This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You keep editing my additions to Kissinger's entry. His main contribution to US foreign policy was, as I wrote, support for military dictatorships and US wars of aggression. Detente with the USSR was another of his policies but that had little effect on the world at large whereas the illegal slaughter of millions of South East Asians was a huge crime and almost equal in numbers of killed to the holocaust of jews by the Nazis, if you don't think information of such importance should be added, that's just your amoral, unhistorical point of view. I'm simply adding crucial facts to the page. What's your agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of Veiw?? That Kissinger was a proponent of US support for right-wing military dictators all over Latin America is a neutral FACT not a point of view. That he, along with Nixon ordered the mass killings of millions of civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are established historical facts. What does a 'neutral point of view' mean? I don't think it means whitewashing the record of atrocities commited by powerful figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Louis XIV, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette seem to be the most hit by vandalism. Is there anyway you could semi-protect these articles?? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the level of vandalism on those pages does not "qualify" for page protection. It's still being managed quite nicely by page watchlisters like yourself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What right do you have to revert my changes to the Pinochet article? Can you find anything that doesn't verify what I said? He was a dictator, he killed many and he did so with the saupport of western governments. Wikipedia should be telling the truth and not telling things in a "nice" way that sounds good to ignorant and feeble American values.--217.203.185.53 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this request: [1] I would appreciate your comment there. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64 appears to delete many true and established but unpleasant truths about murderous right-wing people such as Henry Kissinger and Gen Pinochet - both responsible for hideous crimes against humanity. Wikipedia is a source by and for THE PEOPLE, not the untouchable elite powers-that-be and those who seek to sanitise and whitewash the truth about people who have had a terrible impact on thousands of lives. In the last few days Nishkid has sanitised enties about both of these characters. My additional info about Kissiger was deleted with a message that Wiki enties should be 'neutral' - which apparently means conforming to the elite view that American Power and it's clients should not be presented in a manner that reflects the moral horror of their actions. If you want to write a nice loving, patriotic hagiography of Kissinger, go ahead but Wiki is democratic and should reflect the moral truth as seen by the masses not the elite. The elite already have the mass media and TV to whitewash their crimes, let's not use Wiki to further their lies and excuses. Yes, Kissinger was a proponent of 'realpolitik' which is a journalistic term that means very little in the real world, whereas the illegal mass bombings of Cambodia and Laos caused incredible amounts of damage and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. If 9/11 was considered an important event, then consider Kissinger's bombings as A HUNDRED TIMES MORE SERIOUS in terms of innocent people killed. Neutral??? Your deletion is anything but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.45.119 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Hello Nishikid, thanks for the message about my edits on that rascal Kissinger. You wrote: 'you insist on presenting Kissinger as some murderous criminal (which I agree with, but that's here nor there).' If you agree with that idea, I assume it's because you are aware of the tragic histories of Cambodia and Laos and the part he played in it. Realpolitik is a fancy word that doesn't quite, in my mind, really convey the essense of mass murder as national policy. I'm sure Kissinger, the American establishment and conservatives everywhere would prefer the term realpolitik but why is it the editorial policy of Wiki admins to delete truths inconvenient to authority. The blatant bias in favour of establishment friendly waffle instead of the unpleasant truth is called 'neutral' by Wiki admins, but it is far from neutral - it is a clear bias in favour protecting the powerful from the reality of their actions being more widely known. If the term 'realpolitik' implies supporting right-wing dictators and using massive violence against civilians it is clearly a euphemism employed by the US gov to hide a hideous truth - why should Wiki use the same invented euphemism to hide the truth when its mission is clearly to educate and inform. As I said above, ther mainstream US media exists to churn out Government friendly propaganda about Us wars, but why does Wiki have to follow the same devious path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly take a look at Sikh Terrorism which should point to Sikh Extremism! It is an article, where since its inception has been edited to the point of invisibility by pro-extremists who wish to hide facts about the recent violence in Austria and basically fragment the article into less relative satellite articles which have no relevance to many actual reported news referenced articles which have been subsequently deleted removed or hijacked. Thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please stop spamming every editor on Wikipedia and claiming to be a victim.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Nishkid64's information, I have received similar posts from the above two users. There is clearly some bad blood and a lot of pre-history between them. Rather than delve into that, I have looked at the article and posted my views on its current state at [[2]]. No doubt another pair of fresh eyes will be useful, especially fromsomeone with that battery of stars on their user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad blood, but I want people to be clear with what kind of person we are dealing with.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Sister_States&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States-Pakistan_skirmishes&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ladakh&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burma&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears that my talkpage semiprotection has expired. Since I don't like Nangparbat being able to leave any message on my talkpage, can I have my talkpage semiprotection renewed? Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With compliments. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 9 June 2009 Nishkid64 deleted "The Maya Calendar and the European Agenda" (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance).

So in your opinion a documentary about Prodesis (yes, click on it!) does not assert any significance? Do you know there are ways of communicating your doubts on Wikipedia? "TALK" for instance? Mirrormundo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the explanation. but what about the article i wrote about Prodesis, shouldn't that be removed too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrormundo (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 28th June, without any on-record discussion, The Diamond Apex was indefinitely blocked. You claim the account was a sockpuppet account of MarshallBagramyan. [3] What evidence do you have to back up that claim, given that there are no editing similarities between the two accounts? Why is there no record of the allegation being discussed? Were you acting on behalf of another administrator when you made the checkuser request? Meowy 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the accusations leveled against me by Jayvdb, I decided to not to run the CU on The Diamond Apex. I asked YellowMonkey offline to run the CU for me. The early contribs of The Diamond Apex made me immediately suspicious that it was a sock account. After reviewing the account's history of contribs and the edit wars it participated in, I reasoned that it might be a banned Armenian editor. I was a bit shocked by the CU result, to be honest. Marshall has privately admitted that the account belonged to his roommate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid

I have a question for you. If Sarandioti and I Pakapshem resume edit warring when their blocks expire (as I have a feeling they will), what should I do? I am asking, because after interacting with them, I have realized discussion is futile. Please see this thread User talk:EdJohnston#Disruption in Albania articles I left of User:EdJohnston's page where I outline the problem. Sarandioti is a nationalist editor who has embarked on a single-minded quest to remove the Greek names from cities in southern Albania as well as any reference to said minority. I suspect I Pakapshem is meat-puppet recruited by him to help him with the edit-warring. This is a relatively new account created shortly after that of Sarandioti who has done nothing but edit-war over almost exactly the same articles as Sarandioti. While I take great care to carefully source my additions to such contentious articles with top-notch sources [4] [5], both Sarandioti and Pakapshem disingenuously dismiss them with edit summaries such as these [6] [7] [8] [9], or act as if the source doesn't exist [10]. How can I be expected to carry on a reasonable discussion with such editors, who leave edit summaries such as these [11] and who are always threatening to "report" [12] people? But as this ANI thread shows [13] perhaps most disturbing of all is that this latest bout of instability appears to be the result of a coordinated off-wiki recruitment drive. User:I Pakapshem is a member [14] of this extremist Albanian website [15], which Sarandioti seems thoroughly familiar with as the creation of his XXxLRKistxxX sock shows. While it may appear that Alexikoua and I bear equal responsibility for the latest bout of edit-warring, we are both highly experienced users (I have 2 years experience with 3300+ edits) who have nothing but respect for wikipedia's rules. By contrast, we are seeing an invasion by a co-ordinated group of extremists who stop at nothing to push their POV, and we are equated with them! So tell me, what should I do under such circumstances? --Athenean (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of these concerns, so I await Nishkid's answer with interest! If Sarandioti made any promises of good behavior by email to Nishkid, maybe he could be asked to share those assurances on his own Talk page. WP:ARBMAC allows admins to impose various kinds of bans and restrictions when they detect nationalist edit-warring, and that might be considered as well. I had this idea: Any editor who appears to be a single-purpose nationalist account dedicated to removal of names in other languages may be topic banned from articles on Romanian Albanian topics. They can still participate on Talk pages. Anybody like that solution? EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Ed. I think a topic-ban from the article mainspace is the only effective way to deal with such editors. Since it is easy to avoid the charge of being "single-purpose nationalist account dedicated to removal of names in other languages" by performing a token number of unrelated edits (as Sarandioti does), I would amend your proposal to include "or who edits in bad faith by using spurious edit summaries and gaming the system , and/or who has a battleground mentality". An example of such bad faith editing can be seen in the diffs I have provided above. A gaming-the-system mentality can also be evidenced from these posts by Sarandioti and Pakapshem [16] [17] [18]. They seem to think they are entitled to 3R per 24 hours. This diff here also shows a clear battleground, score-settling, mentality [19]. But most disturbing of all are the attempts at off-wiki recruitment and coordination. This is extremely disruptive and wikipedia's strucutre has few built-in defenses against this. I think users who engage in such behavior should be site-banned outright. I also assume you mean "Balkan" instead of "Romanian", Ed? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are abusing Nishkid's talk by continuing, but I note that 'Romanian Albanian' will just fit into the ARBMAC mandate, and only a small number of editors would be caught by my proposed principle. 'Balkans' is overbroad and might encounter opposition. The current abuse we are trying to stop only concerns places in Romania Albania. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your concerns, Athenean. I frequently deal with problematic nationalist editors on articles pertaining to the Indian subcontinent. I recommend that you contact an administrator ASAP (EdJohnston or myself) if you see these editors, or any other editors, failing to adhere to policy. I'd be willing to place both users on editing restrictions on Balkan-related articles. I'm thinking of a limit of one revert per page every week? If there are behavioral issues, then we can certainly appropriate sanctions as needed. With regards to Sarandioti's block, I reduced it to three days, as he insisted that he wasn't aware of WP:SOCK and that he promised not to engage in such behavior again. Also to clarify, the account appears to be a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. Sarandioti insists that the other user (a friend) was editing from the same Internet cafe; technical evidence suggests that this explanation is quite plausible. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, thank you for your response. I will be sure to contact you if I see any further disruption. The revert limitation you are proposing might do the trick and I support it, although it can be circumscribed and gamed by recruiting large numbers of meat-puppets. Which is why I think a topic-ban might be more appropriate. From what I've seen, it appears to be the most effective remedy to this sort of disruption. In any case, I defer to your judgement on this. Btw, for what it's worth, regarding the sock/meat thing, I'm still suspicious it was an outright sock because a) xxx has yet to edit while Sarandioti's block is in force, even though xxx is free to edit b) the tone and writing style of xxX is very similar to that of Sarandioti, as evidenced by these diffs [20] [21] [22] [23] (Short choppy sentences, successive questions, frequent use of exclamation point). --Athenean (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid. I collected some more data at User talk:EdJohnston#Sarandioti and I Pakapshem. Can you give me an opinion on whether the evidence summarized at the bottom of my comment might justify a checkuser to compare Sarandioti and Balkanian`s word? EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Never mind. They seem too different, after further study. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these individuals Louisa of Burgundy and her progeny Catherine d'Mailly are fake. Two reputable royal genalogy sites and a search through google books has returned zero information on these two. Could you let me know the procedure to remove these articles? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Tajik case you identify the reporter User:Self Image as a sock of User:NisarKand - it looks like you were intending to block, are you still? Nathan ^T 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gasherbrum_III&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... can you please give us some guidance as to your thoughts on the issue discussed at [24]?

In short, I input a sentence that pitcher x was leading the league in wins. That is mentioned in more than one article, and in fact the focus of at least one -- as reflected by its title.

A fellow editor believes the sentence should be deleted now. I am happy with it being deleted when out of date, but believe that deletion is not mandated now. Analagous to our having stats in infoboxes, that turn sour with time (and are replaced, in time). Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know about you but I think this fellow is out of order for leaving this message on my talk page. What can I do? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64, please check this user 119.73.0.128 (talk · contribs) who is edit warring, changing Afghan (name) and other articles against consensus on talk page as in this edit and harassing my user page. He is using 210.2.177.244 (talk · contribs) as well and some of his edits seem pure vandalism. Thanks! MassaGetae(talk) 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't leave a reason why I was blocked for a day, I think it would help to know where you think I went wrong and I'd appreciate your comments as I appreciate your neutrality, thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left a reason on your block log and on your user talk page, but it seems you removed that message. I warned you not to continue edit warring, and you chose to ignore the warning and continue on your way. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to edit out continued lies by a Henry V of England after his lying about "unsourced statements" I've made. Anyway you can block this individual from my talk page? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a post in the bottom.Thank You.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Gooday.I dont have anything against Kansas Bear and I am a bit puzzeled about why he wants to block me.I gave sourced references as you can see at the end of hs talkpage and when he previously took my other post he cuted it in half and removed my refs which I was very offended by it.He ignores the refs and clearly dosent know the meaning of anglophile.Thank You.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put back my posts with the refs since Kansas Bear removed them.P.S I am not giving lies since as usual he ignores half of what is said when it dosent go his way.Most historions if not all anknowledge that Burgundy recognized Henry as King of France from 1422 before defecting at the treaty of Arass in 1435.If you dont mind me saying this fellow user uses false arguements with refs that dont support his point for example he gave an eloquent defnition of Anglophile.I gave an internet dctionary of Anglophile and he choose to ignore thus came up with his false aquisation of me lying because he thinks anglophile means bieng of English nationality which is clearly wrong.Anglophile means a person whom likes England,its people,culture,history,cause ect ect ect.So far he failed to answer any of the fundemental questions which I sincerly asked from him.In fact one of his ref concering recognition quotes and to the Anglophiles King Henri II of FRANCE,INHERITED THE dUAL-MONARCHY of England and France.Using anglophile as a meaning of Nationality he obviously decieved me.Anglophile could also invock Brittiny and Burgundy since they held in recognition as Henry as King of France in this book I will give to you now.Even R.A Griffiths a well known and best bigrapher on Henry VI without doubt has clarifyed this within his book just please again look at my post on his talkpage called Documented Facts.

Here is the ref which I will seemingly give to you Now:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA255&dq=Burgundy+vassal+of+Henry+VI&as_brr=3#PPA254,M1

By the treaty of Amiens 1423(also clarified in R.A Griffiths book) Brittiny,England an Burgundy recognized Henrys rights to the french throne.Clear as the day my friend.

More clarification within the book of recgnition as King of France:Read on also please:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA255&dq=Burgundy+vassal+of+Henry+VI&as_brr=3#PPA6,M1

http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA255&dq=Burgundy+vassal+of+Henry+VI&as_brr=3#PPA7,M1

Burgundy again recognized Henry as King of France.

Again: http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA255&dq=Burgundy+vassal+of+Henry+VI&as_brr=3#PPA8,M1

LOL my friend I think you get the point.Look up Kansas Bears refs on regarding the pages it clearly dosent support his statement.The Anglo-Burgundian Alliace was based soly on recognition of Henry as King of France as we can see by the Treaty of Troyes in 1420.I created an article by the way which is doing well called The Dual-Monarchy of England and France.Kansas Bear using his own false eloquent definition of Anglophile (wiki link) inseted only England and not Burgundy so now I reverted him.Its your call my friend your descition will be respected.Goodbye.

Please enjoy reading the refs.

Hi. User:Massagetae is inserting false information and a very controversial and inaccurate map (which has been removed from various other articles) into the Pashto language article. He claims that the term Kabuli is another name for Pashto, which is totally ridiculous. He provides a weak source to this and adds his own POV as source to it, while he contradicts the Encyclopaedia Iranica which clearly explains that "Kabuli" is the name of a unique dialect of Persian and the dominant language of Afghanistan ([25]):

... The Paṧtō-speaking areas are located in the east, the south, and the southwest of the country. Important colonies of nāqelīn (displaced populations) have settled in Bactria. Persian (2) is the language most spoken in Afghanistan. The native tongue of twenty five percent of the population, it is split into numerous dialects. Darī (q.v.) is a term long recommended by Afghan authorities to designate Afghan Persian in contrast to Iranian Persian; a written language common to all educated Afghanis, Darī must not be confused with Kābolī, the dialect of Kabul and surrounding areas that is more or less understood by eighty percent of the non-Persian speaking population and is fast becoming the nation’s koine. ...

I had removed this nonsense once, but was immediately reverted by Massagetae. Tajik (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The terms of my unblock require to comment all edits that are not obvious vandalism or bad-faith edits. Removing the Persian names and translations in these two articles is - without doubt - vandalism or bad faith editing. However, I respect the 1RR. That's why I have asked you for help instead of blind reverting. Tajik (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishkid64! After you unprotected this article, user Grandmaster started a third-time editwarring with the same pov that was discussed earlier with the participation of many users and was considered as a minority view. As you unprotected it with an explanation "Discussion ended, no reason to continue page protection. Note that I will reprotect if edit warring flares up", I'd like to ask you if you can watch this article to be sure all the new addings are discussed and do not break WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT rules. Gazifikator (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the removal of sourced info is nothing but disruption. Could you please tell us if the 2 sources that Gazifikator just removed from the article are reliable or not? Both are professors in the Western universities, authors of numerous books and other publications. I posted a comment about that at talk of the article. Grandmaster 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid64.Did you get the post?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will try to look at it later tonight. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Thank You very much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.Kansas Bear has deleted my posts again but I restored them.He is completely getting the debate mixed up.He knew we were both regarding a debate on Burgundian recognition but instead of taking my statement of saying "it was unsourced"(regarding burgundian debate) he brought up posts which had nothing to do with the situation in which we previously both agreed on.He brought up a general-disscution about a month ago where we were both in agreement and sourced his statements.If you noticed it had nothing to do with what we are talking about.This current debate he brought up refs which didnt support his point.He himeself clearly knows what we are talking about.Just thought of bringing it here since he might delete my posts but so you will know.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid64.Do you think the edit on the dual-monarchy of England and France regarding both England and Burgundy as recognizing Henry as King of France on the lead ok.So far Kansas Bear didnt bring up any ref supporting his statement that Burgundy never supported Henry as King of France and also can you tell him to stop declaring my posts fallactious because he is not answering any of the fundemental questions.--89.101.101.68 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was forced to delete my posts.He ignored me again and his ignorence of History has been shown again and again.Its not my problem if he cant face the facts.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me know about u ? r u any authority ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanter (talk • contribs)

Signed for archiving. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrormundo (talk • contribs)

Signed for archiving. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64, as you see Tajik (talk · contribs) is using harsh words against me on my talk page and other places, calls my edits disruptive and is edit warring. Other users are happy from me on my talk page. Tajik also edit warred with other users. One example: in March in Sarban article he restored a version similar to 71.107.11.87 without explanation which was reverted by Themfromspace (talk · contribs) 4 times. Recently in this month, here in Murghab District he reverted a version by Bejnar (talk · contribs) and changed the language of Pashtun district to Persian without explanation. Yesterday he reverted the version by Anupam (talk · contribs) in this edit and didn't explain until his version was reverted. Then he again removed the term from the article lead here. This breaks the terms of his unblock that you discussed on his talk page. Also please check 71.107.11.87 (talk · contribs) who came back and continues to edit war and restoring old versions. I have warned him 3 times and tired of warning him, and other users have also warned him. Thanks! MassaGetae(talk) 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nishkid64: thanks for your comments. What do you think of the current version of Pashto language? I moved the reference to "Kabuli" to the footnote section without deleting any sources.

@ Massagetae: on Sarban, I reverted themfromspace (talk · contribs) only once and explained my edit here. Youtube is not considered a valid source. However, I did not realize that I had also reverted the categories. That was a mistake and I apologize. But since then, I have not edited the article again. My edit at Murghab District is fully justified. Murghāb is a Persian word and means - literally - birds' water or birds' lake ("murgh" = bird, as in Simurgh, and "ab" = water). Besides that, only because Pashto is the dominant language, it does not mean that other expressions should be removed. See for example Kabul. Although Kabul is overwhelmingly Persian(-speaking) - maybe up to 90% of the city - the Pashto pronunciation is still mentioned. As for Kapisa, which is also predominantly Persian-speaking, you actually did what you criticize here: you removed the Persian spelling and replaced it with Pashto: [26]. I corrected that. Besides that, it's totally nonsense to name both Persian and Pashto in all of these articles. It should be totally enough to give the Perso-Arabic spelling and not mention any of the languages, as in Qizilbash! As for the rest: I have explained most of my edits, sometimes even those that were plain vandalism. If I make mistake, User:Khoikhoi notifies me via Email and warns me. Since the ban on me was lifted, I have tried my best to avoid edit wars and conflicts. That's the reason why I am not participating on controversial articles anymore, such as Safavid dynasty. So please stop your false claims. As for Pashto language and Demographics of Afghanistan, you are clearly pushing for POV. You are trying to force an uncommon and (likely) false claim on the article, using weak sources and stubbornly ignoring major sources. Not even User:Bejnar is supporting your this move. In the demographics article, you have deleted sourced information. I am also unhappy about your recent move to insert scientific racism in the article. Even though your edit was sourced, it was - once again - selective quoting. You are once again ignoring major articles, such as the article "Tajiks" in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Admin Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is dealing with a similar problem at Iranid race. Tajik (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you warned Systemizer (talk · contribs) who seems to be unwiling to have any other viewpoints than his at this article. Looking at his talk page, I now recall the articles he tried to create which were clearly OR. Could you take a look at this article and let me know if you think any action needs to be taken? He seems to have a WP:OWN problem . I removed a reference to another Wikipedia article, and added the word 'philosopher' before the name of Alfred North Whitehead, both of which minor edits he reverted. I think 3RR must apply here to him (and maybe others), at least in spirit. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.I just like to thank you for getting involved in order to medittiate on the dual-monarchy article on wether Philip of Burgundy recognised Henry or not.I answerd part 1.Please check it out when you have the time on Kansas Bears talkpage.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found some more, would you check the underlying IPs please? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I've got more based on yours -- please check those too if you'd be so kind. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of This is not about the congrass or treaty of Arass do you not understand.Again I copied my post and gave an explanation for that in the bottom.I may as well give a small summary up here.This is about Burgundia recognition.Burgundy was both a devoted ally and anknowledged Henry VI as King of France.Of course they are allies but he anknowledged Henry as King of France Treaty of Amiens 1423.It says clearly in these sources Burgundy reognized Henry as King of Frace.No contreversy.Again Anglophile is its meaning as I gave in the bottom.Read the post.These souces clarify HENRY WAS RECOGNIZED AS KING OF FRANCE.

Hello again.Kansas Bear supports the statement that Philip duke of Burgundy neer recognized Henry as King of France while as you know I support the statement that Philip did support the allaince.

Here are the two ref books where Kansas Bear gets his statements from:

Page 263.Regarding the corination

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9UsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Neillands,+Robin,+The+Hundred+Years+War,+(Routledge,+1991),+263.#PPA263,M1

and

Another ref Page 200

http://books.google.ie/books?id=yYAzXiFaqv0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Oxford+Illustrated+History+of+Britain#PPA200,M1

I will start with the first book regarding Henry VI of Englands corination as King of France in 1431.In the book it says the corination was ignored by the French and Burgundians.This was because Henry was crowned at Notre-Damm in France an this corination didnt have the holy oil of St.Remy used at traditional consecrations for the King of France.Using this as footing Kansas Bear interpets this as defieng Henrys title as King of France and so in conclustion comes with the statement Burgundy never recognized Henry as King of France at all.Henrys corination was in reaction to the french corination of Charles VII at the traditional crowning place at Rheims.In fact the reason why the corination was ignored is clarified by this book:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=sKapp53K4_MC&pg=PA171&dq=Burgundian+allegiance+to+HENRY+VI+OF+THE+DUAL-MONARCHY&as_brr=3

It explains Philips behaviour towards the reconition to Henry as King of France.Philip had not wanted to show himeself to close to the dual-monarchy under King Henry VI(II of France) represented by his regent John the duke of Bedford whom he recognized politicly.Relations are concntrated mostly on these two people since Henry was still a minor during his corination in France at 1431.Philip of Burgundy introduced a device called The order of the Garter and was desiegned primary to give distance between Anglo-Burgundian affairs.When Henry VI left for his corination exchibition from 1430-1432 Philip made no attempt pressent himeslf and so didnt renew his oath of Alliegence taken at The Treaty of Troyes in 1420 in which Henry VI succeded to the french throne by in 1422.This book clarifies why the corination was ignored.Also R.A Griffiths also mentiones in his Book called "The reign of Henry VI" page 193 also clarifies by saying the French corination for Henry was purely an English affair without any Burgundian intervention towards it since he was at his newly arranged order of the Garter in lille.Also you have to understand that The English and Burgundians were involved in relations and Royal Transactions.Unfortunitly Kansas Bear thinks relations are Iron-Claed.In the 1430's The Anglo-Burgundian alliance showed huge strain as later in 1435 at the treaty of Arass Philip duke of Burgundy defected his aliegence to Henry and reconciled with Charles VII.(*R.A Griffths page 193).The corination besides it splendiour and greatness came to Naught.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=Henry+VI+french+corination&source=bl&ots=Lj3lzImT4U&sig=ciH7c2_9mkEDkWWKFOwSuc5ptoM&hl=en&ei=nnkdStO5AZmt_Abg_526DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA208,M1#

It didnt mean anything as it had nothing to show.It was announced by the ACHBISHOP of Canterbury later in 1432 clarifying Henrys corination exhibition 1430-1432 had not accomplished its desire effects.In Griffth R.A book page 221 it confirms and quotes"Duke Philip did not meet his anknowledged soveriegn at any time during his latters visit".Again Philip was in Lille with his son the count of Nevers.The corinition hadnt brought an Anglo-Burgundian Military revival since 1429 and it surely symbolised that Henrys visit in France demonstrated English power in France(Normandy to be exact) was weaking.(R.A Griffiths pp 193)The impact of the corination was signifinitly lessend when 3 days before the corination Philip made a general-truce with Charles for 6 days.During the next 3 years the English strove to maintain there military commitement in the war.English power had also been weaking when the frech in late 1432 took up sieges at Lagny,Maine region,Roen and Charters.Bedford the regent of france for Henry king of England and France collapsed out of exhaustion the same year when Anna of Burgundy,Bedfords wife and Philips sister died.This deepend relations between England and Burgundy since she has been the centre for Anglo-Burgundian adherence to Henry as King of France by virtue of the treaty of troyes 1420.Philip distrust towards England had been shown as early also in 1424 where Humpery duke of Gloutchster(Brother of Bedford) attacked the Holland for his wifes inheritence to the area.Philip immediately opposed Jacculine of Holland attempts to cede the area.This meant that Anglo-Burgundians were theroticail enemys in the low counties but therotical allys in France.Deep DIVIDED RELATIONS had also been revealed in 1432 when Bedford married Jacuiline of Holland whom came from a distrusted family of Philips.Envoys in 1433 had been sent from Charles to Philip adressing a possibility of reconcilation.1433 and then on was a mutal relation pact between the two.Relations in the 1420's have been much better in general and morale and victories were high along with the conquests.See the main difference between Henrys corination and Charles is this.English victoies and conquests were at there toll in France but Joan of Arc's victories at Patay and Orleons reinspired French sort of Nationalism.His corination in 1429 had been of unnusual symbolic sinificence regarding the sudden fLip compared to that before.(R.A Grffiths page 191).Burgundys withdrawel of the fighting had been in effect largely becaue of french success north of the seine valley.It is very clear Kansas Bear is making a sad arguement as it is recognised internationaly by historions,academics and royal geologists that Henry corinition was a complete fauiluire but it dosent give an escuse to declare Henrys title wasnt recgnized because it clearly says Philip didnt meet his anknowledged soveriegn in R.A Groffiths book.Corination dosent have anything to do with the burgundians it was purely an English affair.Also I am just going to use his book against him.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9UsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Neillands,+Robin,+The+Hundred+Years+War,+(Routledge,+1991),+263.#PPA239,M1

It says clearly Both Burgundian and English contemperoys in 1422 regarded Charles VII as Roi de Bourges(King of Bourges).This does not invock any legitimacy towards Charles,Borges bieng the residence where Charles VII lived.If you need clarification to Henry as bieng recognized by both English and Burgundians here it is:Had he forgot the treaty of Amiens 1423 in which England,Burgundy and Brittiny made a triple alliance and recognized Henry as King of France.

Read pages 6-12

http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA6&dq=Anglo-Burgundian+alliance&as_brr=3#PPA6,M1

Read Pages 336-343

http://books.google.ie/books?id=PmABeelKRDAC&pg=PA339&dq=Philip+the+Good+ally+and+vassal+of+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA336,M1

Treaty of Amiens Page 11

http://books.google.ie/books?id=INmdwCSkvIgC&pg=PA11&dq=Treaty+of+Amiens+1423+Philip+recognized+Henry+as+King+of+France&as_brr=3

More clarification.Page 331-333.

http://books.google.com/books?id=51i2xb2prn8C&pg=PA331&dq=Treaty+of+Amiens+1423+RECOGNIZED+hENRY+AS+kING+OF+fRANCE#PPA331,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=INmdwCSkvIgC&pg=PA11&dq=Treaty+of+Amiens+1423+RECOGNIZED+hENRY+AS+kING+OF+fRANCE

Page 580

http://books.google.com/books?id=z07TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA580&dq=Treaty+of+Amiens+1423+RECOGNIZED+hENRY+AS+kING+OF+fRANCE&lr=#PPA580,M1

Chronology Table

http://books.google.com/books?id=PuSNXo8B6IwC&pg=PA379&dq=Anglo-Burgundian+alliance&lr=&as_brr=3

I am going to split this post for answering on book 2.I think Kansas Bears ignorence of History has just been clarified.He gives refs to my support and refutes his own unsourced statement.KB dont even try to say sources regarding the treaty of Arass.YOU gave refs that didnt support your statements about Burgundy never recognizing Henry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Book 2.According to this book:http://books.google.ie/books?id=yYAzXiFaqv0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Oxford+Illustrated+History+of+Britain#PPA200,M1

It quotes"And to the Anglophiles King Henri II of France"Kansas Bear gave a false eloquent definition of Anglophile when he exclaimes that it invockes of bieng of English nationality.Anglophile means a person who admires England,its people,culture and cause.His definition is completely unsupported even the wiki definiton marches mine just in a huge amount of Detail.By using Anglophile by meaning of Nationality KB thus invocked that Burgundy didnt support Henry as King of France.Burgundy were indeed Anglophile(at a medium extent because they dont want to be too close).Here are examples of Anglophiles which in definition does not invock of bieng of English nationality.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jUST MORE CLARIFICATION.

• Anglo-Irish journalist Kevin Myers, a controversial critic of Irish nationalism.
• Philanthropist Paul Getty, who became a British citizen
• Brothers Ron & Russell Mael of the band Sparks
• Madonna, singer/songwriter
• Courtney Love, singer/songwriter
• Johnny Depp, a fan of The Fast Show
• Science fiction/horror writer H.P. Lovecraft
• Australian-born UK citizen Germaine Greer
• The modernist poet and essayist T.S. Eliot, who became a British citizen
• American born writer Henry James, who became a British citizen
• Travel writer Bill Bryson
• Stanley Kubrick, who lived in England for many years
• Alexander Hamilton, American statesman and founding father
• Kevin Spacey, now living in London
• Tori Amos
• Carmen Electra has said in many interviews that she likes British culture
• Gwyneth Paltrow (married to English musician Chris Martin)
• Gwen Stefani (married to English musician Gavin Rossdale)
• Daryl Palumbo, lead singer of Head Automatica
• American band The Killers were accused of sounding too English on their first album Hot Fuss after saying that one of their influences was English band Oasis.
• Stanley Ho, Hong Kong business entrepreneur
• Nirad Chaudhuri, Bengali writer
• David Soul Hutch from Starsky and Hutch, now a British citizen
• Joseph Conrad, notable Polish author
• Gillian Anderson, American actress who grew up and now lives in London
• Annie Oakley, American sharpshooter, equestrian and actress
• Canadian comedian Mike Myers considers himself British - he has British, as well as Canadian, citizenship. His parents are both from Liverpool

It dosent really matter anymore.I am just going to revert him on the dual monarchy article since I have my refs which clarify Burgundian recognition of Henry as King of France.He gives also a lie saying I am a nattonalist,nonscence.I am a supporter of Henry VI but not a nationilist.Regarding insults,you said in the start and declared my posts fallactious an utterly questionable.I am leaving this disscution as for what he calls lies people call facts by theses sources.Regarding the appology you gave another nudge towards incivility when you said I was immitiure.Kansas Bear unfortunitly cant give me a ref I can clarify on.He needs to give me asscesiable book or else how can I know.As said in R.A Griffiths Book the corination was purely an English affair dominated by Cardinal Beufort and some Anglophile French bishops.Anglophile is clearly clarified on wikipedia and the internet dictionary link.Kansas Bear can you just give me a reason why refs are wrong because I gave countless amount clearly spelling out the point "Burgundy recognized Henry as King of France.According to your anamogy you think that when Philip of Burgundy went to reconcile with Charles at the Congrass of Arass and recognized peace at the treaty oof Arass and recognized Charles as king of France,somehow to you he didnt.Sorry Kansas Bear I cat understand that when the ref clearly gives it to you in front of your 2 healthy eyes.(which work I am guessing lol).All theses people here are Anglophile,Kansas Bear please just in least give a interperation for my refs or some sort of reason declaring them wrong.Clause 100 at the treat of Amiens"Burgundy,England and Brittiny should recognize his title as King of France and protect each other against the infamy of the dauhine.I will end the disscution here as it clearly is clarified in these refs.Again why did yu bring up the congrass and treaty of Arass,they are completly different.The three deligations of England,Burgundy and France met at the congrass of Arass and was under papal meditatrion.The traty of Arass was the conclustion with a seperate,private and formal peace with Burgundy and france(simply reconcilation).KansaS Bear if you are reading this I will break off from here.I wont post on your talk page again if you want.Nishkid64 if you want to comtact me regarding the situation please go on my wiki talk page as I cant get the facts to him and I am dissapointed of his statemen of me bieng a English nationilist when I am a Muslim and so cant be an nationalist especially an English one even though I am bound of bieng of its nationality.I just have a love and entuisiasm for History.So far he gave me refs that didnt support his view that Burgundy never anknowleged Henry as King of France that is probaly the main point No.1.Thank you.Googbye to both of you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/81.158.129.134 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex-selective_abortion_and_female_infanticide&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infanticide&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&action=history

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is whaAT CAME up from your internet search.IA really good book I advise you to read it.We all know Burgundy,Brittiny and England had a triple alliance.I advise you to read obn how the alliance was build on.Again he gives refs concerning the Anglo-Burgundian alliance(which I agree on) but fail to answer on what it was build on.As it id explained in this book and the iother books.The allaince was clearlt build on for Burgundian recognition of Lancastrian succestion to the french crown and English support for the Burgundians against the infamy of the dauphine(murder of philips father) and off course smaller things like swallowing up the netherlands.He unfortunitly dosent understant the concept of the alliance and what its build on.Also when I said "you made the eleintary mistake of calling it a treaty when it was a congrass"

No.1 lol how is that an insult and wasnt meant to be an insult.

