User talk:Mann Mann

Just to let you know

I just reverted this. Some PhD in international relations is not a RS for this. Do you smell that? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thank you. I think you should check some other historical regions too because they may have similar issue(s). --Wario-Man (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wario-Man!

Werner Sundermann, who wrote the article in the reference you deleted [1] in the Xionites article, is a famous German Iranist, I don't think you can call him "non expert" (History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., Sigfried J. de Laet, Joachim Herrmann UNESCO, 1996 p.73).
Here are a few other reputable sources:

• Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Robert L. Canfield, Cambridge University Press, 2002 p.49
  
• The Huns Hyun Jin Kim, Routledge, 2015 p.55 sq
  
• First Peoples of Europe, Manuel Molinos, Andrea Zifferero, All’Insegna del Giglio, 2002 p.50
  

I am afraid Encyclopædia Iranica Online (which is of disputable objectivity) can claim primacy of opinion on this subject. I does seem to me balance is needed between Iranian and Turkish origin theories. Hope this helps! Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Let's discuss it on Talk:Xionites. Open a new section there and I will write my opinion. Wario-Man (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan

It's in South Asia too... so we'll use western South Asia WikiPolices (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPolices: The "western" part is confusing and unnecessary because South Asia includes Afghanistan. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not like Pashto is spoken all throughout South Asia. It's only spoken in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Whatever you say. WikiPolices (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The article's content and its map clarifies it.[2] --Wario-Man (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And what does it clarify? That the Pashto language is only spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not in the entire of South Asia... you need to comrephend a little better. Ok? WikiPolices (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Central Asia

I wonder what is wrong in placing my own work for further reading, if my work directly deals with the subject? = Rasizade (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

-stan

Good day. I speak inglish little. Drawing attention to the ST was made by me for greater clarity and understanding of the fact that ST is common to all Indo-European languages/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umfront (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI

I'm told that COM:RFCU[3] is their SPI page. If you wants a more direct approach ask directly a local CU or via email. Let me know if you want more help. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the help. I reported him to the related WC noticeboard and he's blocked now.[4] Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Sorry about the delay. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Scythians

Why did you remove the 7 sources that I provied about Turkish roots of Scythians?! Historia de alexander (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page or browse the archives? Scythians were not Turkish. Adding Turkish to the lead is POV. We already have a discussion to remove "Iranian" from the lead section too. Open a new section on talk page and discuss your concerns before further edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There are more than 15 historical source that Says they were "Turks" , how you deny the historical sources? Phothious, Phd G. Rawlinson , Phd Augustus Frederic Rudolf and others... Historia de alexander (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm waitting for an excuse! Historia de alexander (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you read my edit summary and the above reply?! It should be discussed on the talk page. Go to the talk page and discuss your concern. OPEN a section on Talk:Scythians. No more discussion on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help to protect a article

Hello, I am here to ask if you can protect the page South Korea-Turkey relations becaues another user(@Akocsg) is including content without a supporting source and the included content is also not belonging in this article. I have already started a discussion but the user is still not accepting the fact. He use several not reliable sources of fringe turkish origin. Please have a look at this. Greetings --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoguryeoHistorian: Hi. I'm not an admin. You better discuss it on the related boards. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Pluricentric language

Hello, Wario-Man – Since you've edited Persian language recently, I assume you're watching the article. There is a pending change edit that I was just looking at. It adds a link to "pluricentric language" in the lede. I don't know whether Persian is a pluricentric language or not, but I was thinking about two things I wanted to ask you about:

1) I believe too many links in the lede of an article are discouraged, but I'll let you decide whether the term should be linked or not. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Contextual links:

Do not...add contextual links that don't relate directly to the topic's definition or reason for notability.

2) the lede is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body of the article, and I did a search and "pluricentric language" does not appear anywhere in the article other than the lede. If you think it is an important point to be made, perhaps it should be added to the body of the article. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

fuck you cunt lying, spineless piece of shit