Hello, Hajji Piruz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
--K a s h Talk | email21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I though you might like this and want to add it to your user page
All the reasons for what I'm doing are stated on the talk page. No one even bothers to notice them. All you guys are doing is blind reverting. And you have the nerve to give me revert warnings? C'mon guys, discuss the issues. This is all just ridiculous. FellFairy09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Azerbaijani, that paragraph you took out was actually sourced, it's from the Schofield book, page 35-37. The reference must have got lost somehow during the reverts. Could you put it back in? Right now, there's nothing left that presents the UAE position at all, which I think is unbalanced (because the Iranian position is rightly still there.) - Now you pushed me to the 3RR limit and reminded me of it, I can't put it back in myself I suppose ... FellFairy11:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? "Pan-Arab POV"? How pray am I a Pan-Arab? I'm Dutch by the way, LOL. No connections with Arab countries whatsoever. And what's "POV" about that paragraph, what's that even supposed to mean? Silly Wikipedia jargon. You mean it's non-neutral? Well, it is presenting the points of view of the two sides. Anything wrong with that? And I insist both sides must be presented in some way, if you have a better summary of what the UAE point of view is, feel free to put it in instead. But the way you had it, the UAE wasn't represented at all any more. Are you seriously claiming that would be a better version? FellFairy12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph was ill-written and full of weasel words. In addition, you removed wikifications and other edits. On the other hand, you can review the paragraph and provide references from internationally recognized sources and continue. Regards E10442122:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Turko-Persian Tradition. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.MustTC17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the Turko-Persian Tradition article, please do not remove the wikifications and the references, it takes 15 mins to add them. You're always welcome to contribute, but please respect the fellow editors. Feel free to edit the newest version, rather than reverting cause reverting also removes the minor edits. We can discuss the issue at the talk/discussion pages. I'm getting bored of this edit/revert business. Regards. E10442113:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your reply. Wikifications are the links to other wiki-articles. For example, Iranian people is a wiki-link, in addition to these, there are also categories, see also, external and references links. If reverted, these are also removed. For this reason, feel free to contribute to the last version. Any problems, gimme a shout! Regards. E10442119:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "Azerbaijani", I don't know how old you are, but I have only tried to make articles correct, not pan-whatever. I tried to change "Turkmen" which was written incorrectly about many Iranian Turks, Azerbaijanis, whatever. You think I have time for propaganda and stuff like that? But articles shall be without bias. If YOU feel that you are more like Persian that is your issue. Try to be fair! I am not Persian and that is a fact. I am an Azerbaijani. Doesn't matter, but that is a fact. I don't like to be called a Persian, but that is MY problem too. Let's have decent, unbiased and correct data so that we preserve the truth. Bm7903:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to present something as an undisputed fact, give me sources that are neither Iranian nor Azerbaijani. Then perhaps I can change my mind. :-) Khoikhoi04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism if he provides an explanation. I don't feel like helping you if you're just going label it "vandalism"... Khoikhoi04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The probelm we have is that there aren't any recent comments at Talk:Ahmad Kasravi, and both of you haven't cited any neutral sources to back-up your claims. If suppose I could protect the articles, but would this cause you and Elnurso to discuss the issue more? Khoikhoi10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very valid points you are raising, and it would be so much better if you made them on the talk pages. That way, if another admin ever examines the situation, he will find one user (you) willing to discuss the matter, and another user who isn't. Why don't you try attributing the sources properly? For exaple, you can say, "according to Atabaki...etc. etc." You can also add quotes. There are many different possibilities of what you can do, but just reverting and reverting won't solve the problem. Khoikhoi05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't removed sourced material, such as you did for the Persian description of Atropates. The source I provided, from Livius, clearly describes him as a Persian nobleman.
Please just change the edits you felt I did in error. Your revert undid a few improvements and fixes I did, in addition to removing sourced material.
Again, don't remove sourced material, such as the description of one source as a statement of the Armenian UN representative. This is considered vandalism. The Behnam23:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider not relying upon the Azerbaijani banknotes article as a source. This article does not appear to be a reliable source, as it does not have any scholarly citation or notability, and since there are already two sources for the same assertion, there isn't much reason use a dubious source. Also, when referencing it, don't quote-mine the article and misconstrue your selection as the title of the source. The Behnam00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were interested in Yemen related articles. Perhaps I should show my appreciation by doing the same thing and start getting involved in Iran-related articles ;-) Jidan19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the articles closely and do not do blind reverts :) I put a lot of effort into finding sources and writing that article's intro. The ones that you called sourced information are not so actually. The other refs in the intro are actual books on architecture with visible pages. The ones provided by anon are one of them from a web forum, the other one from a book description - I read very carefully every source provided and write them carefully. If you have any other concerns about the specifics of the article, you can leave me a note. Ottoman architecture was influenced primarily by Byzantine architecture, and Mimar Sinan, originally a Orthodox convert to Islam made a great synthesis of the Islamic Mamluk and Byzantine styles. Seljuk styles was never predominant after the 14th century. In any case, the influence of Persian styles can be extensively talked about in the article of Seljuk architecture. If you ever come to Istanbul, you would see what I mean :) Cheers! Baristarim18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, did you even read what I just wrote above? Why are you insisting that Persian is placed in front of Byzantine? Do you have any idea what Ottoman architecture was? Have you ever seen Sinan's works? One of the source is from a forum, the other one is a book summary. This has nothing to do with NPOV, it has to do with academic correctness. Seljuk styles were influenced by Persian architecture, and Seljuk architecture was the basis for Ottoman architecture until 1453. What about 1453-1922? It was Byzantine and Mamluk influence (after the transfer of the Caliphate to Ottoman dynasty). Baristarim19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the other refs? They clearly state that the Byzantine influence was the greatest, the whole pages from the books are visible directly. Other sources I cited are precise, those ones are a) one from a web forum, b) a book summary not written by an academic. Please see the other refs. You can talk to any admin you would like. I provided seven serious refs for that intro, there is no POV push. Please be civil and don't accuse anyone in that manner. I am simply trying to make the article more academic in good faith. Please see the difference between Persian influence on Seljuk architecture and the extent of Seljuk influence on Ottoman architecture. Have you seen Ottoman buildings at all? Please be reasonable. Baristarim19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Other books clearly specify that the main influence was Byzantine with Islamic Mamluk influences that was built on Seljuk traditions after 1453, and those books are visible for all to see with their specific pages visible via Google Books. I am only reverting because one of them is from a forum the other a book description, and contradict the content of the six other references listed. That's all. Believe me, there is no POV pushing, WP:AGF. Baristarim19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It matter because for academic precision. If the main influence was Byzantine and to a lesser degree Islamic Mamluk, then that means there is no logic to putting something else before those two. Those are not book sources: one of them is from a post in a forum, the other one a book summary - the other sources listed are the words of actual academics who have written on the specific subject, and there are six of them. Playing with the order is the real POV pushing since it goes against established academic concensus. That's all. Please show me one major Ottoman artefact that wasn't primarily influenced by Byzantine or Mamluk elements, see Blue Mosque and Dolmabahce Palace and Ciragan Palace, the masterpieces of Ottomans, for example. Keep in mind that this is not the article about the Seljuk architecture, it is about Ottoman architecture. They had different styles. Baristarim20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the sources listed for the intro, I spent a lot of time in good faith to write the intro with a precise timeline. It is very academic and is backed up by the words of academics who have written specifically about this subject, and they are visible for everyone to see. There is no logic to the revert that you are making, the Persian influence on Seljuk architecture is already talked about in the intro, with the following timeline over the centuries following the fall of Constantinople. I really do not understand why that very academic and specific intro has to be reverted. Baristarim17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't I'm not an admin. I comment on 3RR reports to hopefully offer clarity to situations. Sorry if there has been any confusion. My suggestion is that you fill out a report on WP:AN3, since the last I looked he had violated 3RR, sock or no sock. --Wildnox(talk)20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did I make 4 reverts? I was asleep and just woke up, also, your warning was not on my talk page and I'm not watching the administrators noticeboard, so I dont see how you can claim to have given me a warning when I never saw it. Also, Again, like I said, I just woke up, if check the pages history, you can see that I was not edit warring for over 24 hours. I did not make one single edit. Also, I did not revert anything, I added sources to one sentence and I removed another sentence based on a very good reason. Please rethink your decisions. I hope to hear a reply from you soon. Thanks.Azerbaijani17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I just woke up, but also, you can tell by my last edits that I had no intention of edit warring. I added two sources, and removed a sentence and gave a very good reason for it. If I could get unblocked, I could go back to trying to defuse the situation, like I tried by adding sources and giving more explanations, like I was planning on doing. Also, if you notice, Elsanaturk is also using these IP addresses to edit: 217.64.23.189 and 217.64.28.214. At least thats what it looks like to me, I could be wrong.Azerbaijani18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please take part in the discussion on the talk page of Azerbaijan article, which has recently been protected. We are discussing the reliability of the sources included in the article. If we reach a consensus, we can have the article unprotected. Regards, Grandmaster06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created -- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:
The term Turko-Persian Tradition (or Turco-Persian) does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture (Persian, Kurdish, Azari, Baluchi, Tajik, Luri, Gilaki, Talishi, Mazandarani, etc.), and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.
I find it ironic that you use aravand exclusively in describing the pictures, Arabs live on both sides of the river and they always called it shatt al arab MB
Azerbaijani, the Arabs have been present in Ahwaz, Linga, Abadan, and almost all of southern Iran since the Islamic conquests, and even much before that. This makes their presence in Iran date at least a millenia. This makes them as indigenous as Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs, Lurs, and even Persians. Here's a PDF file, http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/images/identity.pdf the lecturer asserts that the name changing of Arab cities to Persian names was a deliberate move to end all Arab presence from Iran by the Pahlavi regime. MB
Actually majority of people living in Khuzestan are Lurs/Bakhtiars although there is a large. The majority of Arabs in Khuzestan came during the Safavid/Qajar era. The links from the site you provided is not reliable. As per name change, many cities had their name changed during the Arab conquest of Iran. As per the link you provided it has many historical errors since it is not written by historian. For example the name Khuzestan predates Aghlim-e-Ahvaz used by that author, since it is name used from Parthian times. --alidoostzadeh19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, doost, anything you don't agree with, is simply not reliable. You keep pushing your POV and preach us about verifiability not truth, yet you come here and tell us it's not reliable? This speech was given in an Iranian university, you think nobody would speak up if it was unreliable? Check your facts, Aravand was only called that during the Pahlavi regime and the Arabs, although still a majority, lost great numbers in forced emigration (they were forced to run away into the western coasts of the Arabian Gulf) due to the Pahlavi regime's crimes against humanity committed by them. Not to mention the incessant terrorism from the Pahalavi regime in it's forced Persianization campaign, especially towards the Arabs. MB
Actually it is the other way around, since you can not bring any sources. Again you need to prove that the name aghlim-e-ahvaz was used before the parthian era! But you can't so your forced to write stuff that has no content in terms of evidence. Anyone can come and give a speech to a group of students. The fact is the name Khuzestan was not called Aghlim-e-Ahvaz before Khuzestan! Pre-Islamic sources (Parthian) have it Khuzestan(See Elam by D.Potts and the Ka'aba Zardosht inscription). Thus that guy does not know his history. Arvand rood is mentioned in the shahnameh (1000 years ago). As per reliability, you forget to mention that Arabian Gulf is a fake name madeup 50 years ago and there is not a single Arabic sources that has it. Thus it shows you fake history! as this is major mistake. Arvand rood is in the Shahnameh. As per terrorism, you forget arab slavery of blacks in sudan, saddams expelling of Iranians, his killings of shi'as and Kurds which are termed genocide, the treatment of shi'ites in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and etc. And there hasn't been any persianization campaign in Khuzestan, just many migrant Persian/Azeri workers in the oil industry. And there is a lot of native Persians way before that time where dialects exist: behbehan, shushtar, masjed soleymani.. etc plus the majority Luri/Bakhtiaris and even some Qashqai nomads. Note the guy you mentioned does not even have a doctorate. Once you find a single reliable source saying Khuzestan was called Aghlim-e-ahvaz before Khuzestan, then you can be taken credible. Talk does not substitute for evidence. Where is the evidence that Khuzestan was called Aghlim-e-Ahvaz before Khuzestan? Also your knowledge is