User talk:Aramgar

Pervane

Cahen also writes of the origin of the title pervāne, suggesting that it is related to a functionary in Mongol Iran called pervāneji. The original role of the pervāne among the Seljuqs of Rūm was to carry personal messages and distribute favors (p. 221-222). I know that pervane means “propeller” or “flywheel” in Turkish. I have always seen the title translated as “butterfly.” Aramgar 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See for translations of pervane.

Pervane (Today!!! if we dont use mechanically, let say for a people;) means a small moth/butterfly -especially a specific one which goes around light at night. Propeller was not invented at that time. Regards.Must.^{T C} 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Names for the Sultans of Rum

Hi for the those names they do not use Turkish characters so it is a content dispute and does not violate name changing characters so it needs to be the most common name or accurate. --Karent82 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaykhusraw or Keyhüsrev

For several months now, there has been some debate as to which spelling of the sultan’s name is the most appropriate title for the articles Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III in English Wikipedia. The spelling current in English language academic literature is “Kaykhusraw.” Some Wikipedia editors prefer the Turkish spelling “Keyhüsrev,” which is understandable given the sultan’s role in Anatolian history and Turkish civilization. Still, “Kaykhusraw” is the form most familiar to readers of English, and Wikipedia Naming Conventions suggest that we use this form. Below is a list of credible English language sources. All use the spelling “Kaykhusraw.” The first two books in the list are the essential English language references for the history of the Seljuks of Rum.

• ”Kaykhusraw” Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (University of California Press, 1971), p. 134.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071-1330 (Taplinger Publishing, 1968), p. 111.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Stephen Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, 2nd edition (1998), p. 62.
• ”Kaykhusraw” The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, edited by Helen C. Evans and William D Wixom (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 416.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade (Viking, 2004), p. 191.
• “Kay-khusraw” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 2, p. 1117.

The titles of the articles must remain Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III. Aramgar 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of cimri

RE: Jimri: Both of my sources state that Cimri means “the Leper.” While not denying that cimri in contemporary Turkish means “miser,” it is possible that the word has undergone considerable semantic change since the 13th century. One unpleasant quality over time has come to signify another. I would like to keep the translation "leper." Aramgar 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

About edits for Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey)

Hi Aramgar: I meant to write explanations of my edits but forgot and wasn't sure it was worth littering up the talk page. Most of the edits relate to spelling, grammar and style. I removed information about the discovery of carpets and about touching mummified corpses because it seemed irrelevant to the mosque's history. Kafka Liz 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Peruvian meteorite event

Wow, i don't know whether you made an error or if there's a bug in the system , but it seems that you just posted on the wrong talk page: Talk:2007 Peruvian meteorite event#Evil Plot against Alaeddin Keykubad
--Jerome Potts 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the history. User didn't post it. User originally posted the comment to User talk:Cretanforever [1], and the comment was subsequently removed by User:Cretanforever [2], but strangely enough pasted to Talk:2007 Peruvian meteorite event by Cretanforever here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

I've left a reply to your comment on my talk page. Sorry again for not getting back to you sooner. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chormaqan's date of death

I don't know why you kept this statement in the article on Kaykhusraw II, "Baiju and Muhadhdhab traveled to the Mughan steppe in Azerbaijan so the vizier could put his case to the elderly Chormaqan, then ruling the Mongol Empire."

That is entirely inaccurate. Chormaqan does not rule the Mongol empire (Ögedei Khan does at this time) and he has been dead for about two years and that's why Baiju is commanding the Mongol units around that area. Timothy May has extensively done researched on Chormaqan and he gives the date of his death in 1241. Just check his article that he wrote, http://www.historynet.com/mh/blchormaquan/ Lrguy 09:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alanya Castle

Parti Pehlivan ! I intend to extend Alanya Castle considerably in a few days and in the article, I would like to use the spelling for the sultan to Alaeddin Keykubad I. İtirazın yoqsa tabi (if you see no inconvenient, that is...). Cretanforever 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like at Alanya Castle. I would prefer to see 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad, but do what you want. I have seen other disagreements of this type handled in a similar way. If it's okay with you, I will move this section to my talk page. Aramgar 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

40 Martyrs of Sabaste

Hello Aramgar, I linked "God: Sole Satisfier" with the Martyrs because theologically these martyrs reveal the fact, by their lives, that God is the only one to fulfill life's meaning. These martyrs are a witness to the Christian experience of God as Sole Satisfier. Yours Jc3schmi (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd-Jones

I would say nominate it for speedy deletion as it seems like a cut and dry case, but unfortuantely redirects are not speedy deletion eligible unless they're clearly typos. You'll need to open a redirects for deletion discussion for it. Put the {{rfd}} tag on the top of the redirect page (above #REDIRECT) and then add {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~ under today's date heading on this page, replacing TargetArticle and Reason as appropriate. Hope this helps, WP:RFD also has information on the process. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but wouldn't it just be easier to redirect Lloyd-Jones to the new stub? --Elonka 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, found another solution. I took the liberty to redirect Lloyd-Jones to the disambiguation page at Lloyd Jones, where I also added several other "Lloyd-Jones" candidates. If you know of any others, please feel free to add them.  :) --Elonka 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help. Aramgar (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem Mr Senseless (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rûm

Feel free to re-add your material. I actually found a few books that back up the roman stuff after I deleted it from the page. I just haven't found the time to re-add the material myself. The reason I am so interested in Rum is because Chinese Song Dynasty records mention a series of foreign envoys that visited China once in 1081 and twice in 1091. The 1081 records mention a king with the title of Caesar and the 1091 records mention that the envoy returned to "rum". A Chinese scholar speculates that the the contact between Byzantium and China was in an attempt to enlist aid against the turks. Other historians believe it was the turks themselves that visited China. (I am a huge fan of Crusader and Chinese history by the way.) You can read more about this in the Crusades article here. The info begins on the third paragraph down. Sorry if I caused you any trouble. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't resist

Joy

Kafka Liz (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ok, so there are cuter kittens out there... Kafka Liz (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi, and welcome to discussions at Franco-Mongol alliance! I very much look forward to having someone else in the discussion who is actually familiar with the related history.  :) If you have a moment, could you please review the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence thread and offer your opinion? It's something we've been working hard on, to ensure consensus. It appears that your most recent comment on the page agrees with the previous consensus in the Intro Sentence section, but I'd like to confirm that I have your meaning right. Thanks, Elonka 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other thises and thatses

• I thought I'd mention to you that if you want, you're welcome to blank or archive your own talkpage. So if you'd like to get that old block stuff removed, you are free to do it at any time.

• Also, if Kafka Liz would like to participate in any of the same discussions about Mongol-related things or other topics, she too is welcome to offer her opinion. If she does though, in order to head off any concerns, it would be best if, if there is any question of controversy, that she (or you) clearly states somewhere in the discussion that you know each other offline, but that you are participating as individuals, and not as a "voting block". I would also be extremely cautious in any situations that look like votes or polls. However, as long as you're clear on disclosure, it's probably fine for both of you to participate.

If you have any questions, let me know! :) --Elonka 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk archives

Hiya, I took the liberty of tweaking your talkarchive link a bit, to make it a bit more standard. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back, but this way it'll probably be a bit easier to maintain if/when you have more archives in the future.  :) Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghazan coin

Two dirham coin of the Ilkhan Ghazan Mahmud, Bāzār, AH 701.

Thank you for the great info! This is one of my coins, and it is indeed beautiful. Would you be able to confirm the exact legend? Is it: ﻢﻠﺳﻭ ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﻰﻠﺻ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻝﻮﺳﺭ ﺪﻤﺤﻣ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻻﺍﻪﻟﺍﻻ/ ﺰﻳﺮﺒﺗ ﺏﺮﺿ/ ... ﻊﺒﺳ ﺔﻨﺳ ﻰﻓ Lailahe illallah Muhammed resulullah salli aleyhe. Duribe Bāzār fi sene 701
If so, would you have the capability to fill-in the arabic as well? Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typing in Arabic is a rather cumbersome process on the computers I use. For the sake of time please allow me to use Latin script. Obverse field: Allāh / lā ilāh illā / (darb bāzār) / Muhammud / rasūl Allāh. Obverse margin within the frame: sallā (3:00) / Allāh (12:00) / ‘alayhi (9:00). Obverse margin outside the frame: sana (4:00), ahad (1:00), sab’am… (11:00-8:00).

The kalima of the field is standard on most Islamic coins. The mint is written in small letters above the big Muhammad. sallā Allāh ‘alayhi means “God bless him”; the Allāh is used twice, once in the kalima and once in this phrase. The date is annoyingly abbreviated.

The Arabic on the reverse is limited to the large Ghāzān Mahmūd of the third line down, the tiny Allāh between Phagspa characters I mentioned yesterday, and the date, I think, written again on the right side. The rest is Uighur.

Your coin is a variation of GA-281 in Ömer Diler’s Ilkhans: coinage of the Persian Mongols and #2172 in Stephen Album’s Checklist of Islamic Coins. Hope this helps. I enjoyed identifying it. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nawruz

Nawruz has his own article here: Nawrūz. I created it 6 weeks ago in my attempt to have more info on Mongol generals/emirs, of which Mulay is a part. Regards, PHG (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Inscription in Sinop Picture

Hi. I noticed that you had made a request for assistance in uploading a picture of the inscription at Sinop at the Kaykaus I talk page. I think the page could use the picture. Do you still need help. If so, I'd love to help you upload the picture to wikipedia. Since you have taken the picture yourself, there shouldn't be any problem with it. If there is any help you need, you can always leave me a message at my talk Page. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for you then mate. Take care. Really looking forward to that pic. If theres any help you need, dont hesitate to drop me a line. I'll try and help out any way i can. Good luck editing wikipedia. Sniperz11^talk|edits 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC

At this point, I am not convinced that this is such a good picture. I took it originally with the aim of working through both the Greek and the Arabic, not as an illustration for Wikipedia. Aramgar (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its an excellent picture mate... dont worry about it. I think its an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Sniperz11^talk|edits 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusades resources

Thanks for the offer, it's very much appreciated. Right now, I just need the books. When I took a class on the Crusades in college, we used Runciman, and that was about it, so I really don't have many books on the time frame. I have a few that are on the early Crusades, the First and Second and Third ones. And that's about it. So I'm looking for new current stuff on the Crusades. I've managed to mostly catch myself up on the Anglo-Norman stuff, finally. So now I guess since I got dragged into the whole Franco-Mongol mess, I'd better start adding to my Crusades library. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Aramgar, could you kindly stop reverting the Franco-Mongol alliance article to a version which has no user consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus)? Thank you. PHG (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, Aramgar is acting properly, in accordance with talkpage consensus. Something that I wish you would start doing. You've gotten warnings from multiple uninvolved admins now, maybe it's time you started listening to them? --Elonka 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anadolu Selçukluları

thank you, i edited the page according to your way. i didnt know you are in a discussion with someone in article. i edited because many people(especially turkish users) may redirected to "great seljuk empire page" according to incomplete entance. so, i dont edit the main entrance. respects.--Orkh (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to redirect, by the way you changed the entrance again. you know this shape is not healty for turkish users.--Orkh (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

no, i dont know more names, thanks arkadaşım--Orkh (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aramgar

Hi Aramgar. You know as well as I do that Elonka has no consensus to delete the 120k of content and 300 academic references that have been accumulated over a period of 6 months. I am upholding Wikipedia's rule that, in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail. I will gladly cooperate, as always, with other users, as long as Wikipedia rules are respected and important content is not just deleted away and abusively replaced. I have no intention to give way to Elonka and a few of her friends who are blatantly flouting normal editing rules. Respect existing content, discuss it, and we can move forward from that. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Runciman nor Grousset do specifically mention Viam_agnoscere_veritatis, and they just mention communications and responses to the envoys. Therefore your argument does not stand Aramgar. You can't have it both ways, since you already insisted that Grousset and Runciman's statements should not be connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. Runciman and Grousset's statements stand in their own right. I am getting tired of your partisan accusations. PHG (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Don't talk about ad hominem attacks, you have proven a master at them. These quotes from Grousset and Runciman were specifically deleted by you and your friends from the Viam agnoscere veritatis article because they were not formally connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. They are, however formally connected to Aibeg and Serkis, that's why they fully deserve to be in this article. PHG (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have no intention to do original research to second-guess the statements of reputable historians such as Grousset and Runciman. PHG (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete referenced material !!! [3]. That's a total shame! PHG (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant views should be mentionned, and this is non-negotiable. You cannot delete proper secondary sources because of your own interpretations, or your wish to privilege only one point of view. This is a strong disservice to Wikipedia and goes against Wikipedia editing rules.PHG (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seljuk Sultanate of Rum map

Thank you for your kind words regarding this map. It was listed at Category:Former country articles requiring a map and so I saw that the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm, and similar articles in other languages, needed a locator map.

I was very happy to make the adjustment for Sinop, which I have now uploaded. If this is still not correct, let me know.

Regarding the eastern territories, I used William Shepherd's 1911 "Map of Europe and the Meditteraean Lands about 1190". If you have additional or conflicting information, I could review and incorporate that into my map.

I could also look into making a 1236 map, if you felt that was desirable.

Thanks for your own work here at Wikipedia! Sincerely, MapMaster (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Valley View Ferry

On 20 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valley View Ferry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin translation assistance

Aramgar, hi, could I use your Latin-reading ability for a minute (or three?). PHG has posted the text of a letter in Latin at the ArbCom case.[4] I dispute that he is translating the Latin properly, so, if you have time, would you be willing to post your version of a translation, for the benefit of the arbs? If you don't have time, I understand, but if you do, it could be helfpul. Thanks, Elonka 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I looked into this letter a while back. It will take me some time to find my notes. Aramgar (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Up for a stub?

I noticed you've been working on some of the frontier fortresses. Do you think you could throw up a stub on Terbezek, alias Darbsâk, alias Trapessac, where the Templars got such a beating in 1237? Choess (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wang Khan

The image you are deleting from the Wang Khan article is indeed an image of Wang Khan from "Le Livre des Merveilles". Thank you not to delete it. PHG (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis

Please note that User:Elonka has been making up the story that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam agnoscere veritatis", when I only spoke about one. It turns out it is actually just her own interpretation,[5] and is not corroborated in any way by published sources. These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except her. I am asking an apology from her, and ask you to consider this examplar case of wrongfull accusation.PHG (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG: You created the article Viam agnoscere veritatis as a coatrack for your Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. You adduced the abridged version of Dei patris immensa from a German dissertation, called it Viam agnoscere veritatis, and made false claims about its content. You obviously still fail to notice that there are three letters of Innocent IV addressed to the Mongols that begin either Viam agnoscere veritatis or Viam cognoscere veritatis. Elonka is not the party fabricating and interpreting at Viam agnoscere veritatis. In the future please address your concerns about this article at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Aramgar (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Papal envoys

Hiya, I just created the article Exultavit cor nostrum, sourcing it to some of Peter Jackson's work. When you have time, could you check Papal Envoys and see if there's anything to add? I don't currently have access to it. Also, what do you think we should do about John the Hungarian? I'd like to set it up as a link, but I'm not sure there's enough information about him to warrant an article. Maybe we should create a subsection in Exultavit, and then we can link to it there, like setup a redirect from "John the Hungarian" to Exultavit cor nostrum#John the Hungarian. What do you think? --Elonka 05:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachewiltz writes of the letter on p. 151 of Papal Envoys to the Great Khans but mentions neither John the Hungarian nor the title Exultavit cor nostrum. I am afraid he has not much to add: "Urban's reply was cautious, yet friendly. The pontiff praised the Mongol prince for his humane treatment of the Christians and urged him to accept baptism as other members of his family were reported to have done already." Aramgar (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. In my own books, the most detail seems to be in Jean Richard's The Crusades. I went ahead and created a section at Exultavit cor nostrum#John the Hungarian, as well as adding a bit of info to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I'd appreciate if you could review my work and check it against your own sources.  :) --Elonka 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for all your help with sources, and offers of help. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		You keep to the shadows so much, I felt that you needed a bit of recognition for all that you do. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And let me add my thanks for creating Trapessac. The real challenge will be sorting out Roche-Guillaume and Roche Roussel, a task well beyond my dilettantish powers. The linked webpage associates Roche-Guillaume with Tchivlan Kalé, when in fact the latter may be Roche Roussel. Choess (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Viam again

Hi Aramgar, I noticed that Elonka wondered if anyone could translate the papal letters on the talk page, so I am wondering if you have already done that somewhere. I was going to take a stab at them, but you are a lot more involved in this dispute than I am, and I don't want to step on your toes. I do work with Pope Latin all the the time though, so translating them is fun in a twisted sort of way, and I'd be happy to help. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I haven't started Cum non solum yet so I'll leave that to you. Dei patris immensa is on a subpage of my userpage, User:Adam Bishop/viam; it's a little rough at the moment and there are a few sentences I am still baffled by, so if you have any suggestions I'd appreciate them. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Question

Raban, Altınaşkale, and Araban

A statement in the section Foundation of Armenian power in Cilicia says that the fortresses of Raban is modern Altınaşkale. I have had no luck finding a Turkish place by that name. Could someone tell me the original source? It seems like Raban is actually the modern Araban. Aramgar (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

--- Get The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia; Robert W. Edwards; Hardcover; $60.00

- simpleton sorry, I am mainly interested in mongol era castles in iran in 13-14th century and sometimes I also study anatolian, cilician and crusader castles. also destruction of assasin forts in iran.