NO.2 You said the three deligations were pressent at the treaty of Arass then I corrected you and said the conngrass of Arass had the papal mendiatation with the three deligations.I am afraid I might Need to say it again since he thinks he corrected me when that is obviously not the case.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA6&dq=Anglo-Burgundian+alliance#PPA6,M1

Clearly explains on what the Anglo-Burgundian allaince was build on.Clear as the day.Also look abou treaty of Amiens 1423,Anglo-Burgundian allaince as I aready mentioned this ref and more refs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 ]])

Henry V started by making the statement that my referencing of the Treaty of Arras was a "elementary mistake". Apparently intended as an insult, since this individual lacks civility. When I gave references showing his mistake, he began his ego trip. I was searching for information concerning Burgundy's recognition of the Treaty of Troyes and where he stood. The references I supplied continued to say Anglo-Burgundian Alliance and/or that the French(including Burgundy) did not recognize Henry VI as Henry II of France.[27]
Patrick, James, Renaissance and Reformation, (Marshall Cavendish, 2007), 601.
Neillands, Robin, The Hundred Years War, (Routledge, 1991), 263.
Morgan, Kenneth O., The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, (Oxford University Press, 2000), 200.
Oman, Charles William Chadwick, The History of England, from the Accession of Richard II to the Death of Richard III (1377-1485), (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), 316-317.
Hare, Christopher and Mare Andrews, The life of Louis XI, (C. Scribner, 1907), 15-16.
Thackeray, Frank W., Events that changed the world through the sixteenth century, (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001), 57.

Note the "unsourced statements" listed above.

Whereas Henry V and his ego, was making claims of "Basicly now your unsourced statements are refuted", which is a lie. Everything stated was referenced. AND, "It shows your immiturity on this matter by msking up definitions", whereby he states I'm lying about the definition of the word "ignore"[28]. As for the word "Anglophiles", that is a generalized term that could be construed as individuals ALLIED with the English! So Henry V, unable to realize that I'm showing sources,not opinions as he is doing, goes on this HUGE ego trip. As shown here[29][30]. Even then he continues to push his nonsensical POV that Henry VI should be recognized as Henri II of France. These are the kind of actions taken by a single purpose account and I have seen such actions typical of Turkish nationalists on wikipedia. I do not see any reason for further inter-action with this individual. After continued warnings[31][32], this individual continues with his/her rants/insults/lies. When faced with facts contrary to Henry V's personal opinion, this individual lies, insults, gives false apologies, and harrasses other editor(s). Unfortunately for Henry V, I have no personal agenda, in contrast to his own, as to whether Burgundy recognized Henry VI as King of France. His continued harrassment and showboating[33][34] only shows the maturity level(lack thereof) of this individual. The ONLY problem here is Henry V's inability to understand that I edit thousands of articles dispassionately, just as I edit "The Dual Monarchy of England and France". Which this person has not yet understood. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued efforts[35] by the individual in question shows his attempts to garner support for himself, very typical of a SPA. My sincerest apologies for this merde making it to your talk page. I thought that 3? or 4? warnings would have indicated to this person, his/her incivility will not be tolerated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Nishkid64.I went through this book he gave me.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA864&dq=Patrick,+James,+Renaissance+and+Reformation,+(Marshall+Cavendish,+2007),+601.#PPA602,M1

Again my friend Kansas Bear is clearly missing the point.This is not an offence but he dosent know on what the Anglo-Burgundian alliance was build upon.These are the two main thngs about the Anglo-Burgundian allaince.Burgundian recognition of Lancastrian succestion to the french throne.The English will avenge the murder of Philip of Burgundys father,capture the dauphine and philip is a vassal within french lands and he can have free independence of the low-counties he can concilidate (zeeland,freisland ect.).WHEN THESE WORDS ARE MENTIONED"ANGLO-BURGUNDIAN ALLIANCE" IT clearly stands for the concept of recognition as King of France and to avenge Philips father(John the fearless) death.By saying anglo-burgundian allaince clearly means recogntion to Henry as King of France and no debate.How is this a personal oppinion?,I HAVE NO CLUE.Anway as it says in my other book "no matter how uncomfortable Philip was of having an English(Plantagement) king oF France he could not recognize the dauphine(Charles).And anyway the Anglo-Burgundian alliance in the treaty of troyes which was based on these facts are clearly renewed at the treaty of Amiens 1423.Clause 100 refers to the recognition of Henry as King of France(speaking about what I call the steel-pact in france triple alliance Brittiny,Burgundy and England).Brittiny was a vassal along with Burgundy in France.However to add because of bieng therotical enemmies in the low-counties(since there not vassals there) Bedford made an ordinnaince later in the 1420's when it was orderd that those from the low-counties must be treated as King Henrt VI(Henri II of France) French subjects.

This book we already went through:

Neillands, Robin, The Hundred Years War, (Routledge, 1991), 263. (corination)

Notice also how he is refuting himeself and letting me use the sources to my advantage.This is just more clarification for me in ths situation not against me.

Went through this book:(Anglophile)

Morgan, Kenneth O., The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, (Oxford University Press, 2000), 200.

None asscesaible.I am guesing its going to say the same thing about Anglo-Burgundian alliance which represents the factors in consederation when we reflect on what does the Anglo-Burgundian alliance stand for.

Oman, Charles William Chadwick, The History of England, from the Accession of Richard II to the Death of Richard III (1377-1485), (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), 316-317.

Sorry Kansas Bear,I am going to delete this above ref on the dual-monarchy article as there is no such book.Not saying you are lying but you made a spelling mistake.Why are you using Anglo-Burgundian alliance for a term which you clearly dont know about what it represents.Aglo-Burgundian alliance is a military alliance we know this.But using it as a stepping stone to try to interpet this as saying Burgundy was an ally and didnt recognize Henry that is something no Human can understand when you dont even Know what represented the Anglo-Burgundian allaince my friend.

Thackeray, Frank W., Events that changed the world through the sixteenth century, (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001), 57.

This book is great.look up page 58 and go to the congrass of Arass.It clearly says Philip went to recogize and reconciliate with Charles VII and thus terminated the agreement he made with the English.Do y=you know what that agreement was Kansas Bear he made with the English?It knida gives a side not on English recognition as King oF France cause they were in least the factors mentioned above that represented the term Anglo-Burgundian alliance.I apoligise I didnt mention this point.When you look the the style of R.A Griffiths book in a number of pages.He clearly says that for example the french lifted the siege of Orleons in 1429.The Anglo-Burgundian alliance was from 1422-1435.Burgndians are not invocked as French even though they are.When they say French regarding the Hundred Years War 1337-1453 they regard the French as those under valois controll in the south and styled those in Northen France Lancastrian France and those French people under Philip,Burgundians.So again according to Kansas Bears apanoy Burgundy attacked the English at the siege of Orleons in 1429.How in te world does that make any sence when the Burgundians were fighting with the English and the lord of Saiulsburry in 128 and left in 1429 and captured Joan of Arc at Compiegnei in 1430.French clearly means those under Valios Controll and Charles VII was Valois.

Wait I found more clarification n the book.Page 58.Clearly gives the differiation betweeen Burgundy and France.It quotes"The English suddenly shifted from an Ofensive to a defensive posture.Though the English had resumed its Burgundian alliance after 1422,that arrangement ended in 1435.....".I would advise Kansas Bear to understand the concept and the point of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance most importantly as a whole what did it stand for.Nishkid64 you can clearly see this user does not have an arguement he throws books in my support and I am cathching each one.Nishkid64 do you think now the edit on the dual monachy of England and France lead is ok adding Burgrgundy as this user dosent know how to interpet books.I clearly defended my refs and added them not really defend them in this case lol.Please reply on my talk page as I am through trying to force the facts in this guys brain.I think you can visiulise the nonscenece I had to put up when I was in diauolige with this user.Looing forward to your reply.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, can you try copyediting what you write? It is quite difficult to understand half of what you're saying, since you disregard almost every single grammatical rule of the English language... From what I was able to read, it appears that the Anglo-Burundian alliance recognized Henry VI as king of France.[36] Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as all the refs clearly say that.Sorry I was in a rush.I can fix the post.Anglo-Burgundian alliance clearly stands as for what is mentoned in that book and claified in the others.Kansas Bear is using refs to my support.So far Kansas Bear cant give anyone a ref where it spells out "Burgundy didnt anknowledge Henry as King of France" and he is not mentioning the treaty of Amiens.While I can contridict plainaily on HIS interperation of the refs he cant argue what is sourced to him in plain English which I pressent.I even used clarification from his own refs where it said both Anglo-Burgundian contemperoys in 1422 regarded Charles as King of Bourges(and so recognized Henry as King of France obviously as said in the other books aswell).I also want you to notice,regarding his last post he completly left his arguement regarding the corination and still fails to understand meaning of Anglophile.Anglophile in both the wikepedia link and the Internet dictionary link clearly states one symptoms not 2.As said in R.A Griffiths book when he was quoting about the corination he called those French bishops anglophiles.It clearly does not mean a sort of English nationality by birth.I even further clarified by giving him a list of Anglophiles.The Anglo-Burgundian alliance is explained in the book I gave you.He obviusly dosent have a source that supports him in this statement.I even checked myself to see if I was wrong.Forgive me if I am wrong but I cant understand what he means by his statement when its in front of his two eyes the refs pressented.He tryes to defend himeself against my statement about bieng unsourced with refs regarding the treaty and congrass of Arass in 1435.If he posts he is going to say the same thing again and I will just refute him again since he cant even answer for my own refs never mind mine.He knows the dispute in mind is about Burgundy not the treaty of Arass.If you go back to his history you will find when we were discussing the congrass of Arass it wasnt a dispute and both him and I agreed to his refs.Again sorry I was in a rush lol.I will fix the post for you now.

P.S What is copy editing and how do you do it and now do you think the edit on the lead of the dual monarchy article is fine by adding Burgundy. Thanks very much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Copy editing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Marble Garden Zone someone familiar? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, he pretty much answered that one himself (see Abuse Filter log). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/86.162.66.240 and Special:Contributions/86.158.179.62

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Longewala&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wars_and_conflicts_between_India_and_Pakistan&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Brasstacks&action=history

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to what used to be the jungle Talk: Anna Anderson. Good suggestion there, and good luck if you come bcak and visit us. This is an article that is being whipped into correct shape by two great workers. It's taken them 3 years to get there, so again, welcome.76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to jump back in, Nishkid. My Shabbos is starting soon where I am. I will at best be able to only monitor Talk: Anna Anderson. I wish to call your attention to two severe trouble-makers, aggiebean and finneganw. They've begun chasing admins and shadows again--trying to get me booted off. They believe I am this other user called ChatNoir and I've agreed that ChatNoir should be banned from the page if his disruptions continued. You may read for yourself what is happening at the page, it is such great progress. These two users WILL eventually get to you and try their satanic act all over again. Please, just watch out for them and their accusations about vandalism, etc. Better yet, monitor their talk pages: you can see what they are trying to do and they actually want others to monitor their talks. Makes 'em think they look good.76.195.82.162 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know you're not ChatNoir. You're the reverend who claims he was hounded by admin Trusiler. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very fed up with the useless and disruptive rants of IP beginning with 75 or now 76 who was formerly known as RevAntonio. I am tired of him abusing me with ridiculous accusations and attacks at my personal talk page and other talk pages. Trusilver never hounded him, he just knew how to deal with him and his troublesome behavior, which was to rangeblock him and all his rants and nonsense. I wish Trusilver was still running this show and we wouldn't have to worry about him anymore. The history is all there if you want to take a look back and what transpired, and it's still happening. IP/Rev hounds others, then blames everyone but himself. Aggiebean (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with this user. He sent tons and tons of messages to the functionaries-en mailing list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do? Send "tons of messages?" Now I see somehow I'm being interrupted in my posting. I've always admitted my errors, I've told aggiebean that I will stop if she can bring herself to stop. If you were to examine Trusilver's talk page, you'd find his reprimand for being abusive and always ready to abuse. Aggiebean got me banned because she did not like my counter-argument and she did it by accusing me of being Peter Kurth. I won't get into this fight again. Would you all prefer if I just don't address any of you in any way?76.195.82.162 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. If anything, the repeated blocks on your IPs should indicate that you are no longer welcome on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping. I am sorry to report that this person is back using yet another IP and making harassing and abusive messages on my talk page and on the Anna Anderson page.Aggiebean (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid, I will ask you to stop discussing my personal affairs with other trouble-making users, as you just did with aggiebean. What are you, a child? You are on the verge of disclosing personal, private matters which were supposedly between myself and Wikipedia big wigs. I have taken this matter to DrKiernan; tread carefully in the future, isn't it your motto not to make dramas or something like that? What do you think you're doing right now?.76.195.82.162 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to the "big wigs" isn't going to give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. You were never exonerated and the person you claimed to be your wikihounder was never investigated for bad behavior. You are still not welcome here. If you can't learn to play nice with other Wikipedians, then go do something else on the Internet. Bye. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right your are: wp:linking "Links should not be placed in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence." - it makes them invisible. Woops. I had very carefully added several... Fixing now.- sinneed (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikireader41 posted this above 81.158.129.71 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 86.160.112.112 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat has been causing lots of problems lately. He has picked a ton new places to vandalize. It seems like they just got out on summer break or something and hence has a lot more time that usual to vandalize. User:Tanthalas39 has been semiprotecting a few pages from Nangparbat's current vandalizing ground, but a lot of it is still unprotected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_Pakistan&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orangi_Town&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Status_of_religious_freedom_by_country&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paravas&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madiga&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slum&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radhabinod_Pal&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheikh_Abdullah&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brothel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva_terrorism&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Property_damage&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence&action=history

Some of these pages are already semiprotected but the semiprotections need to be lengthened Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Oct 1985, an assassination attempt was uncovered on the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi on his stay in the UK, two other moderate Sikhs were murdered, Tarsem Singh Toor in Jan 1986 and Darshan Das was shot in November 1987, in all those cases, those responsible were tried and convicted under British Law.

^[1]

I added this and hundreds of other cross checked references only to see them get deleted by pro-extremist individuals, I know pro terrorists can edit wikipedia and distort reports by claiming whole sections of the mass media are 'biased' but by deleting material, that doesn't improve wikipedia. I have said on many times I willwp:ignore all rules wrt user:Sinneed and user:dikh history Morbid Fairy (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this same way people who were actively involved in the 1984 riots in India and extermination of Sikhs in India can edit wikipedia. So whats your point? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers if you two keep on duelling everywhere you'll get in trouble YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination of Sikhs? Sikh terrorists? Boy, you guys are sure on the opposite spectrum of this issue. I don't think there's any way either of you could be neutral. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me I have tried every method to reason for this editor. I eventually gave up after the WP:Outing incident. Now his target is Sineed, and I cannot sit buy and watch this editor refer to very neutral people as extremists. --Sikh-history (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should know that the one you banned is back using a different IP, his usual tactics. This time he is using 75.21.149.82 . He is the one who also goes under RevAntonio. He has left threatening messages on my page talk and also I have been notified he has also done the same at talk . He is also leaving messages on the Anna Anderson page even though he has been banned. These are his usual tactics trying to attack an administrator who bans him. He did the same to Trusilver. Can you please do something to stop him? I believe he needs to have an extended ban and to be range blocked. Thank you for your assistance. Finneganw 21:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously disappointed by the greyeditor he intentionally reinserted the edits of ip70 aka Hkelkar and ip24 aka Disallowedfromseeing aka Lightappliation it seems to me indian editors and indian socks have been forming a deep nexus when one gets blocked i.e ip 70 ip 24 takes his place as a admin nishkid its your duty to not be biased or pro indian and you must stop ip24 aka Disallowedfromseeing and Lightappliation from editing i was just removing there edits nothing else but greyanomoly a biased editor who has been blocked several times now keeps supporting his chums ip socks is there anything you could do if they stop i will stop cheers 86.154.149.72 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proof if you dont believe that ip24 is a sock and hes working with Hkelkar [37] he has made many accounts so has Hkelkar (ip70 as you know already so does greyanomoly) both these ips communicate and take each others place to push there pov on the same articles once one gets blocked the other pounces its very obvious however greyanomoly has turned a blind eye on this sadly (check there edit history and you will see). I entered this mess by reverting there edits made on articles like Slum(he seems to be convinced there is pov against india when showing the pic of mumbai slums and replaces the pic and info with other things), Persecution of Christians,Brothel(ip24 and Hkelkar removed the sentence for no reason),Poverty in Pakistan(removed sourced info from user: Afantasy it was well sourced but the sock ips did not agree with it) and Violence(again hes getting angry over a pic),Property damage(same old same),Tourism in India(ip socks and Hkelkar delete sourced info,[[38]](Here you can see blanking of sourced info and support of it by the greyeditor I know you are hindu so this maybe a bit incomfortable),Jizya(Even though im muslim i still reverted the blanking stating jizya was forced up non muslims on muslim "lands" so i dont think faith should get int the way),Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement(again i was just reverted to reinsert the perfectly sourced sentence and yes Lightappliation is yet another sock of ip24),Outline of India(before I forget this edit made by sockip24 shows his petty pov he finds anything offensive which discusses issues related to india it was reverted eventually by another editor) its getting very tiresome reverting there edits as they seem very passionate to keep there pov edits now please could you revert there edits and restore the articles to there original context where none of the socks have edited nor have I. Here is ip70 aka Hkelkar edits[39] im sure you can see the picture and pattern here heres another sock of ip24[40] I shall stop reverting now as I think it got a bit out of hand already well last night actually I hope you cane delete there edits AND mine to restore the articles to there original non pov state cheers 86.154.149.72 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing If both the socks ip24 and Hkelkar stop editing so do I but i am going to stop reverting the above articles now to give you a chance to sort this bloody mess out I suggest you dont get grey editor involved as he will surely reinsert Hkelkars edits I dont really care you revert my edits so long as there edits are removed and the pages are protected for at least 6 months or more I hope you understand regards 86.154.149.72 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of ip24 xxx : [41] aka Lightappliation. Also user: Disallowedfromseeing [42] there edit history and subsequent blocks will make it clear again I am not asking you to re insert my edits just to remove there’s I find It highly annoying and racist that socks of Indian heritage (Hkelkar and ip24) get away with murder especially when another established editors of Indian heritage like greyanomoly help them achieve there goals I admit I was wrong to engage in edit wars but its the only way to get through to Hkelkar and Disallowedfromseeing/Lightappliation 86.154.149.72 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"racist socks of Indian heritage"? the pot calls the kettle black as this edit summary shows?24.28.72.170 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall the sock Disallowedtoveiw/Lightappliation above seems to be obsessed with reproductive organs [43] and measuring "Dicks" 86.154.149.72 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC) That revert also shows that he has pov against Pakistan 86.154.149.72 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70/24/accounts are all Hkelkar. You guys are both banned users with extremist Pakistani and extremist Indian POVs. I'm going to protect the article to whatever version existed before you guys kept along, but I reserve the right to make appropriate POV modifications. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So these IPs really are Hkelkar and it is not just Nangparbat BSing. I will stay out of their edit wars. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPs originating from the Austin, Texas area who edit India-related articles are almost always Hkelkar. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....Unless they edit Buddhist and Hindu cult leaders with a supportive POV towards the self proclaimed Buddhas, then they are User:Ekajati YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing so much of the CU work!Time to retire and return to the genteel world of FA I say! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Statistics YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks mate! I think I should be ready with Thomas Gold in a few days. Know any good copyeditors? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Unforutnately they are all on indefienite ce strike or retired. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, shoot. Oh well, I guess I'll try copyedit myself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13 minutes after you blocked Forgivenesss, Highnoteslikemariah (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and is editing the same articles. Would you mind checking it, please? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the block logs for Rtphokie (talk · contribs), I see a block was issued on 6/19/09 for abuse. This is an old username I edited under but haven't used since April. I'm considering applying for adminship and am concerned that this block might impact that discussion. Can you share more information about why this block was put in place?--RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]