User talk:REKKWINT

THINK LONG BEFORE REVERSING ANOTHER USER’S WORK --- PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINION WITH RESPECT.

February 2020

Hello, I'm Tdc42. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Isidore of Seville have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Tdc42 (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sun, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer

Well, the main purpose of encyclopedic articles about (alleged) battles is never a memorialist one. This one in its current state in particular. And your edit blatantly violates MOS:ACCIM, "good" or "questionable taste" notwithstanding. Do you still want to open a thread to discuss it?--Asqueladd (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

goths and visigoths

I note the additions to Goths which are mainly about the Visigoths. Just to make sure you know: for some of these topics the general Goths article now covers more Visigothic details than the Visigoths article. (I watch both.) I am thinking future evolution from might involve longer versions of these sections at Visigoths, and shorter summaries at Goths (which has to cover a lot of ground, and is currently quite large).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intention I think. I am wondering if you will add material to Visigoths. I wanted to make sure you know about that article. I think that once you know about both and work on both then the longer term questions about which things to be in which article will come naturally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes if you want, because I know about the article Visigoths, my intention as I told you is to expand it, but I made an edition there in April 22, 2020 about Pelagius with references and inmediatelly was reversed by Srnec in April 23, 2020 with a very ungrateful way, he wrote: (NOT RS) .My edition had three bibliographical references, [[1]] but it was reversed by him. Reversed edition :([2]]. That's why I'm afraid to go back there and lose hours of work. But no problem, when I can I'll expand the Visigoth article and let you know. Have a nice day.--REKKWINT (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

REKKWINT, your comments here and on Andrew Lancaster's talk page prove that you're capable of writing in coherent English. Your recent edits at the Goths article are rather sloppy, and are creating extra work for me, which I am not overjoyed to be doing. I would appreciate it if you would be more careful, and double-check your work before you publish it. I would rather spend the time I'm spending to proofread your edits and correct them on other things. Carlstak (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@REKKWINT: if there are RS concerns from other editors this could cause wasted time on Goths also, and you'll need to try to resolve such concerns. Both articles are watched quite critically. Srnec watches both for example. I was trying to make a simpler point: Visigoths is the logical main article for information specific to the Visigoths. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just getting started, I'm not finished.--REKKWINT (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That 1857 book is not useful. Why cite it? Goths isn't on my watchlist, but Visigoths is. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@REKKWINT, you mentioned this on my talk page. I think that it should not be surprising when 19th century sources can raise RS concerns. In some cases old books are still cited on Wikipedia of course. This can be because the old books are still cited by experts, or because they are not controversial for very basic facts. However, in this case I can see the very old sources being used for strong subjective opinions that are unlikely to be found in newer sources? Sometimes such concerns can be addressed by using the source only for basic neutral facts, or WP:ATTRIBUTION. But more modern sources would be better in this case. Spanish language sources would be fine also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the book, I think you are right, there is doubt about the book as a reliable source I accept this,and the point of view is not neutral, maybe it exalts too much the value of the Visigoths when they started the Reconquest with Pelayo or Pelagius, I'm sorry, Snrec's right.--REKKWINT (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. No special comments from me about the 2 new sections on Visigoths. Seems a good step, but I can see there are already notes asking for sourcing information. Are you able to add information about where people can verify the information?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Blue Division into Siege of Leningrad. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa: Sorry I forgot to cite the source of Wikipedia, I did in yesterday's first edition but not after, and I'am sorry https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Leningrad&oldid=960210090 18:20 June 1, 2020 REKKWINT .‎ m 84 438 bytes +344‎ Added "Also cooperating with the Germans since 1942 in August: The Spanish Blue Division that was transferred to Leningrad." according Wikipedia edition "Blue Division" page's history. I'll be careful with this in the future and Thank you for making wikipedia better--REKKWINT (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visigoths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtiberian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Visigoths

While your efforts to improve the page by adding content are appreciated, you will need to more carefully review the English translations and/or rendering before adding. Some of your recent adds are not well written and create confusion for the reader. My edits were an attempt to clear up this confusion, but were apparently not accurate. This is directly attributable to the substandard English rendering you are posting. There is one sentence needing clarified, as it is more or less an incomplete thought, which was tagged on the page. The other edit I performed, was to remove the ending on the previous sentence, which also convoluted things for the reader. Trying to help you out here, provided you are here to collaborate accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, I think I have fixed the issue now, but review it to ensure meaning has been retained.--Obenritter (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Obenritter, now the edition is fine, so I just want to say that I appreciate your collaboration, the important thing is that now the article is more complete.My first editing was done in agreement with Srnec and Andrew Lancaster.--REKKWINT (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@REKKWINT: - Please add citations to the content additions you've made at the Visigoths page, following the existing citation format used throughout the page. Unsourced material will be removed. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Christopher Columbus, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Admiral does not denote a military rank for Columbus. See Morison, p.365 Tarl N. (discuss) 21:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was wrong. You're right, then Columbus' title in Spanish was: Almirante de la Mar Océana.According to Spanish Wikipedia https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almirante_de_la_Mar_Oc%C3%A9ana ,Bye.--REKKWINT (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you should really consult reliable sources, rather than a wikipedia - all of which are not considered reliable (per WP:RS). But I ended up removing the term entirely, the wikilink of Admiral was misleading. His appointment as Admiral of the Ocean Sea was simply an office to give him jurisdiction over all matters at sea west of the Azores and Cape Verde islands. He was the voice of law in that part of the sea until his incompetence caused the crown to reign him in with other officials. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be careful with the sources and I shouldn't edit on topics I don't know. Well, thanks for your advice.--REKKWINT (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blue Division

You know, you're not supposed to be reverting indefinitely. That is disruptive to the stability of the revision history. We do have reporting mechanisms (WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:AN3), so please don't do this again. The IP has been blocked from the article for a week. Thanks. El_C 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C, very important your advice, that IP. was about to kill my nerves. I'll follow your advice. Thanks for your help.--REKKWINT (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Save time when reverting a series of edits by one user

Hi, Rekkwint. Regarding the recent addition of a ridiculous number of images to the "History of Spain". There is an easier way to revert all such edits than reverting them one by one. Look at the top of any WP page when you are logged in, and click on the link to your preferences. Click on the "Gadgets" link, and check the box that says "Twinkle". This will add menu buttons to automate common tasks. It also "adds links in similar places to the "rollback" links, and also calls them "rollback". Unlike rollback, Twinkle may be used by any autoconfirmed user." See WP:ROLLBACK#Additional tools

With this tool, you can revert a series of consecutive edits made by trolls, vandals, or unconstructive editors with one click. It will save you a lot of time. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

History of Spain

Hi, REKKWINT. What's up? You have included content about al-Andalus in a section about Visigothic Spain. There is no reason whatsoever to do that. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll explain: You have confronted a whole digression on completely disparate content with a "however". That nears WP:SYNTH (and possibly also some level of advocacy), and I say that cautiously. Generally, you'd be best avoiding to mix, compare, et. al. different historical periods into the same section (not to say if sources do not even do it). The intricacies of Visigothic society explain themselves without resorting to whatever happened centuries later (no cause-effect link to the future is expected). If you think about it, you also turn further expansion of that part of the article into something chaotic. You have a section in "History of Spain" chronologically inserted in the article intended to deal with the Visigoths (having WP:BALASP/WP:WEIGHT concerns in mind, though). So take the opportunity to talk about the Visigoths! Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd, you're right, but what I wanted to prove was that when the article says: "The Hispano-Romans found Visigothic rule and its early embrace of the Arian heresy more of a threat than Islam, and shed their thralldom to the Visigoths only in the 8th century, with the aid of the Muslims themselves" what happened next is that those who liberated the Hispanic-Romans later enslaved many of them. I think the reverted edition is interesting, and the O'Callaghan source is reliable, so I thought I would insert this data in Islamic al-Andalus and the Christian Reconquest (8th–15th centuries). Thank you for your explanations, and good editions .--REKKWINT (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If that's not in the source, you are not entitled to insert your point in the main space. In the other hand, you frame the situation in a very Romanticised/fetishised terms. Society was not "slaves" plus "free people" part of a "nation" who took decisions "freely" and had a say in their "civilizational direction". The O'Callaghan source ("state of war with Christian Spain" "kept al-Andalus well supplied with slaves") clearly suggests that the bulk of domestic Christian slaves in the next centuries were a booty from ensuing war campaigns in Northern Iberia, obtained Vae victis. How "Hispano-roman"/"Hispani" [sic] those people obtained in the Northern Kingdoms were is a moot point because the author is not focused on the conquest but on larger period. But, anyways, if you want to insert content about the conditions of the initial conquest, well, you look for information about the 711-726 Umayyad conquest (I should warn you that there are some pseudo-historical theories waiting for you there), you do not delve into a generic statement about a protracted time period. If you want to talk about the ethnogenesis in Al-Andalus following the Umayyad conquest, you look for sources dealing about it. But please do not frame centuries-long processes into "people" "wanting whatnot" and a "nation" [sic] betrayed.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

