User talk:LouisAragon/Archive 2

Ugent: User:MehrdadFR

Urgent.

Hello Louis Aragon.

The User:MehrdadFR seems to have a political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.

Could you do something about this user?

Thank you.

Artoxx (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removing a language on the basis of a small number of speakers from an appropriate template is vandalism and will not be tolerated. What kind of a reasoning is this? Was that template created in accordance to iranian government implemented laws or what is noted on Wikipedia? Please refrain from removing based on flawed "reasoning". It is indigenous to Iran as such it will go in the appropriate template. If it was spoken in another country, it would go in another template. If you wish for endangered languages to be removed from templates, you might want to propose a new policy rather than making up your own. I really think this is a bizarre "argument" to begin with.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you blatantly ignored WP:BRD. Second, this language, spoken in literally two villages in an 80 million large nation, has absolutely no recorded significance. Not historically, not nowadays. It has recently been "discovered", and not much is known about it, which the author explicitly mentions as well. A quick search in Google Scholars confirms this, as there's literally only one source that mentions it; the very same source upon which you based your entire article on. Google Books doesn't even give a single hit, and there's no mention on Glottolog or Ethnologue about it either. These reasons already completely back up the rationale that it simply should not be added. Its pure undue weight, which you're trying to give significance just because you think it should be. Furthermore, in my opinion, your further ungrounded stance about this is well illustrated in your rather weird analogy with the usage of "Hebrew" -- a language spoken by a minority who have major historical significance in Iran for more than 2,000 years, have parliamentary representation ever since the first parliament was founded in 1906, and are recognized as an officially protected minority in the constitution as well (nowadays Article 13). This clear agenda-loaded stance is also illustrated here as well. Lastly, given your referral to "WP:VANDALISM", just because someone pointed you out on your obvious tendentious editing, it only shows you unfortunately have absolutely no clue about WP's either. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I failed to see how that justifies removing mention of a language spoken in Iran from a template created to mention such. By your "logic", the Kalash language should be removed from the template languages of Pakistan because only a small semi-isolated community of no more than three thousand speak it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New account

Off to bed, busy tomorrow. Try the talk page of wiki project archaeology. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sirkap

Hello LouisAragon. You have a point that 100 hundred years is a lot for an archaeologist, however I do not see why something that was excavated 100 years ago should not be accepted as valuable information. That would eliminate a lot of the content of our museums worldwide! You are removing many photographs which are highly legitimate and valuable, and are also, quite appreciably, Public Domain. I would appreciate if you could reinstate the work that has been done (your deletions here), and I promise and will be careful not to incorporate dated historic interpretations (for example I kind of agree with you previous removal of the Aramaic text from Taxila from the Achaeminid page, but it seems legitimate on the Sirkap page since it was excavated there). Goldsmelter (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

reply

I need your reply on my talk page--Baltistani (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ashura

Hello, LouisAragon -- I have just begun copy-editing Ashura (in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests). I have gotten to the section Ashura#Etymology, second paragraph. I don't understand the use of "J" at the beginning of the surname after the pipe. If it's Gilani, with a hard "g", in Persian, it would not become the "j" (or "soft g") sound, would it? (Please don't edit the article directly just yet; I'm in the middle of copy-editing.)  – Corinne (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I finished the copy-edit.  – Corinne (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Persian people

Is there a particular master you were thinking was socking as 570ad? The fact that it has not edited for a long period does suggest the possibility of a sleeper account, but you would still have ot tie it to another account since there are valid reasons for that kind of edit pattern. The incompetence of that 3RR accusation against you does not suggest a very experienced user. And yes, I agree the IP was probably the same user, but there's not much to be done with a one-of like that. Meters (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied to your email on my talk, but since I'm here I'll just copy it: Thanks. I'll keep my eye on that group of users and for the SPI. Meters (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Reported

Here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Krtsanisi

Hey Louis Aragon,

yes there are 4 refs on that particular part, but only one of them applies the term "reconquest". Applying that seems a little POV implying an actual historical justification for an Iranian invasion, even if the author didn't intend to do this in the first place - it could be easily misunderstood < it is a justification from Persian ambitious POV of that time since those lands were briefly or temporary under their influence/grip or vassalage in previous centuries, however historicaly there is none thus why I don't think it to be apropriate to use that term generaly, maybe more specificaly in the background section elaborating the Persian POV on why they seeked to restore their domination over the region.

Best regards TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheMightyGeneral:, I agree with your rationale. Thanks alot for the response. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Hi, sorry if this triggers old memories, but is the discussion that gave this result on record anywhere [1] - if not, do they give reasons along with their decision? And how long did the appeal take? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

historian or not?

hello.check this pleas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomb_of_Cyrus&diff=747118190&oldid=744112441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.222.31.49 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, LouisAragon. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Oxford University Press - Journals Stream.
Message added 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indian English template?!

Hi LouisAragon. I saw you've reverted this edit [2], I have encountered same problem yesterday, Parthian Empire [3]. That users adds those templates to many irrelevant articles. I don't know if it's mistake or he really wants to add them. He registered on April 2015 and he has 24,500+ edits. I guess he's careless or maybe he thinks he can add those templates to any article which mentioned India. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, hey, yeah it doesn't make any remote sense to put it polite. Yep, its not my first time either that I'm stumbling across such edits made by said user. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that your last sentence and especially the latter part of it pretty much sums up the reason why the user in question is doing this. Its disruptive, and thus a warning should definetely be given if it happens again. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, btw, I'm not really sure what to think of these edits. It seems that the user in question didn't make any talk page section to discuss/mention these concerns, and I'm not really convinced by his edit summaries alone for some of those page name moves. HistoryofIran would probably be able to give an useful judgement about it, but he hasn't been active for some weeks now. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

They looks like ethnocentrist POVs. Better to contact Kansas Bear. And you can revert them, because there were no consensus for those moves and new names. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just his/her own personal analysis [4], [5]. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've restored original/sourced names of those moved articles. It was really frustrating due to some mistakes by me and caused some troubles for me. So please add all of them to your watchlist and keep watching. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, hey, excuse me for the belated response. Thanks alot for the prompt justified action. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Would you please write your comment here? Talk:Persian_Empire#Issues I need a third opinion. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, seems I'm late -- again. Sorry. I just had a look at the talk page. Its kind of difficult, in my opinion, to reach a consensus adequately when you have one sole editor presenting a stance and is just way too keen to get rid of all the content as fast as possible, while the rest is showing a rather neutral and constructive stance at solving the issue. Edit warring and repeating the exact same words over and over on the talk page don't really help either (thumbs up for dealing appropriately with that). I agree with Doug Weller's argument to rely solely on the reliable sources (obviously), and perhaps your own proposal for renaming the article could do the trick as well, but I don't think that it should be needed. Everyone can go by a single mere click to all the articles in question, and see that the majority of them arent Persian in ethnic origin. So I don't really get the "everyone gets confused" and "just look at this YouTube vid for proof" stance, to be honest. The Safavid and Afsharid Empire both weren't ethnically Persian in origin, as you know, yet literally a huge number of reliable sources refer to both of them as Persian Empires. For example. Having said that, however, I'm pretty sure that some definetely erroneous editing had resulted in the inclusion of, for example, the Seleucid Empire into the article. Based in Persia and/or on the previous Achaemenid realm -- sure, but not referred to as a "Persian Empire" as far as I can see. At least not in isolated cases (referring here to the source Doug showed). - LouisAragon (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I won't edit that article anymore, because the consensus was pointless. That editor waited for the end of protection and then restored his favorite revision again.[6], battleground behavior and forum-like comments (I'm sure that he will continue his quest in the future because I've seen many editors like him). Plus, it seems the quality of Iranian-related articles is not important for the most of Iranian editors and they're not interested in those articles, then why I should involve myself? Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Unfortunately mate, I have to concur with you about every single word. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Iran Similar WikiProjects

Hello, I was wondering under what basis you denoted the additions I've made as POV? Also, I'd like to discuss your removals one by one:

• India: Iran and India have had historical ties for millenia, although when relating to more modern-day history I can understand why it would be removed. So, I'm not too bothered by this one to be honest.
• Oman: Same as above, but with even less ties.
• Pakistan: Iran and Pakistan literally share a border (in addition to obvious historical ties), so there's no excuse for it to not be listed underneath there.
• Tajikistan: Significant shared history, culture, language, etc. Completely confused as to why this would be removed.
• Uzbekistan: Significant part of Greater Khorasan, shared history, etc. Again, I see little reason as to why this would be removed.
• Central Asia: A significant portion of Iran falls within cultural and geographic definitions of Central Asia.

