User talk:HalfdanRagnarsson

Please note that although this user is well-intentioned, he is an utter buffoon, and may make many idiotic mistakes. He requests others not to get mad at him for these.

There are no angry mastodons here! - Freude, Tochter aus Elysium...

Welcome

 * Thanks! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Zoho corporation
Yes you clearly do think of yourself as a good doer, maybe next time you could consider a slightly less accusatory tone. What I did was directly quote the RSS page, check it yourself, you will find the words I used right at the start. This to clarify to the majority of people outside of the country what the RSS is, rather than just having an abbreviation.

This section is (was) labelled Controversy, hence an explanation was needed why it was controversial, hence my addition.

When the CEO of an internationally known company insists on attending meetings of an organisation such as the RSS, again read the article, they are as far right as it gets, and there is a public response then this is a notable event. Taking part in an edit war to keep removing this, that is what is politicisation, and is not worthy of an encyclopedia, I would therefore kindly suggest that you cease doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.56.13 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The RSS is an organisation that has received both controversy and praise. Bluntly calling it far-right is incorrect, unless it is something universally reviled, like the Dark Lord himself. That is politicization of the article. Also, you will notice that any flammable remarks on the page have always been removed. Besides, I never advocated removal of the Controversy section. Btw, when did I edit-war? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look through the guidelines. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Battle of Gaugamela. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me, but there is still a slight problem - you see, along with that sentence I added (I now realize there was something wrong with that), you deleted my addition of Diodorus' account, which wasn't original research, and you also deleted some longstanding content that I never added - the Babylonian diary's account. Those were constructive to the article, and you seem to have (in good faith) thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Could you re-insert those bits? (It is better if I do not, as both you and Coltsfan have raised valid concerns about my additions.) Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you raised the issue elsewhere. I've posted the link there, but I will say here that "this is corroborated to an extent by Diodorus' account, which states that Darius' guard melted away around him, after which he was forced to flee, causing the rout of the army. However, this is still considerably different from the Babylonian diary's account of Darius' whole army deserting him" is exactly that we mean by original research, it's some editor making a claim on the basis of an ancient primary text. We need an academic source interpreting the text.  Doug Weller  talk 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I acknowledge that mistake. What I mean is the portion that existed before either I or Coltsfan got involved on the page. This:

A less common view is that Darius' army was already broken when he ran; this view is supported by an astronomical diary from Babylon written within days of the battle:

"The twenty-fourth [day of the lunar month], in the morning, the king of the world [i.e., Darius] [erected his] standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other, they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops [of the king he inflicted]. The king [i.e., Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went]. They fled to the land of the Guti."

You (presumably by mistake) deleted this along with the parts I inserted. Can I add this back? (Note that there is an academic source backing it.) Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See the article talk page now. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Old texts, addition to answer at Teahouse
WP:s policies and guidelines aren't superclear on this. Here's two discussions that may give a little insight:


 * User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_54
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Zoho Corporation
Hi, can you explain what "violates NPOV" in my edit so as you decided to summarily revert it? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly. The bone of contention here is you rewording it to describe the RSS as a Hindu extremist organization. That may or may not be true, but the point here is that many will agree with you, and many will disagree, making it a point of view, as opposed to an established fact. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, based on established facts and not the view of one group of people. For more details, see WP:NPOV. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you preferred to revert the entire edit, which contained reworked references, a substantially improved wording that moved away the focus from tweets to media reaction – just because you did not like one word? Thought that you could simply remove the word you didn't like in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE? — kashmīrī  TALK  15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The rewording of the sentence gave it a political flavour that was unnecessary. I welcome your reordering of the links; just do it separately. Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no running away from the fact that the incident did have a political dimension, and that's precisely the reason why it stirred so much controversy. Imagine Steve Jobs attending a Tea Party event - would there be a way to report on it without touching upon the political context? I don't think so. Same here.
 * In any case, what we should report is the controversy and not a hashtag trending on twitter - and that was the reason I went for complete rewording. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hizbul Mujahideen
Re your edit summary - please (1) list diffs of my FOUR reverts within 24 hours of the same text, (2) list not a dozen but at least a single established editor whom I reverted from adding that text. And if you can't, apologise. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure enough. (Hang on, is this the second time I'm running into you?) Here they are -, ,, , , , , and . Most are IPs, but the original was done by AmazingCaptain, and now me. Read my description again. The only reason I got involved was because I noticed an edit-war over a really sensitive thing, but I'm watching the page now. Let's keep the tone friendly as well - I bear no ill-will towards you; that was just a standard warning (but a necessary one). Happy editing! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No four of these revers are within 24 hours of each other. AmazingCaptain is not even three months old and your account has barely 300-odd edits, although I have a feeling you have edited here for much longer than your account age would suggest. Re. tone, your combative reverts at Zoho didn't really sound friendly. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you didn't commit 3RR itself - my bad, pardonnez-moi. (Still, WP:3RR does imply that your actions come under edit-warring.) But the rest of my statement is valid. As for you having more experience than me or AmazingCaptain, all are equal here (but we appreciate you for your contributions). As for the dispute at Zoho Corporation, that was a matter of WP:Policy that I was following - no Corsican vendettas here! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me; will comment later in the day. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Message on my talk page regarding move
Please improve it in draftspace and then move again, you are welcome with due respect Fisha Malik (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a question - why did you use a RedWarn? It's an anti-vandalism tool... HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

sorry for hurting
I have just use it to make my work easy as it provides good format to talk, but what matters is you should add citations to the said article. Fisha Malik (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've added external links; citations will come slowly as editors get involved (nearly all new pages stay without citations for some time, but I'll try to find one.) Good luck! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thanks a lot, Gog! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Stubs
Hallo, Please remember that whatever stubs we use for Phameas or anyone/anything else should go at the end of the article, below the categories etc - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. Pam D  11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Pam, thanks for your improvements to the article. I'm a bit confused about stubs now - many articles I checked to understand this had stubs above their categories, so I did likewise. I'll correct myself then. Cheers! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * People get things wrong ... there's one editor who is currently flatly refusing to stick to WP:MOS about the order of elements ... I find WP:ORDER quite a useful reference. Thanks. Pam  D  12:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from Battle of Kings Mountain without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had removed the content for a good reason. You see, there was this newbie account that was active in the month of July, who had poorly understood WT:MILMOS and went around pages knocking off "decisive" from their infoboxes citing MILMOS, and promptly retired by the end of the month, presumably frustrated by ClueBot reverting his edits. No doubt he was acting in good faith, but he was incorrect to do so - and may kick off the ancient Wiki hornet's nest of "decisive vs no terminology". Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Kings Mountain, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOS: "In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes." Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you been reading my replies or not?! Also, receiving basic warning templates feels a bit demeaning. Since you insist, I'm not going after King's Mountain any further, but I disagree with your interpretation. Still, no hard feelings. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My interpretation?? Tell me what is the least bit ambiguous about the quotation above from WP:MILMOS. And by the way, the editor who added the notice is no more of a newbie than you are. Warning templates are given to avoid blocks. If you don't want warning standard warning templates I'll be happy to not issue them and go directly to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Now, is there any reason to go wild? I am not interfering with King's Mountain any further. For the quotation, there is still a lot of debate about it - one of the oldest tinderboxes on Wiki. And why do you talk of taking this to WP:ANI when I have done only two reverts, and stopped once you insisted? For standard templates, maybe I was a bit rude in telling you not to - pardon me for that. But I ask you to calm down - there is absolutely no reason to get worked up about this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not worked up, just trying to figure out your baffling comments. You need to provide evidence that "there is still a lot of debate about it". Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I brought up ANI because you think a template to help you avoid a block is "demeaning", so instead of issuing the templates my choice is to ignore your edits or go to ANI if you refuse to get the point. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are some discussions about it - one on WT:MILMOS, another here, and some more all over the place. As far as I know, the guideline was changed as a tentative consensus seemed to have formed in a discussion at a point, but that promptly evaporated, as you can see. As I said earlier, this is one of the oldest disputes here. Again, no hard feelings and let's forget anything bad we may have said to each other in this discussion. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I am not "refusing to get the point" but dropped the ball as soon as you insisted. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 144 since you didn't link specific discussions. Those discussions did not form a consensus, so your comment that "the guideline was changed" is inaccurate. It's certainly not a justification for you to revert twice. One of the oldest disputes? Again, show us the evidence. If you didn't "refuse to get the point", why did you object to standard warning templates that are issued to avoid your getting a block? Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Different points of view, different points of view... anyway, this discussion is going round and round. I agreed not to interfere with King's mountain, so what are you angry about? As for template warnings, thanks for informing me, I will be more receptive of them. (When I once sent such a warning to an editor, he was indigniated, since when I've been under the impression that such warnings should be given only to newcomers; apparently my impression is wrong.) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's "different points of view", and in the absence of agreement you don't make a change. Yes, I think we're finished here. Please don't make such a change again without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Achaean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thebes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epirus (Roman province), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasius I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – March 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – April 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 10:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)