Plenty of opportunitiesEdit

Wikipedia gives you plenty of opportunities to display, voice, and substantiate your beliefs

Wrong! wikipedia is not a place for anyone to display their beliefs, it is an encyclopaedia, therefore your POV statements will be taken out, no matter what article you are dealing with.Khosrow II 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did you write all of that yourself or did you just copy paste from another source? also, you need to site which source goes to which section of the artilce. that is what i mean. also, this is not a place for people to put down their "beliefes", its a place for facts and facts only. also, please add comments to the bottom of the page, not the top, and you do not need to create a new section everytime.Khosrow II 00:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Answer the question, did you or did you not copy paste this from somewhere else? if you have you have to take it off completely or re-write it all in your own words.Khosrow II 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


first of all, answer my question: DID YOU COPY PASTE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE?
regarding posting on peoples talk pages, just create one header at the bottom regarding what you want to talk about, and then put your messages regarding that in that same section. also, i did not vandalize anything, and the article has some serious POV issues that i and other users will clean up later, once other disputes are settled.Khosrow II 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are two problems with your "addition". 1) it was a copy paste and 2) it was from a pan turk website. The wikipedia policies are on my side, you want to have an admin decide this for us? I would be very happy.Khosrow II 22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theoryEdit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Scytho-Iranian theory article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! —Khoikhoi 02:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would actually prefer to write—it can be by email, IM, etc. if you want. If you really want to talk, you might try asking someone else about the policy, a good place to go is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Sorry about that. —Khoikhoi 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment. -- Slowmover 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ReplyEdit

Barefact, I did as a matter of fact email you awhile ago. I'll resend it—let me know if you get it. —Khoikhoi 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange. Do you mind if I just post the reply here on your talk page? —Khoikhoi 03:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, please do post it right here, what else can I do? I still would like the mail to work, it may be that the real asault has not started yet, it was only a first salvo to kill the subject directly, and I may need to know how the mail works to help me rebuff other determined vandalism.
Thank you for your responsiveness
Barefact 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, try going to your preferences and add your email there. Let me know when you have done so. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, how bumb of me, I thought that if I send thru Wikipedia machinery the reply would come thru the same machinery, and it did not down on me to check my registered e-mail address until you sent me to preferences. I apologyze for my nuisance. I did receive both replies, thanks.
please discuss something before you revert that far back - FYI, you also erased the dispute tags and interwikis
To erase was not my intent, I have a copy with tags and warnings, and I wanted to upload it tonight, along with a faximile of the page 103 that somebody said is a false quote. Now I will wait for instructions. With whom should I please discuss something before I revert that far back? I will discuss if that is what is needed. Barefact 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that was you? You weren't logged in. For starters, you should probably use an edit summary next time. What I would do is add back information individually (not all in one big revert) that you don't think is controversial each in separate edits. The stuff that people may dispute should be brought up in a comment on a talk page. You should discuss on the talk page a way to phrase it so the Iranian editors don't disagree with you. Did that help? —Khoikhoi 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be giving you all these troubles, I observe that you are quite involved becides this subject that teaches me how the Wikipedia works. I made a number of pleas with "Iranian editors" (ethnic Iranians or pilitical Iranians? I had no clue that Wikipedia can be ethnic), but no constructive response so far. They just want to remove the subject from public view.
Barefact 20:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I believe that they're ethnic Iranians, although "Iranian" isn't a single ethnicity. As you know it's a group of peoples or a nationality. Have you talked to Ali about the issue? I've found him to be quite reasonable. He's the one that said here that he would support renaming the article. Just leave a message on his talk page and see what happens (let me know if it works out). —Khoikhoi 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScythiaEdit

But before adding topics they need to first be discussed. I learned that the hard way a couple weeks ago. I added information into an article before a consensus was made, got into a revert war, and eventually got blocked for 24h. I know how Wiki works from experience, and the way your doing it is not the right way. Discuss first, come to a consensus, then move on from there.Khosrow II 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let us not get into rv war, stop using proxies, leave contents on, put a disputed tag, and we will discuss. I already spelled out the refute to the objections, accomodated the claim that Acathyrsi are not Scythians, explained the references. I will do it again, if needed,
But do not vandalize the contents in between. You will be reported, especially when your only contribution to the subject is a blanket vandalism.

Barefact 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khosrow is totally correct. If you have reliable information you must bring all the sources.. You can't just claim Herodotus said this without bringing the actual quotes. Also I do not disagree with russian material, but still they need to be verified by Western Sources that are readily available. The reason is that we can't bring unverified sources like your previous article. And your reporting will not do anything really, since you had your other entery closed and have put up a good amount of non-factual information. From now on you need to bring actual quotes from the actual ancient sources in English else I believe I have the right to disagree due to your previous non-factual and wrong quotes. That is evidence must be presented before insertions are made. For example Herodotus differentiates between Agatharisi and Scythians (look at the quote I brought). So they were not Scythians. Greek myths about origins are not factual information to lead to interpolations into Safavid era. Also etymology is not an easy science and similar sounding words (although Aghajari does not sound even like Agatharisi) does not necessarily correspond to cognates. If you want to provce cognate, then you must do so using materials from top linguistics in the area and not popular folk etymology. --Ali doostzadeh 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, this is better than vanton blanket deletions. Among the objections the main was that Herodotus differentiates between "Agatharisi" (i.e Agathyrsi, I presume) and Scythians. Your contention is that while Scythians are Scythians, and therefore Iranians, the Agathyrsi are not Scythians, and therefore can be Chinese or any other viable alternative. And that Greek's folk tale about Agathyrsi and Scythian brotherly kinship is irrelevant because Agathyrsi have commonality with Thracians. Did I expressed your objection right?
Does it also apply to Gelons, because Agathyrsi and Gelons taxonomically are on the same level in respect to Scythians, and Gelons also have some differences with Scythians? Does it apply to Amaxobies, Melanchlens etc, who even are not listed as Scythian brothers? Who else is excluded from the Scythian classification?
Barefact 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barefact, the material they keep deleting consists of historiographic cites to Herodotus, Ptolemy, Ammianus, Servius & Priscus for primary sources, and consists only of their information about the Agathyrsi Scythians. It seems they are suppressing this valid, cited addition pretending it is OR when in reality they have political motives (They use their numbers to keep information from view, because that is what their message board does... It's a disturbing trend in the way wikipedia is starting to work...) They are blocking all your edits even when they are historical cites, because they do not like your website. The cites are valid, and I have just added them to the article Agathyrsi where they are more than appropriate. I'd like to see them try to call it Original Research over there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: No vandalism for past half hourEdit

Not necessarily. Usually the vandal will stop after being warned enough times. :-) --ZsinjTalk 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theory DRVEdit

Hi,

You're misreading that a little. The DRV request closed before yours (LogMeIn) was improper. Your request was perfectly proper (procedurally speaking), it was simply denied -- that is, the comments formed a consensus to endorse the deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AIV procedure errors.Edit

Please don't report users such as Khosrow II to WP:AIV when they haven't contravened the "Repeat [''sic''] removal of contents after multiple warnings, see Scythia, in tandem with Ali doostzadeh and Arash the Bowman". To do so is an abuse of procedure can can be considered an act of vandalism on your part. The other reports for WP:3RR violations were within procedure and the users have been warned.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sketch from copyrighted articleEdit

Can I create my own sketch from a copyrighted material? For example, a scientific publication has a table and a graph, and I want to cite a part of a table or a section of a graph. The citation is not a mechanical reproduction, but a new tabulation or graph image that reflect the contents of the copyrighted article pertinent to the issue. Barefact 14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it (IANAL) there should be no problem with creating an entirely new table or graph representing information from a copyrighted document, as information itself is not subject to copyright (cf. Wikipedia:Copyrights). However, the creative expression of information is subject to copyright, so you would need to be careful not to infringe this; for example, the choice and order of columns and rows in a table, the range and axes of a graph, any line of best fit, etc., could all be subject to copyright if they were judged not to simply be choices which would be obvious to anyone working in the field. TSP 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Ordinarily, no. Copying copyrighted material, even if done by hand rather than mechanically, will usually infringe on the owner's copyright. However, in most cases, scientific data resides in the class of "factual material that has been discovered" rather than creative works or matters of opinion. Generally in the US, factual content cannot be copyrighted, though the selection, arrangement, or style of presentation might be (e.g. Feist v. Rural). Since your intention is to take part of the data (presumably copyright exempt) and create a new image from it, you probably have nothing to worry about. Dragons flight 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3rrEdit

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.

abakharev 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License tagging for Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gifEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation for Scythian-related articlesEdit

Admin Alex Bakharev agreed to mediate our dispute over Ossetian Language, Scythia, and other disputes, to prevent future resorting to editing wars. Mediation is a required step in the WP conflict resolution procedure. Please contact # Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) The participants of the subjet editing wars were at least these parties:

  • Ali doostzadeh and/or 69.86.16.239
  • Khosrow II
  • Jpbrenna
  • Arash the Bowman
  • Marmoulak
  • Tajik

You may want to attract other your allies to this mediation effort

Barefact 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am looking for help!Edit

I am looking for help to resolve dispute and to end editing wars with a pack of Iranians who vandalize articles to enforce their racial theories. Thanks, Barefact 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you link the articles you're referencing, please? -- Merope Talk 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scythia or Scythians, Ossetian Language, Kurgans, Masguts (deleted by this Iranian group), Scytho-Iranian Theory (deleted by this Iranian group) Barefact 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what I am doing, following these steps and needing help to bring opponents to a non-militant resolution. Barefact 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(to Barefact) Sorry to say this, but I'd really prefer to not get involved right now. Please give me some time, ok? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am equally disturbed and aroused by this kind of organized "Persianizing" vandalism. Please notify me in case of intimidation or reverts without sufficient reason or discussion. Cheers! Rokus01 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WarningEdit

you should stop creating random articles with your original material. You will collaborate and honestly edit articles, adhering to WP:CITE and WP:NOR. If you have a point to make about the genome of the Ossetians, do so at Ossetians citing your sources. The way you are trying to sneak your idiosyncracies into Wikipedia is a waste of time for everybody. If you remain obstinate, I do not preclude you might be blocked from editing for disruption. dab () 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gifEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image taggingEdit

You have repeatedly tagged images uploaded by you as "GFDL" or "PD" even though they were not owned or created by you. I have warned you several times about this. Be careful to respect Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you do not understand "GFDL", ask for advice on WP:VP/P. In mis-tagging images you waste the time of people who have to clean up after you. dab () 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know all images I uploaded were either created by me or personal material owned by me. If I mistagged an image I would appreciate your help to correct the tag. That will help to save the time of people who do the clean up. Thanks, Barefact 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did help with Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif: You cannot take an image from a scientific paper, slap some colouring on it and claim you created it. You have to identify the paper it came from before it can even be useful, and you have to argue fair use. Regarding Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif, why don't you just tell us where you got this image, and which museum is keeping this coin (preferably with its inventory number). dab () 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always appreciate help, thank you, and somehow I did not know about your help with Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif, so thank you again. For Nasidze article, I put the source right on the image, to make sure that the source can't be questioned or slandered.
About an image from a scientific paper, I first consulted with WP, and received the following encouraging answer: "in most cases, scientific data resides in the class of "factual material that has been discovered" rather than creative works or matters of opinion. Generally in the US, factual content cannot be copyrighted, though the selection, arrangement, or style of presentation might be (e.g. Feist v. Rural). Since your intention is to take part of the data (presumably copyright exempt) and create a new image from it, you probably have nothing to worry about. Dragons flight 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)". I followed these guidelines, especially fortunate because ordinates are part of the factual content, and the original abbreviations were too criptic for WP illustration. I feel comfortable that the sketch is an image truthfully reflecting relative position of the studied groups, with a highlight to mirror the subject of Ossetian genetics. From the WP consultation, I can claim a "fair use". BTW, Nasidze is a secondary article, consolidating a lot of primary research material.
Regarding Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif, I think that publicizing my sources to the whole world is not fair neither to me nor to my sources.
I want to upload a picture of Fillipovka Kurgan, it is a magnificient picture for just completed excavations. For the first time in Russian archeological practice, the kurgan was not only destroyed, but also completely rebuilt. The article is clearly deficient on kurgan pictures. Any good advice how I can do it without running into another editing war? Barefact 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==Your request at User talk:E104421==Edit

You can arrange pictires in a horizontal row using the gallery tag. See Wikipedia:Gallery tag for details. utcursch | talk 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeap, that's the way. Regards. E104421 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 
Happy New Year! E104421 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i read the articles you edited, keep up good work. Regards E104421 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I awarded you with a Wikipedia barnstar which i already added to your user page. Congratulations! E104421 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Deletion WarningEdit

Turko-Persian TraditionEdit

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Turko-Persian Tradition, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Surena 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the reference used for creating this article are referring to the the Turko-Persia concept, and not Turko Persian Tradition.. The term Turko-Persian Tradition is bogus. Surena 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already removed the notice since it doesn't make sense to place that notice up there. Those articles definitely don't match the speedy deletion criteria. Those deletion notices are not for such content disputes. When an article is referenced that much, it shouldn't be simply tagged "might be bogus" - either give it directly to AfD, or use the talk pages for content disputes. Baristarim 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also put a similar template to "Turko-Persian", but you are admitting that there are sources that mention it. What is going on? Please do not use such templates, and use the talk pages for content disputes. Baristarim 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The request was for a proposed deletion and not the speedy one as you stated - You have removed the deletion heading without giving your reasons in the discussion page – that is against the Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). However, the Turko-Persia is different to Turko-Persian - please pay attention. The term Turko-Persian is a fabrication. Surena 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the Iranian racism flaring in the WP, I thought it was a good idea to have an article that addresses the Turko-Persian historical relations in a positive perspective expressed by respectable academician from entirely neutral position. It gives the background, historical perspective, and a number of aspects of the phenomenon. It gives the decent members of the Persian community a chance to enrich the article by showing the deep roots of the Turko-Persian history. With the guise for deletion like "correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian", and "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation", Surena not only dismisses the respected neutral academical views, she dismisses her own mottos "Truth for the sake of truth" - Ancient Persian Proverb, and "The best mode of instruction is to practise what we preach - Persian Proverb. Turko-Persian cultural symbiosis is directly and indirectly described in thousands of books and studies, no racist propaganda can erase or delete it. Barefact 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2B.gif)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2B.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig3C.gif)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig3C.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your messageEdit

Sorry, which article/edit are you talking about? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I found it. the way to give such information (a "diff", meaning "difference") is to give the URL, like this — then the other person can find it easily.
If you look, you'll see that I reverted to a version that had been corrected (for example, it had changed the non-existent word "Islamicate" to "Islamic", had corrected the link from [[Persianate]] to [[Persianate society|Persionate]], improved the lead sentence so that the article title was together and bolded, according to the MoS, changed the non-standard "8th c." to the MoSed "8th century", and so on. I also made the English consistent (some had been American English and some British English). Is that what you wanted to know? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Levirate marriageEdit

Thank you for your addition of material there. However, I found the wording (your translation?) confusing, and have removed most of it to the talk page. I hope we can work together to strengthen and clarify it so it can be re-added to the article. I am sympathetic to those whose written English is not perfect, and welcome Wikipedians who recognise that they may need a little help in this direction. BrainyBabe 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note to say I am not able to log on as often as I would like. I am working on a response to your helpful suggestions. It may take a few rounds of my comments and then yours, as I am finding the material complex. Thank you for your patience. BrainyBabe 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am leaving levirate marriage as it is. However, in researching something else, I came across the Wikipedia policy on translations, under "language" in WP:A (for attribution). It recommends that the original be provided in a footnote, and I can see the sense in this. Hope you find this helpful. BrainyBabe 16:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments but please can we keep this in one place please?! I drew it to your attention because I'd never heard of the policy. I agree that it is observed more in the theory than the reality, i.e. hardly at all. I drew the conclusion that very few people had heard of the policy, and perhaps you were among them. I like your suggestion of a "side pouch". (It could help with contentious images as well, for example; if I want to read about, e.g. torture, but don't want to risk a gory image slapping me in the eyeballs.) Why not suggest that in an appropriate forum? I wouldn't know where to start. As for levirate marriage, as I said, I'm leaving it as it is. If you want to make the additions of the Russian original in footnotes, that would be great, but it is a lot of typing, very tedious. I'm not asking you to. It would be a welcome move towards the Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia. Best wishes to you. BrainyBabe 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:OssetianGeneticsNasidze2004Fig2A.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJTalk 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attacksEdit

Regarding comments such as this: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . --InShaneee 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not currently in a position where I wish to get involved in any sort of dispute resolution, though I support any efforts to initiate them. I will reiterate that regardless of the situation, a certain professional tone must be maintained. "This information is not factual because of X" is ok; "You are a liar because of Y" is not. Comments must be directed at content, not the people who create it. If you truly believe that an editor is simply working to the detriment of the Wiki, then there are proper channels to deal with this through; simply continuing to lob accusations directly at the editor and to others on talk pages serve no purpose. --InShaneee 21:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to make the same points; your language and attitude at Talk:Turko-Persian tradition are unacceptable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find both of you right and myself wrong in regards to personal comments on this [1]. I would appreciate your advice on how to productively handle the situation in this and in similar cases, when deceptive tactics plays the system to the advantage of people who work full time to enforce their parochial and racist dogmas, not infrequently resorting to bad faith and covert editing practices. Personal attacks are not acceptable, and Ali doostzadeh rightfully brings frequent complains against editors who abchore his methods, and there should be an equally rightful way to defend from militant and deceitful methods without resorting to personal attacks. Barefact 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've launched a half-dozen personal attacks in that statement alone. If you want to be taken as seriously trying to resolve this situation, you have to stop commenting on other editors. --InShaneee 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UNESCO publicationsEdit

Will you please clarify if UNESCO scientific publications and their components are copyrighted? I did not see UNESCO publications with copyright notice, but neither I saw a disclaimer about public domain. By its nature UNESCO is a most public entity around, but the PD tag does not specifically list UNESCO as a public domain source. Barefact 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S. government is somewhat unique in making all its publications public domain. Even most governments within the U.S. maintain copyrights. Anyway, the relevant UNESCO policy is found at the disclaimer page, and says
That looks like it fails Wikipedia requirements for direct quotations to me. Αργυριου (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Non-commercial use only" licenses are never acceptable per WP:C, but we still could use short quotations with proper attribution in a normal scholarly style. We just wouldn't be able to copy the material wholesale or large parts. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the picture of the Chinese characters, you have several options here. (It looks like you accidentally put {{PD-self}} on the existing one, as it's not your image, you'll want to remove that.) However, that brings us to our easiest option. Since the picture is just a table of Chinese characters, you could simply make your own table in a different format! Remember, information is not copyrightable, only its specific layout and presentation sometimes is. (Even that sometimes is not, for example, if the layout would be the only logical one possible and that would be obvious to anyone in the field, but that doesn't seem the case here.) In that case, the newly-created image is yours to do as you like with. You could also contact UNESCO and ask if they'd be willing to license that image under GFDL, and that will quite often work, especially since that's not too much of a departure from their existing license as it is (aside from allowing commercial use). Copyright law's a tricky thing sometimes, but hope that's helpful! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{PD-self}} is not accidental: I created my own sketch based on a photo of a page in the publication, but I retained the format of the original. I applied {{fairuse}} and {{PD-self}} tags, but I was not sure if they correctly apply to the sketch that retains the format of the original. As you suggested, I will change the format in the sketch, and then I would appreciate help with the copyright tagging. Barefact 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you sketched that yourself (sketched, not traced), the formatting layout is probably too trivial to itself be copyrightable. I should think from there that {{PD-self}} would be fine so long as it's not a trace or photocopy. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a look, but quite honestly, I'm not sure how that shakes out! (Copyright law is a pretty nasty mess sometimes). If you do communicate with the author, though, perhaps you could get his permission to release that particular sketch under the GFDL (or straight public domain)? That would be the easiest way of solving the matter. (Just "permission to use on the web" or "permission to use on Wikipedia" or "noncommercial use only" is still considered a non-free license here, for a free license it must also be free to use for those who wish to reuse it in the future.) If you can't do that, I might ask at WT:FU, a lot of the people who frequent that page deal with tricky copyright stuff frequently, and probably could give you a better answer then I could. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would greatly appreciate you help via WT:FU, to eliminate potential defamation and attempts to delete the pertinent facts. ....And do I need to cross-post my question on your page to attract your attention, as I was doing, or is it a redundant hassle? Barefact 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pan-TurkismEdit

Sure, I've replied there. Also, I've read all about the Meskhetian Turks before. I've actually contributed to that article a great deal. Are you sure that the words Meskheti and Massagetae are related? I've also heard of the population transfer in the Soviet Union. Most of these ethnic groups were accused by Stalin of collaboration with the Nazis, but I'm not sure how correct he was on that. Khoikhoi 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He deported Georgians too, his own people. Khoikhoi 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted:

CriticismEdit

To discredit the national-liberation idea of Türkism in the eyes of the Russian population, the Tzarist Secret Service began attributing to Türkism purposes and features incompatible with it, namely aggression and expansionism. The term "Türkism" started to be used with a prefix "Pan" (from Greek pan = all), a "Panturkism". The Türkic peoples of Russia began to be threatened with Turkish expansion, I.Gasprinsky and his adherents were labeled "Turkish spies ". Unfortunately also later, after the revolution of 1917, the attitude to Türkism did not differ from the attitude of the Imperial powers. At the 10th congress of Bolshevik Communist Party in 1921 was formulated the official doctrine where the party "condemned Panturkism as a sloping to the bourgeois-democratic nationalism". The emergence of a "Panturkism" scare in the Soviet propaganda caused "Panturkism" to become one of the most frightening political labels in the USSR. The most widespread accusation used for fatal repressions in the 1930es of the educated Tatars and other Türks was the accusation in "Panturkism"[1]. Pan-Turkism is and has always been a movement viewed with suspicion by three countries with sizable undiluted Türkic population, insecure in their integrity, Russia, china and Iran, who claim that they perceive Panturkism as nothing else but a new form of Turkish imperial ambition. Some see it as downright racist, particularly when considering the associated racial and historical teachings. Critics also believe that the concept of Pan-Turkism is flawed because of the distinct dialects among each different group of Turks, which some times lead to problems of understanding between people speaking different Turkic language. There is also concern over religious differences too. Although most Turks follow the Sunni sect of Islam, the Azeris of Azerbaijan are distinct in that they follow the Shi'a school. Some critics also claim that Pan-Turkists are at the fore front of major historical revisionism regarding Turkic history and world history in general. [2]

Critics also cite Pan-Turkism as a direct cause for the controversial Armenian Genocide of 1915, in which Enver Pasha was involved, though Turkey stipulates that the wrongful deportations of the Christian Armenian population were strictly internal and motivated stratigically as a defence from the aggressive Russian interventions, much like the eastward deportations of the ethnic Germans in Russia, and the internment of the ethnic Japanese in the USA, during the WW II. The movement has also been seen as the cause for the policy of "Turkification" which Turkey has attempted to impose on its ethnic minorities such as the Zazas and the Kurds. Until 1991, the Turkish government denied the existence of a separate Kurdish ethnic identity and statistically categorized them as "Mountain Turks".[3]

Still, proponents see Pan-Turkism as a way of increasing regional security, economic growth and as a viable bulwark against Islamist movements, by furthering secular and democratic government in the region.

RedirectsEdit

Barefact, just follow the link and make the Old Turkic Alphabet and article or dismbig. It is not protected or anything.

It may depend on the skin you use. But in my skin if I follow a redirect I got From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\(Redirected from Old Turkic alphabet). The link there leads you to the redirect itself that you can edit Alex Bakharev 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you so much for help and education. Barefact 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkic alphabetsEdit

Good start on the new article. I'm on Newpages patrol a lot, and it's nice to see a new article that is good right from the start. Realkyhick 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The history of the article is here, the last edit before the merge is there. If you disagree with transferring the article into a redirect, then just revert (and provide explanation on the talk page). There was no administrative actions on the article yet, so no abuse of the admin tools. From the wikipedia point of view a redirect is just a short article that have one line, transferring into redirect does not wipe out the article content, it is still there in the history and easily reversible. Dab is a very knowledgeable user but sometimes not very polite, still try to talk with him and get some sort of mutual understanding. Alex Bakharev 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alex put it very well, and it appears that the article is back to its old form. I agree that you and Dab need to talk with each other. Frankly, the article subject is way out my league, so I can't help much with verification and such. I'm also not an admin, so I can't mediate any conflict between the two of you. Good luck, and let me know if I can help in any other way. Realkyhick 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ChorasmianCoinTuranYabgu.gifEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:ChorasmianCoinTuranYabgu.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Privacy Violation for User's PageEdit

Please see this. Thanks! Real96 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you have made a mistake in telling me, because I am not an oversight member. I have told you to report the incident to the oversight committee via email (oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org). However, I forwarded your e-mail to the oversight committee, and they will have the information removed. Cheers! Real96 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Turko-Persian TraditionEdit

I left a message on that article's talk page, but generally, merging after an AFD closes as keep is fine, because merging is an editorial decision that can be made outside an AFD, and no content is lost (since the merged article is replaced with a redirect, but not deleted). --Coredesat 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: G. I. KrivosheevEdit

Thanks for the tips. Unfortunatly, I cannot read Russian - could you perhaps create a stub on Grigory Fedot Krivosheev? Also, two notes: you may want to consider adding WP:BABEL language templates to your userpage, and consider pasting replies to talk pages of users who make original comments (many, like me, don't check other users talk pages for replies, and I found out about your reply by accident).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author permission for a straight public domainEdit

[2]

The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you/the author mean by "for a straight public domain"?
In general, you can only use this material if the author (assuming he's still the copyright holder) would agree to give permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose. Simply giving "permission to post materials of his book on the web" is not enough for Wikipedia. --Abu badali (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase "for a straight public domain" was used by WP advisor in response to my above question. I understood that the "straight public domain" is synonimous with "permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose". Granted that, what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Barefact 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you please advise me what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Can you advise me? Barefact 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a strange case. First, make sure the book's author hold the copyrights of these illustrations. If I understood correctly, these illustrations are derivative works of "of pictures given to him". Who owns the copyrights of these pictures?
After making sure this author owns these illustration's copyrights, you must (according to WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed) ask him to send an e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" identifying the pictures and explaining he agrees to release it under a free license (like gfdl, cc-by or cc-by-sa) or to the public domain. Then ask some editor with access to the otrs system (like User:Jkelly) to look for this email in the system and give you the "otrs number" for this email. After that, upload the images and tag them with either {{gfdl}}, {{cc-by-2.5}} {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{PD-release}}, according to which license the author choose to release his image. Also, use the {{PermissionOTRSOnly}} tag with the otrs number User:Jkelly gave you.
Let me know if you need any help. Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information on the process. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Türkic" vs "Turkic"Edit

Then why do you use those little dots in the words "Turks" and "Turkish"? This is rather annoying. As for the proliferation of alternative spellings, Ordu-Baliq is a characteristic example: the first line reads "Kharabalghasun, Karabalgasun, Kara Balgasun, Khar Balgas, Mubalik, Ordu Balykh, Ordu Balik, Ordu-Baliq, Ordu Balig, Ordu Baligh, and of course Ördu-Baliğ". Why "of course" I dare ask. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
good question. As opposed to "Ördu-Baliğ", "Turkic" is an English word, so spelled in the OED. Spelling it "Türkic" in an English sentence is simply wrong. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Its a good question and I will be glad to answer it. For an English-native speaker with knowledge of the semantics, Turkic/Turkish is a clear cut. However, even for an English-native speaker with no knowledge of the semantics, who tries to use WP to gain knowledge, it is a mute subject. The Turkic/Turkish convention is not explained in the articles where it is used, presupposing a knowledge of the semantics and sufficient retention. The Türkic vs Turkish gives a clear-cut opposition that already indicates the considerable differences in semantics.

Another aspect is the semantics known outside of the native English-speaking world. The native languages do not discriminate the forced English finese of the Turkic/Turkish, like in Russian Türkskiy/Turetskiy where Turetskiy=Turkic=Turkish, and Türkskiy=Türkic. For non-English-speaking people the semantical difference is obvious, thou not always readily catchable. But it serves the purpose of clearly discriminating between Turkey as a state and the subject of the spiel. Which is what the communication is all about, to carry clearly the intended semantics.

Another aspect is the courtesy convention used in civilized world and certainly in the WP, to avoid abusive language and understand the connotations of the ethnic and personal terms. I am sure any admin would try to correct offending language. In that respect, one would not arbitrarily use the term Turks applied to Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, even though technically they are Turks. The same offensive connotation exists among Türkic people that do not want to be confused with Turks, be that in their languages or in English. Therefore discussing - in English - matters very contrasting with a single ethnic or political entity would call for the use of a clearer term, with distinctly expressed connotations. Please note that this rule is mutual, any, I repeat any ethnic group has a number of names with different connotations, and they should be used discreetly. Plenty of people participating in WP are so POVed that they do not pay respects to other peoples and opinions, but this is the more reason to display respect and understanding in WP.

As to the funny dots, they happen not to offend us with German names in WP, for example Düsseldorf. Some energetic partisan of a purity of English may want to censor it back to POE Dusseldorf, and they might be right, because the semantics is absolutely the same. But when the semantics is different, changing from Düsseldorf to Dusseldorf changes the meaning of the written expression.

Some time ago search engines had problems with special letters, and the desire for searcheability precluded use of diatrics. Now search for Turk will flash out Türk and vice versa, I do not think it is a consideration any more.

As a last stroke I would add that Turkish does not recognise difference Türkic/Turkish, but the difference exists nevertheless, and should not be suppressed, even though, once again, plenty of people participating in WP are so POVed that they would prefer to make some subjects flat and void of depth. WP, in contrast, is aimed to be democratic, inclusive, and aspired for balance and deference. Regards, I will keep the other half of the story for another time. Barefact 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barefact, I remain utterly unconvinced. On your own website turkicworld.org, you are free to introduce what neologisms you like. We are at no such liberty on Wikipedia, we have to go with established terminology. So even if I agreed with you that your spelling "Türkic" was a good idea (which I do not), I would still have to oppose its use on WP as idiosyncratic. But I completely fail to see how a distinction Türkic vs. Turkish is supposed to be in any way more enlightening to the uninformed reader than the standard distinction Turkic vs. Turkish. I am not afraid of "funny dots", but you have to use them properly, not just sprinkle them on words on a whim. Düsseldorf is the native German spelling, while Turkic is ostensibly an English (-ic) adjective formation, so listed in the OED. There can be no debate that we are going to follow OED rather than your personal tastes or opinions. The Russian spelling Tyurkskij (тюркский, not "Türkskiy"!) simply has nothing to do with this, at all. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not expect you to fall to my explanations, I just gave you most important points as I understand them. In scientific publications Türkic is used widely, including the Unesco publications. I can send you a page or a hundred pages if you want. You can't accuse Unesco Central Asia series in using poor English or following my "personal tastes". I guess the scientists just do not have a clue as to the using diatrics properly. Maybe I should expand on the courtesy convention. Even 50 years ago some publications had "Uigur Turks", "Azeri Turks" etc., maybe in deference to the ignorance of the reader who would not know what is Uigur. That language disappeared completely, at least in the English-language publications. "Azeri Turk" is offensive, I am Azeri, and I am certainly a Türk, but I am emphatically not a Turk, if you do not want to offend me. I would be surprised if OED failed to take a notice of a word that is repeated in English-language publications many times on every page during the last quarter century. For a reputably Swiss, your utterly unconvincibility sounds unconvincing, a Swiss may be Germanic, but he is emphatically not a German, and every Swiss knows how not to offend. Regards, Barefact 07:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YuezhiEdit

Dear "Barefact": I notice you just added information to the Yuezhi article from a book: Zuev, Ü.A. 2002, Early Türks: Outline of history and ideology, p.6. Some of the information in your note does not (to my knowledge) appear anywhere else and I cannot find this book or any references to it anywhere on the internet nor is not listed at Amazon.com. Would you please be able to give me more details on its publication (including, if possible, its ISBN number) and how to find it? I would like to order the book and study it myself. Sincerely, John Hill 05:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear John Hill, WP never stops to amaze me, its only been 60 sec since I added a sentence, and I've got a feedback... I've got the book through ILL, from a Ca university, ISBN 9985-441-52-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, sorry for my omission, I just added ISBN. BTW, I was hunting for Zuev's books for a couple of years, seems that they were all burnt, his name erased, even Russian Academy of Sciences library does not have any of his publications. If you need more help, I will be happy to do what I can. Barefact 05:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear "Barefact": Yeah - it really is incredible! I have received an answer from you already and I live way out in the bush in tropical Queensland, Australia - more than 350 km from the nearest traffic lights! Thanks so much for replying so promptly.
Now, about this book. Do you have any idea where I might be able to find a copy at a reasonable price? Also, is it very long (if not - maybe I could pay someone to copy it for me). I will try interlibrary loans here - but it is most unlikely I will find it in Australia - our libraries are in a truly woeful state. Any hints you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, John Hill 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS Is it in Russian? If so, I am in trouble - because, unfortunately, I can't read Russian. John Hill 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For aborigenes from the Australian booneys we always make a special break :-). Can you please e-mail me? It would make things easier to handle :-). Barefact 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I look forward to hearing from you. Please drop me a note and then I will have your address too. Many thanks, John Hill 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YuehzhiEdit

You said your addition were referenced, where's the quote? Eiorgiomugini 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Eiorgiomugini, please discuss the pertaining contents of the article in the Talk page of the article, for the benefit of other participating editors of the article. To your question: quotation marks are inappropriate if the citation is not a verbatum quotation, but a rendering of the facts and ideas expressed by the quoted author. I can provide you, or anybody interested, with the original phrase, from the referenced work by Zuev, on the pages 6 of his work, with all my pleasure. I will also address any other criticisms you may want to express. Barefact 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:NEO, before you came up with your addition. I had no idea what's Uechji, Dasya, but after a quick google, I can see that it lead me to http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Ismagulov/IsmagulovAnthropologyCh3UsunEn.htm Eiorgiomugini 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you kindly please explain what "The Tochars of the Kidan state in the territory of Manchuria spoke proto-Mongolian language, the medieval Tochars (Dügers) in the future Turkmenia spoke Oguz, and the Tochars (Digors) in the Northern Caucasus spoke in Alanian, i.e. in Sogdian-Türkic per Biruni. Meanwhile, their ideological traditions in many respects remained similar" meant. This seems like a very fringe thoery itself, but stated in the article like a fact. Eiorgiomugini 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's discuss here Mr. Fact, since it concern over more than just Yuezhi article. I have a few questions on the terminology, how was it established? On what ground? Is there any information on this matters? Who's Zuev? When was the research been dated? I can see that Zuev's observation can only be taken as a grain of salt, since we know virtually nothing about the Yuezhi after Han Dynasty, from my research I would said they mostly jointly with the Qiang and the Chinese, of course, those are all pure guesses, there are no facts behind it, just thought. I felt completely dishonest for him to claim about the queen ruling among the tribe, since there are no Chinese chronicles to refered that to begin with, I don't know how you feel about that. Eiorgiomugini 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About WP:NEO, I could not find there anything pertaining to our case. The various spellings for "Yuehzhi" is a very old fact. Pinyin's "hzh" may render some Chinese sound, but which one I would never guess, and so would not the ordinary addressees of the article. Even Pinyin article does not explain the value of this symbology, except to say that what you see is not what it is. So, alternate usages and more palatable spellings may be provided, at least as complimentary and pertinent information. I am glad that you raised this question, and sorry that you seem to want to keep this discussion away from the editors who read the Talk page of the article. On more specific subjects, please e-mail me, I will be glad to respond, especially because there are other areas of concern and contention. Barefact 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I could not find there anything pertaining to our case" Yes, it does, read Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources.. You did not explained how was the terminology you used (for several sources in various articles) was established, and frankly I don't believe the authors you quoted actually used the same terminology all along. It could be something that were established or somehow introduce by you, which can be seen in your website. For Yuezhi, we will still be using spelling under the system of Pinyin, I really don't care much about the various spellings of some render sound. Although this is a free encyclopedia, a certain consistent on wording should be used under the article. I don't think alternate usages within a article is gonna help reader to understand what information the article are trying to give. "you seem to want to keep this discussion away from the editors" No, the reason I keep this discussion here, is because these are primarily your edits, which create huge problems for others articles. "other areas of concern and contention" I don't like email, if anything you wanna said, we can talk right here, let's just keep this discussion here instead of private. Eiorgiomugini 07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to stretch "neologism" far and wide to cover the Yueji word, because a quick googling gives its usage in a number of English languages, Indian, Chinese, Kazakh etc., and all the various spellings of it are quite old. I hope we are not going to start a new neologism concept, an "old neologism" :-). And your "not really caring much about the various spellings of some render sound" does not lend credence to your position either. I suggest that we care about the readers from India, China, Kazakhstan and other peoples that use English as a Lingua Franca to enrich each others. In no case I suggest to diminish the contribution the Chinese sources give to the subject, but the combination of contemporary Mandarin phonetics with blurring Pinyin, totally unsuitable to render the ancient terms like Tochars (t’u-xuo-lo < t’uo-xuâ-lâ), is neither enlightening nor encyclopedic, especially when it is used to suppress the informative value of the Chinese records. Barefact 05:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"quick googling gives its usage" Are you trying to make fool of yourself, a quick googling of it could gives nothing on its usage [3]. "readers from India, China, Kazakhstan" In your imaginations I suppose. I am sorry, I just couldn't see the point for you to made all these nonsenses, so far you had provided nothing on the details on the usages I am asking nor whatsoever quote from your sources. "not going to start a new neologism" I am telling you that these are the concept based upon wiki rules, not mine or yours. "suppress the informative value of the Chinese records." I don't think you're in the position to make this remark, these records as you tired to be so familiar with it, are almost shown in the article. What do you know anyway, other than blindly figuring out about Zuev's sources. I am beginning to be convinced that this guy Zuev have no real knowledge of how the Yuezhi spilt and migrate or the so-called records anyway. "In no case I suggest to diminish" And what ground could you diminish the good contribution anyway? The reason I removed your addtions was primarily because you don't bother to look over the article and insisted on using on your own 'terminology'. "does not lend credence to your position either" No, it doesn't, unless you want the whole context filled with your combination usages. Besides, read the WP:MOS, I am sure alternate usages within a context are not generally encouraged. "totally unsuitable to render the ancient terms like Tochars " Maybe you should create a section under the Yuezhi for the terms rather than the entire context itself, but keep that in mind, similarity on words does not imply significant connection and thus not a fact. And afterall, you had not yet answer all my questions, so if you're going carry on by doing so, I am afraid I would had to ignore your respones and continued to remove your own 'terminology'. Eiorgiomugini 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RomanisationsEdit

Dear Barefact and Eiorgiomugini: As far as I can see, there is no need for an argument here at all. The quotes from Zuev contain Chinese words in a Russian system of transcription. There have been at least 16 different systems of transcriptions from Chinese into European languages that I am aware of. That was one of the main reasons why the Chinese, soon after the Communist takeover, tried to standardise the transcriptions with a new one known as Pinyin. This is the system the English Wikipedia now tries to make standard - although the Wade-Giles system (commonly in use in the English-speaking world until recently - and still in use in Taiwan, and quite similar to the French EFEO system) is still acceptable.

However, I believe it is a good idea for the sake of clarity when translating passages into English for the Wikipedia to convert other systems of transcriptions of Chinese words into Pinyin.

None of these systems of transcriptions into Roman script are very accurate and none of them are much use at all in trying to understand ancient pronunciations.

There have been several attempts by eminent scholars (especially Karlgen and Pulleyblank) to recreate the sounds of ancient Chinese - mainly by comparing lists of ancient rhymes or checking what Chinese characters ancient scholars used to try to represent foreign sounds with (especially in the translations of Buddhist works from other languages).

However, none of the attempts to go back much before the Tang period can be considered very reliable (although they still can give valuable clues when trying to recreate the derivation of ancient foreign names). In all these cases of reconstructed ancient sounds it is probably est to use the symbols of the authority you are quoting form or symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

I hope this answers some of the valid concerns each of you seem to have. If I can help with any other related issues please let me know. Best wishes to you both, John Hill 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This so-called barefact individual had been annoying since the beginning for nearly 8 months, I believe most of his edits should be removed straightaway, furthermore, there are no value information that he had provided to the context as well. Maybe he should had stayed in his website. Eiorgiomugini 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear John Hill, thank you for assistance and insight. You are absolutely right, I followed the Russian transcription, for at least 2 reasons: Changing terminology may be construed as OR, and I implicitly do not do OR; Russian transcription is strictly phonetic and clearly describes the subject, contrasting with the Pinyin's "unusual pronunciation of x, q, c, zh, z, i, d, b, g, and j", i.e. half of the alphabet soup is a funny puzzle not for a layman reader. So, we end up with a text that a scholar can read, but has no need to, and a layman can't read. That's why I think that either alternative spelling, or phonetical transcription would be helpful for the people WP is addressed to. This must be a first rule for a writer: respect you reader. Thanks, Barefact 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And these are russian transcription rather than some render of old Chinese phonetic, I was wondering why you didn't mentioned it at all before our discussion, do you think is good to squander my valuable time and string along with you? If that were all just transcriptions, it would meant those are based upon contemporary Mandarin phonetics as well, through a russian system of transcription though. While these are not russian articles get it straight. If you think the phonetical transcription are not for a layman reader like yourself, create a section for it other than flooding all over the context. Eiorgiomugini 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KarluksEdit

Barefact, Thank you for your comment about my edits. I am no expert in the subject, and sometimes I have to guess at the meaning of the awkward prose. I assume much of it is translated from Russian, and I do not know Russian. I have edited several such articles, and am merely trying to improve the English and standardize the spellings. Basic Manual of Style stuff, really. - Geoffg 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your point about the transliteration issues. My guideline is to use Pinyin for transliteration of Chinese words, but I don't know anything about Turkish, so I've just been using the name of the article as the standard Wikipedia spelling for various topics. It's certainly possible that some articles might deserve a discussion about a name change. Is there a Turkish naming convention on Wikipedia? - Geoffg 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SpellingsEdit

Thanks, once again for your comments on my talk page. I did not know that Lake Barkul and Lake Baikal are two different places, and am in no way offended by your information. I believe I appreciate your position regarding variant spellings, however, it was my understanding that it is preferable in Wikipedia to use one spelling throughout (quotations from reference materials excepted), so as to make things easier for the general reader. I can imagine it might be confusing for some people to see variant spellings. They may not understand that the same things are being discussed. I do not personally have a preference for "Xianbei" or "Uyghur", to cite the examples you raised. I was merely standardizing these terms throughout the encyclopedia according to the names of their respective articles (ie. Xianbei and Uyghur people). Perhaps it would be beneficial to have a discussion on the talk page of these, and other, articles about the best label for these topics.

Finally, I must regretfully inform you that it is not my general practice to give out my e-mail address. Could you tell me more about the type of matter you would like to discuss that is not suitable for talk pages? - Geoffg 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your e-mailEdit

Hello. This is in reply to your e-mail. I must respectfully decline to help you rewrite your deleted article, since it concerns a subject matter that I have no knowledge of and no interest in. I will therefore not be of much help. However, many people interested in history work at WP:RD/H, and you may find further help there.

If you want to recreate the article, I suggest you do it in user space first, such as at User:Barefact/Article. Take a look at how our best articles about historical topics are written and try to emulate them with respect to how well they are written, how sources are cited etc. Then only move the text to article space when you are confident it is not substantially identical to the deleted text and addresses the AfD concerns. If you have additional questions about procedure, I will try to help you, but I prefer to respond on-wiki, not per mail. Sandstein 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theoryEdit

I received your wikipedia email. I did not see your original article and know little about the theory you describe so I have no way of assessing whether it is appropriate or not. I assume you are aware of policies like WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. I have created a subpage User:Briangotts/Scytho-Iranian that we can use as a sandbox for this article. If you wish to upload what you have there I will take a look and either edit as I feel appropriate or advise you on how best to proceed. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry, but I have reviewed the article and do not believe that much of it is appropriate for WP. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The weight of scholarly consensus is that the Scythians were an Iranian peoples; a tiny minority holds that they were Turkic. Your article implies the reverse.
It may be worth a brief mention in the article on Scythians along the lines of "Scholar A, Scholar B, and Scholar C argue based on linguistic evidence that the Scythians were proto-Turkic rather than Iranian; this view is not widely held."
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Asia ProjectEdit

Hi - I saw your proposal on stubsorting and I thought that WikiProject Central Asia might be of interest to you -- check us out! Aelfthrytha (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of UyghurEdit

You added the following text:

The word [Uyghur] means "Confederation of Nine Tribes", and is synonymous with the name Tokuz-Oguz.

Are you sure this is a correct rendering of the cited source by Lev Nikolaevich Gumilov? Somehow this doesn't make sense. Tokuz means "nine", and Oguz means of course the same as Oghuz, whatever that may mean. You appear to be saying that "uy" and "ghur" mean "nine" and "tribe", in some order. What language is that supposed to be? What would make more sense is something like "The Uyghar are equated [by whom?] with the Tokuz-Oghuz, which means Nine Tribes".  --Lambiam 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lambiam, thank you for making your comment. I am quite sure about rendering of the citation from Gumilev, and the reference provided allows to verify it. The reason for expanded phrasing that I included is that Gumilev gives a semantic equivalent, without identifying the language or providing a detailed linguistical research (he is not a linguist). His phrasing provides semantical equivalent, conveying the meaning of the term. The part "uz/ur" stands for "people, man, men" in two dialectal branches, -s branch vs. -r branch, and within each branch the s/r substitution is stable and consistent. That -s in our (and our sources') rendering is quite conditional, i.e. it must have been akin to voiced and voiceless interdental th, and depending on the ear of the listner, it was rendered s, z, d, t, creating a slew of testimonies like uz, ud, maybe Chinese -t. From what Gumilev is saying, the ui part must be equivalent to 9, and it would be nice if it was a direct equivalent, but it may also be indirect, via an intermediate equivalent like location, river, particular direction etc. If you would want me to cite here the original paragraph in Russian, I will do that. Barefact (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please translate that sentence for me; Google translate somehow got confused with the character encoding, in particular for the capital letters and the lower-case letter я. If Gumilov was not a linguist, does he have any justification (like some other source) for this equivalence, in particular the contention that ui means "nine", directly or indirectly (although I don't understand how it would mean "nine" via an intermediate equivalent like location, river, particular direction etc., since none of these mean "nine")?  --Lambiam 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Lambiam, I will resapond on the Uyghur talk page, I think this exchange belonges there. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:P103AbaevLexics.gif listed for deletionEdit

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:P103AbaevLexics.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, this citation page from emminent linguist and Ossetian himself Abaev's book is pertinent to the Ossetic language article, it states that Ossetian language has little to do with the Iranian languages, the image was removed from the article as a result of RV wars and in violation of WP policy on respecting attributed quotations. Barefact (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken links and referencesEdit

You have added external links to chapters of Gumilev L.N., History of Hun People to several articles. These links are broken; can you fix them?

