- 1 Hello mate :)
- 2 A barnstar for you!
- 3 Reference fixes
- 4 Welcome back
- 5 A vote
- 6 Chronology of Boran and Azarmidokht
- 7 Question
- 8 Talkback
- 9 Reference errors on 3 June
- 10 Mohammad Tahir Vahid Qazvini
- 11 Artin Mehraban about Afsharid map
- 12 A barnstar for you!
- 13 A barnstar for you!
- 14 A barnstar for you!
- 15 Well...
- 16 Suggestion?
- 17 Buyid dynasty
- 18 same problem I see.
Hello mate :)
After about a year, at last my innocence regarding that sock puppet menace got solved. It got proven that I'm indeed (yeeey what a surprise..) unrelated tons guy on the other side of the world. It took some time, but well yeah, we both know not all moderators here are as capable as you expect them to be (you experienced it yourself :p)
In any case, I'm back, and have already fixed/expanded a lot of articles were both interested in (mostly referring to Iran, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, history of the Caucasus, etc) Already crested some new articles too I guess you'd appreciate as well :)
I don't know when you will read this or whether you will ever read this, but consider returning back. I'm here now as well, and we could aid and help each other in continuing creating some good stuff here. I read the complaint made about you at that admin section, and I was seriously astonished how someone can call your efforts here as "worthless". You created 300+ articles and have single handedly contributed more to Iranian, Caucasian, etc history than anyone else here in the past 1-2 years.
Anyway, write back when you happen to read this. Please ping me as well if you do so. :)
Bye for now mate.
- That is great! you're contributions have been great, and I am glad to see that you can continue them. Funny, the only reason I am here because I had a dream about Wiki for some weird reason, oh well.
- Yeah, that really sucks :/, but sadly some people will always remain ungrateful. Many of those articles I have created/expanded have probably been invaded by vandals (the ones which are Pre-Islamic are most likely fine, but I am 100% sure that the post-Islamic ones are not, since I had to revert edits in those articles every single day, which is one of the majority reasons that I decided to quit, because the amount of vandals/pan-Turks attacking so many good articles was getting disturbing), but keep up the great work mate! you're doing a great thing here. Hopefully your contributions will get more attention and respect.
- By the way, I still have many (if not all) of the sources which I used back when I was active - if you're interested in those, I will gladly send them to you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey man! Good to see such a quick response mate! didn't expect that especially after reading your page, haha.
- A weird dream about Wiki eh? You know what that means right? It means you gotta return and take up the shovel together with me. Don't forget that together we stand stronger. ;)
- Yeah, unfortunately Wikipeia attracts aloooooot of vandals. It's the most used reference on the net, we can't forget that. In all those months I had to wait before getting unblocked (and that incompetent no-brainer reverting all my hard-work in the meantime..) I saw what for a hard time you were getting from many different sides. I hoped I could help you there, but alas, I was not in the situation where I could do so.
- The thing with Wiki is, you gotta play it smart. I know there are so many pan-turks/pan-iranists/pan-X types of people (though the first one mentioned beats all of them in terms of quantity) but if you give in mentally, like that you're getting annoyed etc, it will only play against you.
- I can't believe user Parishan seriously wanted a topicban for you considering you created more articles for his/her native Azerbaijan (?) than he/she ever will in the coming years to come. Oh well. We'll try fix that ban for you when you return.
- One tip btw I'd do myself if I were you. Make a box on your userpage that lists ALL articles you've ever made. By doing that you won't get no-brainer users/moderators or whatever saying you are no use to the communnity. Maybe me and that mod on that topic ban discussion were/are both bad-faith assumers, but they're volunteeers after all and we can't expect every single one of them to have the same amount of precision/intellect/expertise/etc/etc. like the better moderators. It's something we have to try get along with ourselves.
- I'd seriously ask you though bro, it would be so great if you returned. I waited so long to return in order to cooperate further together once again with an user that has the same views about articles have to look like and shares on top of that pretty much a very similar topic interest. If you return, you stand stronger, and I can assist you wherever you need about whatever logical thing you need assistance with. :)
- I'd appreciate the sources, but again, my first answer to that would still be the text I just wrote above. ;) We really need you back here.
- With that box on your userpage btw I ment something like this []. He made 1200+ articles and has just a box there with every article listed. By that, no one can ever say he has been useless to the community or whatever similarily related bogus..
