, it's a judgement call, but I've never argued that reliable sources shouldn't have reported on something because I personally don't feel that they're connected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue discussed lately and leading to the RFC mentioned two sections above.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you'd be hard-pressed to find any inconsistency. My original objection to the material was that it called the Rice memo "controversial" (or similiar wording) which wasn't supported by the source. I asked how scholarly research treated this material, and had some concerns about the article length. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent or even applies to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The shooting just happened, so there is no scholarly research yet, and I checked the Martin's length the other day and there was room to expand the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing.TMCk (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Howdy TMCk, thanks for cleaning up after me on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss . Sorry, I didn't understand before that direct/hot references are not allowed.

Could you have a look at that page's talk page, and let me know why it's under arbitration? doesn't seem to make sense.

Thetilo (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question re excessive edit

Could you have a look at the recent edit of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Must_Be_Said by SlimVirgin , deleting 10 references and basically destroying work of others Thetilo (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

Could you point me to where the source says that? I looked for it. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a sec.TMCk (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you couldn't find it; It is right after the 62% claim. Quote from the source:
"He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure."
This seems very clear to me.TMCk (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

...and of course, you're welcome :) TMCk (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't find it because I clicked on the wrong link. After finding the correct one, it is indeed very clear. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that clicking on the wrong link. Happens so easily, do it myself on occasions... :)) Best, TMCk (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Selmedica

The link to Mike young is not advertising, it's to provide legal substantiation that Selmedica as a company constitutes a criminal enterprise with Perry Belcher as the felon in charge of the scheme to defraud people with medical issues through the sale of fake medication by impersonating a medical professional.

A better link would perhaps be to http://mikeyounglaw.com/perry-belcher-criminal-records/ where the arrest and conviction record itself is available. It seems important to cite a verifiable and authoritative legal source on the nature of Selmedica as a criminal enterprise.

HealthyHabit (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. As a start you might want to make yourself familiar with our external link guidelines. Besides other points within, this section is of major importance in this case. Best, TMCk (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts do not get a lot more substantiated than a lawyer acting in his role as an officer of the court presenting the legal documents of an individual's case history, even if the lawyer in question also advertises his services around the presentation of fact. The direct link to the PDF of the criminal record in question - http://mikeyounglaw.com/belcher-criminal-records.pdf - would bypass the advertising issue entirely, but direct linking to PDF documents is a poor practice. The news reports of Belcher's arrest, his guilty plea and the asset forfeiture seems to have vanished from most media outlets, leaving Mike Young maintaining his court documents publicly available as one of the major substantiations of Belcher's criminal record. HealthyHabit (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Солнцезащитные очки

Вы русского языка не понимаете, чи шо??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.169.162 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

E voce nao fala portugues etc. Your point?TMCk (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering...

