User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions from User talk:Iskandar323. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions from User talk:Iskandar323. (BOT) |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
I wish you all the best and appreciate your perspectives and participation both at RSN and at the talk page. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 12:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
I wish you all the best and appreciate your perspectives and participation both at RSN and at the talk page. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 12:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
== RFC on Byzantine Empire text == |
|||
Hi! As you're someone that appreciated how I went to the sources, I'd appreciate if you could [[Talk:Byzantine Empire#RfC distinguishing Byzantium in first paragraph|participate in the RFC that just opened up]]. Thanks! [[User:Eliasbizannes|Elias]] ([[User talk:Eliasbizannes|talk]]) 00:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Israel revert == |
|||
I assume, you {{diff||1139456581||reverted}} my edits outside the history section by mistake? [[User:Triggerhippie4|Triggerhippie4]] ([[User talk:Triggerhippie4|talk]]) 07:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Well it was collateral, but the piped aid link and the cleanup tag weren't beneficial either. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323#top|talk]]) 08:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:29, 16 September 2023
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Iskandar323. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Complaint
Please do not mass delete links to “History of ancient Israel and Judah”. It seems multiple methods and justifications are given, from “copy editing”, to deleting whole paragraphs that link to the article. Drsmoo (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: Please don't cast aspersions. Redirecting and specifying incorrect, badly piped and in some cases potentially Easter egg links is simply good practice per WP:PIPE. Redirect pages are never an ideal target for a page interlink. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: But mass reverting edits, which is what you are now doing, is disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh please, it is not acceptable to mass remove links to a page. In some cases deleting whole paragraphs, in others claiming you’re simply moving material and then stealthily deleting the links. Drsmoo (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: So that's a second set of bad faith accusations. You're treading on very thin ice. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Mass removing links to the History of Ancient Israel article, especially given the sensitivity of the subject is not acceptable Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: Specifying links to a better page that either a disambiguation page or a redirect is perfectly acceptable. I seriously wonder if you have even been reading my edits, or if you are just undoing them out of hand on impulse. I can't see any normal edits or partial reverts among your edits, just mass reverts, which suggests that you are entirely violating the spirit of reversion and treating my edits like vandalism, That would be an extremely problematic behavioural issue, and highly indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed one of these edits on my watchlist. Drsmoo, I can't see how the link at Rape was an improvement, and you did not provide an edit summary. Per H:ES, it's especially important to provide an edit summary when reverting. The cited source is talking about the Israelites of the Tanakh, with over half of its citations being to biblical books. A link to Iraelites might be better. We could discuss more at the talk page, but I share at least a small part of Iskandar323's concerns about your conduct here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: It's at ANI now, after more than two dozen blind reversions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I saw. I haven't reviewed the other edits, and I'm off to bed. Might get to check in on it tomorrow. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: It's at ANI now, after more than two dozen blind reversions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Onions and Khans
Fine, let's keep the Onion. May you be boiled alive in molten silver if someone finds out. ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- On a related note, I've been writing a draft of a completely rewritten version of Genghis Khan, which I'd like to get to FA eventually. It's been on the back-burners recently, for both me and Aza24, who was also contributing. If you have any comments or contributions, I'd welcome them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Oh I see. Well I was actually in the process of beginning to try to prep the existing article for GA status. The way I see it, there is more than enough sourcing and child article content to rewrite it where it stands. I had a little heart attack when you said you were writing a whole FA article elsewhere, but I see you've only really made a start. Why not come back and edit the main article? Though incidentally, that sourcing section on your draft space piece has all the makings of its own useful side article on the availability and quality of sourcing on the Mongol period and the reliability of different Mongol histories/contemporary chronicles. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's little more than a stub at the moment—that's why I didn't want to change the main article, because I knew the process would be slow. That, and I fundamentally disagree with the organisation of the current page: the reception section, the cultural depictions section, quite a lot of the military sections, and to pivot away from weaker sources to more academic ones. Let's see how it goes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I am happy and eager to discuss any suggestions for reorganization. For now I'm largely just working with what's there, but actually, some actual discussion would help legitimize the course of travel and make me feel less like a rogue wikicowboy who is about to get their freewheeling ass shut down at any moment. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Ooo ... you already earned your Mongol GA chops. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You've worked on quite a few of the children! Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, Battle of the Indus and Irghiz River Skirmish. And I was enjoying reading about Ai-Khanoum quite recently. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed I have! Lately, I've gotten rather distracted by Hellenistic history (Ai-Khanoum, List of cities founded by Alexander the Great which will hopefully be nominated at FLC soon, and others) but my aim is definitely to return to Mongol history this year. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Ooo ... you already earned your Mongol GA chops. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I am happy and eager to discuss any suggestions for reorganization. For now I'm largely just working with what's there, but actually, some actual discussion would help legitimize the course of travel and make me feel less like a rogue wikicowboy who is about to get their freewheeling ass shut down at any moment. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's little more than a stub at the moment—that's why I didn't want to change the main article, because I knew the process would be slow. That, and I fundamentally disagree with the organisation of the current page: the reception section, the cultural depictions section, quite a lot of the military sections, and to pivot away from weaker sources to more academic ones. Let's see how it goes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Oh I see. Well I was actually in the process of beginning to try to prep the existing article for GA status. The way I see it, there is more than enough sourcing and child article content to rewrite it where it stands. I had a little heart attack when you said you were writing a whole FA article elsewhere, but I see you've only really made a start. Why not come back and edit the main article? Though incidentally, that sourcing section on your draft space piece has all the makings of its own useful side article on the availability and quality of sourcing on the Mongol period and the reliability of different Mongol histories/contemporary chronicles. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: genetic studies on jews - wiki article
Hey, i just wanted to let you know that they are discussing removing your contribution in “genetic studies on jews” article’s talk page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews Tezak habra 2 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Friendly notification: Reliablie source noticeboard
Hello! I'm just stopping by to inform you about an RSN discussion I recently opened concerning the recent dispute at Genetic studies on Jews. I believe you suggested it, which I think is great idea. Best to seek outside opinions, as the talk page discussion shows some telltale signs of becoming unproductive on its current course.
Link to discussion:
I wish you all the best and appreciate your perspectives and participation both at RSN and at the talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
RFC on Byzantine Empire text
Hi! As you're someone that appreciated how I went to the sources, I'd appreciate if you could participate in the RFC that just opened up. Thanks! Elias (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Israel revert
I assume, you reverted my edits outside the history section by mistake? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well it was collateral, but the piped aid link and the cleanup tag weren't beneficial either. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)