- Haha, alright mate, when you say it that way it is impossible for me to not think of a comeback on this site ;). Right now I just have upcoming exams and stuff like that, but expect me to soon start editing again. By the way, about that Circassian site, I will see what I can do in the future, I might have some sources which mention something about them and Iran, we'll see :).
- Well yeah that ban is really ridiculous, and I have even been several times accused of being a Pan-Iranian or a Turkic/Kurdish hater etc. But yet I am one of the editors who has contributed most to those kind of articles. About adding how many articles I have created, I was actually creating that sometime ago, but it got deleted for some reason. I can't remember why since I wasn't very much active during that period.
- Haha, that's great to hear man about your future return!!
- Yeah exams and stuff of course have #1 priority (and they should have obviously), but Im happy to hear I'll get you back here again. ::Yeah that would be awsome if you have some more sources and stuff left about them! Also, some pictures/images, if you have any clue/resource as of where to get them, that would be top notch as well (f.e of Pari Khan Khanum, or the other likes)
- Well what can I say dude, I totally agree with you about those nonsensical accusations, but then again, ethnic internet nationalism is the fashion of the post 2000s, lol. Combine that with incompetent moderators...well there you go.
- You should def before fully returning first of all adding all your created articles and stuff on your page imo... but i guess thats something of course up to you in the very end, but I think its something that might defo help you. (or anyone with such nice contribution history here)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thank you for creating the page "List of Safavid Viziers". I really appreciate your efforts. Shfarshid (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)|
- Actually I tried to improve the page List of Persian Viziers after Arab conquest of Persia and incidentally found the page List of Safavid Viziers. But I think these articles need more edits. I want to know if you are active in Persian wikipedia, and I need your help. Best regards. Shfarshid (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
How's the slow start to getting back into business going so far? I'm checking your contributions now and then to see when i can jump in whenever needed :) it can be kinda annoying to start again after a long time here, hence why. Perhaps you can help me with this btw. I want to nominate this article  I created not too long ago for GA very soon, but it need to have the references fixed in order to pass the review. You probably know what I mean. Something like how the references look like here; Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy. Is there any possibility you have any greater knowledge about doing this than me? I wrote someone else as well in the meantime last day but I'm afraid thats gonna take long before I get a reply. Haha
Hey mate :).
- Yeah I get what you mean - It is actually quite simple to do but takes annoyingly longer time than one would expect (especially when there are many sources. Even sometimes when I expand a article I skip that part or do it a more simple way, unless I want to nominate the article for GA), but don't worry - although my exams are beginning after this weekend I'm sure that I will find some time to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Aight, that's good to hear ;) Yeah, I figured out its probably some simple method doing so, but I have absolutely no clue how to do it as I've never done it before. Guess I'll get the trick after looking at how its done once. Anyway, I'll be fine I guess since I asked another person in the meantime as well. Might no one do it that time, then of course your help wont be appreciated any drop less by me. (like always haha) Btw, off-topic, what do you study? I'm actually pretty curious. Something related to history? For me history is just one of my sparetime passions (love it), but my study has absolutely nothing to do with it.
- Goodnight my mate, I'm off for now.
- - LouisAragon (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon we got a little problem here: this  is one of the sources you have used in the Teresia article - I have no idea what to do with it since its a self-made website (not a book or pdf, which I am more familiar in working with when I am fixing references), which although have posted the sources they have used when they wrote about her and therefor seem reliable enough. But I have no idea what to do with it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- ahh I see. That's a good study ;) I'm atm occupied with biomedical sciences, but will switch to med school pretty soon.
- Thanks alot for fixing the references man! Really nice. Yeah, that's a tough one. I don't think it should make that much of an issue for the review though, don't you think? If that's the only ref that can't be placed like the rest.
- - LouisAragon (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it will do, but I don't think it would be a issue for your review if the source got removed.
I was happy to see your name in my watchlist today, after some time since you declared your withdrawal. Welcome back to active editing, and don't let silly disputes get to you. A cool head and patience will always get you through :). Constantine ✍ 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I nominated this recently created article for deletion.  The whole concept is nonsensical, and has no purpose here. You know what kind of people such bogus articles will only attract..Furthermore the content and title don't congruent, apart from the fact that it uses Wiki redirecting links as sources... Please post a vote whenever you have time mate. It's up there some days already for deletion.
