Igts2ane

1

Hi Igts2ane! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Berek (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2

hello Credd1907 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Igts2ane (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

3

Hi. A couple of quick questions:

• WP:ES. Have you had a chance to perhaps read WP:EDITSUMCITE? If not, please note that edit summaries would ideally contain more than a generic "I changed something" note. This is of limited to no value to other editors. Ideally edit summaries would indicate what you changed. And why you changed it.
• WP:VER. Why, when the sources refer to the period of Norman-influence in Irish history specifically, are you removing text which refers to that period (12th century) and replacing it with generic references to "medieval time". (A period which is undefined, not mentioned in the sources, and could span up to 700 years from the 9th to the 16th century?) Given that you didn't explain it in your edit summary what, specifically, is your problem with the phrase "following the Norman invasion"?

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. For the first problem you have all the reasons. Sorry for my mistake. For the second one I say: please, read ALL the books about 11th and 12th centuries in Ireland and Britain. For example: many Oxford University's books reported Stewarts were Normans, now they write that Stewarts are Bretons. At the same time Edimburgh University books report that Stewarts are Scottish. The same for other families after 1135: Molineaux, Neville and many many many others. Norman can be a synonymous of French, Celt or Viking, but some scholars create involontary confusion. Best regards. Igts2ane (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: "Sorry for my mistake [not using complete edsumms]". OK. No worries.

RE: "why people claim to know about something they never lived". Eh. Are you suggesting that archaeologists, historians, social geographers/scientists or anthropologists cannot research or write about things they "haven't lived"? That, unless a person (historian/researcher/reader) lived through the Battle of Agincourt, they can't claim to know something about it? If so, that's an unusual claim.

RE: "A [ Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland and Norman invasion of Wales ] didn't happen"? Huh? Are you suggesting that the prevailing historical research (which informs the academic publications about those events and the Wikipedia articles based on those publications) is somehow wrong? If so, that's a bold claim.

RE: "Please, read ALL the books about medieval time in Ireland and Britain". Eh. No thanks. There is no requirement for editors to read every single source ever written before contributing to an article. At present, the relevant text in the Dublin article reflects the linked/reliable sources. If you are aware of other sources, then please add them. If those sources conflict markedly with the existing sources, then open a thread on the relevant talk page. To discuss how to address any potential conflict. As that is what Talk pages are for. (To discuss the sources and gain consensus on how to reflect them in the related articles.)

RE: "have a proposal to 'fix' Dublin and Newcastle page". If you plan to make changes to those articles, in particular in a way that ignores historical research in favour of whatever form of science/research you seem to be favouring, then you would ideally explain your proposals on the related talk pages. As, unless I am mishearing or misunderstanding something, your approach to editing (based on the sources) is somewhat unusual.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. RE: "Are you suggesting that the prevailing historical research (which informs the academic publications about those events and the Wikipedia articles based on those publications) is somehow wrong?" It's not the prevailing historical research but only a PART of it. By the way I try to explain that what some scholars call Norman, others call Piccard. At the same time what some scholars call Viking, others call Norman.

"A [ Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland and Norman invasion of Wales ] didn't happen? Huh?"

I want to say that Norman dynasty ruled over part of England from 1066 to the Anarchy of England. By 1135 another dynasty ruled. During this period some Barons and families had some power (Magna Carta). By the way I try to explain that what some scholars call as Normans others scholars call it Bretons (Stewart family for example), what some scholars call French, others scholars call it Norman (Simon the Monfort Baron for example).

"Eh. No thanks. There is no requirement for editors to read every single source ever written before contributing...related articles.)" RE: It's ok.

"Why...are you removing text which refers to that period (12th century) and replacing it with generic references to "medieval time". (A period which is undefined, not mentioned in the sources, and could span up to 700 years from the 9th to the 16th century?) RE: 12th century is more appropriated than boths medieval time and Norman influences.

"Given that you didn't explain it in your edit summary what, specifically, is your problem with the phrase 'following the Norman invasion'?" RE: Because Norman is an umbrella term that confuse all. So the problem is: why some scholars identify William the conqueror as a Norman and at the same time identify Stewart family as Norman? Tudor in Ireland was an invasion for example. William the conqueror in part of England and William d'Orange in England, Wales and Scotland were invasions. Edward Plantagenet in Wales was an invasion. Igts2ane (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Again.

RE: "Not the prevailing research". If you can find an authoritative and substantive book about that period of Irish history, which refers to the change in power structures in Ireland (from pre-11th century Hiberno-Norse to post 12-century Anglo-Norman influence), that DOESN'T use the terms Normans, Norman invasion, Norman conquest, Norman control, or similar, then I will buy you a coke.

