User talk:Seek equilibrium

Welcome!

Hello, Seek equilibrium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Calton | Talk 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map from Sheikh Saeed Museum

I assume the image you uploaded is the best you have – it looks a bit out of focus. Do you have some more information about the map, such as the original cartographer and the year? It is best to keep such information with the description on the image page, in this case Image:Persian-gulf-dubai-mus.JPG. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It's from the 19th century. I'm sure I have seen the original version somewhere on the web:

--Seek equilibrium 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, R.M. ; Tallis J. & F.
Arabia.
1851
World Atlas

original map can be viewed at: http://www.davidrumsey.com/ --Seek equilibrium 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have any source or citation supporting it? Such as a newspaper or article saying that it was changed by Arabs to support the Arabian Gulf name? Thank you very much. Uirauna (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring.

Unless you revert yourself very soon, you will be reported and blocked. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history page shows you have clearly violated 3RR. Please don't rely on your memory in these situations.--Seek equilibrium 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a chance to regain good faith but you chose to poke fun at this chance. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazis as the descendents of Gog and Magog

I believe your horde-style behaviour on the article which began when you and your friends rampaged the article, doesn't do much to disprove this great theory:

Islamic Republic Daily, 8/5/2005, روزنامه جمهوري اسلامي ۱۸/۲/۱۳۸۴ -مسيحيت صهيونيست و بنيادگراي آمريكا قسمت بيست و پنجم
Mohammed Ali, Waleed. Excerpt:[1]
Jannati, Ali.مسيحيت صهيونيست و بنيادگراي آمريكا Publisher:نشر ادیان
Helal, Reda. "المسيح اليهودي ونهاية العالم المسيحية السياسية والأصولية" Publisher: دار الشروق
Thomson, Ahmad. "The New World Order", Al-Aqsa Press, 1994 - , Excerpts
http://www.geocities.com/thesunsecrets/articles/khazar/ashkenazi.html

Gog and Magog

Hey, I think things have gotten too heated at the Gog and Magog article that we've stopped trying to actually improve the state of it and have resorted to insulting each other. I'd like to know exactly what it is you want included. I don't object to including the hypothesis of Thomson and company that the Ashkenazis are Gog and Magog, with two qualifications: First, we attribute that view exactly to whoever holds it. Second, and most importantly, it can be demonstrated that this is a prevalent minority opinion. I'm not sure that it is, but I'm reserving judgement until it is shown one way or another. I think the best thing to do, rather than refering to Thomson and some newspaper articles, would be to find a third-party source that discusses it, like a scholarly work on Gog and Magog, or anti-Zionism, or Islamic escatology or something. With this done, the rest would fall into place: either we don't include it, or we include it without judgement or overrepresentation, as it appears in the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any form of inclusion of this theory is fine with me, even by saying its an anti-zionist or anti-semite theory. i see the theory is becoming popular in the the mideast, but the problem is the books written on the subject is published mostly in arabic and hence impossible to find on the internet - except the 2-3 books mentioned above. there are also non-muslim views on the subject but they always appear to be biased:

http://www.geocities.com/thesunsecrets/articles/khazar/ashkenazi.html

--Seek equilibrium 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem was never with the article mentioning a current vogue in the Muslim world of associating Gog and Magog with the Ashkenazim. It's demonstrable that the idea has a following and that a lot of Muslims are attached to it and to the notion of Ashkenazim being evil marauders. Documenting this would be fine, and probably notable. My problem with your contributions, my friend, is twofold: first of all, you are insisting on making a tortured connection with the Khazar hypothesis, which has been completely debunked; and secondly, you insist upon referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a jew - and to jews as "evil" and a "horde". In other words, I object to your obvious antisemitism. "Adam" (71.whatever) is just a fool who, among other things, doesn't understand the difference between a language group and an ethnicity, and is trying to hijack the article to advance a crackpot race theory. My quarrel is primarily with him, because his contributions basically amount to vandalism. - Maggie --70.48.206.125 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By no means I meant to have that kind of racist impression. The reason I mentioned the word "horde" was because of the actions of Jayig, Beit OR and their friends, which are on almost every Islamic-related article, trying to advance their point of view using what seems to be their limitless "free time". Following their edits on other articles would show you why many are getting unease with the phenomena of misusing wiki's rules.

Regarding the Khazar ancestory of Ashkenazim, I will not mention this on the article. I mentioned the theory briefly in one sentence eventhough I still believe it deserves its own section.--Seek equilibrium 05:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need its own section. It has its own article. Khazars. - Maggie --70.48.206.125 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maktoum House‎

Hi, Thanks for uploading the [Image:Persian-gulf-dubai-mus.JPG] from Al Maktoum House‎ museum. In the image page doesn't say where/when you have taken it, would you please clarify? Farmanesh (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]