User talk:Nepaheshgar

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I got a post-doc position, so I'll be more busy and have less time for wikipedia. If there is an issue on any article I made a consensus with other users, please e-mail me. You can also e-mail me with any other inquiries and I will respond back. To any reader reading this, I would not take wikipedia as a scholarly source on many history or social subject. Probably the arguments in the talkpages of disputed articles show this.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Safavid /NameAAA

Thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence

for your excellent work in Shahnameh and other Iranian articles. You are an "exception" among Wikipedia Users. --Pejman47 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to barefact re:Scytho-Iranian theory

FYI:

I have reviewed the article and do not believe that much of it is appropriate for WP. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The weight of scholarly consensus is that the Scythians were an Iranian peoples; a tiny minority holds that they were Turkic. This article implies the reverse.

It may be worth a brief mention in the article on Scythians along the lines of "Scholar A, Scholar B, and Scholar C argue based on linguistic evidence that the Scythians were proto-Turkic rather than Iranian; this view is not widely held."

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, would you please check the historic sections of Mazandaran Provinceand in the case that it contradicts academic sources, rewrite it?--Pejman47 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literature template

Thanks for additions. I think those look OK now, except for citation "5", saying also part of Literature of Iran. It's OK to create this template and add the authors there. But some authors listed in this template are also part of Literature of USSR, Literature of Russia and Literature of Turkey. This would create confusion, if we have to add each one of those, don't you think? Also, I think the article about Parvin Ehtesami needs some improvement and sources, it would be great if you can improve it. Atabek 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup

Oui, monsiuer. But it appears problems are so few, and Mardavich is disappeared. Khorshid 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention

Dear Ali doostzadeh, you may wish to consult my note on [1]. Kind regards, --BF 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have now again left a message for this deranged individual. You may wish to consult: User:Samadli. Someone should make an effort and lock the entry to the article in question; it is just a wast of time to counter this madman thrice each day. Kind regards, --BF 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chionites

Heh, alright. I just wrote in alphabethical order. If i knew that the order of "x or y" was important, then i would already wrote it as "y or x". Logically, it does not matter. Regards. E104421 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you reverted my edits to Tajik's version. He removed the reference at the beginning section, changed the alphabetical ordering, too, in order to cover up Chineese. The mainstream historians regards Chionites as Red Huns. On the other hand, he added "(red)" within the direct quotations, but this could be added in the notes section. If you quote something directly you do it directly. By the way, you removed the reference to "Red Huns" terminology, too. Regards, E104421 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, [2], I really don't know why you so insist putting an unkown literary figure in this template. If you dont agree me, let's try Wikipedia:Third opinion. I strongly disagree the notablity of this person. Thinks.Aparhizi 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people

Please take a look at [3] and write a short comment. Thank you. Regards.