Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faizan (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 3 November 2014 (Talkback (User talk:Faizan) (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Krzyhorse22, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Krzyhorse22! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Misplaced Pages; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. You are the subject of a discussion at ANI. Regards - DocumentError (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullah Omar

I type this so that I can get an understanding of where you are coming from in relation to File:Mullah Omar.png .What if the resolution was altered or the image was adjusted? Could it still be considered free use? Could I try and find another version of the image from another site claiming PD? Could I use the other image of Mullah Omar on ? How can I ensure I upload an image that doesn't get deleted every time when I fill out the licensing and permission and everything? It just seems really odd as to why no images are allowed of a person who has a $10 million reward for capture, when it would not only be doing him a great disservice having his image on a Misplaced Pages article but also expanding an article for users. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy when it comes to uploading images. This Mullah Omar's image is without doubt the work of someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan. Because it is very famous photo, someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan could make a claim that it is his work and go the U.S. to file a lawsuit in federal court and ask for millions of dollars, and eventually he will get if he produces evidence. The U.S. government knows this and that's why it won't use the full version. The second issue is that it is not for certain that this is Mullah Omar's face. It is just thought to be him and because of this reason it cannot qualify for fair use. There may be a $10 million reward for his capture, at the same time he is offered a deal to return to Afghanistan and live as a free person with no charges against him. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If the work is from someone within Afghanistan, what if they haven't registered their work with the United States? We don't know the background behind the image, only that it is purported to be Mullah Omar, as the State Department and various media outlets believe. You can see traces that all the images purporting to depict mullah Omar do indeed portray the same person. Notice the width of the nostrils in between the two images, the close resembling facial features of and and the high beard in and . Does it not look like the same person to you, or is it just me? That registry with the U.S on published works appears to be for images with a vested commercial interest, whereas the mullah omar image appears to be equivalent to a mug shot, not something intended to sell. Isn't it an issue that very little is actually known abut who took the image? And does it mean absolutely nothing that Afghanistan isn't a member of the Berne Convention, the World Trade Organisation or the World Intellectual Property Organisation? The Uruguay Round Agreements Act states: the time the work was created, at least one author must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the protection of the Literacy and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S copyright protection to works of that country on the basis pf reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S nationals or domiciliaries. Can this not be taken into consideration when determining if the image is liable under a copyright of any kind, whether in Afghanistan or the U.S? Could I upload an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri from the FBI site without worrying about all these issues with Mullah Omar? I don't mean to annoy you, but I just have absolutely no idea when an image can be uploaded anymore, with all these inquests into non-free use. I thought I had everything done right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Images posted on US government sites don't mean they are free to use, unless an image was specifically created by a U.S. federal government employee during his or her official duty. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide that information.
2. That is not Omar's mug shot. It is Afghanistan's national ID photo.
3. The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar.
4. You can find a better color and latest image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, send email to the author and request permission to use it in Misplaced Pages.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. What if the government site states public-domain? Wouldn't that classify as free to use? Could I just use the exact cropped version of rewards for justice with the low resolution? Or is the reason due to, as you stated, an uncertainty if the image is indeed Mullah Omar? My only counter is that if it's worthy for the U.S to use in displaying a $10 bounty of an individual, than that should prove adequate enough reason that the image is legit.
2. If it's a national ID photo, wouldn't that make the image usable as it's an official government document use solely for identification? I thought ID photos aren't sold for commercial interests. Does that mean that my passport/license photo, for example, has a copyright on it by a private individual?
3. The man was interviewed? StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this man was proven to be a false image of Mullah Omar after this 2003 Vanity Fair article was published. The same source states that the image you uploaded is a 1993 photo by Khalid Hadi. Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you found an article that actually goes into depth about where that image came from. Can't even imagine how long it took searching through the internet to find it. I'm still not convinced however that the image is not depicting Mullah Omar, we know for a fact that he is missing his right eye. See , it's someone who doubted the authenticity of the portrait. Well, the image has now been deleted. I'll now have to consult with you whenever I wish to upload an image so as to not wind up in that damn back and forth jostle ever again. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc. Mullah Omar is not the only Afghan with a fucked up eye and long beard. There is another story that I watched on TV which tracked this man to a house in Kandahar and that man was pissed off saying Khalid Hadi took his photo and told the Americans he was Mullah Omar. This is why you can't trust Afghans.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

True, I'm sure there are many afghans with blown out eyes. But see this , I think you might be confusing the person in the image you linked with this image? This is the only site I can find of someone saying they are not Mullah Omar despite the U.S releasing leaflets with that image on it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullah Omar images

Could I upload as a non-free work, fair use work under "excerpt from a copyrighted work"? It's a video screenshot taken of Mullah Omar holding the Cloak of Muhammad in Kandahar. And could this image be uploaded as a non-free work, fair use work under "some other kind of non-free work" or as a free-work in the Public-Domain as it's from RfJ? It won't be used as the image in the info-box, but have a description saying "Photo believed to show Mullah Omar according to U.S State Department" somewhere in the article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is M.O.? Can't you see nothing is wrong with his eyes? It is a recent photo and the person has graying hair which all means it cannot be M.O. Regarding this one, we have no idea who the people are and what they are doing. The standing guy who is suspected to be M.O. has nothing wrong with his eyes. He looks more like Mullah Dadullah. Turbans and Pashtun people are not only found in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan. Who took that photo? How can someone take a photo of M.O. when Taliban didn't allow it? U.S. State Department is not an expert on M.O. In this situation we must rely on experts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I read an article that Mullah Omar may have used a glass eye , which could be a pluasible explanation for the clear discrepancy between the right eye and the left eye in the image. It may be recent, but Mullah Omar is expected to be in his mid 50's, so I don't understand as to how that would disqualify him from having graying hair. We don't know of his genetics. I stated that I wouldn't make the image the sole focus by putting it in the info-box stating that it's M.O, and would put it somewhere in the article stating that the U.S State Department believe this person to be M.O, which is true. I don't know why we would withhold information from an article, especially it it's from the PD. is a screenshot taken from a documentary recorded at a Kandahar mosque in April 1996 where Mullah Omar revealed the cloak of Muhammad. That screenshot is taken from a considerable distance, and is zoomed in. Also bear in mind the quality of filming equipment from the 90's era. It has been widely reported , even on Misplaced Pages that he did possess Muhammad cloak in such a ceremony ,. The film was taken clandestinely, meaning no one in that image knew they were being recorded at the time.

