Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 29 November 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hissami

I do not know this individual, but I do know he/she supports the same demonym stance as me. Thegreyanomaly 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

I don't know why you are sending around this banned user's edit from months ago to various admin talk pages. In the future, simply revert the edit and let him know that his ban will continue to be reset as long as he evades it. All appeals of ArbCom bans must go through ArbCom anyway, and none of the people you contacted could do anything about the matter even if they wanted. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

can you please stop removing official Afghan gov. websites from the external links section under Afghanistan article.--Hurooz 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IP: 85.178.151.155

Please keep an eye on some articles, such as Timur, Timurid dynasty, or Great Seljuq Empire. The IP is a known vandal from the German Misplaced Pages who has a long history of vandalism and blocks. He is a typical Pan-Turkist who does not accept scholastic sources (that's why he has deleted the reference to the Encyclopaedia of Islam).

Put those articles on your watchlist and next time he starts to vandalize, report him to an admin! You can also ask User:Ali_doostzadeh for help.

Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along:

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

• 1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
• 2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
• 3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
• 4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
• 5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
• 6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
• 7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
• 8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

--Haemo (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

Due to your continued disruptive behavior, making unsubstanited claims of people being a child molester, removing official links, etc, you have been blocked for a week. See , , , , , , , and more.Continued disruption will result in an indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

CLAIMS!? Go read a book on him! He was what we call a "bachabaz" (boy player). In those times this was very common for a powerful king to have male concubines! And Abdali was born in Multan and it's REFERENCED in the aticle here. It's not vandalism! As for removing links... read the source! There is NOTHING linking "Pactyans" to Pashtuns! And I've EXPLAINED this on the talk page here! What the heck am I being banned for!? -- Behnam (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid not. You have a healthy block log and evidently have yet to appreciate the rules by which we live here. You are not banned, but blocked for a period of time. Please use the time to review our rules of conduct and behavior. — JodyB _talk 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a note, but none of the sources you provided at any time reference him being a "child molester"; I think that's the issue here. --Haemo (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

not to mention the sex slave edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I did provide a source for that. I said it's ALREADY sourced and it's STILL in the article's infobox with citation that he was born in Multan!!! So I'm being blocked because of just one unreferenced edit (which is common knowledge that kings of that time had sex with young boys). What about the THOUSANDS of other unreferenced edits!? -- Behnam (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along:

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

• 1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
• 2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
• 3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
• 4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
• 5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
• 6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
• 7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
• 8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

--Haemo (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only blocked you two times, not three. Any admin can see and read anything you've done--so yes they had every chance to see everything. I did not protect your talk page, someone else did. See my above entry of 23:25 too. You are not totally innocent in this or you wouldn't have the long block log that you do have nor have gotten your talk page protected; you even got indef blocked once and there are several admins who agree with me. What evidence you have that Hurooz is a sock? The whole root of this problem is that too many people who edit the articles you are interested in simply can't learn to get along with each other. Think about it. Finally, both sides of this topic you and Hurooz are in please go find another admin from now on. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, then

So, I'm willing to sit down, have a cup of tea, and listen to what you have to say about the circumstances surrounding your block. However, I know that I, and I'm sure everyone else who will be dealing with this, would appreciate it if you tried to keep it cool, and just generally keep the tone civil. I'll work hard to do the same. --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I had previously blocked user's IP for evading the block but have unblocked so that they may discuss this.--Sandahl 05:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you very much. I do apologize for my previous frustration. It was as a result of the fact that recently the Admin User:Rlevse has been pushed by certain users to get me banned. Rlevse has blocked me twice recently, and in the end he ended up unblocking me after further investigation (it was determined that the users asking for a block on me were sockpuppets of a user that was banned long ago, user: NisarKand). Once again, a brand new user: Hurooz appears and is somehow familiar with me and all my past edits and block and tries to get me banned by misrepresenting my diffs to Rlevse. So it was very frustrating that this is happening for the 3rd time.

But enough about that, I don't want to complicate things for you guys.

Basically, if you take a look at all this edits that I am accused of breaking rules on, there is nothing wrong any of them and I have not broken any rules at all. Infact in several of these diffs I have RV'ed vandalism (removing of sourced material) or removed POVs. Here they all explained:

• 1)Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge to people with a backround in the history of the region that kings at that time had sex with young boys. I did not feel the need to reference at the time because I assumed it would be common knowledge for people interested in this topic.
• 2) This is an RV of vandalism. It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan. Please just take a look a the infobox on that version.
• 3) I explained that edit on the talk page here.
• 4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish, so I removed it to make it sound more neutral.
• 5) This is an RV of an edit where some just inserted a large chunk of new content. It was very poorly written as you can see, that's why I removed it.
• 6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai) and I don't think it needs to be on Afghanistan's article.
• 7) I listened to him and asked for a guidance on external links, see here.
• 8) I RV'ed vandalism, someone removed referenced content. Not only did they remove well referenced content, there was consensus on this, please see the talk page here.

Please take a look at these one by one and then please make a decision on whether I broke any rules. Thanks. -- Behnam (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to start off I don't think anyone is trying to get you banned here; a ban is different from a block and much more serious. Admins can't ban people on their own — so, don't worry; you will be back editing within a week no matter what.

However, I think the problem people are having with your edits is that you're making some pretty inflammatory statements without providing sources, and then trying to keep them in without providing sources. For instance, in diffs 1 and 2 above, they both insert the "child molester/sex slave" comment without a source — I think that's the main source of umbrage here. Now, I'm not from the region, so I will take your word that it's common knowledge but since this is the English Misplaced Pages a statement like that really requires a citation, since most English speakers would have no idea what that word meant. There's also something distinct to be said about the term "child molester" in this context, since that term has a strong (modern) connotation which is probably not accurate given the historical context.

With respect to some of the other edits, like (3), you were aware they were contentious but did them anyways — you should try to get consensus first for your removal, when you expect them to be disputed. It's good to see that you're using the talk pages, but you've got the order backwards in the case of contentious material IMO. With 5, you should improve poorly written prose, not remove it solely because it's poorly worded.

Anyways, the kind of general impression that you get from these edits is that of someone with an agenda. I'm not saying that you have one, but that it's the kind of thing that a person would draw out of it. With your long block history for edit warring over this subject area, it's probably not totally off base — at the very least, this is a subject which you are very passionate about.

I'm willing to consider unblocking you, and I think Rlevse will go along since he's already commented that your comment have merit, but I'm interested in using this as an opportunity to try to calm down some of the edit warring that goes on around these topics — and try to set you on the right track, when you're unblocked. Now, what do you think would be a good kind of general agreement we could both live with about how you edit? I think a good start would be a commitment to discuss contentious edits before you make them and get consensus, to refrain from edit warring, and to source statements which a general reader would not know as common knowledge. These are all things which I think you will be doing anyways, so hopefully you won't think this too onerous — but I'm willing to listen to your suggestions as well. --Haemo (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes that is very reasonable. I will definitely use the Talk page for contentious edits before I edit. And come to think of it, you're right, we shouldn't assume that the reader has any background knowledge in these topics. Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes. Overall, I totally understand you're reasoning also and I will make the utmost attempt to improve on these areas. Thank you for the guidance. -- Behnam (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I will talk to Rlevse about unblocking you early. You might have to wait a little bit. --Haemo (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, there's no rush. Thank you. -- Behnam (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse has agreed, so I've unblocked you. Good luck, and happy editing. --Haemo (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Take care. -- Behnam (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

About a revert

Did you actually mean to restore vandalism as indicated by this edit summary or was it a mistake? When reverting we need to go back and look at the history in case we revert to a vandalized version. Thanks.--Sandahl 03:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your request for checkuser

Beh-nam, I have formatted your Request for CheckUser into it's own page, as it is normally done, and requested additional information from you. You can view the case here. --Deskana (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghani & Afghanistani

I am sorry, but I don't see that the extensive discussion of last July is passé. If you mean by new sources the ones listed by Carl.bunderson, I do not find them very convincing. Yes some English speakers do use Afghani, even fewer use Afghanistani, but by far and away the most common usage is Afghan, and by that as English speakers we do not mean Pashtun, even if Persian speakers do. When we say Afghan it includes Tajiks and Uzbeks and even Hazaras. --Bejnar (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an academic encyclepedia and we provide what is true and right. If English speakers use Afghan for non pashtuns then they are making a mistake and it should be corrected.Anoshirawan 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Constitution of Afghanistan

Article Four Ch. 1, Art. 4

The nation of Afghanistan is comprised of the following ethnic groups: Pashtun, Taji, Hazara, Uzbak, Turkman, Baluch, Pashai, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and others.

The word Afghan applies to every citizen of Afghanistan.

Official sources override your opinions.

--Shamsudin (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so you are saying I have an agenda!?!? Until the constitution is changed to meet your particular needs, the official stance is stated quite clearly. And since the two of you are blaming this Afghan/Afghanistani "misunderstanding" on the English/Farsi language barrier, it should be noted that the Dari and Pashto texts state "Afghan" as the official denom.

"Bar har fardy az afraad milat-e Afghanistan kalima-e Afghan atlaaq meshawad."

Please, go to Afghanistan and ask them what they call themselves. Come to Virginia or California, to any function, restaurant, or business run by Afghans of any ethnicities. Tell them they are not "Afghan". I have no agenda other than provide mainstream information. It is clear to me what you people are doing. It is no different from Fascists or Nazis. First you vilify an entire population, then you start chipping away at their history until there's nothing left. You denigrate and delegitimize their leaders and institutions. In doing so, you hope to turn public opinion against the public enemy that you have created through your propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies. There is no honor in that. --Shamsudin (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Persian tradition

What's your dispute is about? The references were already cited. Copy-edit was already done. I even did a spell-check. You're just pushing Tajik's little disputes into Misplaced Pages by blindly reverting the articles. This is what is called meatpuppetry. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now, i realized that you did the same kind of revert for the Azerbaijani people article. You're always writing the same type of edit-summaries as "use the talk page or explain your edits" but you never comment on the talk/discussion pages but simply revert to Tajik's version. E104421 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

E104421 & sockpuppets of vandal

Beh-nam, you may be interested in this: - E104421 is harassing you and he is working with sockpuppets of User:Moorudd (known as de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke in the German Misplaced Pages). You should ask for a checkuser file:

• User:Moorudd
• User:E104421
• 85.178.179.115
• 85.178.149.27
• 85.178.185.30
• 85.178.131.182
• 85.178.148.58

The IPs have been vandalizing various articles, including Timur, Timurids, Babur, etc. E104421 is the meatpuppet of these IP socks. His edits are identical to those of the IP-socks. He also blindly reverted your edit here to the version of the IP, ignoring that you had reverted to the FA consensus. He was corrected by Pejman. But this clearly shows that E104421 does not assume good faith and that his (blind) edits are nationalistically and ethnically motivated. His latest revert in the Timurid dynasty page is exactly the same as those of the IP socks. It's always the same edit, always the same revert - their edits are identical. And it was the 5th time that E104421 has reverted to the same wrong version, removing authoritative sources:

Also, E104421 is on a 1RR parole in all Turkish-, Iranian-, Azeri-, and Armenian-related articles. If you see him revert more than one time, report him.

Good luck!

Checkuser shows that it is likely that the IPs were User:Moorudd. Remember that User:Tajik was also banned, although checkuser had only found out that it was likely that User:German-Orientalist was him. Until today, User:German-Orientalist is listed as a sockpuppet of User:Tajik. According to the same rules, User:Moorudd needs to be banned because of multiple IP sockpuppets and WP:PA. Good job, Beh-nam.

Edit warring block

You have both been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring in the Kunduz Province article. Please take this time to cool down, and discuss changes to the articles on the talk page before you resume editing; further escalation would not be productive. — Coren  01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

— Coren  01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please take a look at the edit summaries on that article by that user. They make no sense and can be considered vandalism. I provided several easy to understand explanations but this user was ignoring them. In my mind, I was reverting vandalism since this was a new user and making silly edits. -- Behnam (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block was converted to indefinite by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) — Coren  03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Banned

I have changed your block to an indefinite ban. You continue to advocate for a banned editor despite warnings. (In your advocacy you repeatedly misrepresent the situation and evidence against the banned user despite multiple corrections; it is difficult to believe that this is not deliberate at this point.) You have been taking advice and probably proxy-editing for the banned user . You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring with no sign that you will moderate your behavior. Should you wish to appeal your ban, you may email the Arbitration committee. Sockpuppet accounts used to evade the ban will be blocked and such actions will weigh against any appeal. Thatcher131 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was just asking question to ] so that I understand the situation so that I can then go to ArbCom. How can go to ArbCom on Tajik's behalf if I don't even know why he was banned? Also, about blocking me for edit warring? I was reverting a very obvious vandal which has now been reverted again to my version, and I did not violate the 3RR. If I was asking question to ] he should decide to block me or not, which I know he wouldn't block me just for asking questions. And I'm not proxy editing for anyone. I was at a dispute with that IP (85.......) and it was brought to my attention that he might be a sockpuppet and I reported it and it turned out to be '''Likely'''. What's wrong with that? Banning me so quickly for hardly good enough reasons makes no sense. This ban makes no sense and I'd like another neutral Admin to look at it, you should have atleast consulted another admin before banning or given a warning. -- ] (]) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was just asking question to ] so that I understand the situation so that I can then go to ArbCom. How can go to ArbCom on Tajik's behalf if I don't even know why he was banned? Also, about blocking me for edit warring? I was reverting a very obvious vandal which has now been reverted again to my version, and I did not violate the 3RR. If I was asking question to ] he should decide to block me or not, which I know he wouldn't block me just for asking questions. And I'm not proxy editing for anyone. I was at a dispute with that IP (85.......) and it was brought to my attention that he might be a sockpuppet and I reported it and it turned out to be '''Likely'''. What's wrong with that? Banning me so quickly for hardly good enough reasons makes no sense. This ban makes no sense and I'd like another neutral Admin to look at it, you should have atleast consulted another admin before banning or given a warning. -- ] (]) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was just asking question to ] so that I understand the situation so that I can then go to ArbCom. How can go to ArbCom on Tajik's behalf if I don't even know why he was banned? Also, about blocking me for edit warring? I was reverting a very obvious vandal which has now been reverted again to my version, and I did not violate the 3RR. If I was asking question to ] he should decide to block me or not, which I know he wouldn't block me just for asking questions. And I'm not proxy editing for anyone. I was at a dispute with that IP (85.......) and it was brought to my attention that he might be a sockpuppet and I reported it and it turned out to be '''Likely'''. What's wrong with that? Banning me so quickly for hardly good enough reasons makes no sense. This ban makes no sense and I'd like another neutral Admin to look at it, you should have atleast consulted another admin before banning or given a warning. -- ] (]) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock