User talk:PanjshirPashtun

Welcome

Hello PanjshirPashtun, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

PanjshirPashtun, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the link for axworhty's materials can be found here http://books.google.com/books?id=O4FFQjh-gr8C&pg=PA11&dq=nader+shi'a&hl=en&ei=xhulTK-KFcO88gat9uDjCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nader%20shi'a&f=false

Edit-warring

Do you actually understand the subject at hand? Nader Shah was not crowned Shah of Iran until 1736. Do not keep adding that the "Afsharid dynasty" was established in 1729, because it wasn't. Tahmasp II was crowned Shah of Iran in 1729, not Nader. --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just violated the three-revert rule. If you revert again I will report you. --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

hey bro, i can direct you to more sources describing the Qizilbash roots of the Afshars if you wish. The Afshars are not Turkmen, they are Turcoman and they originally came from the Azeri regions of Northwestern Iran; Shah Ismail I sent them, along with the Qajars, to Khorasan to fight the Uzbeks and Turkmen that were constantly invading the region. They are Shia and they speak the South Azeri dialect, not the Turkmen dialect. They are also phenotypically different from the Turkmen as they are mainly Caucasoid rather than Mongoloid. The Afshars that inhabit Afghanistan today are their descendants and they still practice Shi'ism. The Qizilbash in Afghanistan originally spoke Azeri and were persianized during their stay in Kabul, the Qizilbash in Iran still speak Azeri as their first language. Hamidrafi23 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamidrafi23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bro, but this kind of information is called unsourced nonsense. Wikipedia is not the place to spread your personal research. As a friendly advise, sooner or later the falsehood will be replaced by truth by someone. It's really a waste of time for you to be spreading your lies. You are only doing bad deeds and it's not good in this world or in the hereafter. You may get away with it in this world but in the hereafter, you may have to serve more punishments. Don't be offended, you're giving Shias a bad name in Wikipedia because many others can follow your history and see how and why you're trying to lie. Therefore, they will think that Shias are all liars. So wise up and learn a lesson from me, I have nothing against Shias or anyone else. On the day of judgement each person will be judged individually and there will be no one to defend you.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]

I dont know why youre bringing religion into this. I am an atheist and an Afshar through my maternal grandfather. I dont believe in any of those religious concepts you mentioned. Its not right to try to change the heritage of of a people to match your POV. Even though i am not personally shia or mulsim for that matter, shi'ism is part of my family's history. we had may conflicts with the sunni Turkmen and i simply cannot understand how we can be mistaken for them. I provided ample sources for my assertions and i included them in the main article Hamidrafi23 (talk)

Here we go with your lies again. Let me play along, regardless what your religion is or was... if you go around trying to make globally recognized prominent Sunni people as Shias, you are giving Shias a bad name. Anyone who follows your history will assume you are a Shia. The world is much smarter than you think, everyone has access to verify info instantly. Anway, why you want to make him Shia? He was a barbarian killer and a big time bandit, he killed so many people and that is nothing to be proud of. I'm Sunni and I'm ashamed of him.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to make him anything, it is Axworthy who is making the argument that he was born and raised a Shia. It is sad that you are resorting to insulting that great man because he treated Ahmad Shah durrani like a son and he was not a murderer, he only defended his people.Hamidrafi23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Axworthy doesn't say he was Shia. Ahmad Shah Durrani was also a barbarian, killer, and robber. They killed so many Hindus and others when Hindus didn't invade their land. I'm going by facts. George W. Bush was also a killer, barbarian, robber, etc, he killed 100s of thousand Iraqis and robbed that nation and the whole world watched. Iraqis didn't invade or attack America, Bush was defending his nation he claimed.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My son you say this thing because you have only read the english sources, they call everyone from our part of the world as killer, barbarian and robber.Read the old sources in farsi and pashto and you will realize the truth about these men. Ahmad Shah was a kind generous man and even we Qizilbash who were shia have good memories of him and his son (Timur Shah). He only fought the sikhs a few times because they were rebels but he never massacred people Hamidrafi23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm too old to be your son. You don't know much history than me. Babur, Nader Shah, Ahmad Shah Durrani, and the British, from 1500s to 1850 were all after the Koh-i-Noor diamond and the world's biggest Ruby. It was believed by many that whoever owns it would rule the world. This led all these people to wars in which so many people died. There is a special TV documentary about this. Babur heard about it and invaded India and got possession of it, Nader Shah invaded India and took it from his grandson and when Nadir died Ahmad Shah Durrani got possesion of it and when he died his som Timur Shah had it, then the Rangit Sing (Sikh) invaded Afghanistan and took it and when he died it was left to his son and that's when the British invaded Sikh territory (Punjab) and took it and remains with them til now. So, all these people invaded lands of other people and robbed them. And those who defended their land were killed in large numbers.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Nader Shah, your edit summaries, and your comments on this talk page. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best my friend. My purpose of coming to Wikipedia is to correct the very obvious falsifications made by POV pushers. I only rely on what majority sources claim. Thanks for the warning.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]