User talk:Emir of Wikipedia

ADNOC

Don't worry about ADNOC. I will be rewriting that whole section I removed in prose over the next day. It will look great. That said, we can't have improperly sourced material up. The source you cited was not reliable for this purpose and it did not contain all the information it was supporting in the article. Thanks and have a great day! Arbythecat2009 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ireland

As I tried to reply to you before being censored (yet again) - Ireland is both the common name and the official legal name of the country I was born in and live in. Its capital city is Dublin. Sarah777 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah777: Is that the primary Ireland though, or is Northern Ireland the primary one? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If Northern Ireland was the primary one they wouldn't call it Northern Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah777: They call the other one Republic of Ireland! More importantly is the Republic more important or the whole unified nation? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Whole unified nation does not exist, nor has it for more than a century or two at this point. Ireland was partitioned in 1921, the Republic of Ireland a sovereign nation and Northern Ireland a constituent of the United Kingdom (sort of like Wales). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are "they"? Anglophone Wiki editors! In the State called Ireland and officially recognised as Ireland "they" simply call it Ireland! As for primary; Ireland has a population of nearly 5 million and covers 83% of the land area; Northern Ireland has about 1.8 million and occupies 17% of the island. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not exist as a state, but it exists as a cultural and geographical nation. Take a look at Draft:New York, and tell me if you think we should do something similar for Ireland. Population and land size are irrelevant in being primary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Simply wrong. It does exist as a State and the name of the State is Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Complexly wrong. It does exist as two states, Northern Ireland, and the Republic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, hang on, WP:RS. According to article 4 of the Irish constitution the official name of the Republic of Ireland is Ireland. Further, section 2 of the Republic of Ireland act declares that Republic of Ireland is a "description of the state". Refer to note a on Republic of Ireland. It's all there. Emir I think you're referring to the Kingdom of Ireland which ceased to exist in 1800. If not, is Ireland and isle or an island. I honestly don't know which one. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland is dead; their is no doubt about that. Long live Ireland!. I'm asking if we should make an article for the island, like with the New York concept I presented to you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

New York concept you presented to me? I think you're confusing me with someone else, I came upon this by chance. Should an article exist for the island, hmm.. I can't answer that. Has there been attempts at it before, discussions about it, or has nobody bothered? if the former, refer to those discussions, if the latter than by all means feel free to create an article on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just scroll up for the New York concept; I haven't confused you with anyone just perhaps written it unclearly. If I partake in the latter and create an article for the Island at the page Ireland would you be interested in helping create it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Emir, I think somebody beat you to it here. There already exists an article on the island of Ireland. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at my New York draft. I meant an article in a similar style to that. It would be a broad concept index about the Ireland and the countries on it. Nobody has beaten me to it yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I've started work on it here Draft:Ireland. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, a broad overview of Ireland and what it is. I see you broke New York up into sections with history, city, state etc. I presume a similar thing with your draft on Ireland; history, nation, island, etc. This is far outside of my knowledge and work. I work around WP:MILHIST dealing with specifically ancient Rome and its neighbours. I know tidbits about Ireland, not nearly enough to help write an article. I'm not sure how you can go about advertising for collaboration except perhaps to see WP:Wikiproject Ireland and posting a comment in the talk section and seeing if anyone is interested in helping. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not proceed with your plan to create an Ireland (overview) article. Ireland has an article, at Ireland. The lead of that article is an overview of Ireland. It states clearly that Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland) and Northern Ireland. It has a hatnote that points to Ireland (disambiguation), which contains every use of "Ireland" in WP articles. There is no need for a new article to say the same things. It won't clarify anything, only add layers of confusion, and possibly add a new opportunity for edit-warring.

I am copying this to Draft talk:Ireland. --Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it. I said thank you on the talk page but of course it was deleted as well. Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Kingdom of Ireland is dead; their is no doubt about that. Long live Ireland!" - ummm, Irish Unionists (example) would not thank you for saying that. Take a look at the Shankill Road, Belfast, which has a huge mural of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. If that's not strong patronism to the United Kingdom, I don't know what is. Basically, Irish politics is complicated and extremely contentious to the point that people have been killed over it. You really don't want to go there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the advice Ritchie. I also spoke to Scolaire who advised me that I really don't want to go there. I deleted the idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bumbling buffoons on both sides of the border. Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You can think that but the discussion is over. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are smart, try Senegal. There is a Senegalese proverb: "An intelligent enemy is better than a stupid friend." The Senegalese suffer enemies gladly, as long as they are not stupid. And so do I. 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01: Do you know @Peter Andrew Nolan: ? And be glad I'm not stupid then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khalid bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Mina Stampede

Hi Emir, I actually have been editing here for a while but this is a new account. I actually wrote that section about the Mina Stampede and then erased it today for reasons that shall remain nebulous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.240.98 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your userpage

I've semi-protected your userpage for 2 weeks. I can make it as long as you like. Let me know if you wish me to change it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks very much for that. It completely slipped my mind that semi-protection could be applied to my userspace, so I'm grateful for that assistance. Let's leave it at 2 weeks and see if it gets vandalised again before you make it longer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

SAUD

My edit on king Saud page was not a test edit so I I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove it. What made you think it was a 'test edit'? Nothing did. I believe you are being insincere when you state this and you do this to remove edits out of hand which you dont like 62.205.122.213 (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

@62.205.122.213: I thought it was a test edit because Wagner has his own page and his religion isn't relevant on the page of someone else. I was sincere when I stated that, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether I like the edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm Ok, It is relevant when that page wrongly identifies him as a jew to 'beef up' Saud's credibility as a someone who opposed Zionism.clearly Wagner is not Jewish, I added the references from his fathers page. the Saud page reeks of propaganda and unfounded facts, somebody probably translated the horseshit they feed saudi citizens as fact. 62.205.122.213 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the information about him being a Jew. Furthermore your original edit lacked references, but you fixed this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Doc Love

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doc_Love

How do you vote? Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Andrew Nolan: You just write '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' and give a reason why. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I saw you edits. They seemed unusual. If you are not voting to keep or delete the page, it makes it casts doubt on your sincerity in trying to improve the page. Are you going to vote, or not? Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If the article is notable then I want it be improved to the best it can be, but if it's not notable then I want it to be deleted. However I don't want it to be deleted because it's a messy and confusing article which doesn't make the notability clear if the subject is notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The notorious type of notable subjects are only worthy of note if notriety is established. Otherwise why make them famous? But this particular subject is legendary. He does not need a Wikipedia article to promote himself. Stalin was a schizoid psychopath, yet everyone knows who Stalin was. Not everyone knows that he was a schizoid psychopath. Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? That we should delete the page for Doc Love as he is too legendary and doesn't need promotion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I am saying, that LYING would only promote the subject even further. Instead of establishing notoriety honorably, some of the editors who do not like the subject, tried to defame Doc Love by putting a spin on his philosophy. An in-depth fact check would expose jaundiced journalism in their approach. I do not consider that to be "critical analysis" - lying. This person is very persuasive and he guards his reputation with his life. Before you express criticism, you should give an accurate and fair depiction of what it is you find fault with.2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said I found fault, nor did I lie intentionally. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The question was, is Emir of Wikipedia going to vote to keep or delete the page. If you are not voting to keep or delete the page, it casts doubt on your sincerity in trying to improve the page.

Your edits look like you were trying to make the page appear worse, so it would be deleted. Nice try trying to wriggle out of answering the question.2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01:My edits are making the page better not worse. If it's deleted it's because it's not a notable page, the quality of the article is irrelevant. And you're the one who wriggled out of my question above. Why are you suddenly jumping into my discussion with another editor now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)