User talk:Espiral

Welcome!

Hello, Espiral0, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi there, to reply to your last message: Papak is of course Middle Persian since this was the name of Ardeshir's father, founder of the Sassanid Empire. During this time the language spoken in the Persian Empire was Middle Persian. I agree I should have chosen the right source but I thought this would be obvious. However I found on the Iranica website the confirmation about this assumption. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babak-3rd-cent-ruler I hope you will agree with this. Boboszky (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anywhere in the Iranica article mentioning that "father of ardeshir in arabic islamic source call babak". At the top of the article it's mentioned BĀBAK (Mid. Pers. Pāpak, Pābag), which clearly means that the Persian name BĀBAK is in Middle Persian Pāpak. And both Richard Frye and Iranica are very reliable sources. I find it very confusing talking about an arabiced form, since "Arabization or Arabisation (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture and Arab identity." Arabization. This doesn't have to do with the name Babak, which is a Persian name in use in both Iran and Azerbaijan. If you have the feeling we cannot get to an agreement, I would suggest that we ask an administrator for assistance Boboszky (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to tell you that I've had to delete two of your contributions. They were the two articles about professors. The reason for this is that Wikipedia cannot accept text or images that have been published elsewhere already. This is because they are usually copyright. Exceptions are things now in the public domain because of their age (or other reasons), or which are licensed under Creative Commons. Please look at

There's really no point in separately listing every publication that uses the name "Persian Gulf". This is the standard use. More relevant are examples that deviate from the common use, with an explanation on why. (Encyclopædia Iranica is an American publication, so it's natural that it'll use the term common in the United States.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, then what about encyclopedia of islam ?

Likewise. Encyclopaedia of Islam was published in the Netherlands, and the most common term used in the western world is "Persian Gulf". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in first of article it [Encyclopaedia of Islam] says : BAHR FARIS, the Persian Gulf, in which Mascud! includes the Gulf of *Uman; Istakhri and Ibn Hawkal apply the name to the whole Indian Ocean (Bahr al-Hind). The ftudud al^Alam distinguishes the Khalidi-i clrak, the Persian Gulf, from the Khallc]i-i Pars, the Gulf of cUman and the Arabian Sea. Mascudl gives its width at the narrowest place as 150 mil-, the Strait of Hormuz is actually some 29 miles across. In the Muslim geographers the modern al-Ahsa* was called Bahrayn, the name Uwal being given to onf of the islands now called Bahrayn, Hindarabl was Abrun, Kishm was Laft, Djazlra. Bani Kawan, or Barkawan, and Shaykh Shucayb was Lawan, Lan or Lar.

?.why you delete this ? --

• In the historical background (section Naming dispute) the Wikipedia article says just about the same thing. (As I have said, that Encyclopaedia of Islam uses the term "Persian Gulf" is, by itself, insiginificant.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 before making further reverts. Azerbaijan is one of the articles covered by that arbitration. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so . what i must to do ?--Espiral (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, reach consensus with other editors, and refrain from edit warring. Your recent edits are not in line with a whole bunch of wiki rules. I explained my concerns at talk of the article. I also asked for a third opinion. Grandmaster 20:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that`s too hard for me . my english language is not very well . i see this and want to say that before of 1918, name of this territory was not azerbaijan --Espiral (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit complex issue. According even to Iranica it is not so. See here: [1]. It says that the name of Azerbaijan extended to the north since 13th century (...from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed). And your own source, Frye, says the same: By the 15th century A.D. the name Arran was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Azerbaijan. That pretty much means that the territory was called Azerbaijan before 1918. And you cannot give a name issue too much weight, as it is not the most important thing about the country of Azerbaijan. It only deserves a very brief mention, no more than one line. Please see

Name of Azerbaijan article. It was a collection of quotes, before admins fixed it. They moved all the quotes to Name of Azerbaijan/workpage, where you can include any new ones you may have. The article Azerbaijan does not require any quotes on naming issue. It is not the main topic of that article. Grandmaster 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ok . first . this territory before 15th was called arran (according academic sources)

second our argue is that which name this territory called between 13th and 1918. i heard that this territory between age 13 and 20 , called darband and sherwan (see)Espiral (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Darband and Shirvan were regions within that territory. But the sources also say that the name Azerbaijan extended to the north of Araks after 13th century, or 15th century. In any case, we have an article about the name, called

Name of Azerbaijan. It should cover anything related to that topic. Grandmaster 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

of course , but we must mention history of name of territory of azerbaijan . in that article did not mentioned . Espiral (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the name is linked. Anyone wishing to get more info can go by the link to the article

Name of Azerbaijan. The general article about the country does not need much info about things of little interest to the general reader. Grandmaster 16:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

i didn`t break law. It was only a paragraph that i copy to wikipedia and one paragraph doesn`t matter that you deleted--Espiral (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the law, but our policy. This isn't optional. If you continue to ignore it you'll end up being blocked.

talk) 15:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see [[2]] and here:[3][4]..incase of future vandalisms..--108.18.145.11 (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Boboszky. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Babak, Babak Khorramdin".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are dispute resolution forums . It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be the other editors . Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{ subst:drn-notice }} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a talk) 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply ]