User talk:Aamir Khan Lepzerrin

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Kurds. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please see my edit summary in that article. Izady is also not WP:RS. [1] Also, this attack at my talk page was not okay [2]. Please see WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. If you think I am being disruptive, feel free to report to me to WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are racist. You reveal yourself in a very short time. I will do my best to close your account. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that... consider this your last warning. Treat others how you want to be treated. Again, if you have proof that I am "racist", take it WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Template:Kurds. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring at Kassites

Please note that you have reverted on the page three times now. If you do so again, you will be in violation of WP:3RR and may find yourself blocked from the page or the website in general. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to you too. You cannot delete sourced information Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can, when it's simply wrong. If you think I have done something wrong, feel free to tell an admin. Dumuzid (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know the meaning of persistently deleting information whose source is stated, right? Clearly vandalism. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then report me. Bullying won't work. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be constructive. We are all trying to serve. It doesn't do me any good for you to get hurt. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kassites. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Austronesier (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Antiquistik (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:IDHT. No objection to any other admin lifting this block once this person starts listening and trying to understand. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are bad people.You are one of those who are always on the side of the powerful.

You are part of the system. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKL, I pinged you yesterday to my explanation -- reiterating for the nth time -- that you were misinterpreting policy, and I said "Please reply to this that you understand that. I will be watching for your indication you understand." Instead today, hours later, you made four more posts in that discussion, one of which continued to argue that exact same misinterpretation of policy I was trying to get you to understand. You are either not listening or not able/willing to understand. At which point we really don't have any choice but to stop the disruption. A dozen people in that discussion tried for 9 days to talk to you. That's a lot of wasted time. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I either didn't see your comment or forgot to reply. Not responding when people behave unfairly towards me means "I am the one who is wrong". I have proven more than once that I was right about what I was discussing. One of the users even saw that I was right and supported me. But what did you do? You did not side with the righteous. You have adapted to the system. You will understand in time whether your conscience is clear. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "righteous" here, and in fact we actively don't want editors who are here to WP:RGW. We operate by consensus, and the fact one other fairly-inexperienced person thought the source you were adding was okay -- apparently because it was published by an "established" publisher, which is meaningless when we're talking about a source that is nearly 75 years old -- means basically nothing when a dozen are saying it's not. If those aren't things you can understand and accept, you probably should find another hobby. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are so far away from these issues that you haven't read what I wrote in the discussion. Look, let me explain it in simple language one last time so that it will help you understand.

I've been called an ethnic nationalist. The reason is my persistent behavior.

So what behaviors?

-

The Madig article says "Kurdish king". I added it to List Of Kurds (as normally). But it was insistently taken back.When I insisted, I became an "ethnic nationalist".

-

They tried to portray me as "unqualified" by claiming that I used incorrect sources.

So I said, "The source in question was used in several places. Naturally, I used it too. Either remove the source from other places or do not make accusations against me. I did not object after the source in question was removed!"

-

In the Kurds template, there are Karduks and Cyrtians in the Kurdish history section. When I added the Karduk kings to the List Of Kurds (as normally), they were insistently removed .AND THE SAME USER MADE IT ALL.

So, it was added and written there by common decision. But one person (that user) does not comply with this decision and removes it because it does not comply with his personal opinions.

Finally, you blocked me just because I didn't reply to your message (I didn't see it or forgot), even though no mutual decision had been made about me. in general indefinitely!!! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in an effort to address one thing at a time and prevent any going off on tangents: you wrote: The source in question was used in several places. Naturally, I used it too. Either remove the source from other places or do not make accusations against me. This is exactly what I've explained now at least four times does not matter. Valereee (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not matter?

If these meaningless, ridiculous allegations had not been made and a complaint had not been filed against me, we would not have come to this situation.Now you're normalizing blocking me! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter because, as I've said multiple times, the fact a source might be usable to support one assertion doesn't necessarily mean it's usable to support a different assertion.

Here's an example: I can use a person's autobiography to support an assertion they were born in a certain town. I cannot use it to support the assertion they were a standout soccer player at their alma mater. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, would it be appropriate to take away this user’s talk page editing privileges? 48JCL TALK 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have freedom of expression. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have no free speech rights on Wikipedia. I've been giving you a lot of leeway in this discussion as I'm treating it as helping you understand the reasons for the block, which is the only thing you should be using your talk page for while blocked. That doesn't mean someone else watching this won't at some point say, "Enough" and remove your WP:TPA.

What I'd recommend is that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Both are going to tell you that understanding the reason for the block is crucial. And read WP:IDHT, which is the reason for the block. And then go back over the discussion at ANI and here and notice how many people have been telling you that the fact a source might be usable to support one assertion doesn't necessarily mean it's usable to support a different assertion and how many times you simply ignored that explanation and repeated the same argument over and over. That is what is disruptive, per IDHT. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Since I mentioned the Madig article, which was one of the reasons for the discussion, a user deleted the Madig article based on her personal opinions !! Valereee Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madig Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the discussion carefully, I did not object after removing the source in question.

But since there is always systematic bias, what I say is not taken into account. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock. This is an injustice to me. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, read the reply I made above. No one is going to unblock you unless you make an unblock request. No one is going to unblock you if the unblock request is a bad one. Valereee (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, thank you. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't send an unblock request. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked, I request removal

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because of my set style on an issue where I was right and proved my rightness. During the discussion, I wrote answers admitting that there was a problem with my tone.Although I received criticism and support during the debate, I may still have been exaggerated due to my tone.The answer I should have given to the manager was "I am aware, I accept", I skipped it because I did not see the question. From now on, I will touch on the issues without getting into personal discussions.I have proven that the unfair allegations and accusations made against me are invalid. There were also people who supported me. I changed my tone because of provocation. For these reasons, I request that my ban be removed. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My impression of the block reason and of your behavior at WP:ANI is that you over-replied and you did not listen to other editors who patiently tried to explain our community norms regarding the issues you were involved in. By saying things like I was right and proved my rightness and I have proven that the unfair allegations and accusations made against me are invalid., I am not very convinced that if I unblock you that you will not immediately resume the behavior that got you blocked. An unblock request needs to convince the reviewing admin that the behavioral problems will be fixed. And doubling down and saying that you were not wrong, when many other editors were telling you that you were wrong, is not the way to do this. As a newer editor, you should be a sponge and follow the lead of experienced editors until you've figured out our community norms, and not be so quick to dig in. Please see WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:CONSENSUS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (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.

Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still speak like this, I highly doubt you will get unblocked. Good luck though x q

If you are objective, try to understand why Madig's page, which was one of the reasons why I was blocked, was secretly deleted by the arbitrary decision of a user (one of those who complained about me) just because it contained the word "Kurdish" (just like House Of Kayus) and as an administrator. The subject of a complaint against the user for page deletion".Blocking me will not eliminate the existence of "systematic bias".I edit in several different languages. I opened dozens of new Wikipedia articles, I am writing a thesis on the history of Mesopotamia, I never thought that there would be a systematic prejudice against the Kurds in the "English version" because I thought there were intellectual and intelligent people there. However, I have seen that a few people with bad intentions can come together and block anyone they want!Aamir Khan Lepzerrin, Novem Linguae, Valereee, HandThatFeeds, Antiquistik, Pecopteris,Folly Mox,Dumuzid, Dumuzid, RolandR, Zanahary, Canterbury Tail,Manyareasexpert, Phil Bridger,Bishonen, I'll stay away from Wiki from now on. If one day I reach important positions, I will definitely voice out unethical behavior and racism on Wikipedia.

Take care of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk • contribs)

secretly deleted by the arbitrary decision of a user (one of those who complained about me) just because it contained the word "Kurdish" Or maybe the page is not notable is a simpler explanation? I never thought that there would be a systematic prejudice against the Kurds in the "English version" Enwiki notability requirements are tougher than most other languages, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]