Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:20, 21 May 2014

Welcome to my talk page! Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Also take care of the following points: If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":" Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room. Please, always assume good faith. If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page. And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving WikiLove. ⇒Start a new topic⇐

Archives

1

Farrokh

Kaveh and I are Internet friends (someday we hope to meet), but he isn't an academic historian and his qualifications aren't in history. You've found the source he uses so if that text desperately needs another source add the source he uses. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tajikistan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong accusation. I'd like to know where exactly you thought I added "original research". The Tajik language has many alternative names, one of which is "Tajik Persian". It is, after all, a variety of Persian. There are sources to verify this information in the article on the Tajik language. No original research whatsoever. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Kutsuit,

don't take it personally, but actually I expect that people writing on wikipedia understand at least a little how it works here. Your edit had several problems:

• The information that you changed in the infobox ("Official languages") is well sourced, and you changed a sourced content leaving the original source: this is called source falsification;
• You wrote that "officially" the language is Tajik Persian. Incidentally, the source that you ignored is the Constitution of Tajikistan, that clearly states (Art. 2) that the official language is Tajik. And what is more official than the constituion of the country?
• Third, you failed to provide reliable sources (and there aren't, since officially the language is Tajik: that's why I put the OR tag).

The example that you brought does not apply either. In fact, both in the U.S. and in the U.K. the official language is English. Of course Tajik is a variety of Persian, but this info - which is important - should go in the article, not in the infobox, where it goes the official denomination of the language. I hope that now you understood. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a condescending response LOL! Source falsification? Tajik is Persian LOL. All I did was use the alternative name of the Tajik language. It's not like I replaced Tajik with a different language altogether. Okay, whatever, you can keep Tajik in the infobox. >_< --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

:-) I know too that Tajik is (a variety of) Persian. what i was trying to explain is that this is (or should be) an Encyclopedia, so we should only rely upon reliable sources. If the Tajik people (or government) has decided - for sure also for political reasons - to define its language "Tajik", we can just report it. If tomorrow a pro-Iranian putsch will change the Art. 2 of the constitution defining the official language as "Persian", well, we will report it. BTW, the same story is happening right now at the Moldova article, with Moldovan Language vs. Romanian Language. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

It depresses me to see you express such rolling-on-the-floor enjoyment of what you apparently perceive as an enemy being discomfited. Please review Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and consider letting go of your grudges. If you're not able to do that, I predict you may not be very happy editing this site. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Nonsense. I hold no grudges and I would like it if you don't throw such accusations at me. I just found it funny that two members were using the same template against each other. Please stop following me around. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a very quick reply, which obviously didn't give you much time to click on my policy link. I wish you would click on it now, because looking back at the history of this page, I can't find a single soft answer from you; you either delete people's comments, or reply in a confrontative, personalising manner. Right above, I see a user giving you good information, and you tell him "Wow, talk about a condescending response LOL!" and "Okay, whatever, you can keep Tajik in the infobox". If you're anyway going to let the other person have their way, why do it so ungracefully and ungraciously? Please this time count to ten before you tell me the first thing that comes into your head. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC).