User talk:Nabukednezar03

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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you guys are a joke. Anyway, I'm not going to make definitive judgments about people I don't know, so I'll refer to the information provided by Turkish and contemporary Byzantine historians as 'Turkish sources'. I hope you won't object to that either. If you object to this too, I will think that you have ulterior motives. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jingiby, Kansas Bear

As I said, a brand new user highly obsessed with Ottoman battles and fast rewrite all of them with the usually boring pattern: "Ottoman army was small and lost always few men and always won" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Svetigrad&diff=prev&oldid=1198694566 OrionNimrod (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did he win with fewer men? Dude, seriously, what kind of history reading is this? I am writing the number of armies given by Turkish sources there. In writing a history, only the sources of one country are taken as reference. Can there be such hypocrisy? If you are a good reader of history, the first thing you should ask is, how could the Ottoman Empire take 80 thousand men to a mountainous region like Albania? How were they resupplied? After all, if the Ottomans could land 80 thousand men in a small state like Albania, why did they fight with 40 thousand men at Varna? You have really become unable to see the truth without reading one-sided history. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you an example to understand better. For example, if it was not blocked, I would write that the Serbian army at the Battle of Maritsa was between 20,000 and 25,000, not 70,000. Because at that time the Serbs could neither raise such an army, nor could they march the army to Edirne without any problems. I am against exaggerated sources not only from one side but from all sides. In fact, I am objective, but you are so biased that you think that the other person has a side too. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'll say it one last time for everyone on the page to understand. No army in the 15th century consisted of 200 thousand people. The first problem that will arise is the toilet problem. We know the numbers of the Ottoman armies in the sources. Because he took a census every time. Ottoman sources are like a sea. I am not accusing anyone of ignorance, I am just suggesting that you expand your reading Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, don't worry, I'm going to leave this editing job, because your problem is not learning history. History is just a masturbation tool for you. Anyway, go on with your stories about a thousand Europeans defeating a trillion Turks. We also have exaggerated numbers of some European armies on our pages, but at least we try to write all articles in 'realistic' terms as much as possible. Your headlines, on the other hand, are like comic books. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware the medieval Turkish sources: all writes only the victorious battles and keep silent about the lost one. The sultan is God then enemy like Hunyadi is the Devil. For example they write Hungarian army was 200,000 at the battle of Mohacs and the victorious Ottoman just 100,000. It is quite unrealistic, considering Hungarian economy, avaliablet troops, population etc.. Modern Hungarian historians say it was about 25,000 and not 200,000 as medieval Ottoman sources say to increase the sultan's victory more. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the Turkish site it was written that the Hungarian army was 200 thousand. Well, I have a favor to ask you, can you check which user deleted that information :d? Or let me give you another example. Look at the 1456 siege of Belgrade. In the Turkish wikipedia, the outcome of the battle was 'uncertain'. I changed it to a 'Hungarian-Crusader' victory. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"?

I see that joke here also the Ottomans won 1456 Belgrade... Ottoman empire had many great victories, I really do not know why for some users need to change even the lost one to victory, why? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, my problem is not to minimize or elevate anyone's history. I'm trying to write it as it is. My aim is not to glorify the Ottomans, I'm just studying history, especially 'war history'. And I just want people to learn what happened, not to read fantasy. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 think 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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-The Bulgarian Tsar was not killed in the battle but his son Michael Asen. -Ivan Alexander ruled Bulgaria from 1331 to 1371 and he died peacefully in Tarnovo. -The battle resulted in Bulgarian phyrric victory as the Ottomans could not reach Sofia, which was their main objective. -About the Ottoman advance in Balkans you are right but not even in the result of the battle. Slava History (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]