lacking since we have at least 400,000 Arab refugees from Iraq in Khuzestan during Saddam era. I am sure if Iran was so bad, they would have migrated to Saudia Arabia! --alidoostzadeh22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think you haven't noticed the explanation in the edit summaries. Please see Baristarim's comment here. They also speak Turkic languages there. Regards. E10442114:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to check into very soon. However, I am still waiting for an actual debate in Ottoman architecture - I spent a lot of time and tried to address all the concerns in the intro, and left many messages to the involved users + the article's talk page, but nobody said anything and blind reverts led to the article's protection... I would like to know how those sources implied that Persian influence was greater than Byzantine influence.. There was nothing in the sources or the the other five books that suggested anything close to Persian architecture being the most influential on Ottoman architecture. Anyways.. Cheers! Baristarim00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I will look into what I can do - I cannot whip up maps with a magic wand :)) You are right in the sense that it is a delicate question because there is a confusion between "first language" and "spoken language".. Anyways, I will try to get back to you soon, no worries.. Baristarim01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Since you are a fan of this notice, and have been breaking this rule on this very same page earlier this month, here it is as a reminder. --AdilBaguirov00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think I can get involved in another dispute right now. I think at this point I think you should try making a request for mediation, or something simiar. You could also try the same thing for the Azerbaijan page, as it appears that that dispute has been going on for awhile. Khoikhoi04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to say to him? You used an incorrect code. Letter "A" should only be used for "to identify and block the IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts". POV content disputes are not vandalism. And they aren't "attack accounts" either. An attack account is something like Khoiisjiba (talk·contribs). I didn't block Atabek because he is a new user and probably doesn't know the rules on sockpuppetry. Khoikhoi04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "E"? (3RR violation using socks). You also have to link to four diffs showing the 3RR violation. And Azerbaijani, I'm not going to look at this whole thing as if you're the only victim here. You are not without fault, and I think you know that. If you were trying to be reasonable to everyone, the Azerbaijan article would be unprotected by now. Khoikhoi04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also active in persian wikipedia? if so, please consider making an article for آدزبایجانیها
by the way, activate your email address. یاساشین ایران --Pejman4723:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it doesn't really matter if these users haven't edited in weeks or months, because sockpuppetry in itself is not a violation of policy. Which active users do you suspect to be sockpuppets? Khoikhoi19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that you often use accusations to promote your views. I looked at your talk page becasue I wanted to know why you disappeared from the Azerbaijan article's talk page, and I saw that instead of engaging in discussion (which you had often engaged in confrontational and accusatory fashion) you had reported that many users are actually one or two. Take me for an example! I am a new user. You know why I made an account? Becasue I saw such absurd and poor texts in the article about Azerbaijan. The same thing MAY happen with other people. When important articles are pushed to the edge of absurdity people get offended and get involved. I don't know about other users having suck puppets or something like that, but maybe you yourself think about your attitude toward other users and take their actions on good faith, and act on good faith yourself. Your username is "Azerbaijani" and I noticed that you are simply doing the opposite of a true Azerbaijani would do about his/her people. And unfortuantely you are doing these things without having neutral and reliable sources. Plese respect our homeland, Azerbaijan, and do not offend us! I am from Iran, but I am an Azerbaijani and so are those in the Republic of Azerbaijan. It is absurd to come up with various conspiracy theories and claim unfounded things simply becasue you want so. I hope you understand my point. THank you! Roazir23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writing one's POV on the talk-page is not the same as to pushing for POV in an article. What exactly is POV that I have edited? What is POV that I have written? There are sock puppets on all sides of any article I guess, but not everyone is a sock puppet. I am no-one's sock puppet for instance. Roazir09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why do you change the turkic states page. arent you turkic person? what is your problem with turkic people... i am appointted for Iranıan Turks. how is that you are turk? Claim your history.--Offical18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. There are two questions that are different from each other: content and style. The template is way too long - such long templates have been removed from other articles as well. The template has become an article onto itself. Keep the template but either make it shorter or format it horizontally like most of the navigation boxes. Please do not make this personal of some sorts. Baristarim04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "This is English Wikipedia" argument doesn't really apply when it comes to diacritics. They are not two different words, just different spellings. If we wanted to use the "English spelling" for articles, shouldn't we move Abülfaz Elçibay to Abulfaz Elcibay? (the Azeri spelling is Əbülfəz Elçibəy)
Good job taking out some those edits by Babakexorramdin removing Persian language from various provinces. West Azerbaijan and Kermanshah province are still left. I am currently looking for sources for each province, though it seems silly that we should have to source information that is obvious simply because Persian is described as the main language in the country. He tried this at Mazandaran Province too, but I managed to find a source to remove it. If you find a source for any of this obvious information please add it, or link it to me so I can add it. For now, I am going to revert his edits at West Azerbaijan and Kermanshah. The Behnam05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not Persian is not a native langaueg, nor spoken on daily level by a substantial parts of the residents in these provinces? Just a question. Why werent you so disturbed when they had removed all non-Persian languages from the Iranian provinces pages? Why this selectivity? To be more clear: I am not a member of all these ethnic groups of Iran. I am an Iranian. But it is very wrong that some editors here (I do not say whom) think that Iran belongs to persian and the rests are minorities! Babakexorramdin16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Babakexorramdin23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is Persepolis and not Perspolis. I do not care what the LA TVs say. Popular knowledge is not enough. You should be correct if you want that people take you seriously. Babakexorramdin23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it already has been protected, but what socks are you talking about? Are you aware that Atabek and Elsanaturk live in different countries? Khoikhoi12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for 24 hours for the edit warring on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Please do not edit war again; when you see a conflict brewing, take it to the talk page. It's really the best option; edit warring will just get you into plenty of pointless trouble. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker.05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply reverting the removal of heavily sourced information. User Elsanaturk continuously uses personal attacks, and continuously starts needless edit wars. This user is an obvious nationalist. No matter how many sources I bring him, he keeps claiming they are "biased" without showing any evidence, and continuously removes the information. I have brought 10+ sources yet he keeps removing them. I was reverting obvious vandalism.Azerbaijani15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby informing you that both you and Elsanaturk have been placed on a strict "1RR parole" on the following two articles you have been edit warring on recently:
Until further notice, neither of you may make more than one revert on those two articles in 24 hours (and that includes reverting not only each other but other editors as well) or you may be blocked by administrators for edit warring. The above list maybe expanded if either of you decide to carry your disputes to other related articles. Khoikhoi11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because you made your edits based off Behnam & Kiumars' version, which was done largely without consensus. Firstly, there are way too many quotes, which makes the article look unencyclopedic. Also, what genetics? The section says "Further studies with Azeris in Iran may help determine", it doesn't say there have been no studies in Iran. Khoikhoi04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in which you have been named as a party. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. The case remains open for the submission of evidence or proposals. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one reverting other peoples edits. Please stop reverting sourced material. it being "simply not true" is based on your opinion/POV. --- Farzinf21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning You have been reported for violating your 1 revert limitation at WP:AE on two articles. The reverts were 26 hours apart so it is technically not a violation. However it is clear that you were working with Adil in reverting others. Gaming the system is not to be tolerated, and a 1 Revert limit is not a license to continue the same edit war but in slow motion. Adil and Pmanderson have been blocked as the worst offenders in this particular case, but if this keeps up they won't be the last. Thatcher13106:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Azerbaijani. Thanks for the latest source you have provided in the talk page. Personally, I still support this version of the intro. What do you think?! Tājik10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the intro should be slightly modified:
The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in North Western Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family, probably of Kurdish origin, whose classical and cultural language was Persian, the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom. They also reasserted the original Persian cultural identity of the region, thus becomming the first native dynasty to establish an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.
I am new, the azerbaijan (iran) article is not very good in my opinion.. I left a message in the talk to change the culture section. --Jalil Azermehr14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it doesn't make much of a difference between "empire" and "dynasty", but even the most minor things can be considered controversial in some people's eyes. That's why it's best if you try to solve your differences with Atabek at Talk:Safavid dynasty. As for Iranian Azerbaijan, I agree with you that it's less ambiguous, maybe as a compromise you could say "Azarbaijan"? Lastly, regarding Elsanaturk, you can go to WP:AN/3RR if you want and make a report similar to this one. Regards, Khoikhoi04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one I removed didn't discuss the 2004 incident, so I relied on the one that actually did. I'm not sure why you need two to say the same thing anyway. John Smith's20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the other source implies they did so of free will - which is not backed up by any facts. On the other hands various news reports do state clearly they were forced to. You don't actually think they would have let themselves be used as propaganda pieces by the Iranian government, do you? That's just ridiculous. John Smith's21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a credible reason why servicemen would freely apologise on the State TV of an unfriendly nation for propaganda purposes. I don't see anything weaselish about the current version - indeed it rather makes sense. The idea they freely apologised doesn't. John Smith's22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the period invokes a situation that involves both Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. The regions and dynasties and tribes all overlap so I'm not sure why it's confusing? Clarify please. Ciao. Tombseye23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. I will rewrite it when I get a chance and explain its significance and focus upon Azerbaijan as opposed to Iranian Azerbaijan. Tombseye00:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute tag has been re-instated, although not by me. Xmas1973 15:41, 25 March 2007 (BST)
What are you reporting me for? You can't use a dispute tag because you don't like the source. In this case the source is clearly indentified - let someone else decide whether it is a good source or not. I have also used the talk page more than anyone else. John Smith's14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not told me what you would be reporting me for. Also I have repeatedly used the talk page - I started a second section about it. Just because you do not believe a newspaper to be reliable does not mean you can dispute the entire section. As I said put some meaningful discussion with citations on its talk page. The current version does not use the newspaper story to assert this is the truth - it merely says the paper reported that. John Smith's15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know them well - so what IS the original research and NPOV? Please use the article talk page - I have even set up a new discussion. Your unwillingless to use the public place of discussion is strange. John Smith's15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you were editing 300, you might have noticed the notation in the edit page stating that information needed to be brought to the Discussion page, as consensus might have already decided about the edit subject, or that discussion might be ongoing. We are trying to avoid major changes to the article. I removed your changes, as they are being discussed in the Discussion area. Arcayne21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I warned, any further reverts to Azerbaijan (Iran) would lead to blocks: Talk:Azerbaijan_(Iran)#Unprotection. You just reverted the article again. Furthermore, you reverted it in violation of your revert parole, which requires you to give a rationale for each content revert. While you felt it necessary to warn the editor you reverted, you failed to give any reasoning for your revert at all. Please understand the reason fof this requirement: it's because you should be discussing instead of reverting. Making pronouncements like "refrain from making POV inclusions or changes" when reverting, instead of giving a reasoning, is not conducive to actual productive discussion and conflict resolution. Dmcdevit·t01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case involving you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has placed you on standard revert parole for a year. This means that you may revert only once per article per week except to revert obvious vandalism. Furthermore, you must explain your reasonings for content reverts on the associated talk page.
It was pretty much most. They did not have the Maragheh area. But they had Tabriz and Ganja. Feel free to add a source from Iranica. It says they ruled parts of central Iran as well. --alidoostzadeh23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should just put exactly what Iranica says. And the reference it <ref> .. --~~~~
Salam. On that page which I created under my talkpage.. right now I am editing it.. but once it is done feel free to make minor corrections. I rather not have any edits while I am editing it right now since it gets confusing. But feel free to comment if you see any minor errors. --~~~~
There are attested information and there are modern guesses. In the article it is explicitely mentioned which is which. Your suggestion simply implies to sweep the information under the carpet, something intolerable in the english wikipedia. ~~~~
Hello. We went over how to best approach the Azeri sections and we decided to keep it short and succint. I don't think further changes are necessary as all the information is there. Reiteration and redundnacy will reduce the article's quality and make people who are just casual readers stop reading. ~~~~
The Turkic theory is meant to mainly reflect that the region was invaded by bands of Oghuz, which is true. In fact the way it is in the article, I worded it so that it explains that the population was turkified. I don't know what concensus you are referring to as those of who wrote the article talked about how to approach these matters. what's the point of 8 different quotes that say the same thing? It would be better to add references to existing sections. ~~~~
This is not a right or wrong issue. The Turks did invade and they have left enough of a genetic legacy that there are links to Turkmenistan so it is not as if they just came and vanished completely. It is just that they were a minority (how big we do not know for certain) and the reason it is where it is because their cultural legacy is the most important out of the three origins of the Azeris. Removing it or changing it will serve no purpose, but to reignite conflict as the article goes through great pains to be neutral and does not at all claim that Azeris are largely descendents of migrants already. We have two quotes that are more than adequate and so I still don't see why further changes are needed. ~~~~
Adding sources is fine. I'm all for it as you can never have too many of them, but altering the article as it is serves no constructive purpose. ~~~~
I understand what you are saying, but if you read the section, it does not say the Azeris are descended largely from Central Asian Turks, but rather that turkification transformed the region as with some sentences I wrote like this: Most academics view this migration as the most likely source of a Turkic background, but one that most likely involved the turkification of predominantly indigenous peoples. In fact, readers should have a clear indication that although Turks came and were absorbed into the population moreso than neighboring areas they were not a majority and in fact culturally and linguistically transformed the region. thus, we are in sync with encyclopedias and references which claim likewise. The Caucasian/Iranic links are what the Azeris link to genetically MOSTLY, but not entirely as some Turkic admixture also took place and obviously they all a Turkic language etc. This same phenomenona can be traced to various Turkic groups west of Central Asia, although even there a mingling of Turkic invaders and native Iranians took place. I think it's fine the way it is, but feel free to present your view on the discussion page for the Azeri people and we'll go from there. Ciao. ~~~~
By the way, we do mention the Azaris in the Iranian section: As a precursor to these modern groups, the ancient Azaris are hypothesized as the main ancestors of the modern Azerbaijanis. ~~~~
I never said it was just genetic as we already mention historical references and place names: This claim is supported by the many Azerbaijani literary figures, such as Qatran Tabrizi, Shams Tabrizi, Nezami, and Khaghani, who wrote in Persian prior to and during the Oghuz migration, as well as by Strabo, Al-Istakhri, and Al-Masudi, who all describe the language of the region as Persian. The claim is mentioned by other medieval historians, such as Al-Muqaddasi.[50][44] Other common Perso-Azeribaijani features include Iranian place names such as Tabriz and Baku.[51] The Turkic theory does not claim that the Azeris are largely from Central Asia so I don't see what you mean by the article needs a lot of improvement. All of your suggestions are already there. Keep in mind that this article is already way too long and it made it to featured article status. References won't make a difference in terms of content as there is nothing more to add and the Turkic theory is implicit (as the word theory means just that) and it refutes a Turkic replacement view anyway so it is in fact a valuable part of the article and the origins section. ~~~~
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Arabian_gulf.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=96031979){kind=link}
