User talk:SolderUnion

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please justify reverting all my edits? Especially edits that have to do with obvious on purpose mistakes that serve nationalist agenda of Greece. For example in the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is written that "The Macedonians, like the other Greeks, traditionally practiced monogamy, but Philip II practiced polygamy" but the sources says "The Macedonian royal house practised polygamy, which in the eyes of the Greeks, was a symbol of "barbarians". Correcting this mistake is not a matter of consensus. The are many this kind of purpose mistakes and every time are pro Greek. Wikipedia doesn't allow group of people having agendas. If you don't revert especially this edit I will use it as evidence against you. SolderUnion (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave clear reasons why each of your recent contributions were deleterious to the corresponding article. The correct venue would be the corresponding article talk pages, where everyone who cares to participate in discussions can. Your issue as explicitly stated on Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is that they're generally characterized as Greeks—so given the degree to which that positioned has been reaffirmed and highlighted over and over in our sources and discussions on that talk page, I really advise you not waste your time and ours starting it up again as if you will be able to produce some new tranche of evidence no one's seen before. Remsense ‥ 论 22:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've not giving me a satisfactory answer. I repeat in the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is written that "The Macedonians, like the other Greeks, traditionally practiced monogamy, but Philip II practiced polygamy" but the sources says "The Macedonian royal house practiced polygamy, which in the eyes of the Greeks, was a symbol of "barbarians". How do you justify reverting this edit when I've corrected it to correspond to what the source is saying? This obviously is against wikipedia policies. I would kindly ask you to change it. SolderUnion (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rum millet. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Ancient Macedonians are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Golikom (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SU. Please consider this a second warning about talk page use. If you have any concerns about the conduct of other users, please follow the steps at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're going around canvassing. These comments speak for themselves [1] [2]. Can something be done about this? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as canvassing, and I'd rather they continue to discuss at a user talk page than at article talk (which I reverted). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Khirurg (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Please give me the chance to provide evidence for this team of around 15 people. I don't even want you to unblock me. Just to provide the evidence and I'm out. There is team of people who are editors for years and truly contribute. This group is of maybe 15 people. They operate in 2-3 people groups in different areas of subjects sensitive to Greek nationalistic narrative. They do that not to raise suspicion avoid detection. The way they promote Greek nationalistic narrative is subtle. SolderUnion (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please do not abuse the unblock template. Yamla (talk) 20:37, 8 May 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.

Unblock

[edit]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I would like you to unlock my account for the following reasons:

1) I’m not sock puppet of HelenHIL . a) I’m not a woman I’m a man b) The only thing in common we have is about interest in ancient Macedonia. Nowhere else our interests overlap. c) I have made a lot of concerns so the reasoning behind the statement to change the phrase “essentially greek people” is not correct. Out of 15 concerns is natural to have a overlap. There is another person User:Historybuff4life4health who also made the same the same comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAncient_Macedonians&diff=1220441167&oldid=1212560671 .This doesn’t make the editor sock puppet of HelenHIL so this reasoning should not be accepted. 2) “Conduct off-wiki outing” I said “not expose identities” which is what I meant. 3) I promise will not make any WP:ASPERSIONS.

SolderUnion (talk) 19:21, 9 May 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=I would like you to unlock my account for the following reasons: 1) I’m not sock puppet of HelenHIL . a) I’m not a woman I’m a man b) The only thing in common we have is about interest in ancient Macedonia. Nowhere else our interests overlap. c) I have made a lot of concerns so the reasoning behind the statement to change the phrase “essentially greek people” is not correct. Out of 15 concerns is natural to have a overlap. There is another person User:Historybuff4life4health who also made the same the same comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAncient_Macedonians&diff=1220441167&oldid=1212560671 .This doesn’t make the editor sock puppet of HelenHIL so this reasoning should not be accepted. 2) “Conduct off-wiki outing” I said “not expose identities” which is what I meant. 3) I promise will not make any WP:ASPERSIONS. [[User:SolderUnion|SolderUnion]] ([[User talk:SolderUnion#top|talk]]) 19:21, 9 May 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=I would like you to unlock my account for the following reasons: 1) I’m not sock puppet of HelenHIL . a) I’m not a woman I’m a man b) The only thing in common we have is about interest in ancient Macedonia. Nowhere else our interests overlap. c) I have made a lot of concerns so the reasoning behind the statement to change the phrase “essentially greek people” is not correct. Out of 15 concerns is natural to have a overlap. There is another person User:Historybuff4life4health who also made the same the same comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAncient_Macedonians&diff=1220441167&oldid=1212560671 .This doesn’t make the editor sock puppet of HelenHIL so this reasoning should not be accepted. 2) “Conduct off-wiki outing” I said “not expose identities” which is what I meant. 3) I promise will not make any WP:ASPERSIONS. [[User:SolderUnion|SolderUnion]] ([[User talk:SolderUnion#top|talk]]) 19:21, 9 May 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=I would like you to unlock my account for the following reasons: 1) I’m not sock puppet of HelenHIL . a) I’m not a woman I’m a man b) The only thing in common we have is about interest in ancient Macedonia. Nowhere else our interests overlap. c) I have made a lot of concerns so the reasoning behind the statement to change the phrase “essentially greek people” is not correct. Out of 15 concerns is natural to have a overlap. There is another person User:Historybuff4life4health who also made the same the same comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAncient_Macedonians&diff=1220441167&oldid=1212560671 .This doesn’t make the editor sock puppet of HelenHIL so this reasoning should not be accepted. 2) “Conduct off-wiki outing” I said “not expose identities” which is what I meant. 3) I promise will not make any WP:ASPERSIONS. [[User:SolderUnion|SolderUnion]] ([[User talk:SolderUnion#top|talk]]) 19:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

SolderUnion (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to expose identities, then you could have posted your evidence on wiki. Providing evidence off-wiki is a bad look even if not technically WP:OUTING. Better yet, an email to WP:ARBCOM. That said, your argument doesn't convince me - Historybuff4life4health does make my sock senses tingle as they look like they're very similar to both you and HelenHIL, and as for the match between you and them, you edit the same topics, making the same arguments, and picked up the same "Greek conspiracy" hobbyhorse. Even if you are not their sock, it doesn't change the fact that that wasn't the only reason you were blocked - do you understand why aspersions are against policy and why your conduct resulted in your being blocked? Overall I don't see anything here that makes me believe an unblock would be in the interests of the encyclopedia; but if another admin thinks otherwise, I won't object. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the aspersions I promise I will not make them anymore. If I have suspicions that something is happening I will collect little by little evidence and will address them through the appropriate channels. I'm not here to disrupt in a bad way but genuinely to help. For example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottoman_Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=1289249308 have checked every page on the book referenced and have uncovered a fictitious map so I'm here to help. My concerns are genuine but I should not make aspersions. I'm not Hellen's sock puppet. I understand that are some similarities but these are normal overlap. Every person has similarities with another one. Regarding the outing I cannot talk publicly about this because data will be lost. Let it go for the moment and in few weeks you will be very happy for your decision. Wikipedia will become much better. SolderUnion (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also look here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghegs&diff=next&oldid=910061284
And check the source page 424 here
https://archive.org/details/indogermanisches02pokouoft/page/424/mode/2up
Again they have entered fictitious things that connect Greece with the subject.
(I’m 90% sure that this is the case because it is written in German and maybe I have missed something)
Check here
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=771589023&oldid=771580680
The source says “However, in the eyes of the Greeks who lived in a monogamous society and
judged from their point of view, polygamy was a symbol of ‘barbarians’.”
In the beginning they wrote “          
Although Macedonia and the rest of Greece traditionally practiced [[monogamy]] in marriage, Philip II divulged in the '[[barbarian]]' practice of [[polygamy]],
Later was changed to:”    
The Macedonians and Greeks traditionally practiced [[monogamy]], but Philip II practiced [[polygamy]]”
And later to:
“The Macedonians, like the other Greeks, traditionally practiced monogamy, but Philip II practiced polygamy”
My understanding is that this is malicious removal of encyclopedic content. Maybe I’m wrong.
I will go through arbitration committee and see what will happen. I'm here to help no to create problems.
You'll be very happy with the outcome. SolderUnion (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the off-wiki outing I meant to provide me a way of communication where the info provided are not available for the public to see. I didn't mean outside the domain of wikipedea. I want to ask you if under wiki policies I can give you these info. Which info I can disclose only through the appropriate channels. An admin can contact me on my email through an email that belongs to the wikipedia domain. SolderUnion (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may not, and no admin will contact you about this. If you have evidence that you want not available for the public to see, which is troubling in and of itself, email WP:ARBCOM, but I strongly suggest you drop the stick. The appropriate channels were on WP:ANI or WP:AE. Meanwhile your talk page is to be used for unblock requests only when you are blocked. See WP:NOTTHEM. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok then if it is not allowed I follow the rules. SolderUnion (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please unblock me. All the reasoning behind my block are not valid. I'm not here to cause trouble but to help. I'm not Hellen's sock for the reasons mentioned. I didn't threat to conduct off-wiki outing for the reasons explained. I will not make any WP:ASPERSIONS SolderUnion (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your unblock request is only one of many in the queue of unblock requests. Administrators are volunteers, just like all other Wikipedia users. Therefore it may take several days or even weeks for your request to be assessed. There is nothing you can do at this point except wait your turn. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having watched the amount of times the user was adviced/warned and how, despite promises, always continued with the same rhetoric, especially going around at people's talkpages like this diff1, diff2, and including the double-down at the first unblock request, I find it obvious that they are just wp:nothere for anything else other that treating wikipedia as a wp:battlefield. The -around 9- editors who commented at the ANI case appear to share that sentiment. In fact, even reading their latest reply, it appears that this approach is just part of their fundumental mentality in wikipedia: in this reply, they bring up a 6-year-old edit by some random user of 7 total edits (!) (SKA-KSI) in the (completely unrelated) article of Ghegs, and I wonder what does this have to do with anything that's been discussed so far? why is it compared with an 8-year-old edit by PericlesofAthens in the article of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). What's the implication? Every single edit in any WP article the user doesn't approve of is malevolent nationalism.

  • This whole approach is, in fact, identical to HelenHIL who similarly accused editors they didn't approve of as Greek nationalists (diff1, diff2 etc. compare with SU) and sockpuppets (SPI case here):
  • There, they similarly presented links of various diffs (not only Macedonia-related), such as Fustanella, Akhisar etc. in the same manner as SolderUnion.
  • Both object to the exact same parts in the article of Ancient Macedonians, such as Essentially an ancient Greek people, HelenHIL diff, SolderUnion diff, or Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians., HelenHIL diff, SolderUnion TP, and both spoke of propaganda.
  • Made essentially the same edit in Macedonia (ancient kingdom): HelenHIL diff, SolderUnion diff.

We could actually have a more detailed SPI to properly document the activity, but as I said, I'm not sure if it would be necessary now. I certainly concur with The Bushranger's conclusion. Piccco (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Piccco for you interest. It means a lot that you care. I would be grateful if admin unblock me but even if he/she doesn't the good news is that I have learned how to raise the case and be sure that in some weeks wikipedia will become much much better place. This I promise to you. Be 100% sure. SolderUnion (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SolderUnion&oldid=1290063676"