User talk:Krzyhorse22/Archive 1

Hi Krzyhorse22! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are the subject of a discussion at ANI. Regards - DocumentError (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I type this so that I can get an understanding of where you are coming from in relation to File:Mullah Omar.png .What if the resolution was altered or the image was adjusted? Could it still be considered free use? Could I try and find another version of the image from another site claiming PD? Could I use the other image of Mullah Omar on [1]? How can I ensure I upload an image that doesn't get deleted every time when I fill out the licensing and permission and everything? It just seems really odd as to why no images are allowed of a person who has a $10 million reward for capture, when it would not only be doing him a great disservice having his image on a Wikipedia article but also expanding an article for users. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very strict policy when it comes to uploading images. This Mullah Omar's image is without doubt the work of someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan. Because it is very famous photo, someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan could make a claim that it is his work and go the U.S. to file a lawsuit in federal court and ask for millions of dollars, and eventually he will get if he produces evidence. The U.S. government knows this and that's why it won't use the full version. The second issue is that it is not for certain that this is Mullah Omar's face. It is just thought to be him and because of this reason it cannot qualify for fair use. There may be a $10 million reward for his capture, at the same time he is offered a deal to return to Afghanistan and live as a free person with no charges against him. [2] [3]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is from someone within Afghanistan, what if they haven't registered their work with the United States? We don't know the background behind the image, only that it is purported to be Mullah Omar, as the State Department and various media outlets believe. You can see traces that all the images purporting to depict mullah Omar do indeed portray the same person. Notice the width of the nostrils in [4] between the two images, the close resembling facial features of [5] and [6] and the high beard in [7] and [8]. Does it not look like the same person to you, or is it just me? That registry with the U.S on published works appears to be for images with a vested commercial interest, whereas the mullah omar image appears to be equivalent to a mug shot, not something intended to sell. Isn't it an issue that very little is actually known abut who took the image? And does it mean absolutely nothing that Afghanistan isn't a member of the Berne Convention, the World Trade Organisation or the World Intellectual Property Organisation? The Uruguay Round Agreements Act states: the time the work was created, at least one author must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the protection of the Literacy and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S copyright protection to works of that country on the basis pf reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S nationals or domiciliaries. Can this not be taken into consideration when determining if the image is liable under a copyright of any kind, whether in Afghanistan or the U.S? Could I upload an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri from the FBI site [9] without worrying about all these issues with Mullah Omar? I don't mean to annoy you, but I just have absolutely no idea when an image can be uploaded anymore, with all these inquests into non-free use. I thought I had everything done right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Images posted on US government sites don't mean they are free to use, unless an image was specifically created by a U.S. federal government employee during his or her official duty. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide that information.
2. That is not Omar's mug shot. It is Afghanistan's national ID photo.
3. The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar.
4. You can find a better color and latest image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, send email to the author and request permission to use it in Wikipedia.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. What if the government site states public-domain? Wouldn't that classify as free to use? Could I just use the exact cropped version of rewards for justice with the low resolution? Or is the reason due to, as you stated, an uncertainty if the image is indeed Mullah Omar? My only counter is that if it's worthy for the U.S to use in displaying a $10 bounty of an individual, than that should prove adequate enough reason that the image is legit.
2. If it's a national ID photo, wouldn't that make the image usable as it's an official government document use solely for identification? I thought ID photos aren't sold for commercial interests. Does that mean that my passport/license photo, for example, has a copyright on it by a private individual?
3. The man was interviewed? StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this man was proven to be a false image of Mullah Omar after this 2003 Vanity Fair article was published. The same source states that the image you uploaded is a 1993 photo by Khalid Hadi. [10] Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you found an article that actually goes into depth about where that image came from. Can't even imagine how long it took searching through the internet to find it. I'm still not convinced however that the image is not depicting Mullah Omar, we know for a fact that he is missing his right eye. See [11], it's someone who doubted the authenticity of the portrait. Well, the image has now been deleted. I'll now have to consult with you whenever I wish to upload an image so as to not wind up in that damn back and forth jostle ever again. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc. Mullah Omar is not the only Afghan with a fucked up eye and long beard. There is another story that I watched on TV which tracked this man to a house in Kandahar and that man was pissed off saying Khalid Hadi took his photo and told the Americans he was Mullah Omar. This is why you can't trust Afghans.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'm sure there are many afghans with blown out eyes. But see this [12], I think you might be confusing the person in the image you linked with this image? This is the only site I can find of someone saying they are not Mullah Omar despite the U.S releasing leaflets with that image on it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I upload [13] as a non-free work, fair use work under "excerpt from a copyrighted work"? It's a video screenshot taken of Mullah Omar holding the Cloak of Muhammad in Kandahar. And could this image [14] be uploaded as a non-free work, fair use work under "some other kind of non-free work" or as a free-work in the Public-Domain as it's from RfJ? It won't be used as the image in the info-box, but have a description saying "Photo believed to show Mullah Omar according to U.S State Department" somewhere in the article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe this is M.O.? Can't you see nothing is wrong with his eyes? It is a recent photo and the person has graying hair which all means it cannot be M.O. Regarding this one, we have no idea who the people are and what they are doing. The standing guy who is suspected to be M.O. has nothing wrong with his eyes. He looks more like Mullah Dadullah. Turbans and Pashtun people are not only found in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan. Who took that photo? How can someone take a photo of M.O. when Taliban didn't allow it? U.S. State Department is not an expert on M.O. In this situation we must rely on experts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article that Mullah Omar may have used a glass eye [15], which could be a pluasible explanation for the clear discrepancy between the right eye and the left eye in the [16] image. It may be recent, but Mullah Omar is expected to be in his mid 50's, so I don't understand as to how that would disqualify him from having graying hair. We don't know of his genetics. I stated that I wouldn't make the image the sole focus by putting it in the info-box stating that it's M.O, and would put it somewhere in the article stating that the U.S State Department believe this person to be M.O, which is true. I don't know why we would withhold information from an article, especially it it's from the PD. [17] is a screenshot taken from a documentary recorded at a Kandahar mosque in April 1996 where Mullah Omar revealed the cloak of Muhammad. That screenshot is taken from a considerable distance, and is zoomed in. Also bear in mind the quality of filming equipment from the 90's era. It has been widely reported [18][19], even on Wikipedia that he did possess Muhammad cloak in such a ceremony [20],[21]. The film was taken clandestinely, meaning no one in that image knew they were being recorded at the time.

