User talk:E104421/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No, as I explained, no one disputes that Turkish is part of Altaic, but many linguists dispute that it's a valid language family in itself. I think just having the "(disputed)" is a fair compromise to those who would like to remove "Altaic" completely (not me, as I'm not a linguist) and those who want to keep it. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Altaic languages (which says proposed language family) article discusses it throughly. A lot of people just aren't convinced that Japanese, for example, and Turkish are related. —Khoikhoi 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your other additions to the article, you should probably discuss it with AtilimGunesBaydin. —Khoikhoi 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a source, the Encarta article on Languages:

A number of linguists believe that many of the languages of central, northern, and eastern Asia form a single Altaic language family, although others consider Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolic to be separate, unrelated language families.

—Khoikhoi 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this by Khoikhoi. The Altaic language family is listed as "disputed", because it has not been proved to the general satisfaction of specialists in Altaic linguistics. Some scholars support the idea of an Altaic language family, while others argue that the common features of Altaic languages are due to borrowing and language contact instead of a genetic relationship. This dispute has a long history, and it is known by everyone acquainted with Altaic studies; there is even a custom of speaking of the "Pro-Altaic" and "Anti-Altaic" schools in the field. If you're still in doubt, you could check e.g. the publications by Juha Janhunen (e.g. Manchuria: an Ethnic History, 1996 and the references cited there) or some recent publications by Alexander Vovin (see his bibliography: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/ppl/indiv/Jap/VovinAlexander-biblio.htm), who formerly supported the Altaic hypothesis but later became a vocal critic of it. --AAikio 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. your question about the disputedness of Altaic: Yes, as a professional historical linguist (though not an expert on the topic) I can confirm that there is such a dispute. It's not quite easy to come up with quick references without a good library at hand right now, but this article would seem like a good place to start for further bibliography. (Don't know if it's actually the one I read a few years ago myself, can't quite remember where that one was.) From what one can gather from this abstract, and from what I remember of that article I read, the picture emerges that there are basically two camps that are roughly equal, one affirming a family relationship and one denying or at least seriously questioning it. I could look up the article in the library some time if necessary. For the moment, I think the "disputed" tag in the infoboxes is quite okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply ([1]). I can see your points, both of them. Of course, if we are to mark the "Altaic" in the infoboxes as disputed, it should be done in all branches, not just the Turkic ones. Probably the people who introduced it just didn't get around doing it everywhere. And to follow up on your argument, I personally could live with omitting the note from the infoboxes altogether, and leaving the discussion of the dispute to the main

Altaic hypothesis pages. I mean, linguists aren't really disputing that "Altaic" is a salient grouping of languages that can be used as a handy label in classification; and they certainly aren't disputing that Turkic or Mongolic belong to that group. It's just a dispute over the technicalities of the exact nature of the group (Areal convergence or common genetic descent). Our classificatory hierarchies shown in the infoboxes needn't be overly scrupulous on such matters, they aren't supposed to represent linguistic "Truth", but are just rough-and-ready pointers to relevant pages (and there's no doubt that the article on "Altaic" is relevant to readers of the Turkic languages articles). Unless other editors have strong objections, count me among those who would agree with omitting the "disputed" notes. Fut.Perf. ☼

14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As for my part, I still disagree. In my opinion the "disputed" tag should be added to all Altaic language articles. I think this is not really a "dispute over the technicalities of the exact nature of the group (Areal convergence or common genetic descent)". The infonbox section is titled "Language family", and if "Altaic" is a group based on areal convergence instead of common genetic descend, then it's by definition not a language family. Because the dispute exists, we shouldn't give the readers the impression that Altaic is an unanimously acknowledged family like Uralic or Indo-European. --AAikio 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your conversation with the user Khoikhoi about Agop Dilaçar and his mention in the Turkish language article. Please let me explain the situation:

Today, after your edits in the "writing system" section of the article, that section striked me as being inadequate (not because of your edits, obviously). Having recently contributed to the Turkish alphabet article (I wrote almost the entire "History" section of that article), I spent some considerable time doing research on the Turkish alphabet reform (about which I already knew a lot) and I corrected several wrong references to the issue all over Wikipedia (like the claim that the new Turkish alphabet was "invented" by Atatürk alone). My current knowledge about the creation of the alphabet is that, in June 1928, the Language Commission (Dil Encümeni) started, as requested by Atatürk, to work on the new alphabet, meeting many times on different occasions and it was guided by Atatürk regarding many issues including the planned transition phase to the new alphabet. The list of this commission's members are given in the Turkish alphabet article (it may be incomplete, of course). A fairly good source about the work of the alphabet commission is accessible via this link: [2] (if you happen to know Turkish). Another good source for the subject is [3].

I was also curious about Agop Dilaçar and his relation to the language reform. I appreciated his work and his contributions to the Turkish language to such a degree that I felt the necessity to start a new article for him and I did:

One last point is that I think the Turkish language article obviously lacks a "History" section, which also should certainly include a comprehensive telling of the language reform and that would be the correct place for referring to Agop Dilaçar with many other important names. FYI, this was my longest remark on any user's talk page so far. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"(how one thing becomes both definite and probable (editing these sentences))"

I love it! You hit the nail right on the head with wikipedia! (Good change too btw)

reply: - not at all, I was complimenting you - I had no idea English was not your first language. What you said is a great truth, I took it to mean "(This is) how one thing becomes both definite and probable" ie., only on wikipedia! That is, one person says something is "probable" then another comes along and adds somehwere in the same paragraph that it is "definite", or vice versa...! Anyway, keep up the good work!

ውይይት

) 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

E104421, welcome to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E104421/archive

Hi E104421. I now finally have the chance to get back to the Altaic issue. Regrettably I found our university library somewhat lacking in Altaic references, but I recently read the paper Turko-Mongolic relations by Claus Schönig, in the volume The Mongolic Languages (2003), ed. by J. Janhunen (published in Routledge Language Family Series). Schönig argues against the Altaic hypothesis, providing a rather detailed summary (as well as many references) of how the Turko-Mongolic lexical correspondences can mostly be explained through various levels of borrowing. He also maintains that there are no coherent correspondences in morphology or basic vocabulary, a situation that would abnormal in a case of genetic relationship. The paper also gave me the impression that the support for the "anti-Altaic" interpretation of the corpus has increased as research on lexical correspondences has progressed.

