This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.196.139.250 (talk) at 21:36, 20 March 2006 (→SIgn your comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:36, 20 March 2006 by 69.196.139.250 (talk) (→SIgn your comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hello Parishan and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Three-revert rule
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule, which states that no one can revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. --Khoikhoi 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- ---
- You are doing the same thing. Seriously, can't we compromise on this? Why do you have to stick that ambiguous "Turkic people" detail when you can just avoid it?
- I haven't reverted more than 3 times however. The article has said "Turkic people" for almost two years. What kind of compromise do you suggest? --Khoikhoi 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest that we don't mention the roots/the "who they are now" thing (Turkic, Iranian, Caucasian - doesn't matter) at all due to its high ambiguity. In the discussion section you can see for yourself, that many Azeris simply refuse to concur with that statement. So why not just take it out without replacing it by anything else?
- Ok, good idea. We'll see what people think of it tomorrow, but for now instead of having "Turkic-speaking people" just say "ethinc group". --Khoikhoi 04:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'm perfectly fine with that.
- Great. How does it look now? Any other things needing to be fixed? --Khoikhoi 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'm perfectly fine with that.
- Ok, good idea. We'll see what people think of it tomorrow, but for now instead of having "Turkic-speaking people" just say "ethinc group". --Khoikhoi 04:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest that we don't mention the roots/the "who they are now" thing (Turkic, Iranian, Caucasian - doesn't matter) at all due to its high ambiguity. In the discussion section you can see for yourself, that many Azeris simply refuse to concur with that statement. So why not just take it out without replacing it by anything else?
- I haven't reverted more than 3 times however. The article has said "Turkic people" for almost two years. What kind of compromise do you suggest? --Khoikhoi 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
SIgn your comments
Azeris are not TUrks. GO in Iran and tell the majority of Azeris. They will politily disagree. The ancestors of the Azeris are not Turks the are Caucasian and Iranian peoples like the Mede. Just because we speak Turkish does not mean we Azeris must ignore our ancestors and heritage. Our culture is also clearly Iranian. Nevruz is a Iranian celebration and ancient custom. Our clothing and food are Iranian. Many of our names are also non-Turkish names on both the the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran. Most of Azerbaijani history has been tied to Iran's too. Azerbaijan has all been a part of Iran for most its history. The ancient religion of the Azeris was the Iranian faith of Zoroastrianism. Most of Iran's leaders are Azeris from the Safavids to Qajar, Professor Mossadegh, and the Ayatollah. They were all against pan-Turkism. So how are we Turks besides through language? 69.196.139.250 21:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)