Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aksi great (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 30 October 2006 (→Old accusations rehashed: mail). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC

Dieter, when you have time, could you take a look at these edits. I'm not competent to assess these assertions, especially as they are unsourced. Thanks, Ghirla 07:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Multitudes

It's in 17:4 too, but 17:5 should be sufficient as well. -- Avi 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Nazi mysticism talk page

Just calling your attention to the thread at Talk:Nazi mysticism#Project templates. - Lawrence King 07:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments

I was wondering why you deleted WIN's comment on Talk:Out of India theory. It may not be an intelligent comment, but wouldn't it be better to ignore it rather than remove it, which I thought was bad ediquette. Regards. Nobleeagle 09:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not again

Please take a look: Bad grammer, Original Research, Bringing contents from articles that were deleted due to OR. I really think it is time to take some action against this user since his effort seems to be pushing the claim that Ossetians are not an Iranian speaking group and Scythians are Turks and etc. I do not think such a user can play a constructive role in Misplaced Pages. Plus his poor grammer and spelling are substandard as well. I wanted to put a delete on the article but this is the third or fourth time the user is doing OR. I am hoping you will take some action on this issue. --alidoostzadeh 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, but this is not a random article. As you know, I avoided a nonsense editing war on the Ossetian lang. page, one of the subjects of the war by alidoostzadeh and his militant Iranian supermacists was to delete the results of the genetic research that illuminate the linguistics of the Digors, Irons and Ardons. Their joined efforts enforce a censorship intended to supress facts. In removing the "Genetics" section, they also removed the very references that substantiate the material. That the Ossetians are not an Iranian speaking group is stated by Abaev, whose citation the same group censored out from the article. Abaev states that language is 80% non-Iranian. And the material is not original, Abaev published in 1949, and Nasidze did his studies in the 2003 and 2004. The Ossetian Genetics article uses authentic materials but it has not been completed yet with Literature section, and it definitely will be. I will gladly go back to the "Ossetian Language" article, but I do not want to start alidoostzadeh and his team on another editing war.

As you know, I offered compromizes a number of times, I also lined up a mediator, and an Admin offered him to compromise, but alidoostzadeh declined all offers and meditation, and he always elects to run editing wars, enforcing unbalanced contents with Iranian nationalistic contents. Many of those contents are completely absurd, like stating that Ossetian language formed in Russian neighborhood, and then he is running a war to enforce that nonsense, and whines about being abused. In fact,it is the Iranian censorship and chronic deception that abuses the system.Barefact 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Please look at the war alidoostzadeh/Kosrow are running on Kurgan, wiping out referenced kurgan architecture descriptions and even citation by M.Alinei that discusses the etymology of the word itself. It is a pure nationalistic vandalism. Kurgans are cemeteries, they need to be treated as cemeteries, and archeological treasures, and not as emblems for a supermacist ideology. Barefact 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Barefact, you operate a pan Turkic website, you write all these articles yourself, put them on your website, then transfer then copy paste them on Misplaced Pages, and you also make up quotes and facts. Your credibility is very very low, and its not going to get better if you continue editing the way you do.Khosrow II 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kosrow, your ability to lie and deceive is not far from alidoostzadeh, I do write the Tertiary articles based on Secondary articles, but your pretense that you do not like my spelling and bad grammar is a long nose lie, you do not like the facts of life that I bring into the broad light. This is what really bothers you, the genetics and architecture, not my spelling that is corrected anyway by computerized program. If you were a man you would attack the facts, not the massenger, and attack facts by disavowing them, not erasing them in a vandalic manner. Your favorite method is backstabbing. Your backstabbing manners stink. My regards. Barefact 08:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually when you cite references, you have been shown to cite them erroneously and making false ones. For example you claimed Herodotus in book 2 says the Scythians speak a variety of languages. This was shown to be false. You claimed Zosimus considers the Huns and Scythians to be the same, this was shown to be false. Also I would watch the personal tones here. You were shown in the Ossetian language thread to actually disfigure the words of Abaev. I showed that Abaev clearly states Ossetian is an Iranian language. You disfigured it: . As per genetics, that article you were also shown to disfigure and take out what you like and remove what you do not like. That is also shown in the Ossetic language article. As per barefact claiming that he offered administrators to get involved, no administrator actually got involved in any of the articles he claims was disputed. As per the word Kurgan, it entered Polish and other indo-european languages through Russian as the dictionaries have clearly said. I checked Merriam-Webster on this issue which is a very valid and sound etymological dictionary. Here is another dictionary: . And you have no right to remove scholarly citeed journals on the Kurgan theory. Your most ridicolous claim in that article is citing a pan-turkist manual History of an ancient Turkish script and claiming the Issyk inscription of 4th century B.C. to be proto-Turkic! You do not seem to understand that proto-Turkic is a hypothetical language and no proto language in the world has scripts! For example proto-Indo-European or proto-semitic or proto-elamite do not have scripts. Also the EB 2006 clearly states the oldest Turkish writing is Orkhon inscription. So I think you need to stop citing invalid pan-turkist sources. For example the guy Diker which you cite in your website claims Sumerian, Parthians, Elamites and many other groups as Turks. As per genetic studies, accultration is the key and usually a dominant group can spead its language. So genetics studies do not actually reject the Iranian language of Ossetians which is accepted by Abaev himself. Also English dictionary is mostly latin and greek. Abaev's Slovar contains more than 16000 indo-iranian terms. And I quoted Ilya Yakubovich an expert on Ossetian and Iranian linguistics that the Swadesh list of Ossetian has only 4 non-foreign words. It is clear for everyone that you are not here to write and contribute scholarly materials, but you are in wikipedia to write pan-turkist revisionist history and you will be firmly opposed. I would check with EB 2006 before writing articles since your theories are either outdated or outright invalid. --alidoostzadeh 11:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I offered to mediate your deceitful accusations, and you are refusing, because they are not defensible. I even agreed to your friend Ilya Yakubovich to arbitrate, counting that a scholar would not be dishonest like you. Your "proves" are stipilations taken from tertiary sources, they express opinions instead of facts, and you just repeat the suitable opinions deeming them facts. Your militant enforcement of censorship in historical matters is preposterous and racist, and your use of pan-turkist demagogy is full of racial hatred. Abaev, Nasidze, Alieni, Ismaigulov, Hildinger, Pletneva, Yablonsky, Tolstov are not pan-turkists, many of them were followers of the Scytho-Iranian theory, but their research speaks louder than their (in many times forced) opinions. Your censorship promotes ignorance and dogmatism, your tools are deception, lie, and backstabbing, and your militance is equal to your ignorance. You initiate wars and can't sustain a discussian without resorting to deception and mudslinging. My regards. Barefact 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You were caught red handed disfiguring Abaev's quote here: . You were also caught redhanded disfiguring the quotes of Herodotus and Zosimus. I think you need to get it through your head. Ossetic is considered Iranian by all linguists even Abaev. Scythians are considered Iranians by all sources (Britannica 2006) included. The Orkhon inscription is considered the oldest Turkish inscription (Britannica 2006). The Alans, Samartians, Cimmerians are not considered Turks (Britannica 2006). Any deceitful tactics and plagarism and fantasy relating these groups to turks is considered pan-turkism. There is no such a thing as scytho-Iranian theory. Scythians were considered Iranians way before Abaev. Misplaced Pages is not a debate club. It will reflect the genuine opinions of scholars. As per your accusation I ask Dab to look into it: deception, lie, and backstabbing, and your militance . Your efforts are dishonest. For example you do not look at Abaev's 4 volume monumental Slovar. Or when Prof. Ilya Yakubovich clearly states that only 4 words in the Swadesh list of Ossetic is non-Iranian in origin. The fact is Ossetic is considered Iranian by all scholars including Abaev himself. If you have a problem with that, then your place is not wikipedia. No ands or ifs or buts as Misplaced Pages will reflect the latest scholarly opinion and everything you say contradicts Encyclopedia 2006 as well as what many of the scholars you misquote say. --alidoostzadeh 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop lying. I looked into "4 volume monumental Slovar", you did not, I even suggested that you can convince yourself by doing a quick estimate, which you militantly declined. In the "Slovar", Abaev lists 18% elucidated Iranian words (and 82% non-Iranian), versus his 20% estimate he made in 1949. And "elucidated" is not "evident", in most cases these etymologies are very doubtful, as Abaev himself confirms in many instanses in his "Slovar". To produce his elucidations he sweeps territory from Tian Shan to Baltics. Words that have any chance of mutual comprehension with Iranian are maybe 1%, like shakh etc. Considering that centuries before the 10th c. and centuries after 10th c. Persian and Azeri were lingua franca between the 360 Caucasian languages, every language in the Caucasus has Persian and Azeri loanwords closely matching this 1%. Many scholars in the world do not buy into Scythian-Ossetian theory, and are resarching alternates. The very fact that there are so many alternate hypotheses certifies that your stipulation about universal acceptance of the Scythian-Ossetian theory is a clear deception. Your vigilant efforts to supress the subject highlight this situation. Instead of suppressing information, you could, for example, find an alternate reference explaining why beech, bore etc that you cited are shared between Turkic and Germanic languages, and we all will benefit from your constructive inputs. As it stands, now WP gets an unbalanced, censored, and grossly primitivised view enhanced by ignorance. And Swadesh list for Digorian/Ironian is still waiting to be delivered. Barefact 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not look into it or else there is at least 16000 Iranian etymological terms that are not Ossetian but are cognates with Ossetian. It contains 14000 non-Indo-Iranian (possibly Indo-European terms) that are cognates with ossetians. You also claimed you looked into a Persian dictionary and 1/3 of it was Turkish! Nice joke. You were caught red handed disfiguring Abaev's quote here:.

Stop making demands and trying to change scholarly accepted facts.If you have a problem look at Encyclopedia Britannica 2006. Plain and Simple. I do not have to prove Ossetian is this or that, since all the references support me. Abaev clearly states it is Iranian and you disfigure his quote. And I have total right to suppress false information you bring to reach false conclusions specially when the material can not be verified since so far you can not provide any English sources supporting anything you wrote. For example you try to blow up the caucasian influence on Ossetian whereas you do not mention all the times Abaev says clearly Ossetic is Iranian and he has never called the language Caucasian! Yet you reach a false conclusion which Abaev does not. BTW an English dictionary has more Latin and Greek terms than Germanic terms. Yet English is classified as a Germanic language. As per Swadesh list, I quoted Ilya Yakubovich. He said that only about 4 terms are non-Iranians. I have his email available still and can easily forward it to dab. If you have a problem with that, it is not my problem. Right now WP is not unbalanced, since it reflects information that are supported by scholars and EB 2006. I would check EB 2006 if I were you since it is an encyclopedia that is used by many universities. If you have a problem with their articles, it is not my problem. --alidoostzadeh 20:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

it is very simple. The plain mainstream classification of Ossetian is "Iranian". After that, and under that heading, we can certainly discuss etymological peculiarities, if you cite sources. As for "Many scholars in the world do not buy into Scythian-Ossetian theory", if you would just cite them, instead of putting illegitimate spin on mainstream opinions, we might get somewhere. Misplaced Pages can discuss such alternative speculations, but it cannot portray them as mainstream if they are not. Less spinning, Barefact, more reference to specific studies. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your change on Muhammad

You said: "I did a single edit yesterday. Also see my comment on talk, as long as we have no better identification of the image, I suppose we should not keep it after all. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 29 September 2006"

You said: "hm, I think our first question should be, is it really Muhammad preaching? The image page description claims as much, but I haven't found any reference for the claim. The source given is a deep link directly to the jpeg file. We'd need at least a link to a description on expositions.bnf.fr. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

You also said: "guys, regarding zombietime and what not, it is very simple, if you upload a manuscript image, it is your responsibility to give encyclopedic identification of the image. It doesn't matter if you found the image on zombietime or myspace, you'll just have to do your own research and identify the image. The French "manuscrit Arabe" in this case translates to "Arabic manuscript", the MS is in Arabic, but made in Persia. Nobody claims it is an "Arab manuscript", made by Arabs, but the Persians happened to know and write Arabic, too. I agree that we should have fewer Persian images and more calligraphy here. Therefore, dear aniconists, instead of complaining of the images we have, do upload us some nice images of notable "Muhammad" calligraphy, and I will certainly suppport giving those precedence over Shia portraits (although at least a single Persian image should remain here for balance). dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"

Why you still reverted back that image (saying notable) whose source you yourself doubted (above) and which you yourself acknowledged (above) that we do not know who is preaching in it (and other such things). Also you said that at least one image should be remain there for balance. The article do already had one but still you reverted it. I am confuse and cannot understand you since I am here in wikipedia. Please help me out sir. --- ابراهيم 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually portrait of the Prophet Muhammad is popular amongst Shiite's of Iraq, Lebanon and Iran. So Dab is totally correct here and I have seen many of these portraits. They are like the portraits of Jesus in Christian countries. --alidoostzadeh 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May be you are right. But I lived in country of 160 million Muslim and have never seen a single picture of this kind while spending my life in many cities and meeting with many people. Hence leaving aside what percentage of Muslims like those pictures, here I just want to know why what dab says and do looks conflicting to me. His writing gives me some other impression but his action are in other direction. I hope I could better understand him by his answers of questions I posted above and if he not opt to reply then it is okay. --- ابراهيم 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well here is a portrait from a Safavid manuscript from approximately 400 years ago. You can see the angels in heaven and the Prophet's ascension (Me'raj). (Note the image is not copyrighted as it is from 400 years ago as well as Iran does not have copy rights on old images). Here is also a potrait from an Ottoman (Sunni) manuscript from the 14th century. . Note the winged figure is the Archangel Gabriel. --alidoostzadeh 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this image. I was wary about its identification, but I think we have established its provenance now, and afaics it is not disputed that it does depict Muhammad. If you have never ever seen such an image in your country, well, thank God there is the internet now, and especially Misplaced Pages, so that you can take a glimpse beyond your borders while comfortably sitting at your desk. Not at all, it's all in a day's work for Misplaced Pages. 13:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I have made my mind about you and will need not to talk about this issue any more. Now I can revert your changes without any doubts in a second. You could do mine. Bye. --- ابراهيم 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

an unfortunate attitude, I would like to keep you around as a good-faith editor, but you're practically declaring an edit-war jihad here. dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith towards you. I am sorry but I cannot at all ... anymore. You are even not man of your words. --- ابراهيم 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And I liked a lot your usage of word Jihad. --- ابراهيم 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

well, your "struggling" on that article does seem a tiny little bit fuelled by a religious motivation. I do not see that I didn't keep my word in any way. I said that I would support more calligraphy over Persian art if people would upload nice examples. So I suggest you struggle a little bit to find nice calligraphic images, you will then be in a position to remind me that I supported replacing a Persian image or two with those. I do not care very much about investing time in the Muhammad article, I really just occasionally try to balance it out. You would do well to remember that back when the Islamophobes tried to rip apart the article, you were rather grateful to have my support. dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is motivated by my believes but everyone edits is motivated by their believes (e.g. secularism, atheism, Christianity etc). Tell me why these people removed the image that has no face of Muhammad (mirage one) and replaced it with those new image with face. Do you think that because these new images are more useful or may be more irritating to some editors? Do not you think we finally had long peace on that no-face image and article was going in good direction?

Using words like Jihad and crusade is never appropriate. Furthermore, if it would had been be my jihad then I do edit it 3 times a day everyday (without talking on any talk pages at all). Yes I had been thankful to you in the past but also mad at you when you called me with some not good attributes (do not want to repeat them here). However, I remain always confused what you write and your writing gives me double meaning. You could say that this problem could be because my English is poor but I have this problem not with other editors. May be you try to be too much political and hide what you really mean somewhere in words. May be you try to please everyone. That is why I get wrong impressions. May be it is how a good admin should be but I really prefer if people say things very clearly (no politics) and then stand by them very firmly even if other do not like their stand. I myself try to do that. okay sorry if I get little bit annoyed previously. I take my words back about not having bad faith towards you but I remain really confused about you at best and will try to read your post many time carefully (if that could help). --- ابراهيم 12:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maome image mediation

Hi Dbachmann, I notice that you have reinserted the maome image. You may be aware that there is a discussion of this image at talk:Muhammad/Depictions. I have requested assistance from the mediation cabal to fascilitate this discussion. If it is your intention to continue reinserting the image, would you be amenable to participating in this mediation? Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

not really. these discussions have been going on for ages, and I've heard all the arguments several times over. It's just strain on the servers to keep discussing this. there are exactly two considerations that have to be made wrt this image:

1. is the Muhammad article already too crowded with other, more encyclopedic images, so that it should be removed to avoid clutter?

2. is there another, better quality or more encyclopedic image of a similar work of art?

that's it. there can be no debate that the image is pertinent to the article per MoS, and the only admissible debate is on whether there are too many better images already. Restating the obvious points of Misplaced Pages policy to each and every editor that stumbles in and complains about the image is just so much wasted breath. 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)dab (ᛏ)

Removal of article and a suggestion

Dbachmann, will you please let me know who had erased "Ossetian Genetics", and what WP rules he/she used in doing so. I agree that its contents belonged to a more general article, making it a separate stub was a temporary tactics to avoid wars and to develop presentable contents in normal quiet atmosphere. But the contents were removed without a trace in a fasion that appear to be inside work, and I want to appeal on procedural grounds.

I also wanted to suggest that general articles have a pre-set, agreed upon table of contents, channeling editors into topical contributions. The contents stubs would help to reduce vandalism where ideologically motivated editors wipe out contents by blatant excisions. We have good examples of table of contents in the exemplars of "Good Article", like English language, Uralic languages etc. Now, the amorphous ad hoc composition of the tables of contents lead to inflammatory situation. A pemanent topic on the table of contents on the discussion page would facilitate its orderly modifications. You know that any writer creates a table of contents before he starts any work, and the status of "Good Article" can't be achieved without such a gentle guiding hand. I am sure that this question was raised before, and if there is a standard solution, please let me know. Thanks, Barefact 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Old accusations rehashed

Hi Dieter. The old accusation against me regarding sockpuppetry has been rehashed by certain users.I believe that such an act is unwarranted and I was wondering if you could lend me some assistance in making my case.Please contact me if you are interested in the details. For reference, I invite you to look at the RFCU in question:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

as well as the associated talk page:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

which adequately summarized my position. Thank you and have a pleasant day.Hkelkar 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this case was just filed on RfA.Hkelkar 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have sent you a mail yesterday about this incident as requested by Hkelkar. Forgot to leave you a message about it here. Please confirm that you got my mail. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kurgan