Have you found anything to support this sentence?

• "In May 1035, Duke Adalbero of Carinthia rebelled against Salian rule..."
  

I was unable to find a source for it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: This is what I found;

• "The difficulties of the new course were already exposed in 1035 when Conrad II deposed Adalbero Eppensteiner as duke of Carinthia for pursuing a policy towards the Hungarians contrary to royal wishes"' -- Wilson, Peter H. (2016). Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire. Harvard University Press. p. 349

• "At the imperial diet in Bamberg during the latter half of May 1035, the emperor adjudged Adalbero guilty of an iniuria, or grave injustice (...)" - Wolfram, Herwig (tr. by Kaiser, Denise). Conrad II, 990-1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms. Penn State Press. p. 329

• "Personal wrongs doubtless biassed his judgement when the Duke of Carinthia was charged with treasonable designs at the Diet of Bamberg in 1035. Adalbero was deposed and sentenced to the loss of his fiefs."" -- Cambridge Medieval History (Vols; 1-5)

• "Henry of Luxemburg was deposed from Bavaria in 1009, Ernest II from Suabia in 1027 and again in 1030, Adalbero from Carinthia in 1035, Godfrey from lower Lotharingia in 1044 and again in 1049 (...)" -- Reuther, Timothy. (2013). Germany in the Early Middle Ages C. 800-1056. Routledge. p. 195

What do you think? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did find this:

• "Duke Adalbero of Carinthia revolted in 1019 and Duke Conrad of Bavaria, deposed in 1053, was joined by the duke of Carinthia and the bishop of Regensburg in an attempt to replace Henry III with Conrad." --Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, by Patrick J. Geary, page 46.

Although does not match up with the time period in question. Henry II does not die until 1024 and is then succeeded by Conrad. And, the way the sentence comes across, that Adalbero was in rebellion against Henry II and then later joined Conrad of Bavaria? But, this does explain Adalbero's actions and the reasoning behind the judgement of the Diet in 1035. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this book bottom of page 64 to 65, gives a concise view of the OE's structure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Their court structure.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Their culture.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss [3] or did you decide you liked it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you're involved, please comment. Talk:Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi#Request_for_comment:_Should_ethnicity_of_al-Khwarizmi_appear_in_the_lead.3F --Wario-Man (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, just wanted to check that you received the pages you were looking for from The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the Qajars. If so, could you mark your request as {{resolved}}? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You did a good job. I agree its all nonsense, I had actually requested for the whole page to be deleted a while back because the only sources were of aliyev speeches. It was denied. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

hello. i have reported the edit warring user [4] but i'm not really familiar with reporting system. can you please write your comment there ? because you reverted his edits too and seems your are experienced94.177.78.186 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems its already dealt with. Thanks for letting me know nevertheless, and of course, for taking the necessary steps (i.e. opening a 3RR section). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A "new user" has made similar edit to the Qara Khitai article.

• edit by Joohnny braavoo1 assigning Turkic to Qara Khitai
• edit by Brazil38 stating Qara Khitai were Turkicized
  

Judging from the formating of the references used by Brazil38, this is not a new user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: yeah, spot on. Another giveaway, imo, are the kindergarten level edit summaries.[5][6] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you've dealt with both User: Merhdad 12 and User:History of Persia. There is an issue with User:Mehrdad 12. A friend of mine stumbled upon this historically innaccurate map (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:131Etendue_de_l%27Empire_Fran%C3%A7ais1.png) added to a the French colonial empire page. It was created by the afforementioned user. User:Mehrdad 12 has accounts on the Persian Wikipedia as well as Wiki Commons. He freqently falsifies image edits and contributions without sources and adds his self created images to articles. Most of his edits have been reverted by me, or others such as yourself. I feel his image edits in particular are damaging to the integrity and mission of Wikipedia and Media Wiki.

I have a good reason to suspect that this is User: Artin Mehraban who formerly had a sockpuppet account as User:History of Persia. The MO is very similar. Bad English, no reason for edits, false information, and focus on revising Persian History "Afsharia"("Mehrdad 12" associates with this on the Persian Wiki, and "Artin Mehraban" edited this article on the Persian Wiki) and image editing without sources. I also should point out that the name is very similar (Mehrdad v Mehraban.) I am bringing this to your attention because i believe since you have dealt with him that articles that he has edited should be checked for falsifications.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 07:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey R9tgokunks, thanks for your message. I'm sorry for giving such a late response. Had completely forgotten about it due to being busy with other things. Glad to see that you're another editor who pays proper attention to bogus edits, linking them together with WP:NOTHERE editors of the past, in order to find the "root" of the issue.

There's really a decent chance that its him. But we need a smoking gun. Right now, his editorial pattern is too irregular and too much of a "common" disruptive type, IMO. Give him some more rope. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hoping you can view this. Cambridge History of Turkey. ALL VOLUMES!

https://archive.org/details/iB_CT

Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: dayum, splendid! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• AScythianSoul (talk · contribs)

I think this user is WP:ACTING sock of Korean user Kumasojin. He/she creates (intentionally or unintentionally) a strawman on Iran-related articles and as disruptive as this vandal. Probably you has also noticed them, since their editing topics are within your areas of interests. @Kansas Bear, Wario-Man, and HistoryofIran:, FYI. -91.146.40.248 (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

i am iranian, so i edit iranian topic only. is there some problem?AScythianSoul (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LouisAragon. 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)

I call on you to stop making biased and unjustified edits to the page History of Azerbaijan. I have noticed that you have a history of making harmful edits to pages related to Azerbaijan. It seems, your personal attitude towards Azerbaijan severely affects your objectivity. --89MsHm (talk) 09:31, 05 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources to be found that state that "Sumerians" (!) and "Elamites" roamed in the territory of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic. Its one of the biggest hoaxes I've heard in a long time. Same goes for "Altaic nomaids".

Rawadids, Assyrians, Medes, and Manneans are completely unrelated to the soil of the contemporary Azerbaijan Republic as well. They were based in historic Azerbaijan, i.e. "Iranian Azerbaijan", not Arran/Shirvan.

• MANNEA (Neo-Assyrian Mannāyu, Old Testament Minni, Vulgata Menni, cf. Postgate, 1987-90, p. 340a), name refering to a region southeast of Lake Urmia centered around modern Saqqez. -- Zadok, Ran (2006). Encyclopaedia Iranica.

• RAWWADIDS (Ar. Rawwādiya, Rawādiya), a family of Arab descent that controlled Tabriz and north-eastern Azerbaijan in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Their Kurdicized descendants ruled over Azerbaijan and parts of Armenia in the second half of the 10th and much of the 11th century. -- Peacock, Andrew (2017). Encyclopaedia Iranica

• MEDIA, ancient population region and kingdom in northwestern Iran. The name is attested as Gk. Mēdía, OPers. Māda (Kent, Old Persian, p. 202), Assyrian and Babylonian Mādāya (Parpola, 1970, pp. 230-31; Zadok, 1985, pp. 214-15). -- M. Dandamayev and I. Medvedskaya (2006). Encyclopaedia Iranica.

• HUNS, collective term for horsemen of various origins leading a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. -- Martin Schottky. (2004). Enc. Iranica. Vol. XII, Fasc. 6, pp. 575-577

• "Less well known to the general public than their Babylonian and Assyrian neighbors to the west, the Elamites were one of a number of groups inhabiting southwestern Iran between the Bronze Age and the early Islamic era. Longtime adversaries of the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. -- Daryaee, Touraj. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. p. 37

• "(...) and running an empire which, from the mid-8th to the late 7th century bc, stretched far beyond the Assyrian homeland to include all of Iraq and most of Syria, wide sweeps of eastern Turkey and western Iran, and almost the entire eastern Mediterranean coast." -- Karen Radner,Eleanor Robson (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Oxford University Press. p. 359

" Even today there are names of villages in Azerbaijan associated with Cimmerians."

Really? Well call CNN then! Oh, but can we see the sources/evidence though?!

"Nadir Guli Bey"

Not even gonna comment on that.

You have brought no sources to prove anything. Nothing but loose words. Per WP:RS, WP:VER, the content had to go. Verifiability is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia: the appropriate response is to provide the requested reliable source, not to leave an editor a lousy personal essay for invoking the proper WP policies. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to see your opinion at Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League, thank you.--Bijanii (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about this? Most parts sound like irredentism and WP:OR. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah, it is. Needs to be rewritten completely. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Then add it to your to-do list if it's interesting for you. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tdslk: Thanks, looks good! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

can you stop this troll account?go see what he does in Qashqai people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.114.141 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon, I just did a basic copy-edit. I tried to see some of the sources, but without success. If you will tell me how to see the sources, I'll try to look more closely at how the source is represented in the article and whether I could write a paraphrase, or a better paraphrase.  – Corinne (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Source #1 (The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism), Source #2 (Iranica). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for the links. If you don't mind, though, I think I'll wait until tomorrow to do that. Is there any rush?  – Corinne (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Not at all. It only recently (2 days ago?) passed DYK nomination. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon, there is a limit of two requests per editor on the GOCE page; you just added a third. Please withdraw it until such time as one of your current requests has been given its copyedit; as Corinne is working on one of them, it probably won't be very long before you can resubmit that third request. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:  Done Thanks for letting me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And now I'm letting you know that since one of the two existing articles has been completed, you're welcome to resubmit that request, which will have a timestamp only a little over a day later. I'm glad things moved along so quickly! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks; that was fast indeeed! - LouisAragon (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LouisAragon – I'll read through the article once more tomorrow to see if I missed anything.  – Corinne (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Splendid! Thanks ALOT once again! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. I'll mention a few things here tomorrow.  – Corinne (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure! I already noticed you put a clarification tag in one of the alineas. Hit me up with any questions you have. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Here goes:

In the lead:

1) I'd like you to take a look at this sentence:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles (of the Bagrationi dynasty), converts to Shia Islam, as valis or khans.

The phrase "converts to Shia Islam" needs some attention. Until the reader reaches "as valis or khans", it at first seems as if "converts to Shia Islam" is a separate group. Then, when the reader gets to the final phrase, it becomes clear that the phrase is an appositive phrase constituting additional information about the pro-Iranian Georgian nobles. But it's best to avoid even slight ambiguity. The phrase would be clearer if it were changed to a clause, "who were converts to Shia Islam," or – even better, if only those Georgian nobles who had converted to Shia Islam were ever appointed – "who had converted to Shia Islam". However, I'm wondering if it is even necessary to mention this in the lead. Would you consider this wording?

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles (of the Bagrationi dynasty) as valis or khans.

If you think it is essential to mention that the nobles had converted to Shia Islam, then:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles (of the Bagrationi dynasty) who had converted to Shia Islam as valis or khans.

2) Now look at this sentence:

• Though both kingdoms had already been subjugated by the early 16th century, the rulers of the kingdoms did not convert, and even though Tiflis had been garrisoned as early as Ismail I's reign, relations at the time were somewhat marked by traditional vassalage.

I'm think that "relations" is insufficiently clear. I think it should be spelled out (mentioned explicitly): relations between X and Y, or the relationship between X and Y.

Also, it's a little confusing when one reads that the kingdoms were subjugated, but then they've still got "rulers". Also, I would ask, "When did the rulers not convert"? -- At that time? Ever? I wonder why you are mentioning the rulers at all. I also think "even though Tiflis had been garrisoned" is a little obscure for the average Wikipedia reader, many of whom are non-native speakers of English and/or young people. Is there any way to say this that is less academic-sounding? The whole sentence is a little academic-sounding. I'm not sure what the main point of this sentence is.

3) Earlier, you had used both "mainland Iran" and "Iran proper" to refer to the main body of Iran (as opposed to the entire Safavid kingdom, including provinces outside Iran proper, I assume). "Mainland" is not the right word. According to Merriam-Webster on-line, a "mainland" (noun) is "a continent or the main part of a continent as distinguished from an offshore island or sometimes from a cape or peninsula". "Iran proper" is better, but I think it would clutter up the article to keep repeating "Iran proper", "Iran proper", "Iran proper". I thought, after the first mention of "Iran proper" in the lead, and one mention at the beginning of the "History" section, I would write, "Hereafter, simply "Iran" in parentheses after "Iran proper". That makes it clear that "Iran" is to be understood as the main body of Iran without the provinces outside of it. Does that sound good to you?

4) In the fourth paragraph in Safavid Georgia#16th century is the following sentence:

• In 1580–1581 the Safavid government sent a force accompanied by the tupchi-bashi Morad Khan to Georgia together with a number of cannon founders and the materials needed for casting cannon.

What are "cannon founders"? Founders are people. I know the word "foundry", a place where objects made of metal are made, so "cannon foundry" makes sense to me, but it would be odd to consider moving a foundry, so I don't know. Also, I know there's a link at "tupchi-bashi", but I think it should be explained here.

More later.  – Corinne (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:

1)

• We should definitely go with "Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles (of the Bagrationi dynasty) who had converted to Shia Islam as valis or khans. " Conversion to Shia Islam was basically a necessary prequisite in order to receive proper investiture by the Safavid monarchs. There were a few non-Islamic governors/vassal rulers (Teimuraz I of Kakheti comes to mind), but none of them ever managed to establish themselves as a "proper" ruler; i.e. they were quickly removed by the central government. Conversion was pretty much a characteristic necessity, if we were to take the entire period as a whole.

2)

• Yeah, I agree. It should probably be changed into "relations between the Iranians and the Georgians". Or something of that sort. Would you agree?
• Basically, during the first ~ 60 years of Safavid suzerainty over Georgia, due to various geo-political and internal issues, the Safavid monarchs allowed the Georgian Bagrationis to rule the province as Safavid subjects, without having to convert to Islam. With "rulers" I basically mean "governors / vassal rulers / subordinates". Its quite complex; the Safavids were quite tolerant towards the Georgia Province until the 1610s and its governors/vassal rulers. If I still need to clear up some things about this, please don't hesitate.
• The first governor to convert was Davud Khan (in 1562). The governors/vassal rulers of the Georgia province prior to his tenure are not known to have converted. But that was mostly because Eastern Georgia was de facto occupied and "militarized" by the Safavids, due to 1) ongoing wars against the Ottomans 2) a few uprisings against the Safavid rule. Undue for the lede as well I'd say. What about removing the entire sentence; "Though both kingdoms had (...) marked by traditional vassalage"?

3)

• That sounds perfect to me.

4)

• I just checked the source once more. At first, before opening the right page, I thought it must have been a typo on my part, but the source actually says "cannon founders". The Safavids and Ottomans were at war at the time. A major part of the war razed over the Georgia province, thus the government sent people to the province in order to set up a cannon foundry.
• "(...) sent a force accompanied by Morad Khan, the commander of the artillery corps (tupchi-bashi), to Georgia (...)". Something along these lines should do the trick?

Btw Corinne, I noticed you changed "It would create a perfect circumstance if a campaign was needed against the Ottomans, with whom they were at war at the time, over Imereti" into "It would create a perfect circumstance if a campaign was needed against the Ottomans, with whom they were at war at the time over Imereti".
I meant to say that the Ottomans and Safavids were already at war at the time. But not yet over Imereti. The Safavids were trying to create an argument with what whole marriage story during the war to conquer Imereti (an Ottoman possession). So they were not "already" at war with the Ottomans "over Imereti". My bad, should've formulated it more appropriately. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Re 1): I'd like to re-arrange the sentence a bit so as not to leave "as valis or khans" at the end:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment as valis or khans of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles (of the Bagrationi dynasty) who had converted to Shia Islam.

Personally, I find parentheses distracting. At the very same time they minimize (in importance) what's within the parentheses but slow down and distract the reader. I feel that, often, you've got to make a decision: is the information important to include at this point or not? If not, remove the information. If so, work it into the sentence so that it has the importance it deserves. If you think the sentence would sound all right without the parentheses, I recommend removing them:

(a) parentheses removed:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment as valis or khans of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles of the Bagrationi dynasty who had converted to Shia Islam.

(b) information removed entirely:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment as valis or khans of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles who had converted to Shia Islam.

(c) information included at the end of the sentence or in a separate clause:

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment as valis or khans of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles who had converted to Shia Islam, mainly those of the Bagrationi dynasty.

• Safavid rule was mainly characterized by the appointment as valis or khans of pro-Iranian Georgian nobles who had converted to Shia Islam; these nobles were mainly members of the Bagrationi dynasty.

I just looked at the article and saw the many changes made by Kober. I guess some are improvements in wording, but I cannot judge the changes to content. You or others will have to do that. The changes kind of made my comments above superfluous. I will leave up to you what changes you wish to implement. If you need me to read through the article again once any content issues have been resolved, let me know.  – Corinne (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Yep, I'll let you know. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

On 20 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andrew David Urshan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Andrew David Urshan, an ethnic Assyrian from Persia, conducted Pentecostal revivals in the United States Midwest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew David Urshan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andrew David Urshan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to know if you can give your opinion about the Al-Kindi article. I’m looking for other users opinion to try to solve a dispute with another contributor about the ethnicity of Al-Kindi. Thanks for your valuable time. Farawahar (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think my opinion would add anything to the convo. The overwhelming number of WP:RS sources consider Al-Kindi to be of Arab origin.
"Such important figures as the Arab al-Kindi we shall therefore have to leave aside, although he is in a sense the founder of Islamic philosophy, and the later stages of its development would not" -- S.H. Nasr (1975). Philosophy and Cosmology. p. 419. In R.N. Frye. The Cambridge History of Iran, (Vol. 4). - LouisAragon (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sazz10

• First edit, Template:Tunnels in Turkey. Notice any familiar name(s)?
• Second edit, List of tunnels in Turkey
• Third edit, Al-Husayn I ibn Ali talk page, "....was a Turk..."
• Fourth edit, Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries, surprise, surprise.
• Fifth & Sixth edit, User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad, odd how a new user found this Admin.
• Next three edits, Xiongnu... --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good 'ol Johnny Bravo... - LouisAragon (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bzuk: thanks appreciate it, you too! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I pinged you on my talk page.[7] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, i didnt know about this book. The paragraphs you quoted seem very interesting. Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ninetoyadome: you're welcome! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you Louis. Thank you for the thanks. I mostly do WikiGnome-ing and copy editing and having some of this noted and appreciated is a pleasant Christmas present. And thanks to you in turn for your more substantial inputs to this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And to you too, Gog the Mild! You're welcome any time, any day. It's thanks to people like you that this site is able to run smoothly. Your hard work doesn't go unnoticed. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LouisAragon – I found a lot that was unclear in this article. To save time, I left "clarification needed" tags with hidden notes to you. Let me know if you need any help in wording sentences, and I'll be glad to read it through once or twice more after you've worked on it a bit. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:  Done. If there are still things that need to be cleared up, lemme know. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See [8], [9], [10], [11]. His other edits look problematic and unhelpful too.[12] --Wario-Man (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: yeah, thanks for letting me know. One of his socks got caught on Wikimedia a few days ago.[13] That's probably why he decided to move back to Wikipedia. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: here's the SPII just made. Turns out he's a long-term disruptor whose main account is in fact globally locked. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello LouisAragon, I'm asking for your knowledge on the Achaemenids for an issue. As you know, the commonly accepted time of reign of Artaxerxes I is 465-424/3 BCE. For some reason, possibly related to some literal interpretation of the Bible or other texts, Jehovah's Witnesses firmly state that Artaxerxes ruled 475-424 BCE. In fact, periodically someone tries to change the coronation date on his Wikipedia article. This also happened yesterday, see here, yet this is the first time that someone brings that British Museum tablet as a proof. On the BM website, it indeed dates to Artaxerxes' regnal year 50 which, according to mainstream historians, should not exist since he ruled for around 41/42 years. I refuse to believe in both biblical literalism and that no respected historian noticed that issue. Yet I can't find a solution. Wrong reading of the tablet date? Wrong caption? Wrong Artaxerxes? Co-regency with Xerxes? About this issue, on the web is a flourishing of religiously-biased sites and self-published works, I haven't found anything reliable yet. Khruner (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Khruner: Shit. Sorry for the late reply mate. Completely forgot about it.
This is something pretty peculiar. Though we have to be careful when making such statements, I'd say its probably a combination of a wrong caption and, in turn, a wrong reading of the tablet. But thats just my opinion. I clicked a bit further; on this page the BM lists his time of reign as "464BC - 424BC", i.e. the commonly accepted date. Perhaps they'd appreciate an email about this? Great find nonetheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As you correctly state, the overwhelming number of RS sources state a different date, so thats what we should go with at all times. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I always adhere to the mainstream. That was a curiosity of mine, and I think I'll email the museum soon. Thanks! Khruner (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts on this edit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This source:

• Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire, by Gábor Ágoston, page 59.
  

appears to contradict that edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And this source:

• Military Transition in Early Modern Asia, 1400-1750, by Kaushik Roy, page 46.
  

states the Safavids captured some Ottoman cannons in 1516 and had copies made of them.

And on the same page, it states the Safavids defeating the Uzbeks in 1510 without the use of gunpowder weapons, but that in 1528 defeated the Uzbeks that had no gunpowder weapons(insinuating their usage by the Safavids). --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Yep, its pure nonsense. From the early formation of the Safavid state, the army had a small number of artillery pieces as part of its capability. However, not at Chaldiran. A verifiable fact which has jack to do with the Uzbeks. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Said editor had posted on my talk page. I moved their comments to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that explains why I could not find any source about him drowning! HA! Nice work, LA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: always welcome! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Disagreement about the reliability and neutrality of sources in the article of Nagorno-Karabakh". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2018.

The request for formal mediation concerning Disagreement about the reliability and neutrality of sources in the article of Nagorno-Karabakh, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

LouisAragon,

Because of the lack of the consensus regarding my deleted edits in the article of Nagorno-Karabakh, I have requested a dispute resolution.

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Deleted_edits_in_January_5_and_6,_2018

Human7777 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LouisAragon – There are just a couple of things that need clearing up:

1) The first sentence in Pari Khan Khanum#Under Ismail II needs clarifying, and

2) the first sentence in the second paragraph in Pari Khan Khanum#Death is an incomplete sentence. I didn't know what to do with it.  – Corinne (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne! Fixed the first one, left a tag for the second one. HoI will know what to do with it. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. In past I didn't know about rules of wikipedia and I even didn't know that user can't add file without its source, but now I know about rules. So that's why at this time I added files with its source, but even with source it didn't accept and restored by you, so I want to know cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqiBeg (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The first book, is unviewable, so unless you have that book, it would be impossible to know what it says. It currently costs $139 on amazon.com AND, Turcoman/Turkman are essentially the same thing.

The second a journal review, states;"Nadir's native language could not be "Turki or Eastern Turkish". As an Afshar he surely spoke a southern Turcoman dialect, similar to that of all the Afshars scattered throughout Persia,i.e. in usual parlance, " the Turkish of Azarbayjan." The Afshars were certainly an Oghuz, and not a Mongol tribe."

And yet, according to Oghuz languages, could have been Qashqai or Afshar.

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think you can or should broadly assume that Hellenization means Greek-speaking. It is somewhat beside the point what the historical boundaries of Armenia were, because in general I don't think these two words should be used interchangeably because Hellenization itself was very complex. A statement like "The Greek-speaking Christian population gradually became Turkish-speaking and Muslim" is not just a summary, it is a misleading oversimplification that fails to accurately summarize the reliable sources. My goal is to find a good balance where the important complexities that have been widely discussed in academic literature are not obscured. I think the Armenians have largely been left out of the illustrious list of peoples who inhabited Cappadocia, but "the Christian population of Anatolia became Turkified" or "became Hellenized" (or both) is misleading, especially in an article about the modern state of Turkey where we have to be careful not to represent a theory of general, sweeping continuity as fact when it is extremely controversial in scholarship.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Seraphim System. I get what you mean now. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Teresia Sampsonia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teresia Sampsonia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. thank you for editing in this article and helping me. i have persian reliable source which says azerbaijan was never named azerbaijan before mosavat government. can you translate a few paragraph of it's text into english ? --Dandamayev (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dandamayev: Yes, it was never known as "Azerbaijan" prior to 1918. But the problem here ain't the sources. Even if you brought, lets say, 10.000 reliable sources, he'd still disregard them. The problem here is just one editor who can't edit neutrally on (history-related) topics vis-a-vis the Azerbaijan Republic (or better said, the WP:AA2 scope in general). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: I can't translate that material, as I don't read Persian (I can only speak it). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I will return the text into latin alphabet, soon. but for a reliable source, see arran in Encyclopædia Iranica by Prof Clifford Edmund Bosworth. it will be useful. renaming of this territory is a long-term progress by panturkish statesmen . you must read books and articles from Prof touraj atabaki for it. if you can, contact with User:Khodabandeh14 --Dandamayev (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

you can also read Pan-Turkism. From Irredentism to Cooperation. Indiana University Press, 1995 By Prof Jacob M. Landau. --Dandamayev (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

can you use this Interview for article source? --Dandamayev (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zeynab Begum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Zeynab Begum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zeynab Begum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)