The following recent source citation you added to Turkic alphabets is particularly unclear:

<ref>Hall D.G.E. ''"A history of South-East Asia"'' L, 1955, p. 25-26, in Gumilev L.N., ''"History of Hun People"'', Moscow, 'Science', [http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph06.htm Ch.6]</ref>

There is a 1955 book A History of South-East Asia by D.G.E. Hall, which is a 800+ page book. This is certainly not "in" a chapter of the Gumilev publication mentioned, which presumably is in Russian. Are these meant to be two separate references?

I don't see which publication in the Gumilev bibliography is supposed to match History of Hun People. Also for works written in another language than English, the original title should be used in source citations, unless the work is generally well-known in the English-speaking world by another title. If this is Хунну: Срединная Азия в древние времена, then the translation of the title into English is not adequate.  --Lambiam 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lambiam, thank you for your comment. I try to check all the links, but things get slipped through, thanks for the help.
Hall D.G.E. "A history of South-East Asia" L, 1955, p. 25-26 is note [32] in the Gumilev L.N., "History of Hun People". ([32] Hall D.G.E. A history of South-East Asia. L, 1955. P. 25-26) The sentence reads: "в "Истории Троецарствия" сообщается об обмене посольствами между Китаем и Фунаном, древнейшим царством в Камбодже. Китайское посольство посетило Камбоджу между 245 и 250 гг., и, вернувшись, участник его, Кань Тай, сообщая сведения о царстве Фунан, заявил: "Они имеют книги и хранят их в архивах. Их письменность напоминает письменность хуннов" [32]. Фунанцы употребляли индийский шрифт. Это сообщение чрезвычайно интересно. Китайский дипломат говорит о хуннской письменности в придаточном предложении как о вещи абсолютно известной и нужной лишь для сравнения и пояснения. Еще важнее то, что он подчеркивает индийское происхождение хуннской письменности, следовательно, держава Хунну имела культурные связи с Западом."
Gumilev L.N., "History of Hun People", Moscow, 'Science', Ch.6 => "История народа Хунну". It is listed as "...в «Степной Трилогии» («История народа Хунну», «Хунну в Китае», «Древние тюрки», «Поиски вымышленного царства» и «Древняя Русь и Великая степь»)" on page http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/ , which leads to http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/works.html#SteppeTrilogy , which leads to Table of Contents on http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/HPH/index.html, and then to http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/HPH/hph06.htm Ch. 6. Sorry, I typed /HPH/ in lower case.
And, BTW, is there a find and relace function on editing page? Do I need to retype /HPH/ manually? Barefact (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find pages containing external links with Special pages > External links. A search for gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph results in:
  1. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph06.htm linked from User talk:Barefact
  2. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph12.htm linked from Uysyn
  3. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph15.htm linked from Chumuhun
  4. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph15.htm linked from Shato Turks
  5. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph15.htm linked from Noin-Ula kurgans
  6. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph15.htm linked from Uysyn
  7. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph16.htm linked from Uigur Kaganate
  8. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph16.htm linked from Uyghur people
  9. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/hph/hph16.htm linked from Chumuhun
I use Firefox, which has an inbuilt editor for the text box containing the wikitext; this editor has Find and Copy/Paste functions; Find+Paste functions like Find+Replace if you have the replacement text in the copy buffer. However, because you have to click the text box to set the focus for the Paste function, and the replacement text is so short, in this specific case I'd only use Find with the search string hph/hph and "Match case" checked, and then do the actual edits manually.  --Lambiam 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firefox can be downloaded for free. There are versions for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux, for a large variety of languages including Russian.  --Lambiam 07:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older sections restoredEdit

Sorry, I made a mistake while editing your talk page and did not notice it then. I have restored the sections that disappeared.  --Lambiam 06:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:SalbykKurgan221201683.jpgEdit

Thanks! That's exactly what I need to add on Commons. That will be perfect and there should be no problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkic alphabetsEdit

Stop recreating your WP:CFORK. If you have any new evidence to show, present it at Talk:Old Turkic script. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This "fork" accusation is totally baseless, your idea of moving the general article into a later and narrower branch is preposterous, no constructive and objective discussion ever took place. If you desire to wipe out the contents, as an admin you need to follow the rules and bring it up for objective review. Barefact (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether a user happens to be an administrator or not is immaterial as long as they do not use sysop privileges. The rules are the same for everyone.  --Lambiam 23:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senior juzEdit

Greetings Barefact, very thanks you made some amendments to the Senior juz article. But you could, to translate from russian on english, please. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astron-kz (talkcontribs) 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ]Reply[reply]

Kangar/Kangju MapEdit

Hello Barefact. The program I use Adobe PhotoShop, but I've tested GIMP and it works just as well. There's not really much of a "technique" per-se. I try to use existing maps whenever possible (for example, the Euratlas maps are my base for most European borders). Then I manually draw the borders onto the new map. I also cross-check those borders with other sources, such as Wikipedia, other maps, etc. It's not perfect (Bogomolov. PL showed me that, compared to the different geography layout of the Euratlas maps, my borders in Russia are sometimes pretty far off). But whenever someone is able to show me a mistake on my maps, I am able to edit the original file, make the fixes, and upload a corrected version. Does this answer you question? Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kangju UpdateEdit

Hi again Barefact. I've been working on corrections to the East-Hem maps, and along the way I'm doing a better job of documenting my sources. If you look on the East-Hem_200bc.jpg Map Source References" section, you'll notice that I list the maps and texts where I'm getting my info.
Specifically, you had asked about maps showing Kangju and Yuezhi locations. I'm not finished listing the sources yet (and I haven't uploaded the correct map for 200 BC yet). One of those sources, the Huhai.net map of the Northern Borders of the Steppes. I hope to have more sources posted soon. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just finished a major update to the Image:East-Hem_200bc.jpg, basically I redrew the entire map. The sources I used for the map's information are listed on it's description page (or click here for my Source References for East-Hem_200bc.jpg).

However, if you have better references, or have information I'm missing, or see any mistakes, please let me know! I put them online for free to help people learn about history, and it doesn't do that if the information is wrong. Please and thank you in advance, Thomas Lessman (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wusun articleEdit

Dear Norm. Good to see you busy on the Wikipedia again. I have just corrected a couple of spelling mistakes in the Wusun article - but I really like your additions to it. One word you use is puzzling me: "peripeties". Would you please check it and replace or correct it? If I can help - please let me know. I am going to be travelling from May 14th to July 15th so may be out of touch for a while - but I will look forward to corresponding with you again when I return. I am still working on the complex problems surrounding the Wusun, Yuezhi and the various Saka groups. Hopefully, I will have more to show and discuss with you later in the year. I send you all my very best wishes. Keep up the good work! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PeripitesEdit

Hi Norm! And thanks for your very kind words too! And also for "peripities" - a valid and interesting English word I had never come across before. It is always a treat to learn a new word but I think that, because it is so uncommon, it should really be replaced in the Wusun article as many readers will have difficulty understanding the passage.

The quote as it now stand is: "Their later fate is connected with the Turkic Kaganates and peripeties that fell on the Middle Asia and specifically Jeti-su area." May I suggest something like: "Their later fate is connected with the Turkic Kaganates and the sudden reversals of fortune that fell on Central Asia and, specifically, the Jeti-su area."? It is just a suggestion - I leave it up to you.

Have fun on your trip. I send you my very best wishes, John Hill (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Samoilovich Alexander N.Edit

Hello. What is his first name, family name, and patronymic? In English WikiPedia, we use a certain order for names. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name orderEdit

In American English, as in most of Europe, given names come first, followed by patronyms or middle or matronym (mother's maiden name) or confirmation names, followed by a family or surname. For examples, see John Fitzgerald Kennedy, George Herbert Walker Bush, or Jan Howard Finder.

There are three major exeptions to this rule:

  1. Spanish nobility, example Juan Carlos Bourbon y Castile, King of the Spanish
  2. Britsh Nobility, example Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales
  3. Asian names such as the Chinese, Armenian, Turkic, etcetera. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nancy, can you answer this: exactly the same name structures bring different results in the categories listings, for example [4]: listing by first name instead of last name in some cases. When I saw the category listing the first name instead of last name, I tried to change the article name adding patronyms, but it still did not correct the category listing. There must be something else that makes it to read first name instead of the last name. What is it? How to correct it? Barefact (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Barefact. The way to alter the sort order is by using the template {{DEFAULTSORT:}} - this is usually placed at the head of the category list within the article. So in the example of Joe A. Bloggs, the way to make him show under B rather than J would be to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Bloggs, Joe A}} to the article. Hope this helps. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very greatful. I knew that there is a magic bullet, and found a person who has it. Barefact (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

languageEdit

Using the word "deceive" is not appropriate Wikipedia Language. I provided a response to your accusations on my talkpage. If you have a problem with it, then that is not my problem. [5]. Go find actual Encyclopedias or Western Professors who are alive that explicity claim what you say instead of just cherry picking sentences to support your own theories. And don't write on my talkpage unless it is to improve a particular article, since I am not interested in other chatters. --Nepaheshgar 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlockedEdit

I've blocked you for 4 months due to your persistent content forking, POV editing, and fringe theory advocacy ([6], [7], [8], [9]) If, upon your return, you keep doing this, I will block you indefinitely. We simply do not need the pan-Turkic crank material. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FTN#Yamna_culture

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Barefact (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The block was imposed even though neither the Talk:Yamna culture, nor discussion on [10] provided a single reference to support the position which was brought up on the Talk page requested by Dave on 13 April 2008 [11] and me on 8 May 2008 [12]. In the other accusations, unrelated to the subject of Yamna_culture, I followed WP procedures and guidance by admins. Any contention I tried to resolve on a Talk page addressing the subject

Decline reason:

The block was correct and proportionate to the disruption caused. — Stifle (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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.

