User talk:Cabolitae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Ariana310)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png This account was renamed from Ariana310 to Cabolitae.

Edit counter

Revision history of Template talk:History of Afghanistan[edit]

Hi user Ariana310
Would you also like to look at the order of Shahis and Ghaznavids on the template
...the Ghaznavids defeated the Shahis
but in the template the dates are showing a seperation of about 3 centuries ,
I think this needs correction as well .Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kabul#Kabul city's population[edit]

I agree, it is not high. The province is not a metropolitan area, province is more of a rural area. The Naval Postgraduate School is an accredited research university operated by the United States Navy and it states that the urban area (or inner city) of Kabul is made up of 615,900 residents.[1] The Afghan government (MRRD) states that the population of Kabul City is 1,925,548.[2] MRRD is refering to the Kabul District (metro area), which includes the small towns that are outside the urban area but still counted as part of the city. All the sources agree on the approximate 3.5 million population of Kabul province. I hope you understand all this. Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The years (2007, 2008, 2009, and etc.) you mentioned doesn't affect the total numbers much. So don't let that worry you.Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I am strictly following the information given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Actually, I am against listing any detailed pre-modern history of Afghanistan as the country did not exist prior to the rise of Pashtuns. The Encyclopaedia Iranica starts the history of Afghanistan at 1747, the Encyclopaedia of Islam gives a short summary but mentions at least 5 times that the country did not exist as a united entity and that there was no common cultural, linguistic, or ethnic identity in the region (in certain cases, the different provinces and regions fought each other). Getting back to the Hotakis: they play an important role in the political history of Afghanistan, because they were the first Pashtun grouping to rise against the ruling Persian dynasty and hence marked the beginning of Pashtun rule in the region. But from a wider perspective, they were pretty unimportant. Their "dynasty" was shortlived and did not have any cultural importance. Their rule was not accepted by the majority of royals and local rulers and they were defeated and removed from power before they could eliminate the Safavid dynasty. Going by Ahmed shahi's definition that "all native dynasties" or "those who had their capitals in the land that is now Afghanistan" should be mentioned, the Hotakis, Mughals, and Timurids do not have any of the above mentioned requirements. The Timurids were Tuko-Mongols from Central Asia, the core of their empire had always been Central Asia (hence the name "Mughal", from "Moghulistan", meaning the Mongol-dominated regions of Central Asia). The Encyclopaedia of Islam in the article "Afghanistan" explicitly mentions that the Timurids were NOT native. The Mughals were offsprings of the Timurids and originated in Andijan. Only a very short time Babur was centered in Kabul where he recruited native Tajik tribal chiefs and their warriors in order to attack India. From that moment on, the capitals of the Mughals were all centered in India (including modern Pakistan). The Tajik cities now belonging to Afghanistan (Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul) were claimed by Mughals, Shaybanid Uzbeks and Safavids, and were not secure in order to become capitals. The Hotakis were not native to Kandahar, but were part of the Ghilzay migration into the Arghandabd Valley. They were granted permanent settlements in Kandahar by Shah Abbas the Great in order to create a "buffer zone" between Persia and India. In the early 18th century, they revolted against the nominal representative of the Safavids and conquered the city of Kandahar. A few years later, they attacked the empire's capital, Isfahan, and removed the Safavid king. Their tribal leaders (Mahmud and Ashraf) proclaimed themselves Shahs of Iran and were even able to find support among a few Qizilbash leaders and royals. After a short time, they were defeated by Nadir Shah and removed from power. In all of those years, they never tried to create their own kingdom, they were no separatists. Mirwais, Ashraf, and Mahmud - all of them acted within the Persian Empire and considered themselves a part of it (and leaders of it). Their capital was and remained Isfahan. The only major change they brought in was the transformation of the previously Tajik city of Kandahar to a (now) Pashtun city. Tajiks still make up some 20% of the city and are mostly descendants of the original Persian-speaking population. The article lacks neutrality and over-exaggerates. Most of what Ahmed shahi writes is ethnocentric POV and not supported by the EI or EIr. If he had any valid points, it would be no problem to find reliable quotes in these two encyclopedias. But since his edits are POV, he cannot find any reliable sources. Tajik (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reported User:Ahmed shahi on the WP:ANI. In that discussion, he mentioned your name and accused you of POV pushing. I think you should be notified about this. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lycées français de Kaboul[edit]

Merci d'avoir considérablement amélioré mon ébauche, l'article français est encore très faible, j'ai commencé à l'enrichir avec vos données. L'article sur Spôjmaï Zariâb n'est pas encore traduit en anglais, j'avais créé l'ébauche en français, mais j'ai trouvé très peu d'infos sur elle sur le net. --Pylambert (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kabul Province[edit]

Can you please stop removing sourced information from the Kabul Province article.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is removing sourced and accurate information. Unlike Kabul, there should be no dispute over Kabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.6 million. That's it! While you are adding sources from previous years such as 2006, 2007 and 2008.
I think you don't have enough knowledge about how to report the statistics. In statistical issue, you always write the latest data available. You don't go citing the outdated data and then writing in the article: " some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so). Go ask any editor and he/she will give you the same response. Ariana (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


یا رب مباد آنکه گدا متعبر شود

لطفا مواظب شاعرهای مشهور پارسی باشید مانند مولانا/نظامی.. من چند روزی رفتم تعطیلی سپاسگزارم —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavannariman (talkcontribs) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A note[edit]

Hi dear, I just wanted to ask you that: please do not change, replace, add, remove Iran(ian),-->Perisa(n) as you did here. I will be thankful if your desired changes are announced in advance in relevant talk pages. Regards. Xashaiar (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why should I provide reliable source for not accepting a claim made by others? It is like saying "prove that I am wrong, until then I am right". The article itself starts from Avestan era calendars.These are Iranian calenders and Persian Calendars starts from Achaemenids, then Sasanid (and maybe Arsacids). Jalali calenders are post-Saljuk's era calenders. Please see the relevant articles in EIr. And Encyclopaedia of Islam concentrates (rightly) on post-Sasanid era and hence irrelevant for the naming and lead of whole of the article. Xashaiar (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Following a recent thread at WP:ANI, I have offered to mediate in a dispute between editors.

I consider that the mediation process is open to everyone. In particular, it is open to editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute, and to editors who have never edited this article.

I will post this message at the talk pages of Kabul and Kabul Province, at WP:ANI, and on the talk pages of the editors who appear to be involved already.

You may, if you wish, re-post this message elsewhere. If you choose to do so I strongly recommend you post this message and not a new message. I would also strong recommend you read and understand WP:CANVAS before doing so!

The mediation process will take place at User:TFOWR/Kabul.

Thank you! TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Kabul / Kabul Province mediation[edit]


To encourage the mediation process to continue, I've made some changes! I've created separate pages for the three editors currently involved. I'd like to invite you to review your page, which is here. It's entirely possible that I've made mistakes when creating the page and moving content from the previous page - please do feel free to correct and errors I may have made.

Best wishes, TFOWRpropaganda 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the page looks completely fine. Thank you. Ariana (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ariana! The mediation process has slowed, somewhat, over the past few days - the other editors have been discussing matters with an administrator, and their focus has been primarily on that discussion. I believe that the discussion is now resolved, and - hopefully! - we can continue mediation now. TFOWRpropaganda 11:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Due to some occupations, I may probably not be able to reply instantly and may reply back with a short delay, but I will be looking over the mediation. I will bring the changes in Kabul Province as you suggested, let's see if User:Ahmed shahi accepts the mediation outcome. If not, there is no need to continue the mediation. Thanks by the way. Ariana (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Incidentally, it's possible that Ahmed shahi won't see your comments at User:TFOWR/Kabul (part of the rationale behind splitting the mediation into separate pages for each editor is that the other two editors have agreed to an "interaction ban", and I'd like to accommodate that ban while allowing the two editors to continue in mediation). If you post questions at User:TFOWR/Kabul/Ariana310 I'll forward questions to the relevant editor. TFOWRpropaganda 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Kabul / Kabul Province mediation - update[edit]

Hi Ariana

I was hoping to resume the mediation process, however one of the participants has now had their block extended to "indefinite". I have no reason to think that they'll be returning to mediation any time soon, so this is to formally let you know that I'm discontinuing.

