Misplaced Pages

User talk:Johnstevens5: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:42, 6 June 2006 editNakon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers63,562 edits →[] on []: extended← Previous edit Revision as of 14:47, 7 June 2006 edit undoTajik (talk | contribs)11,859 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:
|}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> ] 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> ] 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:Your block has been extended for 24 hours for evading your original block. . ] 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) :Your block has been extended for 24 hours for evading your original block. . ] 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Ulugh Beg and al-Farabi ==

Your claims are more than illogical. While in the article ] you totally deny the opinion of the ] (and you even have purposely used a fake quote from that encyclopaedia!), you use the very same source in the article ] which - unlike the ] article - has access to much more authoritative sources, such as ], ], or ].

Please STOP your nationalistic-motivated, extreme anti-Persian, pan-Turkist propaganda, or I will ask an admin to block you permanently! This is deffinitly the LAST warning! You have caused enough trouble in the ], ], ], and ] article! And now you have even strated to mess up the ] article! Enough is enough!

] 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:47, 7 June 2006

Johnstevens5

Image Tagging for Image:Dsc005821_1-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dsc005821_1-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Propoganda

Why are you adding propoganda under General Dro's page, and in incorrect format? take it to the talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.161.194 (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Back-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Back-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Yenidukkan-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yenidukkan-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Johnstevens5, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Legion

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the Armenian Legion article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! —Khoikhoi 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Navoi1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navoi1.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Babur

Thanks for the addition to Babur - it's daft, isn't it, that we've been arguing for so long (though to be fair to User:Tajik he hasn't been altering the page much). I'd already put that quotation on the Andijan page as it happens, but I suspect you're right and it needs to be here as well. It looks like compelling evidence, but just to point out that Babur also writes that the inhabitants of Margelan, a nearby town are "Sarts", and that by this (at that date) he means Persian-speakers, so the Fergana Valley was not a homogenously Turkic-speaking area then. I daresay Tajik may have a point or two to make about the differences betweeen elite language and that of the population at large in this period, but for me the really compelling evidence is simply the language he wrote his memoirs in. Take that fact on board and the rest becomes obvious. Unfortunately Tajik is so paranoid about pan-Turkic conspiracies that he is rather dismissive of Babur's use of Chagatai. What annoys me is the manner in which so many of these debates turn into nationalist point-scoring, with people trying to claim as their 'own' significant historical figures for whom the application of modern national and/or ethnic identities is completely anachronistic. Thus, I wouldn't go so far to say that, put simply, "Babur was a Turk": he was clearly proud of his Mongol descent as well (though for reasons of family lineage and prestige, not nationalism) and no doubt spoke Persian and inhabited a courtly world dominated by Persian culture, as elites throughout the Ajam did. But then he heeds Ali-Sher Nawa'i's call to write in Chagatai, and that is in many ways so unexpected, it takes on great significance. Sikandarji 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I totally agree.

The only problem I have is the obsessive extremist nature of this Tajik character. This little group of Persians have a severe inferiority complex, they troll around trying to prove the inferiority of all non-Persians to themselves and fabricate this idea the Persian Empire which was crushed 2500 years ago still exists.

Timurlane was a Turk from a poor family, he married into the Barlas tribe which had pollitical importance and helped him rise to the astronomical power he achieved.

Now, Babur was a 14th generation on the mothers side of his father from this tribe.

Fourteen generations of living in a predominantly Turk area having Turk relations and family not to mention the similarities between Mongolian and Turkish due to them both being Altaic languages etc etc etc would certainly make you a Turk.

For example, if an Irishman with mixed English-Irish blood moved to England fourteen generations ago and mixed with the local English population you can be pretty sure that the guy would be English to day.

Quite frankly I don't even understand how there can be an argument about such an obvious topic, the Persians at the time were Shia, they were not known for war-fare and the region Babur was from had for centuries been ruled by Turkic Sunni Muslim rulers and that is what he was.

I like your work, keep up the good stuff!!!

Regards

User:Tajik really doesn't deserve the rather intemperate language you've been using on the Talk:Babur page - I disagree with him on several points, but I'm not prepared to see this argument degenerate into an exchange of insults once again. He has provided several citations from original sources to support his opinion: engage with them rather than ignoring them and maybe we can make some progress. I agree that Ibn Khaldun is an important source - but it is going much to far to describe Timur as a "Turkic nationalist" - that is completely anachronistic. Irwin's review of Marozzi's (rather poor) book proves nothing. I've been to Shahrisabz and Samarkand as well, and it didn't give me any sudden insights into whether Timur considered himself to be a 'Turk' or not. The usual term is Turco-Mongol, which seems fine to me. Can we keep things civil please? All the best Sikandarji 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi,

Tajik has no regards for history, these type of people have an inferiority complex and their lives revolve arouond fantasies of Persian supreme power.

All they try to do is make out that TUrks don't exist, its either no he's not a Turks he's a Persian or no he's not a Turk he's a Mongol they find it infuriating to accept that Turks exist.

Timur was a Nationalist Turk, the Ottomans were not Nationalist but Timur was he is responsible for a huge Turkic immigration into Iran and Turkey and those who actually knew him like the famous "Ibn Khaldun" stated this.

Now, you wasn't alive in the time of Timur neither was Tajik neither was I so we have to go on primary sources.

One clear and reliable fact is of Ibn Khaldun I don't think anybody is in a position to call him a lier and he wrote clearly Timur was a Turk, in addition the Spanish envoy wrote the same, in Timur's book he wrote the same.

This isn't even worthy of an Argument you goto be in pretty severe denial to have a problem, I mean what exactly is the problem? I don't get it, everytime "Turk" is mentioned that guy starts freaking out.

People like this deserve no place on an objective encyclopedia, they have no regard for evidence, sources and facts, they only care about their Nationalist agenda.

Regards

Hello there. I don't mean to butt in, but—regardless of what you think of User:Tajik or anyone else—it's always best to keep cool, assume good faith, and make no accusations.
Also—although I haven't been watching the debate too closely—I think it might be worth considering, before throwing around the term "nationalist" in regards to Timur or anyone else of that era, that nationalism was far more likely than not a creation of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to this comment

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your addition to Nedîm

Hi. Thanks for adding a useful poetic extract from Nedîm's dîvân; however, please try and be careful about how and what you cite, and how you put it into an article, in the future.

For instance, here is your addition to the article:

His love of Istanbul is highlighted below;
"O City of Istanbul, priceless and peerless!
I would sacrifice all Persia for one of your stones!
The Viennese might think that their city was the only true Kaiserstadt,
And deserved to be the capital of Europe
The people of Isfahan might claim that their city was 'half of the world'
Citizens of Istanbul however, know that theirs is the centre of the universe!"

Reference is given to Mansel's book, Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453–1924, page 80. If you look at that page, however, you see this:

In the early eighteenth century the Ottoman poet Nedim wrote in praise of :
O city of Istanbul, priceless and peerless!
I would sacrifice all Persia for one of your stones!
Even in the nineteenth century, after the Ottoman Empire had suffered repeated defeats, since China had not 'come to Constantinople' – that is, had sent no embassy – Ottomans could not believe that China was truly an empire. The Viennese might think that their city was the only true kaiserstadt, and deserved to be the capital of Europe. The people of Isfahan – capital of Persia – might claim that their city was 'half the world'. Citizens of Constantinople knew that theirs was the centre of the universe.

Now, what you did—in addition to dropping some words and changing others—was to conflate Nedîm's and Mansel's words to make them seem as if they were all part of Nedîm's poem. This is pure dishonesty, and disrespectful to both Nedîm (who wrote no more than the first two lines of what you said he did), and to Mansel.

I have corrected the error and properly cited Nedîm's couplet from Mansel's book, and I'm willing to accept that this mistake may have come out of not exactly knowing precisely how to cite; however, please try to be more careful about such things in future, and if you have any questions about how to properly cite, or similar questions, please don't hesitate to ask. And again, let me emphasize that I appreciate the addition, as it is a worthwhile one. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude

Move your comments that aren't about the article itself to Talk:Azerbaijani people/Arguments. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Ulugh Beg

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Naconkantari 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been extended for 24 hours for evading your original block. . Naconkantari 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulugh Beg and al-Farabi

Your claims are more than illogical. While in the article Ulugh Beg you totally deny the opinion of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 (and you even have purposely used a fake quote from that encyclopaedia!), you use the very same source in the article al-Farabi which - unlike the Ulugh Beg article - has access to much more authoritative sources, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, or Dehkhoda's Dictionary.

Please STOP your nationalistic-motivated, extreme anti-Persian, pan-Turkist propaganda, or I will ask an admin to block you permanently! This is deffinitly the LAST warning! You have caused enough trouble in the Alisher Navoi, Mughals, Babur, and Ulugh Beg article! And now you have even strated to mess up the al-Farabi article! Enough is enough!

Tajik 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)