...why you mark all your edits as minor. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all but I mark maintenance edits which I judge to be uncontroversial as minor. I must do something right there since I barely get reverted, (vandals and "disruptors" excluded.) Hope that helps. BTW, I'm wondering why you suddenly pop up here on the same subject... but you're asking nicely and I react to nice with nice.TMCk (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I can't remember how I ended up here...probably another one of my Wikipedia 'rabbit holes'....you know, when you are editing an article and then you read something and then you click on a link and then another link and before you know it you look at the page and think "now, how the hell did I end up *here*?"...therefore, a 'rabbit hole'. As to the minor edits, I'm very sparing with the minor edits box myself and only use it for simple spelling corrections or a single missing bracket...stuff like that. I figure if anyone could question my edits as not being minor, then my change (correcting spelling or adding that missing bracket or whatever), regardless of what *I* think?....heh, I guess it ain't minor. So when I come across an editor who seems to use it differently I wonder about it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No matter the way you edit, there always will be some who think different. That doesn't mean one side is right or wrong as "Interpretation" is still free. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I suppose so...you do have a different style with the minors than mine but heh, I guess maybe I try to mostly edit/revert softly and not carry any (open to interpretation lol) "big" sticks ;)... Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're just a bit wiser than me :) Cheers, TMCk (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Clean-keeper. I've got to say, I'm a more than a little concerned about this too. The minor edit box checkbox is designed to make things easier for other editors, for simple, obvious changes (like spelling corrections) that no one could object to. Many editors will remove minor edits from their watchlist, just as they remove bot edits. I worry that you think either adding new content to a BLP is minor or removing content which has been there for 2 years could be considered minor edits. This is far beyond "interpretation", those two edits are clearly covered in Help:Minor edit, as are half a dozen more edits that I've found. Please stop marking edits as minor, if you continue to flout this behavioural guideline, it is likely you will be blocked from editing. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You had to dig deeper to find something and yet you got only the second one right. Take a closer look at the first dif and you'll see that I didn't add that content in the first place, I removed it as vandalism, reverted back when I realized I was mistaken and simply added a missing citation to it. If you'd like to block me or go to another venue to get me blocked, that's your decision and you're free to do so, but please don't post threats on my talk. Also, I've been here long enough and enjoyed myself but if the bureaucrats are closing in on me, I have no problem to leave the project for good (it's not worth a bottle of Xanax). If that is your intention, go ahead, b/c that is what you'll get out of it. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention to block you and losing a good editor is he last thing I want. I just ask that you edit within community norms. You are aware of the problem, if you carry on then that's your choice, I'm just pointing out the consequences. Worm^TT(talk) 16:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we'll have to see if we agree in the future, more or less, on what is minor and what not. BTW, how can one hide minor edits from their watchlist? Didn't know about that feature. Is it thru preferences? Can't access them momentarily due to a glitch in my system.TMCk (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's hoping. As for your question, just below the "show last 1|2... hours" on your watchlist, theres an option to hide minor edits. It's fairly easy to spot if you're looking for it Worm^TT(talk) 17:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.TMCk (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with you marking edits as minor is that you do mark some major edits that other editors may want to look as minor. Some users have set their watchlist to hide minor edits by default assuming good faith that other editors mark the edits appropriately. The reason why you haven't received a complaint by your edits is probably because nobody ever reviewed them. I'm saying this as nicely as I can but I also have to put this bluntly. There is a marking minor edits policy specifically when and when not to mark them as minor. You are violating that policy. Repeat offenders of policy eventually get blocked. You are a repeat offender at this moment and I will not be surprised if someone blocks you for 24 hours.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't rv. your comment b/c the first part makes sense and is helpful as I didn't know that some editors blank out minor edits in their watchlist. As for the rest I don't care much and have to ask you to not repeat them ad hominen if you care about me giving your general input a serious consideration.TMCk (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed...

that you've edited the Johnny Cash article in the past, I found this pic on Commons the other day (looking for a "thinking" pic)...

Enjoy, Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no special interest in Cash, (other than $ maybe:),) but thanks for the thought. I would incorporate it in the article but it's already used as the main image. Best, TMCk (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even know where it was used. Thanks for pointing that out. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranian cuisine, etc.

Could you please protect various sites against vandalism by new users and IPs?! Especially User:اردیبهشت who is propagating POV and partially racist and unencyclopaedic nonsense. Just check the article Ghormeh Sabzi where he removes the link to Afghan cuisine and Pakistani cuisine, even though that dish is an integral part of both: Afghan and Pakistani (cf. Korma). The fact that he proclaims Afghans being "Mongols" while celebrating the originally Turko-Mongol Ghorma Sabzi ("Qaurma" is a Turko-Mongol word and was introduced to Persia by invading Turks and Mongols; the word is variously pronounced accross Asia, "Korma", "Qurma", "Ghormeh", etc, all going back to that original Turko-Mongol word meaning "grilling of Azid") as an "Iranian dish" related to "Mediterranean food" shows, that he does not have much knowledge but only has a political and maybe racist agenda. His claim that Iranian food has no relation with neighbouring foods but is instead related to Spanish, Italian and French food is - to be frankly - ridiculously stupid. His campain and attacks against and on the Hazara people has a racist tone. He is ignoring and rejecting scholarly opinions, and tries to force an unacceptable racist element to purely scholastic and linguistic classifications (such as Iranian peoples and Iranian languages). I did try to explain it to him, even added links. But he ignores that. Those articles need to be protected in the versions BEFORE this user began to vandalize them. The list includes: Hazara people, Iranian peoples, Iranian cuisine, etc. If you need real and reliable scholastic articles about these subjects (I have full access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, access to various articles to the Cambridge History of Iran and there is of course also the free-available Encyclopaedia Iranica), just let me know. --Lysozym (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: You can ask for page protection yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I'm not an admin and will take this route if edit warring continues.TMCk (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that Hazara's are Afghans of Mongol descent is stating a fact, it is not racism. Denying their Mongol racial origin is incongruous with facts presented in other academic sources. Ghorme Sabzi is an Iranian dish, it has nothing to do with Pakistani food which is largely indistinguishable and derived from Indian cuisine. Those Afghan and Pakistani dishes may be similar but are not the same as Ghorme Sabzi. As such, separate articles can be made for those other two dishes. اردیبهشت (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:R1a1a distribution.png

Mongol racial origins?! The Hazara are a group of various origins, united foremots by their Shia faith - as totally opposed to the surrounding populations who are exclusively Sunni. Noone denies a strong Mongolid imprint. That is obvious. But that does not mean that they do not belong to the Iranian peoples, a scholastic expression that is purely linguistic and has nothing to do with genetics. There are many Tajiks who have a Mongolid physical appearance, the same way there are many Turkic and Mongolian peoples who look Caucasian (such as the Tatar people or the Turkish people). The ethnogenesis of the Hazara is complicated and cannot be reduced to a racist "they are Mongols and do not belong to the Iranian peoples". As for Ghormeh sabzi: you are totally wrong. Ghormeh sabzi has many forms, all having the same origins. In Herat (Western Afghanistan) it is almost totally identical to the Iranian version and is considered a traditional and native dish. It is the policy of Wikipedia to unify such themes and subjects in one general article and not to create 100000000000000 different articles about the same thing. Maybe you should first learn how to write Wikipedia. As for genetics: among the Iranian peoples, Persians of southwestern Iran have by far the lowest frequencies of genes associated with Indo-Europeans and the "original" Iranian peoples (including the original Persians). That means that they are largely descendants of Non-Persian peoples who later adopted the Persian language and culture (cf. Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA); see map). In fact, going by this specific Haplogroup, the Hazara are more "Indo-European" than the Persians of Iran. It's funny that they are still being excluded by this user (who claims to have knowledge) while these large Persian-speaking populations of Iran (who are - in terms of genetics - not any different than the Hazaras) are considered "Persians". What a racist double-standard ... only because most of the Hazaras have Mongolid physical features ... --Lysozym (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The highest frequency of Y-DNA types found in Hazara's in C3, which is associated with the Mongols and Kazakhs. Pointing out therefore that Hazara's are of Mongol descent is a fact, and is merely keeping in line with what is presented elsewhere anyway. Also, what Iranians know as Ghorme sabzi is not the same dish as those you posted above. The Afghan dish is close, but not the same. The Pakistani one looks completely different. Separate articles can be made for these two. اردیبهشت (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Highest frequency compared to what?! Hazaras in Pakistan show in some samples frequencies of some 30%. That is considerably higher than the frequency of Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) in other populations and does hint to a genetic link with Mongols. But that does NOT mean that they are NOT related to neighbopuring peoples, as you claim. Of course the Hazaras are frelated to neighbouring peoples. Their relationship with Tajiks and Pashtuns is closer than with Mongols. As this map clearly shows, the Hazara have more West and South Asian genes than East Asian. That proves that there is an important East Asian - maybe directly Mongol imprint - but it totally rejects your ridiculous claim that the Hazara are not related to neibouring peoples and that they are not Iranian. In scholarly literature, they are always identified as Indo-European and Iranian: [2]. As for this edit of yours: could you please explain to all of us which part of that paper you relate to Hazaras and where exactly the Hazaras are mentioned?! --Lysozym (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As i've already mentioned, the most frequent Y-DNA chromosome type found in that sample of Hazara's who were tested in that study was C3 as you can see here - [3], which is an East Asian type associated with Mongols and Kazakhs. Also, the study from which you picked that pie chart from has this to say about the Hazara's:

"A good, although surprising, example of concordance between the two systems is the Hazara, who claim to be the direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan’s army. The presence and time depth of the Y-chromosomal haplogroup C* (xC3c) in the Hazara, along with its absence from neighboring populations, has been interpreted as the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan and his male relatives (Qamar et al. 2002; Zerjal et al. 2003). Our results indicate that the Hazara are also characterized by very high frequencies of eastern Eurasian mtDNAs (35%, table 2, fig. 1), which are virtually absent from bordering populations, suggesting that the male descendants of Genghis Khan, or other Mongols, were accompanied by women of East Asian ancestry." [4]

So even according to a second study, one which you kindly provided above, referring to the origin of the Hazara's as a people of Mongol descent is both factual and keeping in line with what is presented about them elsewhere. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So, do I understand you correctly that 1/3 of the Hazaras genetics (= genetics of the samples tested) defines their origins and that the 2/3 rest do not have any importance?! Is that correct? Do we all understand you correctly that you categorically reject any relationship of Hazaras with their neighbours - despite a 2/3 (= ~60%) match in genetics - and reject any kind of (partial) origins from native Iranian and Indo-Iranian populations?! You deny the FACT that these Hazara are related to neighbouring Non-Mongol peoples and may have ultimate origins among the original Indo-Iranian population of Afghanistan?

