User talk:Collounsbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Semi Official Collier Lounsbury / Collounsbury Welcome to any commentors

I'm sure you're dropping by because I have annoyed you elsewhere in Wiki correcting some illiteracy or another in relationship with the MENA region and associated subjects. Before complaining take a breath, as frankly I don't really care.

Now, otherwise, if you need to know more about me, here is what I am willing to tell you.

  • I work in the broader financial sector and in the greater Middle East - North Africa (MENA) region.
  • Professionally I specialise in direct investment issues in MENA, and have an expertise in the region aside from my finance work; consider my contributions in history and politics a side benefit.
  • At time of writing (--collounsbury 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)) presently 'in exile' outside of region due to a serious illness. [Now back in the MENA region, cancer all cleared up collounsbury 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)]
  • Normally on-line I write at a blog (not my own in fact, was invited, no doubt in a fit of madness by the author): www.aqoul.com. 'Aqoul is a Middle East theme politics and economy blog, and has been featured in "The Financial Times."

Otherwise, any comments, abuse or whatever, feel free.

Collier Lounsbury

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Collounsbury, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Tuareg

Thanks for your contributions on Tuareg. If you make your citations explicit (see Abraham Goldfaden, Ramon Casas i Carbó, or Antoni Gaudí for examples of how to do this; I happen to think the Gaudí example is best), it becomes much easier for other people to "defend" your accurate information against less knowledgable future edits. If you don't do that, it's very hard for anyone to choose between two uncited claims. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Albania

Greetings sir. I just wanted to let you know that I worked under a US agency in Tirana, Albania and I have no vested interest in pushing "POV". I can tell you that religion in Albania (much like the rest of europe) is largely symbolical and that is is not widely practised. The government is largely pro-American, does not endorse any religion and that muslims compromise only a small minority. Patterns 12:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vested interest or not, your comment is POV (as confirmed by this rather absurd comment). Symbolic or not, 'non-practising' does not mean non-X. A non-practising Xian can and often does ID as Xian. The government being "pro-American" is utterly irrelevant to the question, and your confusion re practising versus non-practising, pro-American as relevant to whether one is Muslim or not in some sense leads me to entirely discount your observations. (Collounsbury 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).

Haratin

Hi, I don't know what you did exactly write in the discussion page as you didn't sign your comment, but you seem to know a bit about this subject. The information about Haratin is very scarse in Morocco, and this subject certainly needs to be better studied. I would tend to say, go ahead and make the contributions you feel are sensible, cheers --Khalid hassani 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will try when I get a free moment, the entire commentary was mine. (Collounsbury 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).

WS

Hi, Here is a vote related to Western Sahara, let's hear your voice :). Daryou 07:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Per Talk:North Africa

As an old North Africa hand, I was bemused to find the Western Sahara situ blown up as it is here on the wiki.

Huh? What does this mean? -Justin (koavf), talk 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It means that the Western Sahara materials here on wiki I find overdone given the WS actual status, and rather simplistic. There is no small amount of "actvists" running around pimping party political agitprop. (Collounsbury 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

===>Wha? I'm not sure that I actually understand what you are writing. In what way are they "overdone"? The situation in Western Sahara has resulted in one of the top ten hugest refugee situations in the world for over thirty years; that's big stuff. It's certainly not simplistic. The following sentence is totally unintelligible:

There is no small amount of "actvists" running around pimping party political agitprop.

Do you care to explain exactly what this is supposed to mean? -Justin (koavf), talk 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to write like an adult? As for what I am writing, it should be quite clear. The WS materials on Wiki make a mountain out of a molehill. As for being one of the "top ten" refugee crises, I hardly find that assertion credible. An important crisis in the 1970s, less so in the 1980s, a mere hangover since. As for "unintelligble" sentence, clear enough. There is no small amount of party political activists running around pimping their agitprop. (Collounsbury 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

===>Whatever. How is Western Sahara a "molehill"? We're talking about the sustained human suffering of hundreds of thousands of people over four decades. I also don't see how it became less important as time wore on - tell that to the people in the camps. I got my information for the largeness of the refugee population from the 2005 Time Almanac, p. 713, who got their info from the U.S. Committee on Refugees. There are fourteen conflicts/regions with higher numbers, of which half have estimates that "vary considerably." It's impossible to give a precise number of refugees for many of these conflicts, but the Sahara is certainly around the 12th largest or so. And in terms of percentage of the population that became refugees, it is definitely among the highest three or four (compare with Sudan, or DR Congo.) -Justin (koavf), talk 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a fucking molehill. Flat bloody hammada desert. A few thousand tribals (not hundreds of thousands, 100 k top end) chose the wrong side, they lost. Eventually the Algerian generals will tire of the game and it will be over. Unlike yourself, kid, I know lots of actual Sahraouine kid. (Collounsbury 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

===>Wha? There are over 100,000 Sahrawis in the camps right now, so I certainly don't see how you can make that claim in good faith. Also, how do you know how many Sahrawis I know? What is this "kid" stuff? There's no reason for this kind of derogatory language. I'm trying to be respectful, and you're the one simultaneously talking down to me, swearing, and asking me to ask like an adult. There's no excuse to be rude. If you think that the conflict is a molehill, I don't see why you've chosen to professionally study and report on it. If you want, take a while to respond, when emotions are not so high, and I'll be happy to hear what kind of sources you have for saying that there are less than 100,000 Sahrawis. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The very underlying source you cited, kid, gives 98 K: U.S. Committee on Refugees (http://www.refugees.org/uploadedFiles/Investigate/Publications_&_Archives/WRS_Archives/2005/warehoused_refugee_populations.pdf)

- not that USCR is known low-balling refugee numbers, the contrary. As to your knowledge of Sahraouine, well, it shows. Typical just learned about a cause exitement. And, again, WS is a molehill: the territory itself is of little economic value, and completely unable to sustain the current population sans massive external subsidies. The entire thing would go away if the Algerian Generals did not find it a useful way to put political pressure on Morocco. But of course that's not as romantic as the party political agitprop spun.(Collounsbury 03:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

===>I'm guessing you aren't a native speaker? "Typical just learned about a cause exitement." Isn't an actual sentence. If you're implying that I just learned about the Sahara and I'm excited, so what? I didn't just learn about it, but who cares if I'm excited? Is there something wrong with that? Polisario existed prior to Algerian involvement, and the SADR wasn't initially recognized by Algeria, so if you're trying to perpetuate the preposterous myth that this is some anti-Moroccan plot by Algeria, you're certainly not going to convince me. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Native speaker of English? Poor guess mate, name's Collier Lounsbury. Centuries of speaking English under the family belt, mate. As for your excitement, typical of the gung-ho kid syndrome. Sticks out like a bloody sore thumb. As for 'preposterous myth' - hardly. Polisario represented a faction within the Saharan population. One among several. In the 70s they had a good run at it, although thankfully for the population, they did not get to set up a mini-Mauretania as would have been the case on the prevailing ideology. Now, 30 years on, they're a shadow of the past, that is a mere puppet of the Algerian regime. Anyone professionally involved in the region knows the game, kid. Of course you believe the party political agitprop. Naivety of youth. Oh, and beforre you pull out the "pro Morocco thing" the Makhzen are a bunch of loathsome bastards as well. Ain't no fucking virgins in that game.(Collounsbury 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)).

Greetings

Thanks for the note Collounsbury. Appreciation is mutual. I also find the WS theme in Wikipedia way overinflated relatively to the real situation on the ground. Wikipedia is definitely going to be a target for everyone with an agenda given the huge audience it has. I really think it should make a change in its introduction. It should insist more on that aspect so it isn't mistaken for a neutral authoritative source.

On another theme, I saw somewhere that you had some health issue. I hope I'm wrong, but if it's the case, my most sincere wishes for a good and speedy recovery.
--Yobaranut 03:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that too, nearly all the WS Material is from User:Koavf, I am all for exposing a NPOV here by presenting all the points of vue of the conflit, it seems to me that this guy is clearly engaged in a political campaign, which as far as I know is against WP guidelines. It seems to me that WS is getting even greater than Morocco, which is ridiculous.--Khalid hassani 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well that seems to be clear, the young fellow is quite excited by the topic and essentially regurgitates WS activitist agitprop. As compared to Morocco, Algeria or even the rest of the blood Sahara or Maghreb, WS has a huge amount of often repetitive material that is essentially party-political agit prop. I was astounded when I found such extensive materials for ... well to be brutal, a footnote. Have done my best to edit to something genuinely NPOV, but overall I agree it does look like (in toto of pages) a political campaign. (collounsbury 17:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Not at all mate, my pleasure. There is clearly rather a lot of naive axe grinding going on in re Western Sahara. And yes, on my blog (aqoul.com, a group blog actually) you probably saw that. I have cancer. Nasty thing, but I ain't dead yet. Has sent me into medical exile though. (collounsbury 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC))


One of my best employees has been diagnosed with cancer a few weeks ago and she's been into medical exile since then too. Her departure has been a bad hit for everyone, as she was not only an important asset to the company, but she was very appreciated by her collegues as well. When I read about you, it made me think about that. I understand she's hopefully going to recover even though she finds it very hard to endure. Keep up the spirit and best wishes again.--Yobaranut 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL:) Just read your last blog entry:) I've had a few of that kind too:) Good luck fixing it:)--Yobaranut 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Kha. Well, if it can be fixed I should get a gold bloody star, Cancer Boy fixing the thing long distance. Good luck to your colleague. I know quite literally what her pain is. (collounsbury 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC))


Maurxtania

Now I've read your litanies on this i/e-affair affair in I think five different places. Better do something about it. What do you say we try to move the ancient Romano-Berber Mauretania to Mauritania (kingdom), and convert the page Mauretania into a redirect for modern-day Mauritania? Then we can get rid of the spelling thing.

Also, get well. Arre 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I would have taken action were I versed in the coding. Mauretania / Mauritania (Kingdom) and Mauretania / Mauritania (Republic) seems a fine way to divide. (collounsbury 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). Bit busy otherwise. (collounsbury 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)).


Moors article

Some recent changes to the Moors article look like they go against the grain of mainstream scholarship. There really are so many individuals who vandalize this article, which is why it should be well-trafficked by authorities on the subject. --Jugbo 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noted them. This is why Wikipedia is doomed to be a failure and a crock. Well, I will find some editing time later. (collounsbury 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Morocco/WS articles

Hi Collounsbury. Your remarks above about the overinflated WS articles and the user Koavf who infested Wikipedia with pro-polisario propaganda are true and the community get fed up with it: he is indefinitely blocked. Morocco and WS articles are now better, but the level of repetitive and un-enyclopedic "material" he and his likes have added is everywhere. Thanks for pointing it out, and congratulations for the recovery. --A Jalil 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and the young whanker's banning is news to me. I am not particularly pro-Moroccan per-se, but in this instance the comparative cretinism of the Polisario side annoys me more. I hope his being banned doesn't end up with Moroccan nationalist cretins swinging things the other way, but there seems to be several fair-minded types around. collounsbury 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

zanj

What do you make of this quote by professor J. Phillipe Rushton:

“ Although the Koran stated that there were no superior and inferior races and therefore no bar to racial intermarriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded. Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks. The Ethiopians were the most respected, the "Zanj" (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position[1] ”

Notice how he defines Zanj as Negroid tribes South of the Sahara yet at the same time defines them as separate from the Ethiopians. Are we to conclude that the Ethiopians were not considered zanj because they are hybridized (Arabized) blacks. Cavalli-Sforza, says this about Ethiopians on pg 199 of The Great Human Diasporas:

The Ethiopians compromise a number of different ethnic groups and have many more languages. They are one of the forty-two genetic groups emerging from the fifteen hundred populations studied, and are classified as African, genetically speaking, even if a closer look reveals that they are special Africans with a high level of genes of caucasoid (white) origin. In fact we can call them an admixture of African and west Asian (Arab) genes. The two groups contribute respectively about 60 percent and 40 percent of their genes. But linguistically speaking, they are closer to the Arabs, because they generally speak languages from a family (Afro-Asiatic) covering northern Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East.

