Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tajik

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 13 December 2006 (Blocked for edit-warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:30, 13 December 2006 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (Blocked for edit-warring)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Page protectedThis page is currently protected from editing.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. You may request an edit to this page, or ask for it to be unprotected.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Avars

Please observe ettiquette and respond to the talk page invitation to discuss the material before reverting.Kaz 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Teimur and Moghuls

Salaam doost aziz, I think the Teimur and Moghulas were partly Turks and party Mongols. I might be wrong but did they not spoke Chagatay? --alidoostzadeh 03:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


BTW would you have a look at the Anousheh Ansari article. Some users are trying to claim she is not Iranian because she accepted US citizenship.. Whereas this is just US law and according to Iranian law, if your father is Iranian, you are automatically Iranian. Plus she has referred to herself as an Iranian woman. Khoda Negahdar --alidoostzadeh 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Baraye "anthropology of Avars"

Salam bar to, baradar-e man az Ariana bozorg! Lotfan, bexan baraye "antropology of Avars" va javab bedeh, agar momken ast: "Liptak (1955) went into the details of Avar Period’santhropology in his candidate degree thesis.He stated his opinion that archeological chronology system was simply wrong.According to Liptak, too much cemeteries were dated for the 8th century and too few for the 7th and the 9th centuries.He pointed out as an obvious contradiction the fact, that 7th century, early Avar anthropological material was almost exclusively Europid, while grave-goods indicated Middleand Central Asian parallels. On the other hand there were cemeteries dated for the 8th century that contained Mongoloid elements among others. The attire and armament introduced by the Avars was rapidly adapted by other ethnic groups, it became the general fashion of the region in the 7th century.Therefore the separation of autochton elements was (and is)simply impossible by archeological means. That is why Liptak strongly emphasized that to talk of Avar Period population makes much more sense than to stick with the phrases of “the Avars” and of “Avar population”... Liptak outlined his view that the gracile Mediterranean type was autochton, while the brachycran Europid types were partly typical of the local inhabitants,partly they migrated to the Central Danubian Basin with the Avars. He found the origin of Cromagnoids, Nordoids and large stature Mediterraneans uncertain, and he indicated migration as the probable reason of their emergence. Liptak mentioned the Asiatic origin of Mongolid and Mongoloid population elements, but he did not go into the details of any closer relationship or parallel. Liptak analysed the Avar Period population of the Danube-Tisza midland region and stated that 80% of them was of Europid character.He separated narrow-faced dolichomorph types (Nordoid, Mediterranean) in 38%, broad-faced Cromagnoid types (A and B) in 22.6%, and brachycran forms(Pamirian, Dinarian, Near Eastern and short-headed individualsof undefined origin) in 17.1%... He found the tall stature, dolichomorph, narrow-faced variation (its frequency was 22%) non-homogenous. Liptk put the northern (Nordic) and tall Mediterraneans under this heading.He separated two regional varieties, a western(Atlanto-) Mediterranean one and an eastern or Indo-Iranian one...Liptak considered the gracile Mediterranean (Ibero-Cromagnoid types Insular) type the most significant component of the Avar Period population. The that were classified the descendants of the Upper-Palaeolithic Cromagnon race were rated important components of the Avar Period population by Liptak. He added that these types kept their significance in the Arpadian Age as well. The author put Pamirian (Pamiro-Ferganian), Dinarian, Alpine and Near Eastern (Armenoid types under the heading of brachycran) elements... Their presence was insignificant in the Avar Period. Liptak paid the most attention to the Turanid (South-Siberian)and to the Ural types from the Europo-Mongoloids. Noneof the two had much significance in the Avar Period, but they were dominant among the conquering Hungarians. Liptak identified and described in detail three kinds among the Mongoloids of the Avar Period: the Northern-Chinese(Chinid), the Central Asian Mongol and the palaeo-Siberian types. He considered the two later types the keycomponents of Avar Period Mongolids...Liptak voted for the dual origin theory when studying the ethnogenesis of the Avars.He called true-born (pure blooded)Avar (Varchonite) those small series which were characterized by Mongolid and Mongoloid features. According to Liptak’s opinion the progenitors of the Vachonite originated from beyond Lake Baykal,and they migrated into Southern- Central Asia only sometime later.From there they were forced out by the Turkis hpeoples, and so they escaped into the Central Danubian Basin.There were series with acomparatively high ratio of the Iranian type (Kiskoros-Varos alatt,Alattyan).Liptak named them ones with Hephtalite origin because he considered the Indo-Iranian Mediterranean type a significant ethnical component of the Hephtalites. This type could be traced back as far as Central Asia (Liptak1983)". Volume 44(1-4):87-94, 2000 Acta Biologica Szegediensis http://www.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS. Erzsébet Fóthi. Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods Acta Biol Szeged 2000, 44:87-94 Abstract PDF. SYMPOSIUM Department of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest,Hungary Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods. Erzsebet Fothi.

Von mir auch: heutige Awarische Sprache hat sehr viele Germanisch-Baltisch-Griechisch und Ostiranische (Puschtu, Bergtadshiken) gemeine Woerter.--Awarenstuermer 16:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your very knowledgable!

Great work on the Seljuk article. You have a lot of knowledge on the subject. Are there an books/articles you could refer me to so that I may also gain more knowledge?Khosrow II 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

Your help would be much appreciated on the Turco Iranian article. See history and the discussion page to catch up on whats going on. Zaparodjik is at it again...Khosrow II 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seljuq Dynasty

Please see my replies in the talk page.. As soon as the article is unprotected I will be changing a Muslim dynasty to a Muslim Turkmen dynasty and add many sources to back it, some of them are already can be found in the talk page.. I will also be moving the article to Seljuk Turks per WP:NAME following a Google name test conducted where Seljuk Turks got 119000 hits to Seljuq dynasty's 500 or so hits.. The results can be found in the talk page. Should you disagree with this by blocking, edit-warring and reverting, I will refer the matter to an administrator and mediation if neccessary and report you for disruptive behavior.. If you check the history of page moves, you will see that a name with 119000 hits always takes precedence over a name with 500 hits, and any admin will agree with that.. This is the English Misplaced Pages, please don't forget this... Baristarim 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can blame me for being a pan-turkist or whatever, but pls take a look at my user page, as well, I am atheist, and a well educated man such as you would know that atheists don't become pan-turkists, nor pan-turkists want them to do so.. I am also a communist, so throwing out such insults by calling me nationalistic POV pusher is also inappropriate.. Seljuq dynasty can be discussed under Seljuk Turks.. Please look at what I posted on the talk page of the article, I also put sources about Seljuk dynasty being Turks, and not from some loony encyclopedia like enc:Iranica (ica??) but from Encyclopaedia Brittanica, whatever you might believe I bring my sources with me when I talk, Brittanica also refers to Seljuks as a Muslim Turkmen dynasty, when I will add these to the article, they will all be well-sourced from Britannica and others.. And don't warn me like I am some sort of school boy, I most probably know more about the world and travelled it more than you have.. I know wikipedia, I never said I was going to remove any sources, everything that I will add have proper and good sources (not the weirdo Iranica encyc, Brittanica is ten times better than that supposed encyc), read my posts on the talk page before trying to push your pan-iranist views.. This is also not afganistan where everyone makes a living by the death of young people (heroin) Baristarim 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
And you have already disqualified yourself by not responding to what Britannica says a Muslim Turmen dynasty and Seljuq Turks (seljuk-seljuq don't matter).. You are also here because your nationalistic views are hurt for some reason.. Turkey or Turkish people don't need a wikipedia article to tell them what is their history, so I couldn't care less about my nationalistic feelings getting hurt. You have also disqualified yourself by not understanding the difference between pan-turkist and communist and that they are completely incompatible.. Your attempts to discredit others by name calling won't get you anywhere mr pust-un. I also don't care where you are and what you do (hopefully not afganistan though as pointed above :)) but you also don't understand the fact that Iranians cannot impose on the English language, please go to a law and political sciences school to learn why Persian and Iranian would not be the same thing in English.. You can pretend that your definitions are valid, but so far you have not responded to my comments in the talk page.. I have my sources, Brittanica clearly refers to them as Seljuq Turks and as a Muslim Turkmen dynasty.. Even if your claims are true about iranica, Brittanica is still the standard as an encyclopaedia and your claim that they are some wanna-be experts who actually know nothing about the Seljuks or Muslim history (which, BTW, is the standard speech of ALL Pan-iranists in wikipedia) is not valid.. I will also add what I have mentioned about definitions with proper sourcing, and if you remove them be sure that admins will ban you. I have dealt with pan-iranism before and be sure that I will deal with it again.. This is also not the country where we build nukes in our garage so stop trolling... Baristarim 15:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim broke down on the Turko Iranian article discussion page. If we have to resort to reporting him, he made some interesting comments we could use as further evidence that he needs to be blocked.Khosrow II 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
is that what the Turkish education system has taught you in Turkey? or This is not Turkey, where every intellectual is put into prison because of "insulting the Turkish nation", yeah whatever, I have only replied to things you an Tajik have said, in exactly the same way.. There is no evidence that I have been disruptive, if I add something to the article, I will never remove something sourced.. So there you go.. Baristarim 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

سلجوقیان

What do you mean? The page is already protected. —Khoikhoi 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem Tājik, take care. —Khoikhoi 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation for Scythian-related articles

Admin Alex Bakharev agreed to mediate our dispute over Ossetian Language, Scythia, and other disputes, to prevent future resorting to editing wars. Mediation is a required step in the WP conflict resolution procedure. Please contact # Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) The participants of the subjet editing wars were at least these parties:

  • Ali doostzadeh and/or 69.86.16.239
  • Khosrow II
  • Jpbrenna
  • Arash the Bowman
  • Marmoulak
  • Tajik

You may want to attract other your allies to this mediation effort

Barefact 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dorood

Sure thing, but your knowledge is far greater than mine is. If it comes to having to debate with him, I'll try my best.Khosrow II 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly the difference between those.. He was Turkic, happy?? :)) OMG! I don't have a hatred of Iranians, where did that come from?? I am a communist, so get over it, I am not nationalist! I don't like nationalist people however. It is you who is rejecting Brittanica as not being authoritative, who r u to make such a judgement? Wiki is not the place for that, I brought in my sources, and that's all that is required.. I don't care if Iranica is better or worse, Brittanica is one of the best sources out there, I really don't care if u don't like it just coz it doesn't agree with certain pan-iranist nationalist views. lool Baristarim 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I added a Turkic conqueror and not a Turkish conqueror:)).. Baristarim 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If I were u, I would try to be less disruptive than your sidekick kozie .. OMG! It is obvious who is being disruptive, Wiki also knows how to deal with disruptive people.. Funny thing is it was you who were telling me if you delete sourced statements or be disruptive you will be banned.. It is you two that deleted sourced info from Brittanica and was disruptive.. Baristarim 07:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I apologize for deleting your posts from my talk page earlier, I put them back in (except some unconstructive remarks though :)). You are very knowledgable btw. fair is fair :)) Baristarim 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic conquest of Persia

