Ehsan Danish

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to ETA (separatist group) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: ETA (separatist group) was changed by DanielG.M.S.S.N (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865519 on 2025-02-14T13:10:48+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. RobertJohnson35 – talk 17:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usted sabe perfectamente que lo que modifique es cierto, si lo vuelvo a hacer y esta vez cito una fuente confiable, ¿me lo cambiará de nuevo? DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sí, cambios como este deben de ser discutidos en la página de discusión del artículo. RobertJohnson35 – talk 05:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Talk:Spanish Empire in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Donald Albury 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spanish Empire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usted sabe perfectamente que lo que modifica es cierto, que sentido tiene modificarlo, no lo entiendo, en otras ediciones de otros idiomas viene reflejad, es ridiculo esto. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire 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. Donald Albury 23:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DanielG.M.S.S.N, Your first change altered a sentence that did not contradict what you then added. Spain was one of the most powerful at the time, whether first second or third. Your addition made a more specific statement of fact "Spain was the most powerful" that was unnecessary because the rest of that paragraph did not depend on Spain being first second or third, but by calling it first you made it clear you were slightly motivated by your own nationalist views. I also think it is not certain that Spain was the most powerful empire at that time it's debatable and as such you should supply a reference, because it isn't an obvious statement of fact. Once you were reverted you should go to the talk page to get consensus, as I showed you WP:BRD, not revert or make other un-sourced changes of a similar nature. Your English is clearly good enough to write in English, and if not use an online translator. I notice you are making other similar non-referenced changes to other articles. Please remember, on Wikipedia being true is not good enough - it must be referenced. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I also think it's not certain that Spain was the most powerful empire at that time; it's debatable." That's pretty much it. I don't think I'm the one getting carried away by his "nationalism." Many other English-language websites, such as the one on the Spanish decline, the Treaty of the Pyrenees, and so on, already mention this. It's fully supported evidence, and denying it is like kicking history in the butt. Block me if you want. I can live with that. What I can't live with is Anglo-Saxon nationalist nonsense and the Black Legend in 2025.

Enviar DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Spanish Empire, you may be blocked from editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses a process called bold, revert, discuss to help reach the required consensus on what to include in an article when an edit is contentious. You made a BOLD edit, were reverted^{(many times indicating an edit war)}, and now is well the time for discussion which you need to start on the article's talk page here: talk:Spanish Empire. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I did it, bold, revert and start a discussion, a discussion that nobody cared about, on top of that they reverted the changes without even participating in the discussion and finally when I did it again I was blocked for two weeks, explain the situation to me, because it's surreal DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DanielG.M.S.S.N, as the message informing you of your block^[1] states, you were blocked for violating the WP:Edit Warring policy, particularly the WP:three-revert rule. Please thoroughly read the linked edit war policy and consider how it applies to your recent edits. After reading that, should you wish to request to be unblocked prior to the full two weeks, then thoroughly read and follow the guide at WP:Guide to appealing blocks. All this information was linked to you within the block notice you have received. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealism continues, and we all know the lamentable way it ended. You can't take Wikipedia seriously with this arbitrariness and injustice. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Spanish 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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the ban to be deeply unfair. Furthermore, the punishment isn't even a one-day ban. How is it possible I'm banned for two weeks? I'd like to appeal this ban. What can I do? DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to edit war repeatedly after I warned you. So far, you have not shown that you understand how to edit collaboratively on Wikpedia. Please also note that you retain access to your talk page so that you may appeal the block, but you need to do so using the "unblock" button in the above block notice. Using your talk page for any other purpose than appealing your block may result in you being blocked from your talk page, as well. Donald Albury 13:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think there's a certain ideological bias in all of this—not yours, of course, but that of the person who reported and blocked me. My edits have been removed, even though I cited sources and started a discussion first. I don't know if the problem is mine or the problem of the person who lets their ideology interfere with their Wikipedia editing. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DanielG.M.S.S.N (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In particular, the three-pronged approach, I understand its importance in maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative environment. However, I believe that the restriction applied in my case is too great and does not accurately reflect the context of the article on the Spanish Empire.

I first followed the recommended "review, retract, discuss" approach: I made a good, approved, and confirmed edit that was retracted, and opened a discussion on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this discussion was ignored while my edits continued to be retracted without adequate explanation or attempt at negotiation. Faced with this lack of engagement, I reintroduced the topic in order to preserve well-documented information, but not out of stubbornness or bad faith.

