This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Hunas, Xionites, Ephthalites, and Uar are all related with each other but all exist as separate articles. Whether all should be merged or not is an open question. Any comments or proposals? Cheers! E104421 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The White Huns were neither Xionites nor Uar or any other Eurasian Avars. The White Huns were ONLY the Hephthalites - that's the name given to them by their enemies.
What you are doing in here is original research and against any rules of Wikipedia. I've told you many times to stop your useless POV nonsense.
Not even the sources you have porvided support your claim.
Hey, did you read my sentence? There related means not genetically related. You're deleting entries in favor of your pov-fork. E104421 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read everything you have posted, and I do not agree at all! Tājik 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise is needed to prevent edit/revert wars. You cannot solve the issues with incivility. Let's calm down! E104421 20:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot solve the problem with POV-push either. All reliable sources, even your own favourite source - the Britannica - makes clear, that "White Hun" is a general name of the Hephthalites. Your version is not supported by any reliable source. It even contradicts major sources, such as Iranica. What you did is simply copying and old text from the article Hephthalites and put it in this one. That's certainly wrong. The only correct solution is a redirect to Hephthalites, because they were the historical "White Huns". Tājik 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only Britannica but also Columbia uses the title "White Huns". I continued to edit on the "White Huns" page cause the "Hephthalites" article is quite disputed and edit/revert warred. You called Sikandarji to compromise, i agreed with him, but you reverted/disputed Sikandarji's compromise version. I proposed compromises several times, Sikandarji also tried but all the compromises were ignored. What to do? E104421 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me who ignored Sikandarji's comprises - in fact, I have talked to him via E-Mail. His does support my version, because it is the same as his own. I have only modified the intro. The same goes to the article Timurids in which you not only oppose the authoritative information of Encyclopaedia of Islam (written by no less than Prof. Dr. B. Manz, THE expert on Timurid history), but also the opinion of Sikandarji (who himself is an expert on Central Asian history and has access to excelent sources). Instead of creating a parallel-article, we should rather work on the Hephthalites page, while this article should only be a redirect. Tājik 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you edited the introduction section, then it's your version now, not Sikandarji's. You are pushing your favorite version as Sikandarji's compromise version. This is misleading. Sikandarji should come and edit/revert himself and one can see this clearly from the edit summary/history. Lets compare all the Sikandarji's versions with yours here: Sikandarji's first version and your so-called compromise version, Sikandarji's second version and your so-called compromise version, and Sikandarji's third version and your so-called compromise version. They are quite different than you claimed. You never mentioned in anywhere except here yesterday that this your compromise is made via e-mail. This is not a compromise anymore, since nobody knows anything about your compromise. This is clearly your version. You are accusing everyone as nationalists or vandals if they object your edits. However, what these people are trying to do is to compromise. For example, lets compare my reverts with Sikandarji's version:my first revert to Sikandarji and my last revert to Sikandarji. It's clearly seen from the comparison of these edits that what you are trying to do is not seem to be compromise. You are misleading people. Your statements and accusations are not correct. You should be civil at first.
The fundamental principle of wikipedia is to assume good faith. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. E104421 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assume any good faith from you anymore, because you are not interested in constructive discussions. What you are doing in here is simply copying an old and disputed text from the Hephthalites article,. and you claim that it is "well-sourced". No, it is NOT! This version - which is your favourite version, because it only supports your favourite "Turkic origin" theory and does not mention any other theories - was already disputed in the other article. Now you have copied the entire text into this article, hoping to fool the readers. User:Sikandarji had already told you that the version you are pushing for is old and not supported by the majoprity of scholars nowadays. You claim to support Sikandarji's opinion, while - in fact - you do not. We have presented you sources from better and more reliable ones than Britannica, and Sikandarji, too, told you that works such as EI and EIr are better and more accurate than Britannica.
What you are doing in here is not a compromise and it is not good faith - it's creating a POV article.
I told you several times, if we are to compromise, we should calm down. You never let others to contribute. What to do? White Huns article is more neutral and factually accurate than your Hephthalites version. I'm still waiting for Sikandarji to come and edit/revert the article. E104421 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