When O'Callaghan states "Women slaves often graced the harems of Muslim rulers, more than one of whom was the child of a Christian mother" he is stating the that the (male) Muslim rulers (as they were the sons of other male Muslim rulers and the by-product of their copulation with their female harem) often had a Christian mother as female Christian slaves often became part of the harem. It does state nothing about who the mothers of the women slaves were. In any case, in my humble opinion, that is not the most important bit of the text.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd You should not accuse me of inventing content according to my taste, this is serious for me, others will see me as a user without credibility. The source if it says what you have undid; look: pag 152 "These included Negroes from the Sudan and others of european origin (saqaliba), Slavs, Franks, Norsemen and so on".why have you deleted it?. Perhaps I may have been mistaken in believing that the author refers to women slaves as descendants of Christian mothers, but even if he doesn't write it, you know that there were frequent raids or aceifas to capture slaves in Christian territory, and they preferred young blonde women. So I don't think I add anything on my own, if you think I did, tell me where I wrote a falsehood, other than to say that it referred to the mothers of the Muslim rulers, which may be your point of view.

As you have judged my intentions, I will now judge yours: I think you don't like my edit about about slavery in Al-Andalus, but it was a very cruel reality and deserves to be known, especially so as not to repeat it in our world today.--REKKWINT (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not deleted that. I've simplified it to, aside from domestic, "Sudanese and European [blablabla] origin" which it is the emphasis of the sources (besides, the sources does not put "Hispani" [sic] in the same basket as the other European stock), so believe me, the greater distortion of the tone of the source is yours. Read carefully, I have not deleted the raids either (precisely from the context, you get that the raids are the enduring way to acquire domestic slaves, unlike you seemed to imply in this talk page).

What I have indeed "removed" if anything is the "negroes" adjective (a bit outdated as of 2020, the source is from 1975, as it is redundant anyways from Sudanese: Sudan comes from bilād as-sūdān literally meaning: "the lands of the Blacks") and obfuscating details about the distinct European "ethnicities" (which you rearranged to put the "Hispani" with them together, diverging from the source anyways).

So, pointing out the bizarre preference for the "Hispani" (rather than Hispanic Christian, domestic, Christian for the north, et al) adjective and some rearrangement of the content notwithstanding, I've not accused you of "inventing" content. I've however pointed out that you have badly understood (or expressed in English) what the source tells about female slaves. What it tells is that male Muslim rulers often were the offspring of male Muslim rulers and Christian female slaves from the harem (instead of "women slaves used to be the daughters of a Christian mother"). That "I don't like your edit" is an odd take: I think that your edit, as everything in Wikipedia, can be improved. Regards and keep on with the good work.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, REKKWINT may have picked up the "Hispani" usage from me; I used it in reference to Stanley G. Payne's Ancient Hispania, in which he uses that term. Also, I have said that we shouldn't use "Hispanic" to refer to the inhabitants of ancient Hispania, because it has connotations in English that would suggest an anachronism to modern readers. Hispani seems to me to be a suitable term to refer to the inhabitants of ancient Hispania, because Hispani is the plural of Hispanus, which refers to a "Spaniard" or a native of Hispania in Roman times, and during the Visigothic era in Spain, when Hispano-Roman culture was coalescing. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak:. Understood the problems about hispanic. I get that in any case Hispani is chiefly used for Roman period and Visigothic Spain (?). If Payne (I remember he wrote a whole history of Spain, Spain: A Unique History) used that terminology for the rest of the Middle Ages (barring possibly the immediate conquest), to differentiate those of the Christian north and non-converts in Al-Andalus from the bulk of the converted andalusian population descending from the hispano-roman population (I don't really remember if he did that, from the book I only remember he repeatedly made a point about the "tragedy" of the loss of the southern coast of the "Latin World" to the "Muslim civilization"), it may possibly become very problematic vis-à-vis the framing of specialised authors.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a point, Asqueladd. It seems that both "Hispani" and "Hispanic" can be problematic, but I was thinking that we could avoid those problems if we use the terms strictly for the customarily associated time periods, rather than adopting the idiosyncrasies of given authors, which would breed confusion, as you suggest. What do you think? Do have any other suggestions? Carlstak (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Payne says "The Visigoths were superior to the Hispani only in the application of armed force; economically, socially, and culturally the Hispanic population was in most regions far more advanced." Regarding that bit about his lamenting the "tragedy" of the southern coast being lost to Muslims, I can only say that he is a specialist in the Spanish fascist movement, but perhaps not so much in other areas of Spanish history.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak: I think that (from an ideal standpoint) the section of Al-Andalus may be best served dealing separately with