Thanks you for taking the time to participate in mediation: I consider that it shows good faith on your part.

Happy editing! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much though for your mediation and useful efforts. You invested a lot of time for the process. I appreciate your assistance. Thanks once again. 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

scholars of khorasan[edit]

Hi You have taken a region of historical Iran and created a template from a part of it. The fact is Iranian civilization extends from Greater Khorasan all the way to all of modern Iran and at one time Caucasus (where Persian was spoken before its Turkification). This can give an execuse to other regions to create such templaes. What should be emphasized is a common great Persian/Iranian (which includes Tajiks of course as they are Persians of Central Asia) civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) ---Hafez and Sa'adi and tabari and .....are all part of the same civilization. Lets not create false templates in order to separate a greater civilization. It is also OR.. --

Hi. Fist, it was not actually me who created the template, it was created by another user/editor, I just developed it. Secondly, Khorasan has always been regarded for the number of scholars (scientists, religious scholars, poets, etc.) it has produced, and for its cultural influence over other parts of Greater Iran. Especially among the Islamic scholars, Khorasan is a region with high importance and has received much respect in this perspective. Finally, Khorasan is not a single political entity (meaning it is not covered by a single country) so that the creation of this template would have political and nationalistic (what you called OR) motives. The creation of this template is purely for the historical, scientific and cultural perspectives. If there is any other region in Greater Iran with such a status, then anyone can feel free to create such a template, for as long as the creation of such a template is free from any political or nationalistic motives - Personally, I can't think of any other region. Ariana (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure there are other regions (Fars, Azerbaijan, Arak...).. How about its name be changed to "Scholar of Greater Khorasan (Eastern Greater Iran)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
But in that case, any attempt to create such a template would be a total POV (it would create political and nationalist motives for the editors), for example in the case of Azerbaijan. As to Fars, I don't think there is any significant number of scholars.
In the title ("Scholars of Khorasan"), the word "Khorasan" has been linked to the article of Greater Khorasan. Anyone who clicks on the link and opens the article, he/she will automatically know that it is part of the Greater Iran. So I think your proposition makes the title repetitive, redundant and unnecessarily long. The title should be short and precise.
If you are concerned with the word Iran not being mentioned, then I have already added the page of Scholars of Khorasan to the Category:Iranian scholars (you can see it at end of the page in here). There are several Category pages in wikipedia about Iranian scholars such as Category:Persian_philosophers, Category:Iranian_scientists, Category:Persian_astronomers, Category:Persian_mathematicians, and many others. So I guess, there is nothing to worry to about. Ariana (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay please add the rest of the categories too.. this would make it more acceptable.. Note Persian=Tajik=Khorasani.. However it should be visible in the main template..that is if you have a note and see also...As for Fars you can look at Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mulla Sadra and etc..I believe we should make a Iranian scholars template (virtually the overwhelming majority of those mentions were Iranians except Ali Sher Navai) and then have regions if necessary.
I just added all other categories. Well, Khorasan had lots of Turkic origin people too. Turkic people lived usually in Khwarazm and Sogdiana. Not only Ali Sher Nawai, but also Ali Qushji, Gawhar Shad Begum, and some others.
Iran would encompass the whole Iranian plateau, and it covers the whole "civilization". So the number of scholars might exceed up to several hundreds, and it would not be practical to add such a template in a page which would cover half of the page. But you're right, creating a single page for Iranian scholars and then dividing it by regions would be also good, but not a template. Ariana (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we can just mention the most important scholars. And there is nothing wrong with several hundred scholars. By the way Goharshad is not a scholar but a figure. Ali Qushji is actually Persian too, the title "Qushji" is simply a court title meaning "Falcon keeper". The word is Turkish but there were many Turkish court titles at one time. We should cover a whole civilization by the template. Probably 50% of that civilization is from Greater Khorasan, but there are still Tajik(Persian) scientists from Shiraz, Isfahan, Azerbaijan and Caucasus(before its Turkification), and even Iraq (most of the early Sufis like Junayd Baghdadi, Shibli, Hasan Basri and etc.). Persians wether they are from Dushanbeh, Shiraz, Dezful, Herat, Tehran, Mazandaran are a single civilization and that is how we should represent ourselves to the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I added Gawhar Shad Begum as a Political figure. She made significant contribution in the cultural and educational development in Khorasan and especially in Herat. Ariana (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


