User talk:LouisAragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


That's the classification used in the Routledge volume. Trying to bring some sanity to our classification articles. We have a specific field for ancestral forms.

BTW, other than Persian, do we have other direct descendents of Middle or Old Iranian languages? Wakhi from Khotanese/Tumsheqese, maybe, or Sangsari from Khwarezmian? Does Ossete hold up as a direct descendent of Scythian?kwami (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the Safavid map[edit]

Take a look here [1]. Looks like our friend is keeping up his reversion and now even denying that the western Georgian kingdoms were vassal states of the Safavid dynasty. If we use that logic he uses, then the majority of the maps on this site should get changed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem is fixed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message about it on your page. LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Dear LouisAragon, I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your efforts in reverting vandalism on articles related to WikiProject South Asia! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:LouisAragon, thanks for reverting edits made by (talk · contribs). I've noticed this kind of thing a lot on Wikipedia. I recently tried to do the same with (talk · contribs) but was reverted again by that user. I appreciate you monitoring these articles for nationalism, etc. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

Hello LouisAragon. As it is the 21st of May, I just wanted to take a look at this page. I did open the article entitled "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", then, oh, I check the first word in bold and it reads "Muhajirism". I thought I got into the wrong place since the word "muhajirism" is not something specific to the Circassian exodus. Later I saw that "-5,270". I do not think that it was a deliberate mistake of yours. I could not read the entire current article, but do you know what happened here? I know that it is not you who changed it, but I thought you could help me understand what is going on because you are among the editors of that page.

Besides, after 1864, the vast majority of Circassians migrated to the Ottoman Turkey and the rest to the Balkans and to some Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Syria, and Israel. Iran is not actually one of them if we are referring to the 1860s. Back in the Safavid era, yes, there were Circassian inhabitants (soldiers, mostly concubines, and other slaves) in Persia. There still exist some Circassians in Iran. However, it is not because those people migrated to Persia "following the Caucasian War that ended in 1864". Most of them are "former" inhabitants and they are not usually Abaza, Abkhaz, Adyghe (Abzakh, Adamiy, Besleney, Bzhedug, Hatuqwai, Kabarday, Makhosh, Mamkhegh, Natukhai, Shapsug, Temirgoy, Yegerquay, Zhaney, etc.), and Ubykh. On the contrary, those in Iran consist of Northeast Caucasian peoples such as Vainakhs, Ossetians, Karachays, Daghestanians, and Balkars. Yet, among the concubines were Adyghe-speaking ones such as the Abzakh and Kabardian, that is why both Abbas II (1642–1666) and Suleiman I (1666–1694) have Adyghe mothers. Moreover, These mothers (Agha and Nekakhet Khanums) came from princely Adyghe families. Maybe you know that Agha Khanum's brother was the Governor of Sakki, Shamhal Karamusal Sultan.

Please check this out: Muhajirism was the massive emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus into the Ottoman Empire and to a lesser extent Persia following the Caucasian War. The article is called "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", but this sentence talks about all Caucasians (even South Caucasians such as Azerbaijani and Muslim Georgians). Those who speak Azerbaijani Turkish and South Caucasian languages are not included even in the broadest definition of Circassians. We know that the broadest definition in the Ottoman Empire and Iran consider North Caucasians to be Circassians. The southerns are excluded. This is another problem of the article. "To a lesser extent Persia" would be correct if the article were about the "muhajirism" only. For Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians, it is definitely wrong. If you do not mind, please check the Turkish version Çerkes Sürgünü. You will see what I mean.

Again, it says that among the ones that moved to Iran it included peoples from territories formerly under Iranian control, such as the Laks, Circassians (presumably only Kabardin, as they fell into the maximum extent of the Persian Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Empire), but also Azerbaijani, Shia Lezgins, and Muslim Georgians. Azerbaijani and Georgians? Right, but it is the wrong article. Notwithstanding, as I said, it seems that the article fails to distinguish between the formerly-settled Adyghes and the non-Circassian newcomers. It also confuses the consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828) with those of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus (1817–1864). The Russian conquest is the one which led to the "ethnic cleansing". "Emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus" is another thing. So, dear LouisAragon, I hope you can do something about these issues. I will do my best if you need my help. Thank you in advanced.Listofpeople (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Listofpeople. Thanks for bringing this up. The thing with the article is, it refers to the whole muhajirism of Muslims from the Caucasus, but zooms in precisely on the Circassians. Therefore, we noted the South Caucasian and non-Circassian North Caucasian emigration also briefly. Also the thing with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, it was a direct following of their expansion into Persian and Turkish territory in the Caucasus. Prior to the 19th century, Russians didn't have really any strong political presence in the Caucasus at all, save for some Cossack lines, but those were far from the Turkish-Iranian border.
The consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-29) were huge for both Imperial Russia, Persia and the Caucasus. After that war 90% of the Caucasus was finally all came under their hegemony. The outcome/aftermath of that war and the Russo-Persian/Russo-Turkish Wars before that, are directly linked with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. In fact, when they appointed Mushthaid (Mir-Fatah-Agha) as leader of the Muslim Ulama over the region just right after the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28, the region was still maintained stable for decades. When he was told to go back by Paskevich' successors, the whole problem in the Caucasus got worse, including the rise of figures such as Imam Shamil and others. The Russian conquest itself was made possible after those Russo-Persian Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. (to a lesser extent).
If there are any more things you'd like to discuss, feel free to do so.
Regards LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I see the new version. I might be a bit choosy, but it seems a way better now. I am serious, thank you for your contributions. Of course, the issue at stake has a "background". Among others, Mir-Fatah's support may be influential as well. I see the relevance, but you also say that it is to a small extent. Perhaps out of overestimation, most of the article's sections were revolving around the repetition of the words "Qajar", "Mir-Fattah", "Tabriz", and "Persian", only. In addition, I doubt the article is really "within the scope of WikiProject Iran". I believe you see what I mean. Russo–Turkish Wars? Well, you are definitely right. Regarding the ethnic cleansing of Circassians, it can be argued that the relevance of even the Crimean War is much significant than that of the Russo–Persian War in the early 19th century. Anyway, if you are still interested in editing the article, please do so. Although it is relatively much better, it can be improved. It has been a nice conversation. Sure, I would like to discuss many other things when we both have time. All the best!Listofpeople (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but we still have quite a long way to go. I'm currently working together on it with another user. Quite major layout and information changes to come to cover all aspects, views (about the cleansing), periods, resettlement, and so on. Three major conflicts played around, after, during or before that time, and those were indeed the Crimean War, Russo-Persian War of the 19th cent, and some Russo-Turkish Wars. All of them are bonded in some way to the ethnic cleansing, but in various degrees of importance. It will still take some time before we're fully done. Bests to you too. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

South Asia[edit]

My bad. But, the definitions need to be at once place, and not distributed all over the article. Fixing that now. Aditya(talkcontribs) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. No, it's actually good like that, as putting them all at the same place will give confusion. The UN definition is the most deviating one, that's why we included it later on in the article, so people understand it's based solely for statistic purposes and nothing else. LouisAragon (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be that way. Read the last paragraph of the section:

A lack of coherent definition for South Asia has resulted in not only a lack of academic studies, but also in a lack interest for such studies. The confusion exists also because of a lack of clear boundary - geographically, geopolitical, socio-culturally, economically or historically - between South Asia and other parts of Asia, especially the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Identification with a South Asian identity was also found to be significantly low among respondents in a two-year survey across Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

All amply cited. The confusion is clearly explained, and needs no clearing up. It's covered by policy: WP:BALANCE. You can't downplay diverging views like tweaking with the layout. Regards. Aditya(talkcontribs) 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, in the process of straight rollbacking you had undone quite a few other edits, including text expansion and referencing. Aditya(talkcontribs) 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What does tweaking with the layout have to do here in this situation? It's perfectly logical to put one huge deviating definition somewhere lower in the article, as it's a very, very deviating one. It's also why the section was called additional deviating definitions. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, many editors were happy with the change made long ago. I will revert that part back to where it was. If you don't agree with the opinion of most editors of that time, bring it to the talk page.LouisAragon (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the barnstar[edit]

Dear User:LouisAragon, there does seem to be a lot of vandalism on South Asian-related articles but I'm glad that you're up for the challenge of addressing it! I'm glad you liked the barnstar! All the best, AnupamTalk 02:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for fixing the Western Asia and Middle East pages, as well as the orthographic map. :) Negahbaan (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, it looks like my last edit was done with one of yours in between, so the summary doesn't anymore completely match the effects. In any case, please participate in the discussion on the talkpage. This pretty well-sourced material was originally deleted without any proper justification earlier this month, and I restored most of it for the sake of accessibility without having to go back over 500 edits ago. Yes, on second inspection there was redundantly restored sections in the lede- the purpose of my last edit was to delete these--Yalens (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I will join you on the talk page. I already left a comment. I will revert it back to the original version, until some more views etc are gathered/WP:CON is reached ok? ;-) LouisAragon (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Please refrain from baseless (and funny) threats. First, even US governmental source like Iran: A Country Study (Curtis & Hooglund, 2008, p. 117) states restoring traditional dress code was favored by vast majority of women. Bigots like Soroush90gh are forcing photos of irrelevant events to prove otherwise. Second, I referenced number of victims by two scholars, and you replaced it with Guardian trash. Third, there have been propaganda attempts few years ago related to plastic keys and mythical "thousands of child soldiers", which Iran denied long ago. Even dubious material shouldn't be took as fact in main article, but "95,000" isn't even dubious but pure propaganda. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the quote from mentioned book (p. 117)

Following the Revolution, the new republican government called for the participation of women in an “Islamic society,” because such a society would not be “morally corrupt” like the deposed monarchy. Observance of hejab would assure respect for women. Hejab eventually was defined as clothing that concealed the shape of a woman’s figure, such as loose outer garments, and covered her hair and skin, leaving only her face and hands exposed. The requirement to observe hejab in public was controversial among the minority of secularized women who never had worn a chador. However, for the majority of women who always had worn the chador, hejab served to legitimate their presence in the public sphere, especially in work outside the home.

It's publication by US Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. As I said - minority view of irrelevant event. I hope it helps, if need more sources just say. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

173 IP[edit]

I see you've been following up this lad - and been doing a good job so far. The user appears to be making several unsourced edits pushing a certain POV and political interest, resulting in degradation of the quality of dozens of articles covering that topic area. The problem is, their edits have not stopped. I've reverted all the recent changes for now but am not sure for how long I will be able to monitor the IP. If you have free time - I don't :( - it would be wise to bring up these tedentious edits to some admin's notice. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fake sources by Pan-Turkists[edit]

Hey! This is a pure bullshit: [2]. They claim that Scythians were Mongoloid/Turk. These sock puppets added that BS to Sarmatians too. See this diff. See? They just want to reject Iranian origin. Feel free to remove them, because it's a self-published website and the text is not same as the sources. Sources are fake. -- (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just responding since I got pinged. I don't know if I agree with the conclusion at SPI based on behavioral evidence, but I only took a short look. I know you had a rocky past, especially last month. If an admin blocked on those grounds, well, I'd suggest that some leniency might be merited given you'd put forth some effort towards productive editing, but then again I'm not familiar enough with the subject area of your edits to say just how productive you've been. I'm also concerned with the pushing for various actions on ANI. In short, while I would suggest someone experienced in SPI or ARBIPA-covered articles take a second look at the behavioral evidence, I'm not personally going to advocate for more. I'm sorry. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can say with full conviction that LouisAragon and Scythian77 are not sock accounts of Behnam or any other user, based on my interactions with them and their editing. I think the blocking admin has jumped the gun over this one. I can say for sure that Scythian77 is not a sock, because I have interacted with that user long before and he/she's been editing here since 2008. In the absence of checkuser and behavioural evidence, these blocks are not appropriate. It may also be of interest to you that the IP who made the socking allegations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam is Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab who edits from PTCL 39, 119 and 182 IP ranges and uses similar language (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lagoo sab etc.). Mar4d (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LouisAragon (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Dear mods. I won't post any other evidence here as everything regarding that is already put in the requests above. All evidence and truth aside, this request is about my new way of editing here which I have in mind. I will make a new start, or better said a new improved approach from now on while editing here for the cause of Wikipedia, and make sure now no one will be able to assume or even think in the slightest that I'm a sockpuppet or whatever. Even if a person (x, or y, or z) just wants to get rid of me by lurking for sanctions (as which happened with me this time). First of all, I will edit my user page that will show certain personal info so moderators and other people will know who I am. Second, even for common facts (even things like a carrot is orange, for example), I will from now on provide sources and references and especially on the so called sensitive topics (there are so many indeed) to prevent lurkers or other people from ever doing this joke against me ever again. I believe this should do the trick just perfectly correct and should prevent it from happening ever again. This whole thing costed me alot of time you know and I have to prove I'm not guilty for something I haven't got anything to do with in the slightest. I hope my plea this time is according protocol. Thanks alot, and I'm awaiting your response. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am going to extend a gigantic amount of rope and accept this. Note, however: anything that even looks like sockpuppetry will be immediately met with a reblock. In addition, attacks on other editors, questioning their motives, etc will also be met with similar action. This is a community, and you agreed to its rules, policies, and guidelines the panda ₯’ 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
  • Thanks. Yes, I understand that. However I also hope moderators will be more cautious as well with this policy that just throws everyone in the same group without properly investigating the case before actually seeing who's guily and who not so to say. Regards. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Renewed sock puppetry[edit]

I have reblocked you indefinitely. You were warned back in July that anything that even appears to be socking will be met with a reblock. My block is based on the edits of (talk · contribs · count), not to mention the earlier edits and block of (talk · contribs · count). You were alleged to be a sock of User:Beh-nam. You were originally blocked for that. These two IP addresses are editing pages that you've edited and in similar manners to your edits. Thus, regardless of whether you are in fact a sock of Beh-nam, you are using these IPs to evade scrutiny, and that alone is sufficient to reblock you. See WP:GAB for appealing this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

LouisAragon (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I just wanted to put this quickly before the main lede of this appeal. The example brought up here [[3]] doesn't seem to fit the description you're giving me. The accussation is that that IP is falsifying an article, while the response on the same article (aka the reason to revert it), is this [[4]]; why then also reverting many other things which are clearly and literally put in the provided source? (The stuff about illegals, amongst other things) Seems like a case of using A to persecute a person for reason B, if you get what I mean. Another moderator warned me long ago that I and others should watch out while dealing with so called sensitive topics/regions of the world and I guess he was right; there's alot of friction and misunderstanding towards each others edits and reverts. Well I guess so be it.
About the main and most important part of this appeal, I do naturally understand why you have blocked me per the rules given on Wikipedia and I would have done the same. I erranously thought that a person was allowed to edit freely from his respective IP or phone as long as he had already established himself with his account for some time (I saw some info that users put on their respective profile pages mentioning that they edit from other IPs as well, hence my misunderstanding). Hence why I edited from these two personal IP's of mine. I understand now I was mistaking about this. I should have read the policies more carefully about this specific matter. Of course you couldn't have known that I wasn't familiar with this concept, so you warned me with it by putting the block back, and I fully understand that. I won't edit without logging in ever again in that case, to prevent misunderstandings and accussations of abusement of this rule, that I can guarantee. Excuse me for that. My aim is to keep contributing to Wikipedia in a good way and this measure will definetely contribute to that.
PS: also, please, when you block me, could you give me an own certified block ID and not of that multi-sock user Beh-nam? It's insulting as we have nothing to do with each other. These two IP's were my personal, own unique, IP's and as I explained, I had no idea that an already established user, couldn't use his own IP without logging in. (as in not abusing certain Wiki policies). I hope I made my point, reason, and understanding of policy (and the connected change of habit that will be made), sufficiently clear. -LouisAragon (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In accepting your last unblock request, the admin said "anything that even looks like sockpuppetry will be immediately met with a reblock". Under these circumstances, it is hard to understand why you thought editing logged out would be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

  • Just a few notes for passing admins. This account was originally blocked because of a finding at SPI. Thus, the account's protests that they have nothing to do with Beh-nam must be taken with a grain of salt. As for his ignorance about editing while not logged in, although I appreciate the admissions (somewhat belated as they may be), I don't find them credible. Also, DP's warning when they unblocked this account was crystal-clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. I wasn't blocked because there was anything found, [[5]], I was blanket blocked because nothing was found. The result was inconclusive (obviously). That's the ironic thing. Even though I told for ages I have nothing to do with any of those users. Yet I got indefinetely banned before being unblocked. (And before you say that a moderator said: however I'd suggest going ahead and blocking all of the accounts as the editing conduct is unacceptably poor and the behavioural evidence linking them is clear enough. , you know that's no concluded finding of anything, rather an easy way of telling someone doesn't want to waste my time with it.) Next time, please do some research before you say someone's protests should be taken with a grain of salt. Please read the rest here given by User:Mar4d ([[6]]) for more information about that.
    About DP's warning, yes he was clear about that, but as I said, I didn't know about the rules regarding using your own personal IP adress. Otherwise I obviously wouldn't have used it in the first place. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Your conclusion about what PhilKnight meant in his remark at the SPI is absurd. I can tell you that Phil is one of the most careful administrators and CUs when it comes to his comments anywhere on Wikipedia. I read the other thing you're referring to. It doesn't change anything. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I just wanted to ensure that other administrators who don't know your history have some guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

LouisAragon (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Dear reading moderator. As I told, I was under the assumption that a person was allowed to edit freely from his personal IP without logging in as I saw other users putting information about this on their User pages when I just created an account on Wikipedia. Hence from that time and on, I never payed attention to the fact that there might be something deeper behind it or that you need to have a good reason to do so (as in explicitly putting information about your IP on your user page. I didn't understand the purpose of editing while logged in, and the difference with just your IP. I thought it was all tracked by Wikipedia to be yours personally anyway. Hence why I never though it could give suspicion to sockpuppetry or just the plain fact that it wasn't allowed. I wasn't aware of these rules per the Wikipedia policy. After I got warned by the block and the reading of the Wiki policies regarding this I fully understand why I got blocked. It wasn't according the rules. I wasn't fully familiar with them, and you couldn't have known that I wasn't familiar with them either, But I know them now, and I totally acknowledge and understand what went wrong here, and I can guarantee that it won't happen ever again. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in the way according protocol. Regards. -LouisAragon (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You feigned ignorance of how being logged in or not conflicts with you apparent understanding of how CU works. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

{{unblock|1=In what way does it conflict? It makes it pretty hard to talk when you instantly decline it like that and use obsolete words like feigned without any proof. It's kind of insulting to put it polite. How could I not understand how the CU works and how is it in any comparable with this? Unlike this rule of Wikipedia about which you actually have to read in one of the policies before knowing it, how CU works was told and explained to me by moderators, and bystanders who put the auto-sign and comments on my talk page. And I assume it always goes like that. The content behind CU and the duty of understanding it comes to the editor, unlike this policy which the user himself/herself has to search in the policy brackets. I got a notification back then that a CU was made about me, and afterwards I wrote Mendaliv amongst others to ask what was going on. Want me to show all edits and talks I had with moderators who explained me the whole situation back then? I can ping Mendaliv if you want. He explained me the whole deal about CU, what to do, and what not. Also other users like User:Mar4d did help by giving facts of me not being guilty as for heaven's sake I didn't know what was going on back then. I fully acknowledge and understand after reading the policy why I got blocked, and I also told what my behavioural changes will be when I get unblocked, and that is just never posting with my own IP, but always logged in on my own account. This will prevent this misunderstanding from happening ever again. -LouisAragon (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Your repeated unblock requests have become abusive. I have therefore revoked your access to this page. If you wish to appeal, you may use WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)