However, you haven't answered my original question. I stated, if I could upload these two images under their respective licences. You haven't stated no, so I am assuming I am allowed to without any hitches, but I know you don't want me to, becuase?... StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying about this is very stupid. I heard the false eye rumor before that article was published, and I seen people with false eye but they don't look anything like the guy in this image. To me he is about 30 something, it's just the beard that makes him look older. Now, why the fuck would he stand there and let someone take a close up picture of him? Who took that picture? The truth is that's not MO but someone else. There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it. You keep mentioning U.S. State Department, there is nothing special about that agency when it comes to MO. Many sources have said MO took the cloak out in public but the sources don't say this is MO. Sources say MO took it out of the box but look again and see who is taking it out of the box. The problem with you is that you want to force your weak belief on everyone, and that shit is not allowed here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You sound like you have been hired by the Taliban to quell any discussion of its members on the English Misplaced Pages. You seem to try and find any and every conceivable reason for not allowing anything to be be uploaded. I know you hold a POV on both Taliban and MO. Have you lost someone to Taliban? If so, then truly I'm apologetic, but if that's the case than trying to strip bare any information on these people is just wrong. Or are you favorable towards the Taliban and wish for none of their leaders to be portrayed visually and to be shown in the flesh? You never give any proof for your claims, which concerns me. You stated you contacted the CIA director without evidence, have dismissed without proving that one of the suspected MO images is in fact not MO, and just now stated that clear evidence is abundant in proving that another image is not MO, but you don't have time to search for it. You also accused Afghans of being too corrupt and called Khalid Hadi a liar without proof. The U.S State Department is the most premier source I have found on MO. All the others have been news articles or blogs with conflicting facts but still use the same images. With regards to the image , you are absolutely correct, I have no idea who took this at all. I do know however that, just as with the other images in that vanity fair article, Taliban officials stated MO wished to prove to others that he was still alive post 2001, but that's the only explanation I can come up with. It is still better than saying it's completely impossible for the image to be him. The video link states between 30-36 seconds "Mullah Omar displayed the holy cloak of the Prophet Muhammad to the crowd", that man kneeling before the cloak is not lifting it out of the box but rather kneeling before it and MO. Now, I admire your tenacity and your knowledge on the issue. If I didn't, why would I bother typing messages on your wall asking for your opinion? You have shown me facts such as in that article on the origins of Taliban which I hadn't known prior to this, and corrected the mistake I made by uploading that other file on the man with the one eye. I still don't understand why you are so hostile to my proposed idea. I'm not saying that I think he is MO, I'm saying it would be worth mentioning that the U.S government believe that the man in is MO. If not, then it's just disregarding a fact. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Mullah Omar displayed the holy cloak of the Prophet Muhammad to the crowd" could be interpreted two ways. That (A) he personally took it out and displayed it or (B) he ordered one of his close commanders to do it. We don't need to get into that. By law you are not allowed to upload images of other people without their permission. The US government has no authority whatsoever to take the rights of copyright holders without proper permission, and it doesn't matter if it's State Department, White House, CIA or the Pentagon. MO wished to prove to others that he was still alive? So he brought an anonymous photographer and made a thumbnail? The guy in the thumbnail appears to have non-defective eyes. Someone with glass eye is easily noticeable, see Peter Falk, the guy who played Columbo on TV. The reason I'm against your uploads is because you act like a cunning thief who makes up false licenses for misleading purposes.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, but then why are there images of Osama Bin Laden and Dokka Umarov, for example? I doubt they had given permission for their cronies to use images of themselves onto Misplaced Pages English, unless they were huge narcissists. I try and upload images as accurately as possible. I just find it difficult if the terms and conditions state it's in the PD for example, and then boom, next minute I receive a non-free, non-fair use message on my wall. I do admit though uploaded the full version of the RFJ image, but I thought that since the source stated it was in the PD, no one knew who the original author was, and the place of origin were the image was taken is not in the Berne Convention, that it would be fine to use on Misplaced Pages. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bin Laden's images were seized by U.S. military during raids. That's what makes it different but they could also be deleted if someone finds a specific case law making it unlawful for U.S. government to publish such seized images.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Obaidullah Akhund.png

Why do you always seem to delete the things that I upload? The image was under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license.. How could that have been an issue..? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pashtun people

"Become familiar with the rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages before inserting an image of Kabir Stori in the infobox of Pashtun people. He is one of 1000s of poets and that alone is not enough.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)"

Dear Kryzhorse22,

he was not only a poet, he was a politican, he was a philosoph, he did many things. Or isn't it enough to get his own school in his hometown by the Afghan government? ...

--Pohyal98 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Look man, what you're saying is considered unsourced POV. You must bring reliable sources to support your claim. There are 50 million Pashtuns in the world and this Kabir Stori is not that notable to have his image in infobox. Can't you see the others are kings, queens, presidents and globally recognized Pashtuns. If you keep re-adding the image I'm going to contact admins and they could get you blocked for disruption. Misplaced Pages is not a place to advertise people who you find interesting or are relatives of yours, and etc.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. In particular, editing of project ("Misplaced Pages:") pages, including WP:SPI cases, is prohibited. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message but I don't edit Misplaced Pages that often, just once in a while here and there. My IP address is shared by many individuals and it constantly changes so perhaps someone else did an edit. If I wanted to make an edit I would do it with this account.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It's clear to us as CheckUsers that you are editing logged out, in a way which specifically conflicts with the sockpuppetry policy. This is a warning to stop doing so. If you wish to know more information (which I'm trying to avoid public disclosure or hinting at of your IP(s)), please contact me directly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating draft

