User talk:Gunner555

July 2017

Hello, I'm Jingiby. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your last contributions, because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Aras (river). Calling something propagandist when it is simply a statement of fact- there was nothing resembling POV there. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tomyris. Wario-Man (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Wario-Man. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wario-Man has unjustly revered my edits, which were substantiated with references. If he has any objections to my references or edits, he could communicate bt not act one-sidedly. Therefore, I will insist on reverting my edits.Gunner555 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Wario-Man. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Wario-Man (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop threatening me blocking. I don't attack editors, I raised the question of Wario-Man being unfair about reverting Tomris edits. In case if my substantiated edits get removed I will have to officially complain about Wario-Man.Gunner555 (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont accept this warning. I have been attempting to add alternative source in a section. Thats it. This is not and Edit War. And please stop taking side of "more experienced users". The article is bombarded with claims of pro-persian users who do all to link Samanids to Iran and persians. Gunner555 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Samanid Empire; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Samanid Empire. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, pan-persianist users totally are arrogant about authors other than British (Cambridge, Britannica etc) ignoring new researches and alternative thoughts. Secondly, I didnt delete or change existing text in the article. I only added alternative view on Samanid's origins and rightly so. This is normal practice. My CONTRIBUTION was reverted more than 3 times. This should be taken into account too! To your attention THERE EXIST strong Iranist/Persianist group in Wikipedia who constantly ignore and disregard Turkic presence, power, rule and ethnicity in today's Iran and its surrounding. This issue should be investigated. As you can see users such as Qahramani44 and Historyifiran are from Iran. They jointly attacked my righteous addition to the article being disrespectful about author that actually comes from Iran and his book was digitized by two prominent universities in US (listed in Google Books). Their nationalist approach is unacceptable. Gunner555 (talk) 5:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block which is violating the three revert rule. You clearly broke this rule and the block shall stand. only (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2020 (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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My EDIT in form of Addition of source was reverted 3 times by user Historyofiran, in first place. How about that? Gunner555 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Samanid Empire. Wario-Man (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being deluded or unfair. Section added by me being inappropriately attacked. First ready responses to my Section carefully then make conclusion as to who started forum-ish talk as you like to call it. In case of further biased attitude by your side I will have complain about you too. Gunner555 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid personal attacks, ad hominem, WP:BATTLEGROUND, racist stuff, WP:FORUM, and other nonsenses. If they restore those sections or they attack you, I will warn them too. You are the person who has started problematic stuff after your recent block. WP talk pages are not forum or chatroom. You can't use them like a random thread/chatbox on a internet forum. You think your arguments are valid? Then write/open a new section, provide your WP:RS content, and avoid attacking/targeting other users, ethnic groups, and countries. Just discuss your concerns. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do even ready my words? I said I opened new sections on pages and then got attacked by pro-persian users. Ready carefully. I add opinion (!) in Talk pages with questions, viewpoints and doubts. Then guys come up either reply with nationlist ungrounded ideas OR delete my section. And you do nothing about them. This means you are biased. In case you dont revert back my sections on Talk I will officially report you. This is it. Gunner555 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I ask which "disruptive editing" are you talking about?? I have not edited anything today. I only reverted Talk sections opened by me and reported/complained others about it. Your decision is totally unfair. User Wario-Man instead of warning nationalists users who attacked my sections on Talk under Samanid Empire and Gaznavids, keeps on warning me? I provide quetions and doubts under Talks sections and get offensive responds. Who will consider these too? Gunner555 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As I said over at WP:ANEW some of your edits do appear indeed tendentious, which is disruptive; furthermore, I see accusations of bad faith on your part, which, again, are violations of our policies, and what I can only describe as pugnacios attitude. So, all in all, I'd say that "disruptive editing" is a fair description of your conduct so far. $Salvio$ 11:27, 27 August 2020 (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.

