User talk:Beshogur

you have put an invalid reference on sultanate of rum and thanks for your editsJoohnny braavoo1 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Turkic dynasties and countries

That was not an unexplained removal, I clearly stated my reasons on my talk page, and asked you for a source(s) that support your edits, which you chose to avoid. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you remove the orginal content. You can't remove it because you didn't like it. It's funny how you add these dynasties to List of Iranian dynasties and countries and removing it from List of Turkic dynasties and countries while these dynasties has a Turkic origin. Beshogur (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's funny, because I haven't added anything to List of Iranian dynasties and countries since 2014, and I have already stated that the article should be deleted. Unlike you, I refrain from pov-pushing. Just because they had a Turkic origin doesn't make them a 'Turkic dynasty' or a 'Turko-Persian/Iranian state'. That is something fictitious which you have come up with, and if you can't come up with a source to support your claims, I will remove the dynasties again. Revert me again after I have removed them, and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should it be 'fiction' while Persianate society exist, while Turco-Mongol dynasties exist, while Turco-Persian tradition exist. Yes an Iranian Dynasty with Turkic origin does make this dynasty Turkic. They spoke Turkic, and their official language was Turkic. You need source? Open the pages of these Turkic dynasties. And report please. I'm not POV-pushing, you do. Beshogur (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Because in reality they are not called for a 'Turkic dynasty' or a 'Turko-Persian/Iranian state', and you clearly know that as well. I am looking at the articles right now, and they're saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. If you're so sure of what you're saying, and that you're not pov-pushing, then surely it should be easy for you to find some reliable sources that support you edits? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, look what the article says "The following is a list of dynasties, states or empires which are Turkic-speaking, of Turkic origins, or both." and it says "The following list is of Iranian dynasties of Turkic origin." What's wrong with that? Maybe the word that was used is wrong. But that's a reason to remove, Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar, and Mughal dynasties? According you we should make the whole article blanc. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So what? This is still a clear pov-pushing attempt, and the article is named List of Turkic dynasties and countries, I don't recall those dynasties being a Turkic one? And no, we shouldn't make the whole article blank, in fact we should delete it along with the Iranian one :P. Also, changing the name of the section to 'Iranian dynasties with Turkic origin' doesn't make it any better, since if they're Iranian dynasties, then what are they doing in a article named 'List of Turkic dynasties and countries'? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's just a wording, why do you take it so serious? And Iranian Dynasties with Turkic origin means it's a Turkic dynasty which rules over Iran. Saying Iranian dynasty to them doesn't make them Persian, so still Turkic. Beshogur (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a wording, the issue was talked about in the Iranian version of the article as well [1].Well they're not Turkic dynasties, and you still haven't come up with any source to support your claims. I'll wait a little bit longer, and if you haven't come up with anything, I'll remove them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. What about Mughal dynasty? Isn't Mughals descended from Timurid dynasty? Beshogur (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Still not a Turkic dynasty. Also, you still haven't added anything that calls them a 'Turkic dynasty'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't want waste my time. Bye lol. Beshogur (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Research v Verifiability

Please note the difference between Original Research and Verifiability of information. Original Research is where a user has done their own primary work on a subject or topic. This is different to verifiability which is ensuring that sources used and information in articles is accurate. Not once did I refer to the information in the Islamic terrorism in Europe as Original Research you claimed that I did here. It is also far from a joke that the information in the article is u encyclopedic. The information has been tagged as to the areas where it falls down. The information removed is unverified and is news cruft.The section must only contain information which conforms with Wikipeidia's policies on a Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, No Original Research and Relevance. Sport and politics (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I would caution you about making statements in edit summaries as these are permanent and cannot be removed after the fact, be careful with what is added as it is permanent. Sport and politics (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, you didn't vandalise the Marawi crisis page

It was some editor with the IP address. Again, sorry

Warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kara Koyunlu, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)