User talk:Scythian1/Archive 3

Articles for deletion nomination of Mormonism and Islam
I have nominated Mormonism and Islam, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Mormonism and Islam. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hello there
Hello to you as well. It is good to have a person like you in wikipedia. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Mahmud of Ghazni as homosexual lover of his slave
Are you at all familiar with this story? Your edits do not accurately reflect the history of this personage. Haiduc (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Would you like your talk page archiving? :) -- Scythre Talk Contribs 11:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Hope you like it :) Message me when you want some more. Regards, -- Scythre Talk Contribs 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning
The result of the First Anglo-Afghan War wasn't Afghan victory. This had been discussed in the talk page, see it for yourself. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghurids
Can you please take a look at Talk:Ghurids, Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Please review this article
United Arab Emirates is currently a good article nomineee. Can you please review and comment about it? Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Arabs in Afghanistan
Please do not post image in the article. It is misleading, as it has nothing to do with either Arabs or Afghanistan. It was printed in the Azeri magazine Molla Nasraddin in 1908 and was meant to represent the treatment of Baku's Muslim population by Russian authorities. Parishan (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Negudar
Hi Scythian1 , I have left a note for you on talk Negudar. Intothefire (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scythian Could you please improve the citation on article Negudar which you have given ,by providing the Volume No of the specific book from the set , as there seem to be many volumes within the set ,that you have provided a ref from for viz ''The Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful, pg. 226'' . Intothefire (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert of St Albans
Well, I think you need to be a little less credulous with your sources, but see my comments at the talk page of Robert's article. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be baffling, sorry. I reverted hastily at a moment where I did not have time to examine the edits and sources carefully. I will do that, so I apologize, but basically, just because something has a source doesn't mean the source is any good. Not all sources are equal. With Templars you have to be extra careful because the majority of it is junk. In this case, The Experience of Crusading is a collection of articles by modern academic historians of the crusades, and it is a legitimate soruce. I know we're suppose to use secondary sources on Wikipedia, and that's a good one. The problem is this story comes from one medieval source, Roger Hoveden (although it was repeated by other authors who copied him, like Benedict of Peterborough). So if you see the story in numerous sources, it means they all got it from Roger/Benedict. It is misleading (although I'm not suggesting you did are being misleading on purpose) to say that five secondary sources (or whatever number) all agree, since that's not really what's happening. It is also misleading (again not on purpose) to use a hodge-podge of old and new sources. Siedschlag's book is from 1939, and it was published privately. I see that it is sometimes cited by more legitimate sources, but there has been so much written about England and the crusades that it should be easy to find a better, more recent, more scholarly source. "England the Crusades" by Christopher Tyerman would be a good one - although he doesn't mention Robert (which is itself significant). "The reign of William Rufus" is a better source, but also very old, and not even about the same period. Freeman cites Hoveden (and Benedict) for the story. The other sources are pretty much unusable. Anything that talks about Templars as a secret society and burying treasure in America etc etc is not a legitimate source.


 * They're unnecessary anyway. If the authors have done any proper research they're just using the same secondary sources about the crusades as we are. So for an article like this it would be appropriate to cite Roger Hoveden, and the Experience of Crusading book. But is that really good enough? The EofC page is just a note, that article isn't about Robert at all. It cites another old book, by Reinhold Röhrict, which you can read here on pg. 411, and all that is is another note that goes back to Hoveden/Benedict again! Is it necessary to have an article about a person who is never mentioned in credible sources except in a note? Malcolm Barber, who is the current expert on the Templars, never mentions him. Is Hoveden's story even accurate? There is no other independent medieval source for it, whether Christian or Muslim. This is also the reason I objected to mentioning it in Saladin's article. Robert hardly seems relevant or important enough for his own article, much less to be mentioned in someone else's.


 * Hopefully I have explained myself better now that I have had time to do so. I will be happy to clarify further if necessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have another suggestion. We have a List of Knights Templar. It's not a very good article at the moment, but instead of having a separate article for Robert, we could list him there, along with this one thing that is known about him. (This article would then be redirected to the list.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But why should it stay? Is there any chance that this article will ever have any other information added to it? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the most ideal outcome, according to Stub. (One way around this would be to "add context", although any context that could be added is already explained in other articles, and we still wouldn't know anything more about Robert.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Firouz
From your talk page I wasn't certain how knowledgeable you were so didn't post more explanation here as I thought you may already know. Anyway, I can't delete the duplicate as I'm not an admin, but one should be along to do so shortly. Per our disambiguation guidelines we only disambiguate (normally by adidng something in brackets) when need be. In this case there is no need as we only have one article on Firouz. Copy and pasting, even within wikipedia, is normally a bad idea as it is a breach of copyright unless properly attributed (see here for more information). If you do wish to change an article title it should be moved, as explained here, although in this case that would be inappropriate as it's at the correct title. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)