User talk:HaEr48/Archives/2018/January

DYK nomination of Mudéjar revolt of 1264–66
Hello! Your submission of Mudéjar revolt of 1264–66 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

time wasting
FYI, you may be wasting effort on a hopeless task. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I'll limit my interaction with this user. I agree with the complaints there. This user's comments in talk pages are either not specific enough or incomprehensible - in either case, inactionable. I tried to engage to find out if he's onto something, but it seems that he has a pattern of incomprehensible talk page ranting, so I better not waste too much effort. HaEr48 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this sort of argumentum ad hominem even allowed (and with such an hostility?) ? And from a user, whom I don't even remember having had any encounter with? Since that report, for all particle purposes I have retired. Minimal contribution, mainly fixing what I had already posted, or voting. Besides, how this does even dismiss my comment that most of the references on that article are from the same author? If you find my comment incomprehensible, you should have inquired clarification. Seems reputation here is all what matters. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, if you prefer taking the long road, I just wrote in few lines what is here:, , , , , ,
 * I don't think there's any ad hominem argument. Ad hominem argument would be like, "User X is a [insert insult here], so don't listen to him". That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the comments you left are incomprehensible, and the noticeboard link provided previous patterns of similar comments. I merely see little benefit in spending too much time in responding to such comments. If you post specific constructive suggestions, with a comprehensible argument backed up by reliable sources, I'd be happy to respond. HaEr48 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you to read the noticeboard report link content provided and judge by yourself. Also read this comment here also the links I just provided above (for sources). I am all for sourcing, what I oppose is quoting few sentences without reading the whole sources... and above anything to use one author as main source for an article. I don't believe I have been in any way antagonistic in my replies toward you. And yes, I did precieve this as ad hominem, just read the number of times you use user above and in which context. Just restrain yourself to my comment in that talkpage, and tell me what is incomprehensible there. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not WP:RETIRED. Retiring implies leaving Wikipedia. You didn't even wait 24 hours after declaring retirement to resume your activity. I doubt User:The Bushranger expected you to return so soon when he closed the ANI. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Provinces flag
Hello, I'm Bagas Hutagalung. Thank you for your recent contributions to East Java, West Java and Central Java. I leave a message here for your last contribution, keep in mind it is a official flag not a fake.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at East Java, West Java and Central Java. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. You can see it here Thank you. Bagas Hutagalung (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about these flags to seek community opinion. I've pinged Bagas in his talk page too. HaEr48 (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mudéjar revolt of 1264–66
Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)