Could you help me, to get a real and correct article? I did created a draft, so i need maybe help, to check whats wrong. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Shahmahmood_Miakhel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhtun1103 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a variety of issues in which you've been involved. The thread is Extreme and Systemic Disruption / WP:LEGAL. Thank you. —DocumentError (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Irapart. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of governors of Daykundi

added a link pointing to Mohammad Yousef

Pashtun people

added a link pointing to Nasher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

last warning

If you continue to call me POV-pusher or if you insult me again (as you just did on my own talkpage), you will be reported to admins! My edits are fully justified. Not only because I have corrected the numbers according to the attached sources (have actually checked the sources?!), but also because I have restored information and quotes that are directly from academic and authoritative sources. You, on the other hand, keep removing these sources and quotes. What's your problem?! "Afghan" and "Pashtun" are synonyms, "Afghanistan" and "Land of Pashtuns" are synonyms. This is sourced information. It is totally irrelevant if anyone feels insulted by this. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and needs to present facts the way they are, and not the way certain people wish it to be. So this is your last warning: stop removing sourced material! --Lysozym (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insult you, and you're free to report me to admins. Second, you did in fact falsify the numbers by increasing the percent figures of certain groups and decreased figures of others , although you probably didn't mean it. Everything in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY. When you write in the article that the name Afghanistan means land of Pashtun, you must cite a reliable source that actually states that. The cited sources state that it means land of Afghans and doesn't mention land of Pashtun. Yes "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and needs to present facts the way they are," but everything has to be sourced. There are 14 ethnic groups in Afghanistan and they're all Afghans, so it is land of all Afghans and not only Pashtun.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words won't change facts. All reliable and relevant academic sources agree that "Pashtun" and "Afghan" are synonyms. It is true that nowadays, "Afghan" is used as a general designation for all citizens of Afghanistan (the same way "Turk" is used for all citizens of Turkey, even though Kurds and Assyrians are not Turks), but the historical meaning is clear. And the name "Afghanistan", evidently with the meaning "Land of Pashtuns" since the time of the Mughals, was introduced because Afghanistan was ruled by Pashtun kings and to this day Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group - in number, in political influence, even in cultural influence. Keeping this information out of the article is not academic at all! Just for your information: the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica do not even have articles named "Pashtuns" - the respective articles are named "Afghans". --Lysozym (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against constructive edits or deletions of irrelevant content, simply explain or give a reason. As for "Pashtun" and "Afghan" being synonyms, it's not widely accepted as you think. I'm saying that Persians view it that way but not the rest of the world. Besides, in the 2nd sentence of Etymology section, it states "The root name "Afghan" was used historically in reference to the Pashtun people". There's no need to repeat that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

page move

How come you didn't engage in the discussion at the talk page before moving the page? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pashtun people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masters. 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) 09:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jowzjan Province may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• by ], ], ] and possibly a few others.{{citation needed|date=October 2014} Occasional ethnic violence are reported in the area, the last

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Krzyhorse

I have put some old Uzbek character in Uzbeks page, please don't change it again. if you need references about that individuals proofing that they belong to Turkic tribe of Uzbek, I can provide it.

1- jalaldin Manguberdi: His nick name was manguberdi. in Uzbek language means god given he was born in Urgench city currently located in Uzbekistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Urgench). His mother name was Ay chichek. In Turkic Uzbek language Ay means moon an Chichek means flower. so his nick name and mother name is completely Uzbek. besides he was born in an Uzbek city(urgench).

2- Timor Kuragani: He is also from Turkic tribe of Uzbek. The word "Timor" in Uzbek language means Iron, as you see his name is completely Uzbek. also his memory book was written in Turkic language of Uzbek branch. He was born in Kish city near Samarqand.

3- Bobur: He was from descendants of Timorid empire, He was born in Uzbek city of Fergana, He have many poems in Uzbek language. I'll put an example of that:

kim kurubtur ay kong'ol ahli jahanda yakhshiligh - kim ki andin yakhshi yoq ko'z tutma andin yakhshiligh - gar zamangha nafi qilalsam ayb qilma ay rafiq - kormadim hargiz niyatin bo zamandin yakhshiligh - dilruba lardin yomanligh gildi mahzon kongluma - gilmadi janimgha hich arami jandan yakhshiligh - bari eylgha yakhshiligh qilgil ki mondin yakhshi yo'q - kim digaylar dahr ara qaldi falandan yakhshiligh - yakhshiligh ahli jahanda istama "bobur" kimi - kim kurubtur ay kong'ol ahli jahanda yakhshiligh -

This is a song according to lyrics of this poem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJBuX6Rn2Wg

4- Alisher Navoi: Nothing say about him to proof him as Uzbek he have bundle of books in Turkic language of Uzbek branch.

5- Ulugh beg: He was grandson of Amir Timor born in Samarqand, only his name proofs every thing that he is Uzbek. in Uzbek language the "ulugh" mean great or enormous and "Bek" means leader of men. so he is completely Uzbek.

I think this much i enough for this time. if you need more proofs I can provide for you.

Please don't remove famous old Uzbek individuals from Uzbeks page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I reported you for abusing multiple accounts. This is very disruptive and blockable offense. Second, you are adding images of Mongols (Moghuls) into Uzbeks article. The way you're doing it is completely wrong. Information in Misplaced Pages cannot be based on theories and opinions, see WP:OR.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is Mongol? Timor? Bobur? Alisher Navoi? Jalaludin Manguberdi? Ulug beg? Who are you to put information about Uzbeks? Are you Uzbek? The names speaks everything. I'm new in Misplaced Pages the my fist account had problems I created another, I didn't used for illegal thing. Look there are so many proofs that this individuals are belongs to Turkic tribe of Uzbek. I put an Poem from Bobur, look at that his language is completely like our language. Please try to compare his language with Mongol language then you can decide that he is Uzbek or Mongol. Please study about Alisher Navoi and his Books which written in the age of Timorids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here I put references from books of some scholars that declared that Amir Timur is Turk not Mongol.

1- Jawahir Lal Nehru, Timur in history of World, Article 247, " This man was Timur, who wanted to be second Chengiz khan. He claimed to be descended from Chengiz, but he was really a Turk. http://historydepartmentphilos.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/1/26612531/jawaharlal_nehru_glimpses_of_world_history.pdf

2- George Sanders, Timur in history of Mongols, "Although his conquest was similar to Chengiz khan, his ethnic was Turk rather to be Mongol. http://ketabnak.com/redirect.php?dlid=56225

3- Donald Wibler, Persian Gardens & Garden Pavilions, "Timur which born in 1335 was from descendants of Turkic tribes in Samarqand." https://one.overdrive.com/media/1400688/persian-gardens-garden-pavilions

4- Hasan Pirnia, Timur in the history of Iran, "Timur was son of Amir Taraghai, some historians claimed that his origin receives to Chengiz Khan, but the correctness of this claim is not certain. even according to some historians (Amir Qarajar nuyan barlas) is not his 5th ancestor. http://4paye.ir/download/483/582/pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he belonged to Turkic peoples (Britannica states "Timur ... Turkic conqueror"...) but the term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples including existing societies such as the Turkish people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauz, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Balkars, Nogais and as well as past civilizations such as Tiele (and Dingling), Avars, Göktürks, Bulgars, Kumans, Kipchaks, Turgeshes, Khazars, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks, Timurids, Khiljis, and possibly Huns, Xiongnu, Wusun and the Tauri. So why are you adding his image in Uzbeks article?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jirga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assembly. 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) 11:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

a

	a
	http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/politics/u-s-drones-pakistan-report/ ....pakistani army does not clearly say ... Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Faizan 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)