Can you take a look at the occupation section of Islamic conquest of Persia, some anonymous user has entirely re-written the language part of that section. Most of the text there seems POV, but I'm not sure. --Mardavich 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you check that Tajik, this is the edit I am talking about? --Mardavich 11:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Afghanistan

A reply has been posted on my talk page. — Edward Z. Yang 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Extensive Edits of Afghanistan

Well, I looked at some of the other edits by NasarKand, and can see the problems you mentioned earlier about removing sources (Herat) and POV. Sigh. I suspect he means well, but is just going about it in a rather aggressive way. KP Botany 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This will not end well. Part of the problem is that the Afghanistan article is seriously biased towards the Persian history of the country, something you won't admit no matter what, that seems to be your POV--Nasar has latched on to this, and I can't argue with him about it, because he's right, and he made some necessary edits. However, whether this is your doing or not, the article needs changed to reflect a more NPOV about the history of Afghanistan. The Encyclopedia of Islam, by the way, does have Western and Arab biases of some Afghan issues--it's not necessarily the number one source on Afghanistan. Americans call Afghan Persian, Dari, after the style of the Dari and Persian researcher at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, by the way. While speaking English. And, the land of the Afghans, Afghanistan, is admitted to have been an entity for at least 3000 years by most all credible historical researchers.

Nasar is very well versed in the history of Afghanistan from an Afghan perspective. I suggest we keep trying to work together, including with Nasar, to make the articles on Afghanistan and Afghans excellent. It is an important subject with the Afghan diaspora bringing Afghans into the lives of English-speaking Westerners as never before. However, I don't see either of you attempting compromise or being the advanced guard of NPOV.

And, yes, there are serious problems with his edits, not just in the main article, but there are also some very constructive changes, but an edit war between the two of you won't go much anywhere.

The goal should be an excellent article about Afghanistan, nothing else.

Salaam, KP Botany 01:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Timur

What is the discussion about? Of course Persian culture was supported at his court yet at the same time his background was undoubtly Turo-Mongol. BTW it seems you speak German? If you do can you send me an email: alidoostzadeh@yahoo.com --alidoostzadeh 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Table of Tajik words

Hi! Thank you for adding the words in the table. Though, it seems rather Persian than generic Tajik dialect(?) due to presence of many Arabic borrowings. Anyway would be very useful.--Nixer 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya

Salam, Thank you for your contribution to Farhad Darya page. Please be sure to include a 'edit summary' when making changes to articles to make transparent you are not being sneaky or vandalizing the material. Also, if you changed Hindi to Hindustani, note that Hindustani refers to a person from Hindustan (aka India) and Hindi refers to the language of that country. I am not trying to make you look unintelligent but before making changes, make certain your text is the correct. This is an encyclopedia and everything is expected to be perfect. Please continue with your contributions...NeutralWriter

I think this is worth reading

This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in witht he rest of the world and the world economy read this article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516


Khorasan

Hi with regard to the whole Khorasan empire issue in the Ahmed Shah Abdali article. I don't mind the region being referred to as Khorasan, but the specific term ruler of khorasan has not been mentioned in any books I've read. If you have any references do post them on the discussion page.

Thanks

--Zak 14:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Afghanistan

Sure, I'll check it out. These are the times that I really which Tombseye was here, he would usually be able to work out some compromise. But unfortunately, he seems to have vanished. :-( It looks like Nisar is asking for sources at the bottom of the talk page, could you try to provide them? I think that would help, thanks. Khoikhoi 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to pay more attention. And hey, do you know how I can change my user name? Parsiwan 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(to Tājik) Do you want me to protect the page? Khoikhoi 23:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tajik, I was just about to revert back to that version. Thank you. Parsiwan 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is not enough recent activity (i.e. edit warring) to justify protection right now. I will keep an eye on the page, and protect it when things start to heat up. Khoikhoi 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my talk page

Please do not post personal attacks of other users on my talk page. Thank you. KP Botany 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And personal attacks by Tajik elsewhere

Tājik, WP:NPA Misplaced Pages has a policy about personal attacks. Please read this policy. Until you understand it and want to address the issue at hand, the Herat page, rather than discussing what you perceive as the "problem with ," there is no point in my reading your posts, and certainly no point in your using yours to attack me. Please cease with the personal attacks and discuss the issue only. Thank you. KP Botany 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon

If he reverted Farabi again, report him for 3RR violation, I've already warned him about the 3RR rule. --ManiF 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could protect that page too. Khoikhoi 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hephthalites

Please have a look at this article.Khosrow II 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkic peoples

Zaparodjik is back and hes putting in his POV edits again. He claims that the population of Turkic peoples is 208 million, while I added up the populations of Turkic peoples listed and got 120-150 million. Infact, the article itself has said 150 million for months. Please have a look.Khosrow II 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy (Tajik), stop changing the page regarding Azerbaijan. You put your reasoning as "non-sense removed". That’s BS and you know it. You think you know things about the Azeri ppl. Do you even realize wtf changes you are making? The DNA analysis is all BS and everyone knows it. Don't change that, let it be. If you’re hating on Azeri and Turkic ppl then you have another thing coming. First and last warning. Do that again and see what happens. I aint threatening you, I am going to take other means of screwing you over. Thanks for understanding and have a great day.

P.S. Stop being racist.

Hey I just wanted to let you know that the Hammasa Kohistani picture is being put up for deletion

It will be deleted in 7 days according to

This:

Thanks for uploading Image:Hammasa np6.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


That's what was placed on my talk page. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Tajik, can you please do me a favor and not call people "ultra-nationalists"? It's possible to get into a dispute with someone and remain civil at the same time. Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't just pretend like I didn't see anything when I see insults from someone...but I'll check out the Hephthalites article. Can you explain to me (real briefly) what the dispute is about? What do Britannica, Colubmia, Iranica, & other sources say about them? Khoikhoi 02:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

== User:E104421 and encyclopedias==

Tajik,

First, I would ask you to avoid the word vandalizing when talking about good faith edits. Vandalism are edits that are known to be wrong, and I am sure E104421 believed that he was doing the right thing removing the badly sourced material from wiki. So please next time say mistakenly blanks or erroneously blanks or stubbornly blanks or something in this line. Labeling vandalism the edits that are not is a serious personal attack and is unacceptable.

Regarding the validity of the EI and EIr, I have problems persuading E104421 since I have my own opinion yet - I have not used this reference. I believe you that this is a serious scholarly work but you really nee an expert to state that a particular article in Britannica is more biased than Iranica. By default people more trust Britannica, but we probably need to collect all the opinions of the reliable sources. I would try to help you in incorporating all sources, but maybe an uninvolved expert could help you (e.g. User:Dbachmann)? Alex Bakharev 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian people

See the corresponding talk page. What's your opinion? Jahangard 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Karcha

Karcha has complained against you here: You should check it out.Khosrow II 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the Rumi article, there are POV issues.Khosrow II 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates

You should use warning templates on the offending users page as often and exhaust them so that admins and others can get clear judgement (they cannot act most of the time unless there is a full set on the user's page). I've noticed that you've done a lot of reverts to one user's edits (and rightfully so), so these might help - most notably, the NPOV warning tags under "Editing messages". Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

What i have written is sourced, please do not remove! All the previous references are still there. You can compare, if something is missing, please contact with me, i'll correct it. Furthermore, the templates are for navigation only, their entries are not part of Misplaced Pages's article content in the full sense, they are part of Misplaced Pages's editorial meta-language. In addition, please do not forget that Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia are reliable sources. Furthermore, try to be civil all the time. Do not forget the Three-revert rule. Regards. E104421 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only owner of the articles. Misplaced Pages is not your propaganda archive to push persian/iranian nationalism. You'd better to read what wikipedia is not. Stop accusing/threating wikipedians. E104421 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Giving information based on reliable sources contrary to your persian/iranian nationalism is just the verifiability, not Pan-Turkistic vandalism! Live with this! E104421 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish history template

That template is ridiculous, as it is based on a race. First of all, the histories of different Turkic peoples are not even tied or connected. You have some going to Europe, some to China, some to South Asia, etc... I think what happened is that they saw the History of Iran template (which is about a nation!) and got confused and thought it was about the history of Iranic peoples. I put a comment on the templates talk page.Khosrow II 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

  1. I protected the Rumi article; although I wish you wouldn't edit war so much. :-(
  2. NisarKand has been indefinitely blocked by Golbez, so I guess that's that. In the future try WP:PAIN for personal attacks, rather than posting them at WP:AN/I. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Timurids page got protected...I guess I'll have to look at in some other time. Khoikhoi 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: My talk page

I've protected Babur, but the other one hasn't been edit warred on since Khoikhoi's protection & unprotection. Leave me a message or (even better) take it to WP:RFPP if it starts again. -- Steel 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please remain civil. Edits such as this do not do anything to resolve disputes. -- Steel 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for this edit. -- Steel 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Turkish History Brief

Template:Turkish History Brief has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khosrow II 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Timurids

There are problems with both these versions (you know my views well enough by now). Down to Humayun all the Timurid rulers would have spoken Chaghatai turkic as well as Persian, and the Barlas tribe was the product of long intermarriage between Mongols, Turks and Tajiks in Central Asia. Accordingly I think giving such prominence to their Mongolian ancestry and not mentioning the Turkic element is wrong. However the version by E104421 is, predictably, much worse in its insistence that they were simply "Turkic" and also fails to mention the لقب of "Gurkani" which the members of the dynasty assumed. He has also removed all the arabic spellings. At the very least the term "Turco-Mongol" should always be preferred to "Turk" or "Turkic" when describing the dynasty. "Persianised Turco-Mongols" is the most accurate description, but it's a bit of a mouthful. What really mattered in terms of the dynasty's legitimacy was establishing a connection with Genghis Khan (hence the "Gurkani" title) and subsequently , of course, descent from Timur himself. Ethnicity wouldn't have entered into it.