The mixed genetic makeup and use of Afro-Asiatic languages reflect the history of the Ethiopians, who for a long time had close contacts with the Arabs. In and around the earliest Christian times, there was an empire that took in both regions. Its capital was first at Saba (Sheba) in Arabia and later at Axum, in Africa. According to Ethiopian tradition, Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, visited King Solomon and had by him a son, Menelek, founder of the Ethiopian dynasty, which has only recently been overthrown. The Bible tells of these events. Christmasgirl

Why should I care about the quote of Rushton, a well-known racist, who knows fuck all about Arabic, the subject matter and is a bloody bigotted whankers to boot? (collounsbury 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
If you're quoting Rushton, I have even less sympathy for your idiocy, regardless of the other idiot.
AS for your idiotic "hybridized" whankery, I have no patience for this. All groups are "hybridised" - and Cavalli Sforza I would note is a bit dated (assuming you have the quote right, which given your whanking I am not sure), but leaving that aside, it's rather clear that on any given "contact zone" population types fade into each other. It's the case in Eurasia, and the Nile valley and the Eithiopian-Arabian Peninsula contact zones. That says fuck all about the issue of Zanj as black, unless one is making a point of nuance re usage, re phenotypical similarities driving language differentiation, but that's not different from observing Graeco-Romans differentiated along these gross visual lines. There is fuck all of genetics to bring into this. (collounsbury 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Sahara Conflict template

Hi Note that the Spanish Sahara was, in fact, annexed into the Spanish Empire, and that the protectorate(s) were a product of Spanish colonialism - weren't they? Needless to say, you proved yourself to be as rude and inflammatory as I recalled, and I would appreciate it if you weren't as pedantic to me; try "writing like an adult, mate." And "intifada" means "uprising;" while you are correct that I have far less of a grasp of Arabic than you do, that's ultimately irrelevant to the point that I was making. As proof of that position, you didn't actually offer any counter-argument, just some slander. The intifadas are related to the Sahara conflict, and as such, they should be on the template, right? And what "real experience" do you require of me? You want me to colonize parts of Africa? Start an intifada? What do you want, exactly? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again mate, try writing like an adult. Intefada indeed means uprising, but that has fuck all do with your lapping up of agitprop. Now, as to the history mate, protectorate is notannexation. A fine point, in some ways, but the legal status of Morocco as such, or the Spanish Saharan territory differed vastly as a point of international law from that of - to use an actaul example of annexation - Algeria. Now as you haven't a bloody clue, I'd advise being less of a naive little partisan and try getting some bloody perspective. Real experience means life experience, and not sitting in a Uni library lapping up party political abstractions, for bloody fuck's sake. collounsbury 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
I thought this kid was banned.--Yobaranut 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Berber identity

