User talk:SolarKhan15: Difference between revisions

Line 43: Line 43:

<!– Template:uw-aoablock –>

{{unblock|reason= i understand clearly why i was blocked and i accept full responsibility for it i threatened another user and used hurtful insulting language including comments about race and that was completely unacceptable and against everything wikipedia stands for i am not defending it and i am not blaming anyone else

{{unblock|reason= I recognize that I was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and disruptive tone, and I sincerely apologize for the language I used in frustration; however, my edits were based on a consistent precedent across Wikipedia (as seen in the List of wars involving Azerbaijan and List of wars involving Iran articles, which both include predecessor dynasties), and I believe the dynasties I added the Timurids, Khivans, Bukharans, and Kokand are legitimate predecessors of the Republic of Uzbekistan, so I respectfully ask to be unblocked in order to continue contributing constructively with reliable sources and within Wikipedia’s policies.}}

i understand now that acting in a confrontational way and turning disagreements into fights destroys consensus instead of building it and i see why my behavior caused disruption even if i believed my edits were correct that does not matter when my behavior crosses lines and harms the project

i understand the point about the five pillars and i recognize that i violated the expectation to act politely and collegially my comments were shocking and wrong and i acknowledge that directly without excuses

i also understand that while i am blocked i should only use this page to discuss the block and i am focusing on that now i am not trying to argue my edits anymore i am focusing on my behavior because that is the real issue

i know an apology alone is not enough so i am stating clearly how i will change my behavior going forward i will not threaten or insult anyone again i will stay civil even in disagreements i will use proper dispute resolution and keep discussions calm respectful and focused on content not people and i will not allow any conversation to escalate into attacks

i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked}}

{{tq|and I sincerely apologize for the language I used in frustration}}

Line 74: Line 84:

::::::Apologising isn’t enough, you need to show that you’ll behave differently and understand how to resolve disputes properly without them spilling out into massive Talk page arguments like this one or attacking other people. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 17:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked}}

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for contributing edits that were made in good faith, but have been deemed to not contribute positively to the article, and thus been reverted. You are welcome to discuss it in the article talk page. Also, you can experiment with your edits in the sandbox or seek advice (see below).

Some good links for newcomers are:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out the Teahouse, ask the Help Desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Once again, welcome! R Prazeres (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note, to further clarify on the reason your edits were reverted: please review two central policies in particular, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The addition or selection of “flags” for historical states (or maps, logos, or other images that convey information) must be in line with those principles, which means that flag images should only be accepted if they are sourced from reliable scholarly publications. On a less important note in terms of general practice, we also don’t add flag icons to parameters in infoboxes unless they are actually useful for that topic/context. (You’ll find that some articles still use them, but that’s either because it’s useful for that topic or simply because not everyone is aware of the guideline yet.) Feel free to ask questions if you need further clarification. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thank you! SolarKhan15 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again Brother, Listen, the flags you removed from the Buyid dynasty in the Battle of Baghdad (946) article weren’t some made-up nonsense — those were their actual historical flags. Next time, do your research properly before blindly deleting my work, And Also here is the link for the flag https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buyid_Dynasty_Flag.jpg SolarKhan15 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that anyone can upload anything on Commons, so the fact that an image called “Buyid Dynasty flag” exists there doesn’t mean anything. In general, people upload fictional or speculative flags all the time: a few get deleted, some are tagged for problems (for example, the image you linked is already tagged as “fictitious”), and most are just forgotten and never used. In order for content to be used on Wikipedia, it must be supported directly and clearly by reliable sources (secondary sources, to be clear), as mentioned above. In practice, it’s very rare for us to know any details about flags or banners of medieval states (in most of the Islamic world, at any rate), as there are rarely surviving examples and there is no tradition directly equivalent to modern “national” flags at this time. Hence why alleged flags of historical states are suspicious in most circumstances. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m HistoryofIran. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:HistoryofIran that didn’t seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

go read what it said and don’t interfere with my work what u did in List of wars involving Uzbekistan was wrong i already addressed this. SolarKhan15 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dynasties I added as predecessors of the Republic of Uzbekistan are historically valid. If you actually take the time to research them, you will see that they carry an Uzbek identity the Timurids (Barlas, Chagatai‑Turkic speakers), the Khivans, the Bukharans, and the Kokand Khanate. These are not “nonsense,” they are legitimate predecessor states, just as Azerbaijan and Iran list their ancient dynasties in their own “List of wars” articles.

I ask that you revert the removal of my edit and reconsider the indefinite block. If you do, I am prepared to apologize for my earlier tone. But if you continue to deny the historical reality of these dynasties, you are ignoring consistency across Wikipedia and undermining the integrity of the project. SolarKhan15 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. HistoryofIran (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link [1]. HistoryofIran (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you guys did not give me a chance to talk and present my arguemtn this is not fair. SolarKhan15 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it is unfair, you can present your arguments here or in an unblock request. If you have a legitimate explanation why edits like this are not wholly inappropriate, I’d be curious to read it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

SolarKhan15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i understand clearly why i was blocked and i accept full responsibility for it i threatened another user and used hurtful insulting language including comments about race and that was completely unacceptable and against everything wikipedia stands for i am not defending it and i am not blaming anyone else

i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked

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.

