User talk:Aciram/Archives/2022/October

Margaret I
Hello! You recently reverted my changes from 'of Scandinavia' back to 'of Denmark', why? I do indeed realize that i did it without discussion, something i'm trying to refrain from doing in all my future edits, but i do not understand why. It would be more accurate to call her that, as she was not only the Queen of Denmark, but also of Sweden and Norway, whose collective name was the 'Kalmar Union' as they were all joind in personal union under the Crown. But in your summary of the reasons why you reverted my changes, you incorrectly claim that these countries don't belong to the geographical feature known as scandinavia ""the term scandinavia does not even include all these countries"" which is a fallacy, and yes the union indeed included parts of what we today konw as Finland, Iceland and Greenland, but they were not sovereign kingdoms but part of the larger three. As such calling her simply 'of Denmark' is not correct, it would be as if i called the now deceased Elizabeth II (God may she rest), Queen of England, instead of the correct Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often shortened to just Queen of the United Kingdom or Queen of the UK. And in for instance Sweden she is simply known as 'Drottning Margareta ' same goes for Denmark, Norway and Finland as well, but in there respective languages of course. (She may also be called Margareta Valdemarsdotter). So as such, until further notice i will be reverting it back to it's earlier version. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, no page should be moved or renamed withouth discussion. There are also rules to follow. I understand your way of reasoning, but it doesn't matter what we think is reasonable or not. First. She has never been called "Margaret I of Scandinavia". Because of that, she can't be called that here. It is not up to wikipedia to create names. Wikipedia should only use names which are already in use about a person, and she has never been called that anywhere. Secondly. Wikipedia uses the same name principles for all people of the same category. That means, in this case, that if you change her name, you have to change the name of all other monarchs in the same situation as she. Not only the other monarchs of the Kalmar Union besides her, but you need also to rename a long number of other monarchs who ruled over several countries at the same time. Thirdly. There has never been a Kingdom called Scandinavia. Because of that, the term cannot be used as a name here. Margaret is called Margaret I of Denmark in Denmark. In my own country Sweden, she is simply called "queen Margaret" or Margaret Valdemarsdotter. It is correct to call her Margaret of Denmark because that is the established term for her in history and scholarly literature. That is why it is inline with wikipedia policy to use that name for her. We can't invent a new name for her on Wikipedia, regardless if it would seem reasonable to do so or not. Wikipedia does not invent things. It only present information from other sources.--Aciram (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your points, and your argument is a valid one, so let's compromise on the matter, i'll add in a redirect from Margaret I of Scandinavia that leads to Queen Margaret I of Denmark.
 * P.S. Även jag är svensk, ha en trevlig dag. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like "King" ignored the good advice here and on h own talk page. [Sorry I misunderstood.] --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Slaves of the Buyid dynasty has been nominated for merging
Category:Slaves of the Buyid dynasty has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in Afghanistan
I'm not convinced the other party is editing in bad faith, so make sure you are abiding by 3RR yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think he/she edit in bad faith, my impression is that he/she acts emotionally because he/she believes the article claims that the Hazara people were a slave population in Afghanistan, which is very strange considering the fact that the article explicitly states that slaves could have any ethnicity, its just so happened that in the 1920s most slaves happened to be Hazara because of the 1890s enslavement. I don't think the act in bad faith, but their edits has to stop and must be reverted.--Aciram (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why have you made no attempt to communicate with them or report them to WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did communicate with them in the edit history and they replied, but ended up refusing to listen. In my country this is in the middle of the night and I stumbled upon this without intent of really doing any wikipedia work, and I'm afraid I'm rather tired and was about to go to bed. Somtimes this hapens very quickly. I prioritised reverting their edits to the original state of the article since they were clearly wrong.--Aciram (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit history alone is not a good means of communication. You're better to use the talk page, whether others can join in. In any case, once you got to three reverts, you should have stopped reverting and taken the matter to the talk page or a noticeboard. Remember, being right is not an exception to 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledge I should have done that. You are correct. I was too tired to think about the correct way of handling it. I am sorry.--Aciram (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging what you should have done. I trust that you have (slept and) reflected on the proper way to handle things, so a block or other sanction is not necessary to prevent further edit warring by you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you.--Aciram (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Another IP vandal
Please also monitor. This appears to be an alternate IP that the editor at 217.71.190.230, currently blocked for 2 weeks, is using.

Please remember to leave warnings on the editor's talk page. Once a user has racked up four warnings in a month, any further warnings can lead to admins blocking that user. Admins take such warning seriously & will not block a user who has not been sufficiently warned. Peaceray (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. I do think its the same person.--Aciram (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Slavery_in_Afghanistan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have replied there. --Aciram (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The DRN case is opened !!! I, the DRN volunteer will look into the matter to come to a fair conclusion as quickly as possible :) Craffael.09 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)