Hello Collounsbury, I have commented on the talk pages of certain articles that deal with the region historically know as North Africa, that is, Southern Mediterranean regions. I don't know where you're from, but I take it you are not from the region. After reading your page here, I understand your over-exuberance in dealing with my edits. You are obviously not interested in impartial, factual truth. You base your ideas on a single study, that used under 150 subjects, perhaps far less, from a traditionally sub-saharan region, that is, mauritania, and southern morocco, a country whose demographics have sadly been impacted by an illegal influx of sub-saharan africans. This study, minuscule in scope, cannot be applied to the VAST region that is the Southern Med/North Africa! Most of the populations of these different countries have no contact with each other, do not even understand each other's dialect, even in the case of Tunisia and Algeria! (neighbors) and so, it should be obvious even to you, that your edits are partial, inaccurate and highly objectionable. As I am sure you are aware, there are certain eccentric and rather deluded peeople out there who wish to appropriate certain cultures, and I believe as the region is mainly francophone, these eccentrics have succeeded, to a certain extent, in spreading their lies and fables. It is, however, improper to abuse wikipedia's editing system in furthering these fictions. And while you may be able, only temporarily, to remove the Southern Mediterranean's Arab identity from these pages as you appear to be a committed assualter, it continues to prosper in the real world and I will do my best to counter your efforts by urging other more patient souls to help me with this, as I have frankly no patience. Despite our differences, I am very appreciative of your comments, and I urge you to make more efforts to better inform yourself of this region's veritable, and not fictional, identity. Imposing your easily refutable fictional beliefs on others is not in keeping with wikipedian pillars. Remember, this is supposed to be a neutral, objective and encyclopedic source.I have cited encyclopedic sources and urge you again not to revert the articles back to their older, muddled versions. Mariam83 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where I am from is not an issue. As for "impartial, factual" - your edits are neither impartial nor factual as such. You have a strong point of view. I don't even necessarily disagree with some of it. However, you have zero clue as to how to edit and write for an encyclo - copyright violations. I am not going to bother with the rest of your rant. (collounsbury 09:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC))


Bias

you appear to be fictionalizing reality on these pages. for instance, in the article about North Africa, you are attempting to include central sub-saharan black countries in the definition and you are twisting facts and language around so as to establish a veritable link with sub-saharan africa which has historically not existed and which does not exist, unless you mean as I pointed out, that the slave trade is an important link? You use a map that includes central african countries, which is absurd. I did not find this map on any UN database, and if it is drawn politically, it does not stand, as we both know North africa's inclusison of even Mauritania is debatable, and when acknowledged, is based on language and not much else. THis is not the place to rewrite history, though you are actively engaged in doing this. Please be objective and reasonable. Mariam83 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear, you're going to get banned with your bizarre little storm of incoherent edits. collounsbury 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
Second with respect to your points of view, they are POINT OF VIEW, your personal opinions. There is no issue of twisting fact, but rather differences in usage. Neither in the English usage of North Africa nor the English usage of Maghreb is there entire consistency, either internally to English NOR with the various (plural) usages in either the Maghreb or North Africa. The map is not my map, it is a map reached by prior editorial consensus and not to be unilaterally wiped out by someone on her own personal and rather overdone vendetta. I am not even going to bother trying to argue underlying fact. collounsbury 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


keep playing games and before accusing me of being rude, read your own comments above in which you very rudely abuse other users. Don't try to use ambiguous language, we both know there is a very clear definition and understanding of these terms. Furthermore, I have not waged any wars, nor have I made major changes. You simply dislike the changes that I've made because they collide with your visison, which is based on fiction. I have had enough for the day, it seems only three users, you, Lonewolf BC who simply has a problem with me, and Bouha are bothered by my additions because I disagree with you disregard for facts. You most certainly do not disagree with the articles, as you have tried persistently to impose your fictitious lies and distortions, but nice try..however, it will not work with me. I am going to complain to wikipedia, and I am going to ask them to review the additions that I have made, esp to the Berber page, where I merely added annotated evidence, as in real numbers. I will remain VIGILANT! Mariam83 11:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not playing any games, lady. As for "very clear" definitions, there is not. The changes you are making do not "collide" with my vision, they are simply completely over the top, POV and frankly poorly done. As coherent discussion with you seems impossible, I ask you to stop leaving comments here on this page. collounsbury 11:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


sorry but yel3an deen omak el kalba ya 3abd, ya ka7loush..nathafli el ka3 :-) sub-saharan african.
Insulting myself via my mother as a dog and calling me "slave" in a racially insulting manner (sorry to divine you have racial prejudices against your darker brethren as well via this) is hardly rational comportment woman. I am afraid you are confirming a widening impression that you are no capable of engaging in rational exchanges and editing. collounsbury 12:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC).


