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)

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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

August 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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:. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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:. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * So everyone else is nationalistic and bias, but you're not? Armanqur (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am not. Be sure. I fight rigged Wikipedia full of persian and armenian nationalistsGunner555 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What about Turkish nationalists? Armanqur (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop littering my Talk page as spam Gunner555 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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


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


 * "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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Again you. You are deliberately fulfilling pan-persianist agenda on Wikipedia. It is crossing boundaries. Gunner555 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still as uncouth as ever I see. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * And this is based on what exactly? Got proof? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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:. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)