User talk:Kaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia!

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

[edit] Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Happy Wiki-ing. Fennec 15:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Kaz 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuali = Guoli

Hello :) I noticed that in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khwarezm&diff=32488817&oldid=32341386 you changed Kuali to Guali. Could you put in the authentic original Chinese characters for this transliteration and a source on the same article please? Many thanks.

Thanks. They were wrong transliterations. Changes done. -  AjaxSmack  03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xia and Helian Ding

I see no source that indicates that the Shanyu in Mulan was modelled after Helian Ding. I therefore reverted those edits. Do you have a reference for your edits? Or is this a Chinese version vs. U.S. version thing? --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a Chinese vs US version thing. :) Kaz 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Helian Ding wasn't a Shanyu; he never used that title, so it's inaccurate. Please do not reinsert that reference. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry I won't be inaccurate. But in pop culture, Hua Mulan did kill the last of the chinese Huns' native leaders who was called Shanyu according to Disney, so we can either roll with the blow or suffer. Kaz 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to Persian

When you want to link to the article about something Persian, please do not link to Persian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Persian people, Persian language, or Iran, by writing out [[Persian language|Persian]] or [[Iran|Persian]]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You.Kaz 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rouran

Mi'oukeshegou Khan is the ruler mentioned in that quote, Tieh-lo is Tiele (铁勒), Ci`ih-le^ is Chile (敕勒), Kao-ch`e^) is Gaoche (高車). hope that helps.

Abstrakt 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Actually I thought A-na-kuei was 郁久閭阿那瓌 and An-lo-ch'en was 郁久閭菴羅辰, and K'u-t'i might be 郁久閭康提. Can you explain your thought please? Kaz 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Just an advice: you may leave your signature and time stamp by printing four tildas (like that: ~~~~). An alternative is to click a button displaying a signature above the editing window. Happy edits, Ghirla -трёп- 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya znayu sechas, no spaisibo balshoy. Kaz 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siyavash to Sijavus move request

FYI, I've removed your move request for Siyavash to Sijavus from WP:RM. I couldn't make sense of which article used to be what and what was supposed to be moved where. Also, the steps for requesting a move were not followed and no survey was added to the talk page. Please try again. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, echoing an above request, please use ~~~~ to sign your talk page messages since I had to search through 600 edits to find your username in the WP:RM history. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, wikipedian beurocracy is not accessible for challenged people like myself. I am bound to make mistakes. I am trying my best. Kaz 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xionites & Hephthalites

Hi. I've just noticed your recent edits in these articles. Please discuss the changes FIRST before you delete or change SOURCED information. In both cases, your edits seem to contradict the information given in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam, which - to some degree - may be considered authoritative sources.

The same goes to the Avars. Since the article "Eurasian Avars" is about EURASIAN Avars, their Xianbei- and proto-Mongolian origin has to be mentioned.

As for the Hephthalites, it's quite clear from the recently discovered "scripts of Bactria" (analyzed by N. Sims-Williams) that the Hephthalites resided in Bactria, used Bactrian as an administrative lingua franca (though not as their "house language") and that they had a very obvious East-Iranian way of life (the Bactrian scripts support Enoki's discovery of polyandry among Hephthalites, as well as their urban and probably - partly - zoroastrian way of life). According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam they "... probably sprang from a strong Eastern Iranian element ..." (EoI, "Turks", Ambros/Belim/Andrews/Göklap, protected Online Edition 2006).

The Encyclopaedia Iranica states that the Xionites (who are in here wrongly connected to the Huns) were of "... probable Iranian origin ..." (W. Felix: "Chionites", in: Encyclopædia Iranica, V. 5 (1992), pp. 485–487, LINK).

This is a matter of sources, and both - the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica - are highly respected and reliable scholarly works, considered authoritative by many experts in Wikipedia.

Please provide your changes with good and reliable sources (please keep in mind that one always needs 2 or 3 good sources to disprove either the EI or EIr). Otherwise I'll have to revert your changes.

Please do not take this as an offence, but rather as a constructive discussion and support.

Have a nice day.

Tājik 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tajik. There is a whole field of study dedicated to this area. I am not really interested in anything other than this field and I appreciate your questions. Sadly I am not very good at communication. If you would like to call me then please email me and I will send you my phone number. Or I could call you. This way I can explain things better. Basically there is no such thing as Eurasian Avars, And the Hephthalites were composed of three distinct ethnic groups only the ruling Haital class were Indo-Aryan, the rest were Mongolic and or Turkic. I have followed wiki policy by moving the disputed sections to the discussion page. I am an objective observer without any personal prejudice or axe to grind. I am not pro-Aryan, I am not Pan-Turkic, and I am not interested in any nationalistic agendas. Hence I do not butcher the works of academics in order to creat frankenstein's mosters out of the truth. And there are a lot of Frankenstein's monsters on Wikipedia at any one moment in time. I am only interested in reporting the whole story and nothing but the story. I am not interested in politics. I do not care about my work being undone since the truth will win in the end, and I don't have to struggle. If you are interested in the truth then I hope you have read what is actually written, because most of the answers to your objections are there already. Best Regards.Kaz 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Since both EI and EIr use Enoki, I think that full reportage of his publications should have been enough to highlight where these publications have failed to come up to to mark in accurate reportage of his findings.Kaz 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that it is nonsense to classify heterogenous nomadic confederations in Asia as "one particular ethnic group". The Huns, the Hephthalites, the Rouran, and even the Turks and Mongols were coalitions of a bunch of different nomadic tribes of all kinds of origins - from Indo-Iranian Scythians to Siberian proto-Altaics. Yet, we have to have SOME standard in here. And the best way to do that is to stick to authoritative sources.
The EI and EIr are collections of major sources and quotes; both Ei and EIr make clear that neather the Chionites nor the Hephthalites (or Gök-Turks) were homogenous. As for the Hephthalites, the usage of Mongolian and Turkic titles (such as Khaqan) is attested in the scripts of Bactria. Yet, the ruling elite was most probable of Eastern Iranian origin. That's why Chinese sources, such as the "Pey-Shi" considered them members of the "Yüe-Chi", who were Indo-European Tocharians. We can't just assume certain origins because of some royal titles. Not everyone who used the title "Khaqan" was automatically a Turk or Mongol. The best example for this is the Indo-European title "Yabghu" (probably from Tocharian or Iranian) whi was almost exclusively used by Non-Indo-European Turks. Now, we can assume that - at some point in history - the early Turks were ruled by an Indo-European-speaking elite (probably Tocharian or Iranian Scythian), but this is not enough to call the early Turks a "mix of Indo-European and Altaic peoples" (see Turkic peoples).
I hope you understand. Tājik 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I nearly choked when I read this: "Chinese sources, such as the "Pey-Shi" considered them members of the "Yüe-Chi", who were Indo-European Tocharians" ". Please please be careful, there are several assumptions in that sentence. Lets start with the Pey-Shi. What exactly do you think it says? As fof the Khagan issue, I am well aware of the fallacies, yet it is the basis of some of the acvademic arguments and needs to be reported. It should not be reported that they were mongols, only that some scholars use this as a basis for that assumption. Likewise your sentence that I quoted above is over simplified. What needs to be stated is that some scholars interpret this or that piece of data to mean this or that. I have a headache now because communicating is a big effort for me. P.S. I am very sad about your actions in reverting the Pseudo-Avars page back to fictitious Eurasian avars. And why say I was disrupting and make me out to be a bad guy in that edit without any warning? Or was it someone else?Kaz 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yǔn name

Normally this isn't a problem, but if you are sure that the word "Yǔn" has more than one common use, the article could be named "Yǔn (race)" if necessary. To disambiguate multiple uses of a word in an article title, use English words in parentheses. The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Poccil 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-Avars

Please don't substitute traditional terminology by neologisms. I am not an expert in the area, but such radical changes are inadmissible. YOu have describe this as a new theory suggested by certain anthropologists, not as a new unconditioal truth. `'mikka (t) 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Huns & Red Huns

Hi, Kaz. You redirected the White Huns article to the Xionites and Red Huns to the Kidarites article. I realized that you previously moved Chionites page to Xionites. You did all these without any discussion. The correct terminology is as follows: White Huns are also called Ephthalites/Hephthalites (see Columbia Encyclopedia). Red Huns are also called Chionites/Xionites You can check from David Christian, A History of Russia, Inner Asia and Mongolia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell) 1998. Also in wiki, please check the references from the previous version of Red Huns article (here) Could you please restore the redirect? If you'd like the discuss all these, you're welcome. Regards. E104421 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)