User talk:Mann Mann/Archive 2017

Göktürks

Just to say that the IP you reverted there because their edit summary didn't match their edit is banned under WP:PERUNBAN, I've just caught up with him. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably new one

"Kuzeyeshgh" is probably a new sock of "Turkspasha". At least, he gives me that vibe. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Looks like a WP:DUCK in my opinion too (same edits, targeted articles and style). Browse his SPI case and see if you can find some evidences to relate this new account to him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done [1]. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New sock of Tirgil34 or WorldCreaterFighter?

@LouisAragon:, @Wario-Man:; what about this NEW user 1? Looks like LTA vandal Tirgil34. The account made similar edits with Tirgil34's on Kipchaks. Also the account's edits remind me banned WorldCreaterFihgter too-focuses on the same articles like Southeast Asians, Cantonese, Turkic peoples, etc.- 176.119.28.109 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

176.119.28.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this "new" account was made after the last Tirgil34 sweep, so it could be. I'm not that well versed however regarding his edits on SEA etc articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, @Wario-Man:, user "GörselHayat" is %100 sock of Tirgil34. Pushes the same fringe pov regarding Subartu, Turukkeans, etc as Tirgil did in the past, see LTA page. He involved in edit wars many times with user Ergativertl for the same pov. User Kicsspale on Bashkirs is also sock. Could anyone please file a new SPI case? 176.119.28.109 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.119.28.109: If you have evidences (diffs), write them here. Because I need related diffs to submit a new SPI case and prove he's the new sock of that long-term abuser. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

With pleasure! But i need some time, i am on phone now. Tonight or tomorrow night, I'll come with diffs. Thanks. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I reported him to ARV. But please send your diffs because it's possible he registered several new accounts too. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll. But if you need the diffs right now, take a look at the revision history of Turukkaeans and Subartu. Confirmed socks' edits were reverted by Krakkos. In addition, the "new" editor's interest on Northeast caucasians could be an another sign. Location of KipchakHakan on apricity is Chechenya. 176.119.28.109 (talk)

Here is the diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The LTA vandal pushed the same pov with his various socks e.g. Hirabutor, Henephon, etc back then. The new banned account's knowledge on linguistic is also resembling Tirgil34. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

He's blocked now. As I know, SPI is only for active accounts. So what do you do? Or me? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I know but I bet he has additional socks. So the sock account should be checked by checkusers. As for sockpuppet Kicsspale, the account is stale. So probably checkusers will not check it. By the way, LTA vandal is active on YouTube nowadays and pushes "new" idiotic theories (eg."The real Aryans are Uighurs"). So could you please watch the Uyghurs, Haplogroup P and Haplogroup P1? Besides, I spot a dubious ip on Haplogroup R1a. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Contact admins about his activities outside Wikipedia. Plus, checkusers do not use such methods to find socks. He may registered many new accounts but until he activates them again, we can't do anything. However, contact some checkusers to see what they say about this issue. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll contact checkusers. And what do you think about the first suspicious user? WorldCreaterFighter or Tirgil34? 176.119.28.109 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Something fishy

@Wario-Man:, @LouisAragon:, I noticed that a "new" and dubious user on LA's talk page 1. The account was created 2 days ago and today, abrubtly, send dubious messages on talk pages (rants with no single diffs and/or a previous action by him). Also, today, created an userpage and represents himself as "Persian Circassian" (probably to catch Louis's attention through WP:ACTING). I think he is the same Turkocentric sockmaster with stupid plans. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The sock made some removals/dummy edits on articles to prove that he is a "fellow(!)" Iranian 1. I am %100 sure now, he is the same long-term vandal with stupid plans. By the way, user Kicsspale is also an obvious sock. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks very similar to Tirgil34. I will watch him. I didn't find the other one. His username is incorrect. Plus, Tirgil34 has a team. Some of those accounts are not him and his socks. This guy has some agendas which supported by his members from Germany, Russia, Turkey, Canada and USA. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep to everything. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.119.28.109 and LouisAragon: Very similar to Tirgil34 and Co.[2] Seems we should watch Tirgil34's favorite targets and topics carefully. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

His knowledge on linguistics is also resembling the same sockpuppeteer. Keep in mind that, the sockmaster is very active on wictionary. So what could be the purpose of this moron? a) ascribing fictitious character to his new sock not to be noticed when editing on wikipedia b) contacting you and LA by winning your trust to manipulate further SPI cases c) trying to create WP:DUCK of LA to make him blocked. See the LTA page, these are his habitual behaviours. In any case, we are all aware of these silly sock tricks and he will be blocked soon. Please take an eye and report him at the right time. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you mention his active usernames on Wiktionary and English Wikipedia? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a look wiktionary, his account was not active now. I also had a look both de.wikipedia and tr.wikipedia regarding his currently targeted articles. Look what i have found: 12 The same account is also registered on en.wikipedia. A sleeper. As for his current sock; he has created a fake user page. It means that, he is planning to use this "new" sock account for a long time, unlike his other temporary sock accounts (e.g. Kicsspare). 176.119.28.109 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

He and his mates (e.g. that laughable website) are a paid organized group with nationalist agenda in my opinion. Blocking and SPI reports are not perfect cures for this case because it's not a typical case. He uses his blog and youtube channel to launch new attacks on Wikipedia. Never forget there are some other nationalists who are not as crazy as Tirgil34 but they share same targets with him. I see strong similarities between their posts on racialist forums and their activities on Wikipedia. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you. The SPI cases very well works. Compare this vandal's sock activities before and after @Krakkos:'s intervention, there is a significant difference. And yeah, he has some meatpuppets or mates here but obviously MOST of the banned socks belong to Tirgil himself. E.g. his newly banned sock and current WP:ACTING sock are him. And i agree with you, he's probably paid. Is there a way to prove it? 176.119.28.109 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't say SPI is not good. It works very well but it's not a perfect solution. Not enough for a case like this. That vandal and his team targeted Wikipedia since 2006. He won't abandon WP because English Wikipedia is very popular and he needs to promote his BS via popular websites. That's the reason why he uses youtube. But his youtube channel only attracts few people who are similar to him and it's limited because most people are not interested in stuff like that. He was very active in 2012-2014. Thanks to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, he can't vandalize targeted articles like before. Because we exposed him and it's easy to detect his new activities. But Wikipedia should have some policies when we deal with a vandal who has a active base outside of WP. And why do you doubt about "paid" part? Do you think he wastes his money for nothing? Or how he managed to be active 24/7? And that new account is revealing himself. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that he's not a paid user, read it again please. I completely agree with you at this point. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I think we should add more details to his LTA page, especially about his activities outside of WP. Other editors should become familiar with him because he may confuse them with his sockpuppetry methods. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. LTA page needs an update. I am ready to help. Also have a look at this 1. I saw the same ipv6 in various articles with dubious edits. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That dude is just....wow... - LouisAragon (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read some wp policies regarding paid users. I think WP needs more detailed, concrete and deterrent rules for WP:COIPOLITICAL/WP:COICAMPAIGN. Which page proper to discuss policies? 176.119.28.109 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Updating his LTA page will help us a lot. Adding new targeted articles and socks, more details about his agenda/behavior, tagging his blocked socks and etc. He's very predictable, as you said it before. For example, every time he uploads something to his youtube channel or posts something on his blog or those racialist/racist forums, then I expect to see new disruptions on targeted topics. I hope checkusers find his oldest account(s) in possible upcoming SPIs. I'm sure Tirgil34 was not his main account. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See the posts of this sunny dude.[3][4] As we discovered his activity in the past, this nationalist vandal spams his BS on every website which has topics about history, genetics and race. He even spammed on Total War series (video game) websites/forums. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the content, because i haven't an account there. But I saw his and his mates' actions on the apricity. Seems that they have many socks there too. Many have fictitious characters: so-called "Germans", "Hungarians", etc spreading hate against Iranians, Russians and Armenians. But the main target is the Iranians, as usual. Probably they are paid by their gov/states or an ultra-nationalist organisation. Since it seems an organised campaign, i think the targeted states should do something about it. It is a serious problem and individuals alone can't stop all those shit on the Internet. Anyway, we should do our best on WP. I'll create an account and will update the LTA page. 176.119.28.109 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of them are just typical nationalist ranters but the others are an organized group. I said this before: Their activities on Wikipedia (obviously their edit summaries and comments on talk pages) match with their posts on the apricity, that youtube channel, and etc. I may continue this discussion when you create an account. On your talk page. Good luck. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A possible sockpuppet

Hello. Check this user, he is likely a sockpuppet, editing articles with a Kurdish nationalist POV. Almost all of his edits are disruptive, with usually fake edit summaries. You may be able to recognize his sockmaster? -- Mazandar (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mazandar: Hi. He does not look like a familiar/known sockmaster to me and he's a registered user since 2009. Some of his edits are problematic some are OK. So either talk to him on his talk page (seems he's from your country) or report him to WP:ANI if he continues his disruptive edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Well, I am new on Wikipedia and I wanted to edit Turkic Peoples page because there was a wrong thing in it. There are 35-40 million Turkic people in Iran and that page was saying only 15 million. Could you change that? thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazarkucuk (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because you need some reliable sources to support your claim. "15 million" is sourced and your "35-40 million" requires some sources too. Start a new section on Talk:Turkic peoples and provide your sources (books, article links and etc). Read WP:RS before posting on talk page or editing articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to new SPI case!

Tirgil34 is active nowadays with various sock accounts and ips.

• This sock on Scythians
• This one on Srubna culture
• This one on Kurgan hypothesis

Also compare this ip vandal's comment on your talk page and the sock account's additions [5]. Same content and source, almost word by word. So the ip is also likely Tirgil sock. --185.47.201.103 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

More: The sock on Scythians dismissed this sentence from the source while underlined Turkic speakers: "...Contemporary populations linked to western Iron Age steppe people can be found among diverse ethnic groups in the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia (spread across many Iranian and other Indo-European speaking groups)..." Typical cherry picking to push his pov. 185.47.201.103 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just checked the other two sources the sock added and noticed that neither Iain Matheson et al., nor the Wilde S. Thimson et al. support the content. There is literally nothing about Scythians in those sources. There are clear fictitious sourcing and cherry picking in his edits to push a certain pov. I attempted to remove those WP:FAKE but the page is semi-protected. Btw, when i was checking the sources, i also noticed that the same Ian Mathieson source, i.e. "Eith thousand years of natural selection in Europe", was previously used by banned Tirgil sock Zolotoya Number on Poltavka culture. In a nutshell, there is a guy who added a content that exclusively on Euromongoloid ancestry of Scythians, involved in cherry picking and fictitious sourcing to push that pov and used the sources which were used by previous Tirgil34 socks. 185.63.253.133 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User#1 just used summary of the cited paper and it's not a pov edit.[6] Any users can edit that parts and add the necessary info per cited source. User#2 may be just registered an account for editing because sometimes people use temporary accounts to hide their IPs especially if they use static IPs. User#3 looks like Tirgil34 socks. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The first account is the most suspicious one. The account was created about 8-9 months ago, i.e. a new account. And he cherry picked the source. Did you even check the source? What would be his motivation to dismiss the sentence indicating the affinity between present day IE speaking people from the same region and the Scythians while he emphasizing the affinity of Turkic speakers? And is it just a coincidence that ip troll 108.161.118.89 also cited the same sentence from the same source on your talk page? I think all his previous edits are just an attempt to make the account look like a "good editor". There's something dubious here. I have filed a SPI case. Related diffs were provided. We'll see what will happen. 185.47.201.100 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I read that paper. See:

• For western Scythian-era samples, contemporary populations with high statistical support for a genealogical link are located mainly in close geographical proximity, whereas contemporary groups with high statistical support for descent from eastern Scythians are distributed over a wider geographical range. Contemporary populations linked to western Iron Age steppe people can be found among diverse ethnic groups in the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia (spread across many Iranian and other Indo-European speaking groups), whereas populations with genetic similarities to eastern Scythian groups are found almost exclusively among Turkic language speakers (Supplementary Figs 10 and 11).

Discussion section of that paper:

• Contemporary descendants of western Scythian groups are found among various groups in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while similarities to eastern Scythian are found to be more widespread, but almost exclusively among Turkic language speaking (formerly) nomadic groups, particularly from the Kipchak branch of Turkic languages (Supplementary Note 1).

As you see he could cited/used the text from discussion part. Maybe cherry-picking or just excluding details. That IP is another scenario. Because he started to insert classic POVs on related articles. He referred to this paper and started his quest on several articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

First, i thought the same. Then i noticed that the text includes Russia[7]. However, there is no such thing as "Russia" in the text from the discussion part. In other words, the content he added is not from the discussion part of the article.-- 185.47.201.103 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right but I think Tirgil34 usually misrepresents the sources rather than cherry-picking. That's the reason why I prefer to wait for stronger evidences. Never forget these articles are favorite topics for various kind of editors. And when someone links to a wiki article (for example, on a internet forum), some viewers come here and try to edit that article. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the BANREVERTs. The LTA page also needs an update. I am less doubtful regarding Theutatis now. However, i STILL think that proxy socking Truthprevailsalways is sock of the same sockmaster. BTW, i have noticed an another suspected sock that is interested in linguistic, targets the same articles and uses the word "Türkic" instead of "Turkic", as many Tirgil34 socks often do. 185.63.253.133 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It was your report that revealed his new wave of sockpuppets. You can update LTA page by yourself. I think he is planning to target ancient Anatolian and Middle Eastern articles. What do you think about the possible targets? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Any topic that fits his ultra-nationalist agenda can be a target, not just the articles about ancient ME and Anatolians. By the way, you have not commented on about the new suspected sock. I think the user is questionable and should be watched. 93.158.216.134 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree about that new user. However, It's not limited to Tirgil34. There are 2-3 other sockpuppet cases which follow similar agenda. For example, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• 82.137.111.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

What do you think about this dubious ip? Please check its edits (especially on Khazars, R1a and Hungarians). Highlighting the view that Q is Turkic/Hunnic/Xiongnu, R1a-Z93 is Altaic, adding unreliable sources of Kylyosov, adding unverifiable Russian? sources, etc. -- 93.158.216.134 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a Bulgarian IP. I think he's a random user who found those info from racialist forums and Tirgil34's website. or maybe related to another sockmaster. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed his edits. Does not look like Tirgil34. Just an anonymous users who insert various genetic studies. Tirgil34 has visible pro-Turkic and anti-Indo-European (especially anti-Iranian) bias in his edits while this IP just inserts bunch of genetics stuff. You should check EMr KnG and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas. They're serious cases. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I dont think so. The ip's "inserts" are very similar to the sockmaster's additions. Please remember that, you said exactly the same things about confirmed sock Nittron before. And i know the ip is from Bulgaria but it may be from a Hosting Provider, i.e. proxy. There are evidences that the sockmaster used proxies before. See the LTA page. And 46.16.193.70, an another "Bulgarian" ip is blocked as proxy. See the ip's and confirmed sock Tundezs's edits on Xiongnu[8][9]. The ip made edits on Balkan-related articles too. But i think it is just a tactic not to be detected for proxy-socking. So those ips are either proxy sock of the same user or there is an obvious meatpuppetry. I think the first one is more likely. I'll check the EMr KnG case btw. Thank you. 93.158.216.134 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious about that IP because there is a Bulgarian sockmaster Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov who copy-pastes stuff from Tirgil34's websites but his edits are sometimes Turkic pov-pushing and sometimes anti-Turkic pov-pushing. Very strange behavior. Plus, it seems Tirgil34 now wants to insert his agenda on some ancient-related articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles related to Germanic peoples can also be the new targets. I've updated the long-term abuse page. Seems that his new socks edited mostly on articles related to Germanic peoples: Jakten på Odin, Proto-Germanic language, etc. He also pushes the fringe nationalist views on Youtube and claims various Germanic peoples (Vikings, Germans, Anglo-Saxons,...) descent from the Huns. His nickname on theapricity is "Håkan". 93.158.208.107 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• 46.233.112.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The ip is making nonsensical/unhelpful and "major" changes(on IE-related articles), which somewhat alter the meanings. I have found it weird and dubious. 185.145.128.202 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just revert them and write clear edit summaries if you think he tries to disrupt those articles . --Wario-Man (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The ip was already reverted by an another user. I first thought that, the ip is likely the same sockmaster, though not sure now. 93.158.208.107 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic, history and language topics attract different people with different views and most them think their edits would improve the article. Good faith changes but wrong and disruptive in most cases. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Britanicca, Turkic peoples

Dear user, this only counts Azerbaijanis of Iran. And not Turkmens, Qashqai's, etc. So it's not valid. Also Britannica is not listed as a reliable source according Wikipedia. Sorry, I was on mobile. Regarding the situation. CIA world factbook doesn't give us anymore a specific data. And Britannica shouldn't be used. Even if we use it, it only counts Azerbaijanis. Beshogur (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Stop edit warring and cherry-picking. Open a section on article talk page and discuss your concern there. I will clarify why your edits are POV. We need consensus and a neutral revision. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Persian Language

Can you please have a look at these issues as they don't make sense.

Sassanian spoke Middle Persian language which is ancestor to western persian due to the proximity of the region. This statement that Middle Persian was called Dari is completely absurd .

similarly these statements "The first poems of the Persian language, a language historically called Dari, emerged in Afghanistan." is also absurd as the next line states ruduki as the persian poet who was born in present Tajikistan not Afghanistan. There was no Dari or Tajiki mentioned by Ruduki himself, samanids themselves claimed descent from Sassanians which claimed descent from the first persian empire. Some afghan nationalists are trying to edit war I suppose.

Also new persian was born when the shamanic, tahirid came so it means it was born in khorasan region which engulfed heart, balkh, merv , nishapur khorasan province of todays Iran. Whatever sources are cited, I doubt that they mention the information that has been written

Just to let you know

I just reverted this. Some PhD in international relations is not a RS for this. Do you smell that? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thank you. I think you should check some other historical regions too because they may have similar issue(s). --Wario-Man (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wario-Man!

Werner Sundermann, who wrote the article in the reference you deleted [10] in the Xionites article, is a famous German Iranist, I don't think you can call him "non expert" (History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., Sigfried J. de Laet, Joachim Herrmann UNESCO, 1996 p.73).
Here are a few other reputable sources:

• Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Robert L. Canfield, Cambridge University Press, 2002 p.49
  
• The Huns Hyun Jin Kim, Routledge, 2015 p.55 sq
  
• First Peoples of Europe, Manuel Molinos, Andrea Zifferero, All’Insegna del Giglio, 2002 p.50
  

I am afraid Encyclopædia Iranica Online (which is of disputable objectivity) can claim primacy of opinion on this subject. I does seem to me balance is needed between Iranian and Turkish origin theories. Hope this helps! Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Let's discuss it on Talk:Xionites. Open a new section there and I will write my opinion. Wario-Man (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan

It's in South Asia too... so we'll use western South Asia WikiPolices (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPolices: The "western" part is confusing and unnecessary because South Asia includes Afghanistan. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not like Pashto is spoken all throughout South Asia. It's only spoken in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Whatever you say. WikiPolices (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The article's content and its map clarifies it.[11] --Wario-Man (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And what does it clarify? That the Pashto language is only spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not in the entire of South Asia... you need to comrephend a little better. Ok? WikiPolices (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Central Asia

I wonder what is wrong in placing my own work for further reading, if my work directly deals with the subject? = Rasizade (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

-stan

Good day. I speak inglish little. Drawing attention to the ST was made by me for greater clarity and understanding of the fact that ST is common to all Indo-European languages/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umfront (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI

I'm told that COM:RFCU[12] is their SPI page. If you wants a more direct approach ask directly a local CU or via email. Let me know if you want more help. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the help. I reported him to the related WC noticeboard and he's blocked now.[13] Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Sorry about the delay. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Scythians

Why did you remove the 7 sources that I provied about Turkish roots of Scythians?! Historia de alexander (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page or browse the archives? Scythians were not Turkish. Adding Turkish to the lead is POV. We already have a discussion to remove "Iranian" from the lead section too. Open a new section on talk page and discuss your concerns before further edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There are more than 15 historical source that Says they were "Turks" , how you deny the historical sources? Phothious, Phd G. Rawlinson , Phd Augustus Frederic Rudolf and others... Historia de alexander (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm waitting for an excuse! Historia de alexander (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you read my edit summary and the above reply?! It should be discussed on the talk page. Go to the talk page and discuss your concern. OPEN a section on Talk:Scythians. No more discussion on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help to protect a article

Hello, I am here to ask if you can protect the page South Korea-Turkey relations becaues another user(@Akocsg) is including content without a supporting source and the included content is also not belonging in this article. I have already started a discussion but the user is still not accepting the fact. He use several not reliable sources of fringe turkish origin. Please have a look at this. Greetings --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoguryeoHistorian: Hi. I'm not an admin. You better discuss it on the related boards. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Pluricentric language

Hello, Wario-Man – Since you've edited Persian language recently, I assume you're watching the article. There is a pending change edit that I was just looking at. It adds a link to "pluricentric language" in the lede. I don't know whether Persian is a pluricentric language or not, but I was thinking about two things I wanted to ask you about:

1) I believe too many links in the lede of an article are discouraged, but I'll let you decide whether the term should be linked or not. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Contextual links:

Do not...add contextual links that don't relate directly to the topic's definition or reason for notability.

