Talk:Şahtaxtı

Documents of the U.S. Department of State

Please stop returning the disputed information to the article regarding to Documents of the U.S. Department of State. It is violation of WP:CONS and WP:EW. Yes, U.S. Department of State suggests that on this area there was ancient city of Arshat-Arkashat to mention it as "historically Şahtaxtı". It does not mean that Şahtaxtı is that Arshat-Arkashat. This is WP:OR. The informanion about this suggestion is already mentioned on the secton below. It is not necessary to dublicate this information on the preamble. --Interfase (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is violation of WP:CONS and WP:EW – You need to learn what the guidelines you cite stand for. WP:BOLDLY editing isn't a violation of anything, especially when the said edit is backed up by a third-party source. Your concerns regarding wording was addressed and lead was restored, per MOS:LEAD. Consider this a warning and next time, I don't wannna see you throw baseless accusations of "edit-warring", as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Returning the edit that was previously removed with the arguments is violation of WP:CONS and WP:EW. In this cse your actions has nothing with WP:BOLDLY. It is clear vioaltion of WP:CONS and WP:EW. Consider this a warning. --Interfase (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand a thing about the guidelines you talk about, do you? See WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. Returning the edit that was previously removed with the arguments is violation of WP:CONS and WP:EW. – This is the first actual discussion in the talk page, and I have presented arguments for my revert if that's what you prefer to focus on. And saying "POV pushing" with no specification isn't an argument, you didn't specify anything and hence you were reverted back and asked to clarify your comments.

We are in the discuss part of WP:BRD if you haven't noticed yet. And talk page isn't a place for your baseless accusations, focus on the content. If you have nothing to say regarding the article, this discussion is closed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your mentor tone. This your edit[1] is clearly attempt to return the content that was several times reverted with the arguments on comments[2][3][4], which is violation of WP:CONS and edit warring. If you look at the the history of the edits you will understand that. In case if you continue such violations I will report your case to admin's noticeboard. --Interfase (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interfase listen carefully as you're still failing to discuss anything pertaining to article's content / recent edit.

Please stop your mentor tone. This your edit[1] is clearly attempt to return the content that was several times reverted with the arguments on comments[2][3][4], – My tone is perfectly fine, and you probably need to listen to what I say. My revert was of your edit with subpar description of "POV pushing" with no specifications, and I asked you to specify your comments. You opened a talk discussion, and I addressed your concerns with my edits [5], [6]. Note that edit-descriptions with other user isn't a discussion/argument, this is what a discussion looks like.

Seems like you have nothing else to say regarding the article (you really should focus on the article), and you're now threatening me with noticeboard reports. Go ahead and open an ANI report, I'll even ping an admin myself, @El C. But beware that after such a waste of a report, you'll be WP:BOOMERANGed right after. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you ping me here, ZaniGiovanni? That article wasn't even on my watchlist. You know, I'm not the only admin in town. El_C 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C I really don't know any other admin who also moderates WP:AA much, that's why I pinged you. I don't mind any other admin joining in, since I don't see a discussion pertaining to the article's content and edit, and so far, mostly misuse of guidelines and noticeboard threats from the user. Also, this had parallels to yesterday's insufficient edit-descritpions discussion, but I was in the receiving end this time. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, I do all the DSs. You've been over relying on me for a while now, even though I keep telling you it's too much. If you can't find another individual admin to assist you with whatever, please just use a noticeboard. El_C 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing El C, I'll try to find another admin. If it gets to the point of a noticeboard, I'll open one. But judging from the comments (or lack of comments focusing on content), I don't think there is much else to discuss. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]