Talk:Philip the Arab

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip the Arab article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Untitled[change source]

Darubrub I gave an adequate reason: it's an unhelpful anachronism, as I explained in the edit summary. Please self-revert. GPinkerton (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Darubrub (Let me know) 14:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darubrub I have now rewritten the article altogether! Please take a look. GPinkerton (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Darubrub (Let me know) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions and errors[change source]

Djsasso Will you be producing a source that says the subject was 45 years old when he died? Will you be justifying your deletion of the father's name from the infobox? Will you be explaining why you feel the infobox should state his reign began in February when no ancient source says as much and when the secondary sources cited in the article do not state anything of the kind? Will you be producing a source that states that he died in September (and not possibly in October, as the article states and as the infobox corroborated, until your edit. Is there some reason you'd prefer the infobox not to make a distinction between the tie of Philip II as caesar rather than as his time as augustus, when of course the reliable sources and doubtless the ancient Romans considered quite important? Please remember to self-revert so as to avoid pursuing an edit war before discussing your copying of unsourced, contradictory information from another Wikipedia while deleting sourced material on this one. GPinkerton (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I won't be self reverting, as your information was unsourced and contained errors. Nothing you added that was removed was sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: this is quite wrong. The infobox information corresponds with the information in the article, as cited there. I encourage you to check the source before making these claims. Which errors do you believe were there? I will remove all