Then the other thing we discussed, namely the "disputed" tags. As I alrady mentioned on some talk page (can't remember which), I now agree that the tags could perhaps be removed in the infoboxes. I can't say though that I'm completely happy with this solution either, but I guess the tags in themselves do not give much information to the general reader. Even if Altaic is not a valid classification, it is a valid areal/Sprachbund classification; even Schönig concludes his paper by saying that "Although apparently genetically separate from each other, Turkic and Mongolic are entities so intimately interconnected that it will never be possible to understand the one without the other." However, a slight problem here is that the infobox says "Language family", and if Altaic is not a family then removing the tags could eventually turn out to be misleading. What do you think? Of course, another issue is that the dispute should be thoroughly explained and documented in Altaic languages, and this article would need considerable improvement in this respect. --AAikio 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though I might agree with u, if you are going to remove content, please do so properly as not to remove wikifications present in the remaining text.. Therefore I had to revert to the previous version - please be careful next time. cheers! Baristarim 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood :)).. If you look at the talk page, it was me who proposed the removal of newspaper content this morning - what I was referring to was how u did your edit, U edited som that all wikifications in the remaining text were gone.. O wikificationlari yapmak onbes dakika aliyor :)) Yoksa niye yaptin babinda soylemedim.. Ben de sana katiliyorum.. Sadece edit yaparken copy-paste ile degil, direkt text silerek edit yap demek istemistim.. Kolay gelsin :)) Baristarim 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was only because it took me ten minutes to correctly wikify the article (especially with links to medals, and military terms) :))) So I was a bit worried :).. try to delete the text directly instead of copying and pasting it from the article's history.. Another note, nearly all the time, only links that have not been given in the main body of the article are listed under 'see also'.. On the other hand, I agree with the removal of all that material, so no worries for that.. :) Baristarim 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems.. Most of the biography is from the TAF web-site, however it seems to be shorter.. I will update it fully, in the

Ilker Basbug article I used directly the official bio from TAF.. However, Buyukanit article was written by someone else so I don't know why they cut short the bio.. I will look into it tonight, you have my support for removing the newspaper content though.. Baristarim

21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comments. I was trying to tell this to User_talk:Shuppiluliuma (the uploader of all those new images), with not much success. I would be happy if you could check our conversation on her userpage and help me with persuading this user not to reduce the quality of the article through this image addition madness. I worked really hard to get that article somewhere close to an encyclopedic standard and it makes me quite sad that it now looks like a personal hobby page with unproperly cited / captioned images randomly collected over the internet. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think that was a bit like an overkill. I think I will put some of the images you removed back, of course being careful not to compromise the readability. Perhaps we could make a gallery at the bottom and this could also make the Hittite named user happy and prevent further tamperings like this in the future. Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I reintroduced some of the images and I hope these do not disturb you much. I think having an image for each large section is a good thing and contributes to the readability. I certainly think that the image of the first TBMM and an image of Kurtuluş Savaşı are definitely needed. I also think the fact that Venizelos came to Ankara for the celebration of October 29 is a wonderful thing and this image should also stay around to demonstrate the efforts for peace. Greetings to beautiful METU (if you are still there, of course), I surely miss the campus. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the sections are still shorter than they need to be, I hope this would change soon. Other than that the layout doesn't look too bad when compared to other articles of this type, George Washington as an example. And I don't think the article size should be a problem for this article for the near future. Greetings to METU again! Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good way to put it, well done! And I agree that it was not clear what was disputed with the previous "disputed" notice. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts (and sorry my poor English in that article). May I ask for your help in future edits (editing my edits)? Regards. --

It is not that difficult, although sometimes confusing.

Open a userpage or a user talk page. Locate a menu named "toolbox" (in my skin it is just below the "search" entrybox. In this menu locate the item "E-mail this user" (in my skin it is above "Upload file"). Click on it. You will get on a page with the address like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/E104421 (of course you could manually enter this magical address). Fill the form. Press send. If the user has not enabled his email the system should warn you.

I believe you already sent me E-mails, have you forgotten how you did it? Happy editing abakharev 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is always another way:). I know i may use aggressive and cynical language in talk pages sometimes, but i am not editting articles without being sure of what i should right or without sources (sometimes this is questionable, but i am always willing to talk and explain). I know i have been edit-warring, but not only with turkish users (just check the histories of the Aegean Islands and the W.Thrace cities to see how many times i've reverted anti-turkish edits). I have said it many times that i am not a nationalist... Yes, i do not like Kemal... Yes, i do not like the turkish politicians and generals... But i have nothing, i repeat nothing, against the Turkish people! About Antalya, i dunno... maybe cause i am Greek, i found it "ridiculous" to ask for an etymology citation (sorry 'bout that, but as a greek-speaker i can easily understand it... i should be more understanding for those who don't speak the language...). There are no hard feelings... it just seemed extreme to me that u contacted these wikipedians with that messange... Regards Hectorian 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had not understoond that u asked for a citation concerning the whole paragraph. anyway, the myth is wellknown. About the politicians: LOL:) i am not attacking them on articles, i just prefer not to edit where they are mentioned... My comments on politicians are mostly in talk pages... Cheers Hectorian 09:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A small nuance: I said that "the same users that have been editwarring at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are now engaging in an editmoverevertwar at other articles relating to Turkey and Greece" (Italics by me), with "one example" being

Anyways, I hope that helped, please let me know if you need anymore advice. Regards. —Khoikhoi 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that you're mentioned on some other website here? Someone called "Warrior Soul" doesn't seem to like you. :p —Khoikhoi 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the links because they are not

troll-feedin'. :-) Regards, —Khoikhoi

18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend just to ignore this idiot. He is already permabanned and everybody know that his (or her) accusations are incorrect. All the history of the articles is kept and it is easy to see who added what. Alex Bakharev 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. have in mind that the pages u confront me (or any other Greek user) are articles interesting to (almost) every Greek, so, it is not much of a surprise... I do believe that we'll meet each other a lot, in a variety of articles, but also hope that we will assume good faith in each other's edits. Sincere regards Hectorian 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi e104421,

I know how you feel. I wanted to move

If your going to put up a merge tag, you need to create a section on the linked talk page with a justification for the merge, otherwise the tag will just get removed. Also, the merge of the Byzantium article and Constantinople article has already been discussed, recently, in previous talk page discussions. It really is very obvious these articles should not be merged unless you have a really good reason and can change peoples minds. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not start and edit/revert war. All you have to do is go to the respective articles for information. I merely conformed it to those.Khosrow II 15:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Greek Orthodox, i have searched the issue the most i could. i also keep pace with what is going on in our times concerning the title and its recognision. all sources and even media suggest that only Turkey does not recognise the 'Ecumenical' title and that is for well known reasons. I have also checked the different (id est turkish in this case) POV. i am not sure what documents and sources u wanna send me... aren't there any links? or are they had written? if u do believe that they are neutral and relevant enough, i will send an email, so that u can attach files in your reply. Regards Hectorian 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good then. According to the neutral (e.g. Britannica), scientific (e.g. historic accounts), self-used name (e.g. the official site), name used by others (all apart from Turkey), the article justifies perfectly its title. Let me know if and when u find sources that need to be attached in email. I would be interested to see them. Regards Hectorian 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think i have not said anything much different... Historically he has been Ecumenical, the Lausanne Treaty does not adress the issue, any supposed talks the Turks did in Lausanne are not part of any treaty (diplomatic talks usually remain unknown, that's why the outcome is presented to the people providing "food" to conspiracy theories). Why was that only till 1923 then? because kemal wanted to reduce its significance? in any case, such an attempt has failed, and it is not something that people outside Turkey think about. The issue is indeed controversial according to the turkish laws, but this applies only to turkey, since these are turkish and recently created laws. There is no conflict between this title and international treaties... That's why all the rest recognise it. Regards (for now) Hectorian 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the issue arose in 1923, then Kemal has to do with it (he was in charge that time, wasn't he?). If there are no international treaties or laws about his status in modern Turkey, then his status which has been active for millenia, has not changed (there are/were no treaties or laws for the titles of "Pope", or "Caliph", or "Pope of Africa" or "Dalai Lama" either. Lack on consensus is something that does not apply to the rest of the world (only in Turkey it does). Regards Hectorian 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should be proud of his origins and his country. and i am happy for u too. i have no doubt that u express, in good will, what u know and what u observe. but, i guess u will agree with me that it is also important to understand what has been done so far, for u to observe what u do, and also that u are not in the position to know everything that is going on in a large and diverse (as yourself said) and populous country like Turkey. u see, i am Greek and live in Greece... within half a day i can visit any place, any remote village here, and there are no "unaccessable" or military areas. i am not afraid to visit any single place (apart of course of the "dangerous" suburbs here or in Athens during night alone...). I bet u must live in Istanbul, meaning that u are by far more liberal than central and eastern parts. also have in mind that nowhere have i said anything against the Turks, for whom i have good feelings. what i do not like is the turkish militaric system of governing, whose first victims i consider to be the Turks themselves (i could give examples, but i guess u have got my point anyway). oh, and btw, pls do not present Turkey as "multi-USA" or "multi-Australia"... we both know that this is not the case. Sincere regards Hectorian 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course time is needed! I have to admit that Turkey did some progress to keep in pace with the rest of Europe, but honestly, i think it was not the best it can do... in 9 days will be the official EU report. we'll see what they have to say. but i am optimistic: i do not believe that time cures everything, but i do believe that the river does not go back;-). so, sooner or later Turkey will be more democratic (not implying that the EU countries are the "democratic heavens", of course). Ciao Hectorian 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, use Firefox 1.5. It allows to have multiple pages open in different tabs, that is convenient when editing Wikipedia. It also has a nice extension named SessionSaver, so you never loose your edits. I heard that IE7.0 has a similar functionality. I do not remember having the logout problem you described, but if you could check "Remember me" check box (no other wikipedian sharing your computer) it might fix the problem. Good luck Alex Bakharev 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I happened to see this discussion. I had logout problem as well (though using Firefox only). Without checking the 'remember me' box, i noticed that i logout after several minutes without activity in Firefox, meaning if i come in front of my PC after some time, i suddenly see that i have logged out. the 'remember me' box solves the problem as Alex Bakharev said above. Ciao Hectorian 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The box is on the login screen, just below the Password. Alex Bakharev 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. CRCulver 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your kinds words. Please let me know if you need help with anything that requires admin tools. Ciao. Khoikhoi 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the source I read, a part from a 1936 New York Times article, said that, thats why I inserted it. Note that the article is from 1936, from the same time as the Sun language theory was introduced, so the chances of it being wrong is probably pretty small.Khosrow II 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I formatted the origins section of the Heph. article to match the source. There should be no more dispute.Khosrow II 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information from the Hephthalite page again. I have asked an Admin to take a look at it, and so far, you have removed sourced information without justification, and you have added unsourced POV in its place while keeping the same source up. That is called distortion.Khosrow II 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Turkey for the Turks"->kemalist ideology. "Split of Cyprus and creation of a wholy TC state for the TCs"->Taksim (if not union with Turkey, a country that has the kemalistic ideology as a doctrine+that country-which has kemalism as official doctrine-help the "taksim"). btw, the ideology of "Megali Idea" had been abandoned in 1923, and has never come on force since then in Greece. Enosis would be the best link in the 'see also' section of this article, don't u think? Ciao Hectorian 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that Erbacan was also in the Turkish government in 1974... In any case, every turkish politician is within the kemalistic ideology... since noone criticising or rejecting or judging this ideology, but they all accept it. Taksim can as well have this link. The Megali Idea was not that simple as establishing a Greek state that covers all the Greeks, as u said... The Greeks of Pontus, Southern Italy, former southern Serbia (modern

FYROM), Eastern Rumelia, Alexandria, Cyprus, where excluded. Yes, Megali Idea shares similarities with Enosis, that's why the link is present in that article. but adding Megali Idea and excluding Kemalistic Ideology from Taksim, seems, at least weird, cause Kemalism is much more relevant with Taksim than Megali Idea could ever be. Regards Hectorian

19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, i do not know much on how kemalistic ideology was in the past and if now, what we all see is not this ideology at all... I certainly would not consider it 'leftist', but it may had such elements, if u say so (i trust u on this). however, when we say 'kemalistic ideology' we do not only refer to the period kemal was in charge... IMHO, i do not see much differences among modern turkish politics and kemalistic ideology. For me, it is a continuation of that theory to the present day. anyway, i would propose either to have both Megali Idea and Kemalistic Ideology, or none... I think it is the most NPOV way to deal with this. What do u say? (going out, perhaps reply tomorrow;-)...). Have a nice evening. Hectorian 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not search all the article, but used the "diff" link. so, i removed the multiple wikifications that were create last (which happen to be those u mentioned). now that u mentioned it, i searched and removed others as well. Regards Hectorian 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there's a consensus to redirect

I don't see anything wrong with writing both. The link you showed me doesn't prove that there's a consensus to remove the disputed tag from all these articles. It's not misleading at all, really. As I said before, I provided a source that proves this. Besides, we have the link to the controversy section, so readers can see for themselves. Khoikhoi 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a better wording choice, while you prefer "controversial". So the reason why we can't have both is...? Khoikhoi 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They mean the same thing, see this:

a debate, controversy, or difference of opinion.

And for "controversy":

a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

Khoikhoi 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about we have it like this:

"X language" (controversial)

What do you think? Khoikhoi 18:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and just saying "controversial" doesn't clogg-up the infobox. Khoikhoi 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that we don't have to say "disputed", but the compromise I was offering was this:

"X language" controversial

That way we don't have to say "see also..." which takes up too much space. While at the same time, we still link to the poper section. Khoikhoi 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'm glad to say that our conflict is (hopefully) finially over! :-) BTW, get well soon. Khoikhoi 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm sorry I described you as a "nationalist", but Tajik does have a point when he says that the Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam are more reliable than the Britannica on Oriental topics, particularly if you're using an old version of the latter. I suggest you have a look here and make up your own mind about the Iranica - it has its faults, but it is not a vehicle for pan-Iranianism and some of its articles are of exceptionally high quality. Have a look at these in particular:

• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in pre-Islamic Times (R. Frye)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia from the Islamic Period to the Mongol Conquest (C. Bosworth)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid Periods (B. Spuler)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia from the 16th to the 18th centuries (R.D. McChesney)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in the 18th-19th centuries (Yuri Bregel)

I work on the history of Central Asia, and I can assure you that a roll-call of Richard Frye, C.E. Bosworth, Berthold Spuler, Robert McChesney and Yuri Bregel read like a "Who's who in Central Asian History" - it's really very impressive. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, is not available online but should need no introduction - there is a Turkish translation of the first edition (Islam Ansiklopedisi, I think), the second, which was completed [in the 80s - my mistake] 2005, is even better. It is the single most authoritative source on the entire Islamic world, and deserves to be taken seriously. Finally, I agree with you that there is no consensus over the origins of the Hephthalites, although as we see above scholarship is moving towards a theory of their Iranian origin, based on the scant available sources. As this is published (and in this case available online as a reference) this does not count as "original research" and can therefore be referred to in the article. Sikandarji 10:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iranica site works perfectly well on my computer - try again here. Otherwise have a look at my comments on the

Do not remove sourced information with no reason.Khosrow II 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed an entire sourced section without reason. The Turkic theory behind the name Azerbaijan is historical revisionism. It has no basis in fact nor history. As I said, it cannot even explain why the region was called Azerbaijan before Turks even got there.Khosrow II 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted all of this: [5] and your going to honestly claim that you did not take out any information? Maybe you made a mistake, I'll give you time to correct, if not, I'll have to show that to an admin, as well as show them your denial.Khosrow II 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I Appreciate it.Khosrow II 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nice work so far, but you missed two: Cypriot Turkish & Mongolian language. Cheers, Khoikhoi 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...and Gagauz language. Khoikhoi 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Don't forget about all the Tungusic languages as well. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop messing up the article Babur which was written over a long period of time by User:Sikandarji who is an expert in this field. And also please stop direct copy and paste from external links (you have many times directly copied the text from Britannica) - this is violating certain copy rights.

As for Babur, the information about his tribal background, his language, etc is already given in the text, and that information is supported by information sources, including Britannica and Iranica. The "Origins" section states:

"... Although Babur hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, his tribe had embraced Turkic and Persian culture[3][4] (see Turco-Mongol, Turco-Persian), converted to Islam and resided in Turkestan and Khorasan. His mother tongue was the Chaghatai language (known to Babur as Tōrkī, "Turkish") and he was equally at home in Persian, the lingua franca of the Timurid elite[5]; ..."

Please do not insert this information directly in the intro, as the intro is a compromise version by User:Sikandarji.

Besides that, the Britannica also describes Babur as a "Mongol warlord" and a descendant of his "Mongol ancestor Timur": [6]

Tājik 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is not "good will", but the purpose of messing up the article. The information you are trying to push into the intros of the articles are already mentioned in those articles - INCLUDING the link to Britannica.

You are not only messing up the article, you also delete authoritative scholarly sources which are SUPERIOR to Britannica, and you only insert those informations that support your views, while you purposely ignore and reject others. Britannica, for examples, describes Babur as "Turkic" AND "Mongol", you - however - only chose the "Turkic" version. this is clearly nationalistic POV.

And you also do not understand that direct copy and paste from Britannica is NOT allowed. This is violating copy rights and will be deleted by admins.

Stop messing up those articlesa and first READ them. Babur's Turkic mother-tongue and his Turkicized culture are already mentioned in the text. So what are actually your problems?

As for the template: it is a nationalistic motivated POV-template with wrong information. Besides the fact that neither the Huns, nor the Hephthalites, or Xiong Nu were "Turks", it is already nationalistic POV to create a template about an entire ethno-linguistic family. This is like creating a template about "Aryan history" and then include all kinds of dynasties and kingdoms in it - from Vedic India to modern United States of America. These nations were most deffinitly Indo-European in language and culture ... but it would be totally POV to put ancient India and modern Europe and Amertica into one box and call that box "Aryan nation" or "Aryan history". This is exatly what YOU are doing with that "Turkish history" template ... The "History of Iran" template is not about a single ethnic- or linguistic family, but about a geographical region called "Iran". The Khwarizmian Empire, however, was neither part of "Turkey" nor has anything to do with the history of modern Anatolian Turks.

Please stop messing up those articles, otherwise you will be reported to admins. Keeping in mind that you were already cought vandalizing the article Hephthalites and that you are being opposed by an Oxford academic ... I do not think that you will help yourself by continuing what you are doing right now.

Tājik 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is totally useless to talk to stubborn people like you. You are pushing for a nationalistic POV, you have no respect for compromise versions, and you even vandalize articles by putting totally wrong and clearly nationalistic-motivated POV into the text (like your clkaim that "Berlas Mongols had become Turkish in language", while you link the word "Turkish" to

Chagatay language

and that Babur had absolutely NOTHING to do with modern Anatolian Turks or their language).

You had previouslöy vandalized the article Hephthalites, and now you are vandalizing these articles. And what's even worse: you are not even ready to listen to User:Sikandarji who is an EXPERT on these issues in REAL LIFE. You are not a scholar on Oriental history, and - basically - you have NO idea what you are talking about.

Tājik 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(to Tajik) Jeez, calm down dude. Khoikhoi 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Babur. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i know. Have you ever compared my version with the others? It's obvious that the users edit warring with me are trying to delete the sourced information which is a direct compilation from britannica. You can check this easily cause i already had given the link. The reverters are deleting every entry related with turkic people and replacing them with persian (not even iranian) and accusing the all the others as nationalist or pan-turkist vandals. What they are writing is story not history. I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to make a comparison and check the sources, then we can discuss the issue better. Regards. E104421 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica sources are okay, but sources with authors attached normally are better. I don't see the accusation of vandalism you are referring to, but you shouldn't fight fire with fire; that will only make the fire bigger. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think an attributed quote of a few sentences long is not a copyright violation but a fair use so it is OK. "Google books" provides a page at a time and it is still a fair use. Obviously don't copypaste multi-page documents on the talk pages: it is not only can be seen as copyvio but also clutters the talk pagesAlex Bakharev 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

best wishes Arash the Bowman 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

You made four reverts in just barely above 24 hours (24h08', to be exact) - This may or may not have been a conscious attempt at gaming the system, but it's revert-warring for sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You block has been extended to 6 days for repeated edit warring and sockpuppetry with

This is a great lie. I do not know who made this accusation but this person has a bad faith. Purely bad faith. E104421 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good news that you now cleared of the sockpuppeting allegations! Congratulations Alex Bakharev 21:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oldu, oyumu verdim. Armanalp 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

After examining the evidence I have judged that there are valid reasons to believe that the block was the result of a terrible coincidence see

Please take a look Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Regards.

Could you have a look at SNTG: Süperiletkenlik ve Nano Teknoloji Grubu and see if you can make anything useful out of it? I can't judge if the subject fits our notability criteria, and if yes, we'll need a Turkish speaker with some knowledge of physics, it seems. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, it was a copyvio. Their website is here, just in case you're interested anyway: [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched

Bir-iki gun içinde WP Turkey'e de el atacagim. O biraz daha zaman alacagi için ilk once buradan baslayayim dedim. Ama birkaç gun içinde WP Turkey'in hem daha kaliteli hem de daha aktif hale gelecek umarim. Cheers! Baristarim 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to have a look.. :) Baristarim 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop pretending. The correct spelling of his name is Alā ud-Dīn Kay-Kubād - the first part of the name is Arabic (Alā ud-Dīn, "of noble faith"), the second part is Persian (Kay-Kubād, "King Kubād", a legendary Persian hero of the epic). The spelling Qubādh is an Arabic corruption. the same goes to the Turkish spelling. As for "1001 Nights", some anon user had added the "Arabic folktale" POV to the article. The Sassanian collection "Hazār Afsānah" did not have any Arabic influence. It was a Persian collection of mostly Indian stories, with some Iranian folktales added to them. The modern "1001 Nights" is a later corruption, although certain Iranian core-stories are preserved (Shahryār & Shahzād, Sindbād, etc ...) What you are doing is deffinitly not "good faith" anymore. And I have also reverted your POV in the White Huns article. I'd also like to know why you have added a Turkish spelling to the Ghaznavids article?! The Ghaznavids were not Turks, they were not Oghuz, they did not consider themselvs Turkic, and they did not speak a word Oghuz Turkic! What you are doing is nationalistic motivated POV and you know that!

