User talk:ByzantineIsNotRoman

Welcome!
Hi ByzantineIsNotRoman! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Hulagu Khan has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi ByzantineIsNotRoman, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on using reliable sources. Replacing four citations to scholarly sources with a (rather vague) reference to a YouTube video, as you did here, is obviously not an improvement, per that policy, so make sure you understand its principles. If you're unsure whether a certain source qualifies as reliable or not, feel free to ask about it on the relevant article's talk page, and it's likely that other editors will be able to help. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Your edits continue to be problematic, especially with the lack of sources and the improper deletion of material. I also notice you resort to using edit summaries for expressing what looks like your own interpretation or personal preference, which is not really what that's for and generally not what Wikipedia is for either. Please read No original research first. If you're making an edit that requires a long explanation about the sources, or what you think is the correct representation of the sources, I recommend you leave a comment on the talk page instead so editors can discuss and consider whether it makes sense, if needed. That's much easier then trying to read a paragraph in the article's edit history.
 * Separately, please note that marking edits as "minor" is only appropriate if you're making a spelling, grammar, or format fix; not when you're deleting, changing, or adding information (see Help:Minor edit). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What’s wrong with any of the sources I listed for my most recent edit of the battle of Ain Jalut? I am still learning how to cite on Wikipedia, but what is remotely wrong with the sources themselves? Another thing, the Mongols had one Tumen at Ain Jalut, meaning 10,000 men or less. The rest of the men were Armenian, Georgian, and Frankish volunteers. ByzantineIsNotRoman (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All you did to the article itself was remove four sources from it and replace a number range supported by those sources with a different single number. That's not an improvement. First, the citations must be in the article itself (next to the information they support), so that anyone is able to verify them. That's part of Verifiability, a core principle of Wikipedia. So in other words, any improvement should make it easier, not harder, for readers to see where each piece of information is coming from. Naming some sources in your edit summary is not enough.
 * Secondly, as editors, it's not exactly our job to decide what is the "right" information, it's only our job to report what can be found in reliable sources, without any further personal interpretation or judgement (WP:OR). If different sources say different things, then Wikipedia should usually report all of them, not choose which sources are right or wrong. In this case, at least some of the cited sources (as well as other sources not cited there) state an estimate of 10,000 and 20,000, or other estimates within that range. Therefore, as a summary of what the sources say, a range of 10,000-20,000 is the most inclusive. The only scenario where it makes to narrow it down to a single figure is if the majority of reliable sources are actually in agreement on this figure, which they are not here. The main text of the article itself should ideally go into more detail about this, by more clearly stating which authors proposed which estimates, etc; that's something that could be improved in the future.
 * Lastly, if you're still struggling to figure out how to cite on Wikipedia (which is not surprising, it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs) see Help:Referencing for beginners (a beginner's guide) or Citing sources (the full policy). In case it causes confusion, I'll note that the format of some citations in that article should ideally be improved to Wikipedia standards by using the recommended templates. You should follow the recommended guidelines, but don't be surprised if you see slightly different citation formats here and there. (They're still ok as long as sufficient bibliographical details are provided.) Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand everything you said, but I also think that as you stated as well, there are definitely improvements to be made on the article. From what I understand, it is abundantly clear that the Mamluks outnumbered the Mongols at Ain Jalut (there appears to be no dispute about this), but it seems difficult to estimate by how much. Since you’re clearly more experienced, perhaps you have an idea of how to do this fact justice in the article? (Which again, I feel is very much lacking in detail and important context right now) ByzantineIsNotRoman (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to balance my time between many other articles, and of course with non-Wikipedia work, so I don't have time right now to do more reading/writing on this particular topic. But one of the things I always recommend for new editors (and also for contentious topics, if you come across them) is to focus on adding new content in the main body of the article, rather than editing the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a bare-bones summary of what's in the article, so it doesn't work well for providing further context on a topic. The main text, on the other hand, has plenty of room for expansion, for discussing context, mentioning new sources, etc. As long as it's appropriately sourced and respects a neutral point of view (another core policy), it's rarely a problem to add more information this way. If you remove information instead, or modify existing information that's already attributed to reliable sources, it raises a lot more questions, so avoid this unless there's a good reason.
 * And like I mentioned before, it is absolutely harmless and very often helpful to leave a comment or question on the article talk page; whether it's to request help, ask for clarification about something, or simply to leave an explanation of your edit if it's too long to explain in the edit summary. I hope that helps! R Prazeres (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
Hello! I'm Nashville whiz. Your recent edit(s) to the page Siege of Baghdad (1258) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nashville whiz (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Barbary Crusade. 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: 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. M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Eighth Crusade. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Russo-Turkish War (1568–1570) while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Additionally, note that making logged-out edits while your account is blocked for previous behavior is especially serious and could result in further consequences, including an indefinite block on your account and any associated accounts or IPs that you use in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)