Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 8 July 2014

Yaghnobi

That's the classification used in the Routledge volume. Trying to bring some sanity to our classification articles. We have a specific field for ancestral forms.

BTW, other than Persian, do we have other direct descendents of Middle or Old Iranian languages? Wakhi from Khotanese/Tumsheqese, maybe, or Sangsari from Khwarezmian? Does Ossete hold up as a direct descendent of Scythian? — kwami (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the Safavid map

Take a look here . Looks like our friend is keeping up his reversion and now even denying that the western Georgian kingdoms were vassal states of the Safavid dynasty. If we use that logic he uses, then the majority of the maps on this site should get changed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem is fixed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message about it on your page. LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Dear LouisAragon, I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your efforts in reverting vandalism on articles related to WikiProject South Asia! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:LouisAragon, thanks for reverting edits made by 173.181.109.243 (talk · contribs). I've noticed this kind of thing a lot on Misplaced Pages. I recently tried to do the same with 69.124.40.225 (talk · contribs) but was reverted again by that user. I appreciate you monitoring these articles for nationalism, etc. With regards, Anupam 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case, sorry for giving you a notification this way, but I have no other choice as I can't edit on your own page. You seem to be a good moderator and I don't know for how long I will be left to wait with this injustice any longer. I ask you, could you please help me getting this joke settled? Other respectable users have spoken about it too. ] see here please, at the bottom of the page. It's my open ticket for unblock. I hope you can aid me in getting this unjustified joke fixed. It's very frustrating to be punished for something you have nothing to do with.. And I'm waiting for days now for someone finally to see it. Seems some moderators just act by convenience and what saves them most time, and assume therefore the worst faith possible (in my case). I don't know who this damned beh-nam is, neither am I sockpuppet of anyone. I had warned several Wiki users long before (such as Mendaliv) that IP's were lurking for sanctions against me due to WP:JDL disputes at certain articles. I didn't believe the mods would fall for such hilarious "evidence", but apparently they did, and lumped me together with the other IP's and users.. Anyway, it's not too late to get everything fixed.

Regards and thanks in advance. I really hope you can help me. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case, can you at least tell when someone's going to take a look at this unjustified ridiculous matter? It's for more than week already. Regards. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yalens, hey mate, I have been blocked as of some hilarious fail... They think I'm some sock of some user based on that we wrote somewhat the same stuff two times weeks ago. They did a checkuser and it was inconclusive (of course), and no evidence has even been put. The dude who made te sock allegations was some agenda promoter on Wiki (but he's banned and blocked now thankfully), but i still have to get my unblock request trough -_- Just to let you know, I will aid you on the Circassians article ASAP when I'm unblocked. Everything alright for the rest? Talk to you soon... - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Hello LouisAragon. As it is the 21st of May, I just wanted to take a look at this page. I did open the article entitled "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", then, oh, I check the first word in bold and it reads "Muhajirism". I thought I got into the wrong place since the word "muhajirism" is not something specific to the Circassian exodus. Later I saw that "-5,270". I do not think that it was a deliberate mistake of yours. I could not read the entire current article, but do you know what happened here? I know that it is not you who changed it, but I thought you could help me understand what is going on because you are among the editors of that page.

Besides, after 1864, the vast majority of Circassians migrated to the Ottoman Turkey and the rest to the Balkans and to some Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Syria, and Israel. Iran is not actually one of them if we are referring to the 1860s. Back in the Safavid era, yes, there were Circassian inhabitants (soldiers, mostly concubines, and other slaves) in Persia. There still exist some Circassians in Iran. However, it is not because those people migrated to Persia "following the Caucasian War that ended in 1864". Most of them are "former" inhabitants and they are not usually Abaza, Abkhaz, Adyghe (Abzakh, Adamiy, Besleney, Bzhedug, Hatuqwai, Kabarday, Makhosh, Mamkhegh, Natukhai, Shapsug, Temirgoy, Yegerquay, Zhaney, etc.), and Ubykh. On the contrary, those in Iran consist of Northeast Caucasian peoples such as Vainakhs, Ossetians, Karachays, Daghestanians, and Balkars. Yet, among the concubines were Adyghe-speaking ones such as the Abzakh and Kabardian, that is why both Abbas II (1642–1666) and Suleiman I (1666–1694) have Adyghe mothers. Moreover, These mothers (Agha and Nekakhet Khanums) came from princely Adyghe families. Maybe you know that Agha Khanum's brother was the Governor of Sakki, Shamhal Karamusal Sultan.

Please check this out: Muhajirism was the massive emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus into the Ottoman Empire and to a lesser extent Persia following the Caucasian War. The article is called "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", but this sentence talks about all Caucasians (even South Caucasians such as Azerbaijani and Muslim Georgians). Those who speak Azerbaijani Turkish and South Caucasian languages are not included even in the broadest definition of Circassians. We know that the broadest definition in the Ottoman Empire and Iran consider North Caucasians to be Circassians. The southerns are excluded. This is another problem of the article. "To a lesser extent Persia" would be correct if the article were about the "muhajirism" only. For Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians, it is definitely wrong. If you do not mind, please check the Turkish version Çerkes Sürgünü. You will see what I mean.

Again, it says that among the ones that moved to Iran it included peoples from territories formerly under Iranian control, such as the Laks, Circassians (presumably only Kabardin, as they fell into the maximum extent of the Persian Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Empire), but also Azerbaijani, Shia Lezgins, and Muslim Georgians. Azerbaijani and Georgians? Right, but it is the wrong article. Notwithstanding, as I said, it seems that the article fails to distinguish between the formerly-settled Adyghes and the non-Circassian newcomers. It also confuses the consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828) with those of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus (1817–1864). The Russian conquest is the one which led to the "ethnic cleansing". "Emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus" is another thing. So, dear LouisAragon, I hope you can do something about these issues. I will do my best if you need my help. Thank you in advanced.Listofpeople (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Listofpeople. Thanks for bringing this up. The thing with the article is, it refers to the whole muhajirism of Muslims from the Caucasus, but zooms in precisely on the Circassians. Therefore, we noted the South Caucasian and non-Circassian North Caucasian emigration also briefly. Also the thing with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, it was a direct following of their expansion into Persian and Turkish territory in the Caucasus. Prior to the 19th century, Russians didn't have really any strong political presence in the Caucasus at all, save for some Cossack lines, but those were far from the Turkish-Iranian border.

The consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-29) were huge for both Imperial Russia, Persia and the Caucasus. After that war 90% of the Caucasus was finally all came under their hegemony. The outcome/aftermath of that war and the Russo-Persian/Russo-Turkish Wars before that, are directly linked with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. In fact, when they appointed Mushthaid (Mir-Fatah-Agha) as leader of the Muslim Ulama over the region just right after the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28, the region was still maintained stable for decades. When he was told to go back by Paskevich' successors, the whole problem in the Caucasus got worse, including the rise of figures such as Imam Shamil and others. The Russian conquest itself was made possible after those Russo-Persian Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. (to a lesser extent).

If there are any more things you'd like to discuss, feel free to do so.

Regards LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the new version. I might be a bit choosy, but it seems a way better now. I am serious, thank you for your contributions. Of course, the issue at stake has a "background". Among others, Mir-Fatah's support may be influential as well. I see the relevance, but you also say that it is to a small extent. Perhaps out of overestimation, most of the article's sections were revolving around the repetition of the words "Qajar", "Mir-Fattah", "Tabriz", and "Persian", only. In addition, I doubt the article is really "within the scope of WikiProject Iran". I believe you see what I mean. Russo–Turkish Wars? Well, you are definitely right. Regarding the ethnic cleansing of Circassians, it can be argued that the relevance of even the Crimean War is much significant than that of the Russo–Persian War in the early 19th century. Anyway, if you are still interested in editing the article, please do so. Although it is relatively much better, it can be improved. It has been a nice conversation. Sure, I would like to discuss many other things when we both have time. All the best!Listofpeople (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but we still have quite a long way to go. I'm currently working together on it with another user. Quite major layout and information changes to come to cover all aspects, views (about the cleansing), periods, resettlement, and so on. Three major conflicts played around, after, during or before that time, and those were indeed the Crimean War, Russo-Persian War of the 19th cent, and some Russo-Turkish Wars. All of them are bonded in some way to the ethnic cleansing, but in various degrees of importance. It will still take some time before we're fully done. Bests to you too. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

South Asia

My bad. But, the definitions need to be at once place, and not distributed all over the article. Fixing that now. Aditya 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. No, it's actually good like that, as putting them all at the same place will give confusion. The UN definition is the most deviating one, that's why we included it later on in the article, so people understand it's based solely for statistic purposes and nothing else. LouisAragon (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be that way. Read the last paragraph of the section:

A lack of coherent definition for South Asia has resulted in not only a lack of academic studies, but also in a lack interest for such studies. The confusion exists also because of a lack of clear boundary - geographically, geopolitical, socio-culturally, economically or historically - between South Asia and other parts of Asia, especially the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Identification with a South Asian identity was also found to be significantly low among respondents in a two-year survey across Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

All amply cited. The confusion is clearly explained, and needs no clearing up. It's covered by policy: WP:BALANCE. You can't downplay diverging views like tweaking with the layout. Regards. Aditya 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, in the process of straight rollbacking you had undone quite a few other edits, including text expansion and referencing. Aditya 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What does tweaking with the layout have to do here in this situation? It's perfectly logical to put one huge deviating definition somewhere lower in the article, as it's a very, very deviating one. It's also why the section was called additional deviating definitions. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, many editors were happy with the change made long ago. I will revert that part back to where it was. If you don't agree with the opinion of most editors of that time, bring it to the talk page.LouisAragon (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the barnstar

Dear User:LouisAragon, there does seem to be a lot of vandalism on South Asian-related articles but I'm glad that you're up for the challenge of addressing it! I'm glad you liked the barnstar! All the best, Anupam 02:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for fixing the Western Asia and Middle East pages, as well as the orthographic map. :) Negahbaan (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Negahbaan, someone seems to have reverted the map without absolutely any reason. Mind to revert it back and putting a reason (you know what to do) while I'm still occupied in this ridiculous wrong unjustified block I received? I'll write you as soon as possible when this joke is settled.

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy, hello Iryna, how are you doing? :) I've been banned and blocked as of recently due to a severe mistake done by a certain moderator, and now

I'm already waiting for more than a week for them to remove this ridiculous block.. Some hilarious user (who's banned and blocked now, thankfully) reported me at an already existing sockpuppet investigation (created several years ago) due to several WP:JDL disputes at articles, and they actually got me blocked! Can you actually believe it?! Never thought we would have such moderators here acting purely by conformism and bad faith. I warned several people including Mendaliv that people were fishing for sanctions against me, but as you see , some people seem to be lacking common sense.

Anyway emotions aside, several others have commented too already pointing out the mistake made by the moderators. (] complete bottom).

First this unjustified block needs to be removed and after that, I will see further what I can do regarding complaints for wasting my time with this. (even though I doubt they will be able to admit they were wrong)

There's not that much I can do myself right now other than contacting others at my talk page and I'm already waiting for more than a week for normal mods to step it. Could you perhaps do something for me? Could you leave a comment at a moderators page or leave a message amongst the other users who complained about this justified block at the bottom of this page?

Just imagine I add you to an already existing sock investigation page, post some evidence based on two ears, two eyes, and a nose comparisons with some users/IPs you have never heard of, and you would get banned all of a sudden. Basically being punished for something you have nothing to do with. Yeah, try now to believe in good faith of moderators!....

I would be really thankful if you could aid me in this. If you can be my contact person in getting this fixed. I really need and want to continue ddelivering the good work on articles here (including finishing the Ethnic Cleansing of the Circassians page me and Yalens were working on together as you might remember..) Please point out at the moderators how wrong they are here. You would do me such a favour.

You can see the investigation, the leadup and everything else at the bottom of the page. You might wanna take a look at it before starting. Regards and the bests Iryna. Please. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry, it looks like my last edit was done with one of yours in between, so the summary doesn't anymore completely match the effects. In any case, please participate in the discussion on the talkpage. This pretty well-sourced material was originally deleted without any proper justification earlier this month, and I restored most of it for the sake of accessibility without having to go back over 500 edits ago. Yes, on second inspection there was redundantly restored sections in the lede- the purpose of my last edit was to delete these--Yalens (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I will join you on the talk page. I already left a comment. I will revert it back to the original version, until some more views etc are gathered/WP:CON is reached ok? ;-) LouisAragon (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mar4d, what do you suggest I do at this moment? :/ I have no idea what to do at this point and how to prove correctly I have 0,000% to do with all this crap. Can't believe they actually fell for that stuff brought up. They have blocked me for something that hasn't been proven, and not enough evidence has been found for it (inconclusive, what a damn surprise), yet they still block me due to some IP lurking... Never thought mods could be so gullible. It's really frustrating to be punished for something you ain't responsible for and have nothing to do with in the slightest. I appreciate it, thanks in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Email the admins and discuss with them your concerns. Also take note of the evidence that I discussed below regarding the IP who filed that sock report. Mar4d (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anupam. Would appreciate your help here ] I've been blocked as of a sock allegiation made by that by now blocked and banned user Lagoo Sab, and I've made an unblock request over a week ago, but perhaps you could put down a comment fully lower down on the page or at some admin too, like some others did on behalf of me?

That Lagoo guy put me on a random sock allegiation page saying that I am some "Afghan self hater who promoted pan Iranianism". Crazy no? I had warned several mods that he and other IP's were lurking for sanctions against me due to WP:JDL disputes at some articles, but sincerely, I had NEVER expected several mods to be that gullible. They even did a checkuser, which proved to be inconclusive (duhhhh..) but still blocked me as part of tr whole group based on what anyone would call conformist actions. In other words; I got blocked or something never proven. Completely unjustified! And now for one week im trying to get any mod to finally lift this hilarious block.... It's really frustrating to be punished for something you don't have anything to do with neither has anything in behalf of your punishment been proven. I really don't know what to say. I get blocked for being a sock without being one. What a wonderful world.

Would really appreciate your help in getting this hilarious matter fixed.. Thanks in advance..

(The open request ticket is down the page, you can also see the details of the blocked/banned guy who got me blocked)

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"POV"

Please refrain from baseless (and funny) threats. First, even US governmental source like Iran: A Country Study (Curtis & Hooglund, 2008, p. 117) states restoring traditional dress code was favored by vast majority of women. Bigots like Soroush90gh are forcing photos of irrelevant events to prove otherwise. Second, I referenced number of victims by two scholars, and you replaced it with Guardian trash. Third, there have been propaganda attempts few years ago related to plastic keys and mythical "thousands of child soldiers", which Iran denied long ago. Even dubious material shouldn't be took as fact in main article, but "95,000" isn't even dubious but pure propaganda. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the quote from mentioned book (p. 117)

Following the Revolution, the new republican government called for the participation of women in an “Islamic society,” because such a society would not be “morally corrupt” like the deposed monarchy. Observance of hejab would assure respect for women. Hejab eventually was defined as clothing that concealed the shape of a woman’s figure, such as loose outer garments, and covered her hair and skin, leaving only her face and hands exposed. The requirement to observe hejab in public was controversial among the minority of secularized women who never had worn a chador. However, for the majority of women who always had worn the chador, hejab served to legitimate their presence in the public sphere, especially in work outside the home.

It's publication by US Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. As I said - minority view of irrelevant event. I hope it helps, if need more sources just say. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

173 IP

I see you've been following up this lad - and been doing a good job so far. The user appears to be making several unsourced edits pushing a certain POV and political interest, resulting in degradation of the quality of dozens of articles covering that topic area. The problem is, their edits have not stopped. I've reverted all the recent changes for now but am not sure for how long I will be able to monitor the IP. If you have free time - I don't :( - it would be wise to bring up these tedentious edits to some admin's notice. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fake sources by Pan-Turkists

Hey! This is a pure bullshit: . They claim that Scythians were Mongoloid/Turk. These sock puppets added that BS to Sarmatians too. See this diff. See? They just want to reject Iranian origin. Feel free to remove them, because it's a self-published website and the text is not same as the sources. Sources are fake. --188.158.105.72 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mar4d, mate, could appreciate your help here. I think you'll be knowing what I'm referring to when I'm talking about "certain users/IP's" were lurking for sanctions against me (it's based on those rv's, edits by those IP's on "certain" topics, etc, we talked about it before, you'll be knowing what I mean). Perhaps you could put your opinion down here, as I got block due to that without any reason as of recently. Can't write you on your own page so :/ - LouisAragon (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Hello. Some clear mistake has been done. I have been blocked for sockpuppetry]even though a CheckUser has been endorsed ] showing that I have absolutely nothing to do with the other users and IP's. I have been blocked as of something that hasn't been proven and is completely not right. I had warned several other mods/WP:ANI editors before too (including User:Mendaliv ]) that several users and IP's were busy lurking for unjustified sanctions against me due to WP:JDL, and it seems they actually got their job done. The most ridiculous links based on two ears, two eyes, and a nose have been given on the sockpuppet investigation page and it seems the mods have fallen for that. I'm sure this mistake can be settled correctly through words. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First of all, let's dismiss your total misrepresentation of the CheckUser report. It did not do anything like "showing that have absolutely nothing to do with the other ": it said that the evidence was inconclusive, meaning that the result was not clear enough to form a definite conclusion. If there had been no evidence of connection at all, the CheckUser report would have said so. Having put that red herring out of the way, number of different pieces of evidence, of completely different and unrelated kinds, linking this accounts, is far too much to plausibly be chance coincidence. Beyond all reasonable doubt, this account is a sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