Tājik 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi E, I've been discussing the name a bit further with Tajik. Apparently, the most authentic version of the name turns out to be one with the simple "d" at the end, but "q" before. The "-dh" version seems to be Arabic. The "k/q" issue is the same as with those Sheep guys; ironic your versions were now exactly opposed to what you two were advocating in that article. I've also pointed Tajik to a guideline page about Wikipedia transcription standards I just found. Based on that, I propose "`Ala' ad-Din Kay-Qubad" as the best article title, and "‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Kay-Qubād" as the most exact transliteration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've found that page, I'd strongly recommend you make yourself thoroughly acquainted with the guidelines at

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). Before you plunge into yet more revert wars over such issues (which are really not a very good idea). Really a good read. Applies to all articles about things from the Arabic, Persian and Ottoman worlds, provides a pretty good and easy solution for all such cases, and the best thing: the solution is entirely independent of whether the subject is assigned to the Persian or Turkish or Arab or whichever cultural sphere. So, all those silly staking-off-turf wars of the kind "we'll have it in my name version!" - "No, in mine!" - "But he belongs to us!" - "No, to us!" become moot. The name as given above is not a "Persian" version of the name, it is simply the one that is adequate to Wikipedia's variety of a standard scholarly transliteration. Fut.Perf. ☼

18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, remains the question of why you prefer the "-dh" version over the "-d" version. Tell me, I really don't understand why. That one happens to be not just a question of transliteration convention, but is a real difference between two versions in Perso-Arabic. I think we've plausibly established that "-d" (i.e. Arabic د) is the version closer to the origin of the name. It also happens to be the one closer to the Turkish. The "-dh" version (i.e. Arabic ذ [ð]) would correspond to Turkish "-z", not "-d" or "-t". I don't know enough about these languages why Arabic would borrow [d] > [ð]. Okay, the "-dh" transliteration occurs in the literature and should be mentioned, but there's really no reason to declare it the "better" one, let alone the sole correct one. Britannica is by no means a priviledged source in that respect; if anything, Enc.Isl. is better.

Here's a nice collection of historic coins showing his name. Have fun figuring out if those are "d"s or "dh"s! :-) [8] Note that the author of the site uses "dh" in his editorial text, but "d" in his transcriptions of the coin texts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The dh is more suitable cause the t is pronounced as d, just as in the case of mehmet and memed. Regards. 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really understand your logic here. Arabic "dh" stands for a th sound like in English "the" (IPA [ð]). That's quite dissimilar to the d sound apparently used both in Turkish and Persian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Euthymios and E104421 what you are doing is very much looks like stalking. You appear to jump into a revert war on the articles that you did not have previous interest of just to annoy or harass your opponents. Please do not do it again or I will block you (both of you if needed). Alex Bakharev 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, E104421, I am feeling rather insulted by you as you insinuated multiple times that I have not read the articles that are linked inappropriately to the

For the list you're right, i'm not the one including Attila to the list, but what about Xiongnu? I'm sorry for the direct expression, this is due to language barrier. E104421 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no "compromises". You post nothing but nationalistic motivated POV. I can't even believe that you claim all kinds of historical personalities as citizens of Turkey, although many of these people were neither from Anatolia, not spoke or understood any Turkish.

What you totally fail to understand is that the article

But you insert all kinds of people - Turkic and non-Turkic - into that list, without providing ANY proof.

Tājik 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ufff, you're just a waste of time, since it's impossible to communicate with you. E104421 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not me who has to provide any reliable sources for YOUR POV. It's you who has to provide reliable sources BEFORE editing an article. I just can't believe that you claim that Mahmud of Ghazni, and even Aliyev - the PERSIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN - are citizens of Turkey. And now you are even denying this. But all of your edits are saved on Wikipedia - and here is the proof: [9] You even claim that Attila the Hun whose origin is totally disputed was a citizen of Turkey. This is pure nationalistic motivated POV.

It is you who is a totally hopeless case. It's not the first time that you are desperately trying to mess up Wikipedia. I do not expect any good faith from you.

Tājik 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ufff. Please, do not waste my time. E104421 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it is so important we can produce

That wouldn't change anything, because the people claimed here as "Turks" were neither Turks not Turkic-speaking. Tājik 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone claims the list is totally correct, but this does not necessitates the deletion without any reason. Please, stop stalking! E104421 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason?! I do have a very good reason: the list is WRONG. And besides that, it is YOU who is stalking [10] You always appear out of nothing whenever I edit an article ... Tājik 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong, prove this in the talk page first, before deleting. You jumped into the discussion with the invitation of Mardavich for the Mughal issue. On the other hand, I was already discussing the list with Stacey Doljack Borsody. Don't you remember! E104421 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You want me to prove to you that the Emperor of India "was not a citizen of Turkey"?!?!?! You really are a waste of time ... Tājik 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man! E104421 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I have a proposal. Lets have a break in your conflict and stay away from each other. Do not revert any article you both participated in and stay away from each other new edits, just politely discuss them on the talk pages with other people mediating. Do not send each other messages on their talk pages. Only one week to restore your cool? Alex Bakharev 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. This is getting out of hand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly right. I shall try to keep myself away from the controversies. Regards. E104421 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User Tajik accused me on the

If you get the time, could you add a note about Turkish battleships on the Battleship page in the today section? Also, if you have the knowledge, and can make any other parts of the article more international in flavor, this would be good. Other editors have pointed out, correctly, the article is biased towards American and British ships, something I noticed, also (see the talk page, bottom). I've looked around a bit on the Internet and in print sources, but see my limited knowledge of battleships isn't up to adding comparison comments about battleships from an international perspective. If you get an inkling to make it less English-speaking-world POV, it could enhance the article. Cheers, KP Botany 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, other nations would be especially great. KP Botany 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask you once again to stop stalking and following all my moves in Wikipedia. You had been warned by admins a few weeks ago not to stalk, however, your following edits:

1. article "Afghanistan"
2. talk-page of Future Perfect at Sunrise
3. talk-page of Khoikhoi

... prove that you are indeed stalking. Please see WP:STALK.

Tājik 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• You haven't got a clue what's going on, do you? E104421 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki can render TeX inside the mathematical formulas. Mathematicians love TeX most of their journals require TeX as the main format. In the old day then I did some academic research some journals required LaTeX in my field as well, so I learnt it. It was kind of fun.

