User talk:Khosrow II/Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Scytho-Iranian theory

Khosrov, hello again. Please stop vandalizing the "Scytho-Iranian theory". As you can see, many sources were added, and you are welcome to state your opposing facts and display, comment and list opposing sources. Vandalizm hurts yourself as much as it does hurt others. As a minimum you are not allowing other people that hold the same beliefs as you do to contribute their knowledge. Please use Wikipedia ethic guidelines to help yourself and others. Barefact 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did you write all of that yourself or did you just copy paste from another source? also, you need to site which source goes to which section of the artilce. that is what i mean. also, this is not a place for people to put down their "beliefes", its a place for facts and facts only. also, please add comments to the bottom of the page, not the top, and you do not need to create a new section everytime.Khosrow II 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theory

Hello, Khosrov, Please don't vandalize the "Scytho-Iranian theory", Wikipedia gives you plenty of opportunities to display, voice, and substantiate your beliefs without resorting to vandalizm. You can notice that the request for sources was addressed and a number of them were cited. To be constructive, you may want to add facts against the facts you want to dispute. Barefact 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 16:44, 28 July 2006[reply]

Tabriz Azerbaijani Carpet

hey Khosrov. Don't vandalize the Tabriz rug section. Tabriz has been, is and will be part of Azerbaijan. All of its citizens are Azerbaijanis. HOw come that the carpets these peeple make became persian. As Azerbaijani, I am proud of being Turkic origin Azerbaijani. I have nothing to do with persians. you, persians and me Azerbaijanis are different lantguages, different people, different, history, different civilizations. we are nothing more than neighbors. Sinze all Tabrizians are Azerbaijani, the carpets they make are Azerbaijani carpets/ rugs. You have stolen this name when northern Azerbaijan was under the Russian occupation. We are now independent and claim our culture and history. Tabriz rug is Azerbaijani rug and stop vandalizing and rewriting my correct information. For the ethnic population of Tabriz you can just visit Tabriz web site. If you continute of vandalizing Tabriz rug seciton, you will show your persian face nothing more. At the end you will force me to bring a mediator or administrator to solve the conflict coming from your stubborn and persian chauvinism. --Rembranth 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Aucaman

Please go to the following page and help me combat anti-Iranianism made by one particular user who is doing sneaky vandalism on most Persian related articles due to political and Zionist reasons, which have no place in an encyclopedia. The link that suports banning this user is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman, and also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. This would be appreciated.Zmmz 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Good to have more Iranians around --Kash 01:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's watching the Aryans page!!

We have all been spending all of our time on the Persian people page that No one's watching the Aryans page!! On the Persian people page everyone has been trying to stop User:Heja_helweda and User:Aucaman saying it is racist to use the term "Aryan" on the page that everyone forgot about the Aryans page. I was looking at the history of that page and I saw that User:Heja_helweda has made some changes. If you have some time please check out what has changed and try to fix any bad mistakes similar to the Persian Peoples page that they might have made. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics Test

Go here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genetic_origins_of_the_Kurds, and vote `strong delete` please, so a certain user would no longer be able to use some psuedoscience genetic test about `Kurds`, and constantly insert in the Iranian people article.Zmmz 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please go to this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman, and erase your statement that says, ``this user simply does not accept all the sources provided``. Then, write this very same statement under this section instead, Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Also, if you can please sign your name differently than Iranian Patriot, so you can sound more neutral, i.r., more effective. ThanksZmmz 18:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding this edit and others:

May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. (CJ) Keep in mind, you can be blocked for personal attacks against other users, regardless of the situation. --InShaneee 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Alternate

Hi, if you haven`t done so already, then go to the following links and quickly vote either ``Strongly delete``, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BKurdistan-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Kurdistan_stubs, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Kurdistan. Also, please go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako. ``I support`` the blocking of user Aucauman, Diyako, and Heja Helwelda. This is [so] tiresome. Thanks Zmmz 01:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you write this, “I support this request and everything mentioned here so far. This user simply does not accept all the sources provided. Recently he has inspired the other Kurdish nationalists to start a similar dispute on Iranian people article.. its ridiculous” in here[1]? If so, please erase it. ThanksZmmz 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

Hi. Please go here[2], erase your signature from section `Users certifying the basis for this dispute, and instead, sign under the section`Other users who endorse this summary`. ThanksZmmz 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the best thing to do in the Al-Khwarizmi article would be if we use both Persian, and Muslem, and not just either or. But, they keep changing it to only Muslem.Zmmz 05:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Wikipedians' Notice Board (WatchDog)

Please bookmark this page, for daily updates on the status of the Iran-related articles. Read notices posted by others or add your own notice by updating "Urgent view". --ManiF 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

Nevruz is not very similar to the Irnian festival of Norouz it is Norouz!

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Down

Please read WP:NPA and WP:Civility, discuss the issues, not the personalities. --ManiF 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support you!

Âfarin! Keep up the good work! Kirbytime 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have been trying to explain this. The biased edits of user:Grandmaster have resulted in edit wars in numerous articles with numerous editors. Did you read all the points I placed. I even put genetic evidence proving that Azaris are ethnic Iranians. Many Azaris do not consider themselves Turks. Please also spell it as AzAri, the Azeri spealling is only used by the minority in the Republic of Azarbaijan and by pan-Turkists. I invite you to join the WikiProject Azari/Azaeri so that you can help fix the articles on the Azari people. Please join and get involved with the discussions and articles. 72.57.230.179

I wanted to thank you for the support in the Nizami article. Keep it up please. --Ali doostzadeh 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to Bring this to your attention

Thank you for making usre that the Azari articles are not doctored or vandalized any further.

I want to bring something to your Attention

This was written[3] and this was the response [4].

