→more pointless WP:WARs at Chicken or the egg without prior discussion: sorry no - play your games somewhere else |
|||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:I have no idea what you are trying to say here. If you can't be coherent, I can't be bothered. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae#top|talk]]) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
:I have no idea what you are trying to say here. If you can't be coherent, I can't be bothered. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae#top|talk]]) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
== more pointless [[WP:WAR]]s at [[Chicken or the egg]] without prior discussion == |
|||
Follow [[WP:BRD]] process and start a discussion. |
|||
Get support that "common descent" is completely irrelevant to '''literal Chicken or the egg question'''. |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> |
|||
Please be particularly aware that [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> |
|||
[[User:D1gggg|D1gggg]] ([[User talk:D1gggg|talk]]) 22:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Here is the problem. If I added [[Ham on Rye]] to the See Also section, you wouldn't have any idea what strange set of associations I had in mind that made it seem relevant to me, making it impossible to refute. That is why the default is to ''remove'' contentious material. I can't argue why you are wrong in thinking it should be there, when I can't fathom why you think it should be there. How about you explain how the descent of multiple species from the same common ancestor has anything to so with it, or why you think it is necessary to include [[infinite regress]] in spite of the explicit rule that See Also is for pages ''not'' already linked in the article. (And belligerent harassment-templating doesn't help your case.) [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae#top|talk]]) 23:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:D1gggg|D1gggg]]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of [[Special:Contributions/Agricolae|your recent contributions]] to [[:Chicken or the egg]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[WP:sandbox|sandbox]]. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:D1gggg|my talk page]]. Nobody of other editors contested "[[Common descent]]" link. Join discussion at respective talk page.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:D1gggg|D1gggg]] ([[User talk:D1gggg|talk]]) 01:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:50, 1 December 2017
September 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 22:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, that is an adult way to address a content dispute. Just call it vandalism and you don't have to address the problem. Agricolae (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aguyintobooks I see nothing Agricolae did that constitutes vandalism, in fact, I see his edits as being productive. Remember, you don't own the article and since you've already been warned for edit warring, this is not what we mean by discussing content disputes. Also have you had a change of heart regarding templating the regulars? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sending Agricolae a lvl 1 disruptive editing template is my digital way of angry cursing. (The userpage was blank, he should use archiving rather than deleting comments by the way). Basically I know templates annoy people, so I use them solely for that purpose.
- To reply to: "Oh, that is an adult way...". Of course it is, I am annoyed and am keeping the content dispute on the article talk page, and showing my annoyance here because you went and trashed a perfectly good article to reinforce your argument for deletion. Why can't you leave it to other editors to consider whether the improvements to an article are worth keeping, there are other editors who are working on this, It is a WIR request for gods sake. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 10:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- "a perfectly good article"... I think you need to learn what actually makes a good article. Hint, it starts with actually accurately reflecting the sources. And "Basically I know templates annoy people, so I use them solely for that purpose." is a pretty blantant thing to say ... we are supposed to WP:AGF on others, so instead of taking on board what Argicolae said about the article, you instead chose to accuse him of vanadalism, and because you were annoyed, you decided to template him to show him your displeasure. If the sourcing on Gisela is an indication of how other articles you've worked on are sourced, we have some serious issues. Sorry to address this on your page, Agricolae, but having seen it, I can't let it pass. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, I went and removed false citations, excessive citations and poor citations and material not supported by those citations, so that the article more accurately reflected the actual record of the person in question. This is not vandalism, and as Ealdgyth pointed out, to template someone just to annoy them is a blatant policy violation. As to what I do with my Talk page, it is my Talk page. You can do whatever you want (within policy) on your Talk page but you don't get to decide what I do with mine. Given your inappropriate templating, inappropriate removal of tagging, inappropriate use of citation, etc., you need to get your own house in order before you pontificate about the behavior of others and try to browbeat them into silence. Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- To reply to: "Oh, that is an adult way...". Of course it is, I am annoyed and am keeping the content dispute on the article talk page, and showing my annoyance here because you went and trashed a perfectly good article to reinforce your argument for deletion. Why can't you leave it to other editors to consider whether the improvements to an article are worth keeping, there are other editors who are working on this, It is a WIR request for gods sake. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 10:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
So to be clear you dont like this [1], but are happy with this [2]? how is that an improvement? Regarding your talk page you should probably read WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and maybe the section of WP:OWN regarding talk pages.A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 20:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- ARCHIVENOTDELETE is referring to article Talk pages. The relevant policy is OWNTALK, just below on the same page, where it says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" I choose to do so, as is my right under that policy, and while you may prefer I do otherwise, that's your problem, not mine. As to OWN, it is unclear to what part you are referring. It says disputes should be taken to Talk pages - I did that. I laid out the problems, while you just hit revert twice more, an act that also violates WP:BRD. You were bold and added some stuff. I reverted and took much of it back out. What should have come next is the two of us (and perhaps others) discussing it on the Talk page but you just hit the rollback button and screamed VANDALISM!
- But you want an answer, which is NO. I am not happy with the latter either, just happier. By stripping off the false claims, false citations, poor quality citations, unsupported statements and tenuously linked material, it represents a better basis to build an good article that the former. It does less harm by not having groundless material, and it is a better representation of what literature there is on Gisela. Were you to start there and add only material that is appropriately supported (with citations that include relevant page numbers rather than just Google Book search URLs) I would be even happier. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well that reasonable enough. no harm done, The talk page is now several times larger than the article itself, but everything has been sourced now except the death date (which was not added by me anyway). I will put it all back in sometime soon. Dysklyver 23:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Your time to join discussion
Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg#latest_edit_by_Agricolae D1gggg (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
My editings at Abd-ar-Rahman III, Muhammad al-Tawil of Huesca
Hi, I noticed that you withdrew my editings to those articles. I used a very reliable book about the Hungarian campaigns of the 9th and 10th century, entitled "A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról" (About the Forefathers of the Hungarians and their Conquest), which gathers together the most important contemporary European sources about that period related to the Hungarians (Ahmad ibn Rustah, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Masudi, Constantine VII, Leo VI the Wise, Liutprand of Cremona, Widukind of Corvey, etc.). The book was edited by Györffy György, one of the most important Hungarian medievalist historians. This book, which you can find in the list of his works in the article, is a collection of the old sources about the Hungarians (A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról. Kortársak és krónikások híradásai. ("Hungarian Ancestry and the Great Migration. Contemporary and Chroniclers' Dispatches.") 2nd edition, enlarged. Budapest, 1975.), than in 2002 it appeared a new, expended edition of the book, which I used in my contributions to these articles. So I took two works from this book, which refere to the 942 Hungarian campaign in spain: Antapodosis of Liutprand (V.19) (p. 220) and the 5th volume of "Al-Muqtabis fi Tarikh al-Andalus" of Ibn Hayyan (p. 256-258). I can show you the online Latin version of Liutprand's Antapodosis, which writes about the Hungarian campaign, which I used (https://archive.org/stream/diewerkeliudpran00liud#page/140/mode/2up, p. 141, 2. paragraph). Unfortunately couldn't find the online version of Ibn Hayyan, which contains the bulk of the informations about this campaign. Here is a page from the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology: Vol. 1, which referes to this Hungarian campaign and Ibn Hayyan's recordings about it: https://books.google.ro/books?id=mzwpq6bLHhMC&pg=RA1-PA286&lpg=RA1-PA286&dq=ibn+hayyan+hungarians&source=bl&ots=xd6RS7VVQI&sig=CvgcEyO87A4vnbDakAsNqv5mTlI&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9Y2svs_XAhXK5xoKHdSCAc0Q6AEIWTAL#v=onepage&q=ibn%20hayyan%20hungarians&f=false
--Sylvain1975 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the problem with this material. I see now that it happened, but how noteworthy is it? It seems to be the kind of thing that is much more interesting to Hungarians - look how far our people went - than it is to historians of Iberia and al-Andalus, and when it is mentioned it seems to be in the context of 'a strange thing that happened'. At a minimum it needs to be placed in context (that they were sent there as allies of King Hugh, whose lands in Provence were endangered by Cordoban victories over Barcelona), but it must be done with care not to give it undue weight. Clearly the historians of Hungary think this is important, but what kind of mention does it get in histories of Abd ar-Rahman's reign? Accounts of the Banu al-Tawil are slim as it is. Do they mention the capture? I don't recall any of them doing so, and relying on Ibn Hayyan would be WP:OR/PRIMARY. (Your Oxford Encyclopedia link takes me to a protected page so I can't see what it says.) Perhaps the best comparison is with the viking raid that captured king Garcia Iniguez, but I have seen that mentioned in every description I have seen of that king's reign that is more than a sentence long, while similar descriptions of the Banu al-Tawil seem disinterested in this episode. THis discussion is perhaps better placed on the article Talk pages, where those knowledgeable about the specific individuals can weigh in (though I don't know if there is anyone knowledgeable about Yahya ibn al-Tawil). Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Reversion of Joanna of Castile
You reverted edits supposedly for being primary source material when in fact only published secondary source material from Gustave A Bergenroth's introduction was cited. On the other hand the author Julia P. Gelardi was used by the an earlier contributor, who attributed no title. I attempted to discover the possible title and am unconvinced the author has published on Joanna of Castile, and the published titles by this author are not scholarly or creditable reference works. I think if you check you will see that no primary material was quoted. (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2017
- How can I possibly tell what is the origin of this material. One of the citations in this added material was that an individual quote was found on introductory pages 7-80. A one-line quote did not appear on 73 consecutive pages, so the citation is nearly worthless. How about you look up the book and cite the actual pages you are using, so they can be checked. Agricolae (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, rather than hitting the revert button, a flag for "missing page no." would have done? Otherwise the effort feels like a labour of Sisyphus. Juana of Castile would be a victim of double injustice if added to a brutal life in captivity, the label "Mad" as given her by her tormentors, should remain her attached legacy. Thankfully due to the toil, perseverance and years of dedication bringing to light, and laboriously deciphering, long-hidden away documents, one Prussian historian exploded the cruel myth. He being Bergenroth. Gelardi whatever her value as a writer of popular histories, the title cited below concerns Isabel and Katherine, Juana's mother and sister. As a source for Juana her book is worthless. (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to right historical wrongs (WP:SOAPBOX). It is also invalid to conclude that a book worthless simply because the because the primary focus of it is the subject's sister and mother. After all, you want to cite a book the primary focus of which is a set of documents, but this is something better talked about on Joanna's Talk page, not mine. As to Bergenroth, the citation was not just missing a page - it was impossible to determine its value and appropriateness without seeing the context, which can't be determined without a page, and when a page is already in desperate need of cleanup, the last thing it needs is more material that will need cleaned up. Agricolae (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, Gelardi discusses Juana in her work In Triumph's Wake: Royal Mothers, Tragic Daughters, and the Price They Paid, but the only version of it I can see has no page numbers, so I can't tell if this is what the editor was referring to. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)