User talk:Jamaas9

Welcome!
Hi! do you mind activating your email? So you can send and receive emails, thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.109.83 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will do that sometime when I sit down and figure out how to use most of the relevant tools on the website...in the meantime, feel free to contact me: Bahram.S.Khurasani@gmail.com. Look forward to hearing you. Thanks and kind regards. --Jamaas9 (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Avicenna, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Persian people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.- LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please know your place as a former colonizer " -- this is a clear violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PERSONAL. You will be reported the next time you make another one of such personal attacks. I agree with you on many content-related things, in fact I don't question some of the points you raised, but your 2nd greatest concern is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and you are thus being WP:TENDENTIOUS at the same time. This is evident from the WP:FORUM-type of commentary you write (other than the personal attack linked above). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

it’s also a violation of many rules to accuse someone of pushing narratives when fixing misquotes which by definition are pushing a narrative as they change the meaning of the original author’s words. Please learn how the rules apply to you as well as that’s not fair to me and that’s my whole point to you. Why did you accuse me of pushing a narrative when reporting a misquote? You could have at least acknowledged the misquote was a good idea to fix or even asked for proof before throwing accusations. Sorry for the personal attack, but you need to know your places well. Furthermore, my “commentary” is meant to serve as an education tool due to frankly, the level (or lack thereof) of expertise regarding topics and the type of questions being asked. I am ensuring that future editors can review historical talk page discussions, like I did before becoming a editor, so they understand more about the topic and also the issues regarding how to objectively present this info to audiences given the complexity of the different modern Persian ethnicities. My only goal is to prevent such unnecessary questioning in the future. Thanks for understanding my perspective. Jamaas9 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jamaas, "Please know your place as a former colonizer" is completely unacceptable--I'm telling you this as an administrator. I've looked at some of your edits since I saw them go by on Recent changes last week or so, and it seems to me you are doing valuable things here, but that kind of language cannot be tolerated, and I strongly encourage you to take it back. Insults rarely have any educational value. If you have disagreements with an editor there are better ways to work this out. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

. Hello, yes that was an embarrassing statement. Again, I apologized directly in the previous message and will so again. It was wrong for me to attack him like that for a variety of academic and ethical reasons. It was wrong and that behavior should not be tolerated. Hopefully, no one will be described as “nuts” or other things as well for simply improving accuracy as that is what triggered me after he also accused me of several violations while uncovering misquote in rather famous Persian pages. Also, feel free to ban me if I do ever make that severe mistake again. I would also just request that we are instituting this standard equally across the board to ensure fairness. Have no issuue being banned for speaking disrespectfully to that degree. Again, apologies all around. We should all maintain better manners when discussing shared history and important topics, especially if we may just have different perspectives on the same topic. Different perspective are ultimately a great thing in academia As it helps us reach what people may consider “true objectivity”. Thanks for the follow up and have a good day. Again, that was completely incorrect and a poor reflection of not only myself, but ultimately the people and societies that shaped me. Jamaas9 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jamaas. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Why am I blocked as sock puppet from PN on my mobile phone?
Hello, you got this message because you tried to edit logged-out on a TMobile IP address. All of these addresses are blocked due to the dog and rapper vandal, which, ironically, Drmies could tell you all about. Graham 87 01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just realised that the block had been changed to affect logged-in users as well. I've undone that, even though I'm not really supposed to undo checkuser blocks, because it affects millions of TMobile customers. You should be able to edit logged-in now. Graham 87 03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is ironic, isn't it! Drmies (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tajiks. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''1) Ebel & Menon is non-WP:RS 2) the other source (Schurmann) doesn't state that "Tajiks" are called "Persian". -'' LouisAragon (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 notice boards.
 * 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.


 * All my edits are personal POV and disruption? You do realize “Farsiwan” is also a generic title for all urbanites who identify as generically as Tajik. My own edit summary says I will include more citations to make this clear but you revert them. Could you provide additional sources (that will refute mine) that states all Farsiwans are not Tajiks that is actually from this last decade? Most of the restricted use of Farsiwan is from older ethnographic information and could be argued that it is not as relevant for every Tajik. Again, this constitutes a difference of opinion (and this isn’t even my personal opinion re: this topic.) This is actually a difference of opinion as our ethnogenesis is complex and is changing. I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to remain exactly the same and do believe that the Tajik people can express how their ethnical background develops over time as this conforms to modern understandings of ethnic studies I appreciate you working on making sure that my other points are addressed in the talk page directly. Again, won’t revert your edits right now but please review all of it again before removing it after I update it again. I would have appreciated if you had opened up a talk discussion and just requested the additional sources that explicitly stated that i will include in a future edit. This way, I wouldn't have to redo some of the work that you removed and this is frankly, not really that respectful of my own time or opinion as you stated I literally misinterpreted my own understanding of my origins? Are you objectively sure this is the case as I find it a bit odd to be told I literally don't understand my own history/ethnogenesis when it is being pushed that historically "Iranian" things such as doogh is vis-a-vis from modern Iran on the basis that it is considered "Iranian" -- like "Pashtuns" and "Tajiks" are still "Iranian/Iranic".


 * With all this said, as we have had a history of disagreement (which is normal for topics such as this), I would like to say thank you re: the non-reliable source addition and your belief that it is not reliable. I have reviewed the historical talk page, and have noted that many experienced editors (including you, Wario-Man, Wikaviani, HistoryofIran, 570ad and plenty of other editors) have spent significant amount time/research to help others understand  Iranian (ethnolinguistic) culture -- this is awesome (and thank you all for all the previous work and commitment to this project) and wish for this to continue with other mainline/alternative interpretations as well! Again, I sincerely wish for all of us to work well together and it is my belief that the most objective "truth" about the Iranian people will not only foster a better understanding of us by others but hopefully improve the way we perceive each other as well. I didn't come to this project to try to "significantly" change the content, but rather balance it out and make sure that common (false) stereotypes about all of us are frankly, squashed. Again, my curtness is due to how I feel that the standards are not consistently the same and it appears that the standards to cite things as "Iranian" as understood by modern borders is significantly weaker in many regards than other historical Persians (or modern Central Asian and Caucasian Persians depending on POV/understanding of formal Persian/Parsi) such as Tajik/Tats. Given the degree of documented abuse of the Tajiks, this type of favoritism is unacceptable for a variety of academic and moral reasons as you may be taking things of "Tajik"/Iranian origin and assuming to the general public that it came from present-day Iran. If we can't prove that's true, then please let's not do it given this drink is thousands of years old from ancient times. How do you think future readers/editors would think if some archaeological evidence provides the stance that doogh actually originated in modern Central Asia/Afghanistan/Caucasus and beforehand even the idea of that being possible was outright rejected? Thanks and kind regards.Jamaas9 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jamaas9 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Objective truth is not something Wikipedia strives for, partially because outside of the physical sciences (and not always there) it's usually impossible to achieve. We try to present all verifiable reliable sources with significant views (see WP:NPOV, including the WP:UNDUE bit). Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tajiks, you may be blocked from editing. ''I can see that Doug Weller already explained you that words like "obviously bla bla bla" or "it's clear that bla bla bla" are not accepted here on Wikipedia. If you want to write articles according to your POV, then i would suggest you to write a blog, not an encyclopedia. Thanks.'' Wikaviani (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please follow MOS:ISLAM
In particular for Muhammad:lower case p for prophet, "The" Islamic prophet, which is a grammar issue. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Prophet Muhammad. Sure I will follow your rules. You realize the western world has been lying about Islam for over 1K years. Please refer to him as an Islamic Prophet if you are going to critique my view of true objectivity inshallah. Or is Wikipedia now anti-Muslim/Mummimen? Jazak Allahu khairyan. Allahu alam. Tajiks have experienced unspeakable atrocities and your insensitivity is quite eye opening Douglas Weller Jamaas9 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not anti-Muslim. I certainly am not. I have no idea what most of your post means, but if you are going to follow our guideline in the future, great. I have no idea either why you think I'm insensitive to Tajiks. You seem to be throwing around random insults. Doug Weller  talk 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Expressions of religion are not appropriate in edit summaries
Please don't do it again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Where exactly are you referring to? Jazak Allahu khairyan. Freedom of religion is a right in the USA and this is a Usa based organization thanks. Are you promoting islamaphobia? Thanks and kind regards.

Jamaas9 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. Seriously? I tell you an edit summary isn't appropriate and you accuse me of Islamophobia? That's bull. I blocked editors for Islamophobia. Freedom of religion is a right in the US but that doesn't prevent private organisations from having guidelines as to what editors can and cannot do. No one has a right to edit as they please, or indeed a right to edit at all, which is clear from the fact that we can block people or ban them from editing on certain subjects. I'd say exactly the same thing to anyone who put "Jesus is the lord" in an edit summary, and in fact people have been blocked for adding that sort of sentiment continually. Doug Weller  talk 14:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Surely, saying someone is a Prophet is not equal to saying a man is Allah (God). Anyway, you are preventing me from expressing my identity online and you severely questioned me for biased reasons re: doogh page. Just bc you blocked someone for islamaphobia does not mean you have some islamaphobia for certain Muslims. There is quite a diversity of thought w/I 1.8B people. Thanks. And kind regards. I will have to do religious dissolution on Wikipedia apparently for you? Sunnis hate doing this, this is a Shi’a practice. Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"legal issues for the USA"? What's that about?
That entire editThe whole bit about Wikipedia was inappropriate. Although there's clearly nothing legal you can do, it's also clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Keep your edit summaries about your edits if you want to avoid being blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * well, as an American citizen and someone who worked professionally in the tech industry in SF, I can report propaganda if I wish. You can not deny my constitutional rights. As the IRI’s leader says “Who are you?” Thanks and kind regards Jamaas9 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. You wrote " Wikipedia shows a bias against present-day Afghanistan and this constitutes legal issues for the USA if this continues." "Legal issues for the USA" doesn't make sense as it says that the USA will have legal issues if this continues. Which of course isn't the case. I'm curious, who are you going to report to? Anyway, you have no constitutional rights on Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 14:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ICC court obviously. Are you American too? You realize we are under international human rights law. Please do not make light of this...this is going to be a Vietnam 2.0 if you continue with your rather biased questioning. Thanks and kind re -- B. Khorasani

Jamaas9 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I need an explicit answer to this question: Are you considering taking this to the ICC or planning to try to get someone else to do this? Because if so, it's a legal threat and blockable under WP:NLT. Doug Weller  talk 06:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no plans unless I am being blocked for content-related issues that are not covered by rules and procedures. Am simply warning that some of the questionings on here will not look good in the future considering all this recorded and searchable if we are following global trends re: human rights. Only signed up to clean up some pages using established rules/procedures that are related to the USA's involvement in the Afghan Civil War so that something like that doesn't ever take place. Does that answer your question? Jamaas9 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It is at WP:ANI Doug Weller  talk 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said: No. Unless you are just trying to block me for content-related matters that is following all WP rules/procedures. Is this clear? Jamaas9 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved to former member
Hello, I moved you to the former member list for Wikiproject Afghanistan as you are indefinitely blocked. -- Danre98 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)