Here is the translation: How are you. To soon to give a complicated comment. These protests have been forming a long time coming and they are ripening, this wan not and necessary the only occasion, so that it would splash out to the streets. The basic problem is the fact that they [Iran?/Persians? I don't know who, but he says they] reject tp the Azaris the right to thei national identity, the right to the development of their own language and distinct culture. You can see even here, in the consideration of articles, Iranian Azarbaijan and Azarbaijanians. Some Iranian participants insist on saying Azaris are an Iranian ethnicity, although it is widely-known that Azaris are Turkic. This is what is being represented or occuring in Iran itself. Conflict apparently on this basis, people [Azaris] require the protection of their cultural rights.

These is only the tip of the ice berg. 72.57.230.179

Look at the Disfigurement of Iranian History

Are these okay edits on the part of this user?

[5]

[6] There have been attempts at turning the article into a poster saying TURKISH/AZARI/NOT-IRANIAN etc. A lot of POV is being pushed.

The Azari-related articles are all massivly being deviated. Everyone should get proactive. The truth is established that Azaris are Iranians and not Turkic. 72.57.230.179

When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic

Please keep an eye on Azari and the talk:Azari. I have started the following in the discussion.

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge. 72.57.230.179

They still have not provided sitations. It is funny when we provide any links with Iran or Iranisn if there is not citations they delte it. ALso they keep on editing the article to say Possible Iranian Background when in fact it is established and proven and more factual and solid than the Turkic background. Watch that please. 72.57.230.179

I strongly agree with you about your proposal of the turkification. If they do not provide verification soonI will delete the section. Also pleace watch the intro for the article. Look at the history and you will see that we are fighting their vandalism. 72.57.230.179

Hello, Can you please find Iran's pre-rev. flag and post it on the "flag of iran" section becasue it is not there. I can't fint it anywhere on the net. Thanks

Iran and Persia

The proper and correct version is Iran. Persia in reality is a region of Iran. The term Persian for the national entity of Iran is inclusive, while Iran, the historically accurate and used ter, is exclusive to all the inhabbitants of the land. When Reza Shah Pahlavi asked Westerners to refer to the country as Iran instead of Persia, he did not change the national name, but wanted the proper name used. Iran is the correct term and many of the problmes faced in Iran are becuase of improper nomenclature that is a result of the Western term for Iran. Similar examples are the term England being used for all of the United Kingdom and Russia for the entire USSR. One problem that has arisen form the incorrect usage of the term Persia by Western Europeans in regards to Iran is that many Kurds think that the term Persia and Persian are interchangable with Iran and Iranian and when asked if they are Iranian say no thinking that they are being asked if they are Persian. It is this improper nomenclature imposed by the West that has caused many problems for Iran and the Middle East. The term Russian-IranianWar has always been in ciruclation and is today; it is the correcter form just like how October Revolution is the correcter for form for theRussian Revolution. Do you see the logic?

69.196.164.190

i agree with you, but the fact is that the west uses the term Persia in reference to iran until 1935, and after all, this is an english encyclopaedia. that is why i put iranian in parenthesis, so people know that Persia is infact in reality irarn.Iranian Patriot 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran was also being used as a secondardy term and was also used at the time. There is no harm in reflecting correct terminology in retrospect or retrojecting it. In fact laballing Azarbaijan as Persian territory makes it look like it is occupied. It was Iranian territory.

Take a look from a simple referance: [[7]]

Nationality

Noun: Iranian(s)

Adjective: Iranian

Ethnic divisions: Persian 51 percent, Azerbaijani 24 percent, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8 percent, Kurd 7 percent, Arab 3 percent, Lur 2 percent, Baluch 2 percent, Turkmen 2 percent, other 1 percent

It is totally incorrect to label the area as Persian. If you even tried to call the area Persian Azarbaijan it would cause major backlash. The nationality is Iranian. The term Persian only applies to a sample of the population, where as Iranian applies to all members. The differences are also inclusive (Persian) and exclsuive (Iranian). The errors of the past should not be built on. Even in that time till today scholars are using the term England to label the whole United Kingdom, which is not only wrong, but it has fuelled resentment in Scotland. Call a Scot an Englishman and they will get very upset, just like how a Kurd would get upset being called a Persian (Farsi/Parsi). The term Persia originally was used to denote Fars Province. The leaders of Iran from the time of Cyrus and Darius to the Qajars never called the country Persia, but always Iran as is written in and engraved into mountains and texts. There never was a Persian Empire, only an Iran or an Empire named after its ruling dynasty. And as for the use of the term Iranian being used before 1935, here is an example that validates the context if you are still in doubt;

During the first decade of the Russian rule, immigration into Karabakh almost exclusively consisted of Russian military, administrators and traders. However, following the conclusion of the Russian-Iranian War of 1826 – 1828 and Treaty of Turkmanchai of 1828, which led to the incorporation into the Russian empire, of eastern Armenia and northern Azerbaijan, a first wave of mass Armenian immigration into the area began. The first wave consisted of Armenian refuges from the hostilities in Persia. It is estimated that approximately 57 000 Armenians migrated to Karabakh and Yerevan province after 1828, while approximately 35 000 Muslims – Azeris, Kurds and Lezgins, and various nomadic tribes – out of population of 117 000 left the area. The Russian – Turkish Wars of 1855 – 56 and 1877-78 led to further migration. This time Armenians settled in Karabakh and other parts of Tsarist Transcaucasia having left Ottoman Turkey, replacing the many thousands of Muslims who were, at this time, fleeing the Russian empire. Such migrations, albeit on a lesser scale, were to continue until the end of the nineteenth century.

Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal by Tim Potier. ISBN: 9041114777

69.196.164.190

we are talking about history, not the present. its the same with the roman empire, should that be changed to italy? no, it was rome to the west and it has remained rome, the same with iran, it was persia to the west and the history of iran is still persia to the west. labling it persian territory means nothing more than it was a part of Persia (iran) at the time.

also, the Qajar's and Safavids both used the term Persia when dealing with the west.Iranian Patriot 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they used Iran: the term Persia was used only in translations, even alongside Iran. Have you studies any primary sources such as Treaties to see the terms used? FOr someone who uses the term Iranian Patriot you are actually doing the opposite by insisting that a term that was so derugratory to Iranians be used. 69.196.164.190

If we are talking about history you must also note that many of the term we use to denote many historical entities, if not the majority are modern. Such as Byzantine. This empire never called itself that and always referes to itself as Rome. If you want to even use the term Persia, I must then point out to you that Iran has been for a long period of time in the proto-West, even till the time of Cyrus, was refered to as Media, named after the Mede, by the Greeks because of the Medes dominace in Iran and Iranian Civilization. Are we using the term Media? No. Trust me I know what I am talking about. I appreciate your work in defending Iran, but you must also recognize that if you insist on certain practices like the term Persian in cases where it is inaccurate or totally wrong you will be an assesory to hurting Iranian history as the West has done for many years now. Very few people know that the knowledge of Aristotle or even SOcrates came from Iran. Even you will probably be shocked to read this and will probably find next to nothing on this information unless you think critically and look at primary sources. I am not a historical revisionist, but an actual historican who wants justice done to the topic of history.

69.196.164.190

you are getting everything mixed up, and you are confusing yourself. this is english wikipedia, therefore the term persia is being used. like you said, there are many terms being used that are not accurate, like byzantium for example, but as you can see, no one has a problem calling it the byzantine empire, because this is how we historically know it. persia is how the west knows irans history. and internationally, especially in europe, irans monarchs DID use the term persia becaues they were dealing with the west, as is evident from newspapers and magazines at the time as well as treaties.

also, the koreans dont call their country korea, they call it choson, so should we also change that on wikipedia just because the west made a mistake? no, that is how korea is known in the west. you are confusing yourself, and taking this too far. i put iran in parenthesis next to persia so the westerners would know that persia is actually iran.Iranian Patriot 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your argument is flawed. Both the terms Korea and Chosen are not used as Persia and Iran were and still are, neither do they both exist in English as definitions of two related by specifically deferent entities. There is an English definition seperately for Persia/Persian and Iran/Iranian. As for my point on Media, it was what Iran was refered to historically for a period, in what was the proto-West, but we are not refering to the EMpire of Cyrus the Great by that term as the Greeks originally did. SO this demonstrates that erminology can change. A further justification is changin terminology when it is incorrect. I will also direct your attention when Reza Shah insisted that the proper name of Iran only be used he also asked for the same to be applied to Iranian history. 69.196.164.190

the greeks called iran media when it was ruled by the medes, and the west now calls it media because of that. the greeks called iran persia when it was ruled by the persians, and the west still calls iran persia because of that. the only thing that changed was that the greeks were no longer influential enough to determine what the west called an entity. the romans adopted the term persia and kept it and all of western society refers to iran's history as persia. and guess what, the greeks called their land hellas, yet the west calls them greeks. and both terms are in use in western societies, hellenistic and greek, but greeks keep the name greece in english because that associates english speakers with their countries history. the same with iran.

also, if you havent read my previous suggestions on the iranian wikipedia page, i suggested that we put iran in parenthesis after the word persia in anything related to iran pre-1935, and only use the term iran when dealing with anything after 1935. this will clear everythign up for westerners and its a compromise for iranians.Iranian Patriot 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion, which I will suggest you apply. Once again, I must point out that Hellenic/Hellas and Greek/Greece mean the same thing where as Persian/Persia and Iranian/Iran do not. There is no problem with using and interchanging the terms Hellas and Greece, while their is an academic problem in interchanging the terms Persia and Iran. There are absilutely two different (and in certain elements overlapping) defintions for Persian and Iranian. The problem is that Hellenic and Greek are the same thing, while Persia in relaity is a sub-division or minion of Iran and Persian a sub-class of Iranian. This is why there is a problem. These two are in fact two real, existing and seperate entities. While Greece and Heles are not, Gremany and Deutchland, Albania and Shqipërisë, Georgia and Sakartvelo, etc. are not. It is alright to call Germans by the term Germans, even though they are really Deutch, becuase thre is only one entity in defintion. Defining a nationality means more than language it also involves genius and specific definition or destinction. Persian and Iranian can not be used interchangably in scholastic terms becuase they have two different meanings. You follow? 69.196.164.190

again, like i said, in the west, the terms persia and iran are interchangable for them. you are thinking like an iranian, but what you have to do is think like a westerner, because this is a western encyclopaedia. i think putting iran in parenthesis is enough to educate the west about iran. the tranisition has to be smooth, not sudden.Iranian Patriot 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am thinking like physical anthropologist and genealogist. The fact is that two seperate identites, which exist in practical acadmia, in any language are being changed intergenably when they have seperate definitons. There would be no problem, if in English there was one defintion, but there is not. As you can see by clicking Iranian peoples and Persians. This is the conundrum. By lingustic concepts of definition alone, it is invalid to use casual means of defining. I am not trying to change anything, I am merely trying to enforce the correct English and Western definition for Iranian and Persian as is recognized in post-secondary institutes now that specialize in Iranology. Once again, there is no problem with having alternative terms for a specific definition, such as Hellenic and Greek (because they are one and the same in English), but Iranian and Persian are not one or/and the same subject/definition in the English language itself or any contemporary Western language.

BTW: I think you should join the Azari Wiki project as well since you have helped edit in relations to Azaris who are an Iranian people that contrary to some biased edits are in fact proud Iranian patriots. 69.196.164.190

have you been educated in the west? i know you are right, and i think the same way you do, but if you have gone to school in the west, you will know why it is important to keep persia. everythign dealing with iran's history in the west is though as persia. what if a high school student is doing research on iran, but is looking under persia because that is what he/she has been taught? many westerners know the term iran as modern, and the term persia as the empire. that is why it is important to keep the term persia (with iran in parenthesis ofcourse). the transition has to be smooth, not sudden, we cannot change things over night because that will confuse people, we need to do it slowly, by doing what i am suggesting, putting the terms in parenthesis so people will be educated on the truth.Iranian Patriot 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank that is what, I do excpet on pages where there are historical revisionist and people with political motivations trying to rewrite history. I normaly write Iran (Persia) for the nation when in a historical context, but never Persian, just Iranian, but I make sure it is done in association with Iran (Persia). YOu can understand why I wouldn't do it on a page swamped with editors that are anti-Iranian, such as the Azari or Kurdistan articles, right? That in itself is another reason for exclsuive terminology like Iranian over inclusive terminology like Persian. As for education if I was educated in the West, it depends on what your definition is on the West? I can tell you that one of Majors is in the field of Classical Studies. As for Iran, I have never really been there. 69.196.164.190

Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has just been created. Would you like to join us? Aelfthrytha 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what would i have to do? im kind of new in terms of how to do things on wikipedia, but i will consider it if i know what the requirements are. thanks.Iranian Patriot 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are participating in lots of different ways. The ones you mentioned would help, but so would adding stub tags or categories to articles if you see them missing (helps others find them to improve them) or just watching and fixing grammar like you said. If you want to join, come to the wikiproject page and add your name under the list of participants. We don't have any specific requirements other than interest and some sort of work on the articles. Aelfthrytha 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way IP; Khorasan, Iran is a part of Central Asia. I added to the project page. 69.196.164.190

Joining Wikiproject Iran

To join just add your signature minus the date and stuff to the list of members found here and just keep up to date and help with the tasks. We are happy to have a new addition to the team! --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also thanks for your support on the List of the localities around Tehran page!--(Aytakin) | Talk 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Gift for you My friend, a true Patriot

This user supports the reunification of the Republic of Azarbaijan with the motherland Iran

Added to your user, page. I saw it on user:Zereshk's page. Nice, eh? 69.196.164.190

Take a look at this article and tell me what is wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_literature

There is definitly POV in this article. 69.196.164.190

thanks for the notice, i fixed it.Iranian Patriot 15:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, everything is 'fixed?' Methinks it might only be temporary. 69.196.164.190

well, i fixed a lot of it, but there are still some things that we need to work on. right now, i am discussing some changes with timbits. see the talk page.Iranian Patriot 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zereshk has brought a lot of legitimate points to the article too as can be seen on the discussion page. He is extremly knowledgebale on Azaris. The article definitly needs to be revamped. 69.196.164.190

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but im not really an expert on the whole palaeologus/palaiologos issue. i dont think i would be of much help.Iranian Patriot 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your Hard Work

I am not sure if an anon such as myslef can give these, but in recognition of editing and working hard on Iranian articles (including the Azari articles) and the creation of the Sassanid Church article I want to present these to you. Fell free to move it around and put it on your user page. 69.196.164.190

Thank you.Iranian Patriot 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian-Patriot, Don’t worry, no hard feelings, I was just trying to stop an argument but you two managed it yourself pretty well. I think I am too old for this place; I better leave you guys to have your cat fights. Bye. Kiumars 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Patriot, I hope you don't think I was not talking to you on Kiumars talk page I was talking to him. I never said you were trolling. 69.196.164.190

Iranian Patriot, See my reply to your post on my talk page. Cheers, Kiumars 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijani people

Duste aziz, IMHO i believe perhaps its better to put energy in other articles, instead of trying to change an already settled and more or less neutral article. Ba sepaas. --Spahbod 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on July 17 2006 (UTC) to Azerbaijani people

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

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is that i am the only one ever discussing anythign in the talk page. everyone else either doesnt participate or purposely ignores. everything i added is factual.Khosrow II 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! Addbot (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents

Please watch this page and post your public messages on this page so that everybody may have access to it. Thanks --Aminz 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabrizi rugs

How about contacting an admin?! Tājik 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Please remove the tags for now, as normal uses cannot protect pages. Considering my involvment with all this recently, I'd rather not protect them myself, but you can request another admin do it as Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --InShaneee 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabriz rug

Hi there,

I am 100% with you on this matter, as I tried to explain in the talk page. I am relatively new to wikipedia and I don't know the rules. If my support for your position in the dispute is of any use, I will be glad to write to the persons in charge. I just don't know where I should write my comments.

keep up the good work.

Tabriz rug II

Hi there,

I did as you told and registered as well. So you asked about me, well I am Iranian and actually half Azari from my father's side (unfortunately I don't speak the language) and have been living in Europe for the past 16 years. My main involvement here began by accident, when I tried to get some information about Babak khorramdin and history of Azarbaijan on the net. The articles proved to be full of inaccuracies and on occasion direct lies. So I have decided to contribute getting wikipedia rid of political misinterpretation of history.

cheerio

Rembranth

Hi,

What can we do with Rembranth's vandalism? He seems to be very persistant!

Arash the Bowman 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already contacted two admins and none of them have done anything. I will talk to them again.Khosrow II 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Azarbaijan

It redirects to Azerbaijan (Iran). BhaiSaab ^talk 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin. stuff

Actually, I'm not an admin. as I simply don't have the time to be one. Also, I wasn't ignoring your, I just haven't been on for a few days. I'm busier than I was a month ago so I haven't been checking up on what's going on here. As for conflict resolution, if someone does what you're saying then an admin. can simply ban their IP address. Ciao. Tombseye 21:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theory

Khosrov, hello again. Thank you for stopping vandalizing the "Scytho-Iranian theory". I will gladly answer your questions about the source, I already added the Abaev's name (his real non-Russified Ossetian name is Abayty Vako in distorting Russian transcription) as a source every time a statement relies on his work. I tried to use Abaev's statements as close to the original as possible, to make sure that they are verifiable without distortion, and anybody can check them out. All the numbers are taken directly from the Abaev's work. You can check them even if you do not read Russian (he published his work not in his native Digorian, but in Russian). There is no direct copying, because none of the citations were originally prepared for a publication like a Wikipedia article. But to ensure accuracy of transmission, the author's language is used as much as possible. Abaev's "Ossetian language..." is based on his prior "Ossetian grammar..", which essentially prepared all the facts he is citing in his "Ossetian language...". I am not much interested in opinions, just the facts, and facts should form POV's, not the other way around. If you could influence other people from vandalizing, that would allow other people that hold the same beliefs as you do to contribute their knowledge.