And I am asking you once again: you claim that I am "lying" and that I should read THIS article in order to understand. Since you seem to have read it and fully understood it, as you claim: could you please explain to all of us where exactly it talks about the Hazaras and what it has to say about them?! --Lysozym (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2012

Yes. 35% of the of the mtDNA (maternal lineage) of the Hazara sample in that study was of an East Asian lineage, which is absent from the Hazara's neighbouring peoples. And that's only the mtDNA findings, it says nothing about the frequency of the more important East Asian Y-DNA lineage which is even higher (the most frequent, according to the other study). And again, even according to the second study which you kindly provided the Hazara's themselves claim to be "direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan’s army", which is corroborated by the DNA evidence. Assimilation over time of other population groups among the Hazara's is normal, but irrelevant to pointing out their origins which is Mongol. Basically you have some kind of ulteria motive for refusing to accept what is so plain to see to just about everybody else. As such, you are wasting my time and that of other people with your dishonest POV campaign against the Hazara's. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

35% mtDNA and 30% Y-chromosomal: that means that both - the male and female linage - is Non-Mongol in majority. A fact you do not want to see. That is the same racist nonsense one always hears from racist people, be it against Jews, against black people, or in this case against Hazara. I can assure you that most Hazaras do not care about their origins and define themselves by their Shia faith and their Persian language. It is the racist attitude of others that excludes them - their Mongol physical features are the main reason for discrimination against them, because the primitive and uneducated man only focusses on looks and differenciates between black and white, Mongol and Caucasian. But human origin and human ethnogenesis is much much much more complex. All of these DNA-tests etc. not only proof that - compared to neighbouring peoples - the Hazara have a stronger Mongol and East Asian imprint, but also that they are in majority related to their Non-Mongol Iranian neighbours. 60% of the genetic imprint - both male and female - is evidently Non-Mongol. A fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept. Your hypocricy becomes fully clear when comparing this to the genetic studies regarding Persians (or Iranians) of whom a large majority do not have specific Indo-European-linked (and hence supposedly originally Persian) genes. The large majority of Persians share to a large extent genetic similarities with Arabs and other Middle Easterners, proving that Persian - both as language and identity - spread politically and not by migration. It was an "elite dominance process" in which powerful and ruling Persian-speaking dynasties, from the Achaemenids to the Qajars and Pahlavis - forced their language and identity on the subject people. You, my friend, are a descendant of those subject people of whom the large majority was neither Iranian nor of some other Indo-European origin. That's the reason why most Iranians have darker skin and dark hair and eyes as opposed to the light-skinned and blue- and green-eyed original Iranians of Central Asia, as depicted in ancient Buddhist temples in China and elswhere ([5]). The only reason why you exclude the Hazara is because the majority have Mongolid features, even though genetically they are largely Non-Mongol. And that's why I consider you a racist POV-pusher. --Lysozym (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop thumping your nonsense POV around. The Hazara's are of Mongol descent and this is what is evident both genetically and is a fact that they claim themselves. As such, it will be presented in the article on them in this way. Thank you. اردیبهشت (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Also it's good to see that discussion is now taking place, my talkpage is hardly the right place for it. Please continue at the article's talkpage where there is a wider audience to chim in. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is vandalism. As a comparison, see this excelent scholarly article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. --Lysozym (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not vandalism as the editor is attempting to better the article [I'm not endorsing nor rejecting his edits] although I reverted him b/c the article is not about Persian cuisine in general but specific to Iranian cuisine.TMCk (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Otherwise I'll stay out of this content dispute.TMCk (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of African-American firsts

Hello there. There is discussion occurring at the article's talk page you may be interested in. Zepppep (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

Baking in a quote in a already long article is not easy, but reverting with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page was not really helping. It would have been better if you tried to respond with your own BOLD edit. With no civil discussion on the talk, I can only do a few attempts at baking the quote in and then blindly hope that "it works". Belorn (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I said what I had to say about the edit and there was nothing more for the talkpage left. I see no problems with the edits you made since though.TMCk (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016:_Obama%27s_America#Who_paid_for_it.3F

There is a question about your peremptory deletion of my question. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.143.112 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)