Kindly explain why you've removed these, especially the last 4 listed above. Thank you. Yilangren (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yilangren: He's right on the removals. These countries have no border with Iran and haven't been under Iranian rule since the Middle Ages.
And this is an obvious violation of the WP:NPOV policy, removing one and replacing it with those you believe that are more on point.
—Rye-96 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rye-96: I won't repeat what I mentioned about Pakistan and Central Asia since those points are far too obvious to even warrant debate. Regarding Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the countries and the people/cultures within them have been connected to and/or part of "Greater Iran" for most of Iran's history. Just because more recently they have not been, does not mean they are irrelevant. For example, Bahrain isn't included in there even though Iran had control of Bahrain quite recently, but the historical and cultural connection is weak compared to other states. So it should not be about how recently they were part of Iran, but rather how related they are in terms of overall history (as a whole, not just recent) and their people/cultures. Furthermore, you state that these countries have not been part of Iran since the Middle ages (which, btw, refers to the 5th to 15th centuries), yet much of Uzbekistan was part of the Afsharid Empire up to the late the 1700s. Finally, I have not removed the addition of Turkey once my change was reverted, so I'm not sure why that's relevant to the discussion and what that has to do with my *additions* being POV. Yilangren (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yilangren: Iran's relation with Central Asia is complex, and ancient. The Khanates which comprised most of the modern-day Uzbekistan were only under the Afsharid domain for a quite few years (since 1737/1740 until Nader Shah's death in 1747).
It is not rational to simply list all of the modern-day nations which do not even share a border with Iran. The Central Asia project itself would be more than enough; though I won't object to that if you add it.
If you don't realize the relevance, then you might need to refer to the policy guides.
—Rye-96 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rye-96: Ah, understood about the Uzbekistan/Central Asia point and that you're right, Central Asia should more than suffice. Fair enough. Although, I'm still wondering about including Tajikistan separately from Central Asia, since that country in particular does share a common Iranian language and heritage. Personally, to summarise, I think the WikiProjects of Central Asia and Pakistan should be included at minimum, and I think Tajikistan should also be added but if there is a solid argument against that I'd be more than happy to listen.
Regarding policy, from other WikiProjects I've looked at such as India, China, and Turkey, none of them actually have any "Related/Similar Projects" section (from what I can tell), so maybe its not even a necessary section. Actually, is there any official policy regarding this? Yilangren (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'd like to list you (and others) here because of your many good Iran-related edits (IF you and others do not mind). Thanks. 47.17.27.232 (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@47.17.27.232: Thank you for the nomination, I really appreciate it! (I'm assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Expert Wikipedians in Iran-related issues?) To be honest, I really wouldn't be very useful apart from maybe questions regarding Iranian Turkmen, Bojnord, Ethnic minorities in Iran, and North Khorasan Province (and maybe Ethnicities in Iran as an overview I guess? As opposed to in-depth detail on each minority?). Sorry if that's too little, I just don't want to seem like an "expert" in areas where others might be of more help. Thanks again! Yilangren (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: What about you? Any interest to be listed as an "Iran expert"? If so, in which field? (e.g. history). 47.17.27.232 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rye-96:, @Yilangren:, lets just delete all of them. Seems to be no such policy that opts for such inclusion. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@47.17.27.232:, I appreciate the offer, but no thanks. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Alright; agreed.
—Rye-96 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Makes sense, agreed.Yilangren (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sasanian Empire Map. My statement.

Hello LouisArgon, it's been a long time since I have been on Wikipedia.

I thought I'd let you and others who reached a consensus back in July of what's been going on.

I recall the time you took my inaccurate map down you said Per HistoryofIran's talk page; this current version of the new map contains way too many fallacies. Reverted back until Keeby finishes his 2.0 version.

So today I returned to Wikipedia to see that the map in the infobox that I created was nominated for deletion on Wikimedia commons for not providing a source in the description of it like how I did on Wikipedia. Which of course all know that the map is not accurate. But I do believe that providing sources stalled the deletion discussion.

But its because of all of these dilemma's that I've felt no choice but to turn this over to the Graphists of the Map Workshop. I have given them all of the knowledge you and HistoryofIran gave to me. As I told HistoryofIran on his talk page, I encourage you to comment on there as well and give your two cents on the matter. Perhaps provide them with information that you haven't given to me before about the Sasanian Empire at it's greatest extent.

Here's the link to the map workshop request: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Sasanian_Empire_Map

I'll put a similar note on the talkpage of the Sasanian Empire too.

Regards, Kirby (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LouisAragon. 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)

Admin?

Hi Louis Aragon, I hope you will consider taking up this invitation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3! Thanks for letting me know your positive opinion. Genuinely appreciate it. I just had a look at the link, yeah, it surely is interesting. I'll perhaps list myself there. However, I'm really busy and I know that occupying such a "post" is pretty time consuming, so most likely that'll only be somewhere in the future. Sorry for the late response, btw, again. Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your old Armenian nationalist IP friend returns

Hello, I don't think we've met before, but do you remember this dude? I think he's baaaaack. I reverted a lot of his more recent edits. Graham87 06:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Graham87, hey! Yeah, I do remember him. Seems though you already took care of it accordingly, as far as I can see. If there's anything else I can help you with (related to this, or other stuff), please don't hesitate to let me know. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Iranian people

Hey. I added Azeri Turkish and Arabic because Azeri people and Persian arabs are the people that their languages are not classified as Iranian languages but they have Iranian identity. Then we can say they are Iranian people but their languages are not Iranian. Ok? --– Hossein Iran « talk » 16:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hosseiniran: Azeris and Arabs are part of the Turkic and Semitic ethno-linguistic groups, respectively, according to the reliable sources. "Identity" has nothing to do with this. Hence, they do not belong in any remote way in the infobox. You're mistaking Iranian with Iranian. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Azeri are Turkish language speakers but they have Iranian identity even though their nationality is Iranian, Azerbaijani or Russian. I mean is their ethnic identity. And Arabs, there are some Arabs in Iran. I didn't say all of them are Persian Arabs. Persian Arabs are ethnic Iranian people who their language is Arabic (linguestly Assimilated to Arabs). Like some people in Bahrain which their language and nationality is not Iranian but they have Iranian roots.--– Hossein Iran « talk » 08:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Messy article

Hello. please take a look at List of Turkic dynasties and countries? it became a mess, because some users and ips added their povs to it. for example, it includes Safavids, but there is nothing about their mixed background. it also has many non-turkic dynasties, plus they labeled non-turkic regions as turkic just because there are some turkic minorities in those regions. i feel some users owned this article.153.211.200.91 (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Check this

Hi. How are you? A new users edited these articles[7], [8] and [9] and then wrote this on my talk page[10]. His/Her pov-pushing is obvious on Persian people, but I'm not sure about Qajar art. What do you think? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, hey, I'm great, thanks mate. What about you? :-) I took a look at the edits; meh, as far as I can see, its just another one "of those", only here to change a few words which they believe are incorrect. If they have actual grounded concerns, they'll have to provide logical arguments backed up by WP:RS sources on the talk page of the article in question. And generally, those few with actual grounded concerns do that. The only thing I'm literally seeing atm however, is the "typical" SPA stuff, e.g. changing/removing specific words. I see that you've already adressed this on his talk page. Thanks, that was the right thing to do. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bzuk:, thanks alot! You too! - LouisAragon (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.. yeah..

Hey mate, I know that I am a lazy and inactive bugger that almost never respond and don't keep my promises. But could you lend your opinion to this discussion? [11] Would be awesome. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Any comments?

Bro, would you leave your comment on this issue? Any agreements or disagreements?
—Rye-96 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, LouisAragon!

Happy New Year!

LouisAragon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Wario-Man:, thanks mate. To you as well! Hope you had a good one. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Happy new year! And thank you for your interests in Iranian history. – Hossein Iran « talk » 21:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies - File:IndoScythianKingdom.svg

Hey Louis, for some reason, I missed your request on my userpage. Is this still current? If so, I am willing to work on your request. Or has someone else already done what you wanted? Best, --Lommes (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear LouisAragon

I actually changed the greater ethno-linguistic group to the language branch in the first sentence because the wording (Iranian) in older version was too confusing that one had to immediately change it to either "Iranic" or "Iranic-speaking". At that moment I went with the latter perhaps to emphasize how outlying they are in most aspects compared to other modern-day Iranic peoples, or vice versa. I also wrote "Northern Iranic-speaking" to be more specific because the term "Northeastern" would be misleading, too. You know what I mean. Besides, I have not had the opportunity to review the articles of other ethnic groups who speaks a language that was classified as belonging to the same greater language branch/family (Iranic) as them, so I do not know whether the misleading suffix -ian was used instead of -ic in those articles as well. Still, the -ian suffix might be understandable for some Iranic-speaking ethnic groups, but of course not (not in this century, at least) for that particular article as you probably would agree. I was actually surprised that no one noticed this until now. By the way, I am pleased to see that the article is not too long because unless expanded very carefully, a long Wikipedia article of a nation or ethnic group can often be quite problematic. This is the case in some ethnic group articles that I'm interested in. Regarding the removal of the category of Iranian people(s) in the region, I thought it should not be there unless the category itself is renamed to Iranic. However, when I removed that category, I added a new category about their language family so that there would be at least one category that mentions the word "Iranic". Once we discuss it here, I think you might consider removing or replacing the category again. As to the first sentence, your wording is definitely an alternative as opposed to the version prior to our recent edits, but my personal opinion is that a more specific one (e.g. Iranic-speaking, Northern Iranic, or even Alanic I daresay) would be relatively better than Iranic in this very peculiar case.

I would like to hear your thoughts about all these issues because your opinions matter to me.

Sincerely, Listofpeople (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tagging articles as hoaxes

I have just declined two speedy deletion nominations as hoaxes that you made. In both cases a minute on Google produced sources making it clear that the subjects of the articles were genuine, and in one of the articles the sourced already cited achieved that too. Please don't tag articles for speedy deletion as hoaxes without first doing sufficient checking to be certain that they are hoaxes. Also, note that the speedy deletion criterion is not "hoaxes", it is "blatant hoaxes". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, The problem is, the user is creating articles with legit names, but spam drops the exact same bogus sources over and over, as well as writing the text in completely incoherent, "ramblish" English. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Virtually not a single part of the text makes sense. Even per Wikipedia's standards of years ago, they would be considered bad articles in every sense of the word. He needs to understand that there are certain standards here, and that he should feel obliged to abide to them. We can both create numerous articles, with legit names, but fill 'me up with the most ridiculous text if we want, with sources that don't remotely back up the story, as long as it looks legit. I mean, seriously?...

"The four big festivals (Nowruz, Mehregan, Tirgan and Yalda) in ancient Indo-Iran were celebrated with May in large squares and parks. These celebrations were drunk wine and rose water sprayed. Even today - after the Islamization is still on the Sofreh e Nowruzi (Nowruztable) of the Haft-Seen (Persian: هفت سين‎‎) Serkeh (vinegar) and Haft Mewa (Persian: هفت ميوه‎‎)(Seven varieties of dried fruit like Raisin, Apricot etc. are inserted into the water days before the Nauroz) in Iran and Afghanistan. The term "Maidan" was mentioned in 1647 by Adam Olearius for the first time.[5][6] Johann Christoph and Beer Olfert Dapper [1681] in Nürnberg have also written about Maidan in ancient Iran. Maidan is also called racetrack (horses). Edward Henry Palmer (1883) has Maidan translated as Hippodrome.

Sounds to me like someone who had a hell lot of fun with Google Translate and loads of unrelated material put together. Having said that, a Hoax Db tax would probably not be the most preferential way to adress the issue, so thanks for that. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Flag Of Eldiguzids

On January 21st LouisAragon reverted my edit, saying that the flag that I purposed was unsourced. The flag I purposed was sourced indeed. Many approved history books can approve this. I hope we can fix this issue fast as possible. Thank you for your time. - Oyuncu Aykhan (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Aight, and where are these supposed reliable sources that mention the flag and/or its motifs to have existed? Usually, when people want to "notify" others that they have "proof" of something, they actually do show it. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Pero Lopez de Ayala article

I have provided proof that Lope de Barrientos was a highly influential individual in the Kingdom of Castile. Dr. Nicole Reinhardt is an expert in the field of royal confessors. I think your problem is that Lope de Barrientos' list proves Pero Lopez de Ayala had Jewish ancestry. I am an Ayala descendant. I have no problem with his Jewish ancestry. I'm going to discuss this with Wikipedia. If you won't leave the article alone, I want it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.139 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Sorry, lost in my revertions. --Skyfall (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional deviating definitions listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Additional deviating definitions. Since you had some involvement with the Additional deviating definitions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Jats

Hi. Would you please check the content on Massagetae? The "Jat theory" seems WP:UNDUE and Singh is not WP:RS, I believe. The article should be rewritten. 78.164.96.144 (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Categry

Hi, what's the wrong with categort:Iranian notable women in article Shirin Ebadi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadegan (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shadegan:, are you serious? Having an article on Wikipedia already means that person is "notable". Furthermore, the appropriate categories for women (e.g. Category:Iranian women activists, Category:Iranian women lawyers, etc) are already present on the article. It's like adding a category "notable American men" on the Franklin D. Roosevelt article, or "notable Iraqi men" on the Saddam Hussein article. Though obviously created and added in good faith, your category makes 0.0% sense. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, thanks for your kind guidance. I introduced an article [12] that refers to a Lurish local heroine. I will be grateful if you could help me there. Best RegardsShadegan (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shadegan:, no thanks needed. :-) Feel free to ask if you have any further remarks/questions etc in the future. Sure, I'll try my best to lay a hand on it in the future (can't really promise a fixed date though). - LouisAragon (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just copy-edited it a bit for you, as a start. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

Hello, Louis Aragon - You'll have seen that I just made a few more edits to Sack of Shamakhi (1721). After I copy-edit an article, I keep it on my watchlist for a while. If you're getting an article ready for nomination as a good article, please do not hesitate to ask me to review material you've added since I originally copy-edited the article before you nominate it. I wanted to ask you something about the notes at the end of the article.

(a) I wonder why they are in columns. I don't usually see notes in columns. It looks a little odd, and I don't they they are as easy to read as they are if they are not in columns.

(b) Early in Note C, it looks like you start a quote, because I see a set of double quotation marks, but then there is no set of closing quotation marks to indicate the end of the quote. Perhaps you don't need those opening quotation marks.

Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:, no way I could possibly miss your helpful edits. :-) Thanks so far. Regarding point a, I agree with you, just fixed that. Regarding point b, had to search for it for a sec, but then I realized that what was Note C at the time you made your edits, has now become Note D. Fixed that as well! - LouisAragon (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a few further edits, re-wording some sentences. There are a few things that are a bit unclear, and I need to ask you about them:

The following sentences appear in the middle of the second paragraph in Sack of Shamakhi (1721)#Background. (I'm going to number the sentences for ease of discussion.)

• (1) Hoping that Daud Beg and his Dagestani allies would assist with the revolt on the eastern front, Daud instead put himself at the head of a tribal coalition, and subsequently launched a campaign against both the Safavid government forces and the Shia population of the empire, eventually marching upon the provincial capital of Shamakhi. (2) In the same year he was released, Shirvan province became a target for their raids. (3) By 1718 the Lezgin incursions into Shirvan had intensified. (4) According to Rudi Matthee, this was rumoured to have been incited by then grand vizier Fath-Ali Khan Daghestani (1716–1720).

I see two problems with sentence (1).

(a) The participial phrase beginning with "hoping" is kind of "dangling" in mid-air, because it can't be Daud who was hoping that Daud Beg and his allies would assist with the revolt (unless there are two Dauds). Who was hoping that Daud Beg and his allies would assist with the revolt (and is that information really important)? -- The Safavid government, which includes King Sultan Husayn (given that he stood at its head).

(b) The sentence is a little long. Before I break it up, I need to understand your answers to my question in (a) and my questions below.

Regarding sentence (2), I see at least two problems:

(a) You say, "In the same year he was released", but you never say exactly when he was released, so I wonder if this is really important. -- The sources only mention in what year he was released, but not the precise date. I guess you could leave that out.

(b) You say "Shirvan province became a target for their raids".

I have two questions about this:

(i.) Why would you separate the mention of Shirvan province from the mention of the capital of that province (made at the end of sentence 1)? I'm not sure this sentence is needed at all. -- I agree, I guess it's not really needed.

(ii.) The antecedent for "their", in "their raids", is a little unclear. The reader has to go way back, and guess that it refers to Daud Beg and the coalition of tribes ("tribal coalition"). There is a plural noun ("Safavid government forces") and a double subject ("Safavid government forces and the Shia population") closer to the word "their", so a bit of confusion is introduced. If you decide to take out this sentence entirely, you don't have to worry about this. If you decide to keep it, you might consider substituting a phrase that would be clearer, something like "the raids of Daud Beg and his tribal forces". -- You are right, "their raids" refers to Daud Beg + his coalition. Yeah, I think that the substitution you propose is much better.

Sentence (3) begins, "By 1718 the Lezgin incursions..." Are the Lezgins the same people as the "tribal coalition" mentioned in sentence (1)? If so, shouldn't that be made clear, perhaps by using the adjective "Lezgin" before "tribal coalition" in sentence (1)? -- Well its a bit tricky. The utter vast majority of the tribal force was made up of Lezgins, but later on several other ethnicities joined them as well (incl. the Ghazikumukh, as you can see further down the article). However, given that the coalition was dominated by Lezgins, and the sack is generally ascribed to be simply done by them, I think adding the adjective would be a good thing to do.

In sentence (4), you have this phrase: "this was rumoured to have been incited". It's not completely clear what "this" is. Is it the incursions by the Lezgins or is it only the intensification of the incursions? -- the intensification of the incursions.

If you can just answer my questions, I'll be glad to work on the sentences.

Other than that, I think the prose of the article is a little better now. What do you and Shearonink think?  – Corinne (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:, I replied (in bold). Hope this makes it more clear. If not, lemme know! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I re-worded some sentences and removed others, as discussed above. I couldn't figure out a way to make it clear that the tribal coalition in the phrase, "put himself at the head of a tribal coalition" were the Lezgins, or were mainly the Lezgins, mentioned a few sentences earlier, other than to add the phrase "consisting mainly of Lezgins", or the clause "which consisted mainly of Lezgins". Do you think adding one of those makes the sentence too wordy or is needed to make "a tribal coalition" clear?  – Corinne (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne! I think "consisting mainly of Lezgins" should do the trick. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Something interesting

You may want to view the edits of this editor. A compare and contrast with an "old acquaintance", might be of particular interest. Böritigin of Ghazni, is a perfect example. If my suspicions are correct, I would suggest a bit of patience. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sack of Shamakhi (1721) 2

I did a bit of copy-editing to the lead. Your opinion(s) would be appreciated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not place the picture up near the lead? Unless you have another picture... --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, thanks for the effort. Looks good, a few minor things;

- Most sources state that the general harm done to the Russian merchants, i.e. those who got killed + grave economic damage inflicted to them was the casus belli. Not just only their death. I'm therefore not entirely sure about the new wording of that particular sentence.

- I'm searching for an additional pic, if I could obtain one that would show any of these..... 1) Shamakhi in/around 1722 1) a pic of Lezgins during that era 2) Vakhtang/Hosayn-Qoli Khan during the counter-campaign 3) Fath-Ali Khan Dagestani 4) the siege itself.

...that'd be great. If I happen not to find any of these, I will indeed move the current Shamakhi pic (by Kaempfer) to the top. Btw, one more thing; do you happen to have any sources (by any chance) that mention the number of Safavid forces during the siege and the number that got killed? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sack of Shamakhi (1721) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A relief of Faravahar for you

I award you this bas-relief of Faravahar for your contributions on Persian history. --Z 17:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ:, thank you! - LouisAragon (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gilak and Mazandarani ethnic groups

Dear LouisAragon I was wondering why Gilaks and Mazandaranis are put in the same ethnic group as Persians in the Ethnicities in Iran page . Although Gilaks and Mazandaranis are close to Persians they are still their own separate ethnic group. Is it because they are only found in Iran? If that is the case then Lurs should also be categorized as Persians the same way Gilaks and Mazandaranis are. Regards, WikiEditor16 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)WikiEditor16

@WikiEditor16:, hey! You mean in the graph? That's because the archived World Factbook page, includes/included them as being part of the Persians. Yeah I know they are definetely separate, but its just for the sake of statistics and only shown like that in that graph (I know its not ideal, but at least its kind of "stable"). Hope this answers your question. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User Callofworld

That user creates obselete, pesudoscientific templates such as "Aryanic peoples" and push it on various articles. And i dont think that he/she is a new user, probably previously banned. 79.98.30.65 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@79.98.30.65:, I completely agree. He's making some of the most ridiculous edits I've ever seen. As a start, all those templates need to be AfD'd. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LouisAragon. You have new messages at Talk:Sack of Shamakhi (1721)/GA1.
Message added 22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Requests

I think Aryan race article was so badly written and very low-level quality. There is no such thing as "original Aryans", what the hell. If you have enough time, i request you to rewrite the article based on academical sources. The article is semi-protected and i cannot edit it. 185.8.60.29 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Also please watchlist this page 1. 185.8.62.109 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Tajiks of Xinjiang/Name Change

Tajiks of Xinjiang must be changed to Sarikoli people or Sarikolis. These people are not Tajiks, do not speak Tajik. No one calls them as "Tajiks" except for Chinese people. I don't think it's even a common name. 185.3.166.49 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Pan Turks

Hi Aragon,

Could you please review the articles related to pan-turkism agenda? They are badly manipulated and poorly re-written. There are also lots of claims with no/biassed/fake citations. Could you spend sometime checking them out?

cheers, Ajax — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneAjax (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jstor

Have you seen or read this article?

• INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN CAUCASIAN HISTORY, The Formative Centuries (IVth-VIIIth), CYRIL TOUMANOFF, Traditio, Vol. 15 (1959), pp. 1-106.
• Page 27, "Already in the Achaemenian phase, the office of Satrap of Armenia became hereditary in the Iranian families of the Hydarnids and, then, the Orontids...[...]. The fact that the Orontids were descended from the Achaemenid Great Kings, who were no more, and that they held sway over most of the territory of the old Vannic Monarchy, when conjoined with their power and their de facto, autonomy, led them to assume the status of kings." --Kansas Bear (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, nope I had not. Thanks alot! - LouisAragon (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that another editor has used Toumanoff as a source. Perhaps you should inquire as to their opinion concerning this subject? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Watch this guy

Obvious racialist pov-pusher who targeted Armenian-related articles. See his edits. Using outdated terms like "Armenoid", adding Armenians as a Semitic group and other similar disruptive changes. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not related to this one, just fyi: [13] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--AlpAy (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosie Malek-Yonan

On the Rosie Malek-Yonan revert / question, see Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. for some background. I think you did things right in general by pointing out BLPPRIVACY, but the California law clearly doesn't apply to Wikipedia (focusing on scenarios where paid subscribers can upload images and update info, IMDB Pro, basically[14]), but if it's unsourced or the subject doesn't want the full DOB even if mentioned in reliable sources, BLPPRIVACY works for me. Ravensfire (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:, hey, thanks for your message. I just mostly went with what "BlackPango" said in his edit summary. I noticed as well that on the official website of "Rosie Malek-Yonan" (I took a brief look), she didn't list her date of birth for example. If you think however that it'd be a valuable addition to the article, aka to re-insert the material I removed, then feel absolutely free to do so.
The sole reason I decided to check those diffs of "BlankPango" more closely, was because I thought that the particular info that was removed by him didn't quite match his edit summary, for he also removed some categories and other trivial info. There used to be a sockmaster active on the article who did the exact same thing (he and his socks got indeffed in 2015). - LouisAragon (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually...having taken a second look, I'm 99% sure that its another sock of him.[15] - LouisAragon (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, appreciate it! And thank you for reviewing it! All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

The article Sack of Shamakhi (1721) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sack of Shamakhi (1721) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See my talk page

I really have no time to work on this complaint. Thought I'd let you know. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks. I just put my two cents in nevertheless. I believe it'd be useful, whenever you have time that is, to take a look at the material and resort to admin action. This is something that stretches back for quite some time, and remains a clear disruptive factor. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh

[16] Got some IP-hopping troll begging for attention, any suggestions on what I should do? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

On 15 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sack of Shamakhi (1721), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sack of Shamakhi was used as the casus belli by the Russian Empire in order to launch the Russo-Persian War of 1722–1723? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sack of Shamakhi (1721). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sack of Shamakhi (1721)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Isidore Borowsky, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Isidore Borowsky, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, didn't I already do that though, on the day I created it? ;) [17] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did, I am sorry - must have gotten confused (I reviewed few dozens of articles on that day, maybe that message was meant for someone else). But anyway, nice article, I created a stub on pl wiki, it was surprisingly missing the entry on him as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Izydor Borowski

On 23 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Izydor Borowski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Izydor Borowski was born in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth but later rose to the rank of general in Qajar Iran? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Izydor Borowski. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Izydor Borowski), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Zeynab Begum

On 24 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zeynab Begum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zeynab Begum was one of the most influential princesses of Iran's Safavid dynasty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zeynab Begum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zeynab Begum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tughril#Spelling

Louis, a few things. First of all, thanks. Second, CU does not confirm IPs to accounts--if you didn't know that, now you do, and I ask that you don't make statements like that which we (admins etc) then have to refute. Third, I think you should add this to the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG/Archive, just for the record; User:Vanjagenije loves doing paperwork. Fourth, and most importantly, I think it is time you find an admin to do a rangeblock; this has gone on long enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: What is this about? Why I am being pinged? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije, you have done a lot of work on that SPI, and I thought you might know if we need to .... ah I see what you mean--you didn't know I was pinged because of Talk:Tughril#Sockpuppet--glance under the "side show" tab. Does that explain it? :) Drmies (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No. What statement did LouisAragon make that you had to refute? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanja, there's an IP that LouisAragon said was related to that sock, EMr KnG. You've made six clerical edits to that SPI, and so I thought you might have an interest. That statement is not relevant to the SPI, and should be explained by my second point. That was all. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahwazi Arabs help

Hi. I'm referring this appeal to you because you were mentioned here on the talk page of Ahwazi Arabs. I have had to contend with several editors constantly removing my cited edit using what i think are spurious arguments. Could you please provide an opinion on the talk page because the discussion currently only involves myself and an opposing editor? Please help. Good day. 222.232.48.140 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Hello User:LouisAragon, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you opened up this discussion and was wondering if it was officially closed by an administrator? If not I may consider reopening it. User:PAKHIGHWAY once again removed languages native to Pakistan from the "South Asian" section and added them to a newly created "Western Asian" section (despite the fact that Western Asia refers to the Middle East). I also see other problematic edits in his recent edit history, despite the ANI discussion. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anupam:, hi, thanks for your message! Nope, that section was never closed by an admin. The flame just died out, because it was completely diverted by admin BsZ, who, for some very odd reason, picked only one minor part of the issue, and neglected the rest (99% of the complaint) which made everyone lose track of the entire discussion. Though such neglectance and rather improper editing is not something entirely "new" for the admin organ of Wikipedia, unfortunately, it should be considered unacceptable for one to get away with such a huge repertoire of WP:NOTHERE editing. I guess you could re-list (aka copy/paste) the entire discussion at ANI, and add these new matters you mentioned to it. What do you think? All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply User:LouisAragon! Do you have a link to the ANI discussion with the last comment made? If so, I can reinstate that and mention the recent developments with respect to this editor. I appreciate your help! Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anupam:, I believe that this is what you're looking for? It includes the last comment made to it (apparantly by an IP as we can see). - LouisAragon (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:LouisAragon for your reply and for finding the appropriate link. I thought it would be important to preserve every comment made in the discussion before reinstating it. For transparency, I am pinging User:PAKHIGHWAY to this discussion with a declaration that I intend to re-open the AN/I discussion should his behavior continue in various articles relating to South Asia. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 04:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Under what pretext is "hindi" being represented as the "base language" of "South Asia"? Why is Hindi on top of Urdu, even though Urdu is older language and Hindi is essentially a language created out of thin air in 1880? Either alphabetically organize that article or separate as South Asian and Western Asian. Simple. Enough is enough of your Indian bias. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the chart mentions anywhere that Hindi is the "base language of South Asia". I also find it rather strange that you are concerned that "Hindi [is] on top of Urdu" in a chart, as if implying that this ordering means something. I simply placed those two languages at the top of the chart, with the rest of the list being alphabetized, because they were the most common languages in South Asia. I reversed the order of Hindi and Urdu per your request but feel that your way of speaking and editing is still very tendentious. As of now I'm leaning towards not reopening the ANI/I discussion unless I see further examples of tendentious editing. However, if User:LouisAragon reopens it, I will certaintly be commenting there, Anupam^Talk 16:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paul Bashutsky

Hello! Your submission of Paul Bashutsky at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Safavid administration

You should take a look at this [18], in case you haven't seen it - it has some very valuable information. Especially at page 25-26. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, no, I hadn't seen that one before, thanks alot! Valuable indeed. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijan,Azerbaijani and Fascist Persians

I do not understand it at all. Whenever I come up with a source and want to fix the page, doesn't accept. But if a stranger writes something against Azerbaijan, it is even without a source, and it is immediately accepted. It's all about Persia, Persia. All pages about Azerbaijan are in the hands of chauvinist persians. He/She is written as "right", and Azari is written as "fascist". Azerbaijan's ten centuries Iranian leadership is a reality. We are always losers, we are always assimilated. What are you trying to do? To give the world the message of "the azers are our calves"? You wrote Azerbaijanians page related people Iran peoples. And a member explained: "The Azerbaijanians are Assimilated Iranians." Is this page being governed by a couple of punches? Free encyclopedia? Free executives? Good job. Some justice, empathy, conscience, neutrality. Sebebineydiki (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Bashutsky

On 7 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Bashutsky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Paul Bashutsky took part in the suppression of the Decembrist revolt in 1825, and was promoted to General of the Infantry three years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Bashutsky. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Bashutsky), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The dispute

Whatever the nature of the dispute, or anything else you wish to say to me, can I suggest from this point you leave the messages at my talk page. Although I've made some lengthy posts, I'm no longer prepared to continue a discussion on a third person's talk page. The original post was for advice. --OJ (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sceriman family

Hello! Your submission of Sceriman family at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HaEr48 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"18th Satrapy of Persia"

This phrase appears in two Wikipedia articles, Lori Province and Speri (historical region). A google search results in no hits at all for this term except for those same two articles and their off-Wikipedia clones. Do you know if such an entity existed - or is it, as I suspect, just the Satrapy of Armenia? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Iranicaonline says that what would be known as Armenia was divided into two satrapy's. The 13th satrapy and, immediately to the east or it, the 18th satrapy, which comprising Ayrarat and areas to the north and to the south, including Urmia. "Armina under Darius and Xerxes had much narrower boundaries than the future Armenia of the Artaxiads and the Arsacids" [19]. However, the Satrapy of Armenia article clearly assumes Ayrarat is part of its territory - it mentions prominently the Orontid dynasty, and they originated in the Ararat plain and had their earliest capitals there. So I am confused. Is the 13th satrapy Arminiya, or something different? Or did the 18th satrapy merge into the 13th satrapy at a later date? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: some scholars envisage two satrapies, while others say there was only one (mainly referring to the Behistun inscription). Anyhow, basically, the 13th satrapy = "Armina" = the later "Western Armenia", with its "heartland in Shupria" (Chahin, 2013), and "inhabited by an Indo-European speaking people called Haik" (Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 1;[20]).
The 18th satrapy = the later "Eastern Armenia", inhabited by the "Matieni, the Saspires, and Alarodians", amongst others. The territory of the former "Urartu" was located within this 18th satrapy.[21] The 10th satrapy, Media, also had Armenian enclaves (per Mark Chahin, 2013). Per James R. Russel (1987, p. 45); "Armenia was divided into two satrapies, the 13th and 18th, by the Persians, and several sites mentioned in the inscriptions at Behistun have been identified in the south and west of the Armenian plateau". The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol 1.), linked above, explains the situation pretty well, while this other source (The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE) sheds some more light on it.[22]. Hope this answers your question. I haven't read anything about any merges. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful reply. The current article doesn't appear to adequately explain all this. If the Orontids appear to be based in territory that was part of the 18th Satrapy, why are they given such prominence in the article about the 13th satrapy? A lot of its content is not even about the Achaemenid period, and so far we have nothing on the 18th satrapy. Maybe it might be better to have the article instead titled "Satrapies of Armenia" or "Armenia under Persian satrapies" to cover both? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

IPs presenting Qizilbash as an ethnicity:

• 89.147.242.147 [23]
• 89.147.236.245 [24]

Which we have seen in another editor: John Francis Templeson.[25] Who also has edited Nawab Fateh Ali Khan Kazilbash.[26]

Doubt this is a coincidence.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Their geolocation surely eliminates any drop of doubt that could have possibly existed. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Beylarbeylik?

Several provinces of the Safavid Empire, such as the Shirvan Beylarbeylik, uses the word 'Beylarbeylik' - but surely provinces in Safavid Iran were 'velayat/vilayat' and not beylarbeylik? Perhaps we should do it like this Shirvan Beylarbeylik --> Safavid Shirvan? Btw, do you have fully access to the Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration? If so, is there any way you can send it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, yeah, you're completely right.[27] Apparantly, "beylarbeylik" is simply the Azeri translation of the word province/velayat. Indeed, as you suggest, the best thing to do is to change the names of those articles (that currently exist under the name "beylarbeylik X/Y/Z"), to Safavid "X/Y/Z". Then, basically what the first sentence should include, be it in different words; "The Shirvan Province ("Veyalat-e Shirvan"), was a province of the Safavid Empire (...)". Articles in the future (e.g. regarding Georgia, Khuzestan, etc.) should follow the same rule. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, unfortunately, I don't, but I obtained quite a few pages of it through the resource request feature here on Wiki. Combining that with the material thats visible for free on Amazon, I guess you could say that I'm not that super far off from having most of the info about many of the most important provinces/regions/cities. I'm definetely gonna buy the book in the near future though. Anyhow, lemme know which pages/regions/cities/etc you'd like to have. There's a possibility that I already have them in my possession, hence I could send you the pages asap. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, could you send me the section of Mazandaran, Gilan, and Shirvan? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, all information about Shirvan is freely available through Amazon (just type Shirvan in the bracket on the left, material starts on page 284). Mazandaran is available partly (starts on page 242-242). Unfortunately, the pages about the governors of the entire Mazandaran and Gilan Provinces, are some of those that are not freely availbe at Amazon, nor do I have them in my possession myself.

Btw, even though I know that its not really what youre looking for, but there are alot of places in Mazandaran/Gilan that can be found for free through Amazon, such as "Rostamdar", "Rasht", etc. Just play a bit with names in the bracket, you'll get really far. Also you really should create an Amazon account in case you dont have one; they'll allow you to view quite a bit more. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PS1: after creating an account, you should definetely type the word "glossary" in the bracket for once. You'll really like it. Basically gives you a large list of all Safavid-era titles + their meaning. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PS2: I do have Astarabad in my possession (amongst others), just in case. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sceriman family

On 23 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sceriman family, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sceriman family, a wealthy Safavid merchant family of Armenian ethnicity, gained Roman citizenship in 1696? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sceriman family. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sceriman family), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a lot so please bear with it

The current template has many issues. Apart from the disputed inclusion of Central Asians and Caucasusians there are also micro-errors and micro-ommissions. Several Chinese ethnicities and the Tamil people are excluded in the sections for Malaysian American and Singaporean Americans despite the existence of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians and Singaporean Chinese and Singaporean Indians and the Tamil language being official in Singapore and also Mandarin Chinese. Punjabi Mexican Americans should be group together with Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans and while the several miltiracial ethnicities should also be together. Taiwanese Americans should also include other Chinese ethnicities. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also Sindhi Americans are also Indian Americans not just Pakistani Americans and Pashtun Americans are also Afghan Americans. The only stuff that were being discussed were about Armenian Americans and Iranian Americans, who are presumed to be European Americans but the other stuff don't seem to be disputed. The person disputing this did not comment on Malysians just gave a vague "bogus" comment so it is unknown what their opinion is.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Review request

Hi, please have a look to this: Layli (Lurish doll) to review if it needs any amendments or improvement, thanks.Shadegan (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

az:Çuxursəəd bəylərbəyliyi and Iranian Armenia (1502–1828)

The same thing?--Abutalub (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Abutalub:, hi, "Chokhur-e Sa'd/Çuxursəəd" is the same thing as the "Erivan Province/Yerevan Province", the later Erivan "Khanate". Iranian Armenia referes to all of Eastern Armenia under Iranian rule from the Safavid era and onwards, of which Chokhur-e Sa'd/Yerevan Province is one episode and part of. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Safavid Georgia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abbas I and Vali. 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) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Safavid Qarabagh

Dear LouisAragon,

I have made changes to the above mentioned page. I translated the some pieces of materials of the Azerbaijani version of the page itself to English language. Could you please elaborate, what is the problem with the translated material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Herhardt (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hi Louis, My name is Amin. Our mutual friend @Rye-96: told me about your existence and said you were a cool dude. Anyways, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the platform. Groetjes, Amin (Talk) 19:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amin:, hey there! Thanks man, appreciate it. Stroopwafels can taste really good, so dankjewel as well for that. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Iranian dynasties and countries

Rojava is a kurdish autonomous region in north of syria, why you removed that ?!!! even you you removed two federal region of pashtun people of pakistan wich is autonomous and i added that,it's not fair😕, and you should add gorno-badakhshan autonomous of Tajikistan to this list but you didn't do that. Akilis alva (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Akilis alva:, I had already commented about this long ago on your talk page. Rojava is a good addition as it's de facto autonomous, and South Ossetia is indeed de facto independent, so I restored that part as well. The rest was just nonsensical and/or WP:UNDUE weight (i.e. "semi-autonomous"). Anyhow we're in the process of changing the article as it has become too problematic (see also "List of Turkic dynasties and countries"). Both these articles have become a hot-spot for all kinds of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible I can look at your sources

I was just mesmerized by the Safavid Georgia article. This is a part of history that I would love to do a read on, I would love if you bestow upon me any of those books especially William Floor's which I assume where your most important material come from. I'M BEGGING YOU PLEASE. Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.Helping Hand:, what do you mean with "bestow upon" in this context? All titles (incl. the ones by Floor) are mentioned down below the page. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't want to sound hostile, I assumed you had the books in pdf forms, I can still buy them later this year, but 90% of my books are in pdf/epub forms. If I don't mind asking do you have a pdf or physical copy. I don't have that many Safavid focused books, that is why I am asking. Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Afsharid Empire map

[28] Just uploaded it, anything else that needs fixing? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: wth, didn't see your question right after the link to the new map. Weird stuff.
I think I posted some other things that need fixing on your talk page. Lemme know if you can't find it back. PS: I just added the new Afsharid map to the article btw. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What year is this map ? 1747 C.E. ? Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To use picture files in other Wikis

Hi, I'm Shadegan, the author of file: [29]. I want to use the file in other Wikis (Farsi Wikipedia), but it's not possible. Could you please help me for the solution. Best SHADEGAN (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A History Question (Qajar’s eastern territory)

Hello LouisAragon. Long time no talk. There is a question that has been in my mind for a long time and has confused me. Although I have read and searched as much as I could, I still cannot get the direct, true answer. It is about Qajar’s eastern territory, at its greatest extent. What I can infer from Qajar’s article on Wikipedia and some other sources, it seems that Qajars never successfully had the control of Herat and basically any part of Afghanistan at all (because of Durrani Empire). This convinces me, until I see maps that claim Qajar controlled big parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think the most viral map about Qajars on the internet is this map: [30]. At the first glance, the image seems to be very detailed and helpful, but after I read about the history of Herat and Afghanistan, the image does match the information that I’ve read at all.

So now my question is how accurate is this map? Why there is literally zero information about those Arbitrations (MacMahon/Goldsmid)? Did Qajars had the control of western Pakistan? Does Treaty of Paris 1857 mean Iran had the control of western Afghanistan the whole time before that treaty? Why these historical maps ([31], [32], [33]) have shown Qajar’s territory very differently? I even get more confused when I see Qajar’s maps in Iranian history textbooks that have been taught in schools in Iran: Elementary school:[34] Middle School:[35] High School:[36]. 🤔

Since you are one of the most active users who edits regularly about Iranian history articles on Wikipedia, I really like to know the answer and explanation from you. The map on the Wikipedia page looks perfect to me, since it is exactly match the information on the article, and I don’t plan to change or edit it at all, but at the same time I really like to know the answer, since I am confused. Please respond thanks. Og007 06:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be glad if I hear the answer from you. Thanks. Og007 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ali Zifan:, indeed long time no talk! Excuse me for the belated response, been very busy. To answer your questions;

1) yes you are right about that. I've seen most of those weird maps before as well. Until a few years ago, I myself never understood this whole thing either. I did quite a bit of research, and still I couldn't find anything about it. It must be some "thingy" of the past that just managed to linger forth, very odd. The Qajars (from Fath-Ali Shah's later rule, to the signing of the Paris Treaty in 1857) claimed Herat as belonging to them, but they only held it for a very short period of time (literally a few months), from late 1856 to early 1857 ([37]-[38]). Before and after that, they never did. "Claiming" something and actually "controlling" something is a totally different concept as you know, but I think some people misconstructed that "claiming" part into actually "controlling" it.

2) Qajars didn't control anything that is part of present-day Pakistan. Its another bogus claim. So yeah, you're right about that too. PS: I just adressed this unsourced bogus, related to this discussion, on the Herat page.[39] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Btw @Ali Zifan:, would you perhaps be able to fix these two maps btw? Yes, the Qajar map on Wiki is pretty good [40], but still not complete. The Qajars never "controlled" what is present-day Turkmenistan. Similarly to the Herat story, it was once again just a claim. A claim which they dropped by the Treaty of Akhal (1881). Also, the Qajars controlled the entirety of Eastern Georgia aka the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, not just Lower Kartli/Tbilisi (see also; Battle of Krtsanisi). If you could adress this, that'd be great. Also, on this map, Iranian Balochistan needs to be added to the territory of the Seleucids, not to that of the Mauryans. This is another "e-legend" that was made by ppl who have been interpreting "Gedrosia" as being equal to the entire geo-political "region" nowadays referred to as "Balochistan". Even though this is contradicted by every single reliable source. You can see the extensive discussion I had with "Kansas Bear" about the matter here. Feel free to copy-paste some of the sources we mentioned in our discussion to the Wikimedia file (in order to back it up) if you feel like doing so. All the bests, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. I will update those maps as soon as I have access to my editing software. Also I don't have access to my previous gmail (aliz...@gmail.com) anymore, since I deleted it months ago. Og007 02:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

- Always welcome.
- Ah, that explains, cause soon after I got a notification telling me that the mail couldn't be send.

- LouisAragon (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first map please check this image (created with paint), so I can correctly make changes. Also I just have one more history question: when was the last year that Iran/Persia actually "controlled" Bahrain? I know Pahlavi and Qajar "claimed" it, but I guess it would be during the Safavids that Iran actually controlled Bahrain, but I am not sure the exact year, so it would be great if you tell me. Thanks. Og007 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ali Zifan:,

- Yes, the location of the red "delete" circle is good. Basically the entire area that is covered with green/red stripes to the north of Iran's northeastern borders. Regarding the blue "add" circle on the northwest; the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti was located a bit more to the east of the circle. If you compare the map on the Kartli-Kakheti page and the same area in that region on the Qajar dynasty map, you can see that there's some area lacking on the latter. The area that is lacking, is the area we need to add to the Qajar dynasty map.

- The last time Iran controlled Bahrain was under Nader Shah (r. 1736-1747).[41] Edit; seems I was mistaken. The last time they did, was under the Zands. In 1783, Iran lost control over Bahrain."Iran, which ruled Bahrain from 1602 to 1783, was expelled by the al-Khalifas, who still reign. (p. 54)""Bahrain was under Iranian (Persian) domination for almost two centuries (from 1602 to 1783). (p. 118)"[42][43][44][45] So yeah, 1783 is the "final/last year".

- LouisAragon (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you answer. I updated the maps. Og007 17:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ali Zifan:, few minor things;

• On the Seleucid map, you made a small typo ("Gedroisa", instead of "Gedrosia"). Also, its really only present-day Iranian Balochistan (i.e. "the westernmost part of Gedrosia") that was under Seleucid control. The eastern part ("Pakistani Balochistan") was ceded to the Mauryans.
• Regarding the Qajar map. The Qajars did launch attacks to regain Merv (they just never managed to take it), so the invasion "arrow" should be re-added as well as the river name "Atrek", the city name "Merv" and the date "1884". Only the Green/Red stripes should be removed.
• Regarding Georgia/Caucasus on the Qajar map, I think it didn't work out entirely well. My bad. I did some additional research to solve it once and for all, and in all honesty, I came to the conclusion that the original NW borders were already pretty correct before we changed it. Once again a story about "claiming" and actually "controlling". So, I'd say we were wrong to change that part of the map. Probably the easiest thing for you to do now would be to take the previous version of the map (before your edits), and to just remove the green-red stripes from the northeast. That's basically the only thing that needs to be done, as the rest of the map is pretty verifiably correct.
• Oh, and there's this one thing about another map (now that we're still at it); recently, HistoryofIran and me fixed the Afsharid dynasty map, so I was wondering whether you would be willing to adress these changes on your own orthograpic version as well?[46]

Thanks alottttt! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam---Baharlu

BAHARLU, name of a Turkish tribe in Persia. In particular, the name refers to the ruling family of the Kara-Koyunlu federation of Turkmen tribes (also called Barani). It is most probable that the name ("those of Bahar") is connected with the village of Bahar (Ibn al-Athir, x, 290: W.hdn, read Vakar) situated at 13 kms. north of Ramadan. According to Hamd Allah Mustawfi, Nuzha, 107 (Eng. transl. 106) the castle of Bahar served as residence to Sulayman-shah b. Pardam Iwa'i, who later became one of the three chief ministers of the caliph al-Musta'sim and was executed by the Mongols of Hulegu khan. See especially the excursus on the family of Sulaymanshah by M. Qazwini, ibid., iii, 453-64. The nisba Iwa'i clearly points to Sulaymanshah's connexion with one of the basic Oghuz tribes: Iva (or Iva). The reasons of Sulaymanshah's expatriation from his principality of Bahar to Baghdad are unknown, but there are definite indications that even before the arrival of the Mongols the Iva had spread northwards towards Erbil and Maragha. The Khwarazm-shah Djalal al-Din had to repress their depredations on the roads leading to Tabriz (winter 623/1226). The presence of an Iva'i is mentioned even in Khilat (627/1230). These stages lead us to the region where the Kara-Koyunlu federation of tribes was formed. Even the emblem on some Kara-Koyunlu coins reminds one of the tribal tamgha of the Iva. On the other hand the connexion of the Kara-Koyunlu rulers with Hamadan is confirmed by the survival of their epigons in those parts. For a long time the region of Hamadan was called Kalam-raw-i 'Ali Shakar, after the name of the important Kara-Koyunlu amir. At present splinters of the Baharlu tribe are scattered throughout southern Persia. --V. Minorsky --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in West Asia

The recent IP there is an EddieDrood sock, editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. You might want to check the edits. See this talk page - the IP is linked at the bottom of the talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry for using weak sources (e.g Wiki pages). I'll try to find good, reliable sources next time. Once again sorry. If you see any information written by me that you consider incorrect or in need of a source know that it must be from a long time ago and should be removed. WikiEditor16

User:Joohnny braavoo1 sockpuppet

New user with a specific interest in Bulgaria and Turks.[47] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Iranian nomads

I guess I see why concepts like turkification which involved iranian nomads don't belong, but why remove people who were almost certianly iranian like the hepthalites (I admit I also added pages of lesser certainty). Thanks, Darokrithia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darokrithia (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are pages I would keep in Iranian nomads Hephthalite Empire, Yuezhi, Asii, Indo-Scythians, Komedes, and Arkaim,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darokrithia (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darokrithia:, 1) Hepthalites are of uncertain origins 2) same goes for the Yuezhi 3) idem for the Asii 4) Indo-Scythians already has the "Category:Indo-Scythian peoples" category, itself a daughter category of "Category:Scythians", itself a daughter category of "Category:Iranian nomads" 5) Komedes are of uncertain origins as well 6) Arkaim is an archaeological site (not a tribe), attributed to the early Indo-European speakers. Has really nothing to do with "Iranian nomads", in the strictest sense of the word. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Kharabat (poetry)

Maybe, but removing all meaningful content from the page is not the way to deal with it. If you think it needs a complete rewrite, then there's a template for this: {{cleanup-rewrite}}. If you think the page needs to be deleted, then we have a WP:deletion policy that outlines the procedure to follow. — Smjg (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smjg:; "(...) all meaningful content from the page".

Such as? Your assertion that there is "meaningful" content on the page, means you can point that out and remove the unrelated/wrong content from it, am I right? The user who is responsible for adding that 15kb of gibberish text, has an editorial pattern solely marked by violations of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TENDENTIOUS. What sense does it possibly make, to keep huge amounts of "content" of literally 0.0% quality, over having a safe stub article that at least doesn't spread misinformation to our readers? And I'm not even talking about the prose, which is objectively even worse than what google.translate provides. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite it myself and added a proper source. Based on my experience, waiting for someone else to rewrite such a low-profile would basically mean waiting for a few years. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean you checked every sentence and not one of them had any meaning? Hmm. Your version barely qualifies as a stub, as it states nothing about what the term means. At least, I can't make any sense of this: "In Persian poetry, the word kharabat is sometimes used as a proverb for the word tavern.".... — Smjg (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I've just seen your username on RTRC and I think you deserve it right now. :) The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RaviVery

One more apparent sockpuppet of PakePakwan.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Parthians

Hi. I've created a navbox for Parthians. See Template:Parthian Empire. Is current name good or I should move it to Parthians, Arsacids or another proper name? Please help me improve it. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, heyy. Hmm I think the name is good like this. Thanks for creating it btw! Most classical-era articles are in a relatively poor state, but obviously it never hurts having such templates already at our disposal, in order to be able to track the main topics with ease. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Delhi Sultanate

I made some changes to the delhi sultanate and then received a message from you saying I have complied with the rules? I think I changed it from a muslim empire to a turko-persian empire which makes so much more sense?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.53.201 (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, you were reverted because it was unsourced and you didn't provide an edit summary either. Furthermore, not all of the ruling dynasties were of Turkic origin. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Khorasan

Hello, LouisAragon – What do you think of this edit to Khorasan? Is it appropriate to link a geographical name to Wiktionary at the top of a disambiguation page?  – Corinne (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:, hello. To be honest, I have no idea. Do you think its an inappropriate change? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

Hello. What do you think about this:

• Azerbaijan (Iran)
  • Unsourced claim: Iranian Azerbaijan is administratively divided into West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, Ardabil, and Zanjan provinces.
  • Unsourced map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian-Azerbaijan.png

See:

• Azerbaijan ä˝zĕrbījän´, ă˝zər– [key], Iran. Azarbayejan, region, c.34,280 sq mi (88,785 sq km), NW Iran, divided into the provinces of East Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 3,325,540), West Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 2,496,320), and Ardabil (1996 pop. 1,168,011).
• Azerbaijan, also spelled Azarbaijan, or Azarbayjan, Persian Āz̄arbāyjān, geographic region that comprises the extreme northwestern portion of Iran. It is bounded on the north by the Aras River, which separates it from independent Azerbaijan and Armenia; on the east by the Iranian region of Gīlān and the Caspian Sea; on the south by the Iranian regions of Zanjān and Kordestān; and on the west by Iraq and Turkey. Azerbaijan is about 40,000 square miles (100,000 square km) in area.

I think the whole article needs a review. And if the article is not limited to a historical region, why I don't see similar content for other regions of Iran? Compare it with Iranian Kurdistan. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry!

Sorry, my cousin has a habit of editing wikipedia pages and she's been doing it for years, I do not like to edit anything. My apologies, you can re-edit your edits. Can you please ask your user-friends to resolve the block? I promise I will not be continuing to edit in this website in future, so there would be reason to block my IP for more than 2 years. If this is not a place where I can write this message, could you please show me a talk page where I can post this so my issue will be resolved, thank you.

94.43.171.124 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Caucasus

I reverted an edit by 94.43.171.124 on Caucasus (history) thinking it was vandalism, but undid myself as I wasn't sure of Caucasus naming conventions. However I noticed that you reverted their previous similar edit to the article so I was wondering if you could check out the recent change to the article for me and revert it if warranted. benzband (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Benzband:, ah, I see your message only now. Thanks for leaving me a note about it. Appreciate it. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Psychonot

I just saw your edit and warning of User:Psychonot here, reverting his edits. I just reverted his edit to the Template:Nuclear power in Iran were he added Khamenei as a nuclear negotiator, which to my understanding he is not. User has now been editing Rohingya people including the statement about refugees having babies and being "irresponsible", and some other disruptive editing to the lead section, which is not even the place for it.

Since you mentioned he has been warned before and simply deleted his messages, user seems to be WP:DISRUPTIVE and doing WP:NOTADVOCATE using Wikipedia as soapbox, without concern for structure or tone of the articles itself. This should be brought to admin attention, what's your take? DA1 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@DA1: Yep. I'd say hes pretty much WP:NOTHERE. I strongly suspect hes not a new editor either. A block is needed. Just a few minutes before you wrote me this message, I posted my concerns to another user who happened to have reverted some of his disruptive edits recently as well.[48] - LouisAragon (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So how do you settle this issue? Judging by the discussion in the link you shared, he may be a sockpuppet as well then. -DA1 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I just asked an admin. He advised it should be brought to ANI. Are you, by any chance, willing to do it? Unfortuantrly, I don't really have much time atm. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet, have you? In case of reference, here is the edit [49] on Rohingya where he adds the line about having babies under the subheader "Irresponsibility". DA1 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Tus, Iran

Hello, LouisAragon – I don't know if you have Tus, Iran on your watchlist, but in case you don't, I thought I'd ask you about this edit. Besides the ungrammatical "Turkish and Mongols", I'm not sure it is accurate, but I don't know what to write in an edit summary if I revert, so I'll leave it up to you.  – Corinne (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Corinne & LouisAragon, I reverted the edit and added some information and references. Feel free to check it for mistakes. :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixing the block

In the AN3 complaint, my rangeblock should have been 107.77 not 107.71. (Who knew it was so hard to get these right?) Let me know if you still see the same guy editing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)