Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but it appears that you rejected common knowledge in my edits, Tajiks are considered the remaining Persians in that region. Please review Iranian studies or contact any reputable department to clarify. Common knowledge can be included without citation, and Tajiks --> Persian is pretty much common knowledge among historians and academia. Heck, even multiple citations the Tajik page shows this. Do you have any proof that they are not? It's strange because as you know, this could have dangerous real-life implication by hiding common historical knowledge to a western audience. For example, here's[1] an Indo-Iranian baby in Florida that needs a rare blood transfusion. Apparently, only 'Iranians', 'Indians' and 'Pakistanis' are a possible match but did not call 'Afghans' to donate even though they are closer to the Indic side of Indo-Iranian population than modern Iranians (nationality). You've edited enough pages related to the Iranian people to understand that the 'Afghan' portion is closer genetically linked to Pakistan/India than modern Iran, so I hope you may understand why I believe making sure people understand the intimate link between the historical Khorasanis and people of Persia-proper.
In terms of source misinterpretation, while I definitely can see your point, Afghanistan has been a homeland since the 10th century and their territory has expanded since then, and Turkistan has existed as a portion of Khorasan historically too. Again, you said I had a source misinterpretation -- but I humbly think you do too as well. It appears that you assume that 'Afghanistan' must only refer to the western notions of a modern nation-state when it is much older! I plan to re-add my sentence with more citations, even though it is common knowledge. BTW, could you share when and where common knowledge can be added without citation? I see this done so inconsistently on WP, and on pages relating to current possible war crime victims that it is a bit unnerving. HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"but it appears that you rejected common knowledge in my edits"
Common knowledge, your opinion, or what you think are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as you already know, is written using reliable sources.
"You've edited enough pages related to the Iranian people..."
How would you know what I have or have not edited?? Are you a sock of a former editor? Only someone that has been here for an extended period of time would know anything of my edit history.
"It appears that you assume that 'Afghanistan' must only refer to the western notions of a modern nation-state when it is much older!"
You have absolutely no idea what I assume, think or know. What you have done here is create a straw man for you to beat on.
"Again, you said I had a source misinterpretation -- but I humbly think you do too as well."
Prove it. Unfounded accusations will be reported to an Admin.
"I plan to re-add my sentence with more citations, even though it is common knowledge."
Unless your "citations" support what you add to Wikipedia, it will be removed. I could care less what "common knowledge" states. Continued original research will also be reported to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are allowed to search someone's past history. Plus, look at how you acted in the doogh page...why did you support it being a western Iranian invention when it most likely is of Central Asian Turkic? Please triple check what you are writing inshallah. HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I am jamaas9 so feel free to block me again, but I am only trying to tell the truth. Sometimes rules are made to be broken imho, esp when you are oppressed or targeted. Again "Tajiks" === Persian as understood in a western context HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Doug Wellertalk 17:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Greater Khorasan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
