The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Erminwin (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erminwin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur Khaganate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am informing you that the fanatic tai-only user has striked again. He is currently reverting your edits and claim that you are aswell, like many other non-related users, a sockpuppet... 213.162.72.195 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GAB is closing that the sockpuppet investigation proposed by that Tai-only user (most likely User:Bokworm8899). Still, I decide not to revert their edits for fear of starting an edit war.Erminwin (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shad (prince), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barsils, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the Reliable Sources may seem questionable, but we can't just drive-by change article text without a Reliable Source to back it up. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @HammerFilmFan: The "Reliable Source" John Chambers's "The Devil's Horsemen" did not identify the "Saxins" (p. 48, 49) / "Saxin tribes" (p. 31) with "East Saxons".Erminwin (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

better read the footnotes more closely - the revamping of this article was done in collaboration with 2 professors who authored books on the Mongols, besides my own colleagues at Duke

Do you have an RS that has a better definition of "Saxins"? This article has been vandalized by drive-by IP's from Russia, etc., since we re-vamped it a few years ago - I am not sure without digging through the history of where the definition was obtained-several other history buffs have tried to fix the article when this happened, and it's possible a reference was lost-Chambers does indeed not directly define who they were-this may have come from email correspondence from Morgan, or Trumble. I am all in favor of improving this article. I'm going to search through my various sources in the meantime. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @HammerFilmFan: Hudud al-'Alam 'The Regions of the World' - A Persian Geography 372 A.H. (982 AD), by V. V. Minorsky & C. E. Bosworth would be such a RS. Minorsky wrote that: "The first element of Sārigh-sh.n is evidently Turkish [sic] sarigh "yellow" [...] I am strongly inclined that the name *Sarigh-shin is the original form of the enigmatic [...] Saqsin, as the geographer of Mongol times called a town situated by a mighty river and usually quoted along with the Volga Bulghar, cf. Bartold Saķsīn in EI." (italic in original)

Hello, the long term vandal and Tai only pusher Bookworm8899 seems to be back adding unsourced maps made by his sock on wikimedia. He is currently using several IPs. As example please see Vietnamese language. Greetings.38.121.43.37 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you already cleaned up his vandalism. So... good job! Erminwin (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurykans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashina Helu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khalaj (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Turkic Khaganate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khalaj (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hephthalites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indo-Iranian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Xueyantuo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tola and Chuluo Khagan

Chigi family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to IPA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Turkestan

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent sock-edits, including the whole sequence in the leading part #Origins, about the proto-turkic homeland simply isn’t backed up by the sources. There is not one sentence in the given references. You have to check the sources before you allow abusive sockcontent. However, considering the context of that „Transeurasian theory“, an absolute minority view among linguists, these studies belong to the article Altaic languages. Yours thankfully —Lithuist (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithuist:. This has nothing to do with allowing abusive sock content. There are several other editors involved with restoring this material. Also, please discuss this on the article talk page if you wish. Additionally, Hunan201p does not have a lot of credibility pertaining to their editing history. That editor had no problem misrepresenting their edits to support dominating articles with their POV, violating wp:npov while also edit warring, resulting in WP:OWN behavior. Take a look at the second half of their user talk page.

As an aside, I have to wonder, with only one or two edits attributed to your user name, I am wondering if you are a sock. Do you have a blocked account and are you circumventing that blocked account? Do you have other Wikipedia accounts? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

""@Steve Quinn: they are CU blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller::Tirgil34 did psycholgoically project their sock-puppeteering too much.Erminwin (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 is desperate. Now he uses IP-hopping for block evasion; e.g. [1][2][3]. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wario-Man: Can't tell if the vandal who has a pro-Turkic bias & keep vandalizing articles on Tuoba, Tuoba language, Rouran Khaganate, Tatar confederation, and Tatars were Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 or no. Though that vandal embarrassingly exposed their ignorance, when vandalizing the Tuoba's article by citing Mahmud al-Kashgari to assert that the "Tuoba were a division of Turkic peoples" even though the Tuoba article contains an an entire section devoting to the semantic shift from the Tuoba & Northern Wei to Song China in Kashgari's time.

That IP-hopper is not Tirgil34 but they could be a WP:MEATPUPPET (because Tirgil34 promotes his stuff on web and it seems some people follow his agenda) or just another pro-Turkic and Pan-Turkist user. Tirgil34's agenda/quest is summarized on his LTA page. Tirgil34 in a nutshell: Everything was/is Turkic. --Wario-Man (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rouran Khaganate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khitan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghu people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you review this article? The claims in sections like Origins and Ethnogenesis sound WP:FRINGE. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man: Thanks for bring that to my attention. I deleted the whole Ethnogenesis section. The writer stopped short of classifying many vanished historical Iranian-speaking groups as Turkic. Yet such assertions as "the ethnic continuity and cultural uniformity of the Turkmen of the present time with the ancient population of the western part of Central Asia of the Hunnic (4th-5th centuries) and even the Parthian-Kanguy (more than 2 thousand years ago) periods becomes obvious." are Pan-Turkic insinuations.Erminwin (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving the issues. Is Vasily Bartold's claim "特拘梦 was a transliteration of the country name Türkmen" verified? If the answer is yes, then are there alternative claims by other scholars? Please keep watching that article because that user seems like adding fringe, pov, and unsourced stuff; e.g. [4] and on other articles [5][6][7]. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man: To be honest, I do not possess any copy of Bartold's Four Studies, therefore I cannot verify that claim as of now. I assumed good faith on that user's part that they'd faithfully paraphrased Bartold's opinion on the link between 特拘梦 (pinyin: Tejumeng; writer's transliteration (presumable Bartold's): T’ö-kü-Möng) and Türkmen. Erminwin (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermiwin, i am sorry that i sounded scournful on your sir-kivchak post on rereading the phonetics of the turkish runes (new to wikipedia, just learning the ropes and reread my posts), https://bitig.kz/?lang=e&mod=1&tid=1&oid=24&m=1, ive been looking on some alternative reading aswell on that site now, its a misstake to use on coam for diffrent works, but rereading that Inscription i am even more confused how that text was translated withouth knowledge of Chinese or the other eastern languages?.You seem to be keen on this, il save my questions for that you reply that we should keep in touch on this subject, and Ergins book you have, is its a new publication?. I kind of lost faith in old turkic as a science since it was show (by me reading) misstankely that some modern Persian christian prayers were bundeld together with Turfan manuscripts somehow, and there was a "translation" but the text was our father in heaven from the bible. I got 3 readings on that page wich are titles, and a list of words wich i would like to discuss, if you want that aswell. We should try new readings of middle chineses aswell since it seems you have been at study. Hope you are pleased to reply that you wish the same communications between us.Bennanak88 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

An Dương Vương

added a link pointing to Sino-Vietnamese

Hùng king

added a link pointing to Sino-Vietnamese

Âu Lạc

added a link pointing to King Huiwen

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

An Dương Vương

added a link pointing to Sino-Vietnamese

Hùng king

added a link pointing to Sino-Vietnamese

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Donghu people

added a link pointing to Gyula Németh

Kayı (tribe)

