User talk:Fragrant Peony/Archive 6

The reason I made the change on Oprah Winfrey Network (Canadian TV channel) is to change the name of one of the sister channels in the infobox. The DIY Network was rebranded as Magnolia Network (Canadian TV channel) on March 28, 2022. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I explained why I removed the parameters by replying to the message you left on my talk page. Thanks, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to tell you that I've got your edits back. The reason is enough linked to these pages everywhere + blackout. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to read this article ancestry and I wish you a nice day :). Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah SchneiderCH: Hello, wishing you a wonderful day as well!

In my opinion, the article's title cultural heritage is much more accurate and encyclopedic.

Additionally, I believe this paragraph describes it best: "Arabs share a common bond based on ethnicity, language, culture, history, identity, nationalism, geography, unity and politics". A rich introduction would be great, you could include ancestry too but kindly discuss the topic within the talk page as some people like the Sudanese might feel left out. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peony, The aircraft lost in the incident was 81194 NOT 81192 as commonly believed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.126.184 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd just like to drop a note here that I'm glad to see another editor interested in this subject area. And I certainly get where you are coming from in terms of the consistency argument in terms of the naming of these articles. I would also prefer consistency, but I also have quite a different take on the naming here, as you will have seen from the discussion. I would in turn encourage you to have a good long look yourself at the balance of sources present on these topics, an indication of which you can understand from Ngrams. For any of the named conquest articles involved, you can perform a similar search, and by-and-larger you will see similar results. Arab-Byzantine Wars, the only featured article in this subject-matter area, is in my mind the exemplar page we should be following in terms of consistency and deference to the actual sources. Early Muslim conquests, by contrast, is a C-class article the name of which is itself fairly dubiously derived. Do ping if you want to chat more on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Putting the pages under the most commonly used academic name is indeed the right thing to do. It is a good point that Arab conquest is used more academically, so I strongly agree that the rest of the pages should be referred to as such. I prefer keeping the discussion on the article's page so we don't have too many open discussions. Thank you very much. Fragrant Peony (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could I speak to you a moment about my refashioning of the article. Your comments to me where you raised a concern about the reputation of the sources of my previous editing suggested to me that before I continue trying to double check what's appropriate to employ as a source, there's probably something poorly-designed about my edits generally.

I'm sorry I reacted poorly. I also wanted to thank you for approaching me about my problem. I may have taken on too much thinking at a time when I should have been tending to shopping.

Best wishes and please enjoy your week.

Vargas

Not at all, no need for apologies dear. Hope you are having a great day, and kindly check out your talk page. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am Madeline Ducote and I work for Cleco in our corporate communications department. We noticed that our page was very outdated and had information that was not accurate so I was assigned to update it. We also need our logo updated as we recently went through a rebrand, but it won't let me change it.

Thank you, Madeline 206.56.228.2 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While some other editors might have delivered some powerful rhetoric, I would urge you to actually examine how little they are actually deferring to actual sources. Opinions and feelings not backed up by sources are not the substance in which we root pages. You will best understand the overall balance of sources on this is simply observe this top-level Ngrams for the conquests, which shows you exactly how consistently dominant the Arab variant has been over the history of scholarship. A quote was provided in an earlier discussion that I think is instructive. It is Robert Hoyland's defence of "Arab" from In God's Path, pp. 5–6:

I will speak of "Arab" conquests rather than "Islamic" conquests. Both terms are to some degree inaccurate, since the conquerors were neither all Arabs nor all Muslims, and the meaning of both terms was in any case evolving in the immediate aftermath of the conquests. Nevertheless, contemporary observers mostly referred to the conquerors in ethnic rather than religious terms, and even if some of the conquerors were not Arabs their descendants often came to think of themselves as such, and so it seems preferable to use the term "Arab," while bearing in mind that we are not talking about a nationalist endeavor nor an immutable racial category. . . Furthermore, if we use the term "Islamic conquests" we cannot distinguish between the many different conquests achieved over the centuries by many Muslim groups (Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Berbers, etc.). This causes much confusion among students, and among quite a few experts too, for it tends to be assumed that the Arabs conquered most or all of the lands that are majority Muslim today, whereas a large proportion of them were actually conquered much later, by local Muslim dynasties, of non-Arab origin, or were Islamized slowly by traders, missionaries, and wandering ascetics.

Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment 184.99.49.237 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fragrant Peony! I just wanted to clarify the reasons for your revert of my recent edit on this page. The relevance of Ronald Reagan's policies is not made clear until further down in the article, so it's confusing to mention him in the introduction without explaining why. My edit was an attempt to clarify the meaning of the sentence: that the queer coding of the character was identifiable despite quite strict censorship at the time. We can't be sure that a general reader would know about the homophobia of the Reagan era, and the linked article is very long and doesn't focus on his LGBTQ policies. I'm not sure I understand your edit summary, could you help me understand? Thanks Wow Mollu (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good reasoning, done! Fragrant Peony (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Thanks for following up and being understanding. I will say, I'd just spent a good while studying this article and working out some copy edit/structural changes to improve it, and having the first small change reverted by a bot without solid reasoning (and having to come defend it) was pretty discouraging to the work I was planning to do. I totally get how much good work vandalism bots can take care of, and it seems like you do monitor yours, just maybe this particular parameter could be tweaked a little. Just my POV as a relatively new editor trying to keep my momentum up. Thanks for all your work on vandalism and all the best Wow Mollu (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear about your efforts! Your opinion is actually correct in not mentioning Reagan in the introduction and explaining the topic first. Thank you!

Fragrant Peony (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the Dispute Resolution procedures, I have made a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion § Active disagreements. I am notifying you on your talk page as required by the 3O rules and guidelines. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rushdy Abaza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This administrator does not see obvious vandalism in Brusquedandelion's edits, so your reverts do not qualify for a 3RR exemption for reverting vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're both getting the same message on your talk pages. Back down the rhetoric. Focus on the content, not the contributors. You each bring up valid points about how to portray his background and heritage; you need to make sure it's done based on what reliable sources have written about him. WP:Third opinion is a good place to have reached out to get another voice in the matter, since you two are at an impasse and not reaching consensus. I am going to reset the discussion on the article's talk page to get refocused on the content. Please keep tightly to the content in discussion going forward there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]