2) the lede is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body of the article, and I did a search and "pluricentric language" does not appear anywhere in the article other than the lede. If you think it is an important point to be made, perhaps it should be added to the body of the article. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. I hope it doesn't appear as if I am telling you what to do. If it does, I apologize. In the course of reading and copy-editing, I often notice things that don't look or sound right, but I have no idea how to fix them, so I leave notes for those who I think may know more than I do.  – Corinne (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Hello. Sorry for the late reply. Many editors watch and edit that article, so it's better to discuss your concerns on Talk:Persian language. It would be helpful. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Maybe I'll copy my comments to the article talk page if it hasn't already been dealt with. I'll look at this later.  – Corinne (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup map

You might want to.see the discussion here.[14] Any suggestions? RSN? Doug Weller talk 05:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's a clear WP:OR case. Plus the origin of haplogroups are disputed and uncertain among geneticists. So that map is misleading and confuses our readers. And I think the new account is just another sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I can't confirm that. You might want to start an SPI. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Wario-Man. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Wario-Man. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Copied your AN/I info

Following Akocsg's latest block for edit warring, shocking I know right? I copied your AN/I information to EdJohnston's talk page so he could get a complete view of Akocsg's activities. Sorry I did not ask in advance, and why don't you allow for emails? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I will write my opinion there. About the email, I will activate it when I create a WP-specific email address. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wario-Man. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mann Mann, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Population density in Central Asia

Hello man, you just reverted my edit on Central Asia page of wikipedia. I believe you were wrong to do that. Here, I would explain how?

Population density is a population divided by total area of a region. The total population of Central Asia is 69,787,760 and total area is 4,003,451 km². If you divide the population of Central Asia by its total area, you find the population density 17.43/km², not 50.1/km². It is a simple math. I would like to know how you calculated the population density of Central Asia region to be 50.1/km². عاطف حسن الهندي (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have checked it again and you're right. Per this source, it's about 17-18. I will correct it. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

About these edits?[15]-[16] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: The images are OK if they have source(s), otherwise they should be removed. Plus inserting a lot of images is not a good idea. Linking to Wiki Commons or creating a gallery with small thumbnails are better options. For the "See also" section, only most relevant/related articles should be linked. Is Azerbaijani rug related to Tabriz/Persian rug? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparantly, the reliable sources list the Tabriz rug as a subtype of the Persian rug. So other than geographical proximity, it would be unrelated. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Btw, something different; it should've been brought to ANI straight away. Not 3RR. As its a combination of numerous WP violations. Another unacceptable repetition of the same personal attacks.[17]. Not mentioning his continued questioning of RS sources, i.e. "If even Iranica mentions this, in all its anti-Pashtun bias, then it is definitely true." (further confirmation of his WP:NOTHERE / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mission). - LouisAragon (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: So feel free to remove them. There are similar edits by that user on another article.[18] You may want to check them too. About the other user. Currently I try to use discussions and I tolerate him. There are enough warnings on his talk page and evidences of WP violations. So if he continues, then I report him to ANI for sure. Would you like to participate in Talk:Bactria#bactrian_people and Talk:Bactria#Cambridge_Encyclopedia_Vol._8,_pg._2246_-_doesn't_seem_to_be_such_an_encyclopedia? Because he turned his own section into a forum-like entry. Your opinion and comment would be very helpful when the protection of article ends. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hazaragi language

I reverted to the revision of 14 August 2017.[19] Rye-96 had made alot of proper edits to the article; these were unintentionally caught in the sweep. Just to let you know. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Actually, the article still sounds like an original research. Compare it with Iranica article.[20] I think my revision is closer to a reliable source like Iranica. Plus did you restore socks' edits too? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge Encyclopedia

Hi Wario-Man - with regard to this edit summary, the Cambridge Encyclopedia most certainly does exist - as seen here - although, no longer having a copy, I do not know if it supports the claim made in that article. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Me and other user discussed it here.Talk:Bactria#Cambridge_Encyclopedia_Vol._8,_pg._2246_-_doesn't_seem_to_be_such_an_encyclopedia --Wario-Man (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Generalist encyclopedias rarely are reliable sources and should be avoided" - but please don't claim something doesn't exist, when it clearly does (I had a copy but lost it in my divorce) - Arjayay (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not exist. Yous should read the discussion and my comments in the other section. Yeah, there is a "Cambridge Encyclopedia" but the part I removed does not exist. There is no "vol 8 and page 2246". It's a made-up source. Even the amazon link says "1308 pages". I did not find that quote anywhere. Plus the author is not a historian and even if that quote is from that book by any chance, it's not reliable. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Mann Mann, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)