Hi there, please don't call potentially controversial edits "minor" (see WP:Minor edits). And please use meaningful edit summaries, not always "updated introduction", when in fact you weren't updating but adding things that are not covered in the article as you did at Icelanders. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not you again, not on other articles... I have just about enough experience here on the English Wikipedia for years and years with plenty of good edits to be 'taught' these things. I use meaningful edit summaries and I don't always have to explain myself (as other users, naturally, when it comes to an edit summary). I really don't like to see what I deem as an authoritarian way of reverting edits as on the German Wikipedia here on the English Wikipedia (this type of similar editing behaviour makes me shudder). It is, after all, the English Wikipedia and it's specifically this type of irrational behaviour before my eyes at least which led me to quitting the German one forever! Those edits were meaningful and accurate and added more value to the lead (and, if you read the entire article correctly from one end to the other you will certainly see the fact that everything is covered and interlinked, so I really did not add things which were not covered subsequently throughout the article)... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: For example, since when the syntagm 'peripheral Scotland' as linked with Scandinavian Scotland is potentially controversial in that context? Everything is well covered afterwards when it comes to the history section and the Viking Age respectively, so I did not 'add new things' which were not actually covered afterwards but truly updated the introduction (whether you like it or not, it is still an update there). And I know very well the policy of minor edits here, I don't need to re-read it. And, once again, those edits of mine were definitely not controversial at all or potentially controversial! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your example was not controversial, but your other edits that added the relationship with Norn to the lead are, IMHO, against MOS:LEAD because Norn is not mentioned in the body of the article. I made some few edits to the article starting in April, and I normally have a tendency of saying that an article should not contain too much details but focus on the really important ones - just to explain to you why I reverted you. It was not because of our previous disagreement at Germans. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that your addition to the "Cuisine" section was totally unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the same article concerning Icelanders? What specific addition, please? I see your point with respect to Norn, but I still think it's important (nevertheless, I am not going to replace it there once again unless there is some consensus met on the talk page first, naturally). What is more important there, and I know you have a very good point claiming it's not actually an article on the Icelandic language per se, should be the fact that Icelandic also has a significant amount of Gaelic words (I have three reputable sources for that, while we are at it). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: You mean skyr as the respective addition? Does it really have to be sourced so long as it is already linked there? Just a thought... I could very well source it if need be as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the addition you restored in this edit. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need a source for that? If I'll add one, will that not be reverted anymore? Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: I am absolutely opposed to attacking or discrediting other editors based on their nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, profession in real life, sexual orientation, age, disability, or similar things. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same, absolutely, exactly the same! But that was not the overall experience I got on the German Wikipedia or other German users here on the English Wikipedia. And I am not the only one here who with these negative experiences... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask other people if you don't believe me. You don't even have to believe me while we are at it... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from this series of edits of yours: I really don't like to have anything to do with German users on any Wikipedia, let alone on the English one. Do you really think that's acceptable ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my previous negative experience stemming on their behalf, on a personal level, not only is it acceptable, but a must for me (and other users) in order to have a pleasant experience here. I can write plenty of good examples for that in both English and German, if need be, but I really don't want to waste any more time on this matter. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And from this point forth, never contact me here on the English Wikipedia, just as I previously told other users on the German Wikipedia with which I don't want to have anything to do anymore. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]