User talk:DragonTiger23

Hello, DragonTiger23! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kimse (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gasr Bu Hadi, DragonTiger23!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I think you are going to expand this article shortly, so I won't do anything.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Kalmyk Khanate, DragonTiger23!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed as part of page curation. Interesting historical article. Additional references may be helpful and useful. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Krakow

The article Krakow deserves sources with well-developed background info, not a single line in book unrelated to the city that says "probably", only "probably (!) counted 10,000 inhabitants..." If you honestly believe that the similar expanded data can be found in other sources, please provide them instead of flaming the summaries with unsupported claims. The single line you added is out of place where it is now and it does not reflect the source. I would rather see a short paragraph about the Medieval population there. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot better. Please allow me to make your one-liner into a paragraph. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop undoing

Stop changing the heading please.

Go make your own section. I made that section

It's the section of us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with the IP's sentiments, you shouldn't edit war over the heading - someone else will doubtless set it to whatever consensus is. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop yelling also

Please. I know it does not help. (Been there, seen that...) Best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It did help. After that the admins 'noticed'.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No - it didn't help. I turned everyone against you, as can be expected. It negated your argument. Well done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

LGBT stuff

Your sources belong to Christian publishers, certainly of no academic value. You could've easily searched what academics has to say about this issue and found this one. In any case I suggest you keep the "Ataturk was gay" battle with your Greek friends in Youtube where it belongs, Wikipedia is not a place for such mentality.--Kathovo talk 10:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would christian publishers have no academic value, your arguments are the classic story I don't like it.

LGBT in Assyrian culture has been investigated by historians and the sources I included had references to them. Yes I also found that some texts have commands against neighbors accusing of LGBT, I will add that too, but still it seems that Assyrians had an open homosexual society as their priests were men dressing in women clothes, and some kings also did this.

I don't care about internet battles with weird people so your argument accusing me of ethnic/gay battles in YouTube is very childish. I am just adding information about ancient Assyrian culture, and your mentality about removing info which you do not like does not belong in Wikipedia.

I will add the info back with the other point of view.DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No you may not. That article deals with the modern Aramaic speaking Christian community. You may add LGBT info regarding ancient Mesopotamian religion into its existing article.--Kathovo talk 13:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Rawanduz massacre

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rawanduz massacre. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rawanduz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rawanduz – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Kathovo talk 13:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. We would only split out a separate article about the massacre if there was sufficient material for significantly larger coverage than in the original article. As it was, the new article really said nothing more than the article Rowanduz, and that article is very short and could easily accommodate some expansion if there is any further material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits around homosexuality

I can't work out what you're up to, but if I was being cynical I would say you were trying to promote some sort of Turkish/ muslim/ Ottoman agenda. This resists any edits that suggest muslim/ Turkish/ Ottoman figures could have been homosexual (Mehmed the Conqueror). While at the same time you are editing Christian/ Assyrian/ Western articles with copious references to homosexuality (Sebastian of Portugal) - even though the sources you use are often weak. If this is what is happening then that is genuinely childish and not welcome on wikipedia (vandalism). If my suspicions are confirmed then I will alert what you are doing to an administrator. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Promote some sort of Turkish/ muslim/ Ottoman agenda?? Where are you basing this on? I have only removed these categories in 1 or 2 articles. I have already explained everything in the talkpage. I know you control the page of Mehmed II but I never see you undoing the edits made by anonymous IPs or other biased persons who ignore the talk page. If you are LGBT why do you find it disturbing that I add these categories to persons who are sourced. I think you are hypocritical adding eagerly weak sources to Ottoman rulers but then removing sourced info about Christian rulers. And about Ancient Assyria, the sources are not weak, that the sources are weak was claimed by an Assyrian user himself who probably is anti LGBT(!)

I do not normally edit LGBT issues but I saw how eager IPs and Users are adding these categories to Ottoman rulers (Ofcourse because of hate towards Ottomans) so I thought maybe I should add these same categories to LGBT people where they seem to forget to add it(!). DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear to me know that you are indeed out to vandalise articles. I will alert an administrator to what you are doing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not out to vandalize articles, you are very offensive against my user I will complain against the admins.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do, and make sure to copy me in. I find it interesting that you think that attaching LGBT categories to subjects is a way to discredit them. I think the opposite of course - and in some ways your edits have improved the articles and ensured there is much better coverage and promotion of LGBT articles on wikipedia. Well done! However, where the sources are weak the categories will be removed. Perhaps you should do some further research into LGBT issues and see if you can help build supporting text. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No I do not do it to discredit and I do research I based this all on sources, why are you instantly removing everything? Why so much hostility?DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see real discrediting edits, then you can watch the last dozens of edits in Mehmed II made by anonymous users ignoring the talk page. You really think they add those sentences because they support LGBT rights? Those persons are anti Mehmed II haters who hate Ottoman Empire because it destroyed Byzantines. They are also probably anti LGBT and think about LGBT as negative so they only add this to slander, they cherry pick from sources. Their point is also to accuse of raping so it is not about adding information but only slander. No Wikipedia user does anything to stop this unneutral editing.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this happens. We just have to deal with it. Historical sources from the past will often only report on homosexual behaviour where they are condemning it as a weakness, a sin or a crime (such as rape). To be honest I am not convinced Mehmed was homosexual - the term really has quite a modern interpretation. But we have to accept the possibility that Mehmed may have been sexually attracted to men as well as women - and I'm interested here in anything that sheds light on a possible sexual relationship with Radu cel Fromus. The story about the 14 year old boy, on the other hand, tells us nothing about homosexual behaviour (this is sexual activity with a child, not a male adult). And seems to be drawing deliberate parallels with Pelagius of Cordoba. However, that said we must take a step back and not become emotionally involved with the subjects of articles. We should not have a view on whether something promotes or discredits a subject (and we should avoid playing games based on national prejudices). All we can do is use the facts and handle them in a balanced way. I think the text as we have it does that (almost anyway). Contaldo80 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to deal with it? Why is vandalism allowed in this article? It is absolutely impossible to know of many Medieval rulers what their sexuality was. Especially on person whose person life is not known and only based on rumours. In the case of Mehmed II these assertions are based not on Ottoman historians or eye witnesses but anti Ottoman Byzantines whose works contain much more accusations. These assertions should not have been added in the first place, they are weak sources and not neutral. It is not contributing to the article and was only added to slander by certain Users. Unfortuantely this happens all the time in Wikipedia. There are many more negative sources about this Sultan. We should expand the reign, administration, culture sections and stop adding dubious fictional claims about relationships.

About that part of Radu, I had already seen that in Babingers book which is the origin, in his work he states that Chalcocondylas claimed this in his book. Well those Byzantine historian wrote many more claims, it is also puzzling how he could know what happened in the palace(?) so you see its just propaganda rumors.

So the problem is various Byzantine hate propaganda about Ottomans collected by Franz Babinger are used by biased users on Wikipedia as slandering edits.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sultan Mehmed II

I see you are working on the Great Conqueror; good for WP. Please delete the sentence beginning with "Another son of his was" because the following sentence already covers Sultan Cem. Also please change that section title to "Family Life". Some people have such an un-understandable enthusiasm to dig into slanders about the Great Sultan's intimacy that they have caused the WP article on such an important "brilliant" personality to have a this pale article... Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost). Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)