User talk:Mirrori1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khampalak (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 14 August 2007 (→‎Please Don't Feed the Flames). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Mirrori1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan people stub tagging

Hi! Just to let you know, when indicating that an article is a stub, please add the appropriate stub template rather than the category itself. For the case of Afghan people stubs, you would add {{Afghanistan-bio-stub}}, which automatically categorises the page in Category:Afghan people stubs. Also, "a stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" (see Wikipedia:Stub), so articles like Taj Mohammad Wardak and Hamid Karzai are usually not labeled as stubs. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:42, 18 June 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Hajji Piruz 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali was ruler of Khorasan

Afghanistan was a country formed in the 19th century. Abdali ruled in the 18th century and I have provided proof and evidence to my claims. Abdali himself proclaimed himself Amir of Khorasan and never used the term Afghanistan.

Afghan is a synonymous for Pashtuns and majority of the people in Afghanistan are non pashtuns so Afghanistani is a more proper term.

--Anoshirawan 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that ahmad shah abdali was ruler of khorassan, he was also ruler of the province of punjab in india, province of sind, province of balochistan, province of kashmir, province of balkh, etcm but he was mainly king of afghanistan (as what is today known as pashtunistan or pashtunkhaw). he became king in kandahar city, which was a city that was the capital of afghanistan (pashtunistan), so therefore, he is known as king of afghanistan to everyone. during his rule, he enlarged the original afghanistan (pashtunistan) to a bigger state (durrani empire or greater afghanistan), during the process of enlarging afghanistan as a bigger state, all the people (pashtuns and non-pashtuns) agreed to conditions that all would be equal citizens regardless of race or ethnicity and all would be ***afghans nationals*** (called as "afghans" because of the name of the state). however, there were conditions that if they chose not to call themselves "afghans" then they can still be equal citizens and they may use their own ethnical name such as tajiks, uzbeks, hazaras, pashais, aimaks, baloch, or kabuli, kandhari, mazari, etc. this is why all ethnics call themselves afghans because it's no longer an ethnic as of 1747 when the nation state was created. then throughout time the greater state slowly shrunk to what is the nation's shape today.Mirrori1 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HERE IS THE POOF:

"و اما اسناد رسمی برای کلمه « خراسان » که نام قدیم افغانستان بوده خیلی زیاد است و از قرن پنج تا قرن نزده میلادی مدت یک و نیم هزار سال بنام خراسان مسما بوده تا دوره احمد شاه درانی هم که نامبرده با کلمه « امیر خراسان » مهر و امضا می کرد. نام افغانستان نه در کدام لویه جرگه و نه رفراندوم انتخاب شده و نه احمد شاه درانی که خود را شاه خراسان مینامید انتخاب شده، بلکه این نام در قرن نزده که یک بخش این سرزمین را انگلیس ها کنترول میکردند در اولین نامه اکلند انگلیسی وایسرای شبه قاره هند عنوان شاه شجاع بکار رفته است."

TRANSLATION FROM FARSI:

".....For over 1500 years the name of this country or land was Khorassan. Ahmad Shah Durrani, whom Afghans consider to be the founder of "Afghanistan", called himself "Amir-ul-Mulke Khorassan" and didn't have any idea what "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" were.... and with “Amir-e Khorassan” was how his papers were signed and his coins were minted. The name "Afghanistan" was not chosen through a "Loya Jirga" or a referendum, nor Ahmad Khan Abdaali, who considered himself to be a Khorassani, chose or came up with it, but this name was mentioned in a treaty between the Viceroy of the Indian Sub-Continent Lord Aukland and Persians in 19th Century and in correspondences with Shah Shujah".....

Dr Kamal Kabuli on historian Faryaar Kohzaad's writings.... www.Kabulnath.de

"Afghanistan" is a new word used in 18th century. It does show that Afghanistan was formed as a state in 18th century, but it does not mean that the people living in this territory were all part of other countries e.g. Pakistan, whose most people were part of India and the rest part of the old Afghanistan. The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". I am not going on the issue whether Khorasan was an independent state or part of Persia. Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues: 

  * Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

Ahmad Shah Never mentioned he was the ruler of Afghanistan. they even considered kandahar part of Khorasan and Panjabis refered him as the king of Khorasan and his empire was known as Khorasan Sharqi by Arabs and Iranians--Anoshirawan 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

these are all "he said, she said" stuff, how can ahmad shah abdali not know what "afghan" or "afghanistan" were? afghanistan did not have to be written on any documents in order for its recognition as a state, country, province or territory name. the western sources are more accurate and they have many old maps with "afghanistan" written on it. even way before 1747, afghanistan was always refered to the territory of where the pashtuns called home. there was no united nations in the past, so people had different ways of recognizing nations or states then. there are many history books written way before 1747 where it mentions the word "afghan" as a name for the people who lived in the territory of today's afghanistan, pakistan, and india. those people who you provided as sources did not have capabilities to go and venture the afghan areas if they didn't heard of "afghan" or "afghanistan". do you think this wikipedia is the most reliable source of information? it is not, and is considered just as a quick guide to to get general information, the more accurate sources that are accepted by schools, agencies and most people who want to write articles or read about afghanistan would read what is available on britannica and other trustful sources. according to all those sources, you are absolutely wrong with your determination. like i said, you will only be wasting time here trying to place wrong info because things like that don't remain here permanently and will be eraced. try to accept the truth and help the articles instead of vandalising them. i like to know if you are iranian?Mirrori1 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Show me one map from Abdali's time that has Afghanistan it. Show me one book from Abdali's time that has Afghanistan on it.

Here listen to this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=l_A3QK8b7Jc

Persian History is more reliable than English history on Abdali and the Durrani Empire in the 18th century because most books that were written in English were written in the 20th century. Even English books in the 19th century tells us the natives never used Afghanistan and even the government had no clue what Afghanistan was.(ex go read Cabul or Afghanistan(The Seat of the Anglo-Russian Question) by Philip Stewart Robinson, Read Elphinestone, Read Lady Sale...ect). Pashtuns never referred their "home" which was the Salaiman ranges "afghanistan" but they called it valiyat, or Roh(ex khushal khan khattak refers it as Roh) but Persians and turks referred the Salaiman ranges and the Peshawar valley as Afghan Zameen or Afghanistan(ex. Saifi Heravi,Babur...ect). Even kandahar gardez werent part of this Afghanistan. The only people who used Afghan were Turks and Persians and it always meant Pashtun. So please next time before claiming facts as lies, Prove it and stop using emotions.

Khushal Khan Khattak has a nice poem for Afghan

O son one word I have for thee, Fear no one and no one you flee. Pull out your sword and slay any one, That says Pashton and Afghan are not one. Arabs know this and so do Romans, Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans. --Anoshirawan 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue of afghanistan being recognized or not in 1747 is not what the article is about, it is saying that present-day afghanistan was founded by ahmad shah abdali or durrani. your argument is trying to claim that afghanistan never existed, while you on one hand say there was a place called afghanistan, on the other, you claim there didn't exist any afghanistan. i don't want to waste time with you on this argument. the fact that ahmad shah wrote a poem, and in it you see "afghan land", proves that he called his home (place of kingdom) as "afghan land", which translates to "afghanistan". your purpose is to delete this quote from the article so that people do not see this evidence:
you will be blocked from editing if you repeat deleting sourced information, and i suggest you stop. also, i am not interested in talking about racial or political issues you.Mirrori1 07:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You havent answered my question. Show me one source from the 18th century that has Afghanistan on it. The most reliable source for Abdali is Tarikh Ahmad Shahi which was written in his court. The following poem is fake and was made in the Pashtu Tolana by Abdul Hai habibi(you can check ghobar's book for more info on this poem,vol. 2). --Anoshirawan 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistani

I'm not sure what these guys are trying to do. They dismiss any source that doesn't validate their own point of view. I have no idea how they have been able to vandalize article after article without the administrators intervening. You give them concrete, authoritative sources and they claim they are biased. They try and speak for the majority who are in the mainstream, while they themselves on are on the political fringes. This is typical of propagandists. That is all they are.

Let me ask you brother, have you heard any proud Afghan refer to himself/herself as Afghanistani? I know I haven't. Yet these guys claim that Afghanistani is the most correct term. All I can say is "wow".

Take care my friend. -Khampalak

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Middle Eastern American. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Chris g 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Personal Attack

Your personal attack against User:Anoshirawan with the label "pirate" and the link to Davy Jones on this edit is against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.----DarkTea 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's just your opinion, you are obviously showing your support to vandals. as for my opinion, the actions of anoshirawan were that of a pirate. this justifies for me to label him as a pirate. besides, you are not even an administrator, you need to report my actions to an administrator and let them decide.Mirrori1 10:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Ahmad Khan Abdali. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
user:beh-nam also reverted 4 times on Ahmad Shah Abdali's article but you ignored and refused to block him/her, check its history and learn how to count. you played the old trick of a blind man's role. it's ok because i'm not trying to apply for administratorship, i reported a vandal to you and you blocked me instead. that means you support vandals.Mirrori1 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I got blocked as well, per user:Beh-nam's request. They refused to unblock me, saying that user:Anoshirawan's behavior was "stubbornness" rather than "vandalism". I see no honor or integrity in what certain users are doing. And it seems that the administrators are oblivious to the fact that these articles are being vandalized by virtue of them being used for propaganda, even when the general consensus is stacked heavily against those users. --Khampalak 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Comment: Hotaki dynasty origin and ethnicity

The RFC on the origin and ethnicity of the founder of the Hotaki dynasty are being conducted on the Hotaki dynasty talk page, as that is where a lot of the discussion of this issue has appeared. Parties include Anoshirawan and User:Khampalak above. --Bejnar 16:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam baradar.

You know, you are absolutely right. I've tried to stop many times, but ended up giving into the temptation to try again hoping that I could actually make a difference in the articles. There are others here such as yourself, Bejnar, Raoulduke47, etc that made me hopeful that we could wrestle the articles away from those clowns. But it seems that no matter how well you debate and make your case, it will make absolutely no difference. I have had experiences with these people elsewhere as well. I've seen the garbage they post on youtube and other forums. The people I've dealt with pull the same exact sources out of their asses. They make the same shameless accusations. They are communists dogs, akin to their idol Tahir Badakshi and others. It makes me sick. But as you have said, they want to provoke us and get a reaction. Only then will their efforts be validated. You and I both know our history and our people. These dogs can do absolutely nothing to shatter our pride. We should just let them be bitter and resentful...in the end they will lose despite their best efforts to defame Afghanistan and Afghans.

Khudai Pa Amaan

Bachem, this gets more comical by the day. I'm serious. So some user named Pejman reports me for calling Beh-nam a dog. An administrator named Persian Poet Girl brings down the hammer of justice and tells me to be civil with vandals and propagandists, with not so much as a warning for Beh-nam and Anoshirawan for their continued abuse of Wikipedia policies. I used to argue with people who said Wikipedia was BS and unreliable. Seeing the politics at play here, I'm starting to agree with them. --Khampalak 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikepedia is anything BUT fun, and since it covers the world, it means satan and demons are also involved. wikedpedia is satan's tool to spread false information to the world. we can see the evil inside of evil thinkers if you follow their history.Mirrori1 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. --Khampalak 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Feed the Flames

Mirrori, please do not feed the flames. User:Khampalak was responding back to me very civilly when I placed that message on his talk page and I had no desire to block him...but to warn him. Also, please don't post comments like "choosen people." This is considered soapboxing.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have hard time believing you. you first threatened him with block now you saying you were just warning when he didn't even violate any rules. about me saying we afghans are the chosen people of God, this is true, no doubt about this. i'm not forcing you to believe this, just felt like saying that we love God and we are on God's side and Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God.i think i can say this here, especially in my own talk page.Mirrori1 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did violate the rules and was not following WP:CIVIL. I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me calling you any of those things correct? Also, you must understand that Wikipedia is full of diverse editors and it is not acceptable to soapbox and call anyone a chosen people.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that if the subjects of these articles were living, the material would be grounds for legal action. The Mohammad Zahir Shah article, for example, was already a mess. But on the day he died, users Anoshirawan and Beh-nam made countless slanderous edits and have continued to do so, seemingly out of spite. That shows pre-meditation for one thing. Furthermore, is there not a policy on NPOV? Any article edited by these individuals is in grave violation of that policy. The Zahir Shah article is a perfect example. --Khampalak 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are allowed to call me a dog or an idiot if i do the things user:anoshirawan and beh-nam are doing, those are names children call one another. it's not what you think i am, i know what i am, and if you call me something i am not, i will just ignore you as if you were responding to someone else.Mirrori1 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ A Profile of Afghanistan by Kimberly Kim, MAIC ~Ahmad Shah Durrani (Pashto Poet)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mirrori1&oldid=151256289"