Talk:Kanasubigi

Etymology - Disruptive editing
The Yuezhi information edited by IP 109.234.157.99, who then reverted it 5 times along the badly written and sourced text, and once more by IP 198.105.117.7, is WP:SYNTH and no-WP:SCOPE with the same information about the minority theory on the Yuezhi which was pushed by the socks of User:PavelStaykov on many related articles and talk pages.--Crovata (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As protection expired on 20 August, on 23 August the OR and SYNTH information was re-edited by IP 87.121.52.176.--Crovata (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

TURKS ARE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH THE fact THAT KHAN/kagan ORIGINALLY WAS NOT TURKIC TITLE BUT THEY BORROWED IT FROM  Indo-Scythians !!! --95.87.222.214 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reported at Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov. This is second disruptive editing of the article in a period of 1 month. It needs prolonged protection.--Crovata (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be recorded: with this edit Crovata has deleted 2 paragraphs from the article supported by 14 books/articles. Counting deleted information by this retard from other WP pages makes him the Greatest Vandal on Wikipedia of all time. But probably this is typical for a Turkic terrorist. Cheers WP readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabir Hun (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
On 27 December, as well again and  on 19 January, an editor  reverted a wall of badly written, edited and sourced text which was already discussed in August 2016, and related to the IP socks of the User:PavelStaykov. There certainly exist much more WP:RELIABLE sources (for example see Bulgars) for content change in the article. The current revision includes a WP:SYNTH and WP:OR text, with few references to scholars which considerations are held by an extreme minority and thus is given an undue WP:WEIGHT. I read the Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov/Archive, and according to which the Sabir Hun's pattern of behavior which showed in the comment (above), calling Crovata a "retard", "vandal", "terrorist", "Turkic", as well his edits, including older at Huns or Yuezhi (see also Talk:Yuezhi) and recent at Kidarites, in which is also ignored to start a constructive discussion and supported a push of an edit-war, I suspect to be another sock user account by PavelStaykov.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you made your third disruptive revert, without any reply on this discussion or respect to WP:BRD, and ignored to understand and accept that the wall of text:


 * Paragraph: it is a WP:OR text as the, , , are not reliable sources, while on the page 46 of East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 (1994), actually in the whole source, by Jean W Sedlar there is nothing about the title Kanasubigi.


 * Paragraph: it is a WP:SYNTH text, as it has nothing to do with the title Kanasubigi as it includes speculations on the origin and etymology of the titles Khan and Khagan.


 * Paragraph: it is a WP:SYNTH text, as it again has nothing to do with the title Kanasubigi as it includes speculations on the origin of the Utigurs and Yuezhi. This information was already included in the respective article of Utigurs.

You have been warned about your recent edit warring. Do not revert this information again.--JoyceWood (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You have made your 4th diruptive edit (deletion of content without explanation) and will be reported. --Sabir Hun (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not disruptive, and the content was explained above. You intentionally ignored that and other facts, which shows obvious WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior.--JoyceWood (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because you don't like some information it doesn't mean you can delete it. By such logic I can go to any page, say this source is not reliable, these here is personal opinion and I will delete any information from any page. You can't do this. This a vandalism. The way things are working is to write a new section, presenting your interpretation, and if its better, readers will believe your explanation. Obviously you can't do this. --Sabir Hun (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not edited in such a way. The notes above have nothing to do with personal opinion nor it is WP:VANDAL. You literally made them up, and once again ignored to comment on content change. You obviously do not understand how Wikipedia is edited. We must follow specific editing principles.--JoyceWood (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I wander who are you, since you are editing from 20 day and you know so much about some rules. I even couldn't file my report properly. --Sabir Hun (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I was recently in a discussion and report sanction and thus read about the Wikipedia policy on editing.--JoyceWood (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected
I have applied WP:ECP to this article because of persistent sockpuppetry on both sides. I have no idea whether the "Etymology" section should be in the article or not, but established users should feel free to reinsert it if they think it is the right thing to do. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)