User talk:Tahmasp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tahmasp, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --alidoostzadeh 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am mainly concerned about classical quotes like Ibn Nadeem. Note he differtiates between Farsi and Dari and Pahlavi, but calls all of them Persian languages. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with your skill

Please visit the Sima Mafiha page and help to extend the article. Actually I found little info about her. I am afraid that she could be forgotten at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.239.102 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please improve the Tat Language

--Faikpro (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muley Abul Hassan

May I ask you to cite some sources for your claim, that "Mula" Abdul Hassan is the "exact" name? What do you mean by "exact" anyway in this context, since various transcriptions of the arabic original are possible? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know Arabic somewhat and I'm sure that in Arabic it is not pronounced Muley. cheers--Tahmasp (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Also see Mawla and Mullah, which both are of same root.(talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to keep this discussion together, so feel free to answer here. I do not doubt your knowledge of Arabic, but there are standards for transliterating or trnscribing Arabic, see Romanization of Arabic. Again I ask you to cite your sources. There are different views possible by the way , I think. One way to look at the name is the spanish Muley Hacén, which is certainly rather a mockery of the arabic original than an exact transcription. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually, newspapers and popular books use not a transliteration (Which should be "Mwli"), but a transcription (Which should be "Mawla"): instead of transliterating each written letter they try to reproduce the sound of the words according to the orthography rules of the target language: Qatar. And can you please cite your sources for "Muley".--Tahmasp (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "Muley" is neither a transliteration nor a transcription.--Tahmasp (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I paid attention to the Spanish version and saw that it is Mawla too, nevertheless Spanish Wikipedia is not a good source.--Tahmasp (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference to Mawla. That cleared up something already. Sources for Muley Hacén being the most common form in Spanish are easily given: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and so forth. I know the Spanish wikipedia is not the most reliable source (yet the English is neither, that is why independant sources are needed). I did not claim that "Muley" is a transcription, see my comment above. But since "Mula/Mulay" is rather a nickname than part of the real name, it probably should not appear in the title. Would you agree to move the article to Abu l-Hasan Ali, Sultan of Granada? (There is already a redirect to the article under this name, and it is consistent with the French and German wikipedia) --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a good idea. Do it. Then we can refer to his title(s) in the text.--Tahmasp (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there had actually been two Abu al-Hasan Ali one Arab (15th centtury) and one Persian (9th century) (see here). What about that?--Tahmasp (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

however it shouldn't be a serious problem because the Persian one was no Sultan.--Tahmasp (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I do it. There is already a disambiguation page Abu al-Hasan, so it is no problem to put one more on it. But I just noticed the difference between "Abu l-Hasan" and "Abu al-Hasan". I am not sure, what is the correct version in this case? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Britannica has used Abu-al-Hasan-Ali, also as you said in wikipedia they have implemented Abu al-Hasan elsewhere, however both cases are probably correct but one case seems to be more common at least in literary form.--Tahmasp (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Since both forms are possible, I leave it at this for the moment. One can always move the article again if needed. I also added a first short reference to the title, in both the Spanish and the Arabic way. Go on to expand it if you like. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your change. It seems good.--Tahmasp (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Bagh (word)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bagh (word), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagh (word). Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Bagh (word)

Dear Tahmasp, thank you very much for so kindly bringing the discussion on the above-mentioned entry to my attention. I have now contributed to the discussion. With kind regards, --BF 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tahmasp, thank you for your additions to the entry, which are very nice. I disagree, however (very strongly I must add) with the opening sentence of the entry, for the reason that it is very imprecise. Where is e.g. "a special type of garden" based on? The original text (which is still there, below the title "About the word") is in contrast very precise: it specifies what the word normally means, and it qualifies this meaning in the second part of the first sentence — this qualification is not mine, but is Dehkhoda's. I admit that elsewhere in the world the word may have somewhat different qualifications, but I believe that such qualifications must be properly documented. Incidentally, "Bagh" should be "Bāgh", otherwise one will have conflict with the Avestan word Bagh to which reference is made later in the text. I should be grateful if you would kindly take the above remarks into your consideration. As it stands, I very strongly disagree with the present opening sentence of the entry. With kind regards, --BF 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that at least originally it has had only middle eastern architectural elements and if you look at historical baghs like chahar bagh you can easily see that type of architecture. Nevertheless, yes in Persian bagh means garden in its general sense not an special type of it. At last I think these considerations should be added to the article but with source. thank you for your attention.Tahmasp (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tahmasp, evidently I could not possibly have objections to additions, not least those by you which have transformed the entry into a remarkably nice entry. I was just referring to the fact that we should make distinction between what we may think to be the case and what is established to be the case. In fact, as you may have noticed, someone (not I) has already marked your sentence and asked for references. (Incidentally, earlier today I changed some Baghs into Bāghs, conform what I had written to you earlier.) As for chahar bagh, I have as yet to read this Wikipedia entry, but if you know the history of the Qajar period, then you will realise what disasters some of the governors (like Prince Zell ol-Soltan) brought to the architectures of Esfahan and Shiraz, as Reza Shah did to that of old Tehran — they all razed to the ground what they thought to have become old-fashioned (in the case of Zell ol-Soltan, the motivations were very sinister and had nothing to do with aesthetic taste; I think Zell ol-Soltan can be said to have truly raped the architecture of Shiraz). It follows that for instance today's chahar bagh is not what is has been and what it had supposed to be, and these should be accounted for when defining such words as "Bāgh". With kind regards, --BF 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear BehnamFarid, As you said articles should not be based on our thoughts but should be backed by sources, and I think those users who add citation tags to articles had done nothing wrong. About Chahar bagh your comments was interesting and I should read more on this matter. What has been imposed to these historical panoramas are disgraceful, Best regards.Tahmasp (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tahmasp, thank you for your message. You might like to view the following photo-set on flickr which contains some very rare photographs from Shitaz: [7]. As you will notice, for instance, the Hafezieh as we know it ([8], [9]) is entirely different from the Hafezieh of the Qajar era ([10], [11], [12]). Bāgh-e Takht ([13], [14]) is no longer in existence. In the past I have made links to some of the most interesting photographs of this set (such as this one [15]) from the appropriate entries of the English Wikipedia. In the event that you have a flickr account (I do not have), you may wish to contact the person to whom these rare photographs belong (his name is Nima) and possibly ask him whether he would allow that we upload some of his photographs to Wikipedia. I have been thinking that it might not be a bad idea to make an entry on Old Shiraz, for which these photographs would be most appropriate. One could also write a proper entry on Hafezieh and its history. In any case, in the event that you have a flickr account (which allows you to send e-mails to other flickr account holders), you may consider to encourage Nima to join Wikipedia and bring his photographs with him. As far as I have understood, Nima lives in Shiraz and knows a great deal about the historical places of the town (here, for instance, he says "our house was near here for a period": [16]), so that he might be encouraged to write a Wikipedia entry on Old Shiraz. Kind regards, --BF 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear BehnamFarid, creating an article about old Shiraz is a very good idea, on that article differences between modern and old Shiraz can be throughly explained and compared with photos. Unfortunately me too don't have a flicker account. However as far as I know flicker photos are published under creative common license and many of them are transferable to Wikipedia, moreover, most of these photos are very old and their copy write terms have passed and now they are in public domain and you can easily upload them to Wikipedia (in Iran pictures which have been shot more than 30 years ago are in public domain). Another thing is that flicker is filtered in Iran and therefore Nima who has a flicker account doesn't seem to live in Iran, Best. Tahmasp (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tahmasp, as for the photographs on flickr, it is not true that one can freely upload them to Wikipedia; it all depends on their copyright status. Generally, unless the person who has put the photographs on flickr has explicitly indicated that the photographs are CC, they are by default copy-righted (I think I read this sometimes ago on the flickr web site which explains the rules governing use of the flickr photographs) --- of course, one can download these photographs onto one's hard disk, but they cannot be displayed publicly, such as on Wikipedia. The 30-years rule to which you refer concerns the period since a photograph has been made public and not since a photograph has been taken. In the case of public figures, such as politicians, it is safe to assume that the two dates coincide, but in the case of other photographs this need not be the case. Nima's photographs seem all to be family photographs and consequently I do not think that the 30-years rule applies to them; assuming that these photographs have been made public on flickr, say, two years ago, it is then safe to assume that for the coming 28 years they will remain to enjoy protection under the the Iranian copy-right laws. As for flickr being filtered in Iran, this may clarify why Nima's flickr page seems to have been inactive for a very long time. So, it may be that Nima is still in Shiraz, but cannot log into his flickr account or at least is unable to upload photographs.
Incidentally, User:Prosfilaes appears to have targeted the entry Bagh (garden); since yesterday he has for twice reduced the contents of the entry by more than 1/2 under the dubious pretence that the entry is not a dictionary. As you may remember, he was the second person on the top of the list voting for strong delete and now that he has not got his way, he is acting maliciously, disrespecting the will of the community. Well, I am now going to report him to a senior editor. In the case that you know of some helpful editors on Wikipedia, you may consider to do the same. With kind regards, --BF 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, as I noticed "copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation; and copyright in other images lasts for the life of the creator plus 30 years." however they might be scanned from a magazine or newspaper or book.
On the edits of the other user they are referring to this policy. It says Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionaries discuss words. Wikipedia talk about people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. Tahmasp (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tahmasp, with regard to flickr, recently I was told that any person with a Yahoo e-mail account can log into flickr; no additional registration is required. You also had mentioned that flickr is filtered in Iran. Apparently, some people living in Iran can get through all the barriers --- I got to know about this because recently I uploaded a CC copy-righted image from flickr and the CC copy-right turned out not to be the right one for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia photo editor turned out to be able to contact the owner of the photograph and ask him to adjust the copy-right statement. All worked very perfectly. Kind regards, --BF 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] will be away

HI I'll be away for a little while, please keep an eye on some of the articles that are prone to vandalism. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)