User talk:Bagrationi~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Bagrationi~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Baristarim 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the three-revert rule. Thanks Baristarim 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, I am adding truthful information to certain pages and they are constantly being deleted by other users (such as you)

No, you are also deleting other information and adding duplicate content. The loanwords article already has the subsection titled "Persian and Arabic", so why the repetition of Farsi? Also note that in that article another user also reverted you.. Baristarim 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, excuse my lack of etiquette and understanding of this messaging system, I'm very new to Wikipedia-editing. Also, I know that it is under the section entitled 'Persian and Arabic loanwords', but is not beneficial to even add the specific origin of each word? It is by no means redundant, it is 'being more descriptive'. Also, I left a comment on your talk page, but it's mixed in with someone elses because I don't know how to do it properly. I think that it's at the bottom of the page.

Funny, User:Saposcat who reverted you at the other page is not even Turkish :) Please watch for WP:CIVIL.. And what is the deal with this helpme template? :) What do you need? Baristarim 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anything, I just want to make sure that you see that I wrote something to you. Also, do you understand what I am saying about the edited pages? I am editing them from a 'neutral' point of view, but it just so happens that the extent of my knowledge is vaster in the Persian language than most other subjects, which is why I edit pages with it. Do you agree or disagree with me that some forms that were deleted were actually valid facts that were deleted out of spite and nationalism (again, I do not mean to be offensive).

I will try to get back to you later, I have to step out for the moment. Cheers! Baristarim 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you don't need assistance, please don't use the {{helpme}} template. That puts you into Category:Wikipedians looking for help. If you need to talk with Baristarim, do so here or on User talk:Baristarim. Though, don't be afraid to slap a {{helpme}} on the page if you do need help. ;) Thank you. WODUP 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid 64 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of replaced loanwords in Turkish

Hello there. Just wanted you to know that my reversion of your additions was done neither out of spite nor disrespect for your contributions; rather, it was done out of regard for facts. As examples, the following words that you listed as "from Farsi" are actually Arabic in origin:

cevâb; cümle; ecdâd (plural of "cedd"); emniyyet (an Ottoman-coined nominal form of Arabic "emn"); esîr; evvel; hâdise (related to "hadîs"); hakikat (related to "hakk"); hâl; harâb; harâret; harf; etc.

I know that these words do exist in Persian (or Farsi, as you seem to prefer), and it is possible that some of them came into Ottoman via Persian, though—given the fact that the Ottoman elite who were largely responsible for such borrowings were typically as well versed in Arabic as in Persian—this seems as likely as it does not ... but the words as they exist in Persian came into Persian from Arabic. Thus, it is misleading to label them as "from Farsi". Etymologically speaking, Persian (wonderful language as it is) served as no more the middleman for the entrance of these Arabic words into Ottoman. So, it was only this mistake of yours that I was attempting to correct. Cheers. —Saposcat 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saposcat. Yes, what you say about the nature of the Persian language in relation to Ottoman and Arabic is indubitably true. I did not deny this. However, after reviewing my studies, cevâb, evvel, harârat, hâl, and harf are NOT of Arabic origin. Unfortunately, yes, some of the edited words ARE actually of Arabic origin, and I promise such ignorant edits will never happen again (for I will always review before editing). However, regarding your description of the Persian Language, many words in Ottoman Turkish did actually originate from native Persian words. In addition, if only some of the edited forms that I claimed as Farsi were false, then why was the entire edit deleted? There was truth to most of the edits, and of course, what is the pejorative factor of specifying the specific language (Persian or Arabic) from which each word derived? This was done to the section entitled 'word from European languages', and would only ameliorate the detail/therefore content of the article if done to the Arabic and Persian section. In conclusion, I thank you for correcting my mistake, but in the attempt, you also deleted factual and valuable details. Cheers. - Bagrationi 20:19, 18 April 2007.

Hello again. If I was a bit hasty in my reversion, I apologize; it was done primarily out of noticing that the vast majority of the words (with, I admit, a few exceptions, which I should not necessarily have gotten rid of) presented as Persian were indeed Arabic. I still maintain this, and would be interested to see sources claiming that, for example, cevâb, evvel, hâl, harâret, and harf—which the links I give here seem to indicate are Arabic-rooted—are Persian in origin, originally. I have my doubts on that score.

Again, I apologize if my reversion was a bit hasty, but I still maintain that—for the most part, and with some lamentable exceptions—it was an accurate reversion. Cheers. —Saposcat 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but maybe you sent the wrong links? Those are links to a comprehensive Persian-English dictionary. The articles entitled "Harf", "Auwal", "Jawab", "Haal", and "Haraarat" make no indication of Arabic origin. In fact, the article "Auwal" connects the Farsi with Hindi, suggesting that it could be of pure Indo-European origin. Again, I agree that unfortunately some of my claims were false, but most were correct. All that I ask is that you please put back the ones that in your opinion are Farsi and 'from the Persian Language", and the others from the "Arabic Language" (or something to that extent). That revsision would be greatly appreciated! Cheers! -Bagrationi 9:49, 19 April 2007.

The capital "A" at the beginning of each of those dictionary entries indicates Arabic origin. And the one about اول, if you look carefully, doesn't suggest an origin in the Hindi language; rather it says that the phrase auwali dasht is equivalent to the Hindi phrase bohnī.

However, when I've got the time (and if I've got the inclination), I may start going through the list and adding whether the words are coming out of Arabic or Persian. Cheers. —Saposcat 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baristarim, when will my block expire? -Bagrationi 17:36, 18 April 2007

Oh and Saposcat, I completely understand what you are saying, and it would be great if you could find the time to do so! The fact, however, that many of the Farsi words that travelled into the Ottoman Turkish language are actually of some Arabic origin arises another question. The reason I was blocked was because I violated the 3-Reverse Rule (I was ignorant of it). More specifically, I had changed the route of the etymology of the name Diyarbakir, in Turkey, from Ottoman to Farsi (Diyaar-e Bekr). Yes, theoretically the word is 'Ottoman', but technically, as was the conversation that we just had, the word is of complete Farsi origin. It is, according to how we just settled our dispute, only fair that the route be changed to Farsi, or else all of the words that I had marked as Farsi in the Ottoman language table are correct as well. Please help me with this. Cheers! - Bagrationi 18:41, 19 April 2007.

I'd prefer not to get involved in the Diyarbakır article at all; that sort of thing is too directly "political" for me, and I don't mix with such stuff if I can avoid it. As for the word's being "of complete Farsi origin", though: both ديار and بكر are of Arabic origin as well, leaving the only Persian element the ezafe of "-e" (an element that Ottoman Turkish used as well). So, it's not correct to say, as you do, that "according to how we just settled our dispute, [it is] only fair that the route be changed to Farsi". Cheers. —Saposcat 06:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the whole discussion we're having (and that, I guess, you've had with a few others, like Baristarim) is occurring because we're both laboring under different conceptions of what's of primary importance in etymology: you're focusing on, as you put it, the "route" that a word follows; I'm more interested in the original source. To give an example, from the Online Etymology Dictionary, for the word "connection":

c.1385, from O.Fr. connexion, from L. connexionem, from connectere "to fasten together," from com- "together" + nectere "to bind, tie" (see nexus).

Your method is looking primarily at that "from O.Fr. connexion", while mine is focusing on the rest of the entry. I would venture to guess (perhaps out of having too much atman) that the method I prefer is a somewhat stronger one, insofar as etymological dictionaries tend to give the source greater weight than the route ... but neither method is really wrong, I suppose, at the end of the day.

You are correct in pointing out that the phrase ديار بكر, as a whole, must have come via Persian due to its use of the ezafe (which I'm aware that Ottoman Turkish borrowed from Persian, though they also borrowed and frequently used the Arabic construction which, in a hypothetical timeline, could just as well have led to ديار البكر instead of ديار بكر). Probably the best solution on the Diyarbakır page, if you ask me, would be to create a separate Diyarbakır#Etymology or Diyarbakır#Name section. Anyhow, best of luck with however you may decide to approach it. Cheers. —Saposcat 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baklava

Hi, Bagrationi. No, of course not related with any kind of desire. What is important is verifiability in Wikipedia. Please come up with third-party, independent, and of course serious sources and references, then we'll try to help. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Ice cream. Thank you. This article is vandalized a lot, so if good faith editors like yourself use an edit summary, it makes it much easier to spot the vandals and to know what was done without going through all the diffs. Thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anbar Governorate

I'm sorry that you have had to deal with the persistent vandalism this article has been under. Is the description of the origins of the name in the current version of the article correct now? Lawrencema (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bagrationi. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bagrationi~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)