the usage of the word brethren is rather curous considering the fact that I consider 3abeed a race apart..more wishful thinking I presume. You are ignored. You are incapable of rational thought. Keep perpetuating inaccuracies. You can only do it on a free encyclopedia. Mariam83 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your usage of bigoted racial language (3abeed for the non-Arabic speaker means slave, and in her usage means "black people" in uncouth racist usage) is sad. Pity that you are full of hatred toward your brethren. collounsbury 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

re Faysal Mate

Can you help out on the Maghrebine pages and this bizarre edit war set off by Mariam83? As I noted in comments, I don't even necessarily disagree with some (even a good many) of her edits, but the wholesale vandalistic editing with refusal to discuss at all is bloody stunning. Also rather disturbing is the editing on the African connexion angle, mate, as well as her comments on pages re 3bid, quite racialistic. Best collounsbury 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

I'll do my best asap. No worries. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate. collounsbury 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
corrupting administrators on wikipedia are we? Mariam83 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the ghost of User:Mariam83?

Hi, Someome with a very simialr agenda to our dear friend has just opened an account, and started reverting back to those versions. I'm preparing a sockpuppetry case. Any thoughts? Bouha 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bouha, I noted the same thing, edits on the same page. Just appeared, immediate reversion to Mariam83's edits. I would make the case. See Tunisia, North Africa, etc. (collounsbury 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
Done. First time to do such a thing, but it's there now at [1] Bouha 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Very good. collounsbury 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks: I hadn't linked it in, but now it's on the requisite page rather than being an orphan. Bouha 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Tunisian Page and Berber page

I take it you know what my objections are by now about these two pages. Namely, that contrary to what both articles authoritatively and inaccurately state, the majority of the people are not Berber. As it turns out in fact, they are not even completely Arab. Like I said before, there are all sorts of influences. I was about to edit the page and add an annotated, more scientific link as opposed to the non-annotated and rather unscientific NG one, but I don't want to engage in any drama. So, here is an excerpt: "In fact, the Tunisian genetic distances to European samples are smaller than those to North African groups. " "This could be explained by the history of the Tunisian population, reflecting the influence of the ancient Phoenician settlers of Carthage followed, among others, by Roman, Byzantine, Arab and French occupations, according to historical records. Notwithstanding, other explanations cannot be discarded, such as the relative heterogeneity within current Tunisian populations, and/or the limited sub-Saharan genetic influence in this region as compared with other North African areas, without excluding the possibility of the genetic drift, whose effect might be particularly amplified on the X chromosome."

Link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n5/abs/5201797a.html

We could either revert back to my older version, or remove the section all together. However, the article as it stands is flawed. Please do not mention the past. Let us turn a new page. My sole interest here is that these pages become more informative. Let me know. also, you can see from this why I have a problem with the sweeping generalizations asserted on the Berber page. specifically, the word "debatable" I find particularly pov and in instance of injecting personal views. Why is the first study not debatable? Why is the second one debatable? Are they not both annotated studies? yes they are as I researched them. As to the Maghreb page, you know whihc line you changed and that too will have to be addressed. Thanks. Mariam83 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thought I'd let you know I've edited Demographics of Tunisia and have included a sentence on the above paper (only abstract available online). It doesn't say that Tunisians are closer to Europeans, but does say they're substantially different from the samples from Egypt and Morocco. Have a look at what I've done: I had to replace the initial para as it was a copy vio. If it's OK, it could serve as a basis for the more easily misunderstood section in Tunisia. Enjoy! Bouha 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I am going to busy on a financing closing the next 48 hours, but w/o having read the edits I would like to point to this as exactely how edits and interaction at least in theory could be made. While I have near zero respect for this Mariam person due to the racist language it has used, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain objections are well taken (e.g. balance on the Arab vs Berber ident in Maghreb, w anti Arab writing, and I am honestly favourable to the Berber POV) despite her/its sad and pitiful racism. collounsbury 00:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I am not racist, if I were I would be very cautious about the use of such slurs. I have on many occasions referred to Arabs as Sand-niggers, I myself find it rather funny and overall dislike everyone and all cultures. I do believe however that the blurring of lines is dangerous as it could lead to the effacement of cultures and/or serious changes. In any case, if I am a racist, I am merely a product of the three cultures that I have been exposed to, Arab, American and European, three cultures that were actively engaged in and even started the slave trade. I do not believe that anyone's superiority arises from race, but I do believe that afrocentrism is absurd and has and should not in anyway influence an "encyclopedia." Though I do not consider wikipedia encyclopedic in any shape or form, it does purport to be one, and for that, it should be very closely monitored though personally I do not intend to spend the rest of my life editing a ceaselessly edited inaccurate sort of game of an encyclopedia...certainly not for free! besides which, I do not wish to have a stroke. Mariam83 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You have used racist language in a clearly fundamentally bigoted manner on several occasions, I call that racism and you a racist, matter of fact. Your personal issues and issues with Wikipedia are not my problem nor my concern. I do not myself care for Afrocentrism, nor do I find wikipedia to be the amazing thing some do, but it is what it is, your ranting aside. collounsbury 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Koavf's lies

You might want to look at this. --A Jalil 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Bother. collounsbury 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC).


Vandalism

I did not vanadalise anything, nor was anything deleted on the Berber page. More details were provided as well as the deletion of a personal injection. Mariam83 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


collounsbury, you seem to have this idea that no one has the right to edit and that you somehow own wikipedia. I contacted wikipedia and they encouraged me to edit. You have no right to revert all my edits simply because you dislike me as a person though you do not even know me, particularly when my edits only add annotated evidence. Wikipedia is a free "encyclopedia" and as such, I have the right to correct what I consider misleading and inaccurate information. The claim that most north africans are berber is false and also demeaning as it assumes that most north africans are not smart enough to know where they come from, Again, I am telling you that Berbers do exist but that they are not the only occupants of the Maghreb. You are compromising the article's accuracy..Forget about me for a moment and consider the article and the "Berbers" who are not only demeaned but grossly misrepresented. Mariam83 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


The reply that I received after complaining about your blatant refusal to allow any changes :

"Wikipedia is a "wiki", which means that everyone can edit pages. You don't need to apply or get special permission to join us. At the top of each page is an "edit" label. Try it for example at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox>

You don't even need to log in to edit, although creating an account gives you more options and helps you keep track of your contributions. You can create an account at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup>"


You need to calm down! Have you ever visited the Kabyle region in Algeria? The Kabyles would NEVER refer to themselves as Arabs nor Berbers! The article, nonetheless, presumptuously demeans them by suggesting that the Kabyles deny their "Berber" (absurd) origins and "pretend" rather ignorantly as the article suggests, that they are Arab, presumably because of an inferiority complex, the article implies. PLEASE BE REASONABLE! CALM DOWN! And why are you so vehemently intent on distorting and misrepresenting a people that you have no relation to?! Why not edit articles about England or Britain, as you are yourself an Islander? Jesus Christ! Mariam83 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you going on about? collounsbury 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Collounsbury, why feign ignorance? You know exactly what I'm talking about, or do you not consider the Kabyles worthy of mention? And if you are unfamiliar with the Kabyles of Algeria, that are wrongly enmeshed with other non-related groups in the "Berber" article, then why do you keep reverting edits?! I am reminding you that you are solely a contributor, much like me and millions of others, and as such, you do not have the right to revert every edit that I make, particularly when I merely add annotated explanatory information. I am also referring to the demeaning tone of the fantastic claims that the article makes. In particular, the claim that most "North Africans" suffer from an inferiority complex and claim to be Arab when they are in fact Berber, which is in fact FALSE! Maybe if you visit these huge countries you would not be so perplexed as to WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. And as a British man, why are you so intent on perpetuating these inaccuracies?!?!?!?!? Mariam83 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I keep reverting your obsessive vandalism because your complaints re the article are overdone and without basis (e.g re the genetic item). Further you continue to make extreme assertions, and have gone back to aggressively editing without any real engagement with others, or indeed acknowledging that your POV is not THE POV. As for visiting the said countries, amusing. I am not at all perplexed - and I already said some of your points - e.g. language re Arabs-Berbers in these articles is poor. However, your edits are not an improvement. Either you can learn to play reasonably, or they'll bounce you. I frankly don't care, but stop bloody cluttering up my damned talk page with your rants. collounsbury 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC).


Overdone and without basis? first of all, I merely added certain details and FACTS, in the berber article case, the origins of the donors used in the studies. I am not making any extreme assertions and have not aggressively edited without real engagement, in fact, you are the one who keeps aggressively editing and reverting, which I presume arises from a personal problem with Me rather than disagreements about the content, unless again your aim is to propagate inaccuracies. I am not cluttering anything in fact I wish you would stop revering my edits so that I wouldnt have to "engage" you in dialogue. And adding the origins of the donors is an informative step, not POV. Stop playing games, and stop reverting my edits, you have no right to revert every edit I make. Mariam83 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You have edited based on your perceptions or Point of View, and hardly fact, as in e.g. what are frankly incoherent and argument from ignorance attacks on the genetics evidence. collounsbury 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC).


How is the addition of the origins of donors from the studies cited, which I did NOT add, POV and and perceptive? Are they not what led the researchers to their conclusions? and dont you think origin is relevant in matters of genetic evidence or do these details trouble you as they contradict the FALSE claims that you are so intent on keeping ???? Mariam83 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you had to go through this as well: much wasted time, little improvement. Methinks she hasn't quite given up yet! Bouha 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, as perverse as it is, the way in which you have handled this lunatic fills me with joy. --Sammermpc 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor...

Honestly I was trying to help you by giving you information that you thought might be useful on the USFTA talk page. Calm down; you don't need to run off at the mouth and curse. Nor do you need to flout your voluminous knowledge or your personal contacts. I think that's fine and well, but it's simply rude and unnecessary. If you can't post to talk without being uncivil, just don't post to talk. Your edits would speak for themselves as useful and intelligent and not be undermined by your bad and crass attitude. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mate, a kid calling up a Gov't agency with a political agenda and getting a bloody off the record "oh of course we don't torture prisoners held incommunicado" response isn't fucking helping me. If I need that kind of help, why I can bloody well ring rather more important people. You insist on editing from a rather highly partisan and unbalanced POV, and I do stress unbalanced. Stop whinging on about wasting my time with really adolescent "I called low level whankers" special pleading for your POV. As I said, come back with bloody substantive (non Polisarioish) cites, well then that's something, else, bloody hell get a perspective. collounsbury 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
Perspective, perspective Alright, if that's how you want to be. Let it be known that I was trying to be conciliatory and you're trying to be rude. That's my point. You can keep up your "bloody whanker whinge" rhetoric all you want and repeat over and over again about perspective and all your amigos in high-level office; it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. I was respectfully asking that you not be rude, and somehow that simple point got lost somewhere. It's not much to ask, but for some reason, you act like it is. Furthermore, you make things more difficult on yourself and me trying actually edit this encyclopedia by engaging in character assassination and vitriol, so for the sake of our respective healths, could you just stop it? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No more hard talk guys. Collounsbury, please calm down and don't forget WP:CIV. Koavf, you should find a clear answer to your question at WP:V. He said it is on one of the US Department of State's websites (US Embassy in Tchad). With another additional simple effort you could have translated the page using an online translator. I've got this in English. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure mate, I'll cut the fine little Indianan more slack. It would be helpful if his little jihad were moderated by some attention to fact-checking and not merely regurgitating the latest agitprop (or blind edits). As for example his irritating edit war on the MENA page. collounsbury 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

With gratitude

For your kind assistance
For your kind assistance

I appreciate your help in response to my question about writing. As promised, here is a shiny gold coin. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)