I half-forgotten it now, but usually can enter a few equations manually. Please read Help:Displaying a formula and TeX. There are some software packages that convert Word/MS Equations into Tex e.g. Word2Tex [11]. I never used them, but they should be good. Finally, if everything fails you can just save a complicated formula as an image and handle it as a wiki-image. You can also send me one formula and I will code it for you Alex Bakharev 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning this edit. Could you provide some reliable sources for the "Russian usage" or "blue" and "white"? If you don't, I will have to remove your statement. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth analysis of the situation. Actually, the author of the confusion is User:Takwish, who repeatedly replaced blue for "western" and white for "eastern". I was tired of reverting these edits on sight, that's why the mistake in Golden Horde lingered so often. His other favourite tenet is that there was no Golden Horde before Tokhtamysh. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which article do you want to be moved? It's enough to click "move" to the right of "edit this page" button. Just look at the top of the page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of complicated, because such complex moves involve

WP:RM. I will list the articles here by the end of the day and then the voting will start. --Ghirla ^-трёп-

16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As best I understand,

White (Golden) Horde? It is a legitimate term to refer to Orda's ulus. --Ghirla ^-трёп-

18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Aah, you mean that redirect to

WP:RFD. --Ghirla ^-трёп-

18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am speaking about. This will certainly be done in due course. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the web for finding a good resolution flag for the Göktürks, with no success. So I created one with high resolution myself and uploaded it here Image:GokturkFlag.png for your use. Hope you are happy with it. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will continue to do my best.. Cheers! Baristarim 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think having a photo of Pekinel sisters (which one, or both on the same photo? :)) is a very good idea, and so is having İdil Biret. I say we could make two rows of images, like the one in

So shall we make a preliminary list now (I'm assuming that the existing four people will stay in the picture, but we can also change these): 1.

Nazım Hikmet 6.Aziz Nesin 7.Sabiha Gökçen 8.Pekinel sisters 9.İdil Biret 10.Cahit Arf. Note that I paid no attention to the order of these, the numbers are just for counting for now. Please copy the list from here, make the modifications you would like to do, and send it back to me. I think it will be finalized after a few such exchanges. Atilim Gunes Baydin

13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I realized that I don't have Yasemin in the list (nice that she is from METU, obviously), I'm not sure. I'm not a fan of Sezen Aksu either, but for reasons I can't clearly understand, I think it's ok to have her on the list. I'd prefer Şebnem Ferah, but she seems too young and early in her career to stand with those other people. Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm making the image with the last list you've sent to me. Looks like we lost Sezen Aksu on the way. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, just wanted to say that I did not have the time to produce the image and I will be working on that a few weeks later. Happy new year! Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It's been almost two months and at last I made the new collage for the Turkish people article. After trying a version with the 12 people we've agreed upon in our past talk, it seemed overly crowded, so I dropped two of these guys out. I hope you like it! Hey, during January, I could spent a few hours in METU campus. I missed it a lot. What happened to the library? I liked it better with the carpets and the dirt on the walls. Sincere regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would you help me with the code on how to arrange pictires in a horizontal raw, instead of vertical rows? Barefact 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, would you please review

It appears to have been closed anyways. Khoikhoi 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I warned you earlier, and following the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard ([12]), I'm hereby informing you that both you and Tajik have been placed on a strict 1RR parole on all those articles you two have been edit-warring on lately. That comprises:

• Hephthalite (and White Huns
  )
• Golden Horde
• Oghuz Turks
• List of Turkic states and empires
• Timurid Dynasty
• Turko-Iranian
• Turkic peoples
• Babur
• Ak Koyunlu
• Kara Koyunlu
• Mughal Empire
• List of Turkic states and empires

Until further notice, neither of you may make more than one revert on any of these articles in 24 hours, or you may be blocked by administrators. Note that this is not restricted specifically to reversions of each other, but to any participation in revert-warring against whoever else. (As usual, reversions of blatant vandalism are exempt).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well,

Yeah, I am also working on that page.. :) If you can find sources, that would be great. Baristarim 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• of course there is the word "Persianate" and all sources - INCLUDING Iranica and even sources from the Turkish Istanbul Bilgi University (see here) - are given. There is also a Association for the Study of Persianate Societies (ASPS). I suggest you to self-rv your latest revert, most of all becase:
• you have broken the 1RR ... if you do not self-rv, I will report you to admins.

Tājik 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will work on both articles ... in fact,

Persianate are on my "to do" list. Meanwhile, PLEASE self-rv ... it does not benifit anyone if you get banned again. Better self-rv and let us discuss the issue. Tājik

15:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What are these wikifications you keep talking about?Azerbaijani 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Before making any comments, you should first read what Iranica means with "Huns" and "Hunnish":

[13]

It's not quite the same thing as your interpretation of "Huns", and it's certainly not the same deffinition as presented in Wikipedia.

You should especially pay attantion to the the this:

• "... Iranian Huns. The term "Huns" was also used for several tribes who posed a continuous threat to northeastern Iran and northwestern India from the 4th century C.E. Earlier research attempted to establish a connection between the different tribes mentioned in the sources, and to consider them all as Hephthalites (cf. Ghirshman, pp. 69-134). Altheim (III, 1961, p. 7) viewed the Hephthalites as the original tribe of the Huns, from which the European Huns had split off. In addition, he also assumed a Turkish origin for all these tribes (Altheim, I, 1959, pp. 45 ff.). However, this far too simplistic perspective has been succeeded by a more discriminating view based on Robert Göbl's research. According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46). ..."

That's the reason why I have reverted your edits.

Since Wikipedia's definition of Huns differs from that of Iranica, it would be wrong to link the article Xionites to Wikipedia's Huns.

Regards.

Tājik 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem with you, my friend. You do not ask but simply change articles. :) Well, for the next time, just ask :) Tājik 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added back all the useful info from your edit, after correcting their grammar and structure. But the multiple languages are irrelevant, the word itself is a Farsi word, and the word's native language is the only relevant one. --Mardavich 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged your version with the original version to make everyone happy and avoid another useless edt-war. --Mardavich 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Can you look at

Western_Asia? Zap, for whatever reason, keeps changing the broader definition that covers all the common definitions of the geographical region and sub-regions. --Mardavich

12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit there? "affected by" is not grammatically correct in that context. --Mardavich 13:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I proposed "derives from, or is influenced by" to cover all points of views. For example, Tirmurids' culture and language arguably derives from by Persian culture and language, but the Ottomons were only linguistically and culturally influenced by Persian culture and language. But, if the word "derives from" bothers you, I'll remove it. --Mardavich 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This was published in 1909! That's over 100 years old, with mostly outdated theories that have since been proven wrong. In particular, the claim about "intimate union of Persian and Arabian elements" is wrong. As the more recent version of Britannica states: "Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship". Please leave the article as it is, I included most of your POV, and I am willing to continue this in the future, to find a middle ground on these articles, but you have to compromise as well for this to work out. --Mardavich 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the Islamic culture had developed into a unique culture of its own by that time. Regardless, the century-old Britannica version you're citing is no longer reliable and the latest version of Britannica overrides the earlier, now outdated, theories. Please leave the compromise undisturbed. If you want our cooperation to succeed, you need to compromise too. --Mardavich 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I must warn you against inserting Alieni stuff in

