There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hamkar 99.--KoizumiBS (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really should respond to the ANI thread as right now it seems you've got WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues against these well sourced edits and you have zero policy reasons not to let them through. That coupled with your comments implying that the edits need to be approved are worrying, and your continual edit warring on this topic. It should be noted that with your edit history and your previous blocked for edit warring the next block could end up being indefinite if you don't stop the reversions for no actual good reason. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canterbury Tail, Greetings! I left a comment on the talk page Thank you.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are being outright disruptive, and you also clearly don't understand WP:PRIMARY. Secondary and reliable tertiary sources are completely accepted on Wikipedia and are usually preferred to primary sources. At this point you're just clearly being outright disruptive because you don't like some edits, and have still not provided a single policy or guideline reason for your reversions. Since you've already been blocked twice for edit warring and disruptive editing it's becoming quite clear that you're unwilling/unable to abide by Wikipedia's policies. If you continue your current disruptive editing and edit warring, you will be blocked. I also advise you to revert your last edit as it's clearly dsiruptive by still not having a policy or guideline reason for your ownership of the Hazaras article (which incidentally no one needs your permission or authorization to edit.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canterbury Tail, Greetings! User:KoizumiBS in the article Hazaras, he tries to make the history and language of the Hazaras completely Mongols, while the Hazara indicates partial Mongol ancestry. By presenting obsolete second-hand and third-hand sources. Thanks--Hamkar 99 (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not listening to anything anyone is saying to you are you? Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't write that. On the contrary, I believe that all peoples are mixed in one way or another. I only cited information from sources about their connections with the Mongols.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KoizumiBS, you did not write anything in your content, only the writing of the Hazara Mongol and their language was Mongolian.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The participation of the local Iranian-speaking population in ethnogenesis has already been described in the article.--KoizumiBS (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KoizumiBS, If the authors write an article, they will eventually analyze, reject or approve it. What you wrote was written by the authors, but it is not clear how they ultimately analyzed it, confirmed or rejected it.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a number of sources where there is information about the Mongolian language. For example Ármin Vámbéry (1864) who visited Afghanistan wrote that: "It is said that the Hazaras were transported by Genghis Khan from Mongolia, their ancestral home, to the south of Central Asia and, thanks to the influence of Shah Abbas II, were converted to Shiism. It is astonishing that they have replaced their mother tongue with Persian, which, even in the regions inhabited by them, is not universally spoken, and only a small part, which has remained isolated in the mountains near Herat and has been burning coal for several centuries, speaks a kind of slang of the Mongolian language". In Russian: "Говорят, что хазарейцы ... были перевезены Чингисханом из Монголии, своей прародины, на юг Средней Азии и благодаря влиянию шаха Аббаса II обращены в шиизм. Поразительно, что они заменили свой родной язык персидским, который даже в населенных ими областях не повсеместно распространен, и лишь небольшая часть, оставшаяся изолированной в горах поблизости от Герата и уже несколько столетий занимающаяся выжиганием угля, говорит на некоем жаргоне монгольского языка."--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canterbury Tail, No, I listen and pay attention to everyone's profession, but in many cases it should be criticized. Thank You!--Hamkar 99 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I give you one final chance on this due to your continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKETHAT edits on the article in question. What is the policy or guideline reasons you are continually disruptively reverting KoizumiBS's edits? Please point out to what policy is being broken by these edits and how they are failing WP:VERIFICATION and WP:RELIABLESOURCES as it seems your entire objections are you don't like it. Especially since secondary and tertiary sources are the preferred sources on Wikipedia and your main objection is because they are secondary sources and not primary, so it seems you're still unaware of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canterbury Tail, The User:KoizumiBS edits change the subject of the article. There is already detailed information about the racial origins of the Hazaras and the language of the Hazaras in the article, but User:KoizumiBS misleads the subject of the article with his edits.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No they're not, and since you've no policy based reason and are just being disruptive at this point I'm blocking you for continued edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring, disruptive editing, WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:COMPETENCE. All fully discussed here, and on various talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

Canterbury Tail, You stupid and dirty creature, why did you block me?--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was not a smart move, since now I have revoked your talk page access. Have a good day. Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly if you don't understand why you were blocked, after the amount of explanations, policy pointing, opportunities to explain your edits and descriptions of why your edits were disruptive and yet you still continued, then you really are not suitable for editing on Wikipedia. I gave you every chance to avoid this, a lot more than many editors would get, and you ignored everything that was being said to you. Canterbury Tail talk 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamkar 99. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Girth Summit _(blether) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]