Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:19, 6 April 2017

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Edit on War of the Roses

Regarding this edit, I'm not sure why you removed me. The subject of the sentence is referring to "the large standing baronial armies that had helped fuel the conflict" (which is from the previous sentence"). "Kept on a tight leash" is unnecessary and is a modern phrase that they surely wouldn't use back then. Further, the sentence works better without the phrase:

Henry VII, wary of any further fighting, removed their right to raise, arm and supply armies of retainers so that they could not make war on each other or the king. - this is a solid sentence, and I'm not sure why you reverted just to keep the "tight leash" phrase. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the second version has the same meaning as the first, so we disagree there. But I do agree the "tight leash" phrase is more colloquial. I was not able to think of a better wording. I remember historians that do emphasize the impact that the policies had on the barons, and this has been pretty consistent in secondary sources. This war is so confusing that I am reluctant to sacrifice clarity, because the subject is difficult enough to understand as is it, but a lot of historians have done good work to make it more comprehensible. I felt this clarity was missing from the second version, but a phrase like "tight leash" should be attributed and I don't have a source in front of me. I thought I had left an explanation on the talk page? Seraphimsystem (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hundred Years' War (1369–89), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 16:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Kosem

I don't need to seek consensus as the section was first titled "As consort" until you or maybe someone else changed its title. Besides you don't seem to get the main point. Imperial consorts such as Kosem could become "Haseki Sultan" after giving birth to a male heir or eventually marrying the sultan, and they remained a haseki their whole life as they were often referred to as Haseki "X" Valide Sultan, while they could be considered an imperial consort only when their husbands were alive. Besides, Hurrem was a concubine and a "slave". Then why do the sources say that she was "freed" and then married Suleiman? That's why it was considered very important as she was a former slave who had become the sultan's legal wife. Keivan.f 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone found a citation for Hurrem already, so there's no need to get defensive. Please share your source for Haseki "X" Valide Sultan. I have never heard that before. Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all I'm totally aware of these names and titles' meanings as many of them were taken from Arabic language which has influenced Turkish and Persian through the centuries and fortunately my mother tongue is Persian which makes me able to fully understand the meanings of many Ottoman titles and names. Besides User:Chamboz found sources for the sentences that you had tagged as unsourced while the sentence which states that Hurrem was a slave and concubine and a priest's daughter was sourced from the first which makes me wonder why you tried to revert my edit. In addition to what I said above, it's better for you to keep in mind that here's the English Misplaced Pages and many readers are English speakers so the sections must be titled in a suitable way so that they can read the articles comfortably. Would the subheading "As consort" have a meaning for English readers or "As Haseki Sultan" considering that the title Haseki Sultan isn't as known as the higher ranked title "Valide Sultan"? Keivan.f 21:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You order me to seek consensus yet you edit the article in the way you like. Discuss it first and don't make further changes to the article. Keivan.f 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is very inappropriate for you to tell another editor to not make changes to an article. I think the article's infobox will answer your questions. It is Misplaced Pages policy that you should always seek consensus, instead of edit war, which is what you are doing. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is what you are currently doing instead of discussing the matter. You started reverting my edits and then tried to change the article's structure again without discussing it first. Stop it, otherwise I'll inform the administrators. Keivan.f 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My talkpage is really not the place for this conversation, I was willing to discuss with you on talk but you chose to edit war. Please stop posting on my talk page. If you want to attempt to reach consensus, the article talk page is a more correct place for that. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that this argument was unnecessary but I apologize if it bothered you. Talk pages are for discussing such things and this discussion could take place either on the article's talk page or on our talk pages. The current subheadings that you have chosen seem to match what we both wanted. There's no need for further discussion. I would like to invite you to vote on this entry as well. Keivan.f 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

I think my message was somewhat unclear. It wasn't a threat or a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Your recent actions convinced me that some of your editing patterns pose a danger to Misplaced Pages and that I'm not able to influence them on my own. I'm not filing an "incident report" in an attempt to get you blocked, but rather to get involvement from capable admins who are here to determine what behavior is acceptable or not and deal with the latter kind when regular editors can't. While your latest partial self-reverts give us a way to continue collaborating on that page, they don't change the broader scheme of things, because you seem to have made them as a reaction to my alert and not because I've managed to convince you to change the editing patterns that prompted my decision. You'll have a chance to participate on the noticeboard as much as I, and perhaps admins will side with you rather than me. Filing those things is a hassle and it gives me absolutely no pleasure, but at this point I feel like I have exhausted the other avenues available to me. Moreover, if I told you that I would hold off on the report and see how things develop, I think that might be considered a form of blackmail, and I have no intention of doing anything of that kind. You've also been making valuable contributions, so if admins confirm what I've been trying to tell you and you listen to them, we can all only gain from the outcome. Eperoton (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I welcome any discussion on the problems I have had with your messy citations, cherry picking and improper use of tertiary sources. Considering the state the article was in when I started editing, you should be thanking me. Maybe something like half the article was unsourced, and you haven't cared until now. There were links to Conan the Barbarian and unsourced links to brothel in the lead. This article was full of objectifying language and bad writing. such as

Many Westerners falsely imagined a harem as a personal brothel consisting of many sensual young women lying around pools with oiled bodies, with the sole purpose of pleasing the powerful man to whom they had given themselves.

Despite this, I have tried to respond to you in good faith, and will continue to do so. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus clause block

For restoring (Battle of Latrun passage ) content without attempting to gain consensus, you are in breach of ARBPIA/Ds. I, therefore, have blocked you for 12 hours. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)