My question is, if I do not add the header, how would you know where the response belongs to? So, provisionally I am adding the header, you are welcome to reformat my answer to make it correct.

Barefact 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was too fast to thank you for your civility, my apologies. As you can see yourself, the text of the article is original, but the contents are not, the validity of the Scytho-Iranian theory was questioned for as long as the hypothesis exists, and the article makes an extensive use of the sources.

As far as your idea of "Pan-Türkism" is concerned, the facts can't be "Pan-Türkic" or "Pan-Iranist", a fact is a fact, statements of classical authors are statements of classical authors, and deletion of factual context is a vandalizm, which is a fact also, not some "POV". You can vandalize the text for a time, but you have no chance in erasing the genetics, classical testimony, or the properties of the language. These facts were published as books, reports, studies, are widely available to any scholar or a curious layman, and can't be censored. If you want to discuss the facts, it can be done outside of Wikipedia, to follow its rules. But you have to stop your vandalizm under any excuse you have came up so far.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

there are two problems with your "addition". 1) it was a copy paste and 2) it was from a pan turk website. The wikipedia policies are on my side, you want to have an admin decide this for us? I would be very happy.Khosrow II 22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Dear Khusraw, I want to tell this dude that the Scytho-Iranian article needs to be deleted. The scytho-Iranian is a fact now and everyone accepts it. Ossetian is also an Iranian language. One can not go back to theories of 100 years ago and now claim western scientists want to be politically correct and that is why Scythians are Iranic. No the evidences are very clear that Scythians were Iranian and thatt is why major academics and institutions and encyclopedias have accepted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scytho-Iranian_theory --Ali doostzadeh 02:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazynasBot

User:CrazynasBot is a bot operated my me to subst template messages per WP:SUBST. The warnings that the bot edits are not reviewed by a person to check the accuracy of the warning, please check the page history and talk to the person that issued the first (unsubsist'ed) message. If you find a problem with the bot itself please leave a message on it's talk page as that will stop it's operation until someone checks to see what the problem is. Cheers.Crazynas^t 07:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Seljuk_prince.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theory

Ok, it may be original research (in that case AFD it), but it's not copyvio. —Khoikhoi 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by making it more neutral (by including the Iranian POV in the article). If you still want to delete it, the instructions are here. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casus

I want to preface my comments with acompliment on your user page - I found it quite informative and spent the last 15 minutes on reading precipitated by it.

The cause of hostilities in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is held in consensus by the UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera. There are tons of discussion in the archive - please check there before changing that again. And I say the same for the casualty numbers and other statements that are controversial, as we've worked hard to hammer out compromises that are NPOV. You should also be careful about adding statements that could be construed as unbalancing the neutrality of certain sections, and if you do add something, make sure it is sourced. Feel free to me any questions about this, or to initiate discussion on Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we could go back 60 years - there is a place for background (which I believe is ample, though you can raise the issue on Talk), but the introduction is not the place. In general, I highly suggest you review the Talk in order to acquaint yourself with the consensus that we have achieved, so that you can only spend your time dealing with parts of the article that are actually contested. Tewfik^Talk 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly will not "leave it alone." Your POV additions are not "fine," and if you review talk like I suggest, you will see that your edits are in stark contrast to consensus. If you like, you are welcome to engage in civil discussion on Talk. Tewfik^Talk 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of a qualification to the consensus of what happened for one (in the introduction), as well as the two or three [unsourced] rebuttals of statements in the articles are textbook examples of WP:NPOV violations - please read the policy as well as the page's Talk. Tewfik^Talk 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, are about to violate W:3RR. Please discuss on talk instead of unilaterally editing. Tewfik^Talk 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you

Hi,

Are you the guy who do yk varzash razmi? Are you the guy who like memary sonnati? Are you the guy who virarastar khabar englisi and enjoyed from dooble? If you are that man, then I'm the guy who help you with teyolarz.--Azmanet 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work and thanks for bringing it to my attention

I am busy right now and do not have too much time to edit that article.. but include the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and the quotes from Dr. Atabaki's book. Also I linked Barthold. --Ali doostzadeh 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Also the Iranica article I mentioned about Azadistan. Dr. Atabaki also mentions the Azadistan on pg 50 and why it changed. Send me an email and I'll send you the scan page of Atabaki's book just incase you need it. --Ali doostzadeh 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Zaparojdik 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC]

Salâm Khosrow. I've left a comment at the talk page - let me know what you think! —Khoikhoi 00:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've replied to your reply. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zaparojdik

Hey, thanks for understanding. I think at this point the best thing we can do is either report him on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or Wikipedia:Long term abuse or better yet we could do all of these. -- Clevelander 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Give me some examples of issues that you've had with him first so we can make a record. -- Clevelander 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I changed your map slightly (I hope you don't mind). The Laz-speaking people of the Black Sea were shown as Turkish speakers and you had some Turkish speaking-Azeri spilling over into Armenia (who have been largely expelled during the Nagorno-Karabakh War as part of a forceful population exchange between Armenia and Azerbaijan). I also added areas in Iraq where the Iraqi Turkmen live as well as Northern Cyprus. -- Clevelander 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read this, it seems that both of you seem to be at odds. Instead of the options I suggested above, I think that a better solution would be administrator mediation. I suggest you contact FrancisTyers when he returns from his vacation. -- Clevelander 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(to Khosrow) What good is it going to do if I take your side so we can both yell at him? That will never solve the conflict. I recall someone saying awhile back that the important thing in Wikipedia is compromise, not dictate. You can sit and aruge with Zaparojdik about every asepct of pan-Turkism, or you can try to come to a solution. This edit war is no less silly than the one at Urmia or Tabriz rugs. —Khoikhoi 17:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make one with him right now, how does this look? —Khoikhoi 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Ask Zaparojdik what he thinks and then take it off WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between say, Turks living in Bulgaria and Turks in the Altai Republic. For the latter, they don't just live there, their language is official there, and they are probably a part of the local government. The state is called, Altai Republic, not Russian Republic. Compare for example Andorra where native Andorrans are a minority in their own land, or Jordan which is 80% Palestinian. —Khoikhoi 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that myself, but I don't think Zaparojdik would agree to that. You should try asking him. —Khoikhoi 19:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scythia - Acathyrsi - consensus

To achieve consensus, the article has to stay in for scrutiny of the users. By deleting the contents, you not only suppress any possible exchange, but deny users a chance to view the contents. In response to Arash criticism, I've added statement by Herodotus that should justify pertinency. Please stop vandalizing.