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=i understand clearly why i was blocked and i accept full responsibility for it i threatened another user and used hurtful insulting language including comments about race and that was completely unacceptable and against everything wikipedia stands for i am not defending it and i am not blaming anyone else
i understand now that acting in a confrontational way and turning disagreements into fights destroys consensus instead of building it and i see why my behavior caused disruption even if i believed my edits were correct that does not matter when my behavior crosses lines and harms the project
i understand the point about the five pillars and i recognize that i violated the expectation to act politely and collegially my comments were shocking and wrong and i acknowledge that directly without excuses
i also understand that while i am blocked i should only use this page to discuss the block and i am focusing on that now i am not trying to argue my edits anymore i am focusing on my behavior because that is the real issue
i know an apology alone is not enough so i am stating clearly how i will change my behavior going forward i will not threaten or insult anyone again i will stay civil even in disagreements i will use proper dispute resolution and keep discussions calm respectful and focused on content not people and i will not allow any conversation to escalate into attacks
i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked |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=i understand clearly why i was blocked and i accept full responsibility for it i threatened another user and used hurtful insulting language including comments about race and that was completely unacceptable and against everything wikipedia stands for i am not defending it and i am not blaming anyone else
i understand now that acting in a confrontational way and turning disagreements into fights destroys consensus instead of building it and i see why my behavior caused disruption even if i believed my edits were correct that does not matter when my behavior crosses lines and harms the project
i understand the point about the five pillars and i recognize that i violated the expectation to act politely and collegially my comments were shocking and wrong and i acknowledge that directly without excuses
i also understand that while i am blocked i should only use this page to discuss the block and i am focusing on that now i am not trying to argue my edits anymore i am focusing on my behavior because that is the real issue
i know an apology alone is not enough so i am stating clearly how i will change my behavior going forward i will not threaten or insult anyone again i will stay civil even in disagreements i will use proper dispute resolution and keep discussions calm respectful and focused on content not people and i will not allow any conversation to escalate into attacks
i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked |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=i understand clearly why i was blocked and i accept full responsibility for it i threatened another user and used hurtful insulting language including comments about race and that was completely unacceptable and against everything wikipedia stands for i am not defending it and i am not blaming anyone else
i understand now that acting in a confrontational way and turning disagreements into fights destroys consensus instead of building it and i see why my behavior caused disruption even if i believed my edits were correct that does not matter when my behavior crosses lines and harms the project
i understand the point about the five pillars and i recognize that i violated the expectation to act politely and collegially my comments were shocking and wrong and i acknowledge that directly without excuses
i also understand that while i am blocked i should only use this page to discuss the block and i am focusing on that now i am not trying to argue my edits anymore i am focusing on my behavior because that is the real issue
i know an apology alone is not enough so i am stating clearly how i will change my behavior going forward i will not threaten or insult anyone again i will stay civil even in disagreements i will use proper dispute resolution and keep discussions calm respectful and focused on content not people and i will not allow any conversation to escalate into attacks
i understand the rules now and i am showing how i will follow them and not cause further disruption if i am unblocked |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

and I sincerely apologize for the language I used in frustration

So when you become frustrated, you vandalise an article, harass and threaten someone, and start spewing dozens of egregious insults, including xenophobia? All that for merely getting reverted once? I think you’re only apologizing because you’re facing consequences. You use List of wars involving Iran as an example, but that article includes pretty much every major dynasty that ruled the country (which it shouldn’t either, but that’s another story), while you choose specific ones (even the Hephthalites??), making it seem as if they were somehow a predecessor of Uzbekistan. And until a recent merge, List of wars involving Azerbaijan only included actual wars related to the Azerbaijan nation, as it does not have any predecessor states before the 20th century, nor does Uzbekistan per [2]. See also WP:OTHER. —HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already admitted my earlier tone crossed the line, and I’ve apologized for the personal attacks. That’s settled. But don’t confuse that with backing down on the substance of my edits. I’ll remove the Hephthalites fine, they’re debatable. But the Timurids, Khivans, Bukharans, and Kokand Khanate are not “random picks.” They ruled the territory of modern Uzbekistan, shaped its culture, and are recognized in scholarship and in Uzbekistan’s own national heritage. You say Iran’s article “shouldn’t” include dynasties, but the fact is it does from the Elamites to the Safavids. Azerbaijan’s page also expanded after a merge. If those countries can list predecessor dynasties, then Uzbekistan should too. To deny that is hypocrisy and selective enforcement. WP:OTHER doesn’t excuse inconsistency. Wikipedia is supposed to apply the same standards across articles. If dynasties are valid for Iran and Azerbaijan, they are valid for Uzbekistan. Removing them while allowing Persian dynasties is bias, plain and simple.

SolarKhan15 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I lost control and did all of that, and I regret it I’ve already apologized for the personal attacks. But my edits themselves were not vandalism; they were based on consistency with other “List of wars” articles. I’m apologizing because I recognize my behavior violated civility, not just because of the block. SolarKhan15 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hephthalites are not debatable, they shouldn’t even be part of the conversation, otherwise we’re in the realm of blatant historical falsifications. And per the link of WP:RS I just showed [3], Uzbekistan and its identity, as well as the Uzbek claims to the Timurids, is a modern Soviet Union creation, which you’re ignoring, despite claiming that you want to “continue contributing constructively with reliable sources and within Wikipedia’s policies.” And you’re already accusing me of bias, hypocrisy and selective enforcement, despite me not even taking part in shaping List of wars involving Iran, and being against its current state. Sure didn’t take you long. I also didn’t clean up List of wars involving Azerbaijan, does that mean I am also a “Azerpoorjaini” or whatever xenephobic (if not racist) stuff you can come up with, like “Poorsian”?

You are clearly unable to edit in this field without suppressing your blatant anti-Persian xenophobia (and I hate to break it to you, but I have origins in Rasht, which are not populated by Persians) and disregard of WP:RS, all which can be easily demonstrated, contrary to your accusations/attacks. I’m out of here. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the Hephthalites should not be included and I will remove them. That does not change the fact that the Timurids, Khivans, Bukharans and Kokand Khanate are legitimate dynasties tied to the territory of modern Uzbekistan and recognized in scholarship. Calling them “nonsense” is not historical accuracy, it is dismissal.

I understand the argument about Soviet identity construction, but that does not erase the dynasties that ruled the land long before the USSR. Reliable sources acknowledge their role in shaping the region’s culture and politics. My edits are not falsifications, they are based on consistency with other “List of wars” articles.

I have already apologized for my tone and I will not repeat personal attacks. But I will continue to press for consistency. If Iran and Azerbaijan can list dynasties, then Uzbekistan must be treated the same. Selective enforcement is exactly what undermines neutrality on Wikipedia. SolarKhan15 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyofiran regarding your points in discussion: The Kokand Khanate, Bukhara Emirate, and Khiva Khanate were dynasties ruling the territory of present‑day Uzbekistan. They did not call themselves “Uzbekistan,” but modern scholarship recognizes their political and cultural legacy as part of Uzbekistan’s historical heritage, which makes their inclusion consistent with how predecessor states are treated in other “List of wars” articles. The Timurids likewise did not use the modern name, but they were connected to Uzbek tribal origins. And if we are being consistent, Iran’s page includes the Afsharids, Safavids, and other Turkic empires that never called themselves “Iranian” or “irani”. SolarKhan15 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History iran dont run away come debate if you can. SolarKhan15 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Running away”? “If I can”? It seems you can’t make one comment without commenting on another user. Why the hell would I “debate” a WP:BATTLEGROUND racist who openly ignores WP:RS and engages in historical falsifications? Enjoy your block. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What historical fabrications are you even talking about be specific. I already said I would remove the Timurids even though they were Uzbeks who spoke Chagatai, the ancestor of modern barlas Uzbek tribe. So what about Khiva, Bukhara, and Kokand are those not Uzbek khanates? Why are you acting like this when I already apologized for the insults? Anyone would be frustrated when someone named “historyofiran” clearly knows nothing about Uzbek history yet reverts edits and labels confirmed Uzbek dynasties as “nonsense”. Most of the dynasties I added were verified as Uzbek by scholarly sources, not Hephthalites or Timurids that’s another discussion. Now listen carefully unblock me and let me return to Wikipedia, and I will contribute normally without any issues. SolarKhan15 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @SolarKhan15 If you want to submit a successful appeal you need to both acknowledge why you were blocked and show that you understand how to prevent that from happening again.

Considering you were blocked for acting in a confrontational manner, this was a really, really bad idea. We don’t build consensus through debates.

It doesn’t matter if you’re right, if you are causing disruption – see Wikipedia:Being right isn’t enough.

Wikipedia is built on five pillars, acting in a polite and collegial manner of one of those core pillars. Your comments were, quite frankly, shocking and I can see why you were blocked. Language like that is not acceptable and you’ve barely addressed it in your appeal – you’re spending more time trying to justify your edits, than address your behaviour.

Whilst you’re blocked you should only use your Talk page to discuss the block, so I strongly recommend dropping the stick and focusing on your appeal. An admin will be looking through all your edits, including these posts, when considering your appeal so you need to prove to them that you won’t cause further disruption if unblocked.

Apologising isn’t enough, you need to show that you’ll behave differently and understand how to resolve disputes properly without them spilling out into massive Talk page arguments like this one or attacking other people. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]