User talk:HalfdanRagnarsson

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Battle of Gaugamela. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for notifying me, but there is still a slight problem - you see, along with that sentence I added (I now realize there was something wrong with that), you deleted my addition of Diodorus' account, which wasn't original research, and you also deleted some longstanding content that I never added - the Babylonian diary's account. Those were constructive to the article, and you seem to have (in good faith) thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Could you re-insert those bits? (It is better if I do not, as both you and Coltsfan have raised valid concerns about my additions.) Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you raised the issue elsewhere. I've posted the link there, but I will say here that "this is corroborated to an extent by Diodorus' account, which states that Darius' guard melted away around him, after which he was forced to flee, causing the rout of the army. However, this is still considerably different from the Babylonian diary's account of Darius' whole army deserting him" is exactly that we mean by original research, it's some editor making a claim on the basis of an ancient primary text. We need an academic source interpreting the text. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, I acknowledge that mistake. What I mean is the portion that existed before either I or Coltsfan got involved on the page. This:

A less common view is that Darius' army was already broken when he ran; this view is supported by an astronomical diary from Babylon written within days of the battle:

The twenty-fourth [day of the lunar month], in the morning, the king of the world [i.e., Darius] [erected his] standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other, they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops [of the king he inflicted]. The king [i.e., Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went]. They fled to the land of the Guti.^[1]

You (presumably by mistake) deleted this along with the parts I inserted. Can I add this back? (Note that there is an academic source backing it.) Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

See the article talk page now. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:s policies and guidelines aren't superclear on this. Here's two discussions that may give a little insight:

• User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_54#Question
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)

Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain what "violates NPOV" in my edit so as you decided to summarily revert it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Certainly. The bone of contention here is you rewording it to describe the RSS as a Hindu extremist organization. That may or may not be true, but the point here is that many will agree with you, and many will disagree, making it a point of view, as opposed to an established fact. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, based on established facts and not the view of one group of people. For more details, see WP:NPOV. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so you preferred to revert the entire edit, which contained reworked references, a substantially improved wording that moved away the focus from tweets to media reaction – just because you did not like one word? Thought that you could simply remove the word you didn't like in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: The rewording of the sentence gave it a political flavour that was unnecessary. I welcome your reordering of the links; just do it separately. Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no running away from the fact that the incident did have a political dimension, and that's precisely the reason why it stirred so much controversy. Imagine Steve Jobs attending a Tea Party event - would there be a way to report on it without touching upon the political context? I don't think so. Same here.

In any case, what we should report is the controversy and not a hashtag trending on twitter - and that was the reason I went for complete rewording. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Re your edit summary - please (1) list diffs of my FOUR reverts within 24 hours of the same text, (2) list not a dozen but at least a single established editor whom I reverted from adding that text. And if you can't, apologise. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Sure enough. (Hang on, is this the second time I'm running into you?) Here they are - , ,, , , , , and . Most are IPs, but the original was done by AmazingCaptain, and now me. Read my description again. The only reason I got involved was because I noticed an edit-war over a really sensitive thing, but I'm watching the page now. Let's keep the tone friendly as well - I bear no ill-will towards you; that was just a standard warning (but a necessary one). Happy editing! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No four of these revers are within 24 hours of each other. AmazingCaptain is not even three months old and your account has barely 300-odd edits, although I have a feeling you have edited here for much longer than your account age would suggest. Re. tone, your combative reverts at Zoho didn't really sound friendly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Then you didn't commit 3RR itself - my bad, pardonnez-moi. (Still, WP:3RR does imply that your actions come under edit-warring.) But the rest of my statement is valid. As for you having more experience than me or AmazingCaptain, all are equal here (but we appreciate you for your contributions). As for the dispute at Zoho Corporation, that was a matter of WP:Policy that I was following - no Corsican vendettas here! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me; will comment later in the day. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please improve it in draftspace and then move again, you are welcome with due respect Fisha Malik (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fisha Malik: Just a question - why did you use a Wikipedia:RedWarn? It's an anti-vandalism tool... HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just use it to make my work easy as it provides good format to talk, but what matters is you should add citations to the said article. Fisha Malik (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fisha Malik: No problem. I've added external links; citations will come slowly as editors get involved (nearly all new pages stay without citations for some time, but I'll try to find one.) Good luck! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the constructive way in which you handled the proposed changes to the Punic Wars. It was appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gog! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, Please remember that whatever stubs we use for Phameas or anyone/anything else should go at the end of the article, below the categories etc - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: Hello Pam, thanks for your improvements to the article. I'm a bit confused about stubs now - many articles I checked to understand this had stubs above their categories, so I did likewise. I'll correct myself then. Cheers! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

People get things wrong ... there's one editor who is currently flatly refusing to stick to WP:MOS about the order of elements ... I find WP:ORDER quite a useful reference. Thanks. PamD 12:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from Battle of Kings Mountain without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Hi, I had removed the content for a good reason. You see, there was this newbie account that was active in the month of July, who had poorly understood WT:MILMOS and went around pages knocking off "decisive" from their infoboxes citing MILMOS, and promptly retired by the end of the month, presumably frustrated by ClueBot reverting his edits. No doubt he was acting in good faith, but he was incorrect to do so - and may kick off the ancient Wiki hornet's nest of "decisive vs no terminology". Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Kings Mountain, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX: "In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes." Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you been reading my replies or not?! Also, receiving basic warning templates feels a bit demeaning. Since you insist, I'm not going after King's Mountain any further, but I disagree with your interpretation. Still, no hard feelings. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation?? Tell me what is the least bit ambiguous about the quotation above from WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. And by the way, the editor who added the notice is no more of a newbie than you are. Warning templates are given to avoid blocks. If you don't want warning standard warning templates I'll be happy to not issue them and go directly to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Now, is there any reason to go wild? I am not interfering with King's Mountain any further. For the quotation, there is still a lot of debate about it - one of the oldest tinderboxes on Wiki. And why do you talk of taking this to WP:ANI when I have done only two reverts, and stopped once you insisted? For standard templates, maybe I was a bit rude in telling you not to - pardon me for that. But I ask you to calm down - there is absolutely no reason to get worked up about this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worked up, just trying to figure out your baffling comments. You need to provide evidence that "there is still a lot of debate about it". Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I brought up ANI because you think a template to help you avoid a block is "demeaning", so instead of issuing the templates my choice is to ignore your edits or go to ANI if you refuse to get the point. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Here are some discussions about it - one on WT:MILMOS, another here, and some more all over the place. As far as I know, the guideline was changed as a tentative consensus seemed to have formed in a discussion at a point, but that promptly evaporated, as you can see. As I said earlier, this is one of the oldest disputes here. Again, no hard feelings and let's forget anything bad we may have said to each other in this discussion. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am not "refusing to get the point" but dropped the ball as soon as you insisted. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 144#Use of decisive since you didn't link specific discussions. Those discussions did not form a consensus, so your comment that "the guideline was changed" is inaccurate. It's certainly not a justification for you to revert twice. One of the oldest disputes? Again, show us the evidence. If you didn't "refuse to get the point", why did you object to standard warning templates that are issued to avoid your getting a block? Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Different points of view, different points of view... anyway, this discussion is going round and round. I agreed not to interfere with King's mountain, so what are you angry about? As for template warnings, thanks for informing me, I will be more receptive of them. (When I once sent such a warning to an editor, he was indigniated, since when I've been under the impression that such warnings should be given only to newcomers; apparently my impression is wrong.) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's "different points of view", and in the absence of agreement you don't make a change. Yes, I think we're finished here. Please don't make such a change again without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Achaean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thebes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epirus (Roman province), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasius I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

More information The Downlink ...

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		1 February 2021 — 28 February 2021

Close

More information Volume 2 — Issue 5, Spaceflight articles by quality and importance ...

Volume 2 — Issue 5
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News! The Hope orbiter reached mars on 9 February 2021. Seven months after its launch on 19 July 2020. Confirmation of the Perseverance rover successfully landing on Mars was recieved at 20:55 UTC on 18 February 2021. With the first photo from the same day.
Article of the month. Mars Pathfinder The Mars Pathfinder is an American robotic spacecraft that landed a base station with a roving probe on Mars in 1997. It consisted of a lander, and a lightweight wheeled robotic Mars rover named Sojourner, which became the first rover to land and operate on Mars.	Image of the month. The first 360-degree panorama taken by Mastcam-Z, on Perseverance.
Members New Members: Acronymical (Joined on the 11th February) RedemptionVision (Joined on the 12th February) Yitzilitt (Joined on the 12th February) Number of active members: 100. Total number of members: 313. February Launches All times stated here are in UTC. Hyperbola-1 – Multi-payload (1st at 08:15) Failure Soyuz-2.1b – Lotos S1 (2st at 20:45:28) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L18 (4st at 06:19) Success Long March 3B/E – TJS 6 (4st at 15:36) Success Soyuz-2.1a – Progress 77P (15st at 04:45:05) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L19 (16st at 03:59:37) Success Antares 230+ – NG-15 (20st at 17:36:50) Success Long March 4C – Yaogan 31 (24st at 02:22) Success PSLV – Amazônia-1 (28st at 04:53) Success Soyuz-2.1b – Arktika-M 1 (28st at 06:55:01) Success March Launches Launch dates can change. See a current list: here. Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L17 Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L20 Long March 7A – Yanzheng 6 Firefly Alpha – DREAM 1 Electron – They Go Up So Fast Soyuz-2.1a – CAS500-1 Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 5 Jielong 1 – Hainan 1 LauncherOne – STP-27VP Long March 4C – Gaofen-12	Article Statistics This data reflects values from the 28 February 2021 Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 17 4 7 35 FL 4 4 8 FM 97 97 GA 11 22 36 52 121 B 1 48 37 43 129 C 55 160 527 489 7 1,238 Start 38 158 1,121 2,208 372 3,897] Stub 7 245 2,178 225 2,655 List 14 131 79 211 435 Category 1,033 1,033 Disambig 48 48 File 198 198 Portal 55 55 Project 57 57 Redirect 1 1,122 1,123 Template 493 493 Other 39 39 Assessed 126 543 2,053 5,193 3,148 604 11,667 Unassessed 1 54 55 Total 126 543 2,053 5,194 3,148 658 11,722 Monthly Changes Since January, 44 new pages have been added to Spaceflight and 1 file has become featured. There are 2 new files as well as 1 more C class, 4 more start class and 3 more stub class articles, with an additional 3 list articles.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributor: Terasail