added a link pointing to Gyula Németh

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghu people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyula Németh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barsils, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toqto'a.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khazars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erminwin, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the Hephthalites, I was wondering if you know of any good/important soures about their fellow Hunnic cousins - the Xionites/Chionites and Kidarites? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @HistoryofIran: In Prof Yu Taishan's collection, available here Kidara (Jiduoluo) were mentioned in passing. I'll look for more secondary sources. Erminwin (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah that would be awesome. Even better if it included information about their culture, language and possible background. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have seen that you have been a great contributor to the Turkic pages and I would like to request your input to the Khalji dynasty page. If you look at the edit history i am sure you would understand the issue. If you look at the revert below, you could easily identify the information does not correspond to what is mentioned in the references. I wanted to see if you could help correct the article in accordance to the references or provide any advice. [[8]] Thankyou Regards Kami2018 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your reply in relation to this. Kami2018 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kami2018: I've been dealing with other obligations. Now to the the subject at hand, I don't think you and HistoryofIran disagreed substantively: both you & they agreed that the Afghan Khalji dynasty were of Turkic origin. More like they found the tone of your edit to be too subjective & therefore thought of your edit as POV-pushing. I'd recommend that you ask, in the Khalji dynasty article's talk page, about how to incorporate your sources (Jackson, 2003; Srivastava, 1966; Eraly, 2015; Chaurasia) into the article. Regards!Erminwin (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed [9], it was my bad. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erminwin. Grenet, Ur-Rahman, and Sims-Williams (2006:125-127) actually refer to another seal found in Kashmir (not Samarkand), which has the reading "ολαρ(γ)ο" (seal AA2.3) (in Grenet, Frantz. "A Hunnish Kushanshah". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)). The seal from Samarkand was published in 2011 by Sim-Williams (seal AA2) with the reading "ογλαρ(γ)ο", which he transliterates as "lord Uglarg/Ularg" (see in Bakker, Hans T. The Alkhan: A Hunnic People in South Asia. Barkhuis. p. 13, note 17. ISBN 978-94-93194-00-7.). This must be the reason for de la Vaissière's take. I'll try to tweak the note accordingly. Thanks for the research! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @पाटलिपुत्र:Thanks for the information! Erminwin (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oghuz Turks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid al-Din.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kumo Xi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toqto'a.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's Greetings
	Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My many thanks, पाटलिपुत्र Pat! The same to you! Erminwin (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yami Qaghan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to delete/hide a misleading section in the article Kipchaks. The references do not appear to support the claimed English sentences. At first, the Chinese quotation does not contain the words blonde or blue eyed people. This seems to be a misleading inclusion by long-term abuser Tirgil34, who is known for the claims of blonde and blue eyed Turks. Secondly, the references about "Caucasian" and "Mongoloid" phenotypes is in fact a historical reference about various people of the region and I could not find the words Caucasian or Mongoloid as claimed in the section. Thus the whole section is WP:OR and fails WP:V. Could you please take a look at this section? You can check the references yourself and will see what I mean. Thank you in advance.213.162.73.198 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included a working reference and included some quotations to fix the first part. Regarding the second part of a reference from an Ukrainian anthropologist, I have not full access and can not verify if the content is correct. Maybe you have access?213.162.73.33 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"At first, the Chinese quotation does not contain the words blonde or blue eyed people" Can you read Chinese? I can. I'm not Tirgil34 & I doubt that Tirgil34 can read Chinese. "青目赤髪" means "blue/green-eyed [and] red-haired". I even linked to the page in Xu Qianxue's later edition of Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian. Vol. 141 f.21a. Also, this is a direct quote from Lee & Kuang's paper 2017 "Concerning the physiognomy of the Qipchaq tribe, the Zizhi tongjian houbian [Later compilation to the comprehensive mirror to aid in government], a seventeenth-century continuation of Sima Guang’s Zizhi tongjian by Xu Qianxue, states that they had ‘blue eyes and red hair (青目赤髪)’." (p. 207) Also, Lee & Kuang quoted Yuanshi when mentioning the Kipchak clan's Ölberli, not Xu Qianxue's later edition of Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian Erminwin (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Xionites needs some serious improvements in my opinion. Your contributions on historical Eurasian and Central Asian topics are good, so I think you can help improving it too. The current revision is a bit confusing and it's not well-structured.; from the lead to end of it. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 15:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Turkic Khaganate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Khwarazmian dynasty § Splitting proposal. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vokil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP user removed your additions, could you check maybe? Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Those ultra-nationalists again. Thanks for informing me!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lý dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also add that information to the "Flag of South Vietnam" article proper (as Great Brightstar had already made some improvements). Also, who designed the original flag of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina and what did it symbolise (the same three regions as the later flag?) and what was the meaning of the white stripes? I have been able to find very little information about the Cochinchinese flag (on which the South Vietnamese flag was most likely based) and Musée Annam in all his arrogance never provides sources and was the originator of the "Thành Thái hoax" on Wikipedia (as well as a LARGE number of other fantasy flags), in fact, Musée Annam found the correct Cochinchinese flag but this one was deleted almost a dozen times as "a fantasy" off of Wikimedia Commons because at no point did he ever provide sources other than "I said so" and just slung insults at anyone that ever dared question his reasoning (hence he is globally banned as this behaviour is a red thread through his contributions), but he did manage to correctly identify more Vietnamese flags than anyone else here (though this could be because he likely just throws everything he can find at the wall and then sees what sticks).

I am actually planning on diving deeper into the history of 1940's French Cochinchina but I have been unable to find the exact origin or meaning of the French Cochinchinese flag (although I did find a possible designer called "Ton That" something). --Donald Trung (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Donald Trung:. Nguyễn Ngọc Huy's 1988 article only confirmed the existence of yellow-blue-white version of its the flag Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina yet, unfortunately for us, did not mention its author nor what the three blue stripes stood for. According to these two articles, one by Nam Quốc and another by Nguyễn Anh, the three blue stripes supposedly stand for the three great rivers in Southern Vietnam: Đồng Nai river, Tiền River, Hậu River. NA also claims that originally, from 01 Jun 1946 to 30 Oct 1946, the two white stripes did not exist, but was only added on Oct 31 to make the flag "less dark" đỡ tối; NA included many photographs as evidence yet none of the colored ones showed the yellow flag with only three blue stripes & zero white stripes: the one subtitled Ra mắt Chính phủ Nam Kỳ tự trị năm 1946 phía sau là cờ Pháp và cờ vàng ba sọc xanh (Presenting the government of the Autonomous South in 1946, after the French flag comes the yellow flag with three blue stripes) was not a colored photo so no way I can tell if two light stripes (alternating with the three dark ones) were yellow or white. NQ cited historian Chính Đạo (Vũ Ngự Chiêu) who claimed that ARVN general Nguyễn Khánh claimed that the yellow flag with three red stripes had been influenced by the yellow flag with three blue stripes. I'm skeptical of NQ's & NA's claims though because their academic credentials are unknown, while NNH was a professor of Political Studies and Constitutional Law at Học viện Quốc gia Hành chánh, so NNH is more reliable. Erminwin (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information, for whatever weird reason I haven't been able to get any notifications from Wikipedia now for perhaps half a year when someone pings me (though I do still get them for Wikimedia Commons at times, strangely enough). Thanks for all the research and your additions. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the flag with white stripes has been deleted many times at Wikimedia websites as "fake" and some sources claim that the flag was a misinterpretation that never existed. Despite this however, lots of contemporary evidence exists. Both the flag with the white stripes and without it have been documented and many different reports exists on when which version was used. Of course, the flag with white stripes was only deleted as "fictional" because at no point did the uploader(s) ever bother adding primary sources that confirm its existence. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vietic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bo people.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am planning on covering the many fantasy flags of Đại Việt but the undeletion request is still open (after 3 months), I found that some of them are hung in the Museum of Military History in Hanoi but I don't know if they are the origin of these flags or not. Usually the interpretation is "a banner with the surname of the Emperor" which might have been a Vietnamese family flag design but I am heavily inclined to think that these are later made fantasies. Do you have any additional information about them that I might have missed? --Donald Trung (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Erminwin, could you please check the recent edits in the article Xiongnu, see:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1061856088&oldid=1061485801. There seems to be obvious problems regarding WP:TOPIC, WP:OR, and WP:POV. I mean, making large additions about "Caucasoid" and "Europid" peoples, linking Tarim mummies with Indo-Europeans and making bold claims is rather WP:Fringe. There may be some useful references, but the section needs clearly WP:Cleanup. Anyway, happy Christmas and a good new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BC9:924:6152:DDE3:6173:B15F:F959 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment on the recent edits of Hunan201p, see the talk page, he is misrepresenting genetic data to serve an white supremacist agendas, as in the past. He even got blocked for 3m months and is also suggested to be either WCF himself or Tirgil34. Maybe a false flag operation.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin: The IP editor here is most probably a sock of WorldCreaterFighter. He is pushing the same edits as his most recently banned sock, RobertY20. Hunan201p (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda? I have shown that your additions are WP:OR and racialist motivated.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pannonian Avars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panhu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xia dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huangdi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Xiang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Zhou of Shang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Xiang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liam Kelley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Envoy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you review [10][11][12]? They could be pov-pushing edits because similar stuff[13] by the very same user was reverted[14] by another editor. Plus such claims are not supported by main articles Huns and Origin of the Huns. Pinging @Ermenrich: since he is one of the main contributors to the topics about Huns. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look suspicious to me, Mann Mann - it's true that a consensus opinion is that the Huns might have spoken a Turkic language, but this is always acknowledged to be an unprovable surmise rather than a fact outside of popular books and summaries. I don't know much about Vlachs, but I'm sure the other Ermin- can help.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mann Mann, Ermenrich! This is Erwinwin, and these are my verdicts:

On Revision as of 13:47, 8 May 2022 for Turkic peoples: POV-pushing

• Tutsens Woman copy-pasted these references ^[1][2][3][4] from the problematic article Turkic history, which HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) proposed deletion for. This edit demonstrated that Tutsens Woman was the originator of this POV-pushing claim and its many other later versions
• She misleadingly lumped two over-40-year-old sources (Henning, 1948; Hucker 1975) into "most scholars today"
• Walter Bruno Henning's, Charles Hucker's, Nicholas Sims-Williams' statuses as experts notwithstanding, Tutsens Woman likely expected readers & other editors to simply believe that those three experts support her POV-pushing when she merely cited them without elaborating how they did so
• She misleadingly used Savelyev & Jeong (2020)'s thesis that the majority of the Xiongnu spoke Late Proto-Turkic to POV-push that the Huns must have been Turkic-speakers

On Latest revision as of 21:59, 9 May 2022 again POV-pushing, in almost all likelihoods to distance the Turkic peoples and Xiongnu (who contributed to the ethnogenesis of Turkic peoples) from "East" Asians, Tutsens Woman abused technicality ("The word 'east' asia is never mentioned in the source"). While Keyser-Tracqui, C.; Crubezy, E.; Ludes, B. (2003). "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia". American Journal of Human Genetics. 73 (2): 247–260 only used the ambiguous term "Asian" to describe the mtDNA haplogroups "(A, B4b, C, D4, D5 or D5a, or F1b)" which 89% of the Xiongnu sequences belong to. Yet let us consider sourced information from:

• Haplogroup A (mtDNA)

  Its highest frequencies are among Native Americans, its largest overall population is in East Asia, and its greatest variety (which suggests its origin point) is in East Asia. Thus, it might have originated in and spread from the Far East.^[5]

• Haplogroup B (mtDNA)

  Haplogroup B is believed to have arisen in Asia some 50,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was haplogroup R.
  The greatest variety of haplogroup B is in China. It is therefore likely that it underwent its earliest diversification in mainland East or South East Asia.^[6]

• Haplogroup C (mtDNA)

  [in section Origin] Haplogroup C is believed to have arisen somewhere between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal some 24,000 years before present. It is a descendant of the haplogroup M. Haplogroup C shares six mutations downstream of the MRCA of haplogroup M with haplogroup Z and five mutations downstream of the MRCA of haplogroup M with other members of haplogroup M8. This macro-haplogroup is known as haplogroup M8'CZ or simply as haplogroup M8.
  [in section Distribution] Haplogroup C is found in Northeast Asia^[7] (including Siberia) and the Americas. In Eurasia, Haplogroup C is especially frequent among populations of arctic Siberia, such as Nganasans, Dolgans, Yakuts, Evenks, Evens, Yukaghirs, and Koryaks.^[8][9][10] Haplogroup C is one of five mtDNA haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas,^[7] the others being A, B, D, and X. The subclades C1b, C1c, C1d, and C4c are found in the first people of the Americas. C1a is found only in Asia.

• Haplogroup D (mtDNA)

  D4 (3010, 8414, 14668): The subclade D4 is the most frequently occurring mtDNA haplogroup among modern populations of northern East Asia [many examples to follow]
  D5'6 (16189) is mainly found in East Asia and Southeast Asia

• Haplogroup F (mtDNA)

  Haplogroup F is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup. The clade is most common in East Asia and Southeast Asia.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] It has not been found among Native Americans.[18]

On Latest revision as of 11:43, 4 May 2022 POV-pushing. She selectively used Vásáry (2009) to argue for "a debated Cuman origin" of the Basarab dynasty while ignoring other sources (including contemporary sources) (cited in Basarab_I_of_Wallachia#Origins) pointing out that the Basarab dynasty was of Vlach origin.