خسته نباشيد

Sikandarji 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkic

Look at what Baristarim writes here: LOL!!!!!!!! Khorshid 11:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nhahahaha.. Very funny.. It still doesn't change the fact there is noone who will say "I am a Turkic" - "I am Turkish/Turk/Ozbek/Uighur/Turkmen" yes, but not "Turkic" to define himself. You have not read carefully what I had wrote dude.. Baristarim 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I read it my friend! But dont worry if we find a good source for you then we see what you do. Dont forget photos. ;) In the future plz be careful what you bet! =P Khorshid 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

Tajik, please don't spam talk pages telling people about the TfD—I had to tell Zaparojdik the same thing, although I think someone is going around spreading the word by email now, not sure who. Khoikhoi 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to help when I can

Time is a little short for me right now, but I will be glad to help when I can. I just got through trying to fix the Pashtuns page as it has turned into a mess very quickly. The Azeris and Iranian peoples seem to be holding up better though. Of the articles you mention, Afghanistan stands the best chance of being 'saved'. We need more neutrality definitely though. The issue with Babur is interesting also and having looked at the activity, I agree with your compromise version myself. The Turko-Iranian issue is difficult for even historians to really define as cultural assimilation was quite common and the lines blurred. Anyway, I'll see what I can do to help. Tombseye 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Iranian peoples, it is not really apparent that these are linguistic relatives as the term 'related ethnic groups' is in the caption. This is misleading as relationships between ethnic groups entail more than language and to a layperson such as one of my roommates who read that and believed it meant that these are all ethnic groups who are basically closely related. That's really the problem here as the relationships are fluid as Pashtuns and Tajiks living close to the Nuristanis and Dards are related in some capacity, while the Kurds aren't really related at all other than by distant language ties. This section would make sense if it was written as related language groups, which I would have no problem with as people would then understand the nature of the relationships implied. Tombseye 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey s'up.. Are you sure that it is Allah ud-Din and not Al ad-Din? I am sure they have the same origin, but in everyday language hasn't it shrunk to Al ad-Din? Aladdin also means Allah ud-Din, but it is still written that way since it has evolved.. I might be wrong however. Baristarim 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Tajik, always the same. I do not reject any sources ive seen you put forward - what i reject is your subjective interpretation of them. As ive pointed out before clinging desperately the Sheikh Safi al-Din's status as an Iranian no more has a bearing upon the ethnicity of the Safavid dynasty (which was irrefutably Turkic) than does Jesus being a Jew immediately confer Jewish ethnicity upon all who follow Christianity. I laugh heartily at this bit :
So, as you can see, the "Turkic origin" theory is NOT accepted by leading scholars!
Err yeah, its not accepted by leading scholars - so what on earth are the scholars ive referenced stating explicitly (explicitly! unlike the vague references you abuse to confer Persian ethnicity upon a Turkic dynasty) if not "leading scholars" ? I do have access to the Encyclopedia of Islam and will have another look at the Safavids article to check if it supports your claims ( which i very much doubt ) and will refrain form revertin you simply until ive double checked the EoI which will have to have changed its entry on them considerably since i last read it for me to leave the article in your favoured state. Incidently as well as the Safavids being described as of Turkic origin in pretty much every book dealing with the region/era they are also taught as having been Turkic at the School of Oriental and African Studies - but of course a consensus which stretches from arguably the worlds leading authority on the middle east,Bernard Lewis, to possibly the world's leading academic instution on the same region holds no weight whatseover does it? Incidently i wouldnt have become involved in the article again had it been in a reasonably neutral state such as one which was occasionally achieved at the time of the original debate but its current condition is so laughably POV that i was left with no choice.siarach 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Remind about Khorasan

Salam. Since I have seen you in an Afghan forum as well, and I think you might have recognized me as well, I just wanted to make a very brief comment. When it comes to situations where you confront extremist Pashtuns, you go on defending the notion of Khorasan. But when it comes that you confront a normal Tajik, you go on attacking the Khorasan view and trying to defend the Iran or Persia case.

Thanks, I hope nothing was offending. Ariana310 08:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

S'up

Sorry for getting back late and thanks for the reply. I only asked it from a usage point of view, since the name has been "degenerated" into Aladdin. However it is true that the correct academic transliteration is Allah ud-Din. I was just wondering :)) Cheers! Baristarim 08:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

`?Ala´? (al|ad|ud)-?Dn Kay-?b(d|dh)

Hi Tajik, I'm a bit confused about your dispute with E about our Seljuk friend King Ala-With-the-Many-Spellings. On the Coloured Sheepy Turkomans, I saw you advocating the "q" spellings used by Iranica and Enc.Isl. and E advocating the Anglicised "k" spellings. Now it's suddenly the other way round? He wants q and you want k? Actually, I looked up Iranica and Enc.Isl. myself this time: Iranica uses "q" (ʿAlaʾ-al-Dīn Kayqobād), Enc.Isl. uses "k" with a dot below (don't know what sound that's supposed to represent.) Both seem to be using a simple "d" in the end. Not surprisingly, sources also differ as to the short vowel (Arabic transliteration convention "u", Persian convention "o"), over whether or not to represent the Ayin and hamza on "Ala" and the length mark on the two long vowels, on the treatment of the assimilation of the Arabic article, and on the treatment of the word boundaries. You go figure how many logically possible forms that gives. :-) Can you give me the original Persian and/or Arabic spelling? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. But the original Shahname seems to be using کیقباد, with a qaf, or is that not the same guy? . (Not that I can read a word of it, mind you ;-) Or what else do you mean by "original Persian spelling"? And one English translation of the Shahname even renders it as "Kai-Ghobad" , which also seems to be a spelling used occasionally by modern Iranians. - Anyway, we are not talking about the Shahname hero, but about the historical Seljuk guy, so the relevant data would first of all be how his contemporaries would have spelled his name, and what the conventions are for Latinizing that in the relevant modern literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I really do not understand the conflict, because both versions are right. The article itself says:
  • Alā ud-Dīn Kay Qubādh I (actually Alā ud-Dīn Kay-Kubād; Turkish spelling: Alaadin Kaykubad), Seljuq emperor (1220-1237).
So, where is the problem? :)
Tājik 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, just what I was asking you. I wasn't revert-warring over that name... ;-) By the way, I just found Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Arabic). Good read.
That would suggest something along the lines of this (please fill in the "Ala ad-Din" part in the Persian:

`Ala' ad-Din Kay-Qubad

`Ala' ad-Din Kay-Qubad I (Persian: کیقباد, ‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Kay-Qubād; also rendered as Alauddin, Kay-Kubad, Kay-Ghobad, Kaikobad; in Arabic also كيقباذ Kay-Qubadh) ...

Turco-Persian

Could you have a look Talk:List_of_Mughal_emperors. E104421 seems to be under the impression that "Turco-Persian" means Persian or Persian by race and origin. Your knowledge on Mughals is much greater than mine. --Mardavich 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

compromise

Hi, Tajik. I'm offering compromise before editing/reverting the articles. That's better. We know the process of wikipedia, but for the general user, it's quite confusing to confront with articles changing every second. I've only one condition, civility. If you keep yourself calm, i can discuss the issues with you in detail. Cheers! E104421 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • First you should understand one important thing: You should provide reliable sources, like i always do. Before removing or deleting anything, you should also discuss the issue in the talk/discussion page. Furthermore, you should be civil at first. You're always accusing the ones who counters your arguments as nationalist and vandals. Your manner is well-known to many wikipedians. In my opinion, your impoliteness is the main problem, otherwise the issues would already been discussed and solved. However, you prevented all compromise attempts. I never edited the articles you mentioned namely Mahmud of Ghazni, Fuzuli, even Hajji Bektash Wali. Furthermore, i'm not the one who prepared the list. I'm just opposing deletion without reason. Anyways, This will probably the last message i'm writing to you, cause it's impossible to communicate with you. E104421 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

E104421 vs Tajik

Guys, I have a proposal. Lets have a break in your conflict and stay away from each other. Do not revert any article you both participated in and stay away from each other new edits, just politely discuss them on the talk pages with other people mediating. Do not send each other messages on their talk pages. Only one week to restore your cool? Alex Bakharev 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. I am asking you once again to avoid personal attacks against the other users Alex Bakharev 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC

Tajik, it's a bad idea to make personal attacks and comment on other editors. Keep all the discussions on issues—not the other users. It is very important to stay cool in situations such as these. Now you've been bloked for 48 hours by some some admin.
If come and make some sort of apology and let people know that you understand that rules, an admin might reconsider your block. Khoikhoi 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead with iur attacks, I guess......., NO WAY!, Stop! --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Misplaced Pages |wanna Talk? 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik

Talk to him, not to me! HawkerTyphoon 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations of Afghanistan

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you..

I have looked in the history of the article, both you and Pashtun were in violation of the 3RR. Since you have made less reverts than Pashtun, I am giving you only a warning at the moment, but please obey the policy to the letter. The next violation I will block you Alex Bakharev 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem! Khoikhoi 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Aha

Yeah, whatever.. I have all those pages on my watchlist (if any admins are interested they can have a look at my watchlist if it is possible), and I suddenly saw numerous edits by you on those articles simply titled "rv" or "rv vandalism". There is no stalking, it is the articles that I am watching, not you... You can report anything to anyone you want, I had those articles on my watchlist for ages, it is not my fault that we seem to be running into each other since we are interested in similar articles.. Whether u believe me about the stalking is your choice, but there is nothing wrong with having such cross of interests from time to time between users. Don't be accusing me of stalking, if you hadn't started your wiki session only by blind reverts, I wouldn't have had to revert you. Simple really.. Cheers! Baristarim 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits seem to be complicated, so I will study them further then get back to them for Timurids, and later, for the White Huns.. I don't want to start a silly revert war. For the Afghanistan article, the only thing that I couldn't understand was why your version was better then the other one. It just seemed to me like a commercial of Iranica, that's all.. Believe me, I am not stalking u.. On the other hand, maybe it would help if you stopped treating Iranica like a Bible. Seriously. In wikipedia, we can only cite sources, and Britannica is definitely a valid source. Even if it cannot be cited as a stand-alone source, it definitely merits a mention. Half of Wiki was created from Britannica's 1911 edition :)) I hope that you also understand that many users are finding your obsession with Iranica somewhat annoying.. That's all.. Baristarim 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely OK with me as long as he can have access to my watchlist to see when I added it. It was my first edit, yes, however, I had that article on my watchlist for over ten days, I swear on my honor. Whether you believe me after that is not something I can do anything about. I am smarter than to simply open your contributions list and headdive into articles that you have edited right after you have. I don't mean that in a conspiratorial way, I am just trying to say that I am not going to go to articles that I have no knowledge about just to piss you off. I have had Italy on my watchlist as well for the last three months, however I have still not made a single edit. I just keep it there to see what is going on and to see if I can revert some random vandalism if I come across. In any case, let's drop it.. More arguing is not what we need. Baristarim 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, talk with more respect. I have tried to approach in a conciliatory way, however you are not up to it I see. I have been reading the Iranica link that was mentioned in the Afghanistan article. For vandal-wars. Look dude.. Similar vandal attacks also happen in Italy and France articles that I have on my watchlist, I never edit them since there are enough people fighting vandals for those pages, I have other fish to fry.. Ok? I am not the vandal patrol for every single article. Even for Turkey article I rarely do vandal reverts. Nobody is stalking you, so cut down on the paranoia. I have asked you the reason for your edits on other articles, instead of blindly reverting them, like in Allah ud-Din ... So please don't insult my intelligence by saying that I just open up your contributions list and head-dive head-on. A) I have no time for such low-level play B)There are smarter ways of doing that. All of those edits showed up when I refreshed my watchlist: Afghanistan, White Huns and Timurid articles all titled "rvv" by Tajik at one-minute intervals. Do not reply to me if the only thing you want to do is to shout.. Baristarim 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That is normal, since Seljuq Turks refer to the people as a whole, not just the dynasty. There are two different articles for Ottoman dynasty (House of Osman) and the Ottoman Empire. Same thing. In the near future, there will be another article created called "Seljuk Turks" that will be about the people in the same way, don't worry. Scholarly sources do not only use the q-spelling I am afraid, FPAS himself said that for .edu searches, the outcome was even between the K and Q spelling, see the relevant talk pages. Of course, I can see your point if you consider the Iranic as the only scholarly source and the Bible of God :)) In the English language, there is no difference in pronounciation between Q and K in that particular word structure, and that's what counts: English. And most common name obviously. Baristarim 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The ref is there, pls read the article thouroughly and stop stalking.. There are many books refed at the bottom like Charles Perry book: "The Taste for Layered Bread among the Nomadic Turks and the Central Asian Origins of Baklava". The joke is really on you dude.. :))) Baristarim 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As I told you before, please talk with more respect. If I am not mistaken, you just stalked me to the Baklava page.. And you did not try to look at the references on the bottom of the page of that article. I had the Afghanistan article on my watchlist before your edits my fellow, there was no stalking.. I said they are referred to as people in usage.. In any case, I had enough of your attitude, as I said before: DO NOT POST MESSAGES TO ME IF THE ONLY THING YOU WANT TO DO IS SHOUT.. Is that so hard to understand? Gees.. If somebody had told me that, I would definitely think more than twice.. :)) I never said that Ottoman Empire was based on ethnicity, so do me a favor and stop the straw man... Britannica also have its academic sources, who do you think is writing it? Aliens? :)) Baristarim 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I liked the Italian name :)) Polish was ok too I suppose.. Look, even one of the Iranica refs cited is refed to the work of a Turkish scholar.. You cannot deny that it is not of interest to Turkish/Turkic/Turk/Disneyland to the point that it cannot have the Turkish name up there. Baristarim 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please revert yourself on Khwarezmian Empire article since you broke 3RR. I don't want to report you, so please revert. If not, I will have no choice to report you since I will also be breaking 3RR if I revert you. There is no need to spill this issue to 3RR or ANI boards.. We can continue this some time later, so pls revert. Cheers! Baristarim 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you get the message above soon coz it is 2.40am both in France and Germany, so you might have gone offline.. Baristarim 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand what your problem with Turks, I really don't. Why can't you accept that Turks are a migrating nation? It is not pan-Turkism to say that Turks are interested in their history, and the fact that this history spans many territories and nations is not our concern. I really would like to know what this insistence of yours is. See this article: Kipchaks, there are ten names listed. What is the problem? Tigin is both a title and a name. Arslan and Bilge also are Turkic names. In any case, following your logic of "assimilation" that leads you to incorrectly label Seljuks as Persian, than the fact that he assumed a Turkic title should make you support that he is Turkic. In any case, he was of Turkish origin.. Seriously, what is your problem with Turks? Baristarim 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Turkish people of Turkey have nothing to do with the real "Turks"? Hmmm.. You either have not met a lot of Turkish people or have not read studies on how Turks mixed with the natives etc. Look at this article, this guy is my father's cousin. Look at the photo of Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik and tell me that he is not "Turkish". And also check out where my last name Tarim comes from. On a side note... And stop telling me that I am some sort of converted cyrpto-Turk by saying that Turks of Turkey are not Turks. I am Turk by ethnicity, race, language, nationality and choice. So that's it for that. Baristarim 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, you are really misinformed about Turkey and Turks, and I think that's maybe why you are so defensive about this stuff.. Look, all the Turkish people know that Turks of Central Asia are not the same with the Turks of Turkey, the languages have evolved differently, Turks of Turkey have mixed much more with the natives etc and etc.. Why are you telling me all this? You think that Turks are stupid or something? That stuff is extremely common knowledge.. However, you also fail to understand that for Turks, the study of their history is atypical. In any case, there were shahs of Khwarezm named Arslan, is that also Persianized? The relation between the Turkic languages is more than the relation between Spanish and Bengali, I am sorry, but that argument falls flat out. Many Turks who go to Central Asia adapt to the languages in a couple of months, if a Bengali went to Uruguay, it might take more than a few months. Just accept this, nobody is trying to reunite the "Great Kingdom of Turks" u know, and frankly I would never want to.. In real terms it doesn't mean anything, won't bring anything nor would it be practical. Khwarezm are of Turkic origin, I know why you started with their first Shah, if you change that, you will also be able to change the whole article. Nhahahaha :)) The fact that we cannot find the right 12th century Turkic translation is why it is somehow acceptable to include the Turkish translation. Baristarim 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dolik Wakhi

Portrait of Chief Afghan Mirza Dolik Wakhi

Hi, Tajik. I wrote a short article about Russian painter Alexandre Jacovleff. One of his work I found is on the right. It is titled Portrait of Chief Afghan Mirza Dolik Wakhi. Jacovleff been to Afghanistan in 1931-1932. Any idea who is this Dolik Wakhi may be? Was he a or the Chief Mirza? Alex Bakharev 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pff

Can you pls tell me why you took out the references about the Khwaerzmian Empire being of Turkic origin (and the conflicting one about its Iranian origins) and replaced it with "Sunni Muslim"? Baristarim 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is, it is the Iranica article that says that they were of Turkic origin, so what is the problem? Are you saying that a Russian work is better than Iranica? :)) Please don't remove it. Baristarim 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your post earlier... Look man, apparently you don't know so much about Turkey and the "nationalistic BS of Ataturk". I already knew all the things you said, so what? It seems like you hadn't read my post to you earlier. Every country in the world has engaged in nationalistic rhetoric, especially back in that era, so please spare me the guilt trip. Nobody is trying to impose Anatolia on Central Asia, please stop being paranoid :)) Baristarim 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose it could be mentioned. I will look into it tomorrow, I have to finish off some other stuff in some other articles then I will go out. Look, I have tried more than once to actually make an overture and try to find some common ground where we can work with it, I would like that there is a greater spirit of cooperation in the air than there currently exists basically. Talk to u later... Baristarim 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anushtigin

Regarding the Anush Tigin Gharchai article,

I'm well aware that a there's a good degree of conflict between the Turkish and Iranian users, and that these editing wars of certain articles is not infrequent. I'm not taking any one side in this conflict (for example I noted the attempts to remove the History of Iran template from the Seljuks page simply because the Seljuks were not ethnically Iranian), and in general stay out of these debates; I simply wish to make sure that these editing wars don't spill over on articles that I've created. Sadly, that is what has happened with the Anush Tigin page.

As to the ethnicity of Anushtigin, I am aware that there is some debate regarding his origin. However I believe that it is most likely that he was a Turk. The bulk of evidence certainly points to his successors being Turks: for example, Jalal ad-Din's biographer Muhammad Nasawi rather clearly describes him as Turkish in appeareance and in speech, though he spoke Persian as well. Granted, this alone doesn't confirm Anushtigin's Turkish origins, but considering his background it seems more than likely. I have never come across a copy of Buniyatov's or Gosudarstvo's works and I'm not an expert at etymology; I only have the opinion of what the available sources tell me, and they overwhelmingly refer to Anushtigin and his dynasty as Turks. When using sources to create or edit articles that conflict with each other, I look for what is most likely correct. If there is ambiguity I usually say "Anushtigin probably was a Turk" or "Anushtigin presumably was of Turkish stock," something like that. "Possibly," which is what you used in the edit that I changed, implies that it is only one possibility out of many, that is no more credible than any other possibility, a perception that I do not believe is accurate. The edit in place as of this time ("Originally a slave - most likely of Central Asian Khilji or Qipchaq origin") is fine by me, let's hope is stays that way.

One other thing: I noticed that you changed Anushtigin's title from "Khwarazm-Shah" to "governor of Khwarazm." I think the former is correct; in the Encyclopedia Iranica article on him it is clearly stated that he was given the traditional title of Khwarazm-Shah. Furthermore, considering that it is unknown whether he ever actually governed Khwarazm, using the title of "governor" seems incorrect. Let me know what you think about this.

Ro4444 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezmian

Your latest version seems good, won't touch it again as long as it stays that way.. What about the post above? Should it be changed to "Shah"? Cheers! Baristarim 12:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Phew, we got throught this ok :) Baristarim 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on Oghuz Turks

Please, Tajik, you reverted the anon on Oghuz Turks three times without any argument or discussion. This is not good, it borders on newbie-biting. And about your edit summary, please discuss your edits before you change the article; and please cite sources: no, it's the other way round. The rule is: Be WP:BOLD in editing. The anon was making a good-faith attempt at improving the article; if you disagree with his edits, the onus of initiating a discussion lies squarely with you. For the time being, I'm reverting to the anon's version, simply in order to give him a chance - if there's anything wrong with it, please make your case at talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I really had misread your third edit. Point about the first two stands though. Sorry for the unnecessary revert on my part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring

Tajik, after this renewed outbreak of hostilities with E104421 I can't help but block both of you. E also broke 3RR, but you've been dangerously close to it, and making personal attacks again too. Please see my comments on WP:AN3 and on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)