User talk:Tahmasp

Welcome!

Hi Tahmasp! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --alidoostzadeh 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

on Safavids

Hi You usually should discuss your changes in the discussion page. What is of utmost important is to always source with verifiable and scholarly sources any statement that you wish to input. Sometimes some sources conflict and that is the reason to specially go in the discussion page and discuss the issue in a civil manner. Some users might overstep the bound of civility or try to use force/threats or make bitter nationalistic rants or show irrational behaviors. When this happens, always report it to the Admins of Wikipedia. Have fun editing. --alidoostzadeh 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Denkard

Hi, this addition is not needed. The paragraph immediately after your addition explains the name. (first para of 'Introduction' section). -- Fullstop (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the [1] translation of the name? Its quite ok. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It would be not a bad idea having a separate section on etymology of the word. Mostly it is done, on wikipedia. Anyway, if you persist not to have the etymology section, I won't mind, you can undo the changes. thanks Tahmasp (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In many cases on Wikipedia, the section titled "Etymology" should just be called "Name" :)

Anyway, what I was thinking was that "Introduction" section would be a little odd if something came before "Introduction." Perhaps it could be renamed to "Background information" or similar, and that be subdivided into "Name", "Epoch", and "Authorship"? What do you think? -- Fullstop (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I left a note on WP:AN/I about your efforts. You may have a perfectly reasonable justification for these edits. But, if so, you have to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Iranian theory of the affiliation of the Bulgar language

Hi, the "Iranian"/"Pamiri" theory exists, but is marginal and shouldn't be emphasized through templates and such. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, it is only endorsed by Bulgarians (who have a nationalistic reason to do so, because they have a traditional enmity towards Turkey, and regard an Indo-European affiliation such as Iranian as being more prestigeous and "civilized"). More importantly, it is advocated by historians, not linguists; thus, these authors are not reliable sources, because they are not experts on the relevant subject. It is quite ridiculous how these historians are struggling to produce amateurish "Iranian" or "Pamiri" etymologies that they are absolutely unqualified to assess. Note that so far, I've been struggling on the Bulgar language talk page to convince a pro-Turkic user that the Iranian theory should even be mentioned.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian and فارسی

Salam. Persian is more correct than Farsi in English, but inside the direct quotes of scholars or classical historians, it should stay as is. Outside of that it is good to change it. یعنی اگر از یک پژوهشگری نقل قول مستقیم شده است و این پژوهشگر واژه فارسی را بکار برده، دیگر نبایست این واژه را به پرسین تغییر دارد زیرا این یک نوع دستکاری در سخن آن محقق است. البته این به نظر من صحیح تر است. پیروز باشید