Fort Towson

Userpage	Talk page	Awards	Articles	Sources

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rudaki you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rudaki you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rudaki for comments about the article, and Talk:Rudaki/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear Historyofiran. I don't know why you reverted my changes even not checking anything with some kind of negative notes. You mentioned that "even you admitted yourself that this is plagiarism". You could just check that I fully rewrote whole content of text. And I gave credit as well LexaneAlex (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you did try to alter it, my bad; I did actually look but I misread it somehow. Though it was still considered plagiarism here [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So can I revert it back or no? LexaneAlex (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it was considered plagiarism by an admin too. This for example, is more or less the same word for word just changed places a bit; "His conquest of the remainder of Commagene and Urartu's complete victory over Assyria in Mannai are proudly described in a second 500-line tablet." / "Another 500-line text describes with pride his conquest of the rest of Commagene and Urartu's complete triumph over Assyria in Mannai." See WP:PLAGIARISM for more info. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a edit to "Religion in Armenia" which I edited the percentage because they weren't correct but you decided to revert them. I have now edited it back and please don't change it for I searched on sites and even calculated the numbers to get this result. Artasheshian (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works. You need to cite reliable sources for this, you cant just alter already sourced information because you did your own supposed searches. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sasanian governors of Egypt has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, hope you're doing well. I have a request: would it be possible for you to do some reviews at GAN? At the moment, you have 59 GAs and a few more up for nomination, but you haven't done any reviews. This would also help with your placing in the queue, which has been reordered so that people with a higher ratio of reviewers to nominations are placed higher. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AirshipJungleman29, thank you and likewise. Yeah, I guess it's finally about time I try to dip my feet in that realm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for already getting started! I find that doing two or more reviews for every nomination is a good ratio. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Patriotic afghan can be; I found no evidence of socking though it seems like a sock account. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I see. Well, at the rate they're going, they're gonna get themselves easily blocked anyways. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rulers of Chaghaniyan has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) to do so.[reply]

Category:Sasanian governors of Yemen has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is the edit I put about R.S Sharma on the Kamboja wiki plagiarism. I quoted her words but didn't pass them off as my own. Trigarta (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that was your intention. If you're gonna quote her (or someone else for that matter), you have to write the exact quote (not even slightly change it), and put it in quotation marks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Trigarta (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How come the removal of this passage? It was well sourced and relates to the previous Assakenian section which is a crucial part of the history.

'Acording to Arrian(IV.24.6–25, 4), the Aśvaka followed a scorched Earth policy and describes an event during Alexander the Greats invasion, Then crossing the mountains Alexander descended to a city called Arigaeum, and found that this had been set on fire by the inhabitants, who had afterwards fled. Quintus Curtius Rufus(VIII.10.23–9) vivdly describes the moment Alexander the Great was wounded in the calf by an Assacani arrow during a scouting operation of the city of Masaga. When the battle of Masaga commenced, the Assacani gained a reputation for their women fighting side by side with their husbands in what was a last stand for survival' Trigarta (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my edit summary? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your reasoning was in reference to Lamotte whereas the source in reference to Arrian and Q.Curtius was by Baij Nath Puri UNESCO and János Harmatta Trigarta (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamotte does not treat it as a fact, he suggests it as a theory. The UNESCO source you used simply quotes Arrian and Q. Curtius, however, neither of those two historians actually mention the Kambojas, they mention the Assakenoi, who in the UNESCO source are ironically treated as a separate people from the Kambojas, i.e. the UNESCO source mentions both groups, but not as one group. In other words, you went on to treat a theory as a fact, and by using a source which don't even support the theory a that. Moreover, this theory is on the realm of WP:UNDUE, I could easily name various sources that do not consider the Kambojas to be the same as the Assakenoi. And no, a source doesn't have to directly say Assakenoi =/= Kambojas for it to mean that they don't consider that theory to be valid, that's not how books are written. If a book talks about the Kambojas, and don't mention the events of Alexander (or vice versa), then they obviously do not consider the Kambojas and Assakenoi to be the same. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also filling an article with quotes because you don't want to rewrite the sentences is not an improvement. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Diodorus would be better since its a long quote (avoids clutter) Trigarta (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed they were Kambojas in that edit, only Assakenian as its relevant to the previous section in reference to them Trigarta (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions on what is not stated would be Wikipedia:Verifiability which states 'Its content is determined by prev published info rather than editors beliefs, opinions or experiences' so simply stating they believe they're not same due to no mention would be going against Wikipedias rule Trigarta (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Diodorus, you quote a lot of stuff, and when you do rewrite it, it's often different from the sourced material. You are contradicting yourself. If the Kambojas are not the Assakenoi then why is it relevant to have the whole history or at least a major part of their history in the Kambojas article? Also, I did not understand a word of your Wikipedia:Verifiability comment. Anyhow, my points above still stand. Please cease this, read WP:CIR too. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You stated 'if a book talks about the Kambojas, and don't mention the events of Alexander (or vice versa), then they obviously do not consider the Kambojas and Assakenoi to be the same' which goes against wikiepedias rule on Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that 'Its content is determined by prev published info rather than editors beliefs, opinions or experiences', so simply stating they believe Kambojas and Assakanoi are not same due to no mention would be going against Wikipedias rule.

Please add your opposite view point in Kambojas not being Assakenois and follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states that 'if a reliable source disagrees then maintain a Neutral point of view and present what the VARIOUS sources say giving EACH SIDE its due weight'. Simply removing them due to your own opinions, inferences and evidence is not allowed. Provide both sides.

Also I will rewrite them then. No issue Trigarta (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Wikipedia:Verifiability means... you are clearly misinterpretating. Want sources? Check the sources in the Bibliography. Zero mention of the Assakenoi being the Kambojas, zero mention of the Kambojas fighting Alexander. The most recent major source for the Kambojas doesn't mention it either [2]. I think you should leave this article alone till you have learned of our guidelines and how to write articles, see how WP:GA articles are written for example. I feel like I have been more than enough patient, you aren't exactly a brand new user either, you have been heavily editing since January. If you continue this pattern, I will report you to WP:ANI for lack of WP:CIR and whatnot. Also, I assume the articles you have heavily edited (History of Punjab, Punjab, Yaudheya) have received the same treatment that Kambojas did, one might ought to check that. Those edits should probably be reverted too. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ma sure I understand it well, as it describes it as it is, simply 'Its content is determined by prev published info rather than editors beliefs, opinions or experiences, in your case your belief that no mention = doesnt approve of theory/belief.

No problem, I will also be reporting you too Trigarta (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically you're the one using your personal opinion by treating a theory as a fact, and then using WP:RS which contradicts that opinion to support it. Feel free to report me (WP:OUCH). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just want to let you know that Hari Ram Gupta's the history of Sikhs is in fact a reliable source since it is written by an academic.Various scholars and historians have used his work in their own papers and books aswell.Also my apologies if i may have accidentally altered any previously cited information,most of the previously cited info prior to my revision is still on the page to my knowledge. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, I may have been too hasty on what I did and said. I retracted my comment regarding the source. I won't say more till I have properly checked the changes, though I'm probably too lazy to do that. Bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry brother it's fine.I will improve on the article and fix any mistakes that i have made.Take care Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please check my description of the edit for changing the surname to علی‌نژاد Shkuru Afshar (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shkuru Afshar: Hello. Sorry, I had a howler there, with the Persian name too. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kavad II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shirvanshah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshabandis have dual silsilat. One through Abu Bakr and one through Ali. I’m unsure why you won’t let me add this fact to the wiki on Tariqa. Bartleby12 (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're altering sourced information. In Wikipedia we rely only WP:RS, not our personal opinions. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you read arabic? Here is a scan of the silsila of Naqshabandi Sheikh Mehmet Effendi in arabic will you let me fix it now?

https://ibb.co/PYQFM7v Bartleby12 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not how it works, a random picture isn't gonna suffice. Please see WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From ‘Rashahat ayn al-hayat’ by Ali Safi Kashifi.

https://ibb.co/L6Q8N11

https://ibb.co/QvCNs2q

now may I please correct the article? Bartleby12 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read WP:RS and WP:VER? Where is the source even from? Who is Ali Safi Kashifi? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you do in shahrokh afshar page it was wrong information Suleiman never rulled to until 1796 Iranist00001 (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added Shahrokh as his own predecessor twice, which made no sense. The article is based on scholarly sources, you cant just change that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because its wrong

The first reigon exactly tell the time that shahrokh was ruled and not adel shah and for better understanding you can see it in his description

And again in secend reigon he was the ruler

And not suleiman

And even at 1796 shahrokh visited the agha mohammad khan qajar, Not suleiman

if you think it can make problem to article

Then tell me how we put instead of it

Maybe it better i prepare 3 reigon for article Iranist00001 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. I think you're misunderstanding what the infobox is trying to display, it's not saying that Shahrokh didnt rule in 1796. Either way, we follow what WP:RS says, not our personal opinions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry are you persian? For better talking i say

Ok i make article in another way Iranist00001 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but I cant read the Persian script. And can you please not change the article again without any WP:CONSENSUS? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure

I try my best Iranist00001 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh man why??? That was true, that is shahrokh page and he ruled khorasan twice and soleiman II ruled betwin him

Why the predecessor is adel shah if even the adel wasn't before shahrokh and it was ebrahim afshar

Why 2 reign if there is 3? and how the hell Suleiman II ruled to 1796!!!

I think maybe you don't know about this Iranist00001 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read the article? Then all your questions will be answered. Your edits make no sense, you added that Shahrokh was his own predecessor thrice? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh relly sorry

I try my last chance hope you know what i wanna do, i'm not that person how distroy pages

These are my early edits and i'm amateur Iranist00001 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iranist00001: Please don't try that again. The infobox is good, it's based on the article itself, which is fully sourced. It doesn't need to be changed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up with your work mate! Diyorbek Ikhtiyorov (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain a bit more why you insist that Turkic dynasties in Central Asia should be qualified as "Persianized" in the first sentence of the lead RfC, but refuse [3][4] that Safavid Iran should be described as "Turkified" in the same way, inspite of the sources? (Encyclopædia Iranica "THE SAFAVIDS": for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified") Isn't that double standards? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the lede that the dynasty was Turkified, which is what your source says. Your comparison would make more sense if we talked about the culture/state/country of the Safavids, which sources unanimously call Iranian/Persian, something you tried to change. Could you please explain why you are so against the notion of an Iranian country that you used the articles names for all kingdoms but the Safavids and Qajars? [5] [6]. You do know that "Iran" was literally the official name of their state? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I could reply as well that "Persianized" was already in the lead of these articles about Turkish polities RfC, and that to use an adjective describing cultural influences ("Persianized") as the first adjective of the first sentence is rather undue, and unusual on Wikipedia (because of cultural influences being usually so complex and better left to later stages of an article, and because it feels like an attempt at cultural appropriation by a nationalistic user). If you keep insisting that the Timurid Empire shoud be described in the first sentence as "a culturally Persianate Turco-Mongol empire" [7], then why do you refuse that Safavid Iran could be described as "a Turkified Iranian empire" (Reference: Encyclopædia Iranica "THE SAFAVIDS": for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified") It makes no sense, and is not coherent. And I don't think Wikipedia approves of using an adjective related to cultural influences in such a frontal manner in the lead sentence anyway.
• As to "Safavid Iran" or "Qajar Iran" for article titles, I am quite sure that these are not appropriate, and that they should be Safavid Empire/Dynasty and Qajar Empire/ Dynasty, as for other history articles on Wikipedia. We do not have an article entitled "Bourbon France" or "Plantagenet England", but of course we have Bourbon Dynasty and House of Plantagenet. I am afraid your enthousiasm in putting the word "Iran" everywhere [8] distorts your understanding of Wikipedia naming conventions... Similar issue with placing "Persianized" in every possible lead sentence... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am being disruptive; by all means, report me to WP:ANI, but beware of WP:OUCH. But please stop wasting my time by repeating the nonsensical arguments, what's the point of me answering you, even including WP:RS, if you're just gonna word-for-word WP:REHASH? What you're doing is essentially WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (your arguments still make no sense either, we have Bagratid Armenia for example, but why would it be relevant for what you add in those horrible looking maps..?). You might also want to read WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, stop making up your own rules for these "Wikipedia naming conventions", I always back my claims with WP:RS, something you're unable to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously plenty sources to go by, and even though I am very well aware that you're gonna ignore this one too, here is a WP:RS by a leading scholar in Safavid studies-*ahem* I mean a nationalistic source by an author with a distorted view of history and enthuasism for the word "Iran(ian)". He even included "Safavid Iran" in the title, how preposterous!;

"Persian culture, its legacy, and its continued production, played an even more vital part in the overarching Iranian sense of self, to the point where Safavid Iran may be called an incarnation of the age-old Iranian "empire of the mind," in Michael Axworthy's apt phrase.27 So strong was the gravitas of Persianate culture, that, in spite of their vastly greater material resources, the Mughals deferred to Safavid Iran; and, in conditions not dissimilar to that of the British in modern America, Iranians moving to the Subconti nent readily found employment at the Mughal court on account of their presumed cultural sophistication. Its most important component, the Per sian language, was crucial as a medium tying together the diverse groups inhabiting the country, both as a vehicle of communication and as a cultural repository. Of course, Iran was multilingual; as they continue to do today, the country's inhabitants spoke a number of different languages, from Persian and Kurdish to Turkish and Arabic. Paradoxically, Safavid shahs usually conversed in Turkish. But Persian was the mother tongue of the country's urban elite and the core political and administrative language of the entire realm. Persian was also the language of culture, above all of poetry-as it was for the entire area between the Balkans and the Deccan-where it functioned as a lingua franca.28 / Safavid literature and especially poetry, the supreme expression of the Persian language, linked the past, including the pre-Islamic past, to the present and served as a shared cultural repertoire, not just for the elite but for the common people as well, at least in urban areas. Iran's national epic, Firdawsi's Shahnamah in particular connected a mythological pre-Islamic Iranian past, filled with heroic kings engaged in the eternal struggle between good and evil, to the Islamic, Safavid present with its own potent symbols of justice and redemption" - pp. 243-244, Rudi Matthee (1 September 2009). "Was Safavid Iran an Empire?". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 53 (1).

The work is free here [9]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falaki Shirvani you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kavad II you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kavad II and Talk:Kavad II/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]