User talk:E104421/Archive 3

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tools
Tools: edit summary usage & edit counter

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Timur
The quotations for Timur related topics are given below, if you check these articles, you'll see that each of them have "Additional Reading" sections, there given the primary sources for these articles. Encyclopedias reflect the consice compilations of the published works of mainstream scholars. If you ask for the books, see the 6th and 7th references below.

1."Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Qotation: "Timurid dynasty (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia."

2."Babur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character."

3."Central Asia, history of Timur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007., Quotation: "... Timur first united under his leadership the Turko-Mongol tribes located in the basins of the two rivers...."

4."Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was a Turk, not a Mongol; but he aimed to restore Mongol power. He was born a Muslim in the Syrdarya valley and served local pagan Mongol warriors and finally the Chagatai heir-apparent; but he rebelled and made himself ruler in Khwarezm in 1380. He planned to restore Mongol supremacy under a thoroughly Islamic program."

5."Timur", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Quotation:"Timur or Tamerlane, c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng [Timur the lame]. He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from his capital at Samarkand...."

6. Gérard Chaliand, Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A. M. Berrett, Transaction Publishers, 2004. (see p.75)

7. Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000" or Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Empires nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995".

Please check these sources before complaining. Regards. E104421 11:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty
You still have no consensus on the talk page of Timurid dynasty to chnage the lead. Britinca is a tertiary sources, and as I explained to you in details, PRIMARY sources by known academics that take the mainstream position that Timur was a Mongol, and in Wikipedia primary sources outweight tertiary sources. Pleae try to get a consensus with other users on the talk page of the artcile, instead of trying to impose your version by edit-waring.--07fan 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if we go with the logic that linguistic adoption makes the Timurids were simply "Turko-Mongols" instead of Mongols, then one could apply the same logic to Seljuqs, and say that they were simply "Turko-Persians", not Turks. But this is not academically  sound, Timurids were Mongols in origin, just as Seljuqs were Turkic in origin, in spite of their adopted languages and cultures. As you can see this is a controversial topic that is prone to personal interpretations and views, and it's a clear-cut case, so please allow further discussions and input by others on the talk pages of the articles, to find a broad agreement and a new consensus.--07fan 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems that this kind of discussions belong to the article's Talk, not a message board for individual members. Without getting into the middle of the dispute, the race/ethnicity of mother-father question may be completely irrelevant, the dynasties are classified by their language and people they rule. In this example, Cathrine the Great of Russia is not a German, though her mother-father/grandmother-grandfather were Germans, but she and her dynasty was Russian because her public language was Russian, and she ruled Russians. Because Chagatai had only 4,000 Mongols at his disposal to colonize the Chagatai ulus, a talk about Mongol component in the Timur domain is superficial, Timur did not rule a Mongol state. Note that Russian historiography never refer to Cathrine the Great as a German dynasty, it is a firmly Russian dynasty. Barefact 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ili river treaty
Dear E104421, I received a Wikified comment for Ili river treaty, would you please look at it and help with wikifaction. The contents comment is fair in respect that the article should be illustrated with a map showing Western Turkic Kaganate and Eastern Turkic Kaganate states after the treaty. Would you please assist in adding the map(s). Barefact 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Why did you ignore my comments, and made blind reverts to the Timurids again? Please read Consensus, and try to to engage other editors on the talk page and get a consensus instead of imposing your version by edit-waring.--07fan 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And here is one of many sources that explicitly calls Timur a Mongol and his dynasty a Mongolian dynasty who only spoke Turkic:

Encyclopedia of Asian History: "Although Timur was a descendant of a Mongolian tribe, he and his followers, like the other members of the Mongol ruling class in western Asia, spoke Turkic." --07fan 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You ignored all the sources i presented to you. These were the primary sources. In addition, i provided the quotations. You're still removing the sources and pushing your POV. In wikipedia verifiability is important. Regards. E104421 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1213
kardeş niye altay dili ailesinin haritasını koyuyosun? ne alakası var türklerle? diler hakkında araştırma yapacak biri zaten onu gorurki kendi sayfasında--88.233.178.240 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The introductory paragraph mentions the Altaic hypothesis. For this reason, it's informative. Btw, please get yourself a WP:ACCOUNT. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anatolian rock Omega/Status Quo
I returned Omega and Status Quo to the list of influences, as you had mentioned. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your notification. I already commented on the talk/discussion page of Anatolian Rock. Cordial Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the problem
the problem with your edits is that you remove stuff..like the external link. Anyhow I disagree with the ordering and removal of external link. You said you will mention any changes in the talkpage. For good faith I am r.v.'ing to your edit but the ordering and external link is going to be put back in there. But please discuss your edits in the talkpage. I ahve done this as you can see. Regards.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As i wrote it in the edit summary, i did not remove the external link, just move it up into the cited reference, since you already used that T.Lenz reference above. There is no need to dublicate the entries. I explained everything in the edit summary. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Persianate society
An editor has nominated Persianate society, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the Perso-Arabic part
That part is needed for context, you just don't cut half of a paragraph when qouting someone. It discusses how Islam was introduced to Turks via Persians.--07fan (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, it seems to me that you haven't read the article carefully, since the Islamicate history was already mentioned in the article. That part of the quotation is not relevant to the context of the article. Even Ali confessed this. If you check the talk pages, you'll see that this was discussed before. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't what I confessed too. I said we can summarize both Lewis quotes.  But I think it is important to note that Islam was introduced to Turks via Persians.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Turkic Islamicate history was already mentioned in the article. There is no reason to dublicate the statement. In addition, starting a section with "According to ..." is not proper at all. The quote should be paraphrased into a concise form. Regards. E104421 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in mentioning more. "According to" is okay, since it is quoting a scholar.  I don't think the issue is a big deal, but if you have time, try to summarize both quotes in the talkpage and then we can look at summarizing it.  thanks --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall do that. Nowadays, i'm too busy in real life. Best. E104421 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Numbers in Turkic peoples
Could you provide a source for your claim of 180 to 200 million Turkic peoples? Are these numbers for today or projections for the future. Do they include the millions of non-Turkic Kurds of Turkey? Please, provide sources. Your POV is irrelevant as is mine. If you ask me the number is way below 100 million.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are not my numbers but you can check them by counting the each Turkic language entry from a easily reachable source on linguistics, for example this one. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hazara people‎
E104421, I seriously don`t understand your rational for removing `Persian-speaking` from the lead...there is no denying the fact that Hazaras are Persian-speaking, regardless of their Mongolian origin.--07fan (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm not removing it, but editing according to a version prior to the banned User:Tajik's, as can be seen from here. That's it. E104421 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't this time, but you were removing "Persian-speaking" in all of you previous reverts, Persian-speaking had been on the page for as long as I remember. As for Iranian people, this is not a racial group, the articles' intro makes crystal clear that Iranian people are a collection of ethnic groups[2][3] who speak Iranian languages, and Hazaras are an Iranian people, and their racial background is irrelevant to that article. Likewise, you don`t see a disclaimer on Turkic peoples saying Azeris are of Iranian and Caucasian origin and only speak Turkic, do you? --07fan (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong in mentioning their Mongol descent. Regards. E104421 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * E104421, you did not answer my second comment here, I was the one who removed your disclaimer for Hazara on Iranian peoples, not Tajik. As I explained to you, Iranian people is not a racial group, the articles' intro makes crystal clear that Iranian people are a collection of ethnic groups[2][3] who speak Iranian languages, and Hazaras are an Iranian people, and their racial background is irrelevant to that article. So please stop the blind reverting of Iranian peoples‎. --07fan (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is in two folds. First, User:Tajik & User:Beh-nam are banned users, so the wikipedia policy enforcement by reverting edits applies. Since, you continued upon Tajik's controversial version, i reverted yours, unfortunately. Actually, your edit and mine was the same until you started reverting to Tajik's. Second, the disclamier: It's informative, since you do not see Turkic-speaking Kurds in the Turkish people article or Turkic peoples article, even though the Kurds of Turkey speak Turkish. On the other hand, the Azeris of Iran are Turkic peoples, if you are to mention them you should not do it in a way as if they were Persian. So, there is nothing wrong in adding a disclamier. Best. E104421 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tajik
Merhabalar, biz bu kişiyle ne yapacağız bilemiyorum. Hem han, hem bey, hem de atabeg makalelerine saldırıyor. Göründüğü kadarıyla sorunları var, bize saldırarak tatmin oluyor. Umarım yakın zamanda kurtuluruz. Hoşçakalın. --Chapultepec (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ArbCom endorsed the indefinite block on User:Tajik. Tajik's proxy User:Beh-nam is also blocked indefinitely. Their puppetry is confirmed by the check-user. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. Now, Tajik is editing in the 82.83.0.0/16 ip range. You can revert their edits immediately per WP: Enforcement by reverting edits. Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. Happy editing. E104421 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference
The references Tajik provided is found in google books. The reference Altai KHan provided( with regards to Bosworth) was false. His reference with regards to Bartold was outdated (80) years. Please don't take it personal. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Barthold is a valid reference. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No it is from at least 80 years (when he died), so assuming when he wrote it, it would be 100 years ago. He was also not a Safavid scholar, besides the fact that it requires valid citation, original language, publishing house and etc.  Wikipedia requires updated sources.   --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * History does not change, but historiography changes. Barthold is still a major reference source. In addition, sources other than English are also valid in Wikipedia. Happy editing. E104421 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you need to bring the original russian, with the publishing house and when Bartold made the statement. Your reference format is invalid.  Plus the Bosworth reference was invalid, you can't r.v. invalid references.  You can't use a reference from at least 80+ years ago when much work has been done.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A source is valid unless it's falsified. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling
I also responded on your talk page regarding this WikiProject. Basketball110 has delivered the newsletter below for you at your request. Diligent Terrier and friends 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning
You are blind reverting article based on your POV and the only thing that you provide is a link to a third rank website which even its author is not known. You even don't bother yourself to answer the points given in the talk page. Please stop this behavior, if you continue I have no choice other than fill a complaint in ArbCom enforcement page. ‍‍‍Take carePejman47 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one who's removing the sourced information. A source is valid unless it's falsified. If you claim the source is a pov, then you should at least prove it in the related talk pages. So, i should warn you about the civility. E104421 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting
As a member WikiProject Homeschooling, I thought you might want to look at this.  K im  u  16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty
E104421, you also reverted the edits of several other editors such as myself, Jagged 85, Tabletop, with your sweeping revert. Discuss your edits one by one and do not make sweeping reverts of other editors' edits using falsely claiming that everything you're reverting is Tajik's. I had originally added "Persianite" to the lead, not Tajik, and that's just one example. --07fan (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the last good version from 1 February 2008 by Sevilledade, before all of Tajik's edits. From now on, please discuss your edits one by one, and do not make blind/sweeping reverts.--07fan (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia edit histories are quite clear. You're all the time repeating the same comment as "discuss your edits one by one" while reverting the articles to the banned User:Tajik & User:Beh-nam's versions. What you reverted above is actually your version as can be seen from the diffs. Please see WP:POINT. E104421 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)