3 years ago, when articles were flooded with templates about histories of modern countries, a consensus was reached to replace all of them with a more general template, that is the "History of Greater Iran" template which deals with the history of the region prior to the establishment of modern nation-states. The "History of Afghanistan" template is a direct copy of the "History of Greater Iran" template and there is no reason why that template should be in the Ghurids article. Your edits in Afghanistan are un-academic. Because of your comments regarding Rabi'a bint Ka'b, I assume that you have no wider knowledge of the subject and have no idea what academic works, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam write about here (for your information: Rabi'a bint Ka'b was her real name and the name used in EI; see also G. Morrison, History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day, Brill, Leiden 1981, p. 21). So all of your edits are against established academic works, hence they are no improvement at all. Tajik (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am totally against these templates. We had the same problems a few years ago in various articles, such as Safavid dynasty when all in a sudden countless "national" templates, such as "History of Iran", "History of Azerbaijan", "History of Iraq", "History of Georgia", "History of Turkey" flooded the articles. Without any doubt all of these templates are correct, but that is not the purpose of Wiki templates. They are meant to help the readers navigate through the articles. Modern nation-states did not exist in the region prior to the 19th century. That's the reason why the template "History of Greater Iran" was created and since then updated more than once. If you feel that the template "History of Greater Iran" lacks information, then add it to it. Do not insert any new templates about modern nation-states to the articles. Because then, the game will start again: the "History of Pakistan", "History of India", etc will be added, and we will have countless templates destroying the article. If you stubbornly persist on keeping that template in the article, then please also add the templates regarding Pakistan, Iran, India, and various other modern nations to it. As for Rabi'a: her name was Rābi'a bin Ka'b al-Quzdāri, that's the name used in Western academic literature (a. G. Morrison, History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day, Brill, Leiden 1981, p. 21; b. Journal of Central Asia, Vol. 3-4, Centre for the Study of the Civilizations of Central Asia, 1980, p. 97; c. A. Seyed-Gohrab, Laylī and Majnūn: love, madness, and mystic longing in Niẓāmī's epic romance, 2003, p. 70), because it is the name mentioned by her oldest biographer: 'Awfi (see Indo-Iranica, Vol. 2, Iran Society India, Calcutta, 1947, p. 39). "Rābi'a Balkhi" is only a local designation. She is a legendary figure, whether she was from Balkh whether she existed at all is not known for sure. Your comparison with Rumi is flawed. While "Rumi" is an established name in English literature, both "Rābi'a bin Ka'b al-Quzdāri" and "Rābi'a Balkhi" are relatively unknown in English. The difference between these two is that the first version is used in academic literature, while the second one is used in non-academic literature. Tajik (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW: no, I did not confuse you with Ahmed shahi. He has been banned indefinitely. And I have no idea why you have removed the Hephthalites (centered in Bactria) from the intro while keeping the Timurids (centered in Samarqand and Bukhara). Tajik (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Hephthalites are notable. They are not only mentioned by contemporary Greek sources, they even became the de facto rulers of all of Persia and for many decades, the Sassanid Empire was only a vassal state of the Hephthalites. As for the Timurids: their centers remained in Central Asia even after Shahrukh Mirza. Shahurkh's son, Ulugh Beg, remained ruler of Samarqand and the Samarqandi Timurids were the main targets of the Shaybanid Uzbeks. Babur's family was also from Central Asia, not from Herat. The Herati Timurids were only a branch of the dynasty. The branch that lived on in India was from Central Asia, hence the name "Mughal" ("Mongol"). As for the template: you are currently pushing for the same POV as User:Ahmed shahi: you are trying to propagate/establish a history for a country that did not even exist 200 years ago. You "claim" certain dynasties and histories for that nation while excluding others. That is POV discussion based on former Soviet models who claimed that dynasties based in the USSR are part of their history, but not that of neighboring countries (i.e. Samanids were part of Soviet Russian history, but not that of neighboring Afghanistan or Iran). That is nonsense. Modern nation-states did not exist 1000 years ago. As such, it is useless to flood these articles with templates about modern nation-states. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, the history of Afghanistan begins with the Hotaki dynasty. And do not try to take advantage of my revert-restrictions and think carefully about whether you really want me to get banned! Because your POV still remains POV. Tajik (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comments regarding Rab'ia bin Ka'b are not based on academic sources. See the sources I have provided you above. Indo-Iranica calls her a "legendary figure", there are no primary sources about her. She is mention tentatively in a few verses of Rudaki and Awfi, sometimes using her real name (Rabi'a al-Quzdari), sometimes using the name Zayn ul-Arab. Attar lived decades after her death, Jami was a poet of the Timurid era and lived centuries after her death. Non of them is an "authentic biography". And you won't be able to show a single primary source proving her existence. And you won't be able to find academic sources supporting your POV (please prove me wrong!).
As for the template: the only one in here who is pushing for POV is you. Your definition of when and how to use a template (which is exactly the same POV as Ahmad shahi's) is totally flawed. The Hotaki dynasty had its capital in Isfahan and claimed the Persian thronw, so according to your logic and definition, they are not part of the history of Afghanistan?! What about the Seljuqs?! Aren't they part of Turkey's history, because all of their capitals were based in Iran?! What about the Sassanids whose capitals were - without any exception - based in modern Iraq?! Aren't they part of Iran's history and should we replace the template?! You are trying to establish a view that is not supported in any academic source. There was no Afghanistan prior to the 19th century, the same way there was no Pakistan prior to the 20th century. The history of the region is the common history of modern Afghanistan and its neighbors. Emphasizing on Afghanistan (or any other country), removing the templates regarding neighboring countries (as you have done), claiming the full history for one nation, and ignoring the view of academics is (your) POV and it is wrong. That's exactly why the template "History of Greater Iran" was craeted. It is only about the pre-modern history of the region. Templates of modern nation-states should only contain information about the modern history. In case of Afghanistan, the template should start with the Hotakis at best, in case of Iran, it should start with the Zand at best. And in case of Pakistan, it should start with British Raj at best. All the rest should be put in more general templates not connected to any modern nation-state. The Ghaznavids are an important and integral part of many modern countries in the region. In fact, going by the cultural impact they had, they are more a part of the history of Iran and Pakistan than that of Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we can solve the problem by splitting the template in a "History of Khorasan" (a name which is attested since the time of the Sassanians) and "History of Afghanistan" which only deals with the history of the modern nation-state. What do you think? Tajik (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I am speaking of two different template. One "History of Khorasan" (ca. 100 - 1850) and one "History of Afghanistan" (1747 - today). Please also keep in mind that these templates are not necessarily needed in all those articles. Tajik (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you reconsidered the idea of creating a new, more neutral and more accurate template?! I am suggesting "History of the Hindu Kush region". That name would justify a "co-existing" with the "History of Greater Iran" template. I also suggest renaming the template "History of Greater Iran" - based on EIr - in "History of the Iranian Cultural Continent". What do you think? Greetings. Tajik (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was at a time when the "History of Greater Iran" template still included modern nation-states. That'S why modern nation-states were removed from the template.
I am suggesting a "History of the Hindu Kush region" template, because it includes both the Iranian and the Indian elements of the region. "Hindu Kush" is a much more neutral and well-established name, and it is not bound to any modern nation-state or any other political designation. Such a template could be very well used next to the "History of Greater Iran" template (currently, you are using "History of Afghanistan" next to "History of Greater Iran" which is - actually - nonsense, because the Afghanistan template does not only include its modern history).
Hence I suggest the creation of:
  • Template:History of the Hindu Kush region (specifically about this region)
  • Template:History of the Iranian Cultural Continent (about the Iranian cultural sphere; partially identical with the first template)
  • Template:History of Afghanistan (ONLY dealing with the modern history of the region since the creation of Afghanistan)
Tajik (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing against "History of Khorasan", I only think that the name I suggested fits better. In anyway, the Afghanistan template needs to be removed from those pre-modern articles and replaced with a new template. The Ghaznavids had nothing to do with modern Afghanistan. This is like claiming that Genghis Khan was a Russian or in any way part of the history of modern Russia, because he was born in what is now Russia. Tajik (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the template, but I think it is not needed to add any modern nations to it. What we need is a clear separation of modern nation-states and pre-modern history. The "History of Khorasan" template should only contain the history of Khorasan - in other words: ca. 200 AD to 1800 AD. Right now, you have just created another template in a long line of other templates which are almost the same. At the same time, you have left out Iran where an important part of "Khorasan" (1/3 to 1/2 of it!) was/is located. That will not work. What we need is a template for the pre-modern history of the region, totally free of modern nation-states. Only because "Afghanistan" exists where once Khorasan was located, it does not mean that all of it is "Afghanistan's" history. It's like claiming that as long as the British were ruling India, all of India's history from antiquity on was "British history". Tajik (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a template. It is not about educating the reader, it is about simple navigation. If you want to add modern nation-states to the new template, then why do you actually bother to create a template "History of Khorasan" instead of simply up-dating the "History of Greater Iran" template which actually used to include modern nation-states. Again: such a template is not about educating the reader, it's about navigation. Hence, the template "History of Afghanistan" should only be included in articles that are directly about the history of Afghanistan, i.e. the article Afghanistan itself and the article History of Afghanistan. There is no need to add that template in the Ghurids or Hephthalites articles. You and I have totally opposing views in this case: I am in support of a pure navigational system where certain templates are used to navigate the reader through related articles, i.e. certain eras, certain movements, certain political structures, and even the history of a well-defined geographical area (for example Hindu Kush, Iranian plateau or Indian subcontinent). I am totally against politicizing templates and claiming history for certain modern nation-states (Iran vs. Afghanistan vs. Tajikistan vs. Pakistan vs. India vs. etc etc etc). You, on the other hand, favor the second view: the politicization of the template, and by claiming history for this or that state. "Ghurids" become "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" although the word was perhaps unknown to the Ghurids themselves, while others who played an important role for the cultural history of the region (for example the Qara Qoyunlu whose capital was temporarily based in Herat) are declared "foreign". The truth is that all of the modern nation-states of the region share the same history until the rise of modern nation-states. That is exactly why the template "History of Greater Iran" was created. You are now trying to challenge this by creating yet another template which will be 95% identical to the first one. I see no reason in that. As for "Khorasan": it is not a well-defined region and has never been. It's original meaning was merely "eastern land" and it's borders varied depending on the author describing it. The only thing all authors agree on is that it was essentially a part of Persia. Hence, going by this universally accepted definition, many names you have included in the list need to be removed from the template, such as the Indo-Parthians. And most of all: there is no need to have these templates in all of those articles. These templates are only important in articles which list the history of a region, i.e. History of Iran, History of Afghanistan, etc. Tajik (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support![edit]