@Salvio giuliano: You dont understand me. I clearly stated: My Talk sections were attacked by rude, nationalist and biased responds in first place. My sections dont include 'disruptive or hate" but rather provide questiona nd doubts! Instead of warning the first responder (others too) you only look at my replies them! This is how you moderate Wikipedia? Where is fariness here. You know I now have collection of admins/moderators who I am thimking to report including you. Because of this one-sided treatment. Gunner555 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone else is nationalistic and bias, but you're not? Armanqur (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. Be sure. I fight rigged Wikipedia full of persian and armenian nationalistsGunner555 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about Turkish nationalists? Armanqur (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop littering my Talk page as spam Gunner555 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how is it spam to ask you a fair and honest question? My opinion is that you're more bias and nationalistic than you're willing to admit. Armanqur (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember one thing once and for all: Turkic people dont need to be Nationalists. Their history is already glorious. Conquerors and rulers of Eurasia. Requires no exaggeration and faking. Gunner555 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you just wrote is an example of nationalism. Anyways, claiming that non-Turkic people were Turkic - such as the Samanids, Scythians, Massagetae and Tomyris - is literally the definition of both nationalism and pseudo-history. Armanqur (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bring arguments to those points, compared to pan-Iranists who view everything happening in today's Iran and its surrounding as perian. Gunner555 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean sort of how you think anything that happened in ancient Anatolia and Central Asia was Turkic? Anyways, I don't think any of your pseudo-history edits will every be accepted by any of the admins. Armanqur (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing to exaggerate compared to perian/armenian dreamers. And stop this chatting on my page. Gunner555 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically have Iranians and Armenians exaggerated? I think the only person exaggerating is the one who claims that the term "Iran" was created by the Seljuk Turks. Armanqur (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, leave my TALK page. Stop spamming it. I am not chatting here. Gunner555 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've lost the argument, as expected.Armanqur (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument? Funny. There is nothing one can argue about glory of Turks in Eurasia. Only jealousy of others. Gunner555 (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Glory of Turks in Eurasia? aren't most Eurasian Turks under Russian and Chinese dominance? I don't see a whole lot of glory. Armanqur (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

technically yes, there are some..but turkic people still live where they belonged, noone could deprive them of this. so shush. Gunner555 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you. You are deliberately fulfilling pan-persianist agenda on Wikipedia. It is crossing boundaries. Gunner555 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still as uncouth as ever I see. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your problem is that you can't fathom historical facts. In your mind, everything must be Persian/Iranian in this region. You do only harm to Wikipedia. Gunner555 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is based on what exactly? Got proof? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough to look at changes, deletion, reporting of arguments that I have brought on here. Even your tone. Gunner555 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so triggered everytime various opinions are shared about anything Iranian on this platform of free speech? I bring alternative arguments that you try to block. Even on Talk section. Using your privilaged you create barriers to free speech. Gunner555 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I provide substantiated arguments and comments. I am being attacked by some "privileged admins like HIstoryofIran and so I feel very limited. Please read my responses closely to avoid bias. I am kind of new to Wikipedia in terms of technicalities, however, I see ongoing blocking of Free Speech on topics I am involved in. HistryofIran is not the one who decides on what source is reputable. He always judges on the sources that favor Persian side. Anything else he considers "non-reliavle". Admins should re-asses this person's activity Gunner555 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Let's just address your freedom of speech. You have no freedom of speech here and it's quite concerning that you think you do. See WP:FREESPEECH. You'll also want to reread WP:GAB; personal attacks are completely inappropriate in an unblock request. This is your third block, claiming you are kind of new is disingenuous. Yamla (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2022 (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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Freedom of Speech here refers to that everyone has right to provide argumentation and comment. No need to misunderstand it. Your conclusion on "personal attacks" is totally wrong. I am being attacked. You are being biased towards a user with some admin rights. This is a big concern. We are here to provide fair information, to confront those people who create barriers for others who try to provide alternative views, sources and hence, intelligence. HistoryofIran is one of them. Critisizing a user is not personal attack. I bring concern about a user's behavior. Commenting and raising questions of other's views is NOT personal attack. Take, the case of Nizami. I had to confront HistoryofIran for bringing unrelated and political agenda to my clear arguments about Nizami. When he has nothing to say, he utilizes his privileges of admin (or whatever it is) and other admins like yourself behave reluctant to investigate matters objectively. Instead, it is like you show bias. I did nothing to be blocked, rather I decided to open topic in the Talk providing serious arguments and even topic admin went on suggesting corrections to Nizami's profile. In that case, HistoryofIran, took measures to block me so that my efforts don't go through. Again, go and do research on my history and you will see pan-persianist users making it personal. Carefully read comments. HistoryofIran - this user even showed disrespect to Azerbaijani people in his comments. Where is ethics in this? Gunner555 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You gravely misunderstand freedom of speech- you have no right to contribute to any discussion. HistoryofIran is not an administrator. Also see WP:NOTTHEM. Request declined. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2022 (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).

Gunner555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You want me to talk about myself only. Alright. I am a Wikipedia user with certain contributions to its content by the way, who is being treated unfairly. Who, currently, is unable to bring valuable arguments to Nizami Ganjavi's page which is full of wrong assumptions. I am trying to clear things out and provide insights that would make a Wikipedia topic better with objective information. This is what I try to achieve. But when I do this, I face attacks by certain users who deviate from the core topic by politicizing things. I DID provide 3 major arguments in Nizami's Talk. Check yourself. This is all I needed. I even ignored further escalation of political issues by re-focusing the Talk on the main topic. However, instead of providing proper counter-arguments to questions I raised I am being accused of personal attacks? Doesn't it sound strange to you? I dont see any personal attack from myself. Kindly check the Talk section created by me before coming to conclusions. Gunner555 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB before appealing again. You're getting close to losing your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:01, 1 December 2022 (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.