Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbachmann (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 28 October 2006 (→Your change on []). 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)

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)

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