User talk:Uness232

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2021/August; 2021/May–August; 2021/September; 2021/October; 2021/November; 2021/December; 2022/March; 2022/May; 2022/September; 2022/November; 2022/December; 2023/March; 2023/May; 2023/July; 2023/August; 2023/November; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

revert in Shahr-kord for one reason[edit]

Your weather box removal in Shahr-e Kord created a citation error. And now the extreme temperatures cannot be verified.

I suggest you to do a partial revert in order to restore the reference. I would solve the snow days problem myself.PAper GOL (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PAper GOL Hi, sorry for my late response and mistake. I've seen some later edits on Shahr-e Kord; I assume you have fixed the issue? Uness232 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fixed it as soon as I could. And it wasn't the last page I had to look for.PAper GOL (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PAper GOL Sorry; I suppose there was two pages with this error, and the other page was Tabriz? If there were more than two they are not my doing, and I made those two changes because Ileagae, whose edits are also problematic for other reasons, started carelessly inserting weather-boxes on Iranian city articles. In some of these pages, this led to unnecessary weatherbox spam. I only tried to fix the two most visible ones, but I guess even this was too hasty. I am sorry, again, but please consider the extremely quick pace in which their edits were made. Uness232 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I had plenty of time for to fix the changes. The same problem was present in Tehran and that needed more than solving errors. Other Iranian pages had no other problem except the extreme period and snow days.PAper GOL (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman music[edit]

You could be right but I am doing something else right now and don't want to look this instant. Letting the revert stand for now. If you know the topic. I would welcome suggestions on the influence of Ottoman music on Algeria meanwhile. Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest revert is ridiculous. The common meaning of the term is definitely *not* to be a patron to. It is in fact what you are doing by reverting the copyeditor rather than talking to them. Now I know why the article is so terrible. I don't have time to play this game with you or I would consider asking for a page block. You should rethink your approach to editors trying to make this appalling mess you are guarding for some reason a teeny tiny little bit less bad. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby I am perfectly willing to discuss both of my reverts, though not in this fashion. These are extremely strong, unsubstantiated claims you are making, about my user conduct, my work, and the article (which I have brought to good article status). I am willing to accept that the article is not perfect, and may not even be one of my better articles (it was a relatively early work of mine after all), but you have not brought forth any substantiation to justify words this strong.

As for my conduct, I have justified all of my edits in an edit summary (including the removal of the nawba wl), and since my first and second reverts were in different contexts I saw no reason for a discussion for my first revert after your message above 'letting the [first] revert stand for now'. I do not see how this would be a serious conduct issue on my end. Uness232 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries are not discussions. And are we talking about the same article? You realize it has a banner on it saying it may need to be rewritten, right? That edit was both correct and needed. If it ever his good article status I really have questions.. But later for that. I really am very busy right now. I am terribly terrible TERRIBLY sorry to have improved your article. Put down the Twinkle and take a look at what you are guarding. Now please do not ping me again tonight. We can probably work this out at some point but I am busy and sorry I gave the benefit of the doubt earlier. And seriously? Status quo stonewallers are not worth the aggravation. You are preventing article improvement and you don't think that's a problem. Ugh. I don't have time for this. And why are you answering me *above* my post. Never mind, don't answer that. Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{(courtesy non-ping I suppose?)} I have no obligation and no further willingness to engage with disrespectful, WP:UNCIVIL rants like this. I definitely do see points where the article could be improved (and I also have plans on improving it) but the article does not have any banners on it saying that it should be rewritten, and you are yet to provide any evidence for its apparently unacceptable state. I have every right to disagree with you on article content, and the fact that I did not instantly open a talk page section called WP:BRD (something both editors in a dispute can do, and something I would have easily and quickly engaged with) does not give you the right to endlessly rant on my talk page about supposed WP:BRNOD. Uness232 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "every other dictionary" trumps your MW with the games link. And what's your excuse for nuking the wikilink as well? You should seriously self-revert. Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]