Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Flemmish Nietzsche. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oleg Malis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Please refrain from removing content from the Bahmani Sultanate article. You are claiming duplication, but I originally created that content within the Bahmani article before adding it to others. DeepstoneV (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Could you please refrain from reverting my edits over minor details? There are only five preceding states, either totally or partially, and they should be listed. Let's avoid engaging in an edit war. DeepstoneV (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sobre Hola bro como te llamas gracia por ayudarme en la pagina
Hola bro como te llamas gracia por ayudarme en la pagina Reina Hispanoamericana 2025 pero en realidad serie de 2024 es unnaño y el año tiene distinta fecha de 2025 serie su feche pero gracias Rafael34784 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please use English on English Wikipedia? Though if google translate is correct, my answer is that there is already a page for the 2023/2024 event and thus the duplicate content from that page does not need to be on the article for the 2025 event, which has not happened yet. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution
Hello. I noticed you moved pages around, and copied content from a different page - I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's licensing requires you identify where you copied it from (i.e. I think "Merging from other article" is not enough), moves do that automatically, copy-and-paste moves don't.
Here is a guideline for that: WP:COPYWITHIN. – 143.208.238.41 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was already substantial content on the page that I moved the old content to, and I didn't copy over all the content as some was duplicate in both articles. I'm aware copy and paste moves are looked down upon but in this case there was little article history in both articles and a regular move would not have worked. Also, you may want to log in. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account - and it's not that it's frowned upon (I mean it might, but I'm not talking about that, I don't know), it's that the copy-left license of all contributions in Wikipedia require you identify where the content came from if you use content directly copied from those contributions. Basically, you needed to have written in your edit summary (which I'm pretty sure you can just do with a new dummy edit) what exact page the content you were copying came from. – 143.208.238.41 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the reversion on Erik Sparre. I didn't notice this convention when I was looking to model my article so I assumed brevity was given primacy. I appreciate you looking out. Thanks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please perform quality edits on the Gupta Empire's article? There are inaccuracies regarding some kingdoms that did not precede or succeed the Guptas. Could you remove them? I've attempted to do so, but someone keeps reverting the changes. DeepstoneV (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot instate the edits of yours that keep being reverted because @Malik-Al-Hind unfortunately has a valid point - you are removing claims of perfectly fine reliable sources and are not in its place providing an alternative to the "non reliable sources". You made a bold edit, it was reverted, (multiple times) so please bring it to the talk page per WP:BRD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed the Preceded states in the articles of Bahmani and Delhi Sultanate, Just do the same at gupta one too as most Preceding and Succeeding states mentioned their really didnt even Preceded or Succeeded them DeepstoneV (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, however in the past you yourself have advocated for listing every single successor state (1) and I later reverted those edits, so I don't understand why now you are asking me to simplify successor state listings. Nevertheless, there is now only six successors listed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Becuz the preceding and succeeding states mentioned in Delhi sultanate article atcually preceeded them, In the case of Gupta, Most of them didn't Preceded and Succeeded it DeepstoneV (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about what I did at iPad Pro (7th generation), I only was trying to improve this page. Not vandalise. Look, I’m not a screwed up person on Wikipedia. I only improve Wikipedia articles for better user experience, not ruin articles or be engaged in an edit war.
More details are on my User page. Under “Brief description”. I explain that I improve Wikipedia articles for better user experience.
Also, see my talk page that I have never received any Warnings yet.
I didn’t even really realise that the stub tag was already in this article.
Generally, that particular article was worldwide and not meant to be written in American style “e.g, May 7, 2024”?
However, I know very well about the MOS:DATEVAR Wikipedia policy.
I never said your edits were vandalism in any way, nor am I trying to engage in an edit war. Just be more conscious of other tags already present in the article and read what certain tags say before adding them (expand section tag for example uses the word "section") to an article.
On the date topic, it seemed you in your edit summary wanted to shift the article into American date format (mdy) despite there already being three uses of dates in the worldwide format, which would thus go against your cite of MOS:DATEVAR, although I see there may have been a misunderstanding in your original intent. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that most of the sentences are not suitable for a Wikipedia article. If you don't mind, please feel free to edit all sentences. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though not all content you added is irrelevant, keep in mind summary style when writing in that not all information that has been written in sources needs to be included; a lot seems to not actually be about the massacre itself but rather the precise detail of events surrounded by it. As you said, this means a chunk of the content is not suitable for this article, and I will advise to either remove the problematic parts or strategically place it in more appropriate articles. Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, could you also point out any readability issues with what I've written? My English writing skills are weak, and I'm finding it quite difficult to translate from Russian to English. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you, I had a learning disorder(Disorder of written expression) when I was younger, and my writing skills are very immature because of my learning disorder(Disorder of written expression), which is fundamentally why my writing skills are very immature because of my learning disorder, so I'm hoping you can help me. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no disorder in my ability to read papers, but I find it very difficult to improve my ability to write legibly and appropriately. I'm no longer sure how to improve my article. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article is not "your" article (see WP:OWN for more details), and secondly, your writing is fine, and the article seems much less bloated than it was when your content was first added. Additionally, you mentioned above that you're finding it hard to "translate from Russian to English". Just to clarify, is this so you can best use the source to write good content in your own words, or are you directly translating the Russian source and putting that translation in the article? For the quotes this is of course fine, just make sure you use your own words when writing. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not verbatim from the author, with due respect to copyright. If I had posted the original, it would have been much longer than it is. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"translate": It was an inclusive expression meaning "to change (something) into a different form". I admit, I wrote something weird. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've removed too many descriptions, and we've edited out any potential copyright violations. Is this good enough for you? Fysjsj2517 (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is much better now, but could you clarify who "we" is? It is just you editing on your account, correct? One more thing that could be improved though is the large and excess block quotes, something WP:QUOTEFARM talks about in detail as to why this is bad practice. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was “we” what you were referring to? It turns out I was using “we” for “First-person pronouns”. I just realized for the first time that I used “WE” in a sentence where I should have used “I” when using first person pronouns. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nikolayevsk incident" Another question
"This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." section doesn't make much sense to me. and I blame my incompetence. Can you explain it to me? My English is not very good yet.Fysjsj2517 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to another article, say molecular biology, you will see that there is a good amount of evenly placed links to other articles that help the reader read more about or understand content. The content you added is largely a big sea of unlinked text, and certain words should be linked to other articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very disappointed that my pages regarding VON were taken down since it was deemed to be "not notable." This does a disservice to all of the work I put into it. Not everything falls neatly into the umbrella of "notability." I would like to know what you count as being notable enough to have a Wikipedia page in the first place. I don't want to crash out over this but it was uncalled for because my contest to the speedy deletion was ignored. HeliumMatrix (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, quoting from the page WP:EFFORT,
"It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines."
Secondly, I did reply to your deletion contestion on VON, although you may have not seen it before the article was changed back to a redirect. Repeating what I said before, which is explained on WP:N, a musical artist merely existing or having their content online does not mean they automatically deserve a page on the encyclopedia. A page needs reliable sources that are independent of the subject, of which a Spotify artist page is not, to establish notibility. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,just asking, where is the info for the political view userbox? I wanna have it on my userpage,thanks Garef14:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the liberterian one, you can simply paste {{User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/Libertarian conservative}} (take out the nowiki) into your userpage and stylize its formatting however you want with CSS. The (anti) communism one can be found at {{User:Antigrandiose/userbox/che}}. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes broke nearly a thousand properly directed Wikilinks (over 500 for Esotericism and over 250 for Esoteric). If you are going to make changes to redirects with so many properly redirected incoming links from articles, you need to go through and disambiguate all those incoming links FIRST. I have reverted your changes. Discuss on the appropriate talk page(s) if you continue to have objections.
I also reverted your major changes to Eastern esotericism. While being bold with minor edits is not a problem, edits that remove over 68,000 bytes of text and images should really be discussed on the talk page to get consensus prior to implementing them. Skyerise (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that — didn't think about the wikilinks that might be broken when I changed the redirect target, I mainly did it because it didn't really make sense for esoteric or (-ism) to redirect to only western esotericism and not the disambig page. You are free to trout me if you like.
For the eastern esotericism article, you yourself added the too many photos tag, so I don't see why you would revert the removal of extra photos. Additionally, I explained in my edit summary why I was removing 68,000+ bytes of info — it's mostly either poorly translated or duplicated content that only exists from a translation of the accompanying Portuguese article. We already have an article on "Esoteric Buddhism", and it is called Vajrayana. The only reason that section existed, and the article was already too long to begin with, (16,200+ words) is again because of a miscommunication or duplicate of content created from the translation. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll self-revert my revert on that. And I don't disagree with you on your reason for changing the redirects: it's just not a strong enough reason to justify the breaking of all those links. If you feel like going through them first and making sure they each link to the right place first... I do that kind of thing myself sometimes, but 1000 links is a bit daunting... Skyerise (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that you apologize for your gratuitious and absurd attack, Skyerise, of calling me a "joker" and associating the offense with my presumed nationality/language. You two are not being civil and open to discussion, as Talk:Eastern esotericism shows. Also, I call for arbitration the admin Liz (sorry if not available, I've consulted the recently active admins list), and also Joshua Jonathan, who recently has been contacted by Skyerise in the matters of dispute. Bafuncius (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not the ones being uncivil here. You're constantly edit warring and trying to push your poorly-translated Portuguese content that has no place on this wiki. Just let it go and stop misusing translations. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the message I left on your talk page. Not every edit ever made by Deepstone needs to be reverted. Most were good and constructive edits where articles would actually be worse if you reverted his and all succeeding edits. Also, make sure when reverting under BANREVERT that you only revert Deepstone's edits and not everyone else's edits following his. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I've edited pages pertaining to "the Balkans or Eastern Europe" hundreds of times now, I don't think I need a reminder of what a "contentious topic" is. If this is from my edit on Russia, which I assume it is, I never got around to replying to the user who reverted my edit and started a talk page discussion as I got wrapped up in something else. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit violates the policies and injunctions listed in the above message (“adhere to purposes of Wikipedia” and “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines”) since it restates clearly unreliable sources (anonymous telegram posts) while removing other, reliably sourced info. I’d appreciate it if you self reverted. Volunteer Marek 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Baluch/Baloch Genocide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher21:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be nice to have, but I don't think it would be of much use as cases like this when reviewing new pages doesn't come up very often, and I haven't yet performed any RMs, which would be the other main reason to get the perm, so I think I'll wait. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,I have observed that you are interested in South Asian history.I have recently visited an article named as Mughal-Rajput Wars.This article is continuously going under vandalism and addition of a great misinformation on Wikipedia.It is edited multiple times in last few days or months in a distruptive manner.
Any Biased user have added a millitary conflict table in this article to show Rajput Supremecy over the mughals.This table contains highly misinformation and biased information.
Let me explain;
The table in that article contains a millitary conflict named as Battle of Sambhar(1709) .It's result is also cited but it's completely a wrong information as Hussain Ali barha died in 1720 and they claimed his death in 1709.And if we just look at the list it contains most of Non created articles which are just named by the editor and looks like WP:OR.
I have a appeal to you please revert the article to the older and appropriate version.Also remove the biased table from the article so that the spread of misinformation should decrease.As almost all mughal battles and sieges (millitary conflicts) are undergoing vandalism so we need to save the articles from unusual vandalism.It will be good if you will understand the gravity of the topic and take an appropriate step towards this as fast as possible.
I have one more request if you are able to fullfill that.I have observed a lot of Indian Millitary Conflict articles are getting created Nowdays from past 8-10 months.I know the reason behind is the communal hate against a particular religion.These articles are getting created to show an unusual supremecy over some Indian empires (specially Muslim kingdoms) in the subcontinent.The Mughal Empire is continuously subjected to such kind of vandalism where a lot of new articles getting created with minimal source information and maximum original researches.The editors brings whole of their opinions in their articles and cites them by any Wikipedia reliable books and sources.These kind of articles even gets selected through AFC processes.The articles are created even their exact names are not even mentioned in the cited sources.Please take any appropriate action to stop these kind of article formation or if you are able to contact any higher administrators to stop this kind of Vandalism on Wikipedia.It will be good to save the already existing information on Wikipedia.I know Wikipedia is made to edit but not in such a distruptive way the indian nationalist users are doing.
