User talk:BBotirk

Hello, I'm JalenBarks. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Battle of Tashkent (1586). Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for this, but the reason for returning this article is an error. Such a battle did not happen in history. This is a fabricated battle. I could not find any mention of this battle even in the works written by Abdullah Khan's historian. So please, if you are an administrator, check and remove it. This is an unnecessary article. It is unbelievable. BBotirk (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of Tashkent (1586), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, why did you fix it? It was like a Pyrrhic victory. I had to do some research. Bro, do you need a source? I'll edit it with the source now. Be patient. I have to do some research. Bro. Wait. BBotirk (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Look bro, there are sources, now trying to edit is not right^[1][2] BBotirk (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The first source does not verify any of the content, the second is a bachelor's thesis which is not reliable per WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Dissertation!? Are you stupid bro this Abdulla Noma is a historical work yes you have made it up this whole historical work damn it have you read it it says that Tawakkal Khan's victory was nothing strategically yes who are you in your opinion you are Abdull Khan II's historian Hafiz Tanish Bukhari's Abdulla Noma in Uzbek is the real slf version you think a dissertation is a historical work of the Uzbeks i don't care read it first damn it is a dissertation how much do you know about history you call a historical work a dissertation don't click on the article rather read the history you have learned personality you call the work of Abdulla Noma written in the 16th century which was the glory of my nation a dissertation don't click on the article BBotirk (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is all fact, the first is an analytical edition of Abdulla Noma, the second is a work by Khofiz Tanish Bukhari in the real Uzbek language, this is a curse, don't make me angry, bro, you are not looking at a historical work of some nation, at least from the 16th century, damn it, don't click on the article, read the source I posted, I learned from administrators who don't respect history like you, don't click on the article, otherwise we will discuss with you or something will happen regarding vandalism, who do you think you are, you call a work written by the personal historian of the national Abdulla Khan a dissertation, get out of here, because it is in another language, you haven't even read it BBotirk (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry bro, you are right, I shared another link in the first one, but the second one is not a dissertation, on the contrary, it is a short analysis of a historical work and it does not mean that it is unreliable. You are right in the first one, but in the second one, everything is true. Abdullah Khan's relations with the Kazakh Khanate are written in detail, but if you want me to bring the pure version of the real Hafiz Tanish Bukhari, I will do that, bro, just wait a little, yes, once again, I'm sorry, I got a little excited, I will share the correct links soon, I'll say it again, sorry for getting excited, be well, bro BBotirk (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Iduk Bash. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

OK bro BBotirk (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello bro, what exactly is required of me to republish the article? BBotirk (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

References that clearly show why the article subject passes Wikipedia's notability guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks bro BBotirk (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of conquerors by area of their conquests is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conquerors by area of their conquests until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Tashkent (713). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Please see WP:CITE. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but if this battle, which is from real history, can I just remove it and edit it back? BBotirk (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Timur's Campaigns in Moghulistan. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

As always BBotirk (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Timur. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for that, I understand you. Even if I am right, I should not edit like this. Thank you for explaining. But don't forget that the other party, who has been equal to me and has been reverting my edits to their status, I hope you will also warn them. But I will say again that I am right here, but when it comes to the edit war, you are wrong. Thank you for warning me. Yes, good luck with your work. Don't forget that the Redirect article's Redirect Purpose section says that if there is no article for a topic, you can make a short redirect to the article mentioned. In short, thank you again. BBotirk (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:BBotirk and WP:CIR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much, I'm sorry if I bothered you. BBotirk (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I believe I have not violated any Wikipedia rules and should have access to edit my talk page. I kindly request that this block be reviewed and lifted. BBotirk (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. You do have access to edit your talk page; you could not have made this request otherwise. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

BBotirk (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello everyone, I was recently blocked, the reason was a corrupt edit, but I don't admit it, if you don't believe me, in my last edit to the article Battle of Tashkent (1586), I cited the work of the Orientalist historian Bartold "The Bukharans" and the work of Hafiz Tanish "Abdullanama" as sources, I even cited what was written on page 49 of "The Bukharans", but they managed to review these works and after this edit I was blocked and now the article is in an incorrect state, the article "Battle of Baideng" also in this article Modu Chanyu's army was given as 400 thousand, but I changed it to 20-40 thousand, citing page 5 of "The Huns" by Gumilev as a source, but I was again accused of corruption, even in the article Kazakh invasion of Northern Bukhara When I removed Abdullah Khan II from the supporters, they threatened to block me, whereas I Bartold's "The Bukharans" in this sentence at the beginning of the article states that Tawakkal Khan carried out his campaigns after the death of Abdullah Khan II, so how could he participate in this campaign? All the edits I have made so far have been based on sources. I have always included sources. They tried to read and put me back in the old error state. Now they have blocked me. Please reconsider this. I do not consider myself guilty. Thank you all. BBotirk (talk) 11:10 am, 20 March 2026, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Take Blue Sonnet's advice to heart, and read WP:GAB. Better yet, contribute constructively on another Wikimedia project and come back in six months with a track record that demonstrates you're a good collaborator and an asset to Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Looking through the ANI report linked to above and the warning behaves you've received, the issue isn't limited to the legitimacy of this one edit. You've consistently been rude to other editors and acted as if you have personal ownership of articles. The way you've been responding to others just isn't on and you've violated the WP:CIVIL guidelines over and over again whenever someone else does something you don't like.

This is a community project so we have to collaborate and work together for it to function. You've also made multiple errors as shown by all the warnings on this Talk page, but my biggest concern is the fact that you just don't appear to work well with others.

Please look through the ANI discussion and the links provided there, then try to address the concerns that were raised. You've not touched on your behaviour at all in your appeal, you really, really need to do this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If the Editor is right, I have always admitted it, but if he is wrong, absolutely not, believe it or not, the article Battle of Tashkent (1586) is still wrong, you know what, I may have been rude, but I have never edited incorrectly, every one of my edits was based on scientific and historical works as a source, I have never edited from the sky and entered into a discussion, I have always done so only if I had sufficient grounds, don't you understand, I had one fault, and that is that it has only been 8 months since I joined Wikipedia, which limited my major edits even if I was right, I have seen how many editors with more than 10 years of experience have made mistakes in the simplest details, it is a pity that they just read the source I cited and threw me aside without considering me based on my 8 months of experience. Imagine if I also If I had 13 years of experience, would I be blocked now? Absolutely not. BBotirk (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely yes, actually. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, please unblock me, I promise that before editing articles, I will always explain to him in the talk section, even if they are unfair and I am right, I will not edit, I will always be polite, I will not argue with anyone, please, this is the first time, give me one chance and I will not make this mistake again, if I do it again, you can block me again, in short, no matter what, I completely understand, I will not edit articles on Wikipedia, even if I am right, without consulting him in the talk section, even if I get angry, I will write politely, give me one chance, please BBotirk (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We're getting there, you might find the Wikipedia:BRIE essay interesting as it applies pretty closely to your situation.

To help admins assess your appeal, can you please let us know what you would do if you came across an editor who does something you don't agree with? This is needed to show that you understand why your earlier actions were disruptive, and you also know what you should have done instead; by extension, this will also reassure admins that it won't happen again.

Take this imaginary situation and let us know your answers:

1. You add a statement and source to an article, when another editor decides to revert it without an edit summary. You're sure your edit was correct and don't know why it was reverted. What's your next step?
2. Next, imagine that the other editor continues to disagree with you after #1 and you're both absolutely convinced that you're right. If the two of you can't reach a decision, what would you do?

Take a read through Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which will help you to answer these questions. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If another editor reverts my edit without an edit summary, I would not immediately re-add it. Instead, I would assume good faith and ask the editor for an explanation on the talk page and try to understand the reason for the revert. If the disagreement continues and we cannot reach an agreement, I would not engage in edit warring but would continue the discussion and try to reach consensus. If that is not possible, I would seek outside input, such as a third opinion or use dispute resolution. I understand that my previous actions were disruptive, and I take responsibility for them. I now realize that I should have used discussion instead of repeatedly reverting. I would appreciate a second chance and will make sure to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines in the future. BBotirk (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I said it, my articles were deleted, so do you know why, just 7 hours ago, they accused me again, what's the matter, where is @Hunnic Enjoyer, I said I'm not him, I wrote a complaint, which Administrator found the time to write it, none of them, 7 years ago, someone who logged in suspected me of being a sockpuppet of @Hunnic Enjoyer, and without even a day's warning, they deleted all my articles, do you know why, because it's been 7 years since he logged in to Wikipedia, amazing, I wasn't that upset when you first blocked me because I felt there was a fault, but the second time, where is the slander, it really hurt me, on top of that, the articles I wrote in exchange for the time I spent searching were deleted, because of where is the slander, how much I have been angry with those administrators who spend time on "great" things, who wrote a sensible answer to me, at least my articles could have been up until they wrote an answer justice, no no I was right you have a lot of experience on Wikipedia you can do whatever you want it's like a religion are you slandering or lying or is yours right the reason is you entered Wikipedia earlier I asked you not to delete my sensible articles even if you don't unblock me you still didn't believe me even if I told you that I'm not that damn @Hunnic Enjoyer you didn't believe me my articles are gone they all got deleted because they suspected that they looked like @Hunnic Enjoyer Oh my God where is justice there is no such thing as justice on Wikipedia I'm leaving completely Wikipedia and the administrators have betrayed my trust I never expected this and I realized I was right that's why they slandered me and deleted my articles BBotirk (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Hello, I was recently blocked, so I would like to ask you something, the article Battle of Tashkent (1586) is in error, please correct it, Tavakkal Khan did not achieve an absolute victory in the battle, it was a Pyhrric victory, and it is not known who fought on the side of the Bukhara Khanate, it was one of Abdullah Khan II's close associates, Dustum, if you include him, at the end of the article it says "Tavakkal Khan annexed some territories" but this is incorrect, when Abdullah Khan heard that his brother Ubaydulla Khan had sent an army, he retreated from Sayram to Dasht-i-Kipchak and the Tashkent campaign ended in failure, even the article says that Abdullah Khan II then left his cousin Uzbek Sultan to protect Tashkent instead of Dustum, please correct the article taking this into account, if you don't believe me, there are sources Bartold's "The Bukharans" and Hafiz Tanish's "Abdullanama", to be more precise, it is all written on page 49 of "The Bukharans". Please correct this article. Here are the source links: https://www.scribd.com/document/629484712/Abdullanoma-2-kitob-T-2000 and https://tw.lexlib.fi/book/vWYAgDw6Ww/the-bukharans-a-dynastic-diplomatic-and-commercial-history-1550-1702.html?dsource=recommend. I think I will never be able to get out of the block. The article should not remain in the wrong state. Then I ask you again to protect my articles from vandalism and incorrect edits. Do not allow them to edit them without citing a clear source. Thank you very much. BBotirk (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:PROXYING and take it to heart before you do lose talk page access. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that, I understand. BBotirk (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please, I understand everything, please consider unblocking me. If you give me a chance, I won't make these mistakes next time, I promise. BBotirk (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe this block may be a mistake. I am not related to @Hunnic Enjoyer and I am not operating multiple accounts. I respectfully request that you review any available technical evidence, such as IP data, to confirm that I am a different user. I understand that some of my past actions may have been disruptive, and I take responsibility for that. I will follow proper procedures in the future, including discussing changes on the talk page and avoiding edit warring. I would appreciate a second chance to contribute constructively in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies. BBotirk (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia administrators, I am writing to respectfully request a review of my block. I want to make it very clear that I am not Hunnic Enjoyer and I have never used multiple accounts. All of my edits on Wikipedia are completely independent and done in good faith, with the intention of improving articles and contributing constructively to the community. If there are any similarities between my editing patterns and those of Hunnic Enjoyer, they are purely coincidental. I have never coordinated with any other accounts, and I have never attempted to manipulate votes, discussions, or content. My editing history shows my contributions are in line with Wikipedia policies, and I always strive to follow the rules and guidelines, including those regarding sockpuppetry. I fully understand the seriousness of sockpuppet investigations and the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. I am willing to cooperate fully and provide any additional information necessary to demonstrate that I am a legitimate, independent editor. I kindly ask for this block to be reviewed and for the suspicion to be reconsidered. I am committed to editing in good faith and continuing to contribute positively to Wikipedia if this misunderstanding can be resolved. Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and understanding.BBotirk (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Please don't submit duplicate unblock appeals, you've already got two appeals open so this is your third. This also reads like it was written by an AI or LLM, which worries me a little if it was. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, I didn't know that, sorry, but I'm being accused of Sockpuppet, and while I was still a suspect, they put me on G5 with the confirmed entry in my articles, but I haven't received any news yet that you were accused of Sockpuppet and it was confirmed. I'm a little shocked, because I'm guilty of the first one, but the second Sockpuppet accusation is completely wrong, and what's even more interesting is that before the suspicion was confirmed, my articles stated that he was confirmed as a Sockpuppet. BBotirk (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Did you want me to convert them to normal posts for you? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

No no, think about it, I'm still suspected of being a Sockpuppet, and my articles say it's confirmed. I just want to say that it excites me. Isn't this a mistake? My articles were listed as a confirmed Sockpuppet on G5 even though it wasn't confirmed that I was a Sockpuppet. I don't know. I don't know myself. My complaints are not being answered. Even if I confess my guilt, they still suspect me of being a Sockpuppet of some Hunnic Enjoyer without it being clear whether I will be blocked or not. What's more disturbing is that my articles were put on quick deletion because it wasn't confirmed that I was a Sockpuppet. You know, this slander is worse than the first block. BBotirk (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Sorry, I mean keep your appeal and change the duplicates to be normal comments underneath that first appeal - I don't change or remove your posts, I just stop them from being appeals. Admins don't like seeing duplicate appeals so they will just be rejected. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I said it, my articles were deleted, so do you know why, just 7 hours ago, they accused me again, what's the matter, where is @Hunnic Enjoyer, I said I'm not him, I wrote a complaint, which Administrator found the time to write it, none of them, 7 years ago, someone who logged in suspected me of being a sockpuppet of @Hunnic Enjoyer, and without even a day's warning, they deleted all my articles, do you know why, because it's been 7 years since he logged in to Wikipedia, amazing, I wasn't that upset when you first blocked me because I felt there was a fault, but the second time, where is the slander, it really hurt me, on top of that, the articles I wrote in exchange for the time I spent searching were deleted, because of where is the slander, how much I have been angry with those administrators who spend time on "great" things, who wrote a sensible answer to me, at least my articles could have been up until they wrote an answer justice, no no I was right you have a lot of experience on Wikipedia you can do whatever you want it's like a religion are you slandering or lying or is yours right the reason is you entered Wikipedia earlier I asked you not to delete my sensible articles even if you don't unblock me you still didn't believe me even if I told you that I'm not that damn @Hunnic Enjoyer you didn't believe me my articles are gone they all got deleted because they suspected that they looked like @Hunnic Enjoyer Oh my God where is justice there is no such thing as justice on Wikipedia I'm leaving completely Wikipedia and the administrators have betrayed my trust I never expected this and I realized I was right that's why they slandered me and deleted my articles BBotirk (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)You're misunderstanding me a bit. You can only have one unblock appeal open at one time - you have three open appeals. The appeals are in the blue boxes.

I asked if you want me to change it to one open appeal, but keep the text that you've written untouched as new comments below your appeal.

You cannot have three appeals open at once. You can only have one at a time.

I can fix that for you so you only have one appeal open and keep everything you've written, but I wanted your consent before I do this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would not only agree with that, but I would be very grateful, but to be honest, I don't believe that I can unblock myself and that my articles will be restored and my reputation will improve. The administrators will either not read them or reject them, I don't believe it, they did everything for a pittance. BBotirk (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) All fixed and tidied up! You've still got your original open appeal, plus the administrators can see everything you've said. I decided to keep the recent comments in their own section so it doesn't get too long; I clearly marked this new section as being directly related to your current appeal, so the admins can read everything you've written and won't miss any of it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)