I'm just responding since I got pinged. I don't know if I agree with the conclusion at SPI based on behavioral evidence, but I only took a short look. I know you had a rocky past, especially last month. If an admin blocked on those grounds, well, I'd suggest that some leniency might be merited given you'd put forth some effort towards productive editing, but then again I'm not familiar enough with the subject area of your edits to say just how productive you've been. I'm also concerned with the pushing for various actions on ANI. In short, while I would suggest someone experienced in SPI or ARBIPA-covered articles take a second look at the behavioral evidence, I'm not personally going to advocate for more. I'm sorry. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can say with full conviction that LouisAragon and Scythian77 are not sock accounts of Behnam or any other user, based on my interactions with them and their editing. I think the blocking admin has jumped the gun over this one. I can say for sure that Scythian77 is not a sock, because I have interacted with that user long before and he/she's been editing here since 2008. In the absence of checkuser and behavioural evidence, these blocks are not appropriate. It may also be of interest to you that the IP who made the socking allegations at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam is Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab who edits from PTCL 39, 119 and 182 IP ranges and uses similar language (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Lagoo sab etc.). Mar4d (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Dear mods. I can't believe people actually fell for all this so called evidence based on two ears, a nose, and two eyes. Please, I am not in any way a sockpuppet of Beh-nam. A clear mistake has been made here based on rather conformist actions and bad faith assumptions. There is no evidence linking me and those other people. The CheckUser gave an inconclusive answer (wich obviously I knew it would give as the whole claim towards me is based on total bogus ] and mere WP:JDL disputes by users with an agenda), wich means that the result was not clear enough to form a definite conclusion, and means I have been blocked per definition for something that has not been proven. But yet, I have been banned as of confirmed sockpuppetry.] It makes it seem the mods didn't really care to search it out thoroughly. Really, if needed I can bring up sources for every single edit they've brought up there to back it up if mods feel they don't have the knowledge to judge about things of that region of the world.. It's really frustrating to be punished for something you ain't responsible for and have nothing to do with in the slightest. I have no idea who Beh-nam or whatever is. In the absence of a confirmed checkuser report and behavioural evidence, my block is not appropriate in every sense of the words. IP's were merely lurking there to get sanctions for me, due to certain WP:JDL disputes at articles I already mentioned.. The same IP who made the socking allegation on me at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam is Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab, who edits from PTCL 39, 119 and 182 IP ranges and uses similar language (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Lagoo sab etc). I mean come on! Please, see through all this, that this is a clear mistake. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. Don't make it seem like a Herculean task. Edit: another example of great moderator-ship in this matter: Why in heavens name would I have disputes with User:Scythian77 (also blocked in the same sock allegation like me), if we both belong to the same user?? ], ]. The banned/blocked guy who reported me probably laughs his head off seeing what he accomplished with little effort.. I'm waiting now for more than a week. I hope this mistake can now be settled soon. Regards. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If I was blocked unfairly as a sock puppet I would not rely on flat denial or bluster as you are doing. I would look honestly at my own behaviour and try to see why it might look to someone else like sock-puppetry. Then I would ask myself honestly if I could improve my editing so as not to give that impression. Then I would say so. Why don't you try something along those lines? John (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

• sigh* - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I told many times before that I was reported as sockpuppet as of content dispute with a certain (Afghan) editor by himself. (see previous unblock request...) He thought he could get easily rid (as I was preventing him from spreading his agenda and PoV) of me by reporting me in a sockpuppet investigation which existed from years ago. (about some guy named Lagoo Sab who had dozens of socks). He knew I wasn't a sockpuppet, he just wanted to get rid of me as his sole purpose here with his IP's and accounts was to spread agenda. Everyone that disagreed with him was an enemy of Afghanistan and a sockpuppet of User:Lagoo sab (see previous unblock request, also the same IP who made the socking allegation on me at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam is Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab, who edits from PTCL 39, 119 and 182 IP ranges and uses similar language (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Lagoo sab etc))..... Anyway that all aside, all evidence and truth aside, I will make a new start or better said a new improved approach from now on and make sure now no one will be able to assume or even think in the slightest that I'm a sockpuppet or whatever. Even if that person just wants to get rid of me by lurking for sanctions (as which happened with me this time). First of all, I will edit my user page that will show certain personal info so mods and people will know who I am. Second, even for common facts (even things like a carrot is orange), I will from now on provide sources and references and especially on sensitive topics to prevent lurkers or other people from ever doing this joke against me ever again. This whole damn joke costed me alot of time you know and I have to prove I'm not guilty for something I haven't got anything to do with in the slightest. I hope my plea this time is according protocol. Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Although provided with an opportunity 5 days ago to make this request compliant, it is anything but. See my comments below for the key reasons the panda ₯’ 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

It most certainly is not "according to protocol". Try reading WP:NOTTHEM, WP:EBUR, WP:AAB. The moment you start blaming someone else in an unblock request, it's automatically a fail. So, if you would like to modify it accordingly, please do - much of what's there is useful. Anything to do with other editors, and that does not address WP:GAB is guaranteed to make this an instant decline the panda ₯’ 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was on holiday. Sorry for that. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Dear mods. I won't post any other evidence here as everything regarding that is already put in the requests above. All evidence and truth aside, this request is about my new way of editing here which I have in mind. I will make a new start, or better said ''a new improved approach'' from now on while editing here for the cause of Misplaced Pages, and make sure now no one will be able to assume or even think in the slightest that I'm a sockpuppet or whatever. Even if a person (x, or y, or z) just wants to get rid of me by lurking for sanctions (as which happened with me this time). First of all, I will edit my user page that will show certain personal info so moderators and other people will know who I am. Second, even for common facts (even things like a carrot is orange, for example), I will from now on provide sources and references and especially on the so called ''sensitive'' topics (there are so many indeed) to prevent lurkers or other people from ever doing this joke against me ever again. I believe this should do the trick just perfectly correct and should prevent it from happening ever again. This whole thing costed me alot of time you know and I have to prove I'm not guilty for something I haven't got anything to do with in the slightest. I hope my plea this time is according protocol. Thanks alot, and I'm awaiting your response. - ] (]) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear mods. I won't post any other evidence here as everything regarding that is already put in the requests above. All evidence and truth aside, this request is about my new way of editing here which I have in mind. I will make a new start, or better said ''a new improved approach'' from now on while editing here for the cause of Misplaced Pages, and make sure now no one will be able to assume or even think in the slightest that I'm a sockpuppet or whatever. Even if a person (x, or y, or z) just wants to get rid of me by lurking for sanctions (as which happened with me this time). First of all, I will edit my user page that will show certain personal info so moderators and other people will know who I am. Second, even for common facts (even things like a carrot is orange, for example), I will from now on provide sources and references and especially on the so called ''sensitive'' topics (there are so many indeed) to prevent lurkers or other people from ever doing this joke against me ever again. I believe this should do the trick just perfectly correct and should prevent it from happening ever again. This whole thing costed me alot of time you know and I have to prove I'm not guilty for something I haven't got anything to do with in the slightest. I hope my plea this time is according protocol. Thanks alot, and I'm awaiting your response. - ] (]) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear mods. I won't post any other evidence here as everything regarding that is already put in the requests above. All evidence and truth aside, this request is about my new way of editing here which I have in mind. I will make a new start, or better said ''a new improved approach'' from now on while editing here for the cause of Misplaced Pages, and make sure now no one will be able to assume or even think in the slightest that I'm a sockpuppet or whatever. Even if a person (x, or y, or z) just wants to get rid of me by lurking for sanctions (as which happened with me this time). First of all, I will edit my user page that will show certain personal info so moderators and other people will know who I am. Second, even for common facts (even things like a carrot is orange, for example), I will from now on provide sources and references and especially on the so called ''sensitive'' topics (there are so many indeed) to prevent lurkers or other people from ever doing this joke against me ever again. I believe this should do the trick just perfectly correct and should prevent it from happening ever again. This whole thing costed me alot of time you know and I have to prove I'm not guilty for something I haven't got anything to do with in the slightest. I hope my plea this time is according protocol. Thanks alot, and I'm awaiting your response. - ] (]) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock