User talk:Lysozym/Archives/2013/Jan

Rumi
Hi Can you keep an eye on the article? See also here: for 50+ references and all the top notch scholars. Thanks--Vortexion (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Babur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Verification
Hi. Please verify these articles: Delhi Sultanate, Hephthalite Empire, Hunnic Empire, Khwarazmian dynasty, Mughal Empire. All edits by this user. Zheek (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hepthalite Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Khwarazmian Empire, Mughal Empire
Hello. Why did you get back to the changes? However I've given the source. EMr KnG (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:OR. That's why I have reverted your changes. And, as it is obvious, I am not the only one who thinks that your changes are not good. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My sources are very verifiability. Wikipedia isn't a democracy of majority. Therefore it doesn't matter what anybody thinks. Eventually I gave source. EMr KnG (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about verifiability, it's about quality. You are deleting and/or eventually ignoring first class academic sources, such as Enoki or Sinor who are renowned scholars. Sinor, by the way, is also a specialits on Turkic languages and history. Whether majority or not: what's important are the sources. And your source, which is not even in English, is irrelevant. --Lysozym (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources are very high quality and I have not deleted any source. Also Does it have to be in English? EMr KnG (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A) If your source is "very high quality", then you should prove it, i. e. by proving the international reputation of its author: is he/she an internationally accepted expert on the subject? B) And yes, the sources should be in English. There are only a very few exceptions, i. e. if the author is an internationally accepted expert (a good example would be Vladimir Minorsky who published most of his works in Russian; Zeki Velidi Togan, on the other hand, is not regarded a good source - only citations that have been cited by other experts may be used in the articles). --Lysozym (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Where written materials should be in English? Turkey is currently sold in 8th edition. Prof. Dr. Aykut Kazancıgil and Lale Arslan-Özcan's note that Turkish translators of the book; Fakat zamanla konunun uluslararası düzeydeki büyük uzmanlardan biri olarak kendini tanıtmıştır. Videlicet; However, the issue at the international level over time, introduced himself as one of the great experts. It is enough to prove the quality, guess. EMr KnG (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not. The international reputation of scholar is defined by the number of publications, editoral works in journals, etc. Yet, one can not find a single relevant link on google when typing his name - only Turkish links. but the international language of scholarship is English. That person does not seem to have any international reputation. An "expert" who does not have any English publications and who is not being cited by any other internationally respected scholar. That's really weak. And as per WP:SOURCE, he is not a reliable source. You should familiarize with the general rules of Wikipedia, before criticizing others. --Lysozym (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How do you know a lot of other resources on the page is correct? Both on the page and it was not called anything as to whether the Huns, Turks do not have a resource issue. Both on the page and it was not called anything as to whether the Huns, Turks do not have a resource issue.And that's why I can not add even providing the source? Whereas I've given references. EMr KnG (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * End of discussion here. You neither understand, not do you want to understand. Your hilarious user page explains everything: absurd and laughable claims. You are not here to write an encyclopedia. Please do not use my talk page again. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What else can write the encyclopedia? Also who claim that hilarious, certain. EMr KnG (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)