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

More information The Downlink ...

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		1 March 2021 — 31 March 2021

Close

More information Volume 2 — Issue 6, Spaceflight articles by quality and importance ...

Volume 2 — Issue 6
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News! On March 7 the Wide Field Camera 3 on Hubble Space Telescope entered safe mode after a software error was detected. And took days until the camera was fully active again. read more The Space Launch System completed a full-duration (8 minutes and 20 seconds) static fire of the core stage on March 18, after an earler test in January failed to complete the test. Featured Content The Apollo 12 article was promoted to a Featured Article on March 27, 2021. After being nominated by Wehwalt who is a significant contributor to the article.
Article of the month. Hubble Space Telescope The Hubble Space Telescope was launched into low Earth orbit in 1990 and remains in operation. It was not the first space telescope, but it is one of the largest and most versatile, renowned both as a vital research tool and as a public relations boon for astronomy. The Hubble telescope is named after astronomer Edwin Hubble and is one of NASA's Great Observatories.	Image of the month. Astronaut Roger B. Chaffee is shown at console in the Mission Control Center, Houston, Texas during the Gemini-Titan 3 flight.
Members New Members: Bop34 (Joined on the 2nd March) Ninney (Rejoined on the 16th March) Askeuhd (Joined on the 22nd March) Ben MacTavish (Joined on the 27th March) Number of active members: 104. Total number of members: 316. March Launches All times stated here are in UTC. Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L17 (4th at 08:24:54) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L20 (11th at 08:13:29) Success Long March 7A – 7A-Y2 (11th at 17:51:28) Success Long March 4C – 4C-Y42 (13th at 02:19) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L21 (14th at 10:01:26) Success Soyuz-2.1a – CAS500 1 (22nd at 06:07:12) Success Electron – "They Go Up So Fast" (22nd at 22:30) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L22 (24th at 08:28:24) Success Soyuz-2.1a – OneWeb 5 (25nd at 02:47:33) Success Long March 4C – 4C-Y36 (30th at 22:45) Success April Launches Launch dates can change. See a current list: here. Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L23 Soyuz-2.1a – Soyuz MS-18 GSLV Mk II – GISAT 1 Vega – Pléiades Neo 1 Falcon 9 – Crew-2 Soyuz – OneWeb 6 Delta IV Heavy – NROL-82 Long March 5B – Tianhe 1	Article Statistics This data reflects values from the 31 March 2021. Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 18 4 7 36 FL 4 4 8 FM 97 97 GA 11 22 36 53 122 B 1 48 37 45 131 C 55 160 529 491 9 1,244 Start 38 158 1,118 2,223 374 3,911 Stub 6 245 2,185 227 2,663 List 14 130 79 211 434 Category 1,033 1,033 Disambig 48 48 File 199 199 Portal 55 55 Project 57 57 Redirect 1 1,123 1,124 Template 493 493 Other 37 37 Assessed 126 542 2,052 5,220 3,148 610 11,698 Unassessed 52 52 Total 126 542 2,052 5,220 3,148 662 11,750 Monthly Changes Since February, 28 new pages have been added to Spaceflight and Apollo 12 has been promoted to featured article! 1 more article has reached GA-class, with 1 more file, 6 more C-class, 14 more start-class and 8 new stub class articles.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributors: Ninney & Terasail

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

—PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

TylerBurden (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)