User talk:SolderUnion

May 2025

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]