However, you haven't answered my original question. I stated, if I could upload these two images under their respective licences. You haven't stated no, so I am assuming I am allowed to without any hitches, but I know you don't want me to, becuase?... StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying about this is very stupid. I heard the false eye rumor before that article was published, and I seen people with false eye but they don't look anything like the guy in this image. To me he is about 30 something, it's just the beard that makes him look older. Now, why the fuck would he stand there and let someone take a close up picture of him? Who took that picture? The truth is that's not MO but someone else. There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it. You keep mentioning U.S. State Department, there is nothing special about that agency when it comes to MO. Many sources have said MO took the cloak out in public but the sources don't say this is MO. Sources say MO took it out of the box but look again and see who is taking it out of the box. The problem with you is that you want to force your weak belief on everyone, and that shit is not allowed here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you have been hired by the Taliban to quell any discussion of its members on the English Wikipedia. You seem to try and find any and every conceivable reason for not allowing anything to be be uploaded. I know you hold a POV on both Taliban and MO. Have you lost someone to Taliban? If so, then truly I'm apologetic, but if that's the case than trying to strip bare any information on these people is just wrong. Or are you favorable towards the Taliban and wish for none of their leaders to be portrayed visually and to be shown in the flesh? You never give any proof for your claims, which concerns me. You stated you contacted the CIA director without evidence, have dismissed without proving that one of the suspected MO images is in fact not MO, and just now stated that clear evidence is abundant in proving that another image is not MO, but you don't have time to search for it. You also accused Afghans of being too corrupt and called Khalid Hadi a liar without proof. The U.S State Department is the most premier source I have found on MO. All the others have been news articles or blogs with conflicting facts but still use the same images. With regards to the image [22], you are absolutely correct, I have no idea who took this at all. I do know however that, just as with the other images in that vanity fair article, Taliban officials stated MO wished to prove to others that he was still alive post 2001, but that's the only explanation I can come up with. It is still better than saying it's completely impossible for the image to be him. The video link states between 30-36 seconds "Mullah Omar displayed the holy cloak of the Prophet Muhammad to the crowd", that man kneeling before the cloak is not lifting it out of the box but rather kneeling before it and MO. Now, I admire your tenacity and your knowledge on the issue. If I didn't, why would I bother typing messages on your wall asking for your opinion? You have shown me facts such as in that article on the origins of Taliban which I hadn't known prior to this, and corrected the mistake I made by uploading that other file on the man with the one eye. I still don't understand why you are so hostile to my proposed idea. I'm not saying that I think he is MO, I'm saying it would be worth mentioning that the U.S government believe that the man in [23] is MO. If not, then it's just disregarding a fact. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mullah Omar displayed the holy cloak of the Prophet Muhammad to the crowd" could be interpreted two ways. That (A) he personally took it out and displayed it or (B) he ordered one of his close commanders to do it. We don't need to get into that. By law you are not allowed to upload images of other people without their permission. The US government has no authority whatsoever to take the rights of copyright holders without proper permission, and it doesn't matter if it's State Department, White House, CIA or the Pentagon. MO wished to prove to others that he was still alive? So he brought an anonymous photographer and made a thumbnail? [24] The guy in the thumbnail appears to have non-defective eyes. Someone with glass eye is easily noticeable, see Peter Falk, the guy who played Columbo on TV. The reason I'm against your uploads is because you act like a cunning thief who makes up false licenses for misleading purposes.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but then why are there images of Osama Bin Laden and Dokka Umarov, for example? I doubt they had given permission for their cronies to use images of themselves onto Wikipedia English, unless they were huge narcissists. I try and upload images as accurately as possible. I just find it difficult if the terms and conditions state it's in the PD for example, and then boom, next minute I receive a non-free, non-fair use message on my wall. I do admit though uploaded the full version of the RFJ image, but I thought that since the source stated it was in the PD, no one knew who the original author was, and the place of origin were the image was taken is not in the Berne Convention, that it would be fine to use on Wikipedia. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden's images were seized by U.S. military during raids. [25] That's what makes it different but they could also be deleted if someone finds a specific case law making it unlawful for U.S. government to publish such seized images.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always seem to delete the things that I upload? The image was under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license.. How could that have been an issue..? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Become familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia before inserting an image of Kabir Stori in the infobox of Pashtun people. He is one of 1000s of poets and that alone is not enough.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Dear Kryzhorse22,