An article named as Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) had been created multiple times and got deleted because such kind of information is completely a myth.This article is recreated a few days ago and even transferred to mainspace but any editor re transferred it to draftspace.Now a discussion is going on where a gang/team/squad of indian nationalist users that is continuously giving their opinions as "Keep" so that this article get kept.This article is needed to be deleted as it is completely a POV biased and Original research article.As the books cited only contains a few lines about this battle which was even wrong.
Please check this kind of new article too or notify the higher admins of Wikipedia to stop these kind of activities on Wikipedia.
Your concerns are definitely valid, and the Mughal-Rajput wars article is now extended-protected, but you and your group should stop what they're doing as well; combating a sockfarm disruptively trying to push one POV by disruptively pushing the opposite POV is not very constructive, and ends up resulting in unnecessary sockfarm warring and page protection where there otherwise wouldn't be, and a general worse state for many of the affected Indian milhist articles. Creating new accounts after your group already has 10+ confirmed socks is not going to help your situation either. If you have any further questions, email me, but I or someone else is going to have to file an SPI report if you don't stop disruptively editing. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was my mistake and I accept it that I had to make new accounts.But i can explain its reason though, the indian. Users are specially targetting the history of muslims and they are trying to destroy all those articles which are related to them(specially millitary conflicts).Whenever I made any new account I tried to restore the previous / older version of articles which are continuously vandalised.
I had not joined Wikipedia to destroy any page but to save pages which are undergoing vandalism because of just communal hate.They have a large group which I cannot handle and they everyday makes new accounts after getting banned.They creates fantasy millitary conflict articles and also supported by some experienced editors who targets the articles made in the favour of these mentioned kingdoms.
A few examples are here:
•Nizam's Carnatic Campaigns
•Maratha Invasion of awadh
•Conquest of Kabbaldurga
•Siege of Channapatna
•Conquest of Gagraun
Etc etc articles are deleted as per consensus , but the major votes were by the Editing squad of Wikipedia vandalised users.They gives the same opinions on the deletion discussions of any articles.Like all these articles were victory of these mentioned Kingdoms so they voted that it to be deleted.While the articles like Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) they gives opinion that it must be kept instead the article is completely a fantasy.
Here a list of users that are sock of each other as well as involved in meatpuppetry.
User-Ranadhira-this user continuesly supports this kind of distruptive editors.
User-Mohammad Umar Ali and Rawn3012-These are Socks as they created same article of Delhi-Mewar wars from these two Accounts.
User-BHUPENDRA JOGI
And many more
I had to make further accounts so that I could save the history of these mentioned kingdoms.My intention wasn't wrong.If you think that I am wrong , i am ready to leave this platform but ask the administrators, will they be able to take any strong step to stop this kind of vandalism?If yes than I am okay with it.
I had notified ivanvector about the same problem earlier but I got blocked.And you will be wonder that this was also done by Ranadhira and his squad including based kashmiri etc etc.Even they themselves are sock and meat puppets they applied for my block and I got blocked.Now no one can Interfere in the fantasy articles and edits created by them.
I am not even interested in it but I made this account majorly to notify the admins about whats going on with Indian history.I will be glad if Wikipedia stops all this together with my block.Take any strong steps towards this and stop it as soon as possible.
ty for helping me out bro, yeah I know those were not references I was trying to fix up the listing, I found the issue but as soon as I was gonna add it, it randomly updated by itself and looked at the updates and it was you who fixed it WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you seem to have just removed one or two sentences, but not paraphrased it. I reworded it so it's not a direct copy anymore, and filled the citation you added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for taking the time to merge the Moldavian campaigns. Now we have a compact, long and well-defined article. Regards and have a nice editing, SuperΨDro10:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please revert your edit, the article as it stands is empty regardless, having empty sections at least gives the reader an outline of the topic which they can do research on elsewhere. It being completely empty is more of an eyesore and misleads the reader. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD involving this article was closed as a Merge but you created a Redirect without merging any content. When do you plan on doing this? Because your actions are not in the spirit of the AFD closure. LizRead!Talk!00:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I didn't merge anything, but I couldn't find much sourced content that would be very helpful in the bridge article. I can merge some stuff over if you wish but almost all of the content in the bridges construction article was either in the bridge article, unsourced, or not really applicable to the bridge article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't plan on merging any content, I'll have to revert your edits. LizRead!Talk!
Request on 11:33:49, 26 June 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by 197.95.151.153
Hello. I am busy creating a Wikipage about a historical figure in South African history who had an impact on the formation of the country. While there are no sources solely dedicated to him, he is mentioned in a variety of books and other relevant sources online. He is a an important person in our history and have put together much information of importance and relevance.
My submission got declined because of the resources.
I initially declined your submission because you had only added the one link to the Dutch Biographical Dictionary as a reference, which was insufficient at the time. Please resubmit the article for review, (click the resubmit button on the declined notice on the draft page) and additionally try to mention in the lead (above the first header) why Herman Klynveld is notable beyond him being an "influential political figure" and explain what the urls at the bottom actually are (for the journals linked, say what journal to help those who can't read Dutch) — this will help your draft have a higher likelihood of being accepted. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the updates as suggested and added additional references as there are so many. I have also resubmited for approval. Holding thumbs. 197.95.151.153 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I resubmited the article
Hello, thank you for your criticism on my draft article Noah Hacham, I think it's now ready. I also checked the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and found that he fits criteria 1 (he is cited in the field of ancient Jewish history in the Greco-Roman period) and 5 (he is a senior lecturer, has tenure and is also the head of the Mandell institute of Jewish studies in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). I don't know if it matters but he has a page in Hebrew Wikipedia. Enhazaam (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing declined your submission, and I agree with his reasoning; you still need more sources to establish the notability of this subject, and it is not clear if this article does not do that how it passes either of your mentioned criteria for WP:PROF. Being acknowledged for one's studies is much less than having "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline", and being a senior lecturer or being the head of some institute does not immediately pass criterion 5 either; he would have to hold a distinguished professor role rather than any lecturer role. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FN, thanks for keeping an eye at this and many other articles but be careful that you don't fall afoul of WP:3RR yourself in reverting disruptive edits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of your good work on India. I even thanked you before I restored the article to Abecedare's version. (And I was aware of your knowledge of FAOWN, as I saw it in an edit summary.) I am strapped for time. The article had degenerated. I had to make a decision. If I have undone some useful minor edits (GDP numbers etc), please restore them. But introduction of new sentences requires much more consensus than appears thus far on the talk page. In the past, editors have discussed even minor changes in the lead's prose for weeks. Please see the talk page archives. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I just think doing large-scale revision restorations is improper as usually most things which get through the people who maintain this article are correct minor edits, and instead any major undiscussed (or not discussed enough) changes should be reverted individually, but if you're strapped for time I see your reasoning. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s possible that this IP is a sock as well if he knows this, but regardless I think someone should look into this. Those accounts do look really suspicious. And it seems they may have been vote stacking on the Mughal dynasty page. Maybe sometime I should file a report myself, but that’s something that is new to me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the mentioned user is obviously a sock, as well as the IP, (just based on their location) but I have better things to do than to be filing SPI reports all day. Maybe you, or @Ratnahastin as he has extensive experience with SPI, could do so once you collect evidence. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy of you to just revert my edits with one click. I've added captions to photos, put photos in chronological order, added proper name in the infobox, improved the division into subsections, etc. Please don't do that again. Marcin 303 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of your edits were bad, but please use edit summaries when making edits, as otherwise you are not explaining why you make edits that could be potentially controversial. The native name and photo edits were all fine, but changing "Lviv" to "Lwow", removing certain links, adding "As one of the largest and most influential royal cities of Poland", removing "(Danzig)", etc. should at least be explained as for someone that's not you it's not apparent why those changes are necessary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please send me a message first. One-click reverts in cases other than blatant vandalism, etc. are just lazy and disrespectful. Marcin 303 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of your edits and your redlinked user page I assumed when I first saw your changes that you were a brand new user, but as that is obviously not the case I will do that in the future. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information regarding Sockpuppets
I am grateful to you that you have taken a strong step towards users like Hashid khan and Thehistoryenjoyer.These users are completely making POVish edits and pushing one sided victories.They are specially creating Millitary Conflict articles which even lacks the sufficient Citations.You will be wonder to see that the user the historyenjoyer recently created an article named as The Maratha rebellion another POVish article.To push "maratha victory" they have created this article although I didn't found the same name in any source that he used for the article.Also if we look at the timeline of the war it's 1644-1674 A.D. while he added Battle of Bhupalgarh which was fought in 1679 A.D.Also he have added the Bijapur Sultanate and Mughal Empire together against maratha empire.(what you conclude from this) Bijapur and Mughal empire were never allies as they were rivals that's why Siege of Bijapur under aurangzeb took place.Here he also added Shah Jahan at this time not a single conflict between maratha and Mughals had took place.
I am requesting you to look into this matter and apply for the deletion of the article:The Maratha rebellion
Also as i had mentioned earlier Mughal-Rajput Wars first of all this name isn't mentioned in any of the sources clearly, i have thoroughly checked it.The first need that this article with less sources to be deleted or the POVish Table that is added by some user recently must be removed.As my account can be get banned in a few days or hours.You Must keep the care of all these pre-Existing Wikipedia articles and observe the activities of these POV pushing editors.
Thanks you so much for helping!!! Masterliverwort (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also one thing I forgot to type is that if you will observe the edits made by these users.Must keep eyes on Ratnahastin,Rawn3012,Mohammad Umar Ali and The history enjoyer.
If you look at the oldest versions of Rawn and Mohammad Umar Ali , the one I'd had made the article of Delhi-Mewar wars and another account published it.These might be confirmed sock puppets together with ratnahastin as ratnahastin is the mastermind of all this kind of destruction.If you will check the previous versions of talk page of Ratnahastin, you will get that he suggested Rawn3012 multiple times for further POVish edits.
Calling Ratnahastin "the mastermind of all this destruction" is a bit PAish; I somewhat doubt an editor who's been around since 2021 and has 10,000+ edits is really a sockmaster. MuA and Rawn also have SPI reports filed against them, but that doesn't mean they're actually socks until checkuser confirms it, which we've been waiting for for a month now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to resolve those issues, yes; if Historyenjoyer10 does turn out to be a sock (which from their editing patterns is almost certainly one as you have said) I will nominate the Maratha rebellion for G5 for speedy deletion. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these are needed to be considered and these all users must be kept under suspected puppets.
Please take any action towards this or they will destroy the pre existing better articles on Wikipedia and make their fantasy articles here. Masterliverwort (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the former two users already have an SPI report filed against them, filed by me, but are awaiting a checkuser for these claims to be verified, but I will file a report for these other editors if there does turn out to be sufficient evidence. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
=>Please Consider Ranadhira too[[20] as he is also involved together with Rawn3012 in multiple edits.As you see all they are trying to remove or add Shivaji in battle of purandar.
=>Chauthcollector is also a member of this group [21]
=>Bhupendra Jogi as I mentioned above
=>Malik al Hind also destroying the article of mughal empire at next level suspected to be a sock.[22]
Hello there , I Edited the Battle of Purandar removing Shivaji because sources used Didn't mention him in the battle but for Treaty, then i got warned by SKAG123 so I didn't edit that Page further, a citation after Shivaji with a note about his presence would be appreciated to clear the confusion, Regards Chauthcollector (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i have observed this account is also created newly.And pushing POVish maratha victory articles, Removing shivaji etc etc.These kind of edits must be considered as distruptive.And as if you will see as fast as i mentioned him here , he fastly came here to give an explanation.
I want you to keep eyes on all these users who are entering the chat after I have reported you about sock puppets.And if you see he is trying to make any article draft 'Battle of Vellore' as Deccan Sultanates victory so that he can escape this sock puppet investigation report.But keep eyes on him as he is doing this to save himself.I will mention some more Wikipedia destroyers that are member of this group of meat/sock puppets.
I have already justified that the sources mention Shivaji in the Treaty and not in battle, I have stopped editing that page further and yes i did disruptive editing when I was newbie, i apologise on that and will follow the rules further, you can keep an eye on me if you still have doubt Chauthcollector (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!!
I am here to inform you about a new user.This user have recently created a new article-Battle of Dodderi[28]
Please keep eyes on this user as i fear that this user may be a new pov pushing user.[29]
I am here to inform you about how the Hashid khan changed the result of an article along with its Citation, check this.[30][31]
Please revert his edits , if I will do so , it will called a vandalism.Please keep eyes on these "Mughals, Delhi Sultanate,Ghurids, Ghaznavids" related articles and the other articles that I had mentioned above earlier.
I have seen that you have removed the infobox from Deccani-Vijayanagar wars.Please re-add the infobox because the infobox contains the info. About the involvement of different states/kingdoms and results together with territorial changes.If the that infobox was too long than how does this [32] article have much long infobox?
Please recheck and remove the unnecessary information as the box contained many important Citations.There was around 83 references earlier when infobox was there but now it's only 67.
It will be good if you discuss the results of the war if you have any doubt about it.Revert only if you agree with my point.It is not important to revert that , but it is important to save the earlier mentioned pages.
Just because the infobox has sourced information and "contains the info" doesn't mean it should contain such info; a 175+ year string of conflicts should not include the individual leaders and generals, nor should state what territory was gained or include any result of "who won", as it is not one single war but many engagements over a long period; yes, the Deccan sultanates of course won in the battle of Talikota, but that does not mean they won the entire conflict between them and Vijayanagara. See Ottoman–Habsburg wars (and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) for a good example of how the infobox for a long, multi-war-spanning conflict should look like. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got frustrated by seeing this much POV users on Wikipedia.Keep in mind that I wasn't ever in the mood to destroy Wikipedia, i wanted to save the Wikipedia from these kind of users.
Now look what they are doing......
Here they created an biased article named as Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[33].
Now note my points please.
-This user have added a lot of sources that are WP:RAJ. And the article is just made on the basis of a single line ,with a small information given in sources looks WP:OR type.
-They have added it as Maratha victory (as i told you above why they are doing this) while it was a mere plunder not even the sources cited have the in depth knowledge about that.
-As I had told you to keep eyes on Mughal Empire related articles.This is made to show Maratha Supremecy over Mughals as the Bengal Subah was a subah of Mughal Empire.
now look which users have edited it frequently[34]-Akshunwar and P******2008.
-In latest the user historyenjoyer10 who had earlier made an article named as the Maratha rebellion as maratha victory added the same article to 1st battle of katwa so that it will become visible to all and spread of misinformation become common.[35]
Let's focus our eyes on this new user historyenjoyer10
-Look what he is doing.[36]Creating a new POVish article [37] with full of fantasy (WP:RAJ and WP:OR)
please check the contribution history of user historyenjoyer10,you will get something interesting.
It's not over , their team is huge.We need to identify them.
So Rathnahastin added {{user grieving}} to his user page, then didn't edit for two weeks, removed the tag and that supposedly means he's the sockmaster of Hashid Khan just because the latter got blocked during that time span? You're really overthinking this; just because Ratnahastin has edited in the same topic area and has made SPI reports against your group in no way means he's a sockmaster. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "eastern Ukraine" just suggests that the settlement is located in the east of the country, and gives a rough idea of geography, without assuming that the reader already knows where Donetsk Oblast is located. This seems to be a common formulation in such articles about the settlements (e.g. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, Izium etc.), but I suppose it could be reworded to avoid any potential confusion. Thoughts? Mellk (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the location of the settlement works fine in the two examples you gave, as those only mention the oblast in the first sentence, but in a geo-stub article where hromada, raion, oblast are all on the first line, (which I think is the correct formatting choice nonetheless) adding anything other than "Ukraine" at the end sounds somewhat grammatically off; saying something along the lines of "is a rural settlement in eastern Ukraine, in Volnovakha Raion, Donetsk Oblast" sounds much better, though for non-city articles I don't think specifying the geographical area is necessary when a cursory glance at the infobox map (which I also think should be by default set in the switcher for Ukraine as a whole first rather than oblast first for this reason) will give a general idea of where the subject of the article is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, an editor Sutyarishi in the RfC at Mughal dynasty, offered an option 3, which you are perhaps aware of. It had a few problems, and thus I suggested him in his talk page to choose the Indo-Persian option that I had initially provided but then removed right before the start of the RfC:
He agreed to this construct. I thus suggest that you too should accept the option, as we are currently at a deadlock for the past two weeks, and if all editors supporting option 1 support option 3 as well, we would finally have a consensus. PadFoot (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I certainly don't disagree that the Mughals were an "Indo-Persian dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin", but with this proposal we seem to be veering into the territory of "Indo-Muslim" which was opposed in the Mughal Empire RfC; any short dashed labels such as these I feel don't deserve a mention in the lead and are inherently, unless shown to be widely used in sources, synth-ey, and give undue weight to an aspect of the dynasty which was not its defining feature. The reason I proposed to originally add "Indianized" was as a more accurate phrasing of "was an Indian dynasty", as they, as I said in my first comment on the topic, were not an Indian dynasty, and serves necessary to contrast with the otherwise misleading "was a dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin", which while true may mislead one to think that they were always "Turco-Mongol" in nature, while prefacing it with "Indianized", a somewhat-less-synthetic concise way of saying "they were foreigners who effectively became an Indian dynasty akin to any other through their adoption of Indian cultural practices and identity", gives due weight to the two most prominent aspects of the dynasty (that they were Turco-Mongol in origin but "became Indian"); the label proposed as option 3, however does not address these problems; while the Mughals being influenced by Persian culture is a historical fact and important, it does not warrant a synthetic label such as "Indo-Persian", per my stated reasoning. I would be fine with a wording of "was an Indianized Persianate dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin", however, as both terms are generally agreed upon, but it is a bit clunky wording.
However, this clunky wording, or any mention of "Indianized", is only needed if we feel it is necessary do go into such detail in the first sentence of the lead. If other editors insist that such nuance is better somewhere else, "was a South Asian dynasty" would be fine as well, though more precise and accurate detail is always better if possible. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the RfC, and it seems that we are, in fact, not in a deadlock. We have more option 1 support than option 2 as of now, and thus the addition of a third option is unnecessary. PadFoot (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um…consensus is not just voting. You do realize that right? And that guy literally just voted yesterday. Furthermore Sutyarashi while supporting option 3, stated that he prefers the status quo(option 2) over option 1 anyway. Most importantly, there’s a lot of questions left unanswered.
I have a question for Flemmish. This was never really answered, but why do you have a preference for the term “Indianized” over “Persaianized”? We have sources which use the latter term. Nobody really seems to be answering this at all. But it doesn’t really make much sense to leave “indianized” in the lead, when one can just as easily argue that they are “Persianized”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this an RfC and not just a simple talk page discussion. The outcome of the RfC would at the end be determined by the support for each option. If the no further votes come in for say a week, this will be the consensus. Or alternatively the RfC is automatically closed after 30 days of being listed. PadFoot (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you fail to understand that consensus is not just voting. And Sutyarashi already stated he prefers the status quo.
I think the biggest issue is that non of you guys have provided a legitimate reason for adding the term “Indianized” over “Persianized”. Sutyarashi also correctly pointed this out, but why exactly do you have a preference for the term “Indianized” over “persianized”? I asked this question repeatedly, and nobody seems to be able to answer this.
The user who closes the RFC determines who’s right depending on the weight of the arguments made. Voting is just a small part of that.
But most importantly, non of you guys really answered this question. You tried to do with Sutyarashi but even he pointed out how Persianized the Mughals were. So why do you have a preference for the term “indianized” over “Persianized”? The fact that no one has been able to give an adequate answer says a lot. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this before and we are not discussing this again here. Both I and Flemmish have provided adequate reasons to use Indianized over Persianized, which you have ignored. PadFoot (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you provided it, it shouldn’t be difficult to show it to me again. As a matter of fact, I’ve asked this question repeatedly. And it was either ignored, or was given an inadequate answer which usually led to more questions from me which went by unanswered.
Even @Sutyarashi pointed this out to you in his topic page and you didn’t seem to have a response to this.
“ The Mughals themselves did not actually culturally Persianize, the Turco-Mongol Timurids had become culturally Persianized and thus their branch the Mughals also had Persian elements in their culture, but the dynasty became more and more culturally Indian, and less Persian because of this.”
Sorry, but you need to see articles on Mughal cuisine, Mughal architecture, Mughal art and Mughal clothing: all of these had visible Persian influence until the very end. Mughals spoke Persian as their primary court language till their demise in 1857. Until the reign of Aurangzeb, less than 30% administration was Indian, rest was Turkish and Iranian. Mughals were definitely a Persianate dynasty.
“From an ethnic point of view, the first Mughal emperor, i.e, Babur was a Turco-Mongol, and spoke the Chagatai Turk. His son was half-Persian and also spoke Chagatai. Akbar had a mostly Persian ancestry (75%) and spoke the Persian language and didn't know Chagatai Turk. However, his culture became more and more Indian. His son Jahangir was half Indian, and his grandson Shah Jahan was mostly Indian, and from them onwards the dynasty had a mostly Indian ancestry, albeit a very small number of emperors who were half-Persian and half-Indian.”
Seems to be borderline original research. You should remember that paternal descentwas what mattered at all to the royalty of past, and Mughals used to called themselves Timurids, not Indian.
“Aurangzeb onwards all emperors spoke the Hindustani language.”
Reference for it?
“Thus from all points of views, the entire dynasty except the first two emperors were Indian/Indianized, in ancestry, in language and in culture (again, with some Persian elements earlier, but more Indian). Besides, most sources call the dynasty Indian, with Turco-Mongol origin.”
Again, looks like OR. You are downplaying the Persian influence the Mughals had.
Now, I'm not denying that Mughal dynasty had Indian cultural influences; they ruled in India for around three centuries after all. However, the culture they followed was Indo-Persian or Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb, having both Persian and Indian elements. Even Mughal culture redirects to Indo-Persian culture. Labelling the whole dynasty as Indian/Indianized is even more wrong than saying it a Persian/Persianized dynasty. I believe my proposed lede has better merit. Otherwise I'm inclined to status quo.”
You didn’t refute this. You even wrote that you agreed with some of his points which was entirely centered on this particular argument. So what exactly changed your mind? The fact that you got one more vote two days ago which doesn’t even determine the outcome of this consensus, and could easily change with another users vote?
Im just saying, there is valid criticism for leaving the term “indianized” in the article that hasn’t been properly addressed. It just lacks nuance for such a multi cultural dynasty.
What does Gotitbro being active in caste-related articles have to do with the Jhala dynasty article (as they haven't once edited it) or mean they are supposedly a sock, despite their 88,000 edits? Not everyone active in articles pertaining to castes you don't like, or castes where socks have been previously active, is themself a sock. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked the editing history carefully, I am confident that every edit ever made not only by this IP address but by all IP addresses in the range 2409:40D6:26:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been made by Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala, so I have blocked the range. JBW (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: there's certainly striking similarity between some editing from that range and some editing from IP addresses used by Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala; enough similarity to make me highly suspicious. However, there's no particular thing which is unambiguous proof, there are too few edits from the range to build up a bigger picture out of multiple small details, a significant proportion of the edits from the range don't seem to be connected, and all but two of the relevant edits were in 2022 or earlier. Taking all of those factors into account, I don't think there's enough to justify any administrative action. However, if you see any more suspicious editing from the same IP range then please feel very welcome to tell me, and I will reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know there are plenty of sources talking about her resignation, and the topic is definitely notable, however the section in the Non-cooperation movement (2024) article about the topic is itself only two paragraphs, so that should be expanded first before thinking about a WP:SPLIT; it doesn't make sense to have a separate article when that article on the resignation would be stub-length and having it in the context of the rest of the main article suits it better for the time being. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, just wanted to reach out and say thanks for the small edit you gave on the 100th Mechanized Brigade page. Sometimes I forget where certain places are, hence why I made the mistake! Thanks a lot bud, hope you have a good day :) Davomme (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I have missed a discussion on this before, but would we consider the DeepState map a WP:RS? I do not have any reasons to doubt them when they say that a Ukrainian settlement has been captured by the Russian army, but since they are not independent (linked to the Ukrainian military), it seems to me that it would be preferable to use a more reliable secondary source to confirm the capture (see for example this edit). I would not remove the references but would it be appropriate to use the {{better source needed}} tag in such cases? Mellk (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think DeepState's claims are reliable and can generally be held to be accurate, which is why direct citations of DeepState shouldn't be removed just for being a link to a map, but as you said, a more reliable secondary source is preferable, and such direct references should thus be replaced with secondary sources reporting on changes in DeepState's map, which are plentiful once you wait around a day following an update. For example this, this, or this; I've been trying to do this on the Pokrovsk offensive article when possible, but this is not always the case when I have time to update the article and DeepState has just updated its map an hour or so ago; I think citations to DeepState are also often necessary as they are often the only (reliable, not some guy on Telegram) source reporting on frontline changes within the day they occur; the ISW is fine but as it is more strict in that it relies only on specific geolocated footage, often published many days after such changes actually occur, can often only be used for frontline changes when they are geolocated and reported on within the day they occur. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the detailed response. It also seems to me that in such edits such as the one I linked above, there is some WP:OR if simply citing the map? Mellk (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, yes; saying something like "Russia/Ukraine captured x" or "advanced into/through x" doesn't seem to heavily verge on being OR as it is usually stated in the changes summary in DeepState's map and not something one would have to take additional steps to see (or "research"); something like "Russia/Ukraine increased their control of foo city to 30%" would of course be OR, however, but DeepState usually isn't cited when users make such claims. Before removing text sourced to DeepState, the main question to ask is whether an independent secondary source would plausibly report on what OR-ish content is specifically being cited from a map change (i.e. do sources report on DeepState's own analysis posted elsewhere which led to the map change), and thus steps should be first taken to see if such reporting exists, akin to this, (or even reporting not directly sourced to DeepState but which states similar info) which reports on more than just which lines on the map moved. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG actually allows first-level administrative division flags (despite the settlement infobox stating that "Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons or flag templates should not be used in this field"). Though I believe that this is not a common practice still, and for the sake of consistency with other Ukrainian city articles, while also considering that oblast flags are not very well-known, I think it's better to not include them in the infobox. Shwabb1⟨taco⟩10:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shwabb1 You may think not using either flag is better, but that is not a change based in policy; I think however a Ukrainian place article currently uses flags for the country and oblast fields should remain so for that article; individual edits solely to remove those flags, as done here, do not seem very constructive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously I based these edits off of other people's reverts of my older additions of flags to infoboxes as it apparently violates MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (though now I know that it does not). However, I think that making the articles of the same type (in this case Ukrainian settlements) more consistent is constructive. For consistency's sake, they should either all have flags or all not have flags, and I think the majority currently does not have flags so I'm going with the latter. Shwabb1⟨taco⟩03:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Though most settlements consistently do not have the oblast flag, the same cannot be said for the country flag; if you want consistency in flag usage, I think just removing the oblast flag would be better; removing all of the country flags for the sake of consistency when their inclusion is policy-supported is not very uncontroversial. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm only removing the flags of oblasts and raions. Whether to add or remove the flag of Ukraine is a part of a larger question concerning all country flags so I leave it as is. Shwabb1⟨taco⟩03:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of people who said the town was captured weeks ago, which may have been true then, but no reliable sources have corroborated such claims (they only state that the Russian MOD claims it was captured); right now from what it seems Ukraine is still holding out in the northern industrial area of New York, so for now the situation is similar to how it was (that the town is contested) a month ago. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the annoyed tone. I was really surprised by the convertion of sfn-tags into complicated harvnb-tags; to me, it looked like an unexperienced editor making things unnecessary complicated. But I noticed that you have a good command of tags and Wiki make-up, and saw your good intentions. Regards. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I had been wondering why you had not participated in the RM, and had concluded that you might have possibly missed it. PadFoot (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deccani–Vijayanagar wars
if you want to edit the article, I was going to do another pass but am happy to bow out and leave you to it, so we don't fight edit conflicts. I got a lot of the overlinking on the first pass, probably not all of it though. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for now; I was merely fixing some blatantly incorrect information or things that irked me as I saw the page pop up on my watchlist. The page as a whole does seem like a bit of a lost cause, but thanks for your work on it nonetheless. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the massive overlinking alone was pretty bad. I am willing to do another pass for English. My topic knowledge is zero however, and I may or may not be gung-ho enough to dig into the sources. I am very careful to edit with a light hand in such circumstances mind you, but it reassures me to know someone has it watchlisted. I think I can improve it a bit more Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at RM
Hi, your comment at the RM for Gupta Empire, I view this post as having a tone of hostility (WP:BATTLEGROUND) with comments directed at the OP when we are advised to WP:AVOIDYOU and direct our comments at arguments rather than individuals. While the points the comment would make may be reasonable, the way this has been done is not reasonable to me. You may wish to refactor your comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, I was wondering what differences are there between sfn and harvnb after looking at the discussions between you and Joshua Jonathan on the talk page. I do not have much expertise in that field and so wanted to ask you which provides more advantages over the other. Also, can these (or something like them) be used while also including quotations? PadFoot (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008{{harvnb}} requires enclosing <ref></ref> tags and does not place a period at the end of the cited page number. {{sfn}} does not require <ref> tags and uses a period. As {{sfn}} is treated as if there were <ref></ref> tags enclosing it (thus it is a viable reference without them) it cannot be used inside <ref></ref> tags while also displaying its contents inline; thus {{harvnb}} or some other cite template needs to be used for quotations or other ramblings. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche. I was curious as to what state of affairs existed between Bijapur and Persia. I remember you mentioning that the Bijapuri kings recognised the overlordship of Shahs of Persia, but the article on the Sultanate of Bijapur itself mentions nothing about it. I was only able to find a note in the notes section that said that they recognised Safavid Persian suzerainty, but I was unable to find anything in the source provided. Perhaps you could explain this? PadFoot (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 As the source in the note says, yes, Bijapur recognised Safavid suzerainty, starting from around 1504, while Yusuf (the first sultan) "looked up to" the Safavids as an example, prompting his proclamation of Shiism in 1503, from their state conversion a few years prior. His successor Ismail forced his army to wear the same pointed caps (symbolising their Shia-ness) worn by the Safavids, with Shia fanaticism intensifying under his rule and further under the next Shia sultan Ali I. All the while, envoys were constantly sent to the Safavid court to tell them how great they were at being Shia and recognising their (albeit nominal) subordination to the Shah — usually done back in Bijapur during the Friday prayers — with relations between the two states remaining close throughout Bijapur's existence as an independent sultanate (even though formal diplomatic relations were not established until Ali I), even when the sultan was not technically Shia; the Sunni Ibrahim II even stated that Bijapur was a "Safavid province" as much as Iraq and Azerbaijan. This intimacy in relations was a primary source for the Persian influence that swept over the Bijapur court, although it did, during the mostly-Shia 16th-century, cause a lack of immigration of Sufis (who were accustomed to being for the most part persecuted under the Shia Safavids) and artistic talent. Source: Eaton, Sufis, Hutton, ʿĀdil Shāhīs in EI2, and Hussein-zadeh, ʿĀdil Shāhīs, in EIslamica
Thanks @Flemmish Nietzsche, for the explanation. I'm still a bit confused as it appears that it was only from 1609–10 when Ibrahim II formally pledged his fealty to the Safavids when Jahangir was conquering the Deccan. I found a source detailing on this. Suzerainty is more of a formal relation between two polities when one party formally acknowledges itself to be subordinate to the other. The exact relations usually greatly vary. Did the Bijapuri sultans formally acknowledge the Safavids as their suzerains prior to Ibrahim II, or did they simply, for the lack of a better word, looked up to them. PadFoot (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tro888
Hello , A Wikipedia account @Tro888 is messing with caste based articles recently removing sources without any edit summary even rejecting WP:RS citations, Please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.174.30.78 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You reverted my recent edit in List of cities in Ukraine since the pages were not moved yet, asking for an explanation. As mentioned in my edit description - Sorokyne and Yany Kapu are currently mentioned on the list using the de jure names, not the de facto names that are used in the Wikipedia article titles (Krasnodon and Krasnoperekopsk), so it seemed right if every city that was renamed follows the pattern on the list. I'm also open to changing Sorokyne and Yany Kapu to Krasnodon and Krasnoperekopsk on the list, perhaps with added explanatory footnotes. Shwabb1⟨taco⟩15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think those should be moved back to de facto; changed names for state-controlled settlements should definitely be stated, but it's a different situation for Russian-occupied settlements where there's zero enforcement or recognition of the changes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just saw this discussion! I reverted back to having the de jure names per the reasoning on my edit summary. With cities lists for the oblasts, the de jure names are solely used in the table for consistency and avoid unneeded confusion, while the lead/efn notes can have the de facto names with clarifying info that helps readers understand why one name is or isn't recognized, why name changes occurred, who recognizes which names, etc. I know a lot of emphasis is put on post-2014 name changes but its important to keep in mind there were other name changes before 2014 that are part of this topic (Irmino, Soledar, Kyiv, etc.) and its much easier to understand all these name changes through efn notes/prose that puts them in context. Flemmish Nietzsche, check out the List of cities in Donetsk Oblast for an example of what I mean (to be clear, that lead needs some major reworking for clarity and to better cover name changes per above). Interested to hear everyone's thoughts! Thanks, DantheAnimator17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to mention but I know this list having more items makes the approach taken in the individual oblast lists impractical but I can see a combination of lead prose that states how many names changes occurred in each era/initiative and efn notes that list all the former names for each era/initiative. Alternatively, an efn note for each city would also be really effective and helpful. DantheAnimator17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I would like to ask for your opinion. Initially, I intended to suggest deleting the Battles for Velyka Novosilka page because, in my view, it is not relevant, and a portion of its content has already been covered on the pages 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Eastern Ukraine campaign. However, since it seems that Russia is beginning its second offensive on the town, someone suggested updating the page instead of deleting it. In your opinion, what would be the best course of action? Should we update the page or delete it? Bukansatya (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current offensive has not shown to be the same "battle" as preceding events in the area, which themselves have little pertinence or notability; there is not WP:SIGCOV in sources for the events preceding the 2023 counteroffensive, which is itself already covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive as one of the three major points of Ukrainian success, and was not actually in Velyka Novosilka; the "battle" in that area in 2023 was not for Velyka Novosilka, but rather for that line of settlements south of it. This situation is not exactly the same as with Vuhledar where we could have one article for year(s) of fighting, especially as without the content on the recent fighting the article has little viability. The page should be deleted rather than merged, as the bulk of the battle section is unsourced and is in part already covered at Eastern Ukraine campaign. Once the current Russian offensive reaches the town itself, or otherwise receives WP:SIGCOV in sources, a new article could be made for the current fighting. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as the sources you deleted are added back, some of the current content prior to 2024 can serve as background, and the article can be reformatted to be primarily describing the current offensive. That said, whether the current offensive in the area maintains its momentum remains to be seen, and if fighting does not in fact start over Velyka Novosilka itself the restructure should be reverted. Something along the lines of this can be done, just with sources for the background. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