My concern is that the policy appears to have been strictly enforced in my case, while users who retracted their edits without engaging in discussion received no warnings or penalties. This creates an imbalance that can discourage constructive engagement. Furthermore, I believe the length of the block (two weeks) is excessive, especially since I attempted to resolve the issue through discussion before the situation escalated. I am committed to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and am open to respectful discussion on any topic. Therefore, I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. My sole goal is to always improve articles with facts, not to force personal opinions. I am prepared to be more careful in the future and use appropriate resolution methods if necessary. Now there is absolutely no AI, waiting for your decision thanks for your attention.DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= In particular, the three-pronged approach, I understand its importance in maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative environment. However, I believe that the restriction applied in my case is too great and does not accurately reflect the context of the article on the Spanish Empire. :I first followed the recommended "review, retract, discuss" approach: I made a good, approved, and confirmed edit that was retracted, and opened a discussion on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this discussion was ignored while my edits continued to be retracted without adequate explanation or attempt at negotiation. Faced with this lack of engagement, I reintroduced the topic in order to preserve well-documented information, but not out of stubbornness or bad faith. :My concern is that the policy appears to have been strictly enforced in my case, while users who retracted their edits without engaging in discussion received no warnings or penalties. This creates an imbalance that can discourage constructive engagement. Furthermore, I believe the length of the block (two weeks) is excessive, especially since I attempted to resolve the issue through discussion before the situation escalated. I am committed to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and am open to respectful discussion on any topic. Therefore, I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. My sole goal is to always improve articles with facts, not to force personal opinions. I am prepared to be more careful in the future and use appropriate resolution methods if necessary. Now there is absolutely no AI, waiting for your decision thanks for your attention.[[User:DanielG.M.S.S.N|DanielG.M.S.S.N]] ([[User talk:DanielG.M.S.S.N#top|talk]]) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= In particular, the three-pronged approach, I understand its importance in maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative environment. However, I believe that the restriction applied in my case is too great and does not accurately reflect the context of the article on the Spanish Empire. :I first followed the recommended "review, retract, discuss" approach: I made a good, approved, and confirmed edit that was retracted, and opened a discussion on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this discussion was ignored while my edits continued to be retracted without adequate explanation or attempt at negotiation. Faced with this lack of engagement, I reintroduced the topic in order to preserve well-documented information, but not out of stubbornness or bad faith. :My concern is that the policy appears to have been strictly enforced in my case, while users who retracted their edits without engaging in discussion received no warnings or penalties. This creates an imbalance that can discourage constructive engagement. Furthermore, I believe the length of the block (two weeks) is excessive, especially since I attempted to resolve the issue through discussion before the situation escalated. I am committed to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and am open to respectful discussion on any topic. Therefore, I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. My sole goal is to always improve articles with facts, not to force personal opinions. I am prepared to be more careful in the future and use appropriate resolution methods if necessary. Now there is absolutely no AI, waiting for your decision thanks for your attention.[[User:DanielG.M.S.S.N|DanielG.M.S.S.N]] ([[User talk:DanielG.M.S.S.N#top|talk]]) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= In particular, the three-pronged approach, I understand its importance in maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative environment. However, I believe that the restriction applied in my case is too great and does not accurately reflect the context of the article on the Spanish Empire. :I first followed the recommended "review, retract, discuss" approach: I made a good, approved, and confirmed edit that was retracted, and opened a discussion on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this discussion was ignored while my edits continued to be retracted without adequate explanation or attempt at negotiation. Faced with this lack of engagement, I reintroduced the topic in order to preserve well-documented information, but not out of stubbornness or bad faith. :My concern is that the policy appears to have been strictly enforced in my case, while users who retracted their edits without engaging in discussion received no warnings or penalties. This creates an imbalance that can discourage constructive engagement. Furthermore, I believe the length of the block (two weeks) is excessive, especially since I attempted to resolve the issue through discussion before the situation escalated. I am committed to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and am open to respectful discussion on any topic. Therefore, I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. My sole goal is to always improve articles with facts, not to force personal opinions. I am prepared to be more careful in the future and use appropriate resolution methods if necessary. Now there is absolutely no AI, waiting for your decision thanks for your attention.[[User:DanielG.M.S.S.N|DanielG.M.S.S.N]] ([[User talk:DanielG.M.S.S.N#top|talk]]) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (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).

DanielG.M.S.S.N (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After carefully reviewing the edit warring policy, particularly the three-revert rule, I understand its importance for maintaining Wikipedia’s collaborative environment. However, I believe the block applied in my case is disproportionate and does not accurately reflect the context of what happened in the Spanish Empire article.

First of all, I followed the recommended "bold, revert, discuss" process: I made a sourced and good-faith edit, it was reverted, and I then opened a discussion on the article’s talk page to seek consensus. Unfortunately, that discussion was ignored, while my edits continued to be reverted without any proper explanation or attempt at dialogue. Faced with this lack of engagement, I reintroduced the content in an effort to preserve well-sourced information—not out of stubbornness or bad faith.

What concerns me is that the policy seems to have been applied strictly in my case, while the users who reverted without engaging in discussion received no warning or sanction. This creates an imbalance that can discourage constructive participation. Additionally, the duration of the block—two weeks—feels excessive, especially considering that I made an effort to resolve the matter through discussion before things escalated.

I’m committed to Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit and open to discussing any content respectfully. Therefore, I respectfully request that this block be reconsidered. My sole aim has always been to improve articles with well-supported information, not to push a personal viewpoint. I’m willing to be even more careful moving forward and to use proper dispute resolution channels if needed. Thank you for your attention. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:36, 24 April 2025 (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.

The above unblock request was almost 75% AI-generated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bbb23:

That's true. I've used ChatGPT to better draft my appeal. I don't see anything wrong with it. Besides, the percentage you mention isn't true; it's lower. I apologize if I've bothered you. I look forward to your response to my appeal. Thank you, and best regards.