User talk:R3YBOl: Difference between revisions

Line 169: Line 169:

:I have no problem with resolving that with [[WP:3]], or maybe we can take it to a dispute resolution noticeboard which would be better. It’s somehow getting late here and I won’t be active for this whole week and the one after it. I can be free on 24th of december [[User:R3YBOl|”’R3YBOl”']] ([[User talk:R3YBOl|🌲]]) 16:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

::@[[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] Do you find any problems with the time I suggested? I won’t ~~leave~~ Wikipedia ~~for~~ that long time though, I would check upon my watchlists everyday, and later I can be free on 24th of december and the days after it, ~~and~~ then we can resolve our issue in [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]. I will restore the citations except drake’s citation. [[User:R3YBOl|”’R3YBOl”']] ([[User talk:R3YBOl|🌲]]) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

::@[[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] Do you find any problems with the time I suggested? I won’t Wikipedia that long time though, I would check upon my watchlists everyday and later I can be free on 24th of december and the days after, then we can resolve our issue in [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]. I will restore the citations except drake’s citation. [[User:R3YBOl|”’R3YBOl”']] ([[User talk:R3YBOl|🌲]]) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R3YBOl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes “~~~~”; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being “adopted” by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Salam Alaykum w rahmatullahi w barakah tu R3YBOI, I wanted to ask you if you’d be willing to work with me on the Proto-Salafism article, which I have started. I would be very happy if you agree! Even if you don’t agree, I understand thank you for your response. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh @Viceskeeni2, I really appreciate the invite, but I really don’t have that much knowledge to edit religious sects. In my opinion, these type of topics require deep research, careful attention, and thorough understanding to maintain the neutrality and accuracy. I wouldn’t want to contribute to something so important without having the proper expertise. Thank you of thinking of me though, and best of luck with the article. R3YBOl (🌲) 08:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the response Viceskeeni2 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion concerns you. Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated unexplained content removal and refusal to discuss/reach consensus on talkpage, then counter accusations to prevent reversion. Thx – M.S. Asher (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello.
Khalid Yahya Blankinship: Not only was the Battle of the Defile a military catastrophe of
the first rank for the Muslims, but it was also a crucial turning point
in the history of the Transoxianan front. 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

shaban: Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory, Junayd was able to save Samarqand. 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s better to use “See aftermath section” cause result of this Battle is very complicated (if we read all what shaban and Blankinship wrote, it become even more complicate). Gibb and kennedy are also like that 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can write all of them if you want (Gibb, Kennedy, Shaban and Blankinship). Regards 2A01:5EC0:1800:CEC9:9803:AB15:7785:B2E5 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khalid Yahya Blankinship: Not only was the Battle of the Defile a military catastrophe of the first rank for the Muslims, but it was also a crucial turning point in the history of the Transoxianan front. I don’t understand what are you trying to prove here from Blankinship’s quote.. I think you’re trying to tell me that the Umayyads suffered high casualties that’s why they shouldn’t be counted as victorious? you must know that how much the casualties was of the Umayyad side or the Türgesh side, it doesn’t represent any of the sides as victorious or defeated, and the casualties don’t take a part in the battle’s result and they don’t have anything to do with the result. Blankinship stated that the battle was an Umayyad Pyrrhic victory (I already added a link for the phrase of “Pyrrhic victory” which I suggest you may read and I am here defining it for you again in case you’re lost: is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.) I didn’t disagree with you that the Umayyads didn’t suffer casualties (both of the sides suffered high casualties, but the Umayyads suffered more) Blankinship said: it was “a Pyrrhic victory at best” he confirmed that the battle’s result was an Umayyad Pyrrhic victory, which I don’t know how are we arguing about an author that stated the Umayyads were victorious. he didn’t state here that they were defeated so that I would be wrong in citing him. he obviously said that the Umayyads won in a harsh cost.

for Sha’ban you told me in your edit summary:You cannot make your own evaluations[1] Sorry but I don’t know of what “evaluations” you’re talking about, and for your message in my talk page here:shaban: Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory, Junayd was able to save Samarqand. If you read here:“Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory,Junayd was able to save Samarqand. After a few battles, the Turgesh withdrew, leaving Soghdiana again in the hands of the Arabs, and Junayd, satisfied with this result, marched back to Merv.2 “

You can literally see that the author referred to Pyrrhic victory to the Umayyads in the battle, he pointed out that Junayd (the commander of the Umayyads) succeeded in securing Samarqand (I brought the full quote from the book and I underlined my claims for you in case you want to read). not just because they suffered high casualties mean that they lost the battle. ￶I can write all of them if you want (Gibb, Kennedy, Shaban and Blankinship). Regards if you may point out of what Gibb and Kennedy stated about the battle, I would appreciate it. Blankinship and Shaban already stated the battle was an Umayyad victory. and again let me remind you “defeat”≠ just “suffering heavy losses”. I wouldn’t mind adding the word Pyrrhic in the result column of the article’s infobox, but per MOS:VICTORY which states:Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The “result” parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to “X victory” or “Inconclusive”. Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use “See aftermath” (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.In particular, terms like “Pyrrhic victory” or “decisive victory” are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the “result”. Best R3YBOl (🌲) 13:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I think you don’t understand correctly. Result of this Battle is very complicated and it’s better for reader to read aftermath to know it’s results better. Regards 2A01:5EC0:1004:3BAC:1:0:9BB:1619 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can give reference but I think it’s better not take your time it’s going to be long talk. ‘See aftermath section’ is very good people can understand the situation better. Best wishes 2A01:5EC0:1004:3BAC:1:0:9BB:1619 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not here to involved in edit war, The only reason was you’re act that change it in favor of Arabs and ignore WP:NPOV ( most Likly think I will be despair after several days and never come back to check it),and note “Restored the result with sources. already explained for the Ip” which is wrong you don’t answer my last massage at all, my massage is the last one. I make new topic let’s discuss. IP that talk to R3YBOl (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you change it base of good faith and I’m wrong. Let’s talk about it. IP that talk to R3YBOl (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I said to other user don’t involve in edit war, I change it to “See aftermath section” talk to each other You need to reach a consensus that works for both of you. It’s not worth of time to revert each others edits. Discuss it on the article’s talk page and don’t get into an Edit warring. Thanks Bezartanha (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if both of you have problems you can ask me, I’m good at history, and access to books in French, Russian, English, Turkish, Persian. I can help you in this Bezartanha (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Bezartanha (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to IP that talk to R3YBOl and said that he will not continue the Edit warring. It’s no need to talk let’s “See aftermath section” remain this is what IP that talk to R3YBOl said. I hope you do the same. Bezartanha (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources to show it is not original research. I should have done that from the beginning. My bad. M.S. Asher (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.S. Asher hello, I am busy at the moment, if you give me just some days, I will promise restoring these additions that we argued about in the talk page of Free Arabian Legion. I insist in restoring it myself because I will do some simple re-writings and publish it. I hope you got no problems in that. Best R3YBOl (🌲) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why I would need you to re-add those yourself and why I cannot restore them? You have not identified the issue with any of these, I haven’t seen an actual response to any issues with the sources and information? Anyways the administrator notice board decision made it clear that the article in question was not under any protection, since it did not relate to the hamas conflict/palestine region. Making further revisions yourself is different but how is that a justification to revert another edit, when the sources are accurately reflected? M.S. Asher (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about your recent reversion of the page to 1275306590. It seems like it erases a lot of good faith contributions–my own and that of others–and there isn’t a rationale provided other than to return the article to a “normal version”. Dauntbares (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my edit at the time I restored the article. I am aware that there were some good-faith changes that I deleted, as well as some less constructive ones. I was planning to carefully review what I had removed and re-added, in order to restore only the constructive contributions. I contribute using my phone, but unfortunately, my phone no longer works. I was planning to fix it today. However, I live in a Muslim country, and Friday is an official holiday here, so no shops are open today. I will work on reviewing and restoring the good edits as soon as I can. Feel Free to revert me if you want. Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your phone. I am happy to let you take the lead in editing when your phone is fixed. Dauntbares (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is located here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come discuss. Montblamc1 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R3YBOl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude, I noticed you revised the edits I made about Abu Muslim being a Persian.

You said his ethnicity is contested, but both the Abbasid Revolution and Abu Muslim article agree he was Persian. And I am not familiar with any source from medieval or modern times that contests it. So what exactly do you mean by that? Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear that you are intent on citation stacking a number of sources which are of little value to WP:POVPUSH. I am requesting Wikipedia:Third opinion to resolve this before further edit warring happens. Qiushufang (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with resolving that with WP:3, or maybe we can take it to a dispute resolution noticeboard which would be better. It’s somehow getting late here and I won’t be active for this whole week and the one after it. I can be free on 24th of december R3YBOl (🌲) 16:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang Do you find any problems with the time I suggested? I won’t fully disappear from Wikipedia in that long time though, I would check upon my watchlists everyday and revert unconstructive edits. later, I can be free on 24th of december and the days after, then we can resolve our issue in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I will restore the citations except drake’s citation. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment