User talk:Ugurpin

Your edit on Old Turkic alphabet

Hello. I have reverted your edit since it's a fringe theory that isn't supported even by the source you provided, see pages 26 and 27 in that source (quote: "Of these theories, the one which has found more supporters than any other theory is that of Thomsen. Today it is generally accepted that the old Turkic alphabet is mainly derived from the Aramaic alphabet, through one or more Iranian intermediaries."). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Of these theories, the one which has found more supporters than any other theory is that of Thomsen" who were these "supporters" another jealous Danish "researcher"s ? As you see 2 of these researchers support Tamgas which derive from Ideograms. 4 other researchers say other theories. At the end Thomsen's theory was accepted. It's a misinformation on purpose. Also i guarentee to you that if we do a supporter survey about this issue today, Ideogram->Tamga->Turkic script theory would be accepted. Ugur P.

August 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Old Turkic alphabet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Caution for repeated addition of a fringe theory that isn't supported even by the source provided. Pages 26 and 27 summarize it, and clearly state that Thomson's theory now is generally accepted. So stop! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I won't stop until you don't stop spreading misinformation.