• What i do has nothing to do with Pan-Turkism. I just mentioned
  Anti-Turkism up front if that's the area of your interest) Regards. E104421
  19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For my overall agenda, there are articles on physics, history (mostly on Eurasian nomads) and progressive rock. In short, my contributions is not restricted to the controversial issues between iranian and turkic people. Without checking/comparing my contributions but just misinterpreting the comments in my talk page, is not a suitable way for a fellow editor. Regards. E104421 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not adding neutral information. For example according to the same article: His Continuity Theory proposes that Indo-European speakers arrived in Europe tens of millennia ago, and that by the end of the Ice Age, had already differentiated into Celtic/Italic/Germanic/etc. speakers occupying territories within or close to their traditional homelands. He also suggests that the glaciers and pre-glacial basins that compartmentalised Europe during the Ice Age may actually have been the mechanisms for this process of differentiation of Indo-European into its component families.. So just re-inserting Barefact's comments to make it seem indo-european is madeup is evidence of bias. --alidoostzadeh 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alieni is completely fringe. There is no reason whatsoever to mention him on

To you too mate, and all the best to you and your family. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. And, may I remind you, E104421 , that I don't think I see any Turkish battleships on the Battleship article, yet.... Possibly waging sea war may not be one of your goals for the new year, but think, with peace on Earth, all these battleships will be museums one day. And, yes, I got sidetracked on the Turkish serpentine endemics. I had no idea there was quite so much research on Brassicaceae edaphic adaptations done by Turkish academics--I had an inkling. KP Botany 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new years to you too. --Mardavich 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You award it for your endlessly contributions. Tebrikler! - zaparojdik 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Do not try to mislead people! E104421 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see vandalism here 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Persiano made the same comment also here. E104421 11:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear E104421 - Wikipedia is not established to satisfy your Ultra Pan-Turkism needs -- Please stop removing citations and other people contribution that are not in accordance with your personal views. In your User Box, you claim to be a physicist, educated and someone with a rational mind – so act as one! Surena 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for sockpuppetry and incivility. E104421 09:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked

from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

What are you trying to do? E104421 10:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You have many sockpuppets to push your pov. Wikipedia has a page for your sockpuppets here.

Be civil!. E104421

10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

Apologies that this didn't get to you. The software I use to distribute the Signpost seems to malfunction about 1-2% of the time... Ral315 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't get to you, there's nothing I can do; it's basically whether the bot works or not. Ral315 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, since you've missed it three weeks in a row, I have tried adding a redirect in my userspace for you; perhaps it just doesn't like your page :) Ral315 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I am gonna remove the Pre-History section, that's pointless. --Mardavich 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Timurids

Thanks for your contribution in the article Timurids. You added the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" source to the text, but the link does not open. Please add the name of the article (and its author) to the reference-description, and maybe another link. Thanks. Tājik 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkic languages

I would like to know why you reverted me. My reason was very plausible and you had no basis for reverting. Please respond.Azerbaijani 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about mother tongue, not second languages. Do you want to be the one to color the Azeri regions of Iran on the Iranian languages map the color of the Persian language? Because we also speak Persian. Will you do it, because I sure wont! Just as our tonue is Turkic, even though we know how to speak Persian as well, the Iranian editors were kind enough to keep things based on facts, and not opinions. However, when it comes to Turkic languages, you feel no shame in color in Kurdish and Gilani areas as Turkic speaking?Azerbaijani 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

E104421, the map incorrectly highlights

Gilan, where people speak Gilaki and no Turkish language is spoken. Why don't you just create a new one? This one is definitely incorrect. --Mardavich

02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Take a look at this [14] :) What was the dispute in that article? Baristarim 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That revert parole

It's been brought to my attention that Tajik and you have been back at reverting each other again. Forgot that revert parole? You've run up quite a list of reverts on Timurid dynasty at least, plus some on Turkic peoples. Given the fact that the two of you seemed to manage somewhat better in the meantime I hope I can leave it at just a warning at this point, but remember you can be blocked very quickly if this continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for continuing to edit war despite teh above message, and the revert parole already in place (which you even referenced in the edit summary) at

t

09:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles (Golden Horde, Huns, and Geography of Turkey) are listed in the list. You're just misinterpreting the revert parole in favor of Khoikhoi's push. No more no less.

Turko-Persian tradition

I'm afraid that I don't understand this revert, and the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits of Mel Etitis to Revision as of 09:07, 30 January 2007 by Tajik due to reference categorization" doesn't help me, I'm afraid. Could you explain? You seem simply to have referted to a badly-wikified version with various mistakes in the English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not owe you anything. You have reverted the article to the wrong version many times, including the pseudo-scientific nonsense about the Mughals: [15][16][17][18].

So please stop this hypocracy and see

WP:CIVIL. Tājik

08:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not change the fact that you always reverted to a wrong version, and always re-added the pseudo-scientific POV! And now you claim that you did not realize all of that?! Then why did you revert? Maybe just because you wanted to revert my edits?! See

WP:POINT! Tājik

09:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you edit an article, than you associate yourself with that edit! If you had a problem with that category (btw: "Iranian peoples" and "Slavic peoples" are not irrelevant categories, as the Huns were confederation of many different nomadic peoples!), you could have simply removed the categories. But you did a full-rv, very obviously also purposely re-adding the pseudo-scientific nonsense! Tājik 09:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi how are you? I hope that all is fine. I was away for a while so I couldn't reply sooner, sorry about that. I still don't have a lot of time at the moment but I will try to reply more fully later. Cheers!

---

Actually, good to meet you right now - you were once interested in Turkish army and navy topics too, weren't you? I was having a little problem with Shuppiluliuma - he'd been uploading lots of images with questionable copyrights, and when I asked him to fix that, he flew into a rage and stomped off wikipedia. Had to indef-block him just now because he started vandalising. Would you be interested in trying to find out how many of those images can be saved? Some of them may in fact be legitimate, but if nobody bothers to fix the source information, they'll all end up deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shup

I wasn't really having a huge problem... he just wouldn't reason with anyone.

The one I am having a problem with is User:Pmanderson, who is attempting to slander me due to personal disagreements he and I have had. The diff is HERE. I don't think it is allowed for him to slander me in a professional discussion on a talk page due to disagreements that he and I have had (and we were both blocked for 24 hrs punishment for 3RR). He is upset that I disagree on his philosophy on a certain topic and is trying to get back at me due to my involvement in the discussion. Rarelibra 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Apology

Errr, no problem. Khoikhoi 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nasreddin Article

Please do not use Wikipedia for commercial Spam. Also do not remove the tags, as well as entries with citation that are not according to your taste - it is considered POV. Contributions are appreciated as long as are free of POVs and backed by citations from reputable sources, rather than commercial and propaganda sites. Thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO publications

Will you please visit [[19]] and advise me on any additional steps you think may be required to make my sketch of the article image GFDL compliant. I put explanatory note on the image page, but I am not sure it is a right way to explain the legitimacy. Barefact 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming there is tarzan English

Show me the Tarzan English; I will fix it. The reversion of cited information is not accepted. OttomanReference 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• English is one of the issues discussed in the talk/discussion page. Your edits changed the general structure of the article. It is better to take what's useful in your edits and integrate them into the old version. Futhermore, your usage of the name Kemal, instead of Ataturk, is similar to the style of the radical islamists who disregard Ataturk and try to emphasize that Ataturk was not an important figure in Turkish history. Your style of pushing the same usage gives the similar impression. On the other hand, you're simply ignoring the comments on the talk/discussion pages and behaving as the owner of the article. You're also misrepresenting issues. See straw man! E104421 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Help! - Turkic alphabets

E104421, will you please help with the "Turkic alphabets" article. User Dbachmann effectively immediately killed it as a stand-alone article, pretending to merge it with Orkhon alphabet, without resorting to use to Talk page, or allowing the other users to comment. The action is visibly done in a bad faith. User Dbachmann belittled the author, removerd references contained in the original article, wiped out most of the contents, and then added ^[citation needed] in the merged left-overs. Please reverse this covert and unannounced speedy deletion. I even can't give a link to the wiped out article, because he re-linked Turkic alphabets title to Orkhon alphabet, like it never existed.