Hello, My name is Claudi Balaguer (User Capsot of the Catalan Viquipèdia and Occitan Wikiccionari), I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and aside from seeing that you're a learned person I've understood that you show a real interest for languages and culture and since you're Afghan I think you understand too well what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again for reading it and mainly for all your immense work, I wish you a nice and pleasant summer and I wish you, your country, language and culture a great future! Take care! Capsot (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't know what's bugging you so much but try to calm down and edit the page in a civilized manner. Learn to control your emotions and anger. Understand that you don't own the page and that others have the same rights as you do to help improve the articles.-- (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn around the issue over at me. If you look at the Revision history of Afghanistan, I have "accepted" both of your pending edits as a reviewer. If your allegations about me were true, I should have ignored your pending changes. I reverted your this edit, because you said there is no need to have a source based on your personal conclusions. A source is required for the point, because that's not like black & white that we can make a logical deduction from a given premise. Ariana (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: I have removed this user from AIV... see WP:AN3 for edit warring. Thank you. Tommy! [message] 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; as you can see in the above, I explained my reason for reverting his edit. Ariana (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick note[edit]

Just a quick note to say that I hope you didn't feel I was too "neutral" in your recent dispute with the IP. Initially, he appeared to be a new user, and I only became involved when he spread the discussion to my talk page after I reverted him. I had no way of knowing there was a history of similar POV disputes here. To me, it initially appeared to be a (heated) content dispute, with 2 opposing points of view. I had no view on the actual content. It did become obvious later that this was heavy POV pushing, and the wikipedia familiarity of a supposed new user started to show through quite clearly. I'm annoyed that he wasted a lot of my time, allowing me to offer him advice as a new user - but I do try to WP:AGF wherever possible. One of the risks is that occasionally this happens. He quite clearly wasted a lot more of your time than mine... Anyway, I'm pleased you eventually could show the history at SPI, and pleased it is resolved.  Begoontalk 23:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have User:TFOWR's talk page on my watchlist, and I'm not sure, but I think you might just have replied to him, thinking he left this note, which may confuse him, since it was me that left it. On the other hand, I could easily be wrong, and you're replying to a different note, in which case it's me that's confused, and I apologise. Are you confused, yet, by the way (lol) :-)  Begoontalk 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Salaam: On my computer, the text actually shows up in the Nastaliq script. I think it works for those who have the font installed. If this is so, would it not hurt to leave the tags there because, as you said, it shows up the same way anyways? Also, could you possibly send me an example of a double tag, I'm not sure what that is (I'm relatively new) and I will fix those. Tashakir. KeyFilmation (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Can you please check your email.. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Disclosing privae e-mail and lying about my name violes Wikipedia:Harassment. Further continuation of this and also lying that I emailed you with the name AliWiki instead of Ali M... which I emailed you with, will be dealt with admins. On a side note, most of those Persian scholars from Khorasan were under attack by non-Persian users and it was me who dug up WP:RS source. I have been on WIkipedia much longer than you have: [3] and I do not use socks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser cases[edit]

