User talk:Brusquedandelion

Useful things

Since you seem to be interested in Meenakshi Jain's scholarship (or lack thereof), you might find this section interesting and can perhaps contribute to the goal of this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Thanks. I noticed that the article for Prahladpuri Temple contains this line:

Initially, the place might have housed the famed Sun Temple of Multan.

Do you think this should be removed? Certainly the lead for Multan Sun Temple disagrees with this assessment. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Please, no POV-pushing. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I'm confused as to how my edit is any more POV-pushing than your own (which is to say, I don't find your edit to be POV-pushing). I'm mostly fine with your edit; it says more or less exactly what I wanted to say with my edit, just more concisely. However, I have one quibble:

while her findings for the state did corroborate Goel's

What she actually says is that even Goel's list indicate a lull in temple desecrations in Andhra Pradesh:

Although I believe Goel's lists are greatly inflated, this statement would be true even by his reckoning

It is expressly not a wholesale, claim-for-claim/temple-for-temple corroboration of Goel's list, and she refers to items on Goel's list as alleged later in the footnote. If her findings were a simple replication of Goel's (for Andhra Pradesh), this footnote wouldn't make any sense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See my last edit, which came seconds after your reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

An eon ago, when I had the luxury of more leisure-time, I started User:TrangaBellam/Repurposed Temples. The goal was to (1) go through Goel's list, (2) identify those mosques which have been studied by historians, and (3) start a NPOV wiki-page on each such mosque. If you have sufficient time and motivations, this — I believe — is a relevant task to pursue. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wire. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Brusquedandelion. 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 CanonNi (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Just so you know...

..regarding "Salandarianflag absolutely is WP:XC—rv spurious deletion". I am aware of the extendedconfirmed status of all editors who participate in discussions started by a non-extendedconfirmed editors that I consider for removal. My decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on that. It depends on the degree to which the statement by the non-extendedconfirmed user resembles an edit request that is 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. A response from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the degree to which a statement from a non-extendedconfirmed user departs from the rules, in my view, so it plays little part in my decision procedure. There is, in my view, more utility in extendedconfirmed users informing the user what they need to do to comply with the restrictions than arguing or agreeing with them. There is some diversity in the approach used to deal with these situations at the moment, including removal, hatting, archiving or trying to handle the comment as an edit request if it is close enough. The optimum approach is not obvious. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland I thought you might say something like this. That isn't what your edit summary said. In the future, if your decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on a given factor, you should not claim that they are a factor in the edit summary in the first place! Anyways, there is absolutely no policy-based rationale for randomly deleting Talk Page discussions that you have personally decided don't merit inclusion. Especially by what appears to be, by your own admission, a single purpose, non-administrator account solely devoted to "suppressing dissent" on Israel-Palestine talk pages. WP:PIA has three very specific remedies, none of permit, much less enjoin, random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like. This is probably why you claimed it had something to do with WP:XC status in the first place, hoping no one would notice.

Also, the idea that even XC users aren't allowed to criticize a page, unless that criticism is Uncontroversial, is manifestly absurd, and something you just made up yourself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What I like or dislike is irrelevant. This misunderstanding on your part is interesting but not relevant from my perspective. The purpose of my message was to inform you of my approach. It was not to gather feedback. I will leave this template here for you as you may find it helpful. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What a vague nothingburger of a reply. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The template provides you with a description of the rules because you appear to have some misunderstandings and an opportunity to help to implement those rules in the topic area going forward. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Buddy, I read the rules. As I said, there is nothing in them that permit[s], much less enjoin[s], random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like! Feel free to quote the rule that says otherwise if you disagree. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. There is nothing in them that permit[s], much less enjoin[s], random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like. I refer you again to "What I like or dislike is irrelevant. This misunderstanding on your part is interesting but not relevant from my perspective." I realize that this may be difficult for you to understand or believe. But it is not about you. It is about implementing the rules.

I realize now why my writing "My decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on that." might cause some confusion. What I meant was "My decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on "...things like "Salandarianflag absolutely is WP:XC" i.e. whether an extendedconfirmed user responds to the non-extendedconfirmed user's comment that is not an edit request. That is why I said a reply from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the status of a comment and legitimize its presence. Hopefully that clarifies it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is about implementing the rules.

Once again, there is no such rule permitting you to do delete the post you did. Once again, if you disagree, all you have to do is quote the rule you think lets you do that.

That is why I said a reply from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the status of a comment and legitimize its presence

And yet it is precisely what you claimed in your edit summary—that they are not XC. And you have still not provided an actual, concrete, unambiguous reason for the deletion.

Please do not bother replying unless your reply includes a specific and explicit quote from a Wikipedia policy licensing your deletion. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

talk

Read wp:talk there is no requirement for me to post a reply straight away, or even within a few hours, we do have lives. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You are not required to do anything, you can simply stay off Wikipedia. I am, however, not required to take your revert seriously if it is not in compliance with WP:BRD. In the future, if you do not have time to immediately follow up with an explanation, wait to revert content until you do. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was, I do not have to reply right away to any comment, and you can't use silence as a justification, and you really need to read wp:npa. And no I can revert anytime I want, and you have to wait for responses. But this will be my last comment on this, if you keep up with the wp:battlefield mentality you may well end up with a block (see wp:consensus)). Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:794 short stories has been nominated for merging

Category:794 short stories has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)