User talk:Brusquedandelion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
97		Hinduism in Tamil Nadu (talk)	Add sources
129		Yiddish dialects (talk)	Add sources
290		Critical period hypothesis (talk)	Add sources
351		History of South India (talk)	Add sources
3,436		Jewish diaspora (talk)	Add sources
57		Social class in Sri Lanka (talk)	Add sources
142		Tourism in Sri Lanka (talk)	Cleanup
251		Hindu Shahis (talk)	Cleanup
68,271		2023 Israel–Hamas war (talk)	Cleanup
879		Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (talk)	Expand
121		Surface-supplied diving (talk)	Expand
28		Types of abortion restrictions in the United States (talk)	Expand
86		Indo-Uralic languages (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
91		Economic history of Vietnam (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
798		International Legion (Ukraine) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
755		Bahmani Sultanate (talk)	Merge
77		Prussian mythology (talk)	Merge
4		Rajadanga (talk)	Merge
319		Buddhism and violence (talk)	Wikify
99		Sanskrit revival (talk)	Wikify
77		Samia Gamal (talk)	Wikify
3		Dewa people of Sri Lanka (talk)	Orphan
2		Peng Hongling (talk)	Orphan
6		On the Side of the Road (talk)	Orphan
123		Zubaida Tharwat (talk)	Stub
44		Irula language (talk)	Stub
12		L’A Capone (talk)	Stub
6		How Do I Turn You On (talk)	Stub
8		Chanku Mahato (talk)	Stub
4		Sunset and Sunrise (film) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rushdy Abaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circassian. 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) 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Commentary such as calling editors JIDF editors is unacceptable. Additionally, bludgeoning a discussion with the same statements, as you've done at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel is disruptive. If either behavior continues you'll be topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

How do my two or three comments raising a variety of points constitute "bludgeoning"? Why is it unacceptable to call JIDF editors JIDF editors? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Mellk (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk Uh... no I haven't? At least I don't think I did? Which page? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexei Navalny. The talk page banner says: "This article is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic". Mellk (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A note for deletion discussions

As a bit of friendly advice, as one Wikipedian to another (and not as a way to score points in debates we're having at Redirects for Discussion), I would advise against framing discussions as "absurd" or "ridiculous" as you did here and also at RfD. Often nominations can sound pretty absurd, but using language like that often just ends up inflaming the situation and leaving everyone unhappy. I am certainly guilty of doing that myself here and there, but try to be conscious of it, suppress it, and treat other editors with respect and civility. Thanks. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Regrettably, I was already unhappy to begin with, due to the fact that such a discussion was felt to be needed in the first place, so I'm not sure anything can be done here. Nevertheless, thank you for the tip. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cremastra. You also accused the person who made the articles of being a nationalist. You may not have meant that as an insult, but it's the kind of thing that will get you a bad reputation even when your editing decisions are right. It's one thing for you to make article drafters work for inclusion. I've had people demand I provide only the best sources, and the article ended up stronger for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Etymology of Curitiba. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It was your creationt of the page that was unconstructive. Please refer to WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it to a RfD if you must. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I strongly object to my edit being characterised as vandalism. It was part of a constructive edit – I was testing something and forgot to remove it before publishing. That's not vandalism, just a mistake. Please remember to assume good faith and not make offensive accusations in future. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I characterized it as vandalism because it was a manifestly unconstructive edit. It isn't that you made an edit I "disagreed" with, or didn't like; the edit consisted of copy pasting a template with dummy parameters: eminently and self-evidently not a constructive edit in any way. I am unsure how else to characterize such an edit except as "vandalism." It's not personal. I didn't claim you are a vandal. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not what vandalism is, either as defined in general English or in the context of Wikipedia. To quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." As you acknowledge, I had no such intention. Do not throw such accusations around in future; assume good faith. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude You're right. I sincerely apologize for my previous remarks and fully retract my characterization of your edits as vandalism. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Write Title Here

Write your message here, and don't forget to sign with four tiles like this: ClueBot III (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) </syntaxhighlight>

Please disregard if you already knew this :) Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

December 2023

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rushdy Abaza, you may be blocked from editing. Fragrant Peony (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This accusation has no basis. My edits are not vandalism, as explained on the talk page, and your accusations are libelous. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rushdy Abaza. Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is a baseless accusation and threat. As you continue to try and intimidate me, I have no choice but to escalate this to an administrator @Fragrant Peony:. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again stop deleting his Italian and Egyptian heritage, enforcing identities on a person that they have never identitied with is manipulation. Follow the guidelines and stop spamming with misleading content. Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fragrant Peony Please provide a diff where Brusquedandelion has deleted the Italian and Egyptian heritage. I'm not seeing that part of the edit. The remainder of your concerns with their edits fall in the realm of a content dispute, not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

He's insisting that the lead section should be "Egyptian actor of Circassian origin", when he was actually half-Italian, and only had 1 single circassian grandmother, and all his paternal grandfathers were Arabs.

Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fragrant Peony So you acknowledge that Brusquedandelion has not deleted mention of Italian or Egyptian heritage from the article? —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Implying that he was only of "Circassian origin" in a famous person's intro is a deletion of his actual heritage. Rushdy didn't even have a single word in any of his interviews about such identity, hence why the manipulation. Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How would you feel about an introductory sentence that mentioned his Italian, Arab, and Circassian ancestry?

(By the way, this is the point of having such discussions on the talk page: to reach WP: Consensus. Instead, you have chosen to refuse to even discuss the matter with me and slander my edits as vandalism) Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You kept putting the wrong version over and over and over, and I told you well about his Italian and Arab heritage (the only two he identified with in his famous interviews), the most honest version would be his own early life section which respects his full heritage. Cheers!

Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Rushdy Abaza as requested by the administrator. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you feel about the following lead, @Fragrant Peony:

Rushdy Saiid Bughdadi Abaza (Egyptian Arabic: رشدي سعيد بغدادي أباظة) (3 August 1926 – 27 July 1980) was an Egyptian film and television actor of mixed Arab, Italian, and Circassian origin. He was considered one of the most charming actors in the Egyptian film industry. He died of brain cancer at the age of 53. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead never mentioned those facts, and my initial edit did nothing to change that. All it did was revert the article to the prior state of affairs before an unconstructive edit by an anonymous user, as documented at Talk:Rushdy Abaza, which not only removed the Circassian ancestry reference but also made the first sentence ungrammatical.

If you want the lead to also mention his Italian heritage, you are welcome to edit it to reflect that fact as well; I have no issue with that. But that is not relevant to what is actually be debated here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not delete anything regarding his Italian or Egyptian heritage. If you were interested in a constructive debate, you can engage with me at Talk:Rushdy_Abaza. Otherwise, cease and desist from threatening me and making baseless accusations. We disagree about content; this is not the same thing as spamming or vandalizing an article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• You're both getting the same message on your talk pages. Back down the rhetoric. Focus on the content, not the contributors. You each bring up valid points about how to portray his background and heritage; you need to make sure it's done based on what reliable sources have written about him. WP:Third opinion is a good place to have reached out to get another voice in the matter, since you two are at an impasse and not reaching consensus. I am going to reset the discussion on the article's talk page to get refocused on the content. Please keep tightly to the content in discussion going forward there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! I will do my best to adhere to these guidelines. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tnk you Wikilovery (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wikilovery. Welcome to Wikipedia! Can I ask what you are thanking me for? Did you mean to comment in this section? For future reference, you can start a new discussion by adding the following at the bottom of a talk page:

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Alexei Navalny

At your service Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Wont paste a template, but just pointing out to you that after making five reverts (all against the BRD cycle, when you knew you didnt have consensus, which is highly disruptive as is) to go an and post notices on other editors TP to "not edit war" is extremely disruptive and is likely to get you blocked. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I reverted to the WP:STABLE version prior to any of my edits or yours or Kautilya3's. It is you that is edit warring without trying to reach consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, but the one edit warring is you. I have reverted the page to the WP:STABLE version. You should seek consensus before changing it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I already addressed this above. You should cease and desist from this sort of intimidation when it is you that is engaging in edit warring. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI thread

I assume this ANI thread [1] is actually about you. Is not it? Please disregard if I am mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes No, I never intentionally edit outside this account (and I am not an Indian national nor located there, so that couldn't be my IP). Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 31 hours for generally aggressive editing and assumptions of bad faith, and specifically for this edit plus the warning against Ymblanter, apparently for this edit. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Is there a rule against enjoining administrators to be civil? Are administrators such as Ymblanter above the law? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fascism in Asia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Challenging a WP:BEBOLD edit is not "edit warring", sorry. Take it to the talk page. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

the source and quote was already discussed at hindutva page. now only providing attribution is sufficient from where source is taken.if you have problem with source or quote go first try to depreciate on main hindutva page. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to the specific discussion on that page that discussed this source? Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

you go find it. you are challenging it. if you cant then start a talk page discussion "there".here only attribution is sufficient as its passed in the parent page. otherwise what you think is reliable , what you 'think' is a definition of fascism etc etc are irrelevant. also i am just wondering that in one edit war you are arguing its all based on european fascism and on the other you are saying the source only talks about hindutva not being like european fascism not fascism in general. what is your deal? also by the looks of it someone will surely get fed up by your continuous vandalism. m just an i/p editor. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this not how things work— you need to link to your own evidence- especially when said discussion isn't even on the page where the edit is being disputed. Also, content disputes are not vandalism. You should cease and desist from making such spurious accusations. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

i am done with you but i will be there for sure if any evidence is required against your vandalism.i am making a good case. please continue 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, IP editors can also get blocked. You know that, right? Your previous comment seems to suggest otherwise. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

also you are challenging a source which 'you' dont like. but the thing is you are on an agenda and cannot be satisfied with any reasoning by anyone who dont think like you. so not wasting my time on you. i will let seniors do their thing. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually quite like the source; it just isn't arguing what you claim it is. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Zhonghua minzu

Zhonghua minzu can mean "Chinese ethnicity" or "Chinese race" depending on the context. The same word has its own meaning in Chinese character culture, such as Japan (Yamato race), Korea (Korean race), and Vietnam. It is not WP:OR. Zhonghua minzu is also part of the lyrics of March of the Volunteers.

I don't think there is any reason for you to cancel from the Zhonghua minzu article to the editing other than the editing related to "Volk". ProKMT (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI

But what do I know? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock IP

The IP user who was trolling you is a ban evader. Stay safe, Ratnahastin (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha. I thought I smelled a ban evader, since they were explicitly flaunting the fact that they were an IP editor as if this somehow made them impervious to admin action; I thought to report them but figured their own actions would catch up with them sooner or later.

Thanks! Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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)