User talk:Mrsecurity39 392

On the Pannonian Avars I added that they're a "Mongolic people" because it's commonly assumed they have links to the former Xianbei elite, who fled west, who are thought to have been Mongolic, quoting what's said in the article is obviously more correct though. I thought I could atleast generalize the sentence and change it from "Mongolian people" to "Mongolic people". Please don't shoot the messenger :)

Can't read?

Have you read, or can you not read Dybo & the article Luandi's talk page? Can you read Chinese source materials? Erminwin (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about not being able to read Chinese source materials (and yes I've read her study fully) WHEN THERE ARE NO CHINESE SOURCE MATERIALS in Anno Dybo her source RELATED to THE LUANDI as it is a SOURCE ON TURKIC RECONSTRUCTION, Where's you claim her source supposedly claim the name for the luandi to come from an Iranic language (no such thing is present in her study) which frankly has nothing to do with the reality of her study but everything to do with the COI and political POV you're trying to push as her study has nothing to do with the Xiongnu and luandi but everything to do with AGAIN Turkic Reconstruction as for page 6-9 explains (and for that matter every page in her study) mentions nothing on the issue of Xiongnu and Xiongnu tribes as it's a study on TURKIC Reconstruction with no mention on the Xiongnu whatsoever let alone on a Xiongnu tribe like the Luandi. Seems I have to explain this in detail yet again. Keep up the malicious editing and I will be reporting you. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN THERE ARE NO CHINESE SOURCE MATERIALS in Anno Dybo
. Dybo mentions these Chinese sources: "Shi zi [sic]" aka Shiji (史記) aka Records of the Grand Historian, "Han shu" (漢書) aka Book of Han (on page numbered 8, pdf's 2nd page & page numbered 9, pdf's 3rd page); "Zin shu" aka Jinshu (晉書) aka Book of Jin and "Wei shu" (魏書) aka Book of Wei ((on page numbered 8, pdf's 2nd page)
Where's you claim her source supposedly claim the name for the luandi to come from an Iranic language (no such thing is present in her study)
It's clearly this on the page numbered 9 (which is the third page) of the pdf (archive copy):
In the same groups of Chinese sources we find the lexemes among “Hsiung-nu” words that can be traced as Iranian ones, borrowed from one of the Eastern Middle Iranian languages which was similar to a kind of archaic Khotanese Saka².
d) Iranian exotisms among “Hsiung-nu” Chinese transcriptions (only from Shi zi and Hanshu), dairy husbandry words and titles.
[...]
7. 攣鞮 *r(h)wan dē ‘royal clan of Hsiung-nu’ – Cf. Kh.Saka runde ‘kings’ (NPl of rre ‘king’ < *rwant-).
Chinese: 攣鞮; pinyin: Luándī is indeed found in Hanshu

自淳維以至頭曼千有餘歲，時大時小，別散分離，尚矣，其世傳不可得而次（云）。然至冒頓，而匈奴最強大，盡服從北夷，而南與諸夏為敵國，其世信官號可得而記云。單于姓攣鞮氏。
For more than thousands of years from Chunwei to Touman, [the Xiongnu's multitudes] had been sometimes large and sometimes small as they had been scattered and divided; so their genealogies could not be gotten and listed in sequence. Then in Modun['s time], the Xiongnu were at the pinnacle of greatness and strength: the northern barbarians totally submitted [to the Xiongnu] and [Xiongnu became] a state rivalling the various Xia (aka Han Chinese) in the south. Therefore their genealogies, information, and official titles can be gotten and recorded. The Chanyu's surname is Luandi.
— Book of Han, Volume 94 - Account of the Xiongnu

Again, learn to read better. Erminwin (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're being intellectually dishonest and you're falsifying sources. No such thing is stated on page 9 you're clearly reading a different source therefore I'd advise you to use that source as a reference rather then Anno Dybo her study on Turkic Reconstruction that is unrelated to the Xiongnu and Luandi,that entire paragraph you gave me is useless as NO CHINESE SOURCE MATERIALS in her study is RELATED to LUANDI as I have stated, I don't know where you're fabricating this from since I'm reading the same page as you that I will once again quote.. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phonetic peculiarities of Proto - Bulgar / Early Bulgar > Hungarian and Early Bulgar > Slavic adaptation : vowels . Proto - Turkic vowel length was relevant in Pro to - Bulgar and Danube Bulgar ; The Proto - Turkic diphthongue * ia has specific reflexes in Proto - Bulgar , Danube Bulgar , Volga Bulgar inscriptions and Chuvash ; The reflexes of * a and * e can be distinguished from reflexes of * a and * ä in ProtoBulgar , Danube Bulgar and Chuvash . [ Slavic adapted Danube Bulgar a ( < * a , Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phonetic peculiarities of Proto - Bulgar / Early Bulgar > Hungarian and Early Bulgar > Slavic adaptation : vowels . Proto - Turkic vowel length was relevant in Pro to - Bulgar and Danube Bulgar ; The Proto - Turkic diphthongue * ia has specific reflexes in Proto - Bulgar , Danube Bulgar , Volga Bulgar inscriptions and Chuvash ; The reflexes of * a and * e can be distinguished from reflexes of * a and * ä in ProtoBulgar , Danube Bulgar and Chuvash . [ Slavic adapted Danube Bulgar a ( < * a , Thus , during the period under study , Slavic did not lose the difference in quantity of * a [ a ] < PIE ā , * ō and * o [ 0 ] < PIE * ă , * ŏ ] . Consequently , all early contact data reaffirm the " Altaic - oriented " reconstruction of Proto Turkic . OUig . - Old Uigur PA Proto Altaic Abbreviations CT - Common Turkic LOCH- Late Old Chinese MChin Middle Chinese MIran . -MIr . - Middle Iranian MMo - Middle Mongolian NMo - Northern Mongolian OCH - Old Chinese OInd . - Old Indian OT - Old Turkic

If you want to continue to be intellectually dishonest and fabricate sources then here is the link to the study for anyone interested.

https://kpfu.ru/portal/docs Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're being intellectually dishonest and you're falsifying sources. No such thing is stated on page 9 you're clearly reading a different source [...] I don't know where you're fabricating this from since I'm reading the same page as you

.

I wrote:

on the page numbered 9 (which is the third page) of the pdf (archive copy)

The third page (page 3/11) of the 11-page pdf / pdf which has 11 pages (archive copy) is numbered / marked with number "9" at the bottom center of the page, not numbered "3" / marked with number "3". The said pdf's first page (i.e. 1/11) is numbered 7, 2nd page (i.e. 2/11) is numbered 8, 3rd page (3/11) is numbered 9, and so on until the 11th page (i.e. 11/11) which is numbered 17. Each of these numbers 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 is clearly printed in the bottom-center of each of these pages 1/11, 2/11, 3/11, 4/11, 5/11, 6/11, 7/11, 8/11, 9/11, 10/11, and 11/11, respectively.

Have you been overestimating your abilities, especially proficiency in English?

Also when you wrote Talk:Luandi:

Frankly I see nothing there on the issue of the luandi the way you quoted it there to be, word for word. So either we're not reading the same study or something isn't right.
https://kpfu.ru/portal/docs [...]
I'll hear it from the other 2 what they'll find on the issue of the "luandi" in Anno Dybo her book cause frankly I've read it all and it's nowwhere to be found let alone on page 9 that I have quoted the source to the study is provided below so anyone can have a read themselves. I'll wait another day or so otherwise I'll have to revise the article back.. Since well the stated source says nothing on the Luandi.. At all. So unless one of you can point out what exact page (which isn't page 9) it does state so and so, I'll have to revise it again.

You revealed your ignorance. Luandi is the pinyin transcription (albeit without the tone-marks) of 攣鞮, which again, appears on page 9, i.e. the 3rd page (page 3/11) of the 11-page pdf / pdf which has 11 pages (archive copy). Pinyin transcription of 攣鞮 with tone-marks is Luándī.

Have some introspection and blame your own ignorance and incompetency! Erminwin (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again being dishonest, and continuing on to act in a way that justifies your previous edit warring backed up with non existent data, it doesn't get any worse with you does it? You've quite made it clear your only purpose is to push w certain POV here (your own) with the malicious prior edits you've made, luckily this coversation will remain here for all to read. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a bad-faith-acting troll are. Instead of simply admitting you were wrong (after you copied & pasted information the 9th page, which is numbered "15", NOT numbered "9" of 11-page pdf / pdf which has 11 pages (archive copy, whose 1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, & 11th pages are numbered "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", "17", respectively); when you should have copied & pasted information found on the pdf's 3rd page, which is numbered "9", NOT numbered "3") you double-down on psychologically projecting, frivolously accusing, and malicious lying.Erminwin (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My conversation with you has ended, since you keep on lying and being intellectually dishonest and continuing to act in a way that justifies your previous edit warring which is backed up by non existent data. As much as you're repeating the same thing that won't change the reality of your bad faith editing to push your POV (which again is not backed up by sources), have a good day. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you telling me. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Safavid Iran. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Safavid Iran. 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. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, however for the other user to state that I was lying about the content of the sources rubbed me the wrong way and I told the user he can go and check for himself. I should have refrained from calling him dishonest and stooping below my level. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Turco-Persian tradition 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; read about 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. Noorullah (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy. I'm sorry, but someone who continues making personal attacks (diff) even as an ANI complaint (permalink) about them making personal attacks is ongoing — that individual is likely WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with a collaborative project.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 06:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]