Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Carduchii ‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your edit completely destroyed the page, I had linked the article to the Carduchi hypothesis on the Corduene page however your claim that I had apparently attempted to diminish your reputation was mere tu quoque. As my reasoning for my edit summary was based on a posteriori considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, I'll say it for the third time, which you are yet to address; "article is a WP:POVFORK that suffers from issues such as WP:POV, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and so on. Needs to be rewritten from scratch, as this is utter nonsense." The article was one of several articles suffering from this problem, such as Cadusii, all articles which has nothing to do with the Kurds, as they weren't an ethnic group back then (something well attested with sources in articles such as Kurds). I really couldn't care less about others ethnicities; Attack me again, and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please point out where I “attacked” you? I merely pointed out and used a posteriori analysis to make my judgement.

In terms of rewriting the article, restoring the previous version with notes that it is a povfork would be best but i’m appealing to nothing saying that.

okay, the page will be rewritten.

however the article itself IS related to Kurds, due to the hypothesis of connections mainly to Kurds (I won’t give my opinion on such due to obvious bias), so it is in all technicality related to the Kurds, like how Achaemenids are related to Persians etc. Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I have a "pan-Iranic bias" and "anti-Kurdish nature" is not an attack? What is it then, when you have no proof? (again, see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA) You don't even know me. Related to Kurds? Yes and no, it's just a theory, and a diminishing one a that. Kurdish history? [1] Not at all, and never gonna happen, as we follow WP:RS in Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

again, as I mentioned, a posteriori, if you are offended by such I do apologise.

in terms of reliable sources the ones that are considered “unreliable” are mainly due in thanks of bias, a plethora of cross referencing will be required once the article is rewritten. Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop beating around the bush, this clearly demonstrates that you have no proof whatsoever, and I would like you to keep those thoughts to yourself from now on. As for the rest of your comment, I am not sure what you're trying to say. Anyhow, as long as you don't violate our guidelines/policies again, all should be good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your attitude even after I apologised doesn’t bode well with my intent.

It was semi-speculation as every single “Iranian” history I have witness manipulate history using biased sources caused my response, again I do apologise for speculation but keep I do hope you understand considering the circumstances.

what I was trying to say in the rest of my comment was that I agree that the article must be rewritten and the sources cross referenced to make an articulate page compared to the previous one.

xuda hafez. Volkish Kurden (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit: It was semi-speculation as every single “Iranian” historian I have witnessed end up manipulating history using biased sources which caused my response, again I do apologise for speculation but I do hope you understand considering the circumstances.

what I was attempting to verbalize in the previous comment was that I accede that the article must be re-written and the sources cross-referenced to make an articulate page compared to the one prior, with sources from all angles including the connection to Kurds possibility. (though we must be weary of bias WP:POV)

thank you, xuda hafez. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just generalizing a whole group, and I'm not a historian, and it sounds like those people you interacted with weren't either (also, there are always two sides to every story). Anyhow, let's move on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2] HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so you block a user who provided plenty of evidence that the apologist historyofiran was using a literal far right ultranationalist as a source to directly influence any and all pages regarding kurdish history? utter nonsense Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

A ban without a review other than quote " @HistoryofIran is our "greatest" user against "nationalistic" edits ", this is not only a fallacious claim but also clearly biased moderation. The case about Shahmaran is also really interesting because instead of the admins focusing on HistoryofIran vandalizing the page with anti-kurdish writings (one doesn't need to be Kurdish to see this behaviour) but also their continued defense of extremely kurdophobic and ultranationalist sources such as Asatrian, which above one can see my evidence of such, instead of any focus on such, @HistoryofIran instantly rushed to the admin team which are CLEARLY biased for them. I would prefer a block so I do not need to deal with such behavior and if they attempt to revert my edits and vice verse, an admin review the edits so to have an unbiased POV on such. Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, if you would prefer a block then why are you asking to be unblocked? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Daniel Case I do apologise, I misinterpreted what “block” meant (I thought it just was something that wouldn’t allow me to deal with the user who reported me), apologies, please read below and disregard the block messageVolkish Kurden (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You should only discuss your actions that led to the block, not what others did. If you are so easily provoked, you will need to rethink the topics you edit about and find less controversial areas. Only you can control what you do. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2023 (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.

Also to add, all those defending @HistoryofIran have been making abhorrent claims of not only myself but others who have attempted to fix any issues on pages which are essential to Kurdish history and identity. They have taken a no ifs of buts approach to @HistoryofIran being reported, instead siding which such user and violating the policies which they themselves should be following.

The user had provoked a response on my first edit which led me to respond back, and yet when I threatened them with a report for talking in a very condescending matter, going against the rules, they instead rushed to ScottishFinnishRadish to get me banned as they had known of my sources against those which they use, I provided a very detailed response on their talk page about Asatrian, which you can find here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian

I was responded with a fallacious response [I think I’ve given you enough WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran], which in itself should be report worthy, yet due to said user rushing to the admin team as per usual whenever a source is provided against them, instead, I am the one who is banned.

Sort this issue out, just because they have 10 years on wikipedia spreading misinformation doesn't mean that they are worth anything more than a new user.

I would like an admin consensus on investigating the user @HistoryofIran 's continued running to admins whenever they are proved wrong with sources, even when some users had discussions which were backed, like myself (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian), they instead jumped to the report request.

What is this? Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased, yet the admins clearly have their biases as seen with the responses to @HistoryofIran 's abhorrent claims about me which are clearly cherry picked [3] Volkish Kurden (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also ScottishFinnishRadish I do apologise for you having to deal which such nonsense, but to accuse of me of "ethno-nationalistic" editing is very unprofessional as HistoryofIran has shown plenty of "ethno-nationalistic" biases when it comes to sources and such. Again, see the Asatrian example of such. Volkish Kurden (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep pinging me? I am living that rent free in that head of yours? Leave me alone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the notifications, though your edit summary of "22 May 2023‎ @HistoryofIran"nvm, not worth it with this kind of person." wasn't nice at all

I understand that your intent wasn't negative, or from what I have gathered, and that my overreaction to your edits was childish and not needed..

I would prefer to be unbanned if allowed and to follow rules especially right great wrongs.

If I am not allowed to be unbanned, then I would at least like an investigation into you and possibly LouisAragon as I have seen alot of articles they have edited too for any form of claims as I've mentioned above. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Volkish Kurden (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the cleanup @Tropicalkitty, i cant wrap my head around how that unblock source works! Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no need for you to add multiple unreviewed unblock templates. Only one unblock request at a time (no additional requests until that unblock request is reviewed). Tropicalkitty (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification! just to also ask, will the entire appeal be read or only the section within the unblock request? Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s mainly based on what your appeal is in the unblock request template, but what you have discussed below may also be looked at. Tropicalkitty (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

guessing since I said read below the rest may be considered, great! thank you very much for the information, thumbs up from me :) Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again.Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are complaining your unblock request wasn't reviewed for 12 hours? We are all volunteers here. If you aren't able to wait 12 hours, Wikipedia clearly isn't the place for you. Others have been waiting literally weeks. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2023 (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.

Have no admins checked on this? it's been over 12 hours since the last review, I feel as if I am presenting my case and apology to an empty crowd.

• You’ve been rejected twice now and your userpage implies you’re a WP:SPA with a political agenda. I’ll fetch an admin but don’t expect much. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus I did make a request to change such but it was rejected due to the current block, it was a quick name i couldn't think of others, so my desire to change my name NOT wanting to hide my ANI but rather to prevent implications of WP:SPA

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know why my request is blocked over a comment which had nothing to do with my appeal but I did not mean the 12 hour thing in any negative way, again, my appeal is like above which if I were to write again would just be magpieingVolkish Kurden (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion with blocking admin. User is urged to refrain from personal attacks and casting WP:aspersions, and to assume good faith. Please use WP:dispute resolution as needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: OK to unblock?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I don't have high hopes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I gave up hope. 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey silly jokes aside i appreciate the understanding and I hope to become a better editor thanks to everyone’s advice Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]