Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello I have removed your violation at WP:SPI is not allowed per WP:BANEX. Shrike (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: How is a sockpuppet investigation related? It is an atopical discussion of user behaviour. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the edit comments that you have referred to the WP:BANEX policy on WP:AE mentions. Is the fact that a user that made statements about me in an WP:AE might be a sock not "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that removing the WP:AE mentions referenced in your edit comment resolves the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you still refer to conversion about regarding edits about the conflict moreover as Icewhiz one the editing area was the I/P conflict his SPI page is too broadly construed covered by you topic ban I ask you to remove your post entirely Shrike (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have struck out my comments (since it seems Selfstudier already responded). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the strike at SPI. Although I am not convinced that this is a tban breach, I suggest discretion is better part of valor, Iskandar.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iplikçi Mosque, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 13th-century Iplikçi Mosque in Konya, Turkey, contains a mihrab with traces of mosaic tiling which is the oldest extant example of Anatolian Seljuk art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iplikçi Mosque. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Iplikçi Mosque), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I edited the Ogedei Khan page. I think this fix is more consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilegchuluun (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilegchuluun: Hi, yes, I can't see any issues with your more recent edits. I hope you got the point about caption/list punctuation in the WP:MOS guidelines. More generally, it's great that you are interested in detailed editing and cleaning up grammar issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign this edit (and it makes a good point) TIA Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Hi, what edit was that? I can't figure out which one it is about, and that link is wrong. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one? VR _talk 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one! Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, that was a copy-paste bungle. But Vice regent has the correct diff. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa @Vice regent Ok, done - thanks both! Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you wrote "still had a consensus of 18 to 11 votes". But surely there were only 20 editors expressing an opinion (ignoring the closer), or have I got that wrong? If you have made a typo or miscalculation, please could you correct it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I based that on the table compiled at the end of the discussion. I believe some editors expressed support for either, but perhaps the math is wrong. I've removed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found this article! Enjoy reading the talk page and know that this was subject to a recent full arbitration case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics.VR _talk 16:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and happy, happy new year, my friend! VR _talk 16:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iskandar323,

I just took care of several articles involving Sufi beliefs that you PROD'd. I don't know if you are familiar with Sufism but I came across this unsourced (well, it has one dead link) article, Sufi Order Ināyati Silsila and wondered whether or not you thought it would be a likely candidate for proposed deletion.

Hope all is well with you in the new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, thanks for taking care of those, and for pointing out that other page. Yes, another good candidate. Most of these articles were created in 2007 and haven't been improved upon much since. They all pertain to the rather confusing subject of Western Sufism, covered by a confused article itself that seems to conflate the advent of Sufism in general in the West with the arrival of certain specific religious groups, such as the Inayati Order, that were at the center of efforts to create Universal Sufism - seemingly some sort of modernising movement aimed at globalising and, by some accounts, de-Islamifying Sufism - in the early 20th century. It seems these ambitions ultimately fell well short of their intended, lofty aspirations. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback and you tagging the article. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iskandar323. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I did not mean to archive our discussion on the talk page for Connirae Andreas. I meant to add to it. (I think that "one click archive" might be too easy for me to make mistakes with). However, I am now stuck as I don't know how to undo that step so we can continue the conversation. If you can help with this, I would appreciate it. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaffodilOcean: I've reverted the edit and cleared the archive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the added work. I will comment there next. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your high-quality edits to this list! One thing: I noticed it looked like you removed some information relating to the specific geography/islands of where these people live. Don't you think that is relevant information? KaerbaqianRen^💬 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KaerbaqianRen I mainly removed the geography where the geography is already obvious from names like "X Islanders", or the name of the people's name contains the name of established countries, as with the examples of Tongans and Vanuatuans, just as how we wouldn't necessarily explain where a German was from. Obviously these names are also linked, so people can link through to these peoples and where they are from. My priority was breaking down the linguistic structure that had been imposed on the list, presumably either by someone with a linguistic background or copying a linguistic source. It was making it even more confusing! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Role of Jimmy Wales on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unfortunately, your edits to the Inayat Khan page have not improved the article. You deleted key information and added uncited materials. If you wish to move the bibliography, that is fine. The content of the article, however, should not be altered without discussion on the talk page. If you would like to make changes, please introduce them on the talk page next time. ~~Mirmughal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirmughal: You do not decided what information is key or not. I brought the article better into line with the sources, tagging parts where further citation is needed. Since you are reverting me, you should be articulating this on the talk page first. Reversion should not be used to undo normal edits unless they are obviously vandalism or disruptive. I note that you are a new editor that has worked almost exclusively on this page? Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject, or are you a follower? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]: This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit if they believe information is key or not. You deleted well-sourced information without discussion. If you wish to delete such material in the future, please put it on the talk page. All that is relevant is the accuracy and salience of material an editor posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirmughal (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirmughal: I see you did not answer the question about conflict of interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, please reference the last sentence of my previous comment. --Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirmughal This is not all that is relevant. Conflicts of interest are very relevant to editing on Wikipedia, see WP:COI, and you should disclose a conflict of interest if you have one, see WP:COIEDIT. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, I recommend contacting the conflict of interest noticeboard if you believe this to be a legitimate concern. ~~ Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirmughal I'm now concerned about how you: A) clearly dodge straightforward questions, and, B) know so much about noticeboards with theoretically only 94 edits on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't disclosed any previous accounts. Should you? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, The notice board was mentioned on the article about COI that you recommended. ~~ Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirmughal Yes, I know. I already checked. And yet that is still a very lawyer-y and not Wiki novice response, and still with the dodging of all the actual questions at hand. "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:37) ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy. Thank you. Please refer to this diff: [1] Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]