LouisAragon: actually the Buyids managed to extent their rule as far to Afghanistan and Pakistan under 'Adud al-Dawla (an article expanded by me and could have received GA if I wasn't so lazy), where the Buyids reached their greatest extent :). Although they did not directly administrate eastern regions such as Sistan, but instead controlled from their vassals (the Saffarids) . --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hey mate! Yeah I saw your comment on that page. Thanks for notifying me however ;)
- About the Buyids...hmmm.. I think we could mention that somewhere lower down the article, or perhaps mentioning that on 'Adud al-Dawla's page which should be enough. What do you think? I checked some sources and the main playfield seems to be only in what is today Iraq-Iraq and to a lesser extent area's around Syria/Turkey/Oman. Imo, it's undue weight for the lede especially as those territories were only acquired through vassalship, and didn't really play much of a role in the Buyids their lifetime. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Then again, it says "greatest extent", which we both know what means. A good example is the Sasanian Empire, where it mentions what they ruled at their greatest extent, even if it wasn't for that long - it's normal to see these kind of things. Furthermore, the Buyids also had vassals in southern Iraq and around those parts, so I don't really think it makes a difference :). Other good examples would be the Samanids, Ghaznavids, the Seljuq Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate. Many of these dynasties had vassals, who of course are considered as part of their territory. Especially the Samanids and Seljuqs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks alot man, saw it ;) Appreciate it. Btw, do you have an email adress that you could link me? I wanted to discuss something about that article you mentioned you wanted to create some time ago. You probably know which one I mean ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll answer you tomorrow mate! going to sleep now since I have exams tomorrow :) (and I am having some issues with having access to my email right now, but it will be probably fixed tommorow). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Btw, HistoryofIran. I've nominated that Teresia Sampsonia Khan for GA one day ago. What do you think about the lede? Should I add/remove something? What do you think of the way I've put her names in the first sentence? Is that alright? She was born as Sampsonia Khan, after being baptized she adopted the first name Teresia/Teresa, and after being married to Robert Shirley she took his surname, namely Shirley. I've put that all in the lede, but if you think something should be moved etc, feel free to do so. Everything to pass the nomination I guess eh. ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon: I think the lede looks fine. It's a good detail that you added the names she had her in lifetime, I usually do the same in the articles I create/expand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Aight that's good to hear man. I was thinking of perhaps removing the name she was born with as its also added in the body but if you think its fine, I'll keep it. Did you read my last mail btw? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:HistoryofIran, I just recently created this article Mohammad Baqer Mirza. Would you mind adding/improving it whenever you have some spare time? I feel like he will make a good addition to our Safavid-subject articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Chronology of Boran and Azarmidokht
In the source you have cited, Pourshariati's argument, is very conjectural. Since her claim that Boran had two separate reigns, is not the default (generally accepted) chronology, it is best to at least present both views in the article. Her choice of sources is highly debatable but not objectionable. To see criticism of her claim see, for instance, Dr. Daryaee's review of her book.
As it stands, there is a contradiction in your current edit. The paragraph begins with: "After the murder of Azarmidokht by Rostam Farrokhzad, the latter restored Boran to the throne". At the end of the same paragraph it says: "[After Boran's death] Her sister, Azarmidokht, was then placed on the throne"! The article needs to be consistent.
Furthermore, I believe your removing of the rest of my edit was uncalled for, because I had also added the etymology of Azarmidokht's name (something that can easily be verified by Encyclopaedia Iranica, or the paper by Dr. Daryaee). Additionally I attempted to paraphrase parts of the article that been directly copied from various sources, thus constituting copyright violation. Lastly, I removed the details of Azarmidokht's fate from Boran's article simply to avoid having the same paragraph appear in two different articles.
Grinevitski: Sorry mate I didn't mean to rude or anything about that revert. Furthermore I don't really have time to discuss right now since I am very busy. Maybe later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm back (I think): I have already seen Daryaee's review, and too many times he did not state properly/detailed why he didn't agree with Pourshariati, and just because he disagrees with some things doesn't mean that the source of Pourshariati is unreliable, since it has been used by many scholars as a source etc. Shortly said, his review is very poor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is not very encyclopedic to present only the views of one particular scholar. Especially given that her view differs from the widely held consensus among Iranologists. Furthermore, I disagree. Daryaee cites various Zoroastrian Pahlavi texts (Khodayname) stating that Arab invasion began no earlier than Yazdgerd's time, and not in Boran's time as Pourshariati asserts. He further references Syriac sources claiming that she was indeed long dead by the time of the Arab conquest. Pourshariati's idea of Boran's double regency is speculation. As she attempts to reconcile numismatic evidence with various contradictory Islamic sources, to support her hypotheses she cherry-picks from sources that support her assertion while ignoring others. Anyway, my other contributions to the article need to be restored (this includes the significance of her name, my paraphrasing of copyrighted material present in the article, removal of Azarmidokht's fate from Boran's article, etc.). Thanks. Grinevitski (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Grinevitski: Sorry, I didn't see that you had commented back on my talk page. Anyway, alright, looks like we agree, but there is one thing: If you're gonna replace the information on Boran about what we talked about it, then you have to do it on the other articles too, or else it would look like a complete mess. I didn't change the dates like Pourshariati's book stated, but only changed Boran's death date per her book.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 3 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Mohammad Khan Qajar page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Mohammad Tahir Vahid Qazvini
Dear HistoryofIran, I want to tell you I'm really happy to find out you are writing more about History of Iran and I appreciate your efforts. I'm trying to make a list of Viziers of Persia in Persian and your list help me a lot. I have found a lot of names, and I'm trying to organize them. I hope I'll improve the list that you have started. For example the last vizier of Shah Sultan Hosayn was Mohammad-qoli khan Bigdeli Shamlu (E'temad al-dawleh) and Mirza Talib Khan served two times as vizier. One time for Abbas I after his father (Hatim Beg Urdubadi) death and another time for Safi of Persia. Shfarshid (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Artin Mehraban about Afsharid map
Dear HistoryofIran I think we should further discuss you replacing my edited map of the Afsharid empire. As I said before the map you put does not include the fact that (on top of the map you put) he also conquered the khanate of Bukhara, the khanate of Khiva, and the sultanate of Muscat, and that is not an opinion. These 3 kingdoms are mentioned as belligerents in the wikipedia article about the Naderian wars. -Artin Mehraban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Artin, but it is you who need to state why you first of all change my picture by uploading another one and copy-pasting several inaccurate maps to several articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear HistoryofIran I read the book: History of inner asia and it says mohhamad hakim bi submitted to nadir shah (exact sentence: Nadir Shah, the new ruler of Iran, crossed the Amu Darya and, accepting the submission of Muhammad Hakim Bi) It says naders name and it says he crossed the amu darya aka oxus river so your map is wrong because it shows the oxus as a border. It then says mohhamed hakim bi submitted to nadir. After a search i found he was king of the manghit dynasty which controlled the khanate of bukhara. here is the link to the page of the book: http://librarun.org/book/63545/195. I will add this data to the afsharid empire page. I really want to thank you, because now wikipedia has solid evidence from a university book, that nader shah had in fact crossed the amu darya aka oxus and that he conquered more of central asia than originally beleived. Here is the link: http://librarun.org/book/63545/195.
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|I appreciate your contribution to Iranian history Persia10101 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|I appreciate your contributions to Iranian histrory, related articles on wikipedia (even though we are discussing the matter of the afsharid map Artin Mehraban (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Though we had conflicting beliefs, we seem to have the same goal regarding Iranian history. I want to thank you for asking me to find a source, because i did and i am now working to use that source to give references to the countless times Wikipedia articles mention Nader shahs conquest of the khanates of Bukhara and Khiva. Artin Mehraban (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)|
I will probably be blocked for a bit, after giving Qara Xan a taste of his own medicine(Personal Attacks). Though, I was upset that I was only able to use "fucking" eight times in my response. Dammit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Kansas Bear: Well... I can't say that I don't you understand you. By the way, if you ever need help with anything, such as disputes like this one, I would gladly help. I only want to do what's best for this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey man, a question, as of yet, when talking about the Achaemenid Empire I've linked the info regarding the kingdom of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) which they controlled a few times to this link instead; Macedonia (region). It's roughly the same historically and people can get a quick link from there to the kingdom which the Achaemenids controlled during a time, but I wanted to hear your opinion. Should I change all those links or is it alright like this?
