User talk:Inuit18

Jamalludin Afghan

come with your academic sources on talk page on Jamalludin Afghan اباسینAbasin 02:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

read the talk page of Jamalludin Afghan, the Afghan proud!Abasin-اباسین 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

I know where wikipedia is for, but if you stupped Persia people are writing bullshit things, than are you the one who don't know where wikipedia is for!!! giving people the true information and not the propaganda of Persia!!! history less people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abasin (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you from editing because I don't think you quite get what Wikipedia is for. Your edits to our encyclopedia are unconstructive, and others are having to clean up after you.

I'm going to leave you a welcome message here. Please please read the links. If you come back after the block and haven't read and heeded the links, the next block you get may well be permanent. For more information on this, see

If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Please bear in mind that any admin reviewing this block may or may not unblock or extend this block at their discretion.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); — Kralizec! (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badghis

You did delete sourced information (population). You used NPS as your source and deleted information that were provided by the government of Afghanistan. Here in wikipedia, we are trying to use the most reliable, comprehensive and upto-date sources that we can possibly find. Yes I have used AIMS and NPS as a reference in several places, and that is because those were the most reliable sources that I could find. I prefer to use MRRD, but they don't cover everything.

Now that you have added both estimates, there is no objection from my side. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bahrudeen Baes

A tag has been placed on Bahrudeen Baes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Favonian (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

May you please tell me why I got blocked.

Decline reason:

I imagine it has to do with the warnings you deleted here, here, and here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:39, 14 August 2009 (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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I removed those tags by mistake while doing my edits. I am a new user on this website and I had no bad intention when I removed those tags. so I apologize if it caused any problems for other wikipedians.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for removing the tags, although it is clear from your comment that you saw them. You are blocked for disruptive editing. You can avoid this in future by not editing articles relating to topics about which you hold a strong personal view. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:03, 15 August 2009 (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.

reverted your unconstructive and un-explained edits

I have revereted your unconstructive edits from Laghman Province, Farah Province, Logar Province and Takhar Province. Please avoid deleting or rewording sourced information to match an ethnic POV. It is also a good idea to use the discussion section. (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Those edits were done by a banned user. I even reverted some of them back to your edits like this one [[1]]. --Inuit18 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address was checked by an administrator on 26 July 2009 who said "Unrelated I determined that this was in fact a different user (who is not currently blocked)".

Please stop adding distorted percentages to wikipedia articles, adding Persian names to places where Persian is not spoken (as you did to Zabul province), and removing reliable verifiable sources. 119.152.247.228 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Hazara minority in Zabul and Zabul is a Persian term. Zabulistan and Zabul were first mentioned by Ferdowsi in his Shahnameh.Most of my edits are backed by sources and I have only added estimates backed with reliable sources. Please present any distortions that I have done because I haven't vandalized any articles or distorted any edits.--Inuit18 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Takhar Province the source clearly mentions that "The major ethnic groups in the province are Uzbeks and Tajiks followed by Pashtuns...". However, you changed it to "The major ethnic group in the province are Tajiks followed by Uzbeks Pashtuns and Hazara". The source is saying that there is an equal number of both Tajik and Uzbek but you changed it to make it look like the Tajiks are in more than Uzbeks when it is not clear if that is actually the case. You should provide reliable sources to back that claim. (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Badghis Province

You said there are no Hazaras or Aimaks in Badghis. If you believe this to be true, then find a citation to a reliable verifiable source that indicates this. At the present time there is a source that is verifiable and that is considered reliable that says 56% are Persian speakers (Tajiks, Hazara, Aimaks). Changing the information in the article in contravention of the cited source is not appropriate. You also might take a look at Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia‎ page 103, by Frank Clements which says: One such group, the Kala Nai Hazaras, are Sunni Muslims who claim descent from the hordes of Genghis Khan; they settled in Kala Nau, now Badghis Province. There are other sources that also mention Hazaras in Badghis Province. --Bejnar (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources clearly state that Ab kamari and Qalaye Naw are inhabited by Tajiks not Hazaras or Aimaks. [2] [3]

Amu River

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) before you make any changes to the Amu River article. I will quote it right here

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name." (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked 72 hours for continued disruptive editing. You continue to make contentious edits without making any effort to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. In the future, I recommend you provide valid sources to justify any edit you make and I request that you discuss your edits beforehand on the article talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same user who reported me is removing sourced information on other articles. Please check these and see who is really vandalizing [4],[5].--Inuit18 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the articles' talk pages for Paktika and Nimruz; and stop removing sourced content and reliable verifiable sources (as you did in today's edits using 76.173.179.142). 119.152.246.94 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to 1 week for block evasion as IP 76.173.179.142. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Abdul Latif Pedram has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for informing me.--Inuit18 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

What was your reason for this revert, which undid 19 intermediate revisions? You didn't provide any edit summary at all to explain why you think an old version should be restored, and reverting numerous editors' contributions like this is considered edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ghurids, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ketabtoon (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my edits were not disruptive. The article on the Ghurid dynasty [6] was being vandalized by a banned user and other wikipedians reverted it also. He was removing information with academic sources and was putting sources which has no credibility. My intensions was not to start an edit war but to revert vandalism. My other recent edit was in this article [7] and I removed POV and unsourced information. according to most surveys and approximations done on Afghanistan's demographics there is no ethnic majority however the user Ketabtoon ignores this fact and still claims ethnic Pashtuns constitute the majority in Afghanistan. You can check this article to see that Pashtuns are also a minority in Afghanistan [8]. My request to you is to review this block again and to not take sides with an IP belonging to a blocked user.

Decline reason:

Calling a controversial edit vandalism does not make it vandalism. It does, however, in connection with repeated reversions, make it disruptive. Especially when you've been blocked several times not only for similar behavior but for evading those blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (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.

Excuse me. I have only reverted the article on Muhammad of Ghor 2 times and that is today[9]. The second time the article was vandalized by an IP address which was warned several times in the past and even banned from Wikipedia for vandalizing the same article. In both cases I have asked the IPs to participate in the discussion before removing a huge chunk of information from an article, especially replacing sourced material with non-sourced ones. Not to forget, you were doing the same thing as well and most likely that is what you were blocked for (disruptive editing and removing sourced material). Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Possible unblock

Since blocking you I have been approached by another editor who informs me that the area you were constantly reverting is beset with problems by IP's and some others. I can understand your send of frustration at this and I am prepared to unblock you as long as you indicate by promise here that you will stick to a voluntary self monitored 1 revert position until the end of November this year. In such cases you may revert once and then if necessary you take your edit to the talk page first to attempt consensus or if necessary come to me or another admin to seek support because others are acting disruptively. I should add that if you were to go back to constant reverting your block would return and would most probably remain a permanent one. If you could consider this request and indicate your acceptance or otherwise I will see it tomorrow - or perhaps later tonight and consider my action at that time. With best wishes.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for understanding the situation. I am willing to cooperate with you and I accept any temporary restrictions on my account. --Inuit18 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

As the original blocking administrator, I have unblocked your account, per your agreement here to stick to voluntary one reversion only guidelines until the end of November this year, as per our discussion at the previous post. Best wishes and happy editing.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Inuit18. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
Message added 07:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report on AIV

There is a report about you on the aiv you maybe interested in it .Happy Editing NotedGrant Talk 07:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Inuit18. You have new messages at Notedgrant's talk page.
Message added 08:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NotedGrant Talk 08:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

08:13, 18 October 2009 Alison (talk | contribs) blocked 119.73.0.236 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Block evasion: Nisarkand, I know this is your IP. It's been on zillions of RFCU reports already) IP blocked by admin Alison--NotedGrant Talk 08:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

giving my e-mail to an IP

I give my e-mail to "119.152.246.214" and the so call NisarKand's IP is "119.73.0.244" (119.73.x.xxx). Both these IPs are from Pakistan, however the first one is from Islamabad, Pakistan while NisarKand's IP is from Peshawar, Pakistan. You have to do your research before jumping in to a conclusion. Next time you want to find out more about an IP, check "http://www.domaintools.com". Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

IP´s can differ from eachother to 500 kms. One day you have the IP X and the otherday you have the IP Y. Between both there can be to 500km regional distance.--188.97.71.153 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#This_ethnic_POV_really_needs_to_be_stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Edits

Unexplained deletions of content

Muhammad of Ghor

Unexplained deletions of referenced content

Ghōr Province
At various other places you have simply been removing the word Afghanistan and replacing with Khorasan or Iran without explanations

Why?
Intothefire (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were obvious edits by Banned User:NisarKand and previously other users who have worked on this article have reached a consensus that Suri had nothing to do with the Suri Tribe.--Inuit18 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi

Hi can you keep an eye on Rumi. Thank you--Chetori5 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan (name)

Hi, although everyone is welcomed for constructive edits, but your edit in the Afghan (name) article was disruptive since it removed sourced content without explanation, among other unhelpful changes. You can add or change content of the article if it can be backed with reliable references, but you can't remove sourced content. Normally before removing cited material from an article, it is considered important and polite to include edit summary (see Help:Edit summary), as this helps others to understand the edit. Massa Getae (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

al-Farabi

Hello Inuit18. "there are no neutral images of Farabi" Can you explain? Is there a hint of ethnicity on the picture and how. Sole Soul (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image clearly depicts him as a Turk. Can't you recognize the slanted eyes and the flat nose?--Inuit18 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Shah Durrani

Please note that the birthplace of Ahmad Shah Durrani is still contested as there are reliable sources for both Herat and Multan. --Bejnar (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaludin Afghani

Recognise the claims of some Pushtuns on Jamaludin Afghani and their POV´s concerned to his parent´s name (Zarghoon etc.)

I removed the massive unsourced quote pasted here, it was a clear copyright violation. Fences&Windows 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ahmad Shah Durrani. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Fences&Windows 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the 3RR case

See the result of WP:AN3#User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: Both warned). You seem to have knowledge of the sources, and you are expected to be able to negotiate with others. Do not continue to revert this article until consensus has been reached on Talk. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if no agreement can be reached. Blocks are possible if editors continue to revert while the discussion is not yet finished. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts at Afghanistan

A quick note regarding the edit war on Afghanistan.

I am not particularly enthusiastic about the reverts you made on the above page. When reverting another user it is customary to drop a quick notice on the talk page explaining why you did that, especially if you notice there is an ongoing edit war. You have left no explanation whatsoever on the talk page explaining your reverts, even though you reverted a total of three times on the article.

I am equally not fond of a third edit summary stating that another user violated 3RR; In my eyes that shows that you were fully aware that this was an ongoing edit war. Note that 3RR isn't a license to revert a user trice - it is merely a hard set limit. Knowing your in an edit war while not discussing it on the talk page can be considered to be disruptive. So please, use the talk page in the future rather then just reverting. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:Ahmed shahi on the WP:ANI. In that discussion, he mentioned your name and accused you of POV pushing. I think you should be notified about this. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive edit warring including self-proclaimed edit wars. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe my indefinite block is unjust. I simply reverted edits of User:Ahmad Shahi that were causing an edit war. Most of the editors who are working on those articles are against User:Ahmad Shahi edits which are nonacademic and full of POV. You can see comments from other users about User:Ahmad Shahi here [10]

Decline reason:

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite" - it means "until you satisfy the project that the behavior that caused the block will not disrupt the project again". You might want to read WP:GAB and WP:NOTTHEM before trying again, after all, it takes 2 to edit war(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 12 May 2010 (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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully read those articles and now I have a better understanding of what I did and this will not happen again. May I be unblocked now or can you please reduce my block. Thank you

Decline reason:

That's odd, because the pages linked by the first reviewing admin were pages related to how to properly and effectively appeal a block and were not about what you actually did to get blocked, which one would think you would have realized already had you read them. You need to demonstrate not just that you can read, but that you understand why edit warring is not acceptable, and how you would deal with a similar situation in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (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.

{{unblock|I fully read those pages about how to appeal a block but what I tried explaining in my previous message a few days ago was that I understand why I was blocked and I would not cause any edit warrings in any of those articles and I would deal more rationally in future situations. What I ask from wikipedia is not to unblock me but to reduce my block period because I have contributed a lot to wikipedia in the past and I want to contribute again in the future. Thank you --Inuit18 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Editor has agreed to 1RR here. Any violation may result in immediate block with no warning

Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

See, here's what you are not getting: the time frame is not really a point we want to argue with you. If you can't demonstrate clearly that you understand why we block people for edit warring then it is not in Wikipedia's best interest that you be unblocked. How about this: explain specifically what you would do if you were in a situation where you made some edits and another user reverted them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blocks people for edit warring when disagreements between two or numerous users start and a series of reverts and overrides occur without any discussion and consensus. Next time when I approach such a scenario I would use the talkpage to start a discussion with the user that I have disagreements with and until we do not reach a consensus and agreement I wouldn't revert or change the article. If this does not workout I would inform a neutral user or an admin to step in.--Inuit18 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider unblocking you if you agree to a 1RR restriction - that is at most one revert per day on any article, and indefinite blocking if you breach that agreement. Agreed? Toddst1 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your offer. Thank you--Inuit18 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change.

Can you please do not change anyhting in Page "Saad Mohseni". Thanks --Yosuf (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Well, you've violated your 1RR on Ghōr Province. You are now blocked indefinitely and likely permanently.

~~To any admins reviewing this block, please do not unblock without consulting me first.~~ Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply reverting vandalism on that article and I did not revert this article twice in one day. Please check my edits one more time. Thank you--Inuit18 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a review of this block at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Shortened

And as a result, I have shortened the block, expiring 24 hours from now. Note that your 1RR remains in effect. Any violation may result in immediate block with no warning.

In addition, you may be blocked for edit warring without notice for repeat reversions on an article that exceed the 24 hour threshhold. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hai Habibi

I see you have asked "Lagoo Sab" to discuss his edit before reverting your revert. Don't you think it would be a good idea if YOU use the discussion page first and explain why you disagree with his edits and what needs to be changed and what not? Because I don't see why you have reverted his edit in here. His edit in that article looks more constructive than your revert. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I warned above in your unblocking, you may be "blocked for edit warring without notice for repeat reversions on an article that exceed the 24 hour threshhold." Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

only reverted one article today[11]. May you please tell me how I violated the 24 hour threshhold. thank you--Inuit18 (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikilawyering about how many times you reverted on a particular day and whether or not you technically violated the letter of some restriction is irrelevant. Whatever view we may take on that question, you have a very long history of unhelpful editing, and you show no indication whatever of intending to change, so an indefinite block is appropriate. In addition, it looks very much as though this is a sock puppet account used for block evasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2010 (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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still don't know why I was blocked. I did not violate anything but only reverted an article that was being edited by a sockpuppet. Most of Lagoo sab's edits are similar to NisarKand's edits and it is not the first time we are experiencing this. I reported all of NisarKand's possible socks in this page but no one has checked them and without any reason I was blocked again.[12]--Inuit18 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You reverted the same article twice in under 24 hours and made no mention of sockpuppetry in either edit summary. Further, an experienced edit warrior such as yourself should be well aware that edits by socks are not an exemption from edit warring or the 3RR (or 1RR in your case) unless their edits are unquestionably vandalism (again, not mentioned in either edit summary) or the sockmaster is banned. This block is more than justified given the length of your block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:00, 9 October 2010 (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.

I do not know why Inuit18 was blocked and I leave it to the involved admins to decide. But just one note: his concerns regarding this is worth being checked by an admin. It seems that banned User:NisarKand is back with more sockpuppets. Tajik (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna leave a note that User:Inuit18 has been indef banned before under User:Anoshirawan, the same person was making the same repeated unblock requests [13] [14] [15] [16] as he is trying to do now and was blaming things on User:NisarKand. Then someone using an IP came to User:Anoshirawan's talk page to defend him [17] and that person mentioned User:NisarKand by accusing him being racist and a nationalist. Similarly now User:Tajik came and tried to defend User:Inuit18 and mentioned User:NisarKand. I say there is a strong connection between User:Inuit18 (User:Anoshirawan) and User:Tajik, the accounts are possibly used as a proxy where someone in Germany logs to Wikipedia using an ISP of America or other countries. This proxy is useful only for small edits like how Inuit18 was editing because the net speed is very slow. I also suspect that User:Sommerkom is User:Tajik's sockpuppet since both edit the same isolated article Pata Khazana and both have the same identical views on Pata Khazana plus both are in the same location [18] [19] and both are mostly active in the German Wikipedia [20] [21]. User:Tajik is without a doubt under Sommerkom and Phoenix2 IDs in the German Wikipedia. He also has many blocks there [22] as he has many blocks here [23]. I think it's about time that User:Tajik is blocked permanently because according to his long block history he has been given many chances to stop stirring trouble but he continues, and is a very heavy POV-pusher and very biased toward specific ethnic groups. I don't think Wikipedia (encyclopedia) should be a playground for such people to use it as a way to bash people.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sufficient evidence you should file an WP:SPI report. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Inuit18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would be grateful if the admins can review my block once more. I did not violate the 1RR and my edits were constructive. I completely avoided edits wars and I simply asked the editor to use the talkpage before bringing major changes to the article that has had a history of edit wars. As a member of this community I would love to continue contributing to this encyclopedia and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused from my part.--Inuit18 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your seventh block and you still don't even understand what edit warring is or why we do not tolerate it. It is time for you to consider the standard offer for blocked users. In short, go away. For a significant period of time. When you come back be prepared to demonstrate that you have a clear and specific understanding of what edit warring is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (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.

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]