User talk:NisarKand

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello NisarKand! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Edits to Afghanistan

Hi, I noticed that you've been making large edits to Afghanistan recently. The reverts to this page are not because we don't like your edits, but rather because they are extremely vast and sweeping and should at least have some sort of rationale on the talk page. Thanks! — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've made further edits to Afghanistan. User:Tajik is vehemently opposed to many of your edits, so I urge you talk to him on Talk:Afghanistan. You two need to come to a consensus about what to do. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please use the Show preview button, instead of saving the page multiple times with small edits a few minutes apart? Thank you. KP Botany 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Afghan (Pashtun) and I am here to correct all the mistakes about my country...I will not allow anyone to place false statements about my country. I challenge anyone who discredits or attempts to discredit my nation or my people. We've defended the country for ages and we intend on doing so for the future. I see Tajik as an Iranian because all he is mentioning is about the history of Iran, Persia, Persians and ect. This is Afghanistan (land of the Afghans)...and the topic must be focused on the real Afghans and not the Iranians or Persians. So please do not delete anything I edit because I am here to share the real history of my country and not just putting things from my own opinion or own thoughts. Thank you! NisarKand 11:35 PM, October 10 2006 (UTC)

You have done a lot of good work in the Afghanistan article which is way too heavily biased towards the Persian-empire influenced and Iranian influenced portion of Afghanistan as if it is all of Afghanistan, when it is only a small and modern part. Please continue to do the useful work, but put aside your ethnic battles as they will accomplish nothing useful here and ultimately just get you kicked out--then Wikipedia's Afghanistan article will be turned back over to simply Persian-empire influenced history of Afghanistan written by early 20th century British writers for the Encyclopedia of Islam. Westerners should come from reading a lengthy article about Afghanistan with the knowledge of what the country is and has been throughout its own history, not just what eastern Iran is and was. If you put aside your ethnic battles you might accomplish this. Remember that modern Afghanistan does include Tajiks and lots of other folks who have lived there for hundreds of years and many have married Pashtuns and most live culturally like Pashtuns, and the history of Pashtuns exclusively belongs only in an article on Pashtuns or Afghans not a 21st century article on Afghanistan. KP Botany 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ETHNIC BATTLES? I did not start a battle. All I want to do is add Pashtuns as the major players in Afghanistan. They've been living in their God given land for a very long time and they deserve to be mentioned as a top priority. The Tajiks are the second followed by Uzbeks, Hazaras and others. Before I came here to start editing...the country of Afghanistan was made to appear as it belonged to Iran and that Pashtuns were living there as refugees or invaders. As you know that one single wrong word could make a huge impact on the whole country's identity, and I want to make sure that not a single wrong word is written in the Afghanistan biography. I will not approve unofficial sources' statements to be added to the article on Afghanistan. Everything must be from well known trusted sources (e.g. PBS, National Geographic, Time Life, BBC and ect.) I noticed that someone is trying to trace places where I visit and change my stuff...not good. And finally, please don't make threats by throwing a hint that I will be kicked out. Why would I be kicked out because I am Afghan? or Pashtun? or because I am Muslim? Well I'm sure if I can be kicked out you and everyone else can be too.

NisarKand 6:54 PM, October 10 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please: " I challenge anyone who discredits or attempts to discredit my nation or my people. We've defended the country for ages and we intend on doing so for the future. I see Tajik as an Iranian because all he is mentioning is about the history of Iran, Persia, Persians and ect." That's an invitation to an ethnic battle.

And there is no hinting about your being kicked out. It's simply true that if you don't show courtesy at Wikipedia you can be blocked from editing. And you've tried to turn my words here into an ethnic battle, too. It's not going to happen. And, yes, anyone can be blocked from editing Wikpedia if they choose not to follow basic rules of courtesy to other editors or if they're disruptive or if they're not here to make a contribution, including me, including Tajik.

You're so heated up that you can't catch the substant of what I'm saying. I support edits that turn the Afghanistan article into what it should be. Tajik does not. I am the one who first insisted that your edits should not have been deleted, and that the land of the Afghans has existed for long before Westerners agreed politically that it had a right to exist--because most of your edits were accurate, verifiable and useful. But you want to battle Tajik and everyone else, including me, even though I supported your edits against Tajik's comments, simply because I agree with the basic accuracy of many of the edits you made. The article was extremely biased towards the contribution of Persian to western Afghanistan, as if that were all of Afghanistan, and the spine did not exist, and did not give the average reader the idea that this is the land of the Afghans or Pashtuns.

The most important thing is not your feelings or mine or Tajik's, but rather an accurate article on Afghanistan. If you come to Wikipedia and fight everyone, even those who support what you are trying to do you won't last long enough to improve the tons of misinformation and missing information about Afghanistan.

Your personal point of view about Pashtuns is not what Wikipedia is about. In fact, it's not allowed. Wikipedia is about verifiable sources. And there are plenty of verifiable sources that agree that Afghanistan is the land of the Afghans or Pashtuns. If you have the time and knowledge to edit Wikipedia's sections on Afghanistan so that Westerners learn this, your contributions will be very useful. But if you spend your time battling people on things that don't matter one bit, you will waste time you could be spending on edits, and you will wind up blocked from editing.

So, you can go ahead and decide what's more important: an accurate set of Wikipedia articles about Afghanistan or ethnic battles against imagined enemies. You appear to have the knowledge to make Wikipedia a much better source for information about Afghanistan.

And anyone can follow your edits by clicking on your contributions. If you come to Wikipedia and make enemies, they will do just that: follow your edits and change them. I suggest you focus your energies on improving Wikipedia about Afghanistan and reaching out in a positive way to potentially millions of misinformed people about the people who have lived in the land of Afghans for 1000s of years and gave it its name. It's very important. And more people will be reading the articles than your pages back here.

Salaam, KP Botany 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Map_of_Afghanistan_1747.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Map_of_Afghanistan_1747.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sprotect

Please don't add fake sprotect tags William M. Connolley 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 24 2006 to Afghanistan

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[2] made on October 27 2006 to Afghanistan

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info. about Afghanistan from Britannica

Hi,

Here is a info. file about afghanistan's ethnic, linguistic and religious statistics[3]. I hope it helps.Heja Helweda 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this link out

The best way to get real results for the issues that you mentioned would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. They can get much more done than I can, as they can actually assist in dispute resolution. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun people

Assalaamalaikum NisarKand! Thanks for all your help with the Pashtun people article. I really appreciate you and the efforts you put forth to make the article the best it can be. I noticed the discussion on the talk page and included some references to help buttress our argument. Sync2k5 left another reply a while ago. I just thought I'd let you know as you seem much more knowledgeable in the area than me and would be able to address the question better. Also, I thought you would be interested in joining WikiProject Pashtun. You can add your name on the participants list and use one of the templates on your userpage if you would like. Thanks again. Khuda pa amaan, Anupam^Talk 05:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NisarKand -- You have done a lot of good work with articles about Afghanistan, and I also appreciate your continued efforts to improve Wikipedia articles on Afghanistan and its peoples. No matter how frustrating it is to deal with some of the other editors, please try to keep cool, and continue to edit articles, so that English-speaking users can get a functional idea of the history of Afghanistan. Americans tell the history of the United States from their perspective, not from a British perspective, and it would be incredibly strange for a modern-American to claim their British ancestory and rewrite American history from a British Nationalistic perspective. It should not be allowed on the Afghan articles. Things will cool down, factual and verifiable information will be inserted, and the articles will be great in the end. KP Botany 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would stop posting personal attacks on Tajik on Wikipedia. He doesn't need you to do it, as he can damage his own reputation without any help, and Wikipedia needs some people willing to do the research and include the Pasthuns in articles on Central Asia, as they play an important role in the history of the region. If you back down, people will see what is really going on. But if you continue, you are as much at fault as Tajik is.

If you get blocked or banned from Wikipedia, who will that leave to counter the current trend in Wikipedia, which is to write all articles about Afghanistan as if it is a province of Iran? No one else will neutralize this point of view if you are gone--I'm a naturalist, not an historian. Right now others are complaining about Tajik's behavior. If you stop posting personal attacks about him, his behavior will stay the same, and he will eventually be blocked or banned. If you continue attacking him, instead of just ignoring him for now, you will also wind up blocked or banned.

Please delete your comments from the Herat page, continue editing important articles on Afghanistan and the Pashtun peoples, and let Tajik take care of himself. It is clear by Tajik's comments that he doesn't know what the ethnic population of Herat is, or what is going on in Herat today, or understand much about census taking in Afghanistan or the culture of Afghanistan. But if you keep posting personal attacks on him, all that will be left is tons of articles with Tajik's point of view.

I urge you to consider this, and consider whether or not it is valuable to have an accurate portrayal of the Afghan peoples on Wikipedia. I think it is. KP Botany 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately you are right, Wikipedia for now is written by people who aren't doing other things, and they dominate and bully those who have other contributions to make besides spending their entire life on Wikipedia--although there are some good retirees and others working on Wikipedia, too. However those with outside interests can never repeatedly do battle with those without them, the former are too busy for real outside of Wikipedia gaining knowledge about the world that others can only write about, and the latter are too vested in owning their contribution to Wikipedia and making it all theirs.

But this is one of the things that happens on Wikipedia, its editors rely too heavily upon on-line resources and other tertiary resources, they learn one thing and don't or won't look at the big picture, or put the subject in its context. It is surprising and sorrowful that someone would choose to write about such an historical city as Herat and have not a clue about what is going on there today, or the significance of its ethnic make-up to current events and its history, though.

Although I disagree with your chosen technique I realize that you only did battle with Tajik because you know he is pushing incorrect information about Afghanistan. Tajik, however, attacked and continues to attack everyone who does not outright support everything he writes, even those things he himself winds up admitting were wrong (his ethnic make-up of Herat, for example, although still wrong). Eventually most people will figure out what is going on. Those that don't never matter.

Salaam, KP Botany 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

"I am now hoping to be banned from this sick site very soon" Your wish is granted. --Golbez 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a second chance, if you care. --Golbez 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Hi, NisarKand, i'd like to discuss an important issue with you, but better to contact via e-mail, cause the discussion may clutter the talk/discussion pages. E104421 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

CheckUser confirms that you have used the sockpuppets King Nisar (talk · contribs) and Pashtun (talk · contribs). Because of this, I've blocked you for 3 days. Sockpuppetry is a very serious matter, and I suggest that you read WP:SOCK to make sure this doesn't happen again. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when you are blocked, it means that you are blocked. Please do not attempt to evade it, or it will only be reset. Khoikhoi 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

You completely ignored my request for you to stop sockpuppeting. Not only that, you used one of them for vandalism, and another to make personal attacks. There are even more sockpuppets that I didn't even mention. Because of all of this, I've blocked you for 1 week. It will only get longer unless you make an effort to improve your behavior. Khoikhoi 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem...I will enjoy my one week block but please try to behave also. Tell User:Tajik to stop messing up my work, as you know by now that I am not a vandal but an honost contributor. My history is the evidence to that. Also, I had no idea that making additional IDs were violation because I am very new here. I began in October this year. So now I know and I will stop making them. Last, I want to know if all my additional IDs can be permanently deleted?--NisarKand 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here in my dicussion page, there is not one single warning given to me by any administrator. But you clearly see that my ethnic and religion is stated in the top. This could mean that somebody don't like my ethnic or my religion and use this as a way to punish me harsher than other Users who keep their ethnics and religion secret. I always proudly state my ethnic and religion, and everyone else may do the same without any fear.--NisarKand 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I know you have been contributing in good faith. We can't delete accounts, but I guess I could delete the userpages of your sockpuppets...on the condition that you promise to not sockpuppet anymore. Deal? Khoikhoi 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it's a deal, I have no such reasons to sockpuppet or vandalize pages.--NisarKand 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Thanks again, Khoikhoi 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

NisarKand, please PREVIEW your changes before you save them on the server. It's sometimes very difficult to control your 20-30 edits ... and one is forced to revert all of them, even though some of them are good edits. Thanks. Tājik 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page instead of abusing the article's history as your message-board. This kind of edits are not allowed. Tājik 12:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You always revert my edits without discussions. I suggest you stop removing sourced information as this is very helpful. What you do is an act of vandalism. I don't get any satisfaction over many people being killed in the past, but this is history and must be explained. I believe it is perfectly fine to leave a short message for every edit. It becomes part of the record. If you want to discuss something on Talk, I don't mind discussing.--NisarKand 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessairy source, because it does not matter how many soldiers were killed. What matters is that the Safavids were deposed. Besides that, mentioning that information WITHOUT making any remarks about the brutality of the Afghan forces - for example the complete massacre of the Safavid family (including women and children), as well as the massacres on the civilian population in Isfahan, Bam, and villages of Khorasan - is POV. In this case, the massacre of the civilian population and the brutality of the Afghan forces is more important than how many soldiers were killed, because this brutality of the Afghans was the reason for Nadir Shah's success: he had the support of the civilian population, because he himself was from a small village in Khorassan.

Besides that, you have not shown any sources for your claim that "30000-100000 soldiers were killed".

And as for the edits: it does not matter what YOU believe, it only matters what the Wikipedia rules are. You posted a message without editting ANYTHING ... that's the same as abusing the article's history as a message-board. Use the REAL message-board instead. Tājik 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please knock it off

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure I reverted? I was just removing NON-English sources from Greater Khorasan.--NisarKand 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Afghanistan

Salaam Nisar Kand. It's nice to see you back. I recently added information about the translation of Afghanistan on the Afghanistan article. These edits were removed but I noticed that you restored them. I would highly appreciate your comments here or here. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable comments. Hopefully, the three of us can arrive at a consensus on the issue. Personally, to be neutral, I am in favor of including both translations in the article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. John 1:4 KJV

Dear NisarKand,
Love came to a stable on that very special night to bring us out of darkness into His glorious light. May Jesus touch your life with gladness and warm your heart with love as we celebrate His birth. I hope you have a Blessed Christmas, Anupam^Talk 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm greetings on my talk page. I hope you enjoy the holidays as well! With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kandahar

I've left a comment on the talk page. Khoikhoi 07:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincedence!

I was just about to upload this picture today and put it on the Kabul article, but you beat me to it! lol Parsiwan 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Kabul City in 2005.jpg

A view of Kabul City in 2005.

Your Edit Summary on Afghanistan

Hello NisarKand, I recently saw your edit summary of Afghanistan and was somewhat surprised. The edit in question that I was reverting was this act of vandalism by an anonymous IP. Most of my activities on Wikipedia is Recent Changes patrolling and watching out for vandalism. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any more concerns about the matter.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Nisarkand, attack comments like this [4] are completely unacceptable. Also, from [5] I take it you are admitting you were behind the sock account Tajik Is A Rat (talk · contribs). That incident is a bit old now, and you say you are no longer using sock accounts, but from your writing I can still see not the slightest hint of regret at the blatant attacks you made under that account. The very least the Wikipedia community can expect from you is a sincere apology to Tajik. Please take this as a last warning, because you will be watched and any further attack will result in a long block.

Another thing, and that goes both to you and to Tajik: Please stop referring to each other's edits as "vandalism" when they are content disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are threatening me for no reasons. I take your message as a threat for block, while I am contributing lots of good information to Wikipedia. I don't know if you are drunk or normal, but those references of my message written to User:Tajik does not say anything bad at all. There is no personal attack anywhere in it. But I know what you are doing here is a violation and I can report you for this.--NisarKand 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now User:Tajik has been reporting me to you. Ok, now I know why you wrote this message. I thought you came here without me being reported. You as an administrator must not always take the side of the reporter. Becuase usually, the reporter is the bad person. User:Tajik is proven to be my enemy in Wikipedia by the way of his actions, as I have no problems with anyone else. This User:Tajik has many many sockpuppets....User:Ariana310, User:Tajik-afghan...and he just made new one User:Beh-nam. I only have ONE single user name which is this one I'm using. Again, please watch the actions of User:Tajik and see how he is going around to many articles everyday and reverting other people's edits for no reasons.--NisarKand 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong accusations

NisarKand, stop making wrong accusations! If you think that I am using sockpuppets, then go and ask admins to check the IPs! I've already told you that User:Tajik-afghan, me, and a few others - all who have been accused by you - live in different countries, and any admin will be able to confirm this! So please stop!

Tājik 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Afghanistan. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Afghanistan).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you blocked me for 3 days and User:Beh-nam for only 18 hours? Do you call that fair? Why did you add "personal attack" with my 3RR violation? As you did not explain this in the above warning. What in particular did I say that constituted "personal attack"? Also, which user did I personal attack? Anyway, as soon as I am un-blocked, I will be reporting you to other administrators because of your fundamentally unfair ruling and applying of exccesive punishment towards me. I have the same rights just as every other peaceful Wikipedia editors.--NisarKand 01:18, 7 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've been falsely accused of "personal attack" by Administrator Fut.Perf. because he/she did not explain of any "personal attack" in my talk page. This Administrator punished me for my prior violation around 12/3/2006 for which Khoi blocked me for a week and I fully served that sentence. I believe I am unfairly treated by Administrator Fut.Perf.. I also feel being a victim of racism and excessive punishment.

Decline reason:

Valid block for 3RR and personal attacks. You may have "fully served" your "sentence" for the personal attacks in December, but the personal attack that you were also blocked for this time occurred on January 5th. So you might have "served your time" but you definitely didn't learn your lesson. Block stands. -- Metros232 18:46, 6 January 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.

NisarKand, you were told before to stop treating other people's content dispute edits as "vandalism", and to stop your baseless sockpuppet accusations. You did it again, blatantly abusing the functions of the vandalism intervention noticeboard ([6]). Stop it. Try such things one more and you'll get yourself another long block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you threatening me when I am trying to stop someone from removing sourced information from Afghanistan article? Here is your message to User:Beh-nam on January 6, 2007 Beh-nam, on the obvious assumption that the anon 65.94.216.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is you, I am blocking you for 3RR violation on Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You have apparently made 2 reverts under your account and 3 anon within the last few hours. I consider the evidence of the anon being you fairly obvious, if you can explain to me how this was not you, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ([7]) You don't think User:Beh-nam removing sourced information from the CIA Factbook on Afghanistan article is vandalism? ([8]).--NisarKand 08:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, it's a content dispute, and you both need to apply proper Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NisarKand, this is a personal attack ... and since you have already admitted that you used multiple sockpuppets in order to insult me (it does not matter anyway; UserCheck confirmed that it was you/your IP), you have no way out! It's interesting that you still reject having insulted me ... despite these proofs. Tājik 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://flickr.com/photos/44838558@N00/160756043/. As a copyright violation, Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on [[Talk::Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg]]. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:A Lake at Kabul.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. NMajdan•talk 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site where this image is posted http://flickr.com/photos/44838558@N00/160756043/ clearly states "This photo is public" and is for sharing purposes.--NisarKand 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kabul Golf Club.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Kabul Golf Club.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:Tajik and I am not "anti-Pashtun"

Nisarkand, you were starting again with your baseless allegations. Did I not just prove to you that I uploaded and placed BOTH the Mohmand picture and the Khalilzad picture? And my ethnic backround? I am actually part Pashtun myself (my mother's mother), so considering that, you're allegation of me being anti-Pashtun is even more ridiculous. And I am not the same person as User: Tajik. He is from Kabul with Qizilbash roots. I am from other places with 1/4 Ahmadzai Pashtun ancestry (from mother's mother). We are two different people and we have DISAGREED with each other on many occasion, I can show you how many times we have disagreed with each other if you want me to. So please stop calling us the same people, we are not. Behnam 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine of Baba Wali in Kandahar

I have a VERY nice picture of the shrine and a very nice view of the valley saved on my computer. The problem is I don't know the source. But I'll showed it to you once I get my other computer back, probably tomorrow. I think I got it from FlickR. But I'll try finding the source because it was a great picture. Behnam 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots of own pictures of Baba Wali shrine, not from the net but own. I will see yours if it's better but if not I will replace the older one later. Some picturs I have of the shrine are "TIF" format, over 3,000,000 KB space per image.--NisarKand 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Government of Afghanistan.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Government of Afghanistan.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safavids map

You are insisting on adding the Safavids maps in Afghanistan's article under the History section. Have you went over the Safavids? Safavids were originally from the Western Persia, which is now Iran. They had conquered a small part of Afghanistan. Plus, Safavids were a strict Shiite dynasty who tried to convert Afghans from Sunnite to Shiisme. Their racist strategies against other ethnicities other than Persians, i.e. Pashtuns, is completely obvious.

So do not insist on adding Safavids map in Afghanistan's article. It has nothing to do with it. In addition, the map which you have upload is redundant. I mean, I had uploaded the Timurids map first, and then you uploaded again the Timurid and Safavid maps although they were already present in wikipedia's images. If you keep insisting on putting the maps in all articles, I will be obliged to report them. And with no reason, the map will be deleted. Manena! Ariana310 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! my map is placed in Afghanistan's article in regards to show the area and names of the territories from 15th century to 18th century. It has nothing to do with Safavid or other empires. It's simply a geographical map and don't try to find meaningless reasons to remove this map or I will have no other choice but to bring administrators to resolve this. I uploaded the map the proper way, by it being an antire image. You uploaded half of the image, which is a violation and I can report you for that. You're purpose is to hide the geography of Afghanistan's past and mines is to reveal it. You have no chances of winning.--NisarKand 12:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point. You said: ...to show the area and names of the territories from 15th century to 18th century, but in those two maps Afghanistan is labeled as Khorasan. And you were strictly against the fact that Afghanistan was known as Khorasan. The most important point is that in Safavids map, its boundary is until the Herat and Ghor cities of Afghanistan. So what does it have to do with Afghanistan?

As you said, if you are trying to show the names and the regions of Khorasan, then put only the map of Timurids, which I have uploaded. In that map, the regions of Afghanistan is completely obvious. Ariana310 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are determined to close your eyes at the area where the Pashtuns have been living for ages. You are only concentrating on the Persian speaking areas of the region and that's your problem...so don't push those thoughts or ideas on everyone else. This article is for people from all over the world...not for Persians or Pashtuns only but for everyone...look on the top left corner of this page and all other pages (logo and symbol of Wikipedia). The article Afghanistan is about the region not specifically about people or empires. Why do you always insist on hiding pre-1747 Afghanistan, when fully being aware that a place called "Afghanistan" existed before 1747? Are you trying to make us believe that it didn't exist? If you are, then you are clearly up to something and I like to know what is that you're up to. You should at least realize that everything you do on Wikipedia is easily and instantly checked by people of the world. Your behaviour is giving a bad name to all other Tajiks or Persians.--NisarKand 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had taken side for Tajiks or Persians, then those two maps would have been in favour of Tajiks and Persians. Since Safavids and Timurids were Persianate. Just look at the maps, where does it mention Pashtun? Afghanistan is shown as a very small region in the second map, and not as an independent Pashtun state but under the reign of Mughuls. Ariana310 13:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% ethnic Tajik, no need to hide that from me. Timurids were not in any way Persians...they were Turks-Mongols...totally different people. I am now going to have to bring administrators to help you stop removing historical maps from the University of Pennsylvania. Have it your way...I warned you enough to stop but you refuse.--NisarKand 13:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NisarKand, as I have said before: you are the most uneducated person I've met so far in Wikipedia and the classical stereotype of an Afghan! In previous edits, you even claimed that the "Ottoman Empire invaded Afghanistan" (which is totally absurd!), that "Ghaznavids were Turks from Turkey" (also totally absurd, considering the fact that there were no Turks in Anatolia at that time), and that "Ghaznavids hated and killed Persians" (again totally absurd, considering the fact that the Ghaznavids were raised by Persians, had Persian mothers, Persian viziers and administrators, and were great patrons of Persian literature and culture), proving your extrem lack of knowledge in this field.

You also lack the ability to judge the importance and reliability of sources. You try to prove your false claim that "Afghanistan existed for centuries before 1748" with maps which do not have any historical importance. They are simply maps from books ment to give a small impression of the geographical area of that time. You fail to understand that you have to provide authoritative scholarly sources (meaning long articles written by renowed scholars) in oder to prove your point, not just simple maps! On the other hand, you reject correct information from reliable sources such as National Geographic, only because you assume that their date is not correct.

Stop pushing for POV and stop falsefying articles!

Recently, you have also started to post false sources attached to your own POV. You simply write "Bryant 2001" as a source, without giving the slightest comment to what that "Bryant 2001" actually is. Simply saying that it "is a university" does not prove your point! You have to at leats give the name of the author and the name of the article. You have to provide either a correct link to the article or a reference to the page-number.

If you are not able to do that, that it's a clear proof for your trick to fool the community. It shows that you yourself have not read that source and that you simply put it into the article because you want to fool everyone.

Either provide the correct source, or I will report you to an admin because of intentional lying and vandalism!

Tājik 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik...I did not place the Bryant 2001 statement or reference. Someone other than me in the past placed that information in the articles Pakthas and you need to deal with that user who placed that information there. As for the rest of your argument...all that has nothing to do with placing a historical map here and everything I said is 100% true and verifiable facts. What in particular do you have problem with understand so I can bring you the evidence and sources? Don't make false accusations agianst me or I will report you to administrators.--NisarKand 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another proof that Afghanistan existed before 1747....

..."The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns."... Link here!

Issues with Durand Line article

I have noticed the issues which have popped up between yourself and User:Tajik in relation to the article on Durand Line. Please visit the article's talk page so we can have a further discussion to bring these matters to an appropriate conclusion. thewinchester 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Durand Line. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. thewinchester 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rever-warring on Afghanistan again

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

I checked just a few of your contributions. Of those you made within the last few hours, at least the following four were reverts. There may in fact have been considerably more, but I couldn't be bothered to review all the history: [9], [10], [11], [12]. It appears to me Behnam violated 3RR too, but I'll have to check first. For a repeat offender, your block length this time is a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I violated the 3RR rule. I think you just don't like me for some reasons and your're trying to discourage me from editing. Your unfair actions speak for itself because you just look for any reasons to get me blocked.--NisarKand 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know where to go if you want the block reviewed by others. Why didn't you try it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Administrators, I didn't revert 3 times as charged by Fut.Perf. ☼, I removed different POV statements from Afghanistan's article and that does not qualify as revert. Be fair in your decision, I've only reverted the article two (2) times within 24 hours by replacing an old historical map of Afghanistan's region. It was due to User:Ariana310 purposly removing the map from the history section of Afghanistan's article. Blocking me for 1 week without even reverting 3 times is deffinitely an unfair decision by the administrator. At the same time, another user (Behnam) was ONLY blocked for 48 hours for reverting 3 times by the same administrator who blocked me for 1 week.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Administrators, I didn't revert 3 times as charged by [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]], I removed different POV statements from [[Afghanistan]]'s article and that does not qualify as revert. Be fair in your decision, I've only reverted the article two (2) times within 24 hours by replacing an old historical map of Afghanistan's region. It was due to [[User:Ariana310]] purposly removing the map from the history section of Afghanistan's article. Blocking me for 1 week without even reverting 3 times is deffinitely an unfair decision by the administrator. At the same time, another user ([[User:Beh-nam|Behnam]]) was ONLY blocked for 48 hours for reverting 3 times by the same administrator who blocked me for 1 week. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Administrators, I didn't revert 3 times as charged by [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]], I removed different POV statements from [[Afghanistan]]'s article and that does not qualify as revert. Be fair in your decision, I've only reverted the article two (2) times within 24 hours by replacing an old historical map of Afghanistan's region. It was due to [[User:Ariana310]] purposly removing the map from the history section of Afghanistan's article. Blocking me for 1 week without even reverting 3 times is deffinitely an unfair decision by the administrator. At the same time, another user ([[User:Beh-nam|Behnam]]) was ONLY blocked for 48 hours for reverting 3 times by the same administrator who blocked me for 1 week. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Administrators, I didn't revert 3 times as charged by [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]], I removed different POV statements from [[Afghanistan]]'s article and that does not qualify as revert. Be fair in your decision, I've only reverted the article two (2) times within 24 hours by replacing an old historical map of Afghanistan's region. It was due to [[User:Ariana310]] purposly removing the map from the history section of Afghanistan's article. Blocking me for 1 week without even reverting 3 times is deffinitely an unfair decision by the administrator. At the same time, another user ([[User:Beh-nam|Behnam]]) was ONLY blocked for 48 hours for reverting 3 times by the same administrator who blocked me for 1 week. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

For the reviewing admin, here's a list of NisarKand's most recent edits to Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a summary of what changes they contained. Each of the last four edits contains an element reverting to something done already once within the few hours preceding. Those in turn may very well have been reverts in themselves, but I didn't check that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 Jan 11:57 –"in the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century,"
19 Jan 12:06 –"Until the 19th century, the name was only used..."; –"With the expansion and centralization of the country"
19 Jan 15:06 +"based on the latest..."; +"Image:Demographics of Afghanistan.JPG"
20 Jan 10:36 +"Image:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg"
20 Jan 12:05: +"Image:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg" = rv to #4
20 Jan 13:46 –"Until the 19th century, the name was only used..."; –"With the expansion and centralization of the country..." = rv to #2
20 Jan 14:07 –"In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known" = rv to #1
20 Jan 14:35 +"Image:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg" = rv to #4

Block lengths for the other contributors (Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and Ariana310 (talk · contribs) take into account prior history and block records. See also Talk:Afghanistan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, you are well aware that 3RR clearly refers to the same reverts. 3RR does not apply to someone removing POVs from different sections of the same article at multiple times. If that's the case then nobody can make multiple edits to an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ is trying to make his own rules and apply them to peaceful editors here. That discourages many editors from making edits and is wrong. I believe that Fut.Perf. ☼ should stick to the rules of Wikipedia and not make his/her's own rules here.--NisarKand 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]