User talk:AgisdeSparte

The content in that notable alumni section seemed to me as promotional. That's why I removed that because the people about whom I removed don't even have a wikipedia page to present their notability. Other people who are currently present in that page are notable Indian scientists/actors.Ilikeyoutoo yay (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilikeyoutoo yay Ok ; thanks for the explanation, I removed it as it seemed to be vandalism to be, but I was maybe wrong. I'll remove my warning from your talk page and you can revert my edit with no worries. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:) Ilikeyoutoo yay (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no problem have a good day 2603:7080:4EF0:4C0:8C45:99FA:D7D0:51FC (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your edits at the Istanbul bombing 2022? To unexplained remove a claim by a far right politician is not really constructive.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you speaking about ? Where did I remove a claim by a far right politician ? AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, but good we found out it was a mishap. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Synod of the Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theophilus of Alexandria. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacques-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratorian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TY for your help. Have a bubble tea. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ! Thank you ;) AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgisdeSparte. Thank you for your work on Volos Declaration. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on the Volos Declaration, while covering a notable subject certainly warranting a Wikipedia article, suffers from a significant amount of unreliable sources, biased verbiage, and original research. I have done some work to clear the article of the issues, but my recommendation is that you don't start your articles in the mainspace and instead build them as a draft or in your sandbox. Let me know if you have further questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Chrysostomos Dimitriou is an excellent page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Cretans (French Revolution), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimitrios Ploumis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgisdeSparte. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2023-04-13. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgisdeSparte. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independentism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your time, effort, and contribution to improving and enriching the content of Ahmad Zayni Dahlan's article, and for translating it into French on the French Wikipedia. Well done! Best regards. TheEagle107 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEagle107 Thank you a lot ! AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you! Enfeed (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enfeed Thank you a lot too ! AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mehmed Kemâl Bey, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nichan Iftikhar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Djaafar Khemdoudi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Chamond.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgisdeSparte. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cretans".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edit and commented on my page. Just here to say that I’m a good faith editor. Please watch the episodes before reverting edits on Fear The Walking Dead pages. Many of the plot summaries are pretty awful (typos, grammar, style, etc.) and I’m only trying to help. I edit as I watch the show. Thanks. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:413D:B0DE:C603:16A (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgisdeSparte. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If my edits keep disappearing, I might as well quit Wikipedia. Weatheriscool777 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Weatheriscool777,

I understand your frustration with your edits, particularly your external links, being removed on Wikipedia. It's important to clarify why external links are often removed on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has specific guidelines regarding the use of external links to maintain the quality and neutrality of its content, I suggest that you consult those to be better aware of the practices to follow. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatheriscool777, I also want to note that the none of the Atlantic hurricane seasons have documented invests unless they get significant, non-routine coverage. 94L is nothing notable when it comes to invests and therefore wouldn't get a mention. Until you get the hang of Wikipedia, I would hang low and help out with more minor stuff, especially on such a high-traffic page as hurricane seasons. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my Talk page, you wrote: "Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Denise Richards: It's Complicated because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)"

I respectfully believe that you did make a mistake. This is the relevant sentence from the article under the description for Season 2, Episode 5 "Fun Bags or Die": "When Will Ferrell's website Funny or Die asks Denise to star in a comedy video about her "fun bags," she is excited to make fun of her assets."

My edit was solely to the external link to that video on Funny or Die's YouTube channel. It's the specific video referenced in the text in the article. How is that wrong? The link to the video that I provided is 100% relevant to the description of that exact video. I removed ambiguity. I increased reader's knowledge about this subject.

Now, I will admit that, perhaps, I should introduce the link in another way. Perhaps adding a sentence to the description of the episode such as: "The video has since been uploaded to YouTube." and then use a < ref > < /ref > to the video on YouTube. Tell me what you think. I do believe that that webpage deserves a link to that video located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmt0mbYjVXs

I appreciate your explanation, and I understand your perspective. The reason I flagged the edit was solely because there was an external link in the article, which is often a point of concern to ensure the quality of the content. I've undone my own edit, and I'll leave it to your discretion to manage the link in the future. If you believe adding a sentence to the episode's description and using a ref/ref to link to the video on YouTube is a suitable way to include the link, you can proceed with that approach. Thank you for your understanding and contributions.AgisdeSparte (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent Ree AgisdeSparte (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, did you read my edit summary? Do you still think my edit was unconstructive? And why don't you want to link Asriel to Asriel (disambiguation)? Please reply here, on your talk page, so the conversation stays in one place.

173.67.42.107 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.67.42.107 I flagged your edit not because of the disambiguation but due to the inconsistent spelling and the potential appearance of trolling in the modification you made. My intention was to maintain the quality and coherence of the content. Thank you for your understanding. AgisdeSparte (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i don't understand, but i am trying to understand.

i'll try to keep this brief, but i can be more specific if it would help us understand each other.

i basically made 4 changes to the Asriel article, split into 2 edits:

1. the disambiguation hatnote
2. hidden text (instead of deleting it completely or adding a ^{citation needed} tag) with an explanation in alternating caps to distinguish my question from the previous version of the article
3. correcting an error (referring to two brothers, Asriel and Machir, as Asriel Machir, as if they were one person, despite the plural form of the verb)
4. adding a link to Machir's article

You say edit #1 is fine and i don't see you saying anything about edits 3 and 4, so i assume you don't object to them. You say #2 has the potential appearance of trolling? but it was hidden text, so i'm not sure that's really a problem.

i'm going to retry my edit. If you still don't like it, we'll have to chat some more so i can get a better handle on what you think is wrong, but i'm uncomfortable leaving those 4 points the way they were before i found that page.

173.67.42.107 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This was specifically what prompted me to flag the edit, look at the graphy : https://prnt.sc/7MbkcuwbY1BH

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave an explanatory explanation, unless you are reverting vandalism. You've not done so, and I have no idea why you made your revert - which was not proper in any event. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A9EA:14C3:9BA8:A24B (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any confusion regarding the recent revert. It seems there might have been a mishap with Huggle, as I didn't even notice or review that specific revert. I processed over 200 reverts yesterday as I was essentially the only one combating vandalism for a significant portion of the day. Consequently, a few errors may have slipped through the cracks. I appreciate your understanding and will be more diligent in the future. AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharifian Caliphate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Arab Revolt into Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa I understand and acknowledge the importance of providing proper attribution for copied content on Wikipedia. I appreciate the guidance on the attribution process. I would like to mention that, as one of the main contributors to the project related to the Arab Revolt, I often copy content between articles, and much of this content originates from my own contributions. However, I realize the necessity of ensuring appropriate attribution. I will make a conscious effort to be more attentive to this in the future. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I'm committed to learning and improving in this regard. AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you are no doubt aware, attribution edit summaries are a good idea regardless, as the articles in this topic area are frequently edited, and the content may have changed since you made your contribution. Also, it's useful to patrollers such as myself. — Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how calling Arianism a heresy is not neutral? It clearly falls under the wikipedia definition of a heresy, and the vast majority of modern Christians regard it as heresy. 85.166.156.145 (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The qualification of Arianism as a heresy is not as straightforward as it may seem. The notion of heresy is ideologically charged and assumes a specific perspective. Modern scholars such as Alain Le Boulluec describe the concept of heresy as a progressive ideological construction. Therefore, it is preferable to use terms such as "belief system" that are more neutral and precise.

If you wish to make significant changes in this regard, it is recommended to discuss these modifications on the article's talk page, providing sources to support your viewpoint. This will help facilitate a constructive debate and ensure a balanced approach in the article's content.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will post on the page :)

Thanks for the response! 85.166.156.145 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just improved the lead. The source was already in the main article. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:9807:6CB4:A4D7:E312 (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that, np and good editing ! AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps don't quite be so quick to delete people's good faith edits in future. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:9807:6CB4:A4D7:E312 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TryBishop Is The Official Producer Of “Worship” Which Is Number 15 On The Vultures Project & Here’s The Link For Fact Checking ( https://www.instagram.com/p/C0vFoMZIJPK/?igshid=ZWI2YzEzYmMxYg== ) 2601:243:821:80A7:9EE:1027:99CB:C1EF (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this information about TryBishop and the song "Worship." While we appreciate your effort, it's important to note that Wikipedia relies on verifiable and reliable sources. Instagram, doesn't meet these criteria. Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the credibility of an official, verified Instagram account belonging to an award-winning music producer is akin to doubting the reliability and truthfulness of everything on Wikipedia. 2600:1014:B05E:90F2:50B5:8DEF:6682:BE1C (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the link I sent, it will help understand better how everything works around here.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgisdeSparte, thanks for your message! My edit was due to the Excessive citations tag. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say there is no citation but it is already cited in his Wiki as I stated. There is No citation calling him German, when he is cited as Polish born and trained in hockey.

I ordered the reference correctly. There is no controversy as you claim, it is where he was born.

What is your angle that you keep reverting these changes? 188.147.72.189 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I appreciate your efforts to contribute to the accuracy of the information on Wikipedia. However, it's essential to ensure that any added information is properly referenced. As of now, the specific details you mentioned are not present on the English Wikipedia page, and without a reliable source, it cannot be cited.

To maintain the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia articles, it's crucial to provide verifiable references for any new or modified information. If you have a reliable source for the details you mentioned, please consider adding it to the article, ensuring that it complies with Wikipedia's content guidelines.

If you believe there is an oversight or if you have any additional sources, feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. Constructive collaboration is key to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia content. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already cited on his English Wiki. The whole retirement section is based on that info.

What are you talking about?

Translate the article if you don't understand the language. There's hundreds of material in other languages used as citations on English Wiki pages--Nietsche is one of the most famous examples. 188.147.72.189 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to emphasize that the lead section serves as a summary of the content within the article and should be supported by specific citations in the body of the text.

I appreciate your commitment to accuracy, and I want to ensure that all information in the lead is properly referenced in the main body of the article. Could you please consider adding the relevant details, along with the proper citation, to the appropriate section of the article?

Regarding your mention of other language versions of Wikipedia, it's a good point to note that information should be transferred individually, and each claim should be supported by reliable sources in the language of the specific Wikipedia edition. While other language versions can provide useful insights, direct citation from reliable sources in the English Wikipedia is crucial for verifiability and neutrality. AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this as we polish people sometimes are called other things. 82.32.198.11 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Straight Outta Compton into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For future reference, please link the page you copied from (Straight Outta Compton to N.W.A) directly in the edit summary next time. This message is about this edit. Cheers, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix Hello, this is what I did, stating that I was taking it from the album's page AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just be a bit more explicit next time, the policy says you have to link it explicitly. Happy editing, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix No problem, thank you, Diaana already talked to me about this some days ago, after one similar edit I did on another page, but yes, I'll link it explicitely in the future, good editing to you too AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the papers in ireland the man that died is a different dean byrne 92.28.114.100 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1]https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/tributes-flow-crumlin-boxer-dean-28071784?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar 92.28.114.100 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is literally the same Dean Byrne, according to the source that you deleted. Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm CringeyJ50, and my edit of the Oswald The Lucky Rabbit Fiilmography has been removed. The reason a citation was not there was because when i originally tried to put one in, it showed the link to the cite rather then the number that it should be. I removed the cite due to this,and the cite i tried to link was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3UdcFBYE4 ,becuase footage of the short was shown,and was referenced as such. KelanM (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KelanM,

It appears that your edit to the Oswald The Lucky Rabbit filmography has been removed. Another user had flagged this edit previously. Regarding the use of YouTube links as sources on Wikipedia, it's important to note that YouTube links are generally not considered reliable sources since the content can be altered or removed without notice.

It is recommended to use more stable and verifiable sources, such as books, academic articles, or official publications. If you have specific information about an Oswald The Lucky Rabbit short, try to find a more appropriate source and remember to include a proper citation.

I encourage you to discuss this edit on the article's discussion page. This will allow other editors to weigh in on the relevance of the source and reach a consensus on how to handle this information in the article. AgisdeSparte (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the revision of my edit to the immaculate conception page. You claimed that it was "less than neutral", but on what basis? I provided a scholarly source, used information from it and cited from it. None of the principles of neutrality were broken, no side in a theological dispute was taken. The material I added was in line with the tone and approach of the article sections into which they were placed. I see no reason for the edit to be undone. ThePatristicsFan (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePatristicsFan I appreciate your engagement with the editing process on the Immaculate Conception page. The reason for the reversal of your edit was based on a prior decision by a Wikipedia patroller. This situation indicates an edit war, and it's important for us to engage in constructive dialogue.

The concern raised was related to neutrality, and it would be beneficial to discuss this matter on the article's discussion page. This will allow us to collaborate with other Wikipedia contributors to provide precise references, evaluate the tone, and collectively decide on the appropriate content for the article.

Your scholarly source is valuable, and we want to ensure that the information is presented in a manner that aligns with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Given the nature of this subject, it is imperative to be precise and neutral in our contributions. I encourage you to continue this discussion on the article's talk page, where you can collaborate with other Wikipedia contributors to provide specific references and determine the most appropriate content for the article.

Considering the sensitivity of the topic, it is essential to approach it with care and avoid personal religious biases.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please just report problems (WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, depending on the situation) when vandalism become rapid-fire repeated, such as the IPs at Dissociation (psychology), and move on to something else. Vandals often have near-limitless energy and there are presumably more fun things you yourself could be doing. No need to waste your time edit-warring against them. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks Hello and merry Christmas even, if you celebrate it, no problem, but this dude in particular was already doing it the last few days on other pages, and when we didn't stop him, he started spreading to other pages. As for the time-consuming aspect, no worries; I use Huggle, which prioritizes those modifications. However, it can sometimes be inconvenient for article histories, which I understand. Thus, I'll try to avoid it in the future. AgisdeSparte (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We didn't stop him" does sound like the core of the problem. Thanks for keeping alert and recognizing the pattern! DMacks (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I forgot to acknowledge and and return the good wishes to you as well! Hope you're having a good whatever today is for you. DMacks (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, yes, it's going fine, I hope the same for you ^^ See you on the encyclopedia in the future, probably ! AgisdeSparte (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay but I will add a citation 116.193.142.117 (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found a paragraph in Khulna University article is regarding a Hindu temple. before deleting the topic I have had a look if there is similar topic about the central Masjid in the university. It seems that keeping a paragraph on a Temple may raise religious concern among the students as there is now topic on masjid. Hence I removed the paragraph on Temple to make the article focused more on the university's academic and research perspective. 62.78.155.79 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgisdeSparte. Thank you for your work on Éric Sandillon. Ingratis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for the article, which I have reviewed.

Ingratis (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis Np, it's part of a personal project I have about French modern contemporary artists, I plan to create more in the coming weeks/months ; thanks for the support and for having read it ;) AgisdeSparte (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgisdeSparte, thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback. That was my very first edit on Wiki, and, since you've asked, I do feel you've made a mistake : ). Will you please provide additional information on why you removed my edit? I agree, it's very important to maintain accuracy and neutrality, especially when discussing people's religious beliefs. And, that is why I made the edit. The edited statement, as was (and now is again), seems less than neutral to me:

"When Smith examined the scrolls, he said that they contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph (as well as a story about an "Egyptian princess" named "Katumin" or "Kah tou mun")."

I added "According to Robert K. Ritner" (Dr. Ritner was introduced earlier in the article).

The wiki editors seem to be making a claim that "Smith" said something. The two references are to pages 1 and 2 of one of Ritner's books. The citations don't have any statements by Smith, only by Ritner. As we seek neutrality together, I feel it's important to be clear as far as who said what. That is truly what Dr. Ritner said on those 2 pages. However, since Dr. Ritner doesn't provide a citation to Smith saying anything there, a better citation is needed, or my addition. Without a reference to something Smith said, the citation might be said to be an unsupported opinion of Dr. Ritner's about Smith.

If the reference is to Dr. Ritner, rather than Smith, shouldn't it be clarified? Or am I missing something?

I read the Wiki policy "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three." I'm trying to understand.

In the introduction, Wiki editors say: "University of Chicago Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner concluded in 2014 that the source of the Book of Abraham "is the 'Breathing Permit of Hôr,' misunderstood and mistranslated by Joseph Smith."[2] He later said the Book of Abraham is now "confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith," and "despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation."[2]

This seems to be more neutral, as it acknowledges that these are Dr. Ritner's opinions, e.g.: "He later said..." or "Robert K. Ritner concluded in 2014..."

If my addition of "According to Dr. Ritner..." lacks neutrality (while the above doesn't), is there a way to say "better citation needed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingtime (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your thoughts and insights! Looking forward to learning.

FYI, if further info interests you: Ritner's claim that Smith "...said that they contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph" may be a reference to June 30th-July 6th, 1835 reports made in hindsight; however, Dr. Ritner doesn't tell us why he's making this assumption about what Smith "said." The second claim in the sentence "(as well as a story about an "Egyptian princess" named "Katumin"..." may be an assumption made by Dr. Ritner, we don't really know without a reference to his reasons for making the claim. There may be a great reference somewhere in his many writings, but pages 1 and 2 do not provide. Assuming that anything said by Dr. Ritner is true, could make the article seem to lack neutrality to anyone who is informed or who has read Dr. Ritner's books.

Seekingtime (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgisdeSparte, thank you again for your efforts to maintain NPOV. Since I haven’t heard from you, and I'm inexperienced, I thought it best to review Wikipedia policies, and also the edited article (to determine what is acceptable practice).  I have much to learn, and, in light of the policies, I feel that “Criticism of the Book of Abraham-Wikipedia” needs some thoughtful editing. I’m thankful that you are here to help with that; and am excited that Wiki is focused on NPOV, verification, and so on.

There has been much improvement, Wiki is moving forward, but the article does lack NPOV in several cases. I hope we continue to improve, report on disagreements about the BoA from a NPOV, and let facts do the talking.   

The sentence I edited said that “When Smith examined the scrolls,[17] he said…” What follows isn’t a statement by Smith, but seems to be an opinion of Robert Ritner’s about what Smith may have said or believed.

If you’re interested in further details, please let me know. In a nutshell, no evidence is presented indicating that Smith said what Ritner attributed to him. In his book (pages 1 & 2 as cited) Ritner presents his idea that Joseph Smith identified specific extant papyri sources for the BoA, BoJ, and Katumin text. However, he doesn't quote Smith, and, since Robert Ritner's claim is seriously disputed, we should acknowledge that it seems to be based on assumptions.

In my hopes of thoughtfully promoting NPOV, I looked through the article to see if I could come up with a better way to briefly point out that the statement  that “he [Smith] said…”  is not fact.

I thought perhaps “Ritner wrote…” would work, but he didn’t exactly write that, only implied. "Claimed" and "alleged" are discouraged, since they may encourage bias. Since the editor already said “said,” and since “according to” is one of the most frequently used (see quotes from the article below, some unsupported), I felt “according to” would be best?

However, since you reverted, I’ll try to come up with something else. Any suggestions will be much appreciated.  :) Perhaps asserted?

Again, I do really appreciate your help.

From the Wikipedia article: “Criticism of the Book of Abraham”

“According to Smith, the book was…”

“According to Smith, the book comprised "ancient records…”

“According to Smith's explanations, Facsimile No. 1 depicts…”

“...according to M. de Rougé, the fixed points…“

“...founder Joseph Smith[3] that he claimed were translated from Egyptian”

“Joseph Smith claimed that…”

“Joseph Smith claimed that Facsimile No. 2…”

“...from the University of Chicago, claimed the…”

“claimed to have a PhD, despite this being a lie…”

“They have also asserted that missing portions…”

“...to assert that all of the Book of Abraham…”

“...(as is often asserted…).”

“...an assertion that has been”

“...apologists therefore assert that Smith's…”

“Mormon apologists also allege the assertion…” Seekingtime (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Seekingtime,

Thank you for your thoughtful message and for your commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) on the "Criticism of the Book of Abraham" Wikipedia article. I appreciate your dedication to adhering to Wikipedia policies and your willingness to engage in constructive discussions.

I understand your concerns regarding the sentence in question and your efforts to ensure accuracy and fairness in representing different perspectives on the topic. Your attention to NPOV is commendable.

Regarding the use of "according to," I appreciate your consideration of alternative phrasing. The goal is indeed to present information in a manner that reflects the various viewpoints without introducing bias. "According to" is a commonly used phrase, and your suggestion seems reasonable. However, I also understand the need for careful wording to avoid any potential perception of bias.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential for controversy, my decision to revert was aimed at maintaining stability while we discuss the best way to address these concerns. I appreciate your willingness to work collaboratively on finding a suitable compromise.

I would suggest moving this discussion to the article's talk page, where you can engage with other editors and gather additional input. This will ensure that any changes made are in line with Wikipedia policies and the community's consensus.

Thank you again for your commitment to improving Wikipedia content and for your understanding. AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll check the Talk page. Great to hear from you. Seekingtime (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks so much for the recent improvements you've been making to our article on Alexander Atabekian. It's an article I've been keeping my eye on for a while, so I'm very happy to see it expanding. Could you give me a ping when you are done with the article? I'd be more than willing to help copyedit it once you have seen to everything you were planning on. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Grnrchst, I am done, I added all I did on the French WP to the English WP, however, I only did superficial research, I believe the page can be still improved consequently !

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous, I'll have a look at improving it further then! Thanks so much for all the work you have done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Éric Sandillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, AgisdeSparte, and thank you for translating several interesting biographies of women from the French over the last few days. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. You can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]