User talk:DreamOfJeannie

Persian script

Hello. Persian script is the same whether you call the language Dari or not. There is already Wikipedia wide consensus that Persian should be used. Please stop changing that. Thanks. -- Behnam (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok show me the consensus please. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is on every single Afghanistan related article. There is no difference between "Dari" script is Persian script and Dari is just a politicized name of Persian. -- Behnam (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words "Dari" uses Persian script. There is no such thing as Dari script. -- Behnam (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, there is no consensus. Please do not make edits to confound the people. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Dari uses Persian script. But I mean the language not the script: Dari is Afghanistan's Persian and e.g. not Iran's. Also the Chagatai language used the Persian script, but it was by no means Persian but Turkish.

See also the article for the Dari language: Dari (Persian): I am citing: In Afghanistan Dari is also generically called Farsi, as are all languages in the Persian sub-group of languages. This means that Persian is a too general name. Dari is a more specific one so it must be used in the Afghanistan articles. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Persian" there is meant to refer to the script, not the language in Afghanistan. -- Behnam (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? But have a look at the article Dari (Persian). I am citing the first line: Dari (Persian: دری) is the official name for the Persian language spoken in Afghanistan DreamOfJeannie (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and we are referring to these script in these articles. Not the spoken language. -- Behnam (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Behnam (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. 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.

— Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me

User:Alex Bakharev has blocked me because he accused me being sock puppet of another user. (NisarKand). This is not true and has fortunately already been checked.

Request: [1] Can you also please check user: DreamOfJeannie.
Result: [2] :unrelated - both of them

I am a bit surprised how this could happen. Please unblock me. (I hope anyone will read this) DreamOfJeannie (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

User:Alex Bakharev has blocked me accusing me of being a sock puppet of another user. (NisarKand) This is not true and has fortunately already been checked by checkuser. See below

Decline reason:

The explanation of Alex below is not patently unfounded. You may appeal by E-mail to ArbCom if you disagree. — Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 30 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.

Request: [3] - Can you also please check user: DreamOfJeannie.
Result: [4] - :unrelated - both of them

Please correct this mistake. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thanx. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser is a helpful tool when establish sockpuppeting but the main evidence is the history of contributions. User:DreamOfJeannie is obviously not the first account of a user. He or she shows much better familiarity with the Wikipedia editing than to be expected from a user with ~20 contributions and the history of one month of editing. In particular he or she seems to be quite familiar with contributions of Tajik despite him been permabanned six months earlier than DreamOf jeannie supposedly started editing. The edit pattern of DOJ over Kunduz Province is the same as of sock puppets of permabanned User:NisarKand (e.g. User:Mamalee, permabanned as a NisarKand sock by a checkuser Dmcdevit) - they all were removing Persian references from the city name. I think that the contribution evidence is enough to establish User:DreamOfJeannie as a sock or meatpuppet of a permabanned User:NisarKand. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, you read this edit of User:07fan (a sock puppet of Tajik or Behnam) and noticed that my edits are not disputed by others [5]: i cite you: I guess if many people find his edits unhelpful they would not be there for long.

In spite of that you blocked me indefinitely. I have problems to understand this.

What I am finding very pity is that I have been blocked because of the sock puppets of User:Tajik. The one who talked to you (User:07fan) is also a sock puppet of Tajik. He reverts always to the version of Tajik and has always the same opinion as Tajik and: he is very new[6]. All this is surely not fortuitousness.

I am really disappointed of you admins because you make it so easy for Tajik to create always new sockpuppets though he is indefinitely banned. I have written here as comment that User:Quebecer, User:07fan and User:KabuliTajik are sock puppets of Tajik or Beh-nam [7].

I see that two of them have now been blocked as being sock puppets of Tajik or Behnam. I knew it from the beginning and you see that my comments are right. I didn't do anything wrong. Pity that you blocked me because of the false report of another sock puppet of again Tajik or Beh-nam (07fan)

I am not a sock puppet as checkuser has shown and I have never heard of NisarKand. In German wikipedia everyone knows Tajik and also observes his persian-nationalist edits on English wikipedia.(in German wikipedia he is called de:Benutzer:Phoenix2) This is the reason why I talked about Tajik and why I know him.

Please control this edit with the information in the referenced literature (Thackston, Clavijo) The alleged self-designation as persian "Gurkani" of this Turko-Mongol dynasty you will not find in these sources and in no other source in the world. Tajik and Behnam and their sock puppets Quebecer, 07fan, KabuliTajik etc. are distorting the wikipedia by Iranising the central asian history and you make nothing against it. You are only blocking me without any reason. You make it very easy for you as administrator instead of looking at what Tajik and Behnam are doing in those articles. As I said, I am very disappointed. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because Alex Bakharev came to a mucker of User:07fan who is once again a sock puppet either of User:Tajik or User:Beh-nam. see my explanation above. I do not want to loose time with arbcom for having done nothing. Please unblock me

Decline reason:

file the request with arbcom if you like, but I don't see enough to overturn. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 6 January 2008 (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.