User talk:KabuliTajik

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Shah Durrani[edit]

I like to know why you don't like this person? He is the one who helped free Afghanistan from foriegn forces from India that were trying to make Afghans their slaves. He not just helped Pashtuns but also Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and all others. That's why there were many non-Pashtuns in his army. You should be thankful to him instead of being critical.--Afghanvisa (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Afghan-Americans, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove content like you did without consensus to do so. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it discussed to remove that from the infobox? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making major changes to an article without first discussing your proposed change(s) on the articles' talk page. Continuing to do so, could lead to a block of your account. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that person has been in the infobox for months. Do not continue to remove it, without having a discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I am more familiar with our policies than you are, with all due respect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not really how we do things here. You need to gain consensus first, then if achieved, you can make the change. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who put the image up for deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I told you about it's license problems. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but not really. The reason you gave ("can only be used in her article") is not reason to delete an image. I tagged it because it lacks a fair use rationale for any article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Ahmad Zahir[edit]

It has nothing to do with what language he speaks or sings in. I know his family personally. I know his daughter, his wife, her cousins, their parents, etc. Your logic is severely flawed. It is common knowledge among Afghans that he is an ethnic Pashtun, at the very least on his father's side. You can keep changing this information. But facts are facts. --ManOLantern (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who says your source is the most authoritative? Are we supposed to take your word for it? How about taking the ethnicity information out of the article all together then? At least until one side or the other can provide absolute proof. Actually, I'll go ahead and do that. I expect the Pashai/Tajik text to stay out. Afghanistani is also changing to Afghan. --ManOLantern (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it authoritative when nobody can see the text of this source of yours for verification? Stop fooling around. A source is not authoritative just because you say so. It is authoritative when others can view and verify it's existence and reliability. --ManOLantern (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I'll have a nice laugh with the Zahir family over this. I know how important this is to you. --ManOLantern (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other editor's contributions to talk pages[edit]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hazara people. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. Thank you. --Lambiam 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. You should just add a comment to the section Encyclopedia Iranica like

"

Done. KabuliTajik".

Before going for GA status, you should try to have a Peer review. --Lambiam 08:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not user: Tajik!!![edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I just got blocked because some admin thinks I'm user: Tajik due to the similar name. user:Tajik wouldn't be stupid enough to come back after the same name.

Check our IPs. My IP is starts with 65 and I live in Canada. His IP starts with 82 and he lives in Germany. So please unblock me ASAP because this is a real inconvenience. You should have checked our IPs atleast before blocking. KabuliTajik (talk)

Decline reason:

For someone who isn't Tajik and doesn't have CheckUser access, you seem to know an awful lot about him. I mean, how would you know that he isn't that stupid? (I also note that Tajik's pre-ban user page says he's from Kabul originally, and has a picture of that city on it) — Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

That is really bad reason to ban me just because we are both Tajiks from Kabul. Kabul has a population of over 3 million and around 45% of them are Tajiks. I know him from long ago on Wikipedia and Afghanistan internet forums. I know his IP because he edits with it sometimes. If you are sure I am him stop wasting my time and just go check our IP address. You'll find I live in Canada. Unless I can be on two continents at the same time, I cannot be user: Tajik since he lives in Europe. Either check my IP or unblock me, you have no right to block people who contribute like this. KabuliTajik (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the editing pattern and your obvious familiarity. the block is correct. Requests for checkuser to "prove innocence" are not permitted, and would not prove anything— it is trivial to set up or arrange to use a proxy to edit with an IP address from a different geographical location. — Coren ^(talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

LOL! I can't believe this! Hahaha! You might as well ban anyone who has Tajik in their name! What's funny is that earlier user:Tajik was banned because he was accused of being user: Tajik-Professor, then it was PROVEN BY CHECKUSER that he was not (see here). Now samething is happening again. Lazy admins who don't even do their job properly are banning users who contribute the most and create quality articles (see my contributions on Hazara people. Either do a checkuser or prove you're lazy admins not doing your jobs properly... it's your loss not mine. KabuliTajik (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering you claim you were once a "senior editor", per this edit, and given that your account was created less than a week ago, there are obviously some sort of shenanigans going on here, and three unblock requests is more than enough. The rationales provided by the other two declining administrators are sufficient. Talk page protected.--Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.