  • your block is the result of your long-term disruption (over one year of incorrigible pushing of "Pan-Türkic" nationalist fringe "scholarship"), not of one particular edit you may have made recently. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yamna culture discussion at Fringe theories 9 July 2008 - 13 July 2008Edit

Disscussion located at [[13]]

To dab et al. user:Barefact continues his old pan-Turkist campaign, this time on Yamna culture, discarding the Kurgan hypothesis as a specimen of "19th-century European nationalism". My edits are summarily reverted. The guy has the habit of content forking which results in such pages as Kangly (alongside the better-established Pecheneg) or Turkic Khaganate (alongside our traditional page Göktürks), so it's only reasonable to anticipate similar developments in this case. Please keep an eye on the page. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Below is my response on Talk:Yamna culture
My dear Ghirlandajo, please do not assault me, and all all the scholars who do not support the infamous Kurgan theory, with your "pan-Turkist fringecruft". You should not call scholars like Colin Renfrew, Bruce Lincoln, Mario Alinei, G. Erdosy, Meinander, Nuñez, and many more "pan-Turkists". As a scholar said, "After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980)." You should not use calling names as an argument. I will gladly attend the WP:FTN, "Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", and this theory've got plenty of the mainstream discussions. The conserns of the article bias must be discussed, referenced, and resolved, not steamrolled with soundbite declarations. Barefact (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the number of scholars and theories on IE origin subject inside the mainstream keeps growing, the subjects are being discussed, and the different attributions of Pit Grave Culture do not fall under Fringe theories. I suggested [[14]] to bring unbiased balance to the article, and seconded the editor [[15]] and [[16]] observation that the article, as it is, is a primitive propaganda of Gimbutas theory. Instead of advertizing exclusively Gimbutas viewpoint, the article should attend to what makes an archeological culture a culture: a complex of traits that make it unique and different.
And please, dear Ghirlandajo, please don't call me with this term "guy". It is not sweet Barefact (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment. Unfortunately this is not the first time. You can read the page on Ossetian Language or here: [[17]]. I think user Dab knows what is going on with these fringe theories best. --Nepaheshgar 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This [[18]] looks like another fringe pusher. --Nepaheshgar 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hell's bells, but if this article isn't about the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia in some time. I think we need some extra eyes here. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sigh -- the spelling "Türkic" is a dead giveaway barefact's at it again. I suppose his unsourced stuff should be blanked without further ado. This would amount to about the same as programming a vandalbot to blank all additions that contain the string "Türkic". I guess that FACT NEEDED (talk · contribs) is just a sock of barefact's. It may be about time to escalate this and officially promote Barefact to "Ararat arev" status. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another barefact hotspot is Turkic alphabets, which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script. I had missed yet another revert of his back in June. See Talk:Turkic alphabets for the more than year-long history of this piece of idiocy. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What needs to be done at this stage? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear fellow editors, I appreciate your inconvenience to tolerate opposing facts and present unbiased positions, but the subject is fringe vs non-fringe, and the criteria is "theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream". Instead of discussing your personal feelings, I suggest that a necessity to limit Pit Grave to solely Gimbutas in the article be justified, and the views of the above listed alternate theories scholars be refuted with appropriate references. The same rule should apply to me or any other editor who finds the present Pit Grave artuicle biased in favor of exclusively "European colonialism of the 19th century" concept, see citation above. Barefact (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no such evidence in the edit history of Turkic alphabets to support the statement "which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script". I see ONE edit by him to add the Turkic alphabets link, and that's it. Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face. You want to prove Barefact has a pro-turkish agenda, show the REAL facts, they're certainly clear enough on that topic. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make sure to look through the history of Turkic alphabets, which is different than Turkic alphabet. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the edit history of Turkic alphabets"? As in, here? ThuranX, if you see "ONE edit by him and that's it", you probably need to have your eyes examined. I do not remember we have interacted before, so I am somewhat surprised to be presented with vitriol like "Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face." Would it be hyperbole to say that you have just made an utter fool of yourself by trying to take a cheap shot at me for reasons best known to yourself? dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Another disruptive editor on an anti-Kurgan hypothesis mission? Sigh... - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strange alliances, sometimes. Rokus01 is shooting at the Kurgan hypothesis because he wants the Dutch to be the Proto-Aryans, while Barefact is in the same game because he wants everyone east of the Don to be Ancient Türks. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it appears that barefact has just lost the monopoly on the "Türk" spelling -- enter MagyarTürk (talk · contribs)! dab (𒁳) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the evidence linked from this section will suffice to permaban barefact. His protracted campaign of edit-warring, dedicatied violation of MOS and CFORK by insisting to duplicate Old Turkic script at Turkic alphabets (well after he had been told that the latter clearly needs to redirect to Turkic alphabet), and the protracted and incorrigible insertion of fringecruft and Godwinian rants into article space,

after WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). -- note how the "reference" that Gimbutas is a quasi-Nazi is esentially "see her life's work, passim". In other words, "here's the 'canonic' academic mainstream. We at Wikipedia (i.e. User:Barefact) think it's colonial nationalist bullshit".

and finally, if that isn't enough, suspected sockpuppetry[19] (may require a RCU). At this point, this isn't a case for WP:FTN, but for taking admin action. Hence I suggest the case should be presented at WP:AN. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Over the years, Barefact has exhausted my plentiful resources of good faith and patience. I don't believe that Wikipedia benifits from his work anymore. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for those who may not know that, the above quotation on Gimbutas and the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors is taken from Mario Alinei. Please don't extend to me a credit for it, it is only a citation from a leading scholar. Barefact (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, Mario Alinei is as fringy as any scholar can get.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M. Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory -- the place where crackpots of all creeds and races meet. dab (𒁳) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad you recognize the name. Now all we have to do is to cite a professional, not even necessarily "mainstream", reference that calls him a crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic. That would justify the "Fringe_theories" label. Without a reference, sorry, it is just expression of an individual POV.


The other point that I was making is that there is a constellation of IE theories, a good indicator that there is no common view, as is forcefully (and primitively) expressed in the article. In addition, not even a mainstream in Russia, but the whole IE industry totally ignores the Gimbutas theory, in my opinion just because Baltics were a captured ethnicity and could not be allowed to lead the IE movement, and that situation has not changed since 1940es. So, an official doctrine in Russia is different, it is trodded by everybody in the RAofS and its institutions without any exceptions, exactly like it was in 1940es, but the Russian mainstream is a part, and a huge part, of the global IE mainstream. Maybe Russian concept is a fringe too, but where is a reference to Russian crackpot? They, in their encyclopedias, may treat the Gimbutas theory as fringe and crackpot, they have to trod the path, but what is the reason for WP to trod a path? Is not the beauty of WP that its motto is a respect, and unbiased tolerance, and abscence of racially-motivated coercion? We already - not always peacefully - rephrased some articles to bring a less radical discourse on IE theories, they are a good example for a consent, and that's what was called here [20] and here [21] on the Talk:Yamna culture page. No need fof exaltations and name calling. Barefact (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finding an WP:RS statement that Alinei is a "crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic" presupposes that a WP:RS and mainstream source would consider his arguments for the Paleolithic Continuity Theory as notable or serious enough to mention. The way he refers to Chomsky (whose theory has notoriously failed to explain what it was made up to explain, i.e. word order), probably disqualifies his arguments for a serious discussion in the eyes of most linguists, but those are just my two cents.--Berig (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alinei is quotable, within WP:DUE, since he published academically. Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts. Alinei's PCT is notable enough for a dedicated article, I suppose, but it is far too eccentric to be even mentioned at unrelated articles, let alone mentioned prominently. PCT is bona fide WP:FRINGE, the guideline is intended precisely for cases like this. incidentially, the claim that Gimbutas was a Baltic nationalist would need some backup too. Notably, her hypothesis does not locate the PIE Urheimat in her own country, a feature which (understandably) is exceptionally rare among nationalist "theorists". In fact, Gimbutas' allegiance was to her sex, not her nation, and admittedly her later work is far too second-wave-feminist to be taken at face value. She is an icon of Wiccans and die-hard-matriarchs, not of Baltic nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know what this phrase mean "Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts." or what it implies. Note, I quoted the phrase on the discussion page, not in the article. That Pit Grave is associated with Turkic in PCT is not a "soundbite", it is a logical and inherent part of the historical sequence in PCT, and has nothing to do with Chomsky. The idea of earlier differentiation was floating around a century before Chomsky was born. Again, to deride any IE theory you do not like you need a reference. Not being a linguist, I do not qualify for a judgement, but I can read linguists' works, and use them as reference in WP. So should anybody else, it is a rule of WP, is it a problem of giving a professional reference instead of POV soundbites?
I do not think that this is a place to evaluate or resolve truths and unthruths of all confrlicting IE theories. The theorists certainly can't do it. I would not judge the demic theory of Renfrew, the point is that it does not allow for any invasion theory, including Gimbutas'. I did not hear any derision of Renfrew in this dicussion, but bunning demic from Pit Grave implies that demic is a crackpot or whatever is the other derisive terminology used in this discussion. Once again, I do not mind calling Renfrew a crackpot, as long as it is supported by means other than force, intimidation, and name calling. Please supply references for Renfrew crackpoting, and then deride him, Alinei or whoever else you desire to ban. Barefact (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working through all this. Hold on a sec. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Aye, OK. I've blocked him for 4 months for his persistent disruption, and have warned him that the next block will be indef. BTW, FACT NEEDED (talk · contribs) is apparently not his sockpuppet, but his NPOV violations are so frequent there's easily good enough reason to block him even without the sockpuppetry proven. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SalbykKurgan221201683.jpg listed for deletionEdit

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SalbykKurgan221201683.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChrisiPK (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RefsEdit

If you've added references, then by all means remove the tag, its only meant to stay on until the issue it identifies is corrected :) --Mask? 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not well-versed in russian, so I have no way of knowing if the sources meet guidelines. You, however, seem to speak it, so peruse WP:RS and if you determine them to be acceptable, just pull the tag. It's obvious from the history that you at least made a good faith effort to address it, so I'm sure it's not a big deal. Someone may dispute the quality of the sources, but making sure yourself that they pass our reliable sources policy first should prevent that from happening. Just do the whole WP:BOLD thing :) --Mask? 01:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct translation for Russian titlesEdit

Dear Latebird, I corrected the titles [22] precisely because I thought that the translation was artificial. First, the Russian Sinologists do not use pinyin, they use exclusively Wade-Giles, sometimes retaining or showing examples of non-Cyrillic Wade-Giles Romanization (like Hsiung-nu). Secondly, when in the introductory examples they do show Romanization in "Cyrillization", they show Хсиунг-ну (Hsiung-nu), not Xiongnu. But in the texts and titles they use exclusively Хунну (Hunnu), Хунны (Huns), Сюнну (Sünnu) or Гунны (Guns), the last applicable only to the European Huns. Accordingly, in the bibliographies the titles are transcribed as Hunnu/Khunnu, Huns, Sunnu, and Guns. I never saw a title that was transcribed into Chinese pinyin Xiongnu, it looks really weird. I could cite example titles from bibliographies and/or store ads, if you are interested. Of the latest and most important, are the publications of Taskin V.S., he is using Сюнну (Sünnu) transcribed as Sunnu, but even he does that only because he is directly translating from Chinese, not publishing a his own research like N.Kradin, who is using only Хунну (Hunnu). Lastly, one of the titles showed a wrong publication year, which I also corrected, and you reversed it back to a wrong year. Its ISBN is also incorrect, but because the referenced publication does not have ISBN, I thought it is OK as is, at least it leads to a correct series. Finally, if all of my justifications are incorrect, would you please guide me to a description of Correct translation for Russian titles, that would help me in the future. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be confuse translation with transliteration. Those titles were translated to English, so the pinyin vs. Wade-Giles discussion is entirely irrelevant. In English, Wikipedia uses the term Xiongnu for the peoples in question, so that is what should be used in such a translation. It would be different if those books were also available in English, then we should use the actual English titles. But using a transliterated term in an otherwise translated title can only lead to confusion and should be avoided. --Latebird (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Latebird, you are making a good point in dicriminating translation and transliteration, and I totally agree with that. In the titles we do transliteration when there is no accepted substitute, in this case no English sabstitute for a Chinese rendition of the English word. And English has two words specifically to translate the Chinese Romanized Xiongnu or Hsiung-nu. One English word is Hunnu, used in scientific and popular publications, the other is Hun. Hunnu is applied as a synonym of the ancient Asian Huns, Hun is applied to the western Erasian Huns, and it is also applied as a general equivalency term for Hun-related subjects, like Indian Huna. The Chinese Xiongnu or Hsiung-nu are absolutely appropriate for the direct translation of the Chinese texts, citations, etc. For English titles Hunnu or Huns are appropriate, depending on content: [23] science article, UNESCO [24], L.Gumilev "Hunnu in China" book title, and so on. As you can see, Hunnu is not a transliterated term, it reflects the self-name of the people as evidenced by eyewitnesses other and in addition to the Chinese, but the Chinese Romanization is in fact a pure transliteration of the Chinese term. Barefact (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those two similar names are very confusing, and should never be used without explanation in an article (in the relevant edit histories you can see too many people incorrectly using them as synonyms). But I now understand your argument as how it can make sense in the titles of sources. --Latebird (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ili river treatyEdit

Hi Barefact,

I'd be glad if you take time to read my note on the talk page of Ili river treaty. Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shatuo Turks - Shato mergerEdit

