User talk:Hazara898

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Beh-nam (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Afghanistan Demographics

Please do not change cited numbers for the demographics in the Afghanistan article. The Encyc. Brit. numbers are:

49% Pashtun
18% Tajik
9% Hazara
8% Uzbek
4% Aimak
3% Turkmen
9% other

Please check out the cited source before making edits. --Bejnar (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica's numbers are from the early 1900s. Iranica is the most reliable and CIA is ok too. Hazara898 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the user that insists on Britannica's numbers from the early 1900s complains that CIA's numbers are not recent enough. Hazara898 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia Britannica updated their demographic figures for Afghanistan in 2006. They don't match the 1911 ones, because there were no ethnic figures for Afghanistan in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. So, what are you talking about? --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't restore errors

In your edit of 23:22, 27 January 2008, to the "Genetics" section of the Hazara people article you placed the letter "f" in the middle of a page number. I corrected that, but instead of editing my edit, you restored your version which included, among other things the letter "f" in the middle of a page number. Please fix what you think needs fixing, but do not restore errors. Please note that I preserved your better wording to, for example, the initial phrase of the lead sentence of that section "Genetically, the Haraza are primarily a mixture of". --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Kabul, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Saying that other editors support the Taliban as you did here is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. sho y 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for harassment of other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe | Talk 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul Province

Stop giving me childish excuses. Who controls the army? Who has its milities in Kabul? Here we are talking about Kabul Province not Kabul city. I don't have the patience to go into childish excuses. No sources is greater than the one that comes from the government. If you follow carefully every majority of the districts are Pashtun districts in Kabul AIMS.ORG.AF source will proof it to you. Stop changing facts otherwise you will be banned. I have already spoken to the Admins and the Management.--Shikab (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]