User talk:AgisdeSparte

Neutrality on Volos Declaration

Hello AgadisSparte. I appreciate your attention to the edit I made on Volos Declaration. The wording I touched struck me as highly polemical and not encyclopedic in tone or point of view. It's fine to describe and cite polemics, and less than fine for editors themselves to write polemically (even if I agree with their point of view). My edit was therefore intended to promote objectivity but I'll defer to your decision to revert it. For the record I'm opposed to the Russian world ideology -- and consider Patriarch Kirill to be a dangerous charlatan who wouldn't recognize holiness if it bit him in the ass. Ps8v9 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Why are you archiving live URLs? M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @M.Bitton, I am in quite a mood of archiving links, to help the encyclopedia be more stable in that regard. I did countries recently, and I just recently started focusing on some countries in Africa, which I believe are often with links that are 'down' quickly, and are often sourced with links, also. On the FR:WP it's the African Month, so I figured that I would do that to help, here, because links are often archived on a lot of Western-linked pages, such as 'New York' or 'USA', whereas for Africa or other parts of the world, they are less. This is basically to help posterity keep links, if we can. AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, though bear in mind that doing it it automatically means that the content of some of them (such as this one) won't be archived. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Yes, I try to do a lot of pages instead of really exhaustive work, because I'm like 'at least if they have some sources on each subject it's best than having a lot of sources on less subjects', then other contributors can pass after and complete if they want ^^ AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You're also archiving Google books previews (which increase the size of the article for no reason as they cannot be archived), so please exclude them from the script that you're using. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I use IaBOT, which doesn't allow to change the script (in my knowledge), it automatically excludes some stuff, such as Youtube or that kind of links but probably doesn't do it for everything, indeed. For the specifics of the Google Books previews, I don't know if there is a rule about archiving those links or not, but I would say that they give somewhat of an interesting info on the book because there you can see the cover of the book, which you can't on WP. I'm always thinking about what if WP or a lot of the web gets lost and we only have those archive links staying, and I think in that regard, the covers given by Google Books could be useful for posterity to have some infos that aren't to be found in WP, like the art on the covers. AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Input request @ Talk:Jinn

• Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

also Pre-RfC stage info:
Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn. As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islam (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible false positives by rescue bot

Hi, AgisdeSparte

Today is the second time I've seen your bot rescue over 200 sources that didn't need rescue. Is there a flaw in #IABot (v2.0.9.5)? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @G. Timothy Walton, I use the bot to archive links (including live ones) on the whole encyclopedia. I used it, those last days, on the longest pages on the encyclopedia, using this page. As far as I know, there isn't any specific policy on archiving (or not) live links, except this discussion, dating back to 2020, when contributors were neutral or undecided on that matter. On a more personnal note, I feel like we should archive as much as we can while the links are still up. Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I can get used to seeing it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IABot (v2.0.9.5)

Editors who activate BOTS or an automated tool should always check the results to ensure that they are accurate, as they are often not. Here are two articles as examples of your recent edits that have errors, using an automated tool: Diff 1 and Diff 2.

• List of University of Pennsylvania people

article before your edit

article after your edit

• List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes (cite errors you created)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Thanks in advance for looking into this and fixing these errors you created. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I figured out what the BOT did on List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes, apparently the BOT only archives the first instance of a named ref, and then doesn't change the second usage of that same ref to <ref name="whatever"/>, so it creates a cite error because now the named ref is defined with different content, i.e. one has an archive link while the other one doesn't. So the solution was to find the second usage (without the archive links), of those named refs, and change them. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Archiving GBooks?

Hi! Thanks for trying to archive the two refs in the tiny stub I made at clothes shop. I wonder, did you actually manage to see the pages in question via those links? Because I didn't, while I could access them both without difficulty using the live urls. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I was under the impression that archiving a GBooks link was invariably a fail. Is your experience different? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Yes, it's failing, I noted that after the comments that were made and decided to revert my modifs when I see that Google Books are the only links archived on the page. AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2024 dissolution of the National Assembly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 dissolution of the National Assembly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 dissolution of the National Assembly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

