Jump to content

User talk:Nasir Ghobar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Nasir Ghobar, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Nasir Ghobar, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed

[edit]

Hello Nasir Ghobar. Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Dispute at Ghaznavids. This is a courtesy notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput clean up

[edit]

Hi, some of the contributions in your "clean up" at Rajput have made matters worse rather than better. For example, we do not usually link the names of major countries (WP:OVERLINK) nor do we include quote marks around block quotations or italicise the things (WP:MOSQUOTE). As a general rule, we do not use "The" at the start of section headings (WP:MOSHEAD). - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Saffarid dynasty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fars, Bost and Bamyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Afghanistan]]

[edit]

Hello. You changed the regions in the lead against what reliable sources say. If you start removing images, please try to remove one by one, explaining each one why it's not necessary or why you are replacing. This way people can revert only a few of your edits, and leave in place those edits they agree with. if you make all changes in a single edit, then they have to revert all your changes at once. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain why I made the changes, the page contains excessive text and images and that makes not possible for great many readers to even view it because not everyone has fast internet speed, especially these days. Details should be put in main articles. It states that: Afghanistan is ... located in the centre of Asia, forming part of Central Asia, South Asia, and Greater Middle East,[1] [2] it is also considered to be part of a broader West Asia. If you click on the links no where does it mention that.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have just looked at the sources, see:
You added Greater Middle East without a source. And you moved the names around, and then it looked like Greater Middle East was supported by both the UN and Britannica.
And you mix Greater Middle East, a politic-geographic concept, with the other regions, which are only geographic. And those regions are only for the purpose of making clear where the country is. And Greater Middle East covers a lot of territory, and it doesn't help the reader to place the country. And it's a controversial concept that is not very widespread, so it shouldn't be mentioned at all in article Afghanistan. You need a source that explains why this concept is important for understanding Afghanistan.
P.D.: It's true that West Asia has no source, but it says "possibly", and it looks correct, and it probably helps the reader. I don't know enough about the topic to remove it. It could be tagged with "citation needed", or it could be removed.
P.D.: try removing the images section by section, so people can check the changes better. And write a liitle explanation in the edit summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. I actually did the opposite. I removed "Greater Middle East" because a request by another who wanted to remove this was ignored [3], and I only kept 1. South Asia, 2. Central Asia, and 3. Western Asia. It is you who re-added Greater Middle East. The images that I added are of much better quality and perfectly relate to Afghanistan. In the Demography section of your version there are images of people who are not even from Afghanistan. For example, this girl [4] is from Turkmenistan and this man [5] is from Uzbekistan.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012 Ranjit Singh

[edit]

Hello, I'm Desijatt1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ranjit Singh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I have removed it for now. If you have objection on some content of the article provide some reliable sources to verify it. The article needs a clean up rather than hap hazard adding and deleting. There should be consensus. There is two different viewpoints on same thing. if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks Desijatt1 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you keep reverting my edits, particularly the part that Zaman Shah Durrani chose Ranjit Singh as the governor of Punjab in 1799. If you loook at the history of Rangit Singh's article I'm the one who began improving it in the last month or so. I understand that Sikhs generally don't like Afghans but please keep that to the side because this is an encyclopedia. If I involve administrators they will most likely take my side because you are acting as a vandal, removing sourced content that you don't like. The Country Studies on Afghanistan is one of the most reliable sources and you are disapproving that. So, I suggest you stop removing my added information about Zaman Shah appointing Ranjit as governor of Punjab.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese and Bamyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Calm

[edit]

Mr. Ghobar

We are here to not promote or satisfying individuals feelings. We are here to provide authentic information for society. I am Intrigued by how you are misusing your powers to provide misleading edits , references and deletions of valid content. I think you have much better things to do. Please do not repeat your recent edit on Ranjit Singh. It is being discussed on the talk page. You may have a conflict of interest here, so I would suggest that you leave it to people who do not. Thanks. Theman244 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add details about exactly how did a teenager (Ranjit Singh) become a King and you're trying to conceal this fact from the readers. That information that I want to add is going to get added so please don't waste time on this. Thanks.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

[edit]

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ranjit Singh without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Please do not make any changes until we get WP:Consensus. It appears you are involved in an WP:Edit War with DesiJatt and others. SH 15:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ranjit Singh. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove information added by other users with reliable sources, as you did to Ranjit Singh. Theman244 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell you talking about? Vandalism? Please!--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ranjit Singh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 'Please discuss your content issues with the other editors in a civil manner on the talk page rather than reverting them without thorough discussion of the merits of their arguments. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012 Part 2

[edit]

Hello this is peace4worldwide. Dear Nasir Ghobar, you have mentioned a few biased sentences in the Sahibzada Abdul Latif page. You stated that "he did not repent for his sins." This sentence is completely biased as you cannot decide who has sinned, you can only say it was considered a sin according to the Afghan law which claimed it was Islamic Sharia Law. You also stated in the introduction very vaguely who believed the figure to be a worshiper of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Again, very vague and not descriptive as you did not describe who believed that the figure did such and such action and made it seem as the figure literally worshipped another figure as that was not the case. The figure believed in Monotheistic Islam. I would request you to please revert this article back to it's original form prior to the month of August, as the article prior to your editing, was completely unbiased.

Thank you, Peace4worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace4worldwide (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't place false warnings on my talk page

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Koh-i-Noor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Khorasan
Sahibzada Abdul Latif (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Promised Messiah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pata Khazana

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pata Khazana. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

[edit]

I may be wrong, but I think that you are a new sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab. Hence, I have reported you on WP:ANI: [6]. You should write a short statement in that section. If you are not a sockpuppet of Lagoo sab, then you should make that clear and explain to us, why you are reverting to his POV versions of 2 years ago. --Lysozym (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Ranjit Singh, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Theman244 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported u. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nasir_Ghobar Desijatt1 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Durrani Empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages State and Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

[edit]

Hello, I'm Dianna, and I am an administrator on this wiki. I noticed that you made some comments that didn't seem very civil on Talk:Ranjit Singh. Wikipedia needs people to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please focus your comments on the content, not on the contributors. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you. Firstly, I'm new to Wikipedia so you have to be very specific. What exactly did I write that is against the policy of Wikipedia? Secondly, I do focus my comments on the content but in that particular case another editor, who happens to be engaged in abusing multiple accounts, began talking about me negativly and refused everything that I said to him. Therefore, I became sort of frustrated and I still don't think I said anything wrong. You have to understand that we are not robots, some people have different ways of expressing their thoughts to others. We all cannot be the same.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some examples of rude remarks you made on that talk page:
  • "I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids"
  • "Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone, and stop following me"
  • "This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here."
  • " This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games"
  • Calling people "desperate" and "disruptive"
It's important to treat other editors with respect and to stay calm in content discussions. Further violations of the civility policy could result in further warnings or even a block. -- Dianna (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write any of that to you or to Sikh-history. And that is taking words out of context. It doesn't mention who I said what to. If I said something that is prohibited in Wikipedia to another editor, please provide a link to that specific comment. You cannot be taking sentences here and there from a long debate and use it this way. That is just plain wrong for you to do as an admin. I'm sure you already know that admins are not police officers, admins are suppose to help editors find a solution which you said you refused to do. Remember that or should I go and bring the link?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some examples of rude remarks you made on that talk page:
It's important to treat other editors with respect and to stay calm in content discussions. Further violations of the civility policy could result in further warnings or even a block. -- Dianna (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again. This is taking words out of context to suite your point of view and it is wrong. Plus, the person who I was talking to was not you or Sikh-history but someone else, a guy who is involved in sockpuppetry. Now let me show the full content and prove to you that there is nothing wrong with the stuff I wrote.
  1. "By him being recognized as governor by the Afghans, it meant that if somebody started war with him or refused to pay taxes then the Afghan military would come again (as they've been doing since 1738) to help/support Ranjit. That gave him authority to collect taxes and play with big money without any fear from the Afghan side. Slowly he began to get greedy as normal, especially after King Zaman Shah was deposed and the signing of a treaty with the British in 1801. At that point he felt that he should be regarded as an independent ruler so he declared himself in that same year. I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids."
  2. "Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone. My last comment was not to you but someone else. You're ignoring the topic here and wrongly accusing me of being anti-Persian. I know Americans and they do not behave like this."
  3. "If you don't know what I'm saying then you should go away and not comment. This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here. What does occupying a city has to do with King Zaman Shah selecting him as Governor? If we follow that stupidity it would mean that Afghanistan is owned and ruled by NATO commanders since they are occupying it."
  4. "The Afghan king, Shah Zamān, confirmed Ranjit Singh as governor of the city" means that the king (Zaman Shah) approved the 19 year old "one-eyed" Ranjit as the governor of a place that has been part of the Durrani Empire since 1747. You desperately trying to ignore Afghan rule over Punjab but that is NOT going to change history. Plus, you have been abusing multiple accounts (pretending to be more than one person) and that exposes to us your state of mind. You are trying to deceive and mislead readers and to obfuscate the situation. This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games. Keep in mind that Ranjit Singh, the British and the Durranis were all allies, and when you know this you get a more better idea of the situation. It was the Barakzai dynasty that fought and defeated the Durranis, the Sikhs and the British"
  5. "In the Early life section, the following is copyvio: "In 1799, Ranjit Singh captured Lahore from the Bhangi Misl and made it his capital.[13] This was the first important step in his rise to power." It is copied from this site [7], which by the way is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is an essay without any references and is written by an anonymous person posted on a private college website. This again proves that Theman244 is desperately searching online to find something that doesn't mention Ranjit Singh being governor of Lahore in 1799 and King Zaman Shah. This is a disruptive act and for that I think Theman244 could be blocked. He also has a habit of using multiple accounts for edit-warring and consensus purposes."
Starting from the bottom on up.
  • 5.) If you read and pay attention to what Theman244 was doing at that time, you'll see that he was googling and listing sources that doesn't mention Ranjit Singh being appointed as governor, so what's wrong with me revealing to other editors about Theman244's action? That is exactly what he was doing, including sockpuppeting.
  • 4.) This is part A of what I just conluded. What is wrong with me writing "This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games" to my self, another editor or the whole community? Is Wikipedia a place to do serious stuff or play silly games? Please tell me which is it?
  • 3.) "This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here." That's just saying that editors who don't know about the history of India or Zaman Shah Durrani/Ranjit Singh should not get involved. I also don't see what is wrong with this?
  • 2.) I told Kansas Bear "Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone." KB is another editor who I have been debating with on different talk pages and all of a sudden he followed me to Talk:Ranjit Singh. Many people often tell or write in comments to a friend this in a joking way, and that is nobody elses business. I just asked him a simple question, I didn't accuse him of anything and I also fail to see what's wrong with this. Notice that he did not report me for that.
  • 1.) I was writing a brief history of India to the audiance and I ended it with "I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids." What is wrong with this? It is not my fault that you take things the wrong way and get the wrong meanings, and I was not writing these things to you or to Sikh-history, the person who reported me to you.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Your perception is that you have done nothing wrong, and that I have taken things the wrong way. But joking and sarcasm don't work on the internet, because no one can see your facial expressions. People tend to take all remarks seriously. So if you say "I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids", people are going to feel insulted. If you say "This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here", you are implying that some of the people in the discussion are not qualified to edit the article, and again, people will find that insulting. When you say "Is Wikipedia a place to do serious stuff or play silly games" you are implying that some of the editors are playing silly games, which again people will find insulting. The problems with the other edits should become more clear to you when you view them in this light. That's why it's best to restrict your remarks to the content of the article and a discussion of the value of the available sources. If you intend to edit articles about India, you will run into the same users over and over again, as there's a small group of serious editors on the topic. So it's important to build good relationships with these fellow editors and treat them like valued colleagues. -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. On 20 Aug. SH accused me of attacking [8] but if you look at what was said before that time no where did I attack anyone.[9]
2. My wrong is that I made a very long educational speech (lecture) at Talk:Ranjit Singh hoping that everyone will get to understand the situation of 1799 in Lahore, and that gives some people an opportunity to some how use it against me, by cherry-picking sentences. All I needed to say was that I'm adding this relevant information (King Zaman Shah appointed Ranjit Singh as governor) and list the supporting evidence. Everything else is completely irrelevant.
3. The "silly games" was Theman244 coming with different IDs, pretending to be different people, and at the same time reporting me to others so that I may get blocked. It was Theman244 who started all this after he wrote: "Edits by Nasir Ghobar should be watched carefully. His changes are heavily biased in the favor of Afghan rule. All the changes on basis of 1 source even unreliable. I revert back the whole paragraph what it was before his unwanted edits. Still working". [10] I want you to focus on Theman244's, especially his attitude towards me. He believes that the Library of Congress is unreliable and asserts that it is the only 1 but the fact is there are dozens of books which also say the same thing as the Library of Congress. This really frustrates editors who are trying to improve that article.
4. I have to say that I'm surprised why you threatened to block me, and how Theman244 didn't get blocked after being caught red-handed abusing socks, repeating and repeating things to divert attention, making up false accusations, etc etc. Maybe it's because he's been a member here since May 2011, and me being only a freshman.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Defensor Ursa 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dost Mohammad Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Miniature
Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bamyan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nasir Ghobar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, before I explain my reason I should have been notified on my talk that my name is mentioned at sockpuppet investigation. 1.) I first made Harry pot-smoker on 25 June and made just 7 good edits but then my password was not working so I created this (Nasir Ghobar). At that point I was thinking whether or not using my name in Wikipedia was a good idea. 2.) On 28 June I created HBO watcher as an alternate and made just 3 edits to a single article. At this point I decided that Nasir Ghobar is going to be my only account and I didn't use any other after that. 3.) Other people are also accused of being sockpuppet of Lagoo sab but not blocked, see .. GentleDjinn. Instead of block, I should've been warned like how Theman244 was recently warned [11] by The Bushranger after I caught him red-handed using multiple accounts to edit-war and vote more than once at Talk:Ranjit Singh. Please don't take your frustration over what Islamic militants do to your military forces in Afghanistan out on me. I'm not involved in that stuff and I'm not into wars but love and peace.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I don't believe you. As I stated when we blocked you at the first, there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to go about editing Wikipedia. While you continue to go the illegitimate way, your edits will be reverted on sight and you will be blocked. As always, you are extended the standard offer, but your behavior must improve (I'm not holding my breath). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nasir Ghobar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my first block. My edits are legitimate, based on information found in reliable sources. I'm unjustly blocked indefinately from editing a free online encyclopedia and it's probably due to my nationality, race, personal opinion or way of thinking. This is a violation of the U.S. constitution. I have nothing to lose in this but plenty to gain.

Decline reason:

This is precisely the wrong way to request unblocking, for a few reasons:

  1. It has nothing to do with the reason for your block.
  2. This site is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and run by volunteers, not the United States government. You have no right to free speech on this site.
  3. We have no idea who you are, and thus any accusation of discrimination is completely baseless and amounts to a simple personal attack. Appeals with personal attacks are not considered.
  4. Your last sentence sounds very much like a veiled legal threat. Making threats of legal action against Wikipedia or its editors will guarantee that you are not unblocked, as such threats are grounds for blocking on their own, even absent any other disruptive conduct. Please clarify if this your intention; if you choose to pursue legal action against Wikipedia or other editors, you may do so, but you will not be unblocked until such action is withdrawn or otherwise resolved. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hersfold,

  1. I did NOT make a legal threat against Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, or any editor. Legal matters are settled in courts, not online. Since when was preaching the US consitution a legal threat?????? It's not my problem that you misunderstood my preaching. Are you sure that you all have no idea who I am? Then explain why Magog the Ogre wrote: "As I stated when we blocked you at the first, there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to go about editing Wikipedia. While you continue to go the illegitimate way, your edits will be reverted on sight and you will be blocked. As always, you are extended the standard offer, but your behavior must improve (I'm not holding my breath)."
  2. My point about nothing to lose and plenty to gain meant that I don't have to worry about correcting falsifications and reverting vandalism for free (like a sucker), but instead watch movies, play basketball or enjoy other things. For the past month or so many different people began opposing me here and I feel that Wikipedia is not a good place for me. I was wrong about Wikipedia being a good place. :) --Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement you made immediately above was a tacit admission to the fact you are Lagoo Sab. And if you think Wikipedia isn't a good place for you, then there is no further reason to extend this charade. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nasir_Ghobar&oldid=513252060"