LouisAragon: Hmm.. that's a hard one, like you said, it's basically the same - the Achaemenids had the Macedonian Kingdom as their vassal several times, which of course meant that they ruled over the Macedonian region. I've never been around Achaemenid-related articles that much (heck I haven't even created a article related to them), so do what you think is best :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- The annoying this is that the Macedonia "region" got its name from the kingdom, but, at those time in history, the kingdom of Macedon did not extend that far west under Achaemenid domination (not that much, just a little bit of territory) I guess both are alright to mention, but I'll keep the region for when talking about territorial expanses, and the kingdom when about Macedonian-Achaemenid relations. That should do the trick I think ;)
- Btw, Macedonia was a vassal in the late 6th century BC, but became fully subordinate and a part of Persia in 492 BC following Mardonius' campaign during the first stages of the First Persian invasion of Greece.
- I'm not entirely sure all Achaemenid maps on Wiki have this correctly shown as well. I know that Thrace, Northern Greece, Bulgaria, parts of the Rep of Macedonia etc are put, but someone with more knowledge about maps should confirm this. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thats a pretty neat map yes! (sorry for my late response)
- Btw, I was working on some Qajar-Caucasus topics recently; do you think we should create an encompassing article about Mohammad Khans reconquering of the Caucasus (after the Darius I campaigns in the Balkans) ? He fought a huge war in Georgia (which we have an article about), a siege of Shusha (nowadays Azerbaijan, we dont have an article about it yet), but the rest of the Khanates voluntarily re-submitted. (Derbent khanate, Baku khanate, etc.etc.)
- Do you think two separatie articles for the wars one about Georgia and Shusha would be enough? I was actually on the brink today of creating an article called "Qajar resubjugation of the Caucasus" but then I decidede, nah, its not really needed as it only starred two major battles, namely the one in Georgia and Shusha, as mentioned above, and creating an article about the Shusha battle should be sufficient.
- Do we have the same opinion about this? ;-) I guess we do :).
- Well, the Shirvanshahs, as you said, weren't originally Iranians, but they were such a Persianite society, that they became Persian themselves. So I guess that's your own choice. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:HistoryofIran; great that we agree about that! Btw, could you check this article for a sec, and check the "Iran/Persia" configurations? Only the history section of course. Should we use Persia or Iran? Obviously Sassanids, Achaemenids should be referred to as Persia, IMHO. But the difficulty comes for later periods. I usually try to keep Iran for the later periods, etc. Safavids etc. Could you change some of the Persia stuff that you think should be written as Iran, into Iran? Would be great if you could do so, so that in the future we both use the same word-configuration in articles, if you get what I mean. Especially the section about the Safavids, Qajars, Russian wars etc. Bests mate - LouisAragon (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon: Well, I barely use the word "Persia", when I expand/create a article. The only articles I would use the word "Persia" would be in the Achaemenid-related ones. I use the word "Iran" in other articles, especially the Sasanian-related ones, since they referred their empire/country as "Iran" (not to forget that in most Sasanian-related articles the word "Persia" is almost erased, while "Iran" is being used instead.) Fortunately people nowadays don't get confused with the Iran/Persia thing liked they used to do, so it's kinda secure to use the word "Iran", which is also the most accurate one. Persia means Pars/Fars, which you know, is a historical province in southern Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah exactly. The thing is if Iran still controlled those territories id have no objections using both. However, given what happened as we know not too long ago, it's kinda strange. I guess it's still alright when using it jn those war terminations, as most historians do, but most historians use Persia and Iran interchangeably. So, you agree with me that we should change the words Persia into Georgia in that article I linked you? ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Haha...you're actually right. Damn. :-) I meant this article . Basically, again, I wanted to see whether you agree that all the stuff referring to the Qajars, Safavids, Afsharids, should be changed to Iranian, instead of Persians, which it still states as of yet. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You may want to keep an eye on the Buyid dynasty article. Twice now, I have had to removed undue weight from the lead. Once from an IP and then user:Anoushirvan. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
same problem I see.
Hey man. This user keeps adding OR maps to several articles (as you saw it yourself on the Nader Shah/Afsharid page) He now tries to add a self-made map of "Azad Khan Afghan" to the list of kings of Iran.
Azad Khan Afghan (check the revision history)
- Edit; in general, keep a close eye on all those Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar pages. This problem is not gonna end very soon I think. Sigh. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon: Hey mate! I am in USA right now and my computer have some problems, I will be back in a few days.