RE: "what some scholars call Norman, others call Breton". If you can find any book about Irish history, that refers to Strongbow / Pembroke or his forces as "Breton" rather than "Norman", then I will buy you a case of champagne.

Otherwise, given that the sources in this case (Dickson, 2014, in his preface), refers to the newcomers as Normans, and asserts that Dublin became a centre-of-power after their arrival (taking over somewhat from the areas of Hiberno-Norse control in Munster and Meath), then that is what the article reflects. If you have another source, then provide it. And stop changing text in a way that doesn't reflect the sources currently in place.

(Beyond that, this this "there's no such thing as a Norman" and "no articles should refer to a Norman invasion" crusade is otherwise quite odd. And not reflective of the sources in most of the articles you are editing as part of that crusade. And, as such, will likely result in strained discussions with other editors.)

If you want to propose other changes to the Dublin article (and sources to support those changes), then please open a thread at Talk:Dublin. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't this taking place on the talk page of the Dublin article? Seasider53 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Because, once it became clear this wasn't purely an editor etiquette issue (not using EDSUMMs, not reflecting sources, and warring) and was a content/references question, it took me a minute to open the thread. I've since opened a thread. I haven't, FYI, opened corresponding threads on the half-dozen other articles where the editor has unilaterally and without explanation removed references to "Norman"... Guliolopez (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hallo. RE: "Not the prevailing research" Can you understand books, etc... in Irish (Gaelic), Scottish (Gaelic or Scots), Welsh or English (not BBC English), Deutch, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Hindu, Maori etc...? If yes, I could offer you a beer.

RE: "...the terms Normans, Norman invasion, Norman conquest, Norman control, or similar..." I think "Anglo-French" control/influences/power/conquest in part of Ireland, Wales and England is the better choice from 12th to 14th century. Again: there is no accord (and no evidences) that the families who went to Ireland, Wales, Scotland and families in England itself during English anarchy and Plantagenet's rule of England were "Norman": Some historians (most from Yale or Oxford Universities, etc...) use this UMBRELLA TERM ("Norman") but accidentally create confusion. William II was a NORMAN, for example. Stewart families no (they were BRETONS but some historians call them Scoto-Normans), for example.

RE:"...refers to Strongbow / Pembroke or his forces as..." Strongbow and Pembroke maybe were Anglo-Plantagenet-Celtic-Hiberno-Scoto-Viking-Welsh- Cumbro-Briton-Gael-Flemish- Aquitan-Piccard-Burgund-Norse-Danese-Norman or SAXON in disguise? I hope you enjoy! Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. Igts2ane (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors' additions are reliably sourced, certainly in BLPs and controversial areas. And material that is uncited can be challenged and, if not then sourced, it can be removed. If an editor is here on some sort of crusade to right great wrongs that they perceive to exist, however - such as, say, removing every mention of the Normans - their edits tend not to last too long. This is as it should be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. RE: "The vast majority of editors' additions are reliably sourced, certainly in BLPs and controversial areas. And material that is uncited can be challenged and, if not then sourced, it can be removed." It's ok. Igts2ane (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. RE:"If an editor is here on some sort of crusade to right great wrongs that they perceive to exist" I'm not a crusader. RE: "removing every mention of the Normans" I'm not removing every mention of the Normans, I only say that there's great confusion around the term. I repeat: I'll support wikipedia only for the currents events. Bye Igts2ane (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The article Proposed Milano stadium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A proposal is not a building or even a project. May never come to fruition. The article is speculation and supposition, and a breach of WP:CRYSTAL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You can delete it. Igts2ane (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The article Proposed Milano stadium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:HAMMER

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You can delete it Igts2ane (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Revising comments

Hi. Please consider reading WP:TALK#REVISE. Which advises that "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while [..] But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment [..] should be avoided". Emphasis mine. It is not clear why you feel the need to revise previous talk page discussions, but you have removed or changed several comments (directed to several editors, myself included, which have already been addressed/quoted by those editors). If you want to blank your own talk page then that's fine. But this kind of thing isn't really in keeping with related norms. Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, I'll blank my own talk page. Sorry Igts2ane (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, "blank my own talk page" is too difficult.I will not made changes again (I think I've understood that the changes I've made were visible anyway in the talk page history). Sorry again. I'll support wikipedia only for currents events. Bye Igts2ane (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

WARNING!

PLEASE, BLOCK THIS ACCOUNT PERMANENTLY, I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PAST AND FUTURE ACTIONS FROM THIS ACCOUNT. Igts2ane (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)