Sobek2000

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Acolex2 (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I truly do not understand what your problem is. Your only argument for Cleopatra IV being Pharaoh was that 'she was deified'. I debunked this argument instantly and Chris Bennet's site you yourself quoted agrees with me - being included into dynastic cult did not make person rulling Pharaoh. Cleopatra IV was not Pharaoh and I explained to you why. I thought that's how it works - one side presnets argument, second person presnets their own argument. You presented none and produced one book that - incorrectly - presents Cleopatra IV as rulling queen, whereas Chris Bennet's site, Tara Sewell-Lasater, book about Ptolemaic deification you yourself had linked and Sally Ann Ashton's book do not list her as queen regnant. Why is this so hard for you to understand you are in wrong?

When you brougt other queens who were also not included in protocols, I did agree with you and I explained that we can discuss their status - however there is nothing to discuss in case of Cleopatra IV. Your failed provide any argument except 'deification' which - as I said 100 times - does not make person a Pharaoh. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Please see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally, it is not a sound argument to point to what another article does as justification alone. Remsense ‥ 论 14:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Vizier (Ancient Egypt) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 21:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'not constructive'? I added names and sources. What more should I do? Sobek2000 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sobek2000! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please self-revert and start a talk page discussion to establish consensus with Piccco. Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I did start talk with Piccco, however I do think it is they who dispute my content, so they should reach to me first. As I wrote, I am free to correct whatever I have to. I think it is highly disrepsctful that someone reverts ALL changes other person did and all their argument is that author is 'new to wikipedia', when this person gave their time. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Cleopatra) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Jochi, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not oryginal research. It is literally what article says. Sobek2000 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says the word "legal"? That's a surprise to me, especially as I wrote the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Article describes situation of legal parent/child. When you says "X married Y", it's obvious that parents of Y became X's in-law, even if you didn't mention them in sentence. Similarly, if you say that Genghis acknowledge Jochi as his son, that mean Jochi became his legal son, even if you didn't use this specific word. I am baffled you don't understand reality you had written about. Jochi's parentage was disputed - since we don't know if Genghis is his biological father or adoptive father (and he himself probably didn't know), the correct option to describe this is legal father - situation when father is recognized as official parent of child, regardless of doubts. Educate yourself on matter. Sobek2000 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And that is original research. On Wikipedia we do not go by what Sobek2000 thinks is a logical argument, but by what has been written in reliable sources (and in an FA, high-quality ones).

For some reason, none of them use the word "legal"—presumably none of the experts on the Mongol Empire are educated enough to realise what Sobek2000 instantly understood, but sadly we must use their words, not yours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like word legal, you can use word ''offcial". This is not original research - this is how simple terms function. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is your original extrapolation. You need to cite a source that directly characterizes the relationship in such a manner, or else it is an improper synthesis. To reiterate, for me the problem is not even fundamentally WP:V, it's WP:NPOV—even if this weren't original research on your part, it still wouldn't be due to explicate there so prominently. Remsense ‥ 论 13:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. This is about Jochi's page, nor Genghis. But since you started this I will tell you: I will neve gonna apologize for speaking truth. It's riduculous how biurocratic Wikipedia is, that you argue about single word or single link, when editor only wants to clarify situation to other people. If anything is "improper" it is blatant dishonesty by you and you using hour position of power to suit down truth because you subjectively don't like ONE additional word or ONE additional link, or one additional child in infobox. Just because you have authority position here, doesn't make your actions right. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I never asked you to apologize, I asked you to communicate about and establish consensus for your changes like everybody else. That you are so quick to conflate the two is illustrative of why you're having problems editing constructively. If "it's just one word" was actually your perspective, then it wouldn't matter to you. But it's one word that actually matters, that's why you want to change it—and you're simply not entitled to ignore the concerns of others in doing so. If you can't collaborate, if caring one whit about what others have to say about your changes is ridiculous bureaucracy to you, then you're not going to do well, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "official" would be more appropriate, but not because it means the same thing as "legal"—you may wish to look at a dictionary if you think that—but because reliable sources have used that wording. However, it would still not be appropriate to put in the infobox, as that would contravene MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. On the other hand, I didn't particularly mind "disputed" being added to Jochi's line at Genghis Khan (which I also wrote), as there is already a lot of detail in that infobox. If you can grasp this perspective, perhaps you can be a productive contributor to Wikipedia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Legal in this specific content means exactly the same as official. I would also point out that mamy infoboxes list if child is adopted, then it's seems logical with legal/disputed children too. Sobek2000 (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Legal here means "expressed in or resulting from the application of law". Official means, presumably, "appointed to carry out a certain role". They are similar but not synonymous: legal is narrower—and in my mind far less accurate—than official, though it is still unjustified to place in the same category as adopted.

Secondly, I'm not sure we've adequately gotten this across, though we've certainly at least linked WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: infoboxes are not generally required to use any given parameter or contain any given piece of information. As the briefest distillation of the article contents, what we include often depends much more on the specifics pertaining to each subject than consistencies we establish between articles or classes of articles.

An infobox does not have to list a person's children; if it does, it does not have to list all of them, only the ones that are pertinent in the biography or are notable in their own right; and even then they should not be marked out as "adopted" or "disowned" or what have you unless that itself is a key fact about the person themselves. That is to say, I am not at all convinced that the particular status of Jochi however we articulate it is a key fact about Genghis Khan. You could make an argument for that based on the emphasis given in sources, but I haven't actually seen one yet. Remsense ‥ 论 02:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Cleopatra. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I hardly had edit warring, since I edited only two times pages of Jochi and Genghis. I did not break 3 times tyle. I have no intention of editing them anymore, since my contribution was not welcomed. As for Cleopatra, this discussion was resolved, do I am not sure why you are holding this against me. Sobek2000 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to violate the three-revert rule to edit-war. Edit-warring is when you keep trying to return an article to your version instead of discussing the issue. You edit-warred at Jochi, Genghis Khan, and at Cleopatra after your last block expired. At Cleopatra, in particular, you edit-warred by trying to repeatedly restore the phrase "queen regnant" to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to restore "Queen regnant" because I thought we have consensus. That was misunderstanding and I apologized immiediately in Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Sobek2000! The thread you created at the Teahouse, My edit being "not constructive", has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Please listen

You are seemingly trending towards another edit warring session on Genghis Khan, and it is concerning. In any case, I want to impart something about consensus building that is important: it is not ideal to communicate issues with another's edits via edit summary. That is why we do not endlessly revert one another, and instead take issues to talk where they can be discussed at length with no fuss. You are not entitled to publish your disputed changes without consensus, which is what you are presently doing. You were not reverted for no reason, and your reasoning is not self-evident. I am perfectly able to articulate my reasons for disputing your changes in detail, but I am not going to do so via edit summary, and I'm not going to do so from a position where the onus is on me, because it is instead on you. I have already linked you WP:ONUS, but you seemingly do not understand how it applies here, as you are the one who wants to make the change.

While this is only a rule of thumb, please also keep in mind that Genghis Khan is a featured article that was recently promoted. What that means is, for every paragraph or presentation change one may think to make, it is fairly likely that it has already been considered deeply during the FA candidate process—and that the most visible parts of the article are presently the way they are for some reason, and often a good reason that warrants discussion and deliberate consensus-building to change. That is another reason why one may consider deferring to talk. Please self-revert your disputed changes to Genghis Khan and start a talk page discussion making the case for them, as is generally expected. I do not want to intone darkly, but edit warring is starting to seem like a behavioral pattern with you, and that does not bode well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why do you oppose this so much. Jochi is disputed to be Khan's child, that is fact article itself states, and fact that had major consequences to entire succession. If article was chosen to be featured, that is even more reason to include suche vital information in infobox. Wikipedia infoboxes always include when child is adopted or when parentage is disputed, and that should be with Jochi. I thought Wikipedia is about giving objective, neutral point of view?

I don't really understand why I should open talk to state basic historical fact. It's not something revisionist or pseudohistorical - it is something that was in this article all along, just clarified now. But I will open discussion in Talk, since those 8 letters are apparently such big problem - just not today, because I am simply exhausted.

Sobek2000 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The question is not whether a given label is the case—though "legal" would indeed be your original research—the question is whether it should be articulated in what amounts to a summary of a summary. In other words, it is undue prominence: articulating it in the infobox gives the distinction the single most attention of any aspect of Genghis's children. This is not justified. The infobox is meant to relay only key facts at a glance, and I do not feel this is a key fact. Remsense ‥ 论 00:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage reply

Hello, regarding your latest response at the Cleopatra talkpage, I saw it; I believe it would be better if you removed either one of the two replies, because it is the same one repeated and increases the text wall, making it harder for other users to read and navigate. Thank you. Piccco (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know I can edit discussion. :D I deleted one comment - hopefully it's clearer now. Thanks for all constructive criticism. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not really forbidden, especially for mistakes one can make in a hurry. We are only not allowed to edit replies of other editors, for obvious reasons. Piccco (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sobek2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand my situation now. It was not my intention to disrupt pages Genghis Khan, Jochi, and Cleopatra.I wasn't aware that editing two first of pages I mentioned less than 3 times in one day would be considered labelling them as edit warring - some editors informed me they do not like my bold attitude, but I did not know I broke rule, because - as I said - I genuinely thought it apply only to 3 reverts in span of 24 hours. I have full picture of situation now and I promise from now on engage in discussions on Talk page, if someone disagrees with my edit more than 1 time. I also do want highlight I did NOT engage in edit war in case of Cleopatra's page after expiration of first block - I was having discussion on Talk and I misjudged situation, as I was sure me and other users had reached consensus. When I was told to 'not be in hurry', I immiediately said sorry and I wrote that I am leaving ultimate decision to people whom I was discussing with. So there was no edit war in this last case, though I understand why moderator might thought so. As for pages of Genghis and Jochi, I actually was careful to not breach 3 rule revert (which turns out doesn't have to be actually three), and I really did not planned to make 3rd edit after my two first were rejected, since I didn't want to be blocked. As I said, I have now complete picture and understand what things I should not do and how to act properly if there is disagreement. I thought 3 revert rule is formal; since it is not and it's more about any kind of plural reverting, I promise to be less hot headed about this and more open to dialogue in Talks.

Accept reason:

Glad to hear it. I'll lift the block early, since it looks like you understand what edit-warring is now. When editing and discussing edits in the future, please take additional care to listen to what other editors are telling you so that you don't just get reblocked for something else. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much and sorry for aby trouble! (Happy New Year!) Sobek2000 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)