Erminwin (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xiongnu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tiele and Khitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xiongnu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loufan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkic history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiele.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made multiple edits on the Luandi and have continuesly being making edits on their names supposed Iranic origin by using a source from Anno Dybo, in particular one of Anno Dybo's Turkic studies that doesn't mention anything on the subject of the r(h) wan-de. Her source is a source on TURKIC language comparison, its a source on proto Turkic Reconstruction nothing to do with the Xiongnu as you can see from page 6 to 9. This is the third time in fact that you've continued to edit in her same source, that you're using to fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals. Therefore I'm leaving this on your page and request from you that you stop the purposefully malicious editing to push your own POV based on non existed information.. And ask you to stop using random sources in the hope that no one checks it. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @HistoryofIran:, @Krakkos:, @Ermenrich:, @Mann Mann:: Methinks Mrsecurity39 392 doth lie and psychologically project too much (credits to William Shakespeare).Erminwin (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bagua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wuji.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin into Bashkirs. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do so properly in the future!Erminwin (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on the edits of this user in Hunnic topics Giray Altay? I haven't seen any overt problem on main pages but I'm a bit concerned when something like Hunnic cuisine pops up, even though I can't see anything wrong with the page or its citations immediately. He's been making many, many new pages related to the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: User Giray Altay's most problematic article so far, is actually Attilid dynasty: Giray Altay uncritically presented, as if they were indisputable historical facts instead of legends, the claims - about the Dulo clan and the Árpád dynasty being Attila's descendants through Ernak (a historical figure) and Prince Csaba (very likely legendary); even though those claims were made in medieval sources (Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans and Gesta Hungarorum (II) / Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, respectively), written several centuries after the deaths of Attila's, Ernak's and Csaba's. Erminwin (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ermenrich:, I gently asked you to ping me before, you never did it, fine. But you should at least let me know when you talk about me or my edits with other users. I thought maybe you forgot both times, but you actually used a no ping template here. If there's anything wrong with any of the pages I created, or part of them, you should report it on the specific page, and if you have any doubt about them you could ask me first. And if you have anything against the topics I currently like, well, you should keep it to yourself, with all due respect, because each editor can freely choose which topics to edit. And just so you know, I am not making paid editing for any Huns. The last time I checked they were extinct.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin:, same with you, would be nice to let me know when some of my edits are discussed, so I can defend myself. I am willing to discuss the Attilid dynasty page or any other pages I created, but not in this fashion. You have doubts: place a template there, or open a discussion on the talk page of any given article.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giray Altay:: "so I [Giray Altay] can defend myself" Wikipedia is not about you. EDIT: Why did you also mention "making paid editing" out of the blue? Why so insecure? Erminwin (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin: I am indeed an insecure person. However, in this case it wasn't meant that way. It's about defending my creation. It's like: I don't think I made any mistakes in the articles because I cross-checked them several times, but if I did, let me know so I can prove you wrong. Maybe I am not so insecure after all. Just kidding. But really, just tell me directly if there is something wrong next time, so I/we can fix it.

Regarding the Hunnic cuisine: that article is indeed stupid, I regret publishing it. I was bored to death, so kept writing the article till it was ready for publishing. Then read it over, and felt stupid. But I had spent quite a while on it, so I said to myself I might as well publish it, and so I did. If you propose its deletion I would agree. But I actually like the Attilid dynasty. I can answer your doubts about it, but maybe it's best to discuss there?--Giray Altay (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT after your edit. It was sarcasm, because, you know, the Huns are extinct. I said that because it almost (almost) looked like @Ermenrich: wanted to find something wrong with my edits, but couldn't, so started to doubt the editor. I thought you were more cooperative, and talked about insecurity to make me feel comfortable, to help a new editor, as an old and experienced editor should. But after your EDIT I think you ma also want to find something wrong with me, not the edits, which you know are fine.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giray Altay "But after your EDIT I think you ma also want to find something wrong with me" I, Erminwin, apologize to you, Giray Altay. That EDIT will be stricken through.Erminwin (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin, allright, apologies accepted. And sorry if I was a bit aggressive. It's just that I am a bit bummed for discovering by chance that I am being discussed and I was not even informed of it. I look forward to your suggestions regarding the Attilid dynasty. If you have found something wrong there, you will probably also want to check List of rulers of the Huns, which I did not create, but recently expanded quite a lot.--Giray Altay (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giray Altay:, it is not normal practice to ping/inform an editor about whom one has concerns when discussing him/her unless the discussion is at WP:ANI or a similar venue. It's also not normal to ping an editor every time you mention them - presumably you have talk:Huns on your watch list after all. Just be aware that this topic is subject to a lot of sock puppetry and nationalist POV pushing and that new editors who start making lots of changes are naturally viewed a little suspiciously.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich, I don't know if it is normal or not but it is not nice. Even if what you say is true, the editor has to actually be a cause concern, but I don't see how any of my edits can cause concern except the Hun cuisine one. But if you had concerns about it you could at least try to discuss with me first. At Talk:Huns we were discussing civilly, might've continued there. I get your point of concern regarding sock puppetry and nationalists, because I know these are issues in Wikipedia. I would've never thought that also this topic was "hot", though, what with the Huns being extinct.--Giray Altay (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT then of course there are people (Hungarians, some Turks) claiming descent from them.--Giray Altay (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of a number of a new editors who have suddenly popped up editing Hunnic topics, which is why I want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up. The Huns are an integral part of Turkic and Hungarian nationalist movements' self-understanding so they attract quite a bit of attention.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]