I also send the same appeal against this deceiving deletion to Alex Bakharev and Alex Bakharev and Realkyhick. Can you suggest what else can I do to restore the article? Barefact 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, E104421. The "kurgan obelisks" article treated the exact same subject as the "Ukrainian stelae" one, just using shoddy sources. The same applies to "Turkic alphabets" vs "Orkhon script". We can debate about the best title, but Barefact's creations are without exception pov-forks pushing fringe literature. My edits are in best faith, but my patience with Barefact is wearing thin. He has been warned about his behaviour many times, and I see no reason to prance around with him whenever he feels like having some fun on Wikipedia. No "speedy deletion" has taken place. The topic is indeed valid and notable, but it is already treated under another title, and creating fringy pov forks under alternate titles is simply not acceptable.

dab (𒁳)

13:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I am frankly amazed that after the enormous number of warnings and blocks you have received for your edit warring with Tajik for months, it continues to this day [20]. Your current block is for a month this time, and let me warn you that it will quickly become permanent if you continue the same behavior when you return.

t

08:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Again, i provided the necessary references and quatations from the sources (i also presented them in the talk/discussion page), but Tajik continued accusing me although i invited him to use the talk/discussion page. He is misrepresenting the references and sources. Examples are [21]

1. The iranica article title is "Huns" not "Iranian Huns".

2. He removed the reference H.W. Bailey "Iranian Studies" which also confirms that Xionites are also known as "Red Huns".

3. He removed Carlile Aylmer Macartney reference.

4. R.N. Frye states "Hepthalites may have been a prominent tribe or clan of the Chionites" but not as "Hepthalites may have been a prominent tribe or clan of the Chionites or vice versa".

5. He continued personal attacks and incivility despite many warnings.

6. He continued personal attacks on different articles [22] but i preferred to be silent cause there are other users editing. However, for the Xionites article, Tajik and i are the only contributors and the issue is not a major one, but a small one about the name and references (i still do not understand why he constantly removes them). I explained them in the talk page but Tajik refused to answer but attacked me personally. One more thing, as i expressed several times before, i'm totally against edit-warring (including Tajik), but i'm also against the removal of sourced information without any reason. I tried to explain them in the talk/discussion pages. In addition, I did not violated the revert parole and the 3RR rule.

Note: I also warned

Dmcdevit here about the accusations of Tajik and the misrepresentation of sources but i guess he has forgotten my latest comment. Another user also warned him, too here

. Furthermore, it's well-known that i'm not the only person complaining about the incivility of Tajik. He's frustrating Wikipedians with his personal attacks.

To sum up, i'm very sorry for the latest trouble i have brought about. I'm quite bored of Tajik but i do not have any hostility against him. I could not manage to communicate with him, cause he simply refused any constructive discussion. Regards. E104421 10:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): After investigating the situation I have come to this conclusion: As this wasn't a clear violation of the 1RR parole, one month block may be too much. But as you edit warred, a short block is appropriate for you to cool down. Also as Tajik is blocked for a month, there is no risk for you two to editwarring with each other. Though for your own protection I argue you to avoid contact with Tajik to all cost, as an self-added/optional probation. As you already has been blocked for a short while, I'll release the block as of now. →AzaToth 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Request handled by: →AzaToth 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thx. :) Btw: please do not start another edit-war at

Turco-Mongol. The current version is the most neutral one ... it is a very short stub anyway ... Tājik

00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked

Unblocking you was a nice experiment, but you just proved while you will never be a constructive member of this community. You've immediately returned to reverting Tajik as soon as he was unblocked, for which you've been blocked numerous times now [23]. There's no need to waste the community's time following you around; after so many warnings and blocks you fail to grasp the most elementary aspect of collaborative editing: discussion, not confrontation. You are blocked indefinitely.

t

08:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• This time you're wrong, cause this was not a edit/revert war but just related with
  WP:WTA. I commented on the edit summary. However, Tajik had another impression related with the usage of the word "claim". We do not have any hostility aginst each other but you have a hostility against us. E104421
  11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

E104421 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dmcdevit is misinterpreting the issues that I have conflicts with Tajik and tries to kick both of us out of the wiki-community. In the last two cases, we never violated the 3RR rule and

WP:WTA. He blocked both of us indefinitely for this reason. He is absolutely abusing his admin rights. Dmcdevit is well-known with his excessive blocks. His main aim is to force blocked-users to create new accounts to avoid the block, then to accuse them sockpuppetry for permanent block cause he has the check user facility. However, in our case, his tactic is not working cause we are not creating new accounts. For this reason, he's creating artificial allegations. Please, unblock both of us and help us to cary the case to WP:AN. Regards. E104421

12:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While the re-block after a single revert was harsh, it was arguably justified because your reverts were again of the same old type, part of the same long-standing conflict. You both returned to it immediately after coming off your block. At this point, the only chance that I can see to let you come back is for the two of you to present an unblock request together, complete with a realistic explanation of how you two plan to work constructively together in future. This will need to be under some sort of régime different from the previous 1RR arrangement, which has proved insufficient. Contact me per mail if you want to discuss further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I contacted with Tajik via e-mail. He also stated that the decision of Dmcdevit was harsh for the last two cases. If you want us to quit editing the articles, we have in conflict with each other, that would be another parole and should be stated first. However, Dmcdevit blocks us whenever he catches our names in sequence form the edit-summaries. The last two cases are really minor edits not edit/revert wars. One on the references, the other on the usage of the single words "claim". For the Xionites article, we are the only contributors. I actually sent an e-mail to Dmcdevit after the unblock, and asked him how to avoid the blocks, but he never replied. He's making fun of blocking users. The indefinite block decision is nothing but bad-faith. Regards. E104421 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily unblocked you and Tajik, and has as an experiment added a request for community enforced mediation that you must sign at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests, oyu must not engage in any activities except the resolution if this case. _→AzaToth 14:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help. I signed the mediation request. Kind regards. E104421 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember now to not do any other edits outside the mediation case during this time, or you might get reblocked, also the mediator has asked for your input on the mediation case. _→AzaToth 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please describe your reasons for seeking mediation at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests. I'm not interested in your view of the other party, but I'm very interested in reasons to believe you'd be able to reach an agreement without turning the process into a circus. I hope you understand that this is an experimental program. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are named in the arbitration case here:

t

04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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

08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

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

06:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)