he was not only a poet, he was a politican, he was a philosoph, he did many things. Or isn't it enough to get his own school in his hometown by the Afghan government? ...

--Pohyal98 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look man, what you're saying is considered unsourced POV. You must bring reliable sources to support your claim. There are 50 million Pashtuns in the world and this Kabir Stori is not that notable to have his image in infobox. Can't you see the others are kings, queens, presidents and globally recognized Pashtuns. If you keep re-adding the image I'm going to contact admins and they could get you blocked for disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise people who you find interesting or are relatives of yours, and etc.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. In particular, editing of project ("Wikipedia:") pages, including WP:SPI cases, is prohibited. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message but I don't edit Wikipedia that often, just once in a while here and there. My IP address is shared by many individuals and it constantly changes so perhaps someone else did an edit. If I wanted to make an edit I would do it with this account.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's clear to us as CheckUsers that you are editing logged out, in a way which specifically conflicts with the sockpuppetry policy. This is a warning to stop doing so. If you wish to know more information (which I'm trying to avoid public disclosure or hinting at of your IP(s)), please contact me directly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me, to get a real and correct article? I did created a draft, so i need maybe help, to check whats wrong. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shahmahmood_Miakhel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhtun1103 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a variety of issues in which you've been involved. The thread is Extreme and Systemic Disruption / WP:LEGAL. Thank you. —DocumentError (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irapart. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of governors of Daykundi

added a link pointing to Mohammad Yousef

Pashtun people

added a link pointing to Nasher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krzyhorse22 is a little girl: if he can't convince you, he will threaten you with nerdy rules and regulations ("I will tell...")

If you continue to call me POV-pusher or if you insult me again (as you just did on my own talkpage), you will be reported to admins! My edits are fully justified. Not only because I have corrected the numbers according to the attached sources (have actually checked the sources?!), but also because I have restored information and quotes that are directly from academic and authoritative sources. You, on the other hand, keep removing these sources and quotes. What's your problem?! "Afghan" and "Pashtun" are synonyms, "Afghanistan" and "Land of Pashtuns" are synonyms. This is sourced information. It is totally irrelevant if anyone feels insulted by this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to present facts the way they are, and not the way certain people wish it to be. So this is your last warning: stop removing sourced material! --Lysozym (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insult you, and you're free to report me to admins. Second, you did in fact falsify the numbers by increasing the percent figures of certain groups and decreased figures of others [26], although you probably didn't mean it. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY. When you write in the article that the name Afghanistan means land of Pashtun, you must cite a reliable source that actually states that. The cited sources state that it means land of Afghans and doesn't mention land of Pashtun. Yes "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to present facts the way they are," but everything has to be sourced. There are 14 ethnic groups in Afghanistan and they're all Afghans, so it is land of all Afghans and not only Pashtun.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words won't change facts. All reliable and relevant academic sources agree that "Pashtun" and "Afghan" are synonyms. It is true that nowadays, "Afghan" is used as a general designation for all citizens of Afghanistan (the same way "Turk" is used for all citizens of Turkey, even though Kurds and Assyrians are not Turks), but the historical meaning is clear. And the name "Afghanistan", evidently with the meaning "Land of Pashtuns" since the time of the Mughals, was introduced because Afghanistan was ruled by Pashtun kings and to this day Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group - in number, in political influence, even in cultural influence. Keeping this information out of the article is not academic at all! Just for your information: the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica do not even have articles named "Pashtuns" - the respective articles are named "Afghans". --Lysozym (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against constructive edits or deletions of irrelevant content, simply explain or give a reason. As for "Pashtun" and "Afghan" being synonyms, it's not widely accepted as you think. I'm saying that Persians view it that way but not the rest of the world. Besides, in the 2nd sentence of Etymology section, it states "The root name "Afghan" was used historically in reference to the Pashtun people". There's no need to repeat that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come you didn't engage in the discussion at the talk page before moving the page? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pashtun people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masters. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jowzjan Province may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• by [[Uzbeks|Uzbek]], [[Pashtun people|Pashtun]], [[Tajik people|Tajik]] and possibly a few others.{{citation needed|date=October 2014} Occasional ethnic violence are reported in the area, the last

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put some old Uzbek character in Uzbeks page, please don't change it again. if you need references about that individuals proofing that they belong to Turkic tribe of Uzbek, I can provide it.

1- jalaldin Manguberdi: His nick name was manguberdi. in Uzbek language means god given he was born in Urgench city currently located in Uzbekistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgench). His mother name was Ay chichek. In Turkic Uzbek language Ay means moon an Chichek means flower. so his nick name and mother name is completely Uzbek. besides he was born in an Uzbek city(urgench).

2- Timor Kuragani: He is also from Turkic tribe of Uzbek. The word "Timor" in Uzbek language means Iron, as you see his name is completely Uzbek. also his memory book was written in Turkic language of Uzbek branch. He was born in Kish city near Samarqand.

3- Bobur: He was from descendants of Timorid empire, He was born in Uzbek city of Fergana, He have many poems in Uzbek language. I'll put an example of that:

kim kurubtur ay kong'ol ahli jahanda yakhshiligh - kim ki andin yakhshi yoq ko'z tutma andin yakhshiligh - gar zamangha nafi qilalsam ayb qilma ay rafiq - kormadim hargiz niyatin bo zamandin yakhshiligh - dilruba lardin yomanligh gildi mahzon kongluma - gilmadi janimgha hich arami jandan yakhshiligh - bari eylgha yakhshiligh qilgil ki mondin yakhshi yo'q - kim digaylar dahr ara qaldi falandan yakhshiligh - yakhshiligh ahli jahanda istama "bobur" kimi - kim kurubtur ay kong'ol ahli jahanda yakhshiligh -

This is a song according to lyrics of this poem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJBuX6Rn2Wg

4- Alisher Navoi: Nothing say about him to proof him as Uzbek he have bundle of books in Turkic language of Uzbek branch.

5- Ulugh beg: He was grandson of Amir Timor born in Samarqand, only his name proofs every thing that he is Uzbek. in Uzbek language the "ulugh" mean great or enormous and "Bek" means leader of men. so he is completely Uzbek.

I think this much i enough for this time. if you need more proofs I can provide for you.

Please don't remove famous old Uzbek individuals from Uzbeks page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I reported you for abusing multiple accounts.[27] This is very disruptive and blockable offense. Second, you are adding images of Mongols (Moghuls) into Uzbeks article. The way you're doing it is completely wrong. Information in Wikipedia cannot be based on theories and opinions, see WP:OR.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mongol? Timor? Bobur? Alisher Navoi? Jalaludin Manguberdi? Ulug beg? Who are you to put information about Uzbeks? Are you Uzbek? The names speaks everything. I'm new in Wikipedia the my fist account had problems I created another, I didn't used for illegal thing. Look there are so many proofs that this individuals are belongs to Turkic tribe of Uzbek. I put an Poem from Bobur, look at that his language is completely like our language. Please try to compare his language with Mongol language then you can decide that he is Uzbek or Mongol. Please study about Alisher Navoi and his Books which written in the age of Timorids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1- Jawahir Lal Nehru, Timur in history of World, Article 247, " This man was Timur, who wanted to be second Chengiz khan. He claimed to be descended from Chengiz, but he was really a Turk. http://historydepartmentphilos.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/1/26612531/jawaharlal_nehru_glimpses_of_world_history.pdf

2- George Sanders, Timur in history of Mongols, "Although his conquest was similar to Chengiz khan, his ethnic was Turk rather to be Mongol. http://ketabnak.com/redirect.php?dlid=56225

3- Donald Wibler, Persian Gardens & Garden Pavilions, "Timur which born in 1335 was from descendants of Turkic tribes in Samarqand." https://one.overdrive.com/media/1400688/persian-gardens-garden-pavilions

4- Hasan Pirnia, Timur in the history of Iran, "Timur was son of Amir Taraghai, some historians claimed that his origin receives to Chengiz Khan, but the correctness of this claim is not certain. even according to some historians (Amir Qarajar nuyan barlas) is not his 5th ancestor. http://4paye.ir/download/483/582/pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he belonged to Turkic peoples (Britannica states "Timur ... Turkic conqueror"...) but the term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples including existing societies such as the Turkish people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauz, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Balkars, Nogais and as well as past civilizations such as Tiele (and Dingling), Avars, Göktürks, Bulgars, Kumans, Kipchaks, Turgeshes, Khazars, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks, Timurids, Khiljis, and possibly Huns, Xiongnu, Wusun and the Tauri. So why are you adding his image in Uzbeks article?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jirga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assembly. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	hi Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	a
	http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/politics/u-s-drones-pakistan-report/ ....pakistani army does not clearly say ... Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krzyhorse22. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Faizan 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Faizan 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Zarb-e-Azb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Krzyhorse22 is quick to lay blame and point fingers but I think it would be quite interesting to note your history on the article Operation Zarbe-azb:

1. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
2. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
3. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
4. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
5. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
6. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
7. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
8. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
9. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
10. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
11. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
12. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
13. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
14. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
15. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
16. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
17. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
18. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
19. [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan

and regarding POV pushing and pro-afghan propaganda which thanks to User:Faizan has been kept in check: Propaganda proof User:Krzyhorse22 im surprised that you can still blame me for POV pushing meanwhile one can easily, by a quick glance at you talk page, notice something quite more extreme here... the only dispute i had was on Zarb-e-azb.Btw if you think User:عثمان خان شاہ is me and User:UsmanKhanShah was me thn plz open up an SPI investigation lol Saadkhan12345 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the past edit war on article operation zarb-e-azb...i think you should stop holding on to the past...it was only a minor edit. After all...i consider you a friend...so stop with the grudge please Saadkhan12345 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anwar ul-Haq Ahady, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarobi District. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this and have your say regarding the dispute b/w me and User:Akmal94 Third opinion. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Faizan 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krzyhorse22. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saadkhan12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. DR/N can be used to file a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. - a process for resolving a dispute over article content between two or more editors. It is unable to address disputes primarily concerning user conduct - they should be discussed with the users involved first, and failing that directed here.

• In brief: dispute resolution should be used when you:
• Have a dispute with another editor and need help resolving it
• Are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner
• Are open to the idea of compromising with the other editors to resolve the dispute

This process can:

• Help provide suggestions on content
• Frame discussions and offer support for parties that want to work towards a compromise

This process cannot:

• Block other users from editing (either everywhere or specific pages)
• Remove content that you don't like from articles
• Force another editor to do something
• Address disputes that are currently under discussion somewhere else (such as Requests for Comment, Mediation or Arbitration). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Well I dont get it...its confusing You can check how old he is from this news article http://www.arabnews.com/news/641121 here -October 2014

Quote -Prominent Indian actor and scriptwriter Kader Khan was awestruck by the Kaaba when he saw it for the first time, according to his son who accompanied him on Haj this year. Sarfaraz Khan, who is also an actor in the Indian film industry, said the 78-year-old simply stared at the structure.

and here http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/kader-khan-fine-upset-with-death-rumours-610674 it says The 77-year-old has urged gossip mongers to stop spreading rumours.

and here it says http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/actor-kader-khans-academic-aspirations-603861 "I was born in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1952. But my mother was scared of raising me there. Three of my elder brothers had died before they were eight years old. My mother believed there was something wrong in the Kabul air," he rued. But I guess your version seems to be more correct. Also have seen his movie from 1979 and he does not look 27 (his age in 79 if he was born in 52) I think he was born before that. Also please take notice of DR/N and fill out the summary. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He might be either lying or don't want to reveal his true age. Indian news pieces are usually edited by non-credible (amateur) people who often get their basic info out of Wikipedia, meaning they don't care if mistakes are reported. They don't care much about reputation unlike sources such those from USA or UK. Anyway, I just wanted you to know this. About the DR/N, I have no idea what to present there, the other guys need to find correct sources that actually mention Afghan terrorists. You know well that there are no Afghan terrorists, especially in Pakistan, or Afghan militant groups fighting with the state of Pakistan. Only people who have no knowledge or those who are just plain ignorant would add Afghan terrorists as fighting with Pakistan. It's obvious that the other editors have a grudge on the Afghan people. There may be some Afghans in Haqqani network or TTP but like I said that should be addressed inside those articles. The militaries of Afghanistan, NATO and Pakistan don't rely on Wikipedia for info, they have a very clear idea who the terrorists are and who are supporting them. I hope this gets into the brains of the other two who are just giving Pakistanis an ugly image.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually watched this video of him Youtube where he says 22nd October 1942. In the DR/N, under Summary of dispute by Krzyhorse22 put a brief summary like the one here.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kabul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bala Hisar Fort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you try uploading that mohmand cosmonaut picture. it ll be greatly appreciated. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The correct preposition is da (in Pashto script د). It can also but less commonly be transliterated də. It means "of", as in da Sarah kor, "house of Sarah". De, however, is different, it is written دې which is a different Pashto word serving various functions, for example it is used as a second person possessive pronoun (as in ghwag de, "your ear"), among its other meanings. Khestwol (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This time discuss the matter on talk page before undoing my edits, i have surely seen your hatred towards Pakistani Pashtuns which is clearly visible at the talk page. If you have any problem with the edits then discuss it on talk page and whatever is the outcome, that should be the final take in that matter. Your Afghan pashtun superiority that you have claimed is living as refugee in my country since last 40 years, if we have treated you with love you should atleast show some respect towards Pakistani Pashtuns. Saladin1987 14:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits show that you have some kind of problem with Afghans and Afghanistan, and continuing this will lead you to getting blocked. This is not a social network or a place to discuss politics, it is an encyclopedia intended for serious editors. Are you a Pakistani Pashtun? What I said about them is not hatred. They don't have power or even voice in Pakistan, and they are being driven out of their own native land. I cited news reports, sorry if that gets you frustrated. As for you, you removed a long-known confirmed Pashtun female actor and placed it with another cricket player who may not even be a Pashtun. Many people have "Khan" last name but they're not Pashtuns. He is not that qualified to be appearing in that articles's image box.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krzyhorse22, would you like to tell that why you assume Saladin1987 to be a sock? Have you even warned him about DS? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's very easy. When I'm bored I sometimes look at editors' contributions and behaviours, they post information and I process that info to determine who is who and what they're thinking, planning, doing. Saladin behaves too much like the other one, almost 90%. He only writes different and signs manually, but that's what most socks do to avoid detection. There's only one Pakistani Wikipedia editor who is extremely anti-Afghan and he's always editing from Brisbane. Providing details now is unnecessary, he's nothing to me. See this--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actual question: Who it is? It is Mar4d? I will check. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Afghanistan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. \\'arrior 786 (open channel) 10:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krzyhorse22,

I sincerely suggest you bring your concerns about your alleged suspicion of bacha bazi in Iran to its respective talk page. Bacha Bazi is a form of pedastry, but pedastry is not Bacha Bachi, as in that type of culture. Every nation has forms of pedastry, but not every nation has Bacha Bazi, which is totally confined to Afghanistan/Pakistan/Central Asia.

If you keep reverting simply based on your personal ideas/preferences/"assumptions", I'll have to bring it to ANI, cause it ain't gonna work like this.

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bacha bazi. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National borders are important to be mentioned for Takhar Province. Please stop following and reverting my edits. Deletion of this important info was not constructive. Also you have to cross Kunduz first and Kunduz is the location of the main population center of northeastern Afghanistan so there is no harm to mention the provinces counterclockwise. Khestwol (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. I watch Afghanistan articles. You cannot write articles any way you want, it has to be done inline with Wikipedia rules.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand my points above then! I tried to be as constructive with the lede as I could. Khestwol (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added China and Pakistan, these countries have absolutely no links or connections to Takhar province. Therefore, these countries don't belong in this Afghanistan article. Also, from a geographical point of view, clockwise is always the better choice.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you are wrong. Badakhshan a neighboring province has national borders with not only Tajikistan but also 2 other countries. I think this is politically important to be mentioned in this article. Khestwol (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Takhar is NOT Badakhshan, just like Afghanistan is NOT China or Pakistan, or vice versa. There's absolutely no logical reason to mention these countries. It only creates confusion, these articles are mainly intended for students.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a student somewhere was to write about this province as a school assignment, he/she will more likely make a mistake by becoming confused with Badakhshan province if he/she sees the mention of China and Pakistan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghor Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohammed Ibrahim. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afghan American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Krzyhorse22,

What certain evidence is there which you have of Mullah Mansour being Alizai tribe not Ishaqzai? Antrangelos (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rashid says he belongs to the Alizai tribe. [28] Rashid has wrote extensively about Taliban. Who is the person that claims Mansoor belonging to Iashaqzai tribe? How reliable is that source?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi is writing within the Al Jazeera network, this source shows he is of the Ishaqzai and the editorial board is reliable. As a matter of fact I didn't see " According to Ahmed Rashid...", but have included the T.A.C. source now, and returned >Durrani, apparently both the Alizai and Ishaqzai are of the Durrani line of the Pashtun, plus a copyedit. Antrangelos (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Charlie Sheen. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Charlie Sheen stated "I'm here to admit that I am HIV-positive" [29] People is a well respected source, it is very reliable. You have a problem with believing certain information, I can't help you with that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−== Stoning in Afghanistan ==

Hi Krzyhorse22. If you go to the "Extrajudicial terror" part of this article, it explicitly states that tribal leaders (among others) carry out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan:

In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign.

The wiki article on stoning already mentions that the act is illegal in Afghanistan so any mention of Taliban militants or tribal leaders carrying it out necessarily implies that what they are doing is not allowed by law and is extrajudicial. However, to further emphasize the illegality of stoning in Afghan law, I have phrased the sentence as follows: "Stoning is illegal in Afghanistan but is sometimes carried out by tribal leaders and Taliban insurgents extrajudicially in certain parts of the country." I hope you are fine with this. If not, let's sort out the matter on this talk before making any edits to the section on Afghanistan. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That UK news article is focusing on stoning in Iran and Pakistan. If you want to add information about stoning in Afghanistan, you have to get news articles particularly about Afghanistan. I have done that and they all make it clear that stoning is considered a crime. The paragraph correctly ends by stating: "The Karzai administration officially banned stoning in Afghanistan. However, it continued to be reported occasionally but as a crime.[48][49][50][47]" If you are going to accuse a tribal leader for stoning women extrajudicially or otherwise, you have to name him or the tribe he represents. In other words, there has to be some truth than just a making wild claim. Wikipedia is not UK news article.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Krzyhorse22, we do not necessarily have to cite an article solely dedicated to stoning in Afghanistan; we can cite reliable articles that briefly mention stoning in Afghanistan too. And the fact that the news article mentions tribal leaders carrying out stoning extrajudicially is enough to mention them in the wiki article. I have not accused any particular tribal leaders so their exact names need not be added but you can certainly improve the article by adding them if you like. I do not understand why you are again stressing that stoning is a crime in Afghan law when I have said so myself and the wiki article does so too. If you think it would be more accurate, you may phrase the sentence to say that some tribal leaders carry out stoning extrajudicially but I would highly advise against removing any mention of tribal leaders as they have been cited by a reliable source. If you have any other reservations, please share them. —Human10.0 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only made 123 edits in Wikipedia, that means you probably don't know much of the rules here. When there is complete and accurate information available about stoning in Afghanistan, we obviously prefer to that. The Wiki article Stoning is NOT about the crime of stoning someone to death, it is about the legal punishment. News reports often contain inaccurate or misleading information. If a UK news editor mentions in the end of a news article about God, that God is a black man, are we suppose to accept that? Anyway, you're accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders of stoning people to death so you have to WP:PROVEIT. You probably don't even know what is a tribal leader. Hamid Karzai is the leader of the Popalzai tribe, are you saying he stoned people to death in Afghanistan?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Krzyhorse22, I am aware of the rules. I encourage you to read them and check what sources we can use as citations. Please learn to respect others, there is no need to make shallow remarks. I know what tribal leaders are, I am from the same region. That god argument is a very poor one. I haven't personally accused anyone, I merely reported what a reliable news article said. Anyways, I have moved this conversation to the talk page of the stoning article. If you would like to continue this conversation, please do so on that talk page. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of legal systems, there are cases where a person has an obligation to do something, and can face penalties for not doing so. On Wikipedia, there is never any situation where a user can face sanctions for not using advanced permissions, regardless of what those permissions are or how compelling the case for tool use is. Abuse of discretion can only come into play when an administrator uses tools in a situation where tool use was not justified, and such abuse rarely results in sanctions except in cases where a widely-disliked administrator misuses the tools repeatedly. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all of this, my intention was not to get Bbb23 in trouble or anything. I knew that cannot happen. I wanted him and others to understand that his job here is to act like a judge. When enough evidence of active socking is presented to him, he should block the person (no if, what or but) otherwise that sock abuser will feel unblockable, resulting into other editors abusing socks and ultimately turning Wikipedia into sock warzone (e.g., like how Yahoo chat rooms turned out with bots before being shut down in late 2012). The person I reported did not even deny socking. Therefore, in this case he should've been blocked.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human10.0 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID YOU VANDALIZE MY USER PAGE. IS THAT HOW YOU WELCOME YOUR FRIENDS? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are member of Wikiproject Pashtuns then why you are against Pashtuns? --Human3015^TALK  20:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the time being I'm a member of that. I'm not against Pashtuns or any other group. When something is wrong in Wikipedia I must try to fix it.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Today I saw your edit here, I don't know on what base you have putted that template . My English weak therefore i will not able to describe in fluently . Please could you describe why did put that template there?--UsmanKhan (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may also contact me through my urdu wiki id because i m mostly active on that wiki--UsmanKhan (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These Indian actors may have had Pashtuns ancestors few centuries ago. Only the Indian actor Yusuf Khan also know as Dilip Kumar is a recent Pashtun as he was born in Peshawar. The Pashtun page should have picture of recent Pashtuns not who may claim Pashtun ancestry from few centuries ago. Sartaj Aziz was born in 1929 in the Pashtun Kakakhel family in the Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Read about Sartaj Aziz and Ghulam Ishaq Khan. All Indian actors with the surname Khan may not be Pashtuns. They claim Pashtun ancestry without any proof. This is Wikipedia but you need multiple proofs and references. WikiBulova (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being born in Peshawar does not make a person Pashtun. Reliable sources provided in his article say Dilip Kumar is Hindowan, which is considered a subgroup of Pashtuns. We go by what reliable sources tell us. Shah Rukh Khan is Pashtun through his father, it doesn't matter if he is now Indian, American, Russian, or Australian citizen. That doesn't alter someone's ethnicity. The same goes for Saif Ali Khan. Notice Saif was in the "Ancestral definition" section [30], which specifically explains about such individuals. The people you removed are proven by multiple reliable sources, plus they openly admitted it. However, the ones you're trying to add are dubious because there are no reliable sources to prove their ethnicity. Even if that was proven, there is no good reason to put them over famous Bollywood actors. The article is not intended only for Pakistanis but the entire world. If you want to change the pictures, use the talk page of the article and seek consensus.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. WikiBulova (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kakakhel (tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]