Just letting you know, cases at SPI don't always have IP checks involved. There are two types of cases: those with a checkuser request, and those without. Your case was opened without a checkuser request. If you do think an IP check is necessary, in the future make sure you choose that option. Hope that helps, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I thought that with SPI cases, the clerks personally check for the IP addresses, and that checkuser requests are only for vandalism. Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I had removed the Timurids, because they ruled in the 14th/15th century and not in the 11th century, as that sentence implies. The Timurids should be moved to the prot-Mongol period. There is a gap of some 400 years between the Ghurids and the Timurids. Regards. Tajik (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Salaam, Okay. Cabolitæ (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Natural structures in Afghanistan[edit]

Category:Natural structures in Afghanistan, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabolitae[edit]

You've been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabolitae--She has a bird brain (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo univ strasbourg.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Logo univ strasbourg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

page review[edit]

can you please review this page: sakib

thanks :)--Historyfeelings - talk 07:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sarahang.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sarahang.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Farsi help needed[edit]

Hello Cabolitae, I'm contacting you because we need some Farsi translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on fa.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Farsi Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kharaqani.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Kharaqani.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/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 South East Asia, Japan/China or India 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. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cabolitae. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cabolitae. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ![edit]

Hi Cabolitae, just a little message to thank you for the valuable time you spent keeping the template "people of Khorassan". Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank YOU Wikaviani for participating in the discussion and review process!! Much appreciated. Take care. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)