I made an attempt to merge Shatuo Turks with Shato Turks, under Shato, as suggested. Aparently not everyone agrees to the name though. Perhaps you'd like to add something to the discussion?--Joostik (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shato is a self-name of the people, Shatuo is a Beijing colloquial pronounciation of Shato, formalised in the Pynin phonetical replacement scheme presently used in China. Because the self-name, if it is known, is a preferred choice, I positively vote for Shato. In the English-language literature, Shato is the only form. The form Shatuo as a matter of fact does not exist, it is only one of the form produced by a particular method of Romanization of the Chinese characters. Thank you, Barefact (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Twenty-Four Histories and pinyinEdit

Dear Barefact, most of the pinyin forms of the names of Twenty-Four Histories had been provided in their own individual articles. I added some missing ones to the individual articles, and also added pinyin to the main article Twenty-Four Histories. Thank you for your message. And I apologize if my tone in our discussion of Shato/Shatuo issue at Talk:Shatuo Turks is aggressive. Sorry.--Pengyanan (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AmanjolovKurganIssykInscription.gif listed for deletionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AmanjolovKurganIssykInscription.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[[25]] Xiongnu&diff=prev&oldid=372707227Edit

[[26]]


Hello Barefact. I am sorry it has taken longer than I like to respond to your query. As it stands it's taken the better part of an hour to figure this one out. And the bigger shame is that I have to attend business right now and can't offer the fullest response until I return later. I have discussed with user Chzz this event and he is as aware as me regarding what happened. If you go to IRC [27] before I return ask Chzz and he can explain. Otherwise I'll respond when I return later. Thanks My76Strat (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again sorry for the delay but I have fashioned a response here[28] which is where the conversation began. Thanks for your patience. My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Barefact

Please see my note on the Talk:Oghuz Yabgu State regarding your edit on 23 Dec. 2009. Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gifEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Selket Talk 07:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gifEdit

File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Highly dubious claim that "factual content is not subject to copyr." While the numbers in the graph may not be copyrightable per Feist, the image itself is. Selket Talk 07:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "dubious claim" came from the WP admins that I consulted beforehand (Generally in the US, factual content cannot be copyrighted, though the selection, arrangement, or style of presentation might be (e.g. Feist v. Rural). Since your intention is to take part of the data (presumably copyright exempt) and create a new image from it, you probably have nothing to worry about. Dragons flight 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)). That's why I recreated the graphics, which is copyrightable, and used the data contained in the original publication, which is not copyrightable. If you can advise on the changes to improve the GFDL status, I suppose it can be done, and I would appreciate your help. This one picture represents a result of many studies that are incementally vital to the article's subject. Do I need to respond elsewhere also? Barefact (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, as noted in the image description, this has "separate presentation artwork", which I take to be a statement of "I made my own way of representing these data". If that's correct (and I have no reason to say that it's not), this is not at all a problematic image. There's no way that factual content is subject to copyright; you can't sue for copyright violation just because I used some numbers that you researched and published. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Edit

Yeah, that was a while ago, and my attitude on that has changed, at least on Wikipedia (I don't care for it, but it's not that big a deal; off it, I still use direct terms, even when referring to family members). I haven't been doing that for months, except when it's a really obvious case; I was one of several who helped keep "passed away" and "perished" out of the Ronnie James Dio article, for instance. Not a problem; thanks for letting me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient Chinese StatesEdit

Hi Barefact, thanks for your edits on some of the Spring and Autumn Period states. The WP naming convention for these is XXXX (state)|XXXX where XXXX is the name of the state. Sending people to a DAB page with no further link is non-productive. At the same time there is a danger that people will think a page exists due to the presence of a live link and overlook creation of the relevant page. Best Philg88 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jin ZhuoEdit

A tag has been placed on Jin Zhuo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yousou (report) 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

04:08, 9 October 2010 Airplaneman (talk | contribs) deleted "Jin Zhuo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

File copyright problem with File:SalbykKurgan221201683.jpgEdit

Thank you for uploading File:SalbykKurgan221201683.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Insider (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chanyu ListEdit

I have Barfield's and Yap's books and was going to update the Chanyu list, but I don't want to step on your work. You can use any of this that you want.

For the first civil war, the claimants should go in a separate box. Yap's spellings are:
Tuqi Chanyu 屠耆單于, 58 - 56 BC
Hujie Chanyu 呼揭單于, 57 BC
Cheli Chanyu 車犂單于, 57 - 56 BC
Wujie Chanyu 烏籍單于, 57 BC
Runzhen Chanyu 閏振單于, 56 - 54 BC
Zhizhi Chanyu 郅支單于, 55 - 36 BC
Yilimu Chanyu 伊利目單于, 49 BC

Yap's spellings that differ from yours are: 114 Wuwei, 105 Wushilu 102 Xulihu, 101 Qiedihou

and Chanyus #15-20: 31-20 Fuzhleirou, 20-12 Souxierruodi 12-8 Cheyaruodi 8-13AD Wuzhuleiroudi. 13-18 Wuleirudi 18-46 Huduershidaoquanroudi

For Chanyus after the 20th Barfield has: 48-56 Hsi-lo-shih-chu-t'i, 56-57 Ch'iu-fou-yu-t'i, 57-59 I-fa-yü-lu-t'i, 59-63 Hsi-t'ung-shih-chu-hou-t'i, 63 Ch'iu-ch'u-chü-lin-t'i , 63-85 Hu-yeh-shih-chu-hou-t'i, 85-88 i-t'u-yü-lu-t'i, 88-93 Hsiu-lan-shih-shu-hou-t'i, 93-94 ?(sic in Barfield), 94-98 T'ing-tu-shih-chu-hou-t'i, 94-118 ? (sic in Barfield), 98-124 Wan-shih-shih-chu-t'i, 124-128: Wu-chi-hou-shih-chu, 128-140 ch'ü-ch'ih-jo-chu-chiu

Barfield also has a table showing the family relations between the various Chanyus Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Benjamin Trovato, I am using Bichurin and amendments by Kühner and Taskin; I also use the Romanization table in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillization_of_Chinese [29]; my prime concern is the poverty of info in the article; I understand very well that there are numerous versions of phonetization, both historical precedents and revised rules of the game, and I expect that there will be discussions and resulting changes, but the skeleton that I am helping to create will remain.
For phonetical rendition, I belive that Bichurin is the best source, for a number of reasons, the most substantial is that his phonetization predates the spread and dominance of Mandarin, which tends to distort phonetics to a specific modern dialect. Another is the prosthetic consonants Chinese adds to foreign syllables that start with vowels: Wuwei, Wushilu have imbedded prosthetic w that distorts the original Uwei and Ushilu, in case of Ushilu we know that he was an underage, and Ushilu has that semantic meaning, Turkic "age" is "yashi"; thus following Bichurin the name is less obscured then following modern Pinyin.
I would appreciate any advice I can get, like the Barfield and Yap citations you provided above, and generally any help on any subject. For me, the Chanyu article is a sidekick for now, I am trying to compile a Chanyu descendency tree, and am introducing missing info back into the Chanyu article. The draft for the tree is here [30], if you could look at it, criticize and make suggestions, it will be greatly appreciated; I am only half done, and when I post it, I expect comments and changes. I also appreciate the time you allow me to contunue this undertaking. I believe that the naming conventions will be established on individual pages, where will be posted various renderings and a concensus reached. Barefact (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sent you some wiki-email last week. Did it get through? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 
Hello, Barefact. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Creation/AppointmentEdit

I don't believe "appoint" is correct in this sense; you "appoint" someone to an office and "create" someone in a title. Please see, for example, Prince of Wales. I am going to change it back; if you have better arguments that "appoint" is correct, please discuss it. --Nlu (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Nlu, create somebody with a title is not English, it sounds very odd and unnatural. You can create something that did not exist at all, you can re-create something that was lost, but the existing titles you can appoint, grant, invest, bestow, endow, assign, designate, name, confer, promote to, and it is how the terms are used in the Prince of Wales article. You can claim a title, adopt, style yourself, pretend to, as something that already exists. A ruler may create a new title, and then grant, invest, bestow, endow, assign, designate it to somebody, or name somebody with a title. You can create (invent) a new title for somebody, but not create an existing person with a title. The example of Prince of Wales explains that this specific title is not a standing title: "tradition of investing the heir-apparent of the monarch with the title as "A Prince of Wales" ... King Edward I of England invested his son Edward Caernarfon with the title". The heir-apparent may or may not be invested with the title, the title is invoked for official standing as nominated (acting in official status) heir-apparent. "The Principality of Wales and Earldom of Chester must be created, and are not automatically acquired", the "created' refer to the title, not the person, as is incorrectly used in the Chinese-oriented articles.
If you feel that "appoint" is not correct in this sense, I would not defend it, though it is better English then "create", and is not profoundly odd. You can use bestow, confer or similar synonym, and that would be a proper English. The only case when you can use "create" is to invest somebody with a new title, office, or rank; so when you give somebody an existing principality or position, you are not "creating" that person with a title, you are investing, appointing, granting, endowing etc. I am sure you can adopt a proper phrasing using a form that is both semantically and grammatically correct. Barefact (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it is English; what do you think the English (i.e., the British monarchy) use? Although I see your point, I believe (with all due respect) that you are misunderstanding how the word "create" is used here. If you wish, we can open an RfC on this, but I think "appoint" is simply wrong. --Nlu (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In particular, please see the Merriam-Webster definition of "create"[31]: one of the definitions is:
to invest with a new form, office, or rank [(definition 2a)]
Based on the Webster definition, if "create" is wrong (as you argue), then "invest" is also wrong, which runs contrary to your argument above. Indeed, Webster's example (which I actually wouldn't call a great example but is the one they use) is: "was created a lieutenant," which runs completely counter to your belief that "create" refers to a new title (since "lieutenant" can't possibly be a new title). (In the example there, I'd prefer "commission" rather than "create," but given that they even use "create" here, certainly "create" is correct as to the noble titles. --Nlu (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was sure you would see my point. Webster does not date its entries, and probably couple of centuries ago, when English belonged to a narrow literate class, it was OK. To use the Shaksperean language now (it was English too) in a popular (i.e. common people of the world, vs. fashionable) encyclopedia is definitely anachronistic, and smacks pidgin. Actually, I thought that was a machine translation, and tried to humanize it. I am not contending, and do not need RfC to prove a point, but since you already see my point, you may want to consult other people you trust. Also, I've forgotten to mention "award", like the PhD titles are awarded nowdays, they used to be, and sometimes even now are bestowed. I also thought as an example of the Empress Dowager, sometimes a new emperor had to decide who to appoint to that entitlement: his mom, the mom of a previous emperor, or the last wife of his father; in that case he was "giving" or "granting" title, and she was not created, she was given, or she could be as well passed over. I am sure you can adopt a proper phrasing using a form that is contemporary, semantically, and grammatically correct. The "lieutenant" is also anachronistic, it used to be a highest rank in the army representing a king, now it is a lowest, they are not only not created, but even not appointed, not promoted, they are just given a rank. Thank you for paying attention, courtesy, and a fruitful discussion. Barefact (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I still think that "create" is the technically correct term, and we should aim for correctness. (As for empresses dowager, I tend to use "honor" rather than "create" since, as you noted, they are not created per se. Indeed, the Chinese tends to use 尊 (sometimes, 立), rather than 封 (which is what I directly translate to "create" as the closest one in meaning) when it came to empresses dowager. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to that thought — I agree with the early 20th century Chinese author/translator Yan Fu that the priorities in translation (and I would say, in writing about history) are faithfulness (信), expressiveness (達), and elegance (雅), in that order. Elegance, while important, cannot trump expressiveness, and expressiveness, while important, cannot trump faithfulness. I still believe that "create" is the most faithful way to translate 封, and I actually cannot think of an English word that comes close to it in faithfulness. ("Enfeoff" is the closest I can think of but is actually slightly less accurate (since someone created a title would not necessarily get a fief to go along with it) and I'd say is substantially more arcane than "create." These days, you will still see "create" used in news reports about the British and Japanese monarchies, whereas you won't see "enfeoff.") --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hann?Edit

Hi Barefact, I'm just wondering where this "Hann" popped up from in the State of Han article?. It doesn't fit with either pinyin or Wade-Giles and I have never seen it in any publication. Best Philg88 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M. Loeuwe, E.L. Shaughnessy, eds, The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221BC, p. 960 etc: Hann 韓; also look up the index there. Also, see for example Qin Shi Huang in WP, it is already there, I only brought it up to disamb and header for consistency. Barefact (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, well I don't trust The Cambridge History of Ancient China as it contains mistakes. For example, Hai Rui is referred to as Hai Jui which is totally wrong. Since Hanfresco seems to agree with me that "Hann" does not exist (he reverted your edit in the State of Han article), I thing we need a second source. Best Philg88 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am looking from the standpoint of a person who is looking for information on a subject and can't find it directly. What spelling is used as a primary is irrelevant if you can google and locate information directly, as the encyclopedia is supposed to provide, instead of making you to run in circles. The question is not what is right, because there is no absolute right, but what is used in the literature and need to be understood by people who can't argue the finer points of either side right and wrong. There is no reason to hide relevant spelling, unless one wants to hide something in pursuit of an agenda.
Also, there is an element of timing, the older literature used exclusively Hai Jui, and a good portion keeps using it, even though pinyin came about and arbitrarily changed historically stable English forms, which is the case with Hai Rui and Hai Jui. Without getting into the politics of the issue, I think we should provide the reader with both forms, without trying to advocate right or wrong for either side of the issue. It is English-language literature that uses Hai Jui, what's wrong with using English in English WP? Checking " "Hann state" China " on Google gives plenty of secondary "Hann" usages in English literature, if you need a second source. But anyway, thank you for asking, many useful and valid things get deleted on a whim without asking. Barefact (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point of view and I certainly have no agenda other than to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate. That Hai Jui is used in English literature so it's acceptable is a fallacious argument. Hai Jui is just plain wrong - the 瑞 of 海瑞 has no "Jui" equivalent Chinese pronouncation. The same goes for Hann - there is no double "n" sound in the Chinese language. Using your argument, anyone could just make up their own romanisations as many people did in the past leading to no end of confusion.Philg88 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Barefact, firstly, I appreciate your effort in thinking from the standpoint of those looking for information. However considerate your intentions, I fail to see your point: Google "Hann State China" and the first result points to Han (state). I also do not see any ambiguities between Han and Han, as was the concern of the authors your source. The former is always mentioned in terms of State or Kingdom, while the latter is always mentioned in terms of Empire or Dynasty. Those authors should instead concern themselves with Han and Han (spring and autumn), another state which existed between 1000BC-700BC (This one uses the same character 韩!). After all, their history supposedly covers up to 221BC, which covers both State of Han's existences and excludes the more well known Han Dynasty. Finally, there is no need for Wikipedia to list all alternates, considering "Chung Kuo" is not in China.Hanfresco (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Hanfresco and Phil, I did not hear a single argument to justify deletion of useful English form of the name, nor in favor of the absence of such a name in WP in a direct unambiguous format. The only argument was that "Hann" does not exist in English, and it does exist in scholarly works in English, as I have shown to anybody's satisfaction. Unless deletion is justified by a scholarly reference proving that the word does not exist, the deletion was done on a personal whim. Barefact (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The arguments are very simple and laid about above: 1)The "nn" sound does not exist in the Chinese languages 2) Accepted (or standard) Romanisations should be used. 3) Arbitary words (see Hanfresco's Chung-kuo above) should be avoided. Best Philg88 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These arguments do not apply: 1) Chinese phonetics does not rule English scientific terminology 2) English terminology does not need Romanisation, we do not need Romanised Chinese name for "China", because English already has a term for "China" for scientific and laymen use 3) English Sinology is about 200 years old, and has many words that could be spelled differently, like Shaanxi, which also does not conform to the Chinese Romanisation scheme, but it is used in English in spite of its initial arbitrary origin. The alternate spelling "Hann" is not a new invention, it is a fact of English terminology, as illustrated by time-honored scholarly publications in English, the WP is full of alternate spellings given to create a reliable source of information. We are not reinventing English, just reporting facts supported by credible references. Barefact (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MovesEdit

Before you move anything else, I would appreciate if you first consulted a good English dictionary such as the OED, which makes it perfectly clear that words such as "krai" and "okrug" are perfectly acceptable loanwords which, I should add, as especially relevant in the context of discussing the administrative divisions of Russia. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 18, 2011; 19:48 (UTC)

You know, consider this. Wikipedia has been around for ten years, and the articles about various Russian subdivisions (as krais, oblasts, okrugs, etc.) have been around for at least seven of those years. You don't think that in all this time, today you are the first one to consider why that is? :) This matter had been discussed years ago, more than once, and every single time the outcome was to use the proper loanwords. Yes, it is OK to refer to oblasts as "provinces" and to krais as "territories" in passing where the entity status is of little concern (a newspaper reporting, say, a plane crash in "Novgorod Province" is fine, because the topic is the crash, not the intricacies of the administrative divisions), but we stick to precise terms when we discuss the actual subject matter or where the subject matter, pardon the pun, matters.
Besides, I don't think you understand what kind of havoc you'd wreak by switching to generic terms everywhere. Heck, consider my last edit before I noticed your moves—would you care to explain in generic terms how Leningrad Province was created as a result of a merger of five other provinces and was originally subdivided into nine district which, in turn, were subdivided into districts (and which in turn were also subdivided into districts, but I omitted that part as it would be too much detail for that article)? How will you discuss the switch from three level administrative divisions structure in the early RSFSR to a two-level one, if the only term you have to refer to all three levels is "districts"? How would you distinguish between the 18th century provinces (провинции) and later oblasts?
You are also wrong to assume that the OED includes all kinds of junk. It does not. They have an involved and thorough routine which is followed before any word is included, and I assure you the OED does not contain "hundreds of" Buryat, Chinese, or who knows what else words. Only the words which have been shown to be used in English (i.e., only those which are supported by numerous citations) qualify. We do the same. Things like oblasts and krais are just fine, and things which are not we do change (the articles about the uluses of the Sakha Republic, for example, were moved to "districts" precisely because "ulus" is not an English loanword but rather a straight transliteration of a Russian/Sakha word).
The Wikipedia routine is to discuss the moves which are non-obvious—in many cases you'd be surprised to learn just how many reasons exist to do things the way which may not make sense at the first glance. All that's needed is a second glance. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 18, 2011; 20:27 (UTC)

West or east ?Edit

Hi Barefact,

In the article Nushibi the words East and West may be confused. Can you please check the discussion. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Old Turkic scriptEdit

I was unable to find the file for rt on wikipedia or commons sgv or otherwise. I can create the letter if you desire however i don't know how it looks like. I found a table of all letters of Old Turkic script in the Unicode chart file if you can tell me the Unicode value i can create it. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear IngerAlHaosului, thank you for responding. No, I had no clue about unicode, or what is Unicode value. I was complementing alphabetic tables with your images, discovered omissions and discrepancies, and thought that you may want to know of them. I can send you the tables if you send me your e-mail address. And I am very grateful for the file link, it is an eye opener. I learned that Unicode already has the Enisean fonts, and I would presume that they also belong to the WP, either in the same article, maybe even in the same table, or in a separate article because Unicode lists it as a separate alphabet. I also thought, following I.Kyzlasov, that the differences are 6-8 letters out of 40-some, but somehow Unicode appear to have much greater differences. Some Unicode differences are not warranted, like 10C07 and 08, it is clearly the same letter.
In my case, I am looking at tables compiled by each author based on the inscriptions he personally investigated. In many cases they provide a range of forms for the same letter, except for most simple forms. And the shapes are as different as are the sources. There is no uniformity, so Unicode may teach how to write, but not how to read. And if I send you these tables, you will see for yourself variations between different sources.
You must have followed a very good source, none of the authors that I know show the organization as crisply as the WP table. It would be good to add the source to the table, for reference for people like me. Barefact (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you for the appreciation, however the table was not created by me [[32]] my contribution was in converting the existing png files to svg, so if you can provide a example on how the missing letters look like can create them in in svg.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaunchi cultureEdit

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kaunchi culture, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Kaunchi+Culture.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although a translation, this appears to be a derivative work of a copyrighted source, see the matches here.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response and rephrasing in the article. The source in the notice up there is a translation as well and has a copyright. It lists the The Great Soviet Encyclopedia as copyrighted as well. I would hope other editors aren't using the exact translated text in other Wikipedia articles. The text in your article looks a lot better now and I agree some terms and matches are inescapable. The comparison tool I used above is linked to the current version of the article (not an old diff), so when you look at it prior to making edits, it was the current version. Now you can see the longer matches have been removed.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks original, no copyvio found. I even Google-searched some of the Russian text and didn't find anything. It looks like several different sources were used too.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1043 treatyEdit

Hi Barefact, after a pause I've seen your contribution in Timeline of Turks. User:Kansas Bear has tagged one of your former edits which we already had a talk. Please see 1043. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012Edit

I wish you a happy and productive year. Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gifEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Rosetta Barnstar
This Barnstar is for your tireless and fearless efforts at Wikipedia. Greczia (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Орден для вас!Edit

  Орден за заслуги
Thank you for everything! :) Viplux (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TarduEdit

Hi Barefact, In the article Böri Shad there were references to Kara Churin and Tardush as if they were two different people. In fact those names belong to the same person and I fixed it. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Barefact. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File permission problem with File:AmanjolovKurganIssykInscription.gifEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:AmanjolovKurganIssykInscription.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DisputeEdit

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Янгикент/JankentEdit

Здраствуйте Barefact. Пожалуйста обьедините в викиданных статьи из русской - ru:Янгикент (городище) и казахской - kk:Янгикент википедии и из этой - Jankent и узбекской - uz:Jankent википедии, т.к. это один и тот же город. Спасибо. С уважением --Poti Berik (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Спасибо, надеюсь уч. Nedim Ardoğa обьединит. С уважением --Poti Berik (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Barefact, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
Poti Berik (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

GreetingsEdit

Happy New Year !

Hello Barefact,

I wish the very best for you and the world in 2015. Cheers, Nedim Ardoğa (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khazars/Kangar migration>Kangar UnionEdit

  Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Khazars#Kangar migration and North Pontic Kangar state. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. You might also find it useful to read WP:PLAG, WP:VER and WP:CITE. Unfortunately, if you can't provide reliable sources for all the statements and address the copying of text verbatim (copy and paste) from the website you took the statements from, then the material that you copied into wikipedia will be removed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know that the plagiarised unsourced material you added to the Khazars article has been moved to Kangar union. I note that this latter article on Kangar Union was begun by you[33] Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2016Edit

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Pul, from its old location at User:Barefact/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in particular, I'm planning to add much of the information from the Russian WP article. It will need rewriting to do that--the Google translate version is hopeless. I'm fairly sure there are English sources also, and the Russian version refers to an old German encyclopedia . I apologize for the carelessness of the previous reviewer who did not realize that this was an important topic. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

Hello, Barefact. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:PulEdit

 

Hello, Barefact. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Pul".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 17:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

Hello, Barefact. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Mirfatyh Zakiev for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mirfatyh Zakiev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirfatyh Zakiev until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wario-Man (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

Hello, Barefact. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hun ChanyusEdit

 Template:Hun Chanyus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Ili River Treaty for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ili River Treaty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ili River Treaty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Mansur Hasanov, Academician of Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan republic, in "People's Political Newspaper" № 96-97 (24393-24394) 17 May 2001 http://www.rt-online.ru/numbers/public/?ID=25970
  2. ^ Pan-Turanianism Takes Aim at Azerbaijan: A Geopolitical Agenda By: Dr. Kaveh Farrokh
  3. ^ Turkey - Linguistic and Ethnic Groups - U.S. Library of Congress