User talk:Rarevogel

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rarevogel! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Alhazen have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory ~~or potentially libellous~~. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not make intemperate general claims about groups of people as you did in this edit summary. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've deleted the "potentially libellous" phrase, which is standard in the template. Your comment about childishness, however, strikes this observer as ironic; that term describes this silly debate about whether Alhazen was an Arab or a Persian. Let's stop that kind of discussion (as has pretty much been done in the similar case about whether Copernicus was Polish or German) and get on with writing a good encyclopedia article about this important scientific figure. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Berber people. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution edits

Rather than edit warring, please discuss your desired edit on the talk page. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Yahya al-Laithi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hanifa and Sidonia (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) 10:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Manichaeism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arsacid (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) 10:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License information needed for File:4 LIBYA Garama.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:4 LIBYA Garama.jpg. However, we need to make sure a license is correctly displayed before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Choose the appropriate license template: it needs to be a free license, in the public domain, or have a non-free use rationale. If you need help, you may ask at the media copyright questions page.
Paste in the template code, and save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Al hatia1.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Al hatia1.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad al-Idrisi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Córdoba (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) 11:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khémisset Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (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) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European state

Turkey is a transcontinental country. I don't give a f... to being a European state or not, and less to your opinions on my country, but as you made an aggressive edit summary on Turkey, I will state FYI: the Ottoman Empire was formally accepted as a "European power" at the Conference of Paris, in 1856, if not before. Read the Council of Europe article to see when Turkey joined the only pan-European political (intergovernmental) organization and also begin counting how many European states have emerged from Ottoman Turkey. Also FYI Atatürk was born in a European city of Ottoman Turkey, studied in two other European cities of the Empire and is the architect of the Balkan Entente. --E4024 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sicily, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician (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) 15:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician (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) 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Alhazen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first words about this great man shouldnt consist of guesswork. The autobiography section has ample room for talk about possibility of him being a Persian, Chinese or whatever.

The sources which describe him as a Persian, base that on the fact that his native home (Iraq) at thr timr of his birth was ruled by a tribal confederation from Iran. To some idiot 'scholars' that makes him Persian. Even though that ruling tribe wasnt even Persian, the were Daylamites. An Iranian ethnic group.

Here are the facts

1) He was born a predominantly Arab city in a predominantly Arab region. Later he moved to Egypt, never leaving for Persia

2) He never commented on his ethnicity.

3) He wrote exclusively in Arabic and in his use of Arabic never shows a Persian or non-Arabic influence. His Arabic is extremely 'pure'

4) His (near)-contemporaries never gave us a reason to believe he was a Persian

5) His name shows no non-Arabic trace

I'm not saying he wasnt a Persian, all Im saying is that there is no evidence to believe he was. Maybe he was Indian or Chinese, or Egyptian, Andalusian. All we no for sure is that he was an Iraqi native

Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section.

This is in the wrong place, please transfer it to Talk:Alhazen and get consensus there. Kansas Bear has started a section, please contribute to that discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about pov editing

Your comment "Arabs are not a learned people." and removal of the words 'Arab' and 'Persian' in various articles suggests a pattern of pov editing. If this continues, the usual remedies are either blocking or banning from editing related articles. Please make sure it doesn't come to that. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gross incivility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Merlinme (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Alhazen, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of Semitic origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician (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) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improving your Wikipedia experience

No action was taken regarding your swearing at me, but on the other hand no-one argued that it was ok. You haven't done it since, so we'll assume it was a one-off caused by a cultural misunderstanding. But if you do it again, I will raise it again, and I'd imagine the next time there will be more support for taking some action. So don't swear, ever. It's never appropriate. And in particular, never, ever swear at another editor.
Some other suggestions:

Don't be overly familiar with people you don't know, especially people you are arguing with. They are probably more likely to view it as aggressive than friendly. If you were having an argument with someone you didn't know and they said to you, "hey bro, I don't understand why you're getting upset", would you view that as friendly or not? I imagine it would depend on the tone of voice and body language. On the internet we don't get tone of voice and body language, so don't be surprised if people misunderstand you. Try to avoid misunderstandings by not being overly familiar.
Don't use slang, and don't rely on people understanding something which seems obvious to you. For example, in quite large parts of the country I come from, if you say to someone you don't know "I don't see what you're getting so upset about, mate" that is fighting talk. If you said it to someone in a pub after a few pints, both sides would understand that if neither person backs down, a fight will probably happen. The person using the word mate to someone they don't like much knows that they may provoke a fight. On the other hand, if you're an Australian, "no worries, mate" is friendly, everything is cool, nothing to worry about. So if I said to you now "Try to avoid getting so upset, mate, when I say you're not my bro", would that be an aggressive act on my part or not? You wouldn't really be sure, would you? So if you don't want to be misunderstood, don't be overly familiar and avoid using slang.
Don't keep implying other people are stupid and don't understand the argument. I trust you are not stupid. You clearly know something about the history of Iraq and Persia, and the argument re: describing Rembrandt as Dutch was actually quite an interesting one (although I would disagree, because Dutch refers to ethnicity rather than country or geographical area). However if you've spent any time at all studying humanities subjects such as history, you will have realised that people have different opinions. Equally respected professors can hold almost completely opposite views. Usually this is because there is no clear correct answer. For example, one article I've spent time editing is Battle of Agincourt. Two books came out more or less in the same year, one written by a professor of medieval history arguing that there were 12,000 French troops at Agincourt, one written by a respected medieval history writer (with a Phd) arguing that there were 36,000 French troops at Agincourt. Another American professor has argued that there were about 10,000 French knights at Agincourt but that each of them would have a well armed servant (a squire, if you like), so including crossbowmen and so on there would have been about 24,000 French fighting men. What's the correct answer? It's not clear, so all we can really do in Wikipedia is report the debate, giving due weight to the support in the reliable sources and the relative strength that each argument has: Battle_of_Agincourt#Numbers_at_Agincourt We are not allowed to report our own view in the encyclopedia as the only correct answer. For example I might believe the 24,000 figure as being closest, but if I deleted the entire debate and replaced it with the statement that the French had 24,000 troops, that would be giving undue weight to one side of the argument. Even if I'd read all the most recent research and I was convinced the 24,000 figure was correct, unless I could persuade other editors that all the best sources agreed with the 24,000 figure and there was not really any debate any more amongst academics, it would be wrong to put my view as the only view.

I avoid endlessly repeating links to Wikipedia policies because often I don't think it's helpful, but maybe it would be helpful to look at some of the most important ones here: WP:No Original Research. We are only allowed to give WP:Due weight to WP:Reliable sources. Even if you are convinced you are right, it doesn't matter. Someone else is probably convinced they are right. Even if you are right, it still doesn't matter; WP:Verifiability not truth. So you discuss it on the talk page until either you have persuaded other editors that you are correct (i.e. you have achieved WP:Consensus) or someone else has convinced you that they are right, or you've found some compromise which reports the different sides.
I trust you're not stupid; I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about the ignorance of me or any other editor. It's WP:Civil, but also as I said previously, there is frequently no correct answer to the controversial questions. You would get a lot more respect from other editors if you acknowledged this, rather than suggesting that you and you alone understand the one correct answer. Saying "Youd know that if you kbew anything about the history of the Mid East", and "feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section", and ignoring highly respected sources written by people who've spent decades studying the subject and certainly know a lot more than you or me, is not going to get people to agree with you. Rather the reverse, in fact. --Merlinme (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to remove references and referenced information

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

This time in response to your disruptive editing on Qutb Shahi dynasty;

The Qutb Shahi dynasty (Persian: سلطنت قطب شاهی) was a Turkman<refAnnemarie Schimmel, Classical Urdu Literature from the Beginning to Iqbāl, (Otto Harrasowitz, 1975), 143.ref> dynasty of Kara Koyunlu origin that embraced Persianate<refChristoph Marcinkowski, Shi'ite Identities: Community and Culture in Changing Social Contexts, (LIT Verlag GmbH & Co., 2010), 169-170;"The Qutb-Shahi kingdom could be considered 'highly Persianate' with a large number of Persian-speaking merchants, scholars, and artisans present at the royal capital."ref> culture.

Since you can not be bothered to explain your editing on the talk page, you now have the information on your talk page. Continuing to remove referenced information can lead to you being block and/or banned. Also, stalking/hounding another user's edits is not tolerated here, which you already know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian (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) 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apuleius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libyan language (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) 09:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harun al-Rashid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rey (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) 09:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User warning

Hello, I'm HelenOnline. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Erzurum, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read related discussion on the article's talk page and obtain consensus there before making any further changes in this regard. Helen Online 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persian Gulf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkad (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) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susa

Glad to see you are using references, but we need book title, authors/editors, publisher, year published, page number(s) (vital), and if possible ISBN number. There's a dropdown template above this edit window that helps. Susa is around 4000 BCE so pre-proto-Elamite, see Susa'&f=false. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on Rum.

I say it again; the source doesn't work plus it already says that the word is used in the Quran. So what is your reason to remove what you don't like? i am surprised that you haven't been blocked yet. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it starts out with th then states that it is derived from a Persian word for Rome. 1) the Greek dhould only be mentioned as the origin of the Arabic term, not to start the article with it 2) the term is not derived from a Persian word, in stead its the Arabic term for Rome.

I barely understood what you said, anyway, drop these silly claims since the article already mentions the word in the Quran, so no need to keep on your disruptive editing. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to understand. The current page says that the term 'rum' is from Persian 'rhom'. This is untrue and unsourced. The term is from the Quranic 'rum'. It was simply the manner that the Arabs corrupted the Greek name for Rome. My editing was not disruptive, as it was sourced and an improvement. Also, starting with stating the Greek name is unnecessairy. Because you might as well give the Latin name as well

Facepalm... did you not read what i wrote? the source doesn't work and it doesn't matter since it already says that the word is used in the Quran which is completely irrelevant to the information you removed. Besides, your claims are not sourced either, so that doesn't make your edit better, especially not when most of your edits have only been disruptive. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the source works perfectly fine. It might be something with your system or browser.

That's the worst excuse i have ever heard. My computer is fine. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to god, I can open the source without any problems. I checked

"Swearing to god" won't make your problems go away here. If i can't open it then you can't, and for the 100th time, the source doesn't even matter since it already mentions that the word is used in the Quran, but you have removed some other information while you don't even have a source yourself, so that doesn't make your edit better, especially not when most of your edits have only been disruptive. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link can be opened on both my smartphone and my laptop. Which makes it your problem. Not mine or any of this site's visitors.

The only things I removed is the claim that the term has a Persian origin, ehich is disproved in my source. And the Greek naming at the start. Which is unappropriate in a page devoted to a very specific term and its usage.

Which is disproved in your source? oh well, i have bad news for you; it doesn't work, so it won't help your claims. It actually matters that no one can see the source, and drop the silly claim that you can. Please show a source that supports your claims or the information will have to get changed back, and if you continue to revert it without showing a source, then i will have to report you. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been opening the link a few times now you stubborn ass. The source link should redirect you to: http://books.google.nl/books?id=QC03pKNpfaoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&output=html_text

Unless there's something wrong woth your system. Anyway do whatever you want

Misuse of source

When Google books doesn't work it is often because of the fact that some links are location-specific and don't work in all countries. This worked for me, but it doesn't back the statement. After a discussion of the word Rûm, a new section appears at the cited page with the heading "BYZANTIUM IN THE QUR’AN: SURAT AL-RUM" stating that "Reference to al-Rûm occurs in the Islamic text that is both first in chronology and axial in significance: namely, the Qur’an." "Al-Rûm" is not the same as "Rûm". I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but excuse me Doug, I don't quite get your argument here. In what sense is al-Rûm "not the same" as Rûm? I must be missing something. Of course, al- is merely the definite article in Arabic, whose presence accompanying the geographical name is purely dictated by the syntax of Arabic. What's the argument? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf., thanks for clarifying that. I thought that might be the case, but there are other issues. I don't see the rationale behind changing

Rûm (pronounced ˈrüm or ˈru̇m), also transliterated as Roum or Rhum (in Koine Greek "Ρωμιοί" or "Romans", in Arabic الرُّومُ ar-Rūm, Persian/Turkish Rum, from Middle Persian Hrōm) is a generic term used at different times in Muslim world

to:

Rûm (pronounced ˈrüm or ˈru̇m), also transliterated as Roum or Rhum (Arabic: الرُّومُ ar-Rūm, Persian/Turkish: Rum) is a term used in the Quran for the Byzantine Empire.

Why remove "(in Koine Greek)"? Why cahnge a general statement to such a specific one in the first sentence? Sure, we can quote Nadia Maria El-Cheikh's ""Reference to al-Ritm occurs in the Islamic text that is both first in chronology and axial in significance: namely, the Qur’an."." somewhere, but the first line should be more general. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. As I see it, there have been unsourced claims and unspoken assumptions on both sides in this edit-war between Rarevogel and HistoryofIran. The original claim in HistoryofIran's version "from Middle Persian Hrōm" was unsourced. On the other hand, Rarevogel's apparent assumption that because it occurs in the Qu'ran the Arabic version must be primary compared to the Persian one is also false (Persian had been in contact with the Byzantine world long before Islam, so Qur'anic Arabic might well have borrowed it from Persian, or both languages could have borrowed it directly from Greek in parallel, or whatever. The two editors were edit-warring over the relative primacy of Arabic versus Persian, and we currently have no basis for deciding that either way. (Btw, I hope you don't mind me refactoring your post above to get the quotes clearer; you computer seems to have some technical issue with copy-pasting Unicode chars.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)r[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liber Abaci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bugia (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) 08:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a quote from a source where you changed the text

You changed "The Southwest Paleohispanic script, also called Tartessian, present in the Algarve and Lower Alentejo from about the late 8th to the 5th century BC, is possible the oldest script in Western Europe and it could have come from the Eastern Mediterranean, perhaps from Anatolia or Greece."^[1] to "The Southwest Paleohispanic script, also called Tartessian, present in the Algarve and Lower Alentejo from about the late 8th to the 5th century BC, is possible the oldest script in Western Europe and it came from the Eastern Mediterranean, derived from the Phoenician script, with perhaps influences from Greece."^[1]

Since this is sourced, I presume that you are saying that the source was misrepresented when this was added several years ago with this edit. Can you please give me a quote from the source that shows that your edit was correct. If you can't, and given the other complaints about your use of sources, I don't see a reason not to block you. I expect a response before you edit any other articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't look at this. I really need an answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ill place a quote soon. this hispanic script is dericed directly from Phoenicians, a people that colonized southern Spain and are credited with inventing the alphabet. we know this because the Hispanic script looks much more like the original Phornivian script, yhen it does like the Greek. some aspects show Greek influence though. so it is possible that the Greek influenced the Hispanic-Phoenician script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 9 May 2014

Thanks, but that's not the point. The point is that you changed sourced text radically but kept the source, so my question is what does the source say - you can't just change sourced text and leave the source unless the source was misrepresented, and then you need to explain that. The source is Garcia, José Manuel (1989). História de Portugal: Uma Visão Global. Lisboa: Editorial Presença. pp. 28–32. and if you haven't read it then you have no business changing the text. Your change also does not agree with what Southwest Paleohispanic script says. Again, I'm asking you what the source says or to concede that you haven't read the source. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that source is in Portugese and is unavailable online. An unavailable source is no source at all. So no, I have not read the text.

Actually, yes, according to our policies non-online and foreign-language sources are valid sources. But that's beside the point. Acceptable source or not, you still show no understanding at all why your edit was unacceptable. Your edit in effect claimed that this source said X, when in reality you had no reason at all to believe it said X (not having read it), and according to the earlier editors it said something different from X. Do you or don't you realize that this is in effect lying to our readers? If you don't want to be blocked for source abuse, you'd better confirm really quickly that you understand this now and won't do it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in my opinion they shouldnt be valid. I could place a Chinese source (which you couldnt find online if you happen to understand Chinese), to back something I wrote down.

Here are some English sources, easily available (Google Books)

http://books.google.nl/books?id=bFMhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&dq=paleo-hispanic+script+phoenician&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=E8hwU_6_MIHoPOm7gdgD&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

"Epigraphic influence from Phoenician/Punic Epigraphic influence begins with thePhoenicians, who were the first to introduce writing to the peninsula, and whose consonantal alphabet was the model for the first paleohispanic script."

http://books.google.nl/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA954&dq=hispanic+script+phoenician&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=I8pwU_FygpU9mteAuA8&ved=0CC0Q6AEwADgK

"several short INSCRIPTIONS survive in the semi-syllabic Iberian script, largely inspired by the Phoenician alphabet."

Sigh. Please (1) go back up to my previous posting. (2) Scan to where it says "But that's beside the point". (3) Look to the left to see what I said just before. Understand what "that's beside the point" means. (4) Go down to what you just wrote. Understand that you were addressing only the thing I said was "beside the point". Then (5) go back to my posting and see what I said after that point. Then respond to that. If your very next edit isn't a satisfactory answer to that point Doug and I raised, you will be blocked for source abuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference hdp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Egypt (Roman province) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

June 2011}}
]) to the East. For much of the empire's history Egypt was the single most wealthy province.<ref>[http://books.google.nl/books?id=rXmdAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&output=html_text

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt (Roman province)

Besides the problem discussed above about misrepresentation of a source, for which you still might be blocked, I've reverted you for these edits. Not only did you break some templates, Google links are great but they are extras. Citation styles need to be consistent throughout an article, and for books at the minimum must contain author or editor(s), title, publisher, year published, and page number. If it's an edited book, the name of the author of the chapter should be included also. An article on Egyptology really needs academic sources aimed at adults, and the Britannica book is neither. Wickham's book can be used. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have ignored my comments above and restored your edit, broken template, useless citation and bad source notwithstanding. I'll give you a short while to actually fix it. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xenophon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anabasis (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) 08:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you have ignored Doug's and my own queries above, but have instead chosen to edit-war on the Egypt (Roman province) page, and have in addition failed to fulfil your own promises to provide further sourcing for either that page or the Prehistoric Iberia article, I have blocked you for a period of 72 hours, for disruptive editing. You can still be unblocked as soon as you give a reasonable response engaging the criticism of your editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquests

Hey, Rarevogel, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. Thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing sourced text

At Umayyad Mosque you changed Semitic-Canaanites to Syro-Levantine with no explanation and added, without a source, a comparison with a temple in Tyre. The actual source for the statement before what appears to be a pov change says "We have no direct knowledge of what the temple of Hadad-Ramman looked like. It probably followed the traditional form, comparable in plan to other Scmitic-Canaanite sites like the Jerusalem temple." Why did you do this? Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Aramean culture (which founded Danascus and the temple) was not Canaanite. It was a Levantine culture.

I've just quoted the source for the statement you continue to change - again, abuse of the source. I made this clear in my first post in this thread. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquests and more abuse of sources

You added material which I have said wasn't in the source. You've a history of warnings for source abuse. Either you don't take them seriously or you think that Sykes backs your statement about Arab Christians. I am not challenging the statement, I am asking you to show proof that you haven't yet again abused a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for renewed and repeated instances of source misuse. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been reset to another week, for sockpuppeting through Roverlager (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More abuse of sources at Hebrew language

Unless you can show where the source[1] justifies this edit[[2] (in other words, where it mentions Phoenician) I will be asking for a much longer or indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what they call paleo-hebrew script is identical to Phoenician. If you werent at all lazy, you could have done some research yourself. Doesnt take much time to compare the too

In other words, the source doesn't back the edit. And our articles on them say they are related, nearly the same, but they do not say they are identical. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Samaria Ostraca

added a link pointing to Phoenician

Yokneam

added a link pointing to Battle of Megiddo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre. 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) 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rumi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan. 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) 09:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Europe has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Specifically [3] where you removed sourced material with the summary "here should be mention of a source stating that the Greek explanation is unlikely (which a lot of scholars believe)" Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abdelkader El Djezairi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

viewport&dq=emir+abdelkader+descent&hl=nl&output=html_text Emir Abdelkader (page 11)]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Arabi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn Mardanish. 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) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Millet

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Millet (Ottoman Empire), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Armenian Genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Note this article is under a WP:1RR restriction. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dude, I was not the one who started reverting. I tried to enrich the article, that's it. By adding crucial background info, which is lacking. You guys blocked the wrong person

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rarevogel reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Armenian Genocide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ) where I've proposed that you be indefinitely blocked for persistent edit warring. You can respond there if you wish. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to follow policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about the Armenian Genocide

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term edit warring and disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[hdp-1] Cite error: The named reference hdp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]