Barefact 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Scythia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Barefact 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic peoples

It would be against the protection policy to make a change like that while the article is protected, but based on the talk page discussion I have decided to just unprotect the page. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 23:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Prodego ^talk 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about Buddy!

Dear Khosrow, You had written in "The history of name of Azerbaijan" that you are reverting my vandalism and accused me to vandalism!! Could you tell me what kind of vandalism I did? I even do not remember that I edit that page. I just removed the dispute tag yesterday and I have never edited that page? You can check my history if you found that I am right you owe me sth buddy.--behmod talk 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoL!! No problem! Good Luck in your anti-vanalism effort!

جمهوری آذربایجان

Ok...but it's still a pretty fucked up thing to do. I certainly wouldn't like it if I spent a long time revising an article, adding my own references, and then finding it all to be reverted the next day. People don't have to discuss every edit they make... —Khoikhoi 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but what my concern is that it might trigger another edit war. Next time my suggestion is to go through all this edits individually and review them, then keep or change whatever you like. Of course it's easier to just revert them all, but it's better to revert them one by one (& possibly keep some if you think) with explanations in edit summaries for each one.

I'm sorry for being rude, I've just been in a bad mood lately. :( —Khoikhoi 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I didn't know that. I thought you had just reverted on-sight. —Khoikhoi 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barefact

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=35

On the republoc of Azerbaijan issue check the talk page.. There are few sources that mention Caucasian Albania as part of Armenia, Georgia and then Azerbaijan (in this order with Armenia being the most). This has to do when a single ruler might have controlled all three.. I brought some new quotes.. I think we can all reach compromise on that article and learn. Also check my complaint against the user barefact. --Ali doostzadeh 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep an eye on [Ossetic] since barefact is going against every source available. --Ali doostzadeh 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you have time, see the two links I provided in the Azerbaijan-name issue entery (35,36) or (34,35). You might want to add it in. --69.86.16.239 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuk dynasty

Hi,

Would you please take a look at the history of Talk:seljuq dynasty page! I need to know the rule of the game here. Who do you think is right about the Turkey related banner me or Adam Bishop?

best wishes Arash the Bowman 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Reply

I'm reverent to the rules. But if you keep continue to revert the changes without reading the references I gave and without debating, this will be considered vandalism. And as far as I know, this is certainly out of our rules. If someone makes a change giving his/her references, the best way should be to ask him/her why he/she did this change before reverting. If you go on like this, you can be sure that I will try my best to block your actions. Thank you. Kizzuwatna 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Thanks for reverting vandalism to Andre Agassi, as you did here, but please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Such an edit summary is likely to push vandals away from Wikipedia, instead of correcting them and helping them become constructive editors. --Chris (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azeris in Iran

Allright, I guess I see what you're saying, I suppose you get your stuff from [9] and [10]. :p Would you mind if we just say "alleged" on the page then? —Khoikhoi 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story, by the way. I think I've heard that before somewhere else. —Khoikhoi 18:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi

Rumi is again suffering from ill-informed edits. I'm going to revert for a second time today, perhaps a third, but you might want to take a look yourself. Best, -Anthony Krupp 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English words of Persian Origin

Hi,

That page is a mess now, with lots of speculative entries which undermine the good entries like Sugar. Let's just concentrate on words that are found in Merriam-Webster or Eymology Online or other English laguage dictionaries. Cheers Heja Helweda 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating a section in multiple article

Hello. You seem to have duplicated the same Controversy section in the following entries: Azerbaijan#Controversy, History_of_Azerbaijan#Controversy, Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#Controversy, and Arran_(Azerbaijan)#Controversy. This in inappropriate. Those articles can link to such a section, but duplicating the text is excessive and harms the quality of the encyclopedia. Please remove these from all but one of the entries and link to it instead. Thanks. El_C 07:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Here is my e-mail:

sb@mb.au.dk

cheers Arash the Bowman 13:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ

Hey Khosrow,

Can you tell me what language this is in? —Khoikhoi 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, that's all. Is "إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ" how you say "Heydar Aliyev" in Arabic? —Khoikhoi 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks anyways. BTW, I found an article you might like: [11]. ;-) Enjoy! —Khoikhoi 21:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I assumed you've seen it before. :p I don't really have the time to read it, however. —Khoikhoi 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/Qanun

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Qanun, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Same condition:

Please read history of these articles and so the articles Ceng , Afghan Rubab.

ZANDWEB T

List of Turkic states and empires

A list of Modern-former Turkic states is not a "junk", especially in the article of List of Turkic states and empires. I do not understand why you deleted the list. Kaygtr 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insult

In Timeline of astronauts by nationality you have accused me of vandalism before first looking at the explaination of my action in the talk page. --Gerry Ashton 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism to deliberatly erase a reference from an article, as some anonymous editor did to the Timeline of astronauts by nationality yesterday; several other instances of vandalism came from the same IP address, and I repaired them all. Unfortunately, I was not familiar with the format of the timeline article and did not arrange the information in the way you would like. Not doing a perfect job of arranging information is not vandalism. You had your chance to appologize; that chance is gone. --Gerry Ashton 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject iran phpbb forum

what do you have for a problem, that we added a url like wikiproject iran in phpbb style? tell me this please! i talk about this url: http://www.pan-iranism.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=34 give a argumentation please, sepas

Seljuq dynasty

You broke the 3RR. :( However, if you revert yourself it doesn't count... —Khoi khoi 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. —Khoi khoi 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. —Khoi khoi 20:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

Ok, I won't discuss with you now, it's some different :) , I don't know much about Turks or Turkics in Khorasan. If you know can you tell me or give a link about historicly Turkic minority of Khorasan. -Zaparojdik 00:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Seljuq Dynasty, you do Iranian propaganda everywhere. You are not neutral and correct. Changing into my logic of the article doesnt called as Vandalism, remember this is "free encyclopedia"!! -Zaparojdik 23:46 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Hazara

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The March to War

Look at these; they are well documented. This is the place to keep your eye on... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=N20060921&articleId=3299 69.196.164.190

Blocked for disruption

Your revert war on Hazara is not too amuzing. You and User:Zaparojdik have been blocked for disruption for 24 hours. After the block expires, please come back and discuss the changes, do not revert war even if it does not techincally violated WP:3RR and do not accuse each other of vandalism.--Konstable 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

Do you want help from your other accounts? Trust yourself ;) Zaparojdik 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about to me :\ Zaparojdik 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not amusing

Khosrow, this is not amusing. You reverted me again without even taking notice of what I wrote on the talkpage. This is highly unfair and very, very poor style. You guys seem to have a system of not allowing any edits to "your" articles from outside your own clique, right? Well, for now I'm tired of this game, I'll just go and research the matter further and come back to rewrite the article when I have much better references. You seem to have none at all. FellFairy 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd actually read my edits, you'd see that I doubt there was such an "agreement" as you say. The Schofield text that's referenced says: "Along with the status of Bahrain and the Shatt al-Arab, the dispute over the Gulf islands prevented Britain and Iran from successfully concluding the Anglo-Persian General Treaty negotiations, begun in the late 1920s. Various compromises suggested then, typically the one whereby Sharjah's title to Abu Musa would be recognised by Iran in return for acknowledgement of its rights to the Tunbs, never saw the light of day." So when was that agreement made you claim existed? I think the onus is on you to prove there was one. But anyway, I'm not going to edit the article again until I've researched this further. Maybe you should do the same.

By the way, you also blindly reverted my change to the Persian transcription of the name. My Persian is quite poor still, but I thought this was the correct transcription ("Tonb-e bozorg", not "Tunb-e buzurg" etc.), and that's also what a Persian contributor had said on the talk page. If I'm mistaken, you can please say so, but don't just revert what I write without giving a reason please. FellFairy 19:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Now I know who yelled at me back in February—it was you! :p —Khoi khoi 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No man, I knew that, but this was before you got an account, do I just had to confirm it. ;-) —Khoi khoi 06:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Ask yourself this, however: how did you learn history? You learnt it growing up, of course. Do you think everything that you learned is 100% accurate? I'm not saying the pan-Turkist spin on history is correct (it's not), but just remember to look at all sides of an issue before you judge other sides. Is the "truth" always going to reflect the Iranian point of view? Is it them or you has been mislead? (not pan-Turkists, but simply Turkish and/or Azeri historians) —Khoi khoi 10:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually admire that (about the conversion thing). :-) BTW, certain ethnic groups always try to claim historical figures as their own, that's just nationalism and it's not specific to pan-Turks. As for Muhammed, I believe you're talking about our good friend Namık Kemal Zeybek, that made me laugh as well. Niyazov is just crazy, however. See also: Renaming of Turkmen months and days of week, 2002. —Khoi khoi 04:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring on Panturkism

Please refrain, otherwise I will need to block you and other parties +/- protect the page. Refdoc 10:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim

Salām wa dorūd, dōst-e azīz. Please keep a watchful eye on the articles Mughals, Timurid dynasty, Babur, Turco-Mongol, and Timur. The above mentioned user is - once again - pushing for unsourced POV.

Due to lack of time, I won't be much active in the comming 3 months - so please keep an eye on these articles. I trust you ...

Tājik 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Azerbaijanis

Did not realize there was a dispute going on there, and really have no reason to be involved, so I'm staying out of it at least without some serious fact checking beforehand. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on List of Azerbaijanis

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

Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did you rest well? Baristarim 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly written in the policy that it is every 24 hours, I am sure you were aware of that when you reported Zaprodjk, how did u report him if you hadn't read the policy? :)) In any case, doesn't matter who created the name or whatever, what is important is how people define themselves today, you say u r American for example, the same thing.. They speak the same language, they both call themselves Azerbaijani, this has nothing to with pan-turkism or anything, this has to do with modernity in the sense that we should accept people as how they refer to themselves, doesn't matter what their ethnicity is or what they were hundreds of years ago.. Whatever u might say, I am not nationalist, I don't discuss nationality but I discuss people who discuss nationality, u see what I mean? Your analogy with Americans and Canadians was not correct btw. Baristarim 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gaugamela

Even if you disagree with the numbers ancient writers give for the Persian troops do not remove them from the article. Just write WHY you disagree with them on the article page. There is no reason they should not be present. Please do not force me to report you. Removing text with references to suit your agenda is vandalism. The article is poorer if it does not includes what ancient Greek and Latin writers have to say. I have changed the wording towards more NPOV, the article does not take a position over what was the size of Darius' army. Do not POV it Ikokki 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Iranians notice board

Yes, but for things like working to improve/expand Iran-related articles, cleanup, etc. Not for vote stacking or inviting people to help out in edit wars. :-) —Khoi khoi 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Khosrow, you're posting this at the Iranian noticeboard, not just a noticeboard for Wikipedians in general. It's obvious that people of the same nationality are going to tend to have the same views on things (of course not all). If you're going to have this note, please also post it at WikiProject Azeri and WikiProject Turkey (because everyone needs to know about it). —Khoi khoi 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they chose not to because it's not the right thing to do. Khosrow, you can have a notice that the article has POV problems, but it's not ok to have it say, "please vote". If they click on the article, they will see the AfD anyways.

Besides, you can tell right now that the article is going to be deleted without the help of multiple Iranian users voting "delete", so I think it's unecessary. —Khoi khoi 04:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the way we "voice our opinions" at AfDs is by saying "keep", "delete", or "merge"... —Khoi khoi 05:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's still votestacking. This was back in August—please let me know if something like this happens again. —Khoi khoi 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??

Dude, you got to chill.. The edit that I made in the C of OE article was much more encyclopedic than the last version, and it preserved the essence of its message.. If u keep on calling every edit that I make pan-turkist I will report u to admins per WP:PA. Please relax, if u r not going to be able to contribute positively to Wiki please get involved with another blog on the Net.. Baristarim 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this [12]?? Are you trying to recruit meatpuppets? please stop this disruptive behavior.. If you continue like this I will report u to admins along with a lot of people who are not happy with your unconstructive behavior.. Baristarim 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any map, please try to look and read the page before you comment, I reverted to last version by khoikhoi that included both maps.. Baristarim 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding this: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --InShaneee 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to warn you again. Disrespectful comments such as this will not be tolerated, and if you continue in such a manner, you will be blocked from editing. --InShaneee 01:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to 'take care' of anyone, and if you two can't back off and calm down, I'm going to have to block you both for disruption. --InShaneee 01:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, BOTH of you need to discuss edits and stop edit warring. --InShaneee 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support InShaneee's comments and will also block both of you for disruption if you both don't calm down and start discussing your differences constructively. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally try to avoid mediating on content alone, but that sounds like an interesting situation. Could you point me to the link and the relevant sources? --InShaneee 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see the image...but what exactly is its source? Is it known? --InShaneee 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map original research warning

If one of the editors has prepared that map, that is pure original research, it can be removed immediately per Wiki policies WP:OR.. It concerns a contested topic, not like the picture of a street in a city, or the picture of a map, therefore editors don't have a right to publish their own materials in Wiki as they constitute their own theses in a contested topic.. The other map is sourced from a non-Turkish German academic research, therefore it carries thousand times more weight than that map, which, in the eyes of Wiki policies, has no weight at all.. Pls see [[13]]. Baristarim 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The map

Holy crap, you're right! I hadn't noticed. I've replaced it with the French map... —Khoi khoi 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. —Khoi khoi 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not - compare Iran and Kazakhstan on both maps, it's less exaggerated. —Khoi khoi 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My three points:

For the Turks in Eastern Europe, see Turks of Western Thrace and Turks in Bulgaria.
The Turks in Crimea are the Crimean Tatars, I'm not sure what the ones in brown are.
The map you and Cleve made is excellent, but remember that Wikipedia has a policy against original research, and we should also include maps that are sourced.

—Khoi khoi 01:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this khosrow? [14] You have been doing this for ages about every article to recruit meatpuppets.. once again under attack?? How dare you judge the contributions or efforts of other users like this? STOP, if you don't and this continues, I will be reporting to u and the rest of your gang to admins.. Baristarim 01:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

Khosrow, I've just been through a ton of your recent edits. I've blocked you for 48 hours for POV pushing, edit warring and general disruption. When you come back, please treat other editors respectfully and behave like someone who wants to collaborate instead of trying to run roughshod over everyone. Oh, and comments like this and this had nothing to do with my block, but seriously, not helpful. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timur

Could you please have a look at the article Timur?! Thx. Tājik 13:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Look

Please stop giving me orders. The articles on those poets seem to state they are Azerbaijani, so I think he is right to list them there. If the articles are wrong, you'll have to take it up with the editors over there first. He reverted himself on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, didn't he? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "so talk to Baristarim" sounded like an order. I understand what you're saying about the Azerbaijani, but the biographies categorise them as Azerbaijani. I think, if you want to remove them from the list, you should first get the other articles corrected. There is already some discussion on Talk:Nezami about it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no offence taken, i have to log off for the moment anyways.. I am not too familiar with the issue, so i will have to look into it.. :) Baristarim 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make comments inside other people's comments.[15] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added "(he is going to reply to what I am writing right now btw, that's for sure, and he will do so here instead of using my talk page, publicity at all costs!!)" to his comment. See: [16] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume anything and I don't have a pre-conceived notion about you. When I clicked on "new message" it showed red that you added it. Then when I went into the history and compared his last edit to yours, it showed red that you added it. Maybe there's a bug, but even now when I click on the link it shows (for me) that you added it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you telling me not to edit it??? I have no idea why you would say that because I have never made any significant edits to any of these articles. But if anyone wants to edit them, you have no right to suggest they can't. Please see WP:OWN. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought you were directing that comment towards me, but still, he can edit if he wants to. I'm happy we've averted some edit wars today. Thanks Khosrow and have a good night. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historian (!)

Exactly my point.. The question was not if a university student like u would use his yahoo or univ address, it was if an academician would use it.. As I said, you would hardly find a Harvard professor who would sign his academic theses with his bigjohn@hotmail.com address rather than jonathan.mcnamara@harvard.edu address (just an example) - come on, am I wrong?? :))) He is such a renowned historian and iranologue, but no university has hired him as an academician, even symbolically? Most of respectable free-lance academicians out there have at least symbolic ties to universities and prominent NGOs (honorary chairs, associate researchers etc), anyone who has a basic understanding of the academic world knows this. And enough with conspiracy theories, Mossad is not going to drive around eastern turkey with a bunch of Suburbans broadcasting TR language programs, Turkey can do that itself and would be extremely offended if Mossad were to do so for them.. Mossad can do much more serious stuff, u would be insulting them if u claim that that story is true, believe me :)).. Serious and respectable academicians always present their sources and proofs for their theses, and in this case I didn't see any such proof.. Anybody can write books u know, every month I write legal statements and opinions that are much more academic and better sourced than that weirdo report of that guy :))) I wouldn't consider him an academician properly speaking, anyone can call themselves a historian.. Look, all I am trying to say is that being a university student is one thing, but being out in the real world and having understood how the world works is a different thing.. Also, I told u this before, please refrain from posting a reply to me in other people's talk pages!!!! It is common courtesy :)) If u got something to tell me, don't be afraid and use my talk page.. cheers!Baristarim 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]