1) the (not-so-rosy) conquest (and whatever happened with the population, possibly differentiating here the former ruling elites, presumably where the Visigothic framing still held any value) Y

2) the society of Al-Andalus "in general" (or at least until the demise of the Caliphate), starting with the composition of the majority Muslim population: converts from the pre-existing population, berbers, arabs... and how that intersected with "power", followed by the Dhimma system for the allowance yet subjugation of other (non-slave) Peoples of the Book and lastly also mention the slaves which included stock obtained from raids in non-muslim/Christian "Iberia", "Hispania", "Spain", et. al.) and others who were (Black) Sudanese and from elsewhere in Europe (Slavs, Franks, Germanic, et. al).Y

And avoid:

1) implicit commentary conflating "whatever the couple of generations who lived the transition from Visigothic to Umayyad rule should have thought about the Muslim conversion and/or Arianism heresy" with the rest of the very protracted Al-Andalus period (the bulk of the conversion process finalised a couple of centuries later anyways) N

2) Use Hispani as if it were a "tribe" enslaved along Franks, Norsemen et al... N

3) Commentary on whether these were cruel realities or not. N--Asqueladd (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. I believe the organizational structure you propose will present a coherent picture of the material being covered. And I concur with your suggestion to use Hispani as if they were a "tribe" enslaved; that delineates in a useful way how to handle the nomenclature. I probably won't be able to help too much, as I have only a narrow daily time window to devote to WP for a few weeks. I'll check in on the work as time allows. Best. Carlstak (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carlstak, Have you seen that the paragraph you are talking about has disappeared from "History of Spain" -And what about the reference/source?--- it's not reliable?Greetings --REKKWINT (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Reinstating edits of a banned user

Hi REKKWINT, I noticed that you just reinstated this edit: [3] by DavideNotta (talk · contribs), with your edit here: [4]. I wanted to make sure you understand that the user, also known as JamesOredan, is banned from Wikipedia for long-term abuse. They are not allowed to edit under any circumstances, regardless of whether their edits are good or bad, in accordance with the WP:BMB banning policy.

You do have the right to reinstate the edit if you take personal responsibility for it. However, doing so goes against the intention of the banning policy, and may encourage the banned user to continue to evade their ban via "sockpuppetry", when they see that other users like you will accept and reinstate their edits. I'd like to ask if you would weigh whatever value you feel this edit contributes to the article against the overall damage done to Wikipedia by enabling this banned and extremely disruptive user to accomplish their edits, and consider reverting the edit again. Thank you. --IamNotU (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfinished thought at Visigoths?

Your edit summary of 19:33, 28 October 2020 said "nowiki added". It is still there, with the now "{{sfn|O'Callaghan|1975|p=176}}" displayed to every reader. Shenme (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Undo

Why? FranzXYZ (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I deleted your edit because it did not contribute anything to the text, and you deleted the following:

Ummayad flag, and Kingdom of Asturias flag. REKKWINT (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Organizing references in Alexander Fleming

Hello, REKKWINT. I do not understand this reversal you made.

I assume you took my edit as vandalism. But if you compare the two references, "ref name=":13"" and the one you've added back, you'll see that they are exactly the same and lead to the same website when clicked:

• Ref ":13": Ligon, B. Lee (2004). "Sir Alexander Fleming: Scottish researcher who discovered penicillin". Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 15 (1): 58–64. doi:10.1053/j.spid.2004.02.002. PMID 15175996.
• Reinstated (original) ref: Ligon, B. Lee (2004). "Sir Alexander Fleming: Scottish researcher who discovered penicillin". Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 15 (1): 58–64. doi:10.1053/j.spid.2004.02.002. PMID 15175996.

As you can see, it was a small change to tidy up the references a bit. No source was removed, just used more elegantly.

As such, I do not agree with your reversal and would like to hear possible objections. ILDT (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry ILDT, you're right, I just undid my edit. Excuse me for the delay in responding. REKKWINT (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Just a case of Visual Editor not giving the full picture sometimes. Thank you for response. ILDT (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)