User talk:Tofaan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

salamoona[edit]

You can get in touch with any of the admins like User:Toddst1, User:Nishkid64 or any of the following admins. (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Tofaan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Thx, for your lovely messageTofaan (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Ghurid Dynasty with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on "Ghurid Dynasty"[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ghurid Dynasty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is oncorrect! i have been blocked from editing because i have edited Ghorids dynasty page and before editing i have discussed first with other users, such as user:Farsiwan, user:Kansas Bear, user:ketabtoon and some IP-address users on the discussion page here. In my POV i haven't done anything wrong. If you think that is block is fear, than ok. But if you are honest and fear, than you must know, that them cann't block me for this statement Here Tofaan (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You reverted an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I'm counting at least 7, and those are the obvious ones. When I looked at your talk page participation, I see you calling other people ignorant for opposing you. The block is much more than fair, you must work with other editors, not against them. If you don't, you will eventually find that you won't be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. -- Atama頭 21:13, 7 June 2011 (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.

Please explain this comment. Be fortunate that you were not blocked for much longer than 24 hours after making that remark. –MuZemike 21:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is claiming that this is my website, isn't that something to lauch about it??!!
and except from this, how can wikipedia have 2 statements regarding one matter! as pointed out here Tofaan (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As bad as that comment is on the talk page, it was actually on the article page first! Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

What should i call them else when i see this two statements and they keep undo my settings. As explained here.Tofaan (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be getting the message that your attacks on other editors are unacceptable. Since you also apparently do not understand the unblock process, please read the following:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2011 (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.

Discussion[edit]

@DoRD, i am not damaging wikipedia. It is wikipedia herself who damage herslef when she have such a rediculles statements as gived in link aprove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofaan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 June 2011

If you think a statement is incorrect, but you find that others disagree with you, what you should do is discuss it in a civil and collegial manner on the article's Talk page and wait for a consensus. You should not edit-war, and you should not launch abusive attacks on other people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's ok, maybe i has to do it on other way. But what if some people know that i am correct but they don't allow me to do so. Because it's against their POV and against their Nationalistic agenda. I think this is why some people would take it so highly like me.Tofaan (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, we are expected to assume good faith, and discuss the article content in a civil manner - though I can see the article Talk page has a lot of uncivil bickering and perhaps good faith is being strained (though I have no opinion who's right or wrong, because I'm not reading through all that nastiness). If that does not resolve the problem and you can not get a consensus for your preferred version of the article, you can move on to various options from the dispute resolution process -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried reading through the discussion (unfortunately), and while there was plenty of back-and-forth, only a few editors seemed outrageously uncivil about it, including Tofaan here. Other editors presented numerous academic sources in favor of their arguments, while Tofaan's arguments were pretty much just insults and bad-faith claims of nationalistic POV editing. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Larry V, isn't Mountstuart Elphinstone a academic source? Isn't Pata Khazana a academic source? and most important is of course Minhaj Siraj Juzjani, the historian of Ghorids court. However this is typical wikipedia admin's conclusion. However have a nice time.Tofaan (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The typical Wikipedia administrator would indeed place more weight on modern, authoritative texts than on primary sources (Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani), possibly outdated sources (the works of Mountstuart Elphinstone), or sources of contested authenticity (the Pata Khazana). The typical Wikipedia administrator would also agree with editors who have made compelling, civil arguments regarding their chosen references. You have failed to do this. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, as Kansas Bear has repeatedly brought up on the relevant talk page, you cherry-pick sources that say one thing and remove (at least equally-valid) sources that say another thing. This is not acceptable and would not be necessary if your sources were relevant and correct. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: regarding the article "Ghurid dynasty", Tofaan's edits are wrong and misleading. They contradict the most authoritative scholastic reference works on the subject (as per WP:RS). His (partially insulting) comments on these reference works actually reveal that he does not have much knowledge of the subject. This is not about a disputed subject among scholars. It's about a single user (along with a few others) who do not accept facts presented by experts. This is not a disputed subject among scholars! The Ghurids were not Pashtuns and they did not speak Pashto. Period. That is the information given in the most respected and most trusted reference works (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, The Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopedia Americana, etc.) as well as in a number of academic books and publications (Gilmartin/Lawrence: Beyond Turk and Hindu: rethinking religious identities in Islamicate South Asia, p. 251; Asimov/Bosworth: History of Civilization in Central Asia, Vol. IV, p. 179; etc.). I frankly ask Tofaan not to challenge these academic facts and not to vandalize the article once unbanned again. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, academic sources are enough to find which shows their real origins, such as "Mountstuart Elphinstone" and especially "Pata Khazana". And except from this, i would like to ask this trusted encyclopaedia's, do you really think that you know Ghorids better than "Minhaj Siraj Juzjani"? Minhaj Siraj Juzjani, who was historian of the Ghorid court. So, before you insult me for all this POV, faith and etc things. I would like to say, please watch once in mirror to yourself and than compare it me. I am sure if you are fear and honest that you will come to the conclusion that you are more involved in this issues than me! However have a nice time.Tofaan (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the Ghurids and neither do you. But I know which sources are to be trusted. You, on the other hand, have no idea which sources are reliable. That's why you persist on Elphinstone who was not even a real historian and surely had no special knowledge of the Ghurid era. The Pata Khazana is not an academic source and has long been exposed as a revisionist piece of forgery. And I have no idea why you bring Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani to account, because nowhere does he support your claims. --Lysozym (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hahahahah excusse me, i can only lauch about it and your knowledge. However have nice editing time.Tofaan (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abdul Hamid Bahij[edit]

The article Abdul Hamid Bahij has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. But this article is already opened in Pashto language wikipedia. i will soon come with some sources.Tofaan (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled threat to another user[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Kansas Bear, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable references[edit]

This "source", "Inglisī, Puṣhto falsafe qāmūs. Kabul or Peshawar: Danish Publishing Association. 2005. pp. 326. Retrieved 2011-06-10.", is not viable. The page number is actually the total number of pages of the book which can be found on books.google.com[1], and is not viewable. Therefore it sources nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

Your userpage says you are 1.75cm tall. I think you mean 1.75m. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, i mean 175 cm. But anyways, thank you very much for correction.Tofaan (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project[edit]

Since you seem to be interested in Afghanistan and Pashtun-related topics, you are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, if you feel you are interested and can help with relevant articles. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghurid dynasty[edit]

Tofaan, please stop removing tags, adding irrelevant comments or irrelevant tabs to the article. I have tried to clean it up a little bit and I will try to translate the German version soon. Please do not add the "History of Afghanistan" tab to the article, because the "History of Greater Iran" was created a few years ago in order to merge various history tabs of various countries into one. It is basically a copy of the "History of Greater Iran" tab. The article should not be flooded with navigation tabs dealing with modern nation-states (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc.) --Lysozym (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lysozym, don't push your POV into articles and you are the one who make irrelevant comments and or irrelvant tabs. As your following edit [2], which prove do you have? and can you also explain why you hates to see the word AFGHAN or PASHTUN or PASHTO into this article. This tab isn't acceptable for most of the people, because this tab is pushing just and only the POV of Persia or Iran.Tofaan (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, Tofaan, and watch your language. Because admins are considering a general topic ban in your case! Neither your edits nor your comments are helpful. You are pushing for an aggressive unencyclopedic, unscholastic, ethnocentric, pseudo-scientific POV. And that's not good! --Lysozym (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my friend, you are the who is involved in this claims, as you made abrove. As give in abrove link, why are you trying to delete the word AFGHAN emperor? which is cleared mentioned on the picture. So, why are you pushing your POV and ect claims of you?Tofaan (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map is to large. Minimize it to 2/3 of it´s current format and than reupload it. --94.219.108.194 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t need to prove anything because the script is in PERSIAN. It´s written Sultanat-i Ghialdin Ghuri, Shahanshah-i Afghan. Urdu is to 80% Persian. For your information. The pictures are not made in Pakiland but in Afganistan in the 60s. Before you spread more BS and your Pashtuncentric and fake natioanlism visit the follwowing page http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~alg1000/mjap/jamghurids.htm These people are the real Ghurids and sons of Ghurids. --94.219.108.194 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your personal attacks and pushing your POV or i have to go to a admin to report your personal attacks and pushing your POV. And about the script, it's written in French and Urdu, because the letter "H" is written only in Urdu as "Pesh under it". and i don't care if Urdu is 80% Persian or not. But this script is written in Urdu langauge.Tofaan (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.I did not insult you. You know and I know you have a polit-ethnical agenda as your goal. 2. What the hell is "Pesh under it"??? The name Peshwar self is Persian, the modefied Persian version of it´s ancient name. Stupid comment, Paki-like comments--94.219.108.194 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i have to report you for PA and pushing POV. You are talking about a script and you doesn't know what is "Pesh"? unbeliefable! [3] read this about pesh first.Tofaan (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ... that is exactly what I mean Paki/Pashtun mentality. You people are like 5years old children ... taht´s a reason why you are the most backward people in this world (not my words but that of all countries!). Pesh under it LOL --94.219.108.194 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you currently cannot make edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ghurid dynasty, you may make comments here, and they will be copied over to the WP:ANI discussion. Larry V (talk | email) 21:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user:Lysozym is showing himself an angle, as he haven't done anything except cleaning up and report the case. But in fact this user is a devil who is using IP-addresses, different users names and is busy with sockpuppet. By which he hopes and pushing his POV to get his points and make racists and nationalists edits. But however, can someone ask this little angle why is he trying to change an Afghan emperor in the image script to an Afghan artist work? [4] He is saying he has cleaned up, but can some ask him what did he have cleaned up? Does removing historical pictures means clean up? Does removing the tab History of Afghanistan means clean up? or does the changing of translations of historical pictures text which says "an Afghan emperor" and he changed it into "an Afghan artist" means cleaned up, here and here? And if he was really cleaning up the page, than why did he not react on the discussion page here? Can someone ask this little angle why is he whole the time following my edits and why is he each and every time trying to delete my edits on each and every article? and last but not least, can someone ask this little angle what's his relation with this IP-address:94.219.108.194 ? I am 100% sure that this IP-address is one of user:Lysozym, maybe stolen with wireless internet from neighbors!Tofaan (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at "Ghurid Dynasty"… again[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for extensive edit warring, as you did at Ghurid Dynasty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Larry V (talk | email) 18:09, 19 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

whahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhaha wow i am being blocked for the reason that some people are insulting me, pushing their POV and call me that i have a political-ethnical-nationalistical and whatever ical! However i would not ask for unblock sinds i know that some people don't even take a look at edits and blind eyes blocking people without even doing some source! Asking for unblock is asking for the way which doesn't exists in wikipedia, sinds they haven't the time to look at edits and sinds they are trying to defend that wikipedia admins angles! hahahahah we wish it was like this! however............. thanks at least for having the time to even read this....... Tofaan (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for edit warring, much like your previous block. As you don't seem to have addressed this, an unblock cannot be considered. In reviewing the article's history, the blocking administrator was clearly correct with the original block. Kuru (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2011 (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.

You have been blocked for the massive edit warring on Ghurid Dynasty earlier today. This has nothing to do with the content of the edits. I would have blocked 94.219.108.194 (talk) too, but LessHeard vanU had already done so, for block evasion. Larry V (talk | email) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what about user:Lysozym who was also involved and started to delete the word Afghan and the tab History of Afghanistan and has been acting me with WP:PA. He is saying clean up but look once to his edits and i quite sure that this IP-address is of user:lysozym who is blocked something like 20 times and he stil edit and use wikipedia as their is nothing happend and who is even using Sockpoppet. however..... we will hear your answer as the same melody that i have heard thousand times.Tofaan (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lysozym made edits and reverts but did not participate in the edit war. If you believe Lysozym has made personal attacks against you, submit a report at WP:ANI. If you wish to investigate Lysozym for sockpuppetry again, submit another report at WP:SPI. Larry V (talk | email) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tofaan/Archive_1&oldid=1063884767"