On the note before

Please do read what I replied in my talk page, I wasn't at all trying to vandalize using an IP address, I was making sure that everyone adheres to WP:NPOV 2001:448A:2020:224C:BCD5:1DD1:7F20:B5C0 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I reverted my modif on the page and I'll do the same on your talk page. The best is to go back to previous versions in that case, I feel like, as I did for the page, like that we start on a clean state somewhat, you know. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We will get to the issue later then, to fix some issues. It is already night time in the country that I live in. Please if there are also any registered users committing vandalism or doing non-neutral point of view edits, I believe we should also take action against it. 2001:448A:2020:224C:BCD5:1DD1:7F20:B5C0 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see what is happening in [15], and [16], the latter user seems to not be neutral on issues, it seems like the person would only be willing to side with certain religion/ethnicity. This user has also been complained by numerous editors but it has since been removed in the person's talkpage. 2001:448A:2020:224C:BCBB:B4E0:1D70:F425 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

See my answer to the next subject on my talk page AgisdeSparte (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

As an editor, you should review the references first before making a reversion [17] Instead of supporting a stealth editor with multiple different IPs, you should be able to identify which ones are actually disruptive. By the way, I've known this IP for a long time. Bayoka55 (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's policies, WP:NEIPIAV, not every IP is necessarily a vandal. I'm editting on IP address just so that it would guarantee my right to privacy, which is guaranteed by the Wikimedia Foundation to IP users. Not meaning to vandalize or to distrupt wikipedia in any way. 2001:448A:2020:224C:31:6D1B:277A:74D3 (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bayoka55 @2001:448A:2020:224C:31:6D1B:277A:74D3|2001:448A:2020:224C:31:6D1B:277A:74D3 You are both clearly in an edit conflict. I intervened using a software tool (Huggle) and tagged one of the pages where you are both in conflict before reverting my edit. You should definitely discuss this together on the talk page, and if that's not possible, request external mediation and protection for the pages in question. Best regards, AgisdeSparte (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not your judge and I'm not knowledgeable enough to help you on the matter of knowing if what is done is right. Thus, I don't want to involve myself in this matter too much, since I know nothing about the areas or cultures concerned here. However, I'm sure a lot of WP editors can help you ^^ AgisdeSparte (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightenment and being neutral to the issue, could you give me where software tool (Huggle) and tags are. It isn't about the areas or cultures concerned here, but it is about the individual's POV when doing the edits. If you would like to, you could also patrol or supervise on Asian, Southeast Asian, or Indonesian related articles, it isn't a problem. Wikipedia gives a variety of sources, so it is common for having wide-range of sources, while exploring similar content. I would be willing to discuss on the talk page, but the issue should be discussed on the talk page first before reverting or making any changes. Since for instance in Islam in Pakistan [18] and in Islam in Indonesia article [19], I wasn't the first one to add that Pakistan has become the largest Muslim majority country as of 2024, it was another registered user who added that. What I'm only doing is keeping the changes, so if there were someone who wishes to make changes to it, it gotta be agreed in the talk page first as of the WP:BRD policy. 2001:448A:2020:224C:E45F:70DE:CEA1:2A7B (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@AgisdeSparte I've just restored the revision of User:ImperialAficionado here at Siege of Ontala (1599) a new user removing redirects and reverting many pages in Violence of Ban see Hashid khan blocked yesterday with new account he is making many same edits and see this page also Vaghela (Rajput clan)[20][21], Talk:Battle of Haldighati[22][23] before rollback kindly read revision history of any pages Flemish.223.123.8.199 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert

I'm wondering why my edit got reverted. There was nothing unconstructive about it. 2600:1700:B090:1AD0:159F:2063:BD38:211A (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Because you are removing more than 7500 octets of data on the page Racism against African Americans ? You were lucky that I didn't directly request a block at first, but after you being warned and engaging in an edit war, I did. Best regards. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also 2600:1700:B090:1AD0:6C08:41D7:8FE8:C856 who's just another IP from the same person, i guess Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm Thanks ; I had to leave watching for some time but it seems it has been taken care of. I wish you good luck in your endeavours on the encyclopedia AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi AgisdeSparte,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

We also have a live cleanup drive, if you'd like to participate, and a mailing list if you'd like to be notified of upcoming edit drives.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 13:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Christianity in Egypt issue

Hey brother. I noticed you keep reverting my edits even though it’s highly neutral with references. I’m a Christian who lives in Egypt and I’m updating those numbers, and also quoted the current Pope of Alexandria, Pope Tawadros’ statement.

I don’t think Wikipedia should have 2019 data, and it should be updated by people on ground.

Reply to this when you see it Youssefa82718 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for sockpuppet confirmation or not to respond/delete this message. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits Warning

Hello, I have seen your severe edits on Christianity in Egypt frankly they make no sense since the edits were not remotely close to being opinions. I have reviewed both edits myself, you have not provided any sources nor references. Please watch out next time. @AgisdeSparte

{{subst:uw-delete1}} Ruenoaman (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for sockpuppet confirmation or not to respond/delete this message. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Crowdfunding your edits?

Hey—I noticed you are advertising a Patreon to financially support your editing. This seems like a clear paid conflict of interest issue, and I think it should be removed. Paid editing must be disclosed, and with Patreon who is paying is fluid over time, so this is more problematic than, say, a grant from a specific institution. Remsense诉 21:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Good evening, I create articles as I wish, when I wish, and this does not impact my editorial decisions in any way. If someone wants to support me financially, they can do so, but it does not influence what I produce, have produced, or my editorial stance. This is fully allowed on Wikipedia, both on the French and English projects, and is not prohibited, provided that such funding is not secret (which it is not, therefore), and that if I am funded for specific edits, it is clearly disclosed. However, this is not the case as I create what I choose to create and do not take any orders or commissions regarding this.

If the inclusion of the link is the issue, I can remove it without any issue on my part, but Patreon should still be mentioned, to avoid being financially supported without WP knowing it. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAID says that financial compensation for edits must be disclosed. It is that simple. Because who's paying you is changing over time, you would have to list every supporter in every edit summary at a bare minimum. Remsense诉 22:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense This only applies in cases where financial contributions cause a conflict of interest in editing, as specified on the page. Patronage, that is, funding a Wikipedian without expecting anything in exchange, is completely allowed, and you yourself mentioned Wikipedians in residence, who have usually full latitude and freedom to contribute on whichever subjects and way they like, even though they receive patronage. I can remove the link if that is what is problematic, as I have mentioned before. Now, if you have any other issues on this matter, we can call in an external administrator to resolve it and clarify what the rules are on Wikipedia. You are involved in organizing the Wikicontest that I just left after expressing my disagreements (including on Patreon), so I find the timing of your remark relatively suspicious. It might be good to call in an external administrator who can remind the rules, especially since you are not taking my response and suggestion regarding the link into account, which seems strange, or at least surprising, in this context. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Note also that other users, such as Jlahorn, have intervened on my user page four days(1) ago and did not find anything problematic, as they did not mention any issues and even placed a medal in the relevant section. Best regards, - AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Any financial compensation is automatically considered to constitute a conflict of interest, as is made crystal clear throughout WP:PAID and WP:COI. Remsense诉 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense You are still not addressing the link issue. Responding with short, peremptory phrases does not make it a reality according to the rules, which you are not following here. I ask you once again, would you like us to call in an external administrator who can remind us of the rules in use on the encyclopedia? This is the best course of action here to reassure you, in my opinion, and to avoid potential conflicts of interest related to your participation in the Wikicontest in question. AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Other people not mentioning a problem does not mean it does not exist. Please take a closer read over WP:PAID and adjust accordingly, or I'll have to broach this at ANI. Remsense诉 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense The first thing to do, before going to ANI, is to ask for an external intervention to see if it is possible to resolve the problem beforehand. This is also clearly specified in the rules. Since you are refusing such an intervention from an administrator for the second time, or not taking it into account, I will proceed with it anyway. I have noticed that most of your contributions, about 80% (if I'm not mistaken), involve responding to vandalism, and since I will soon be going to bed as we have different schedules, I do not have time to wait for your response, especially to re-explain already explained points.

Since you have extensively worked on vandalism issues, I believe that @Materialscientist is an administrator we both might have encountered at some point, and he will be able to clarify the rules when he intervenes. I am therefore identifying him here, and I assure you that I have no direct or indirect connection with this person. AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the point of going to ANI is to seek external intervention. It's the administrator's noticeboard, after all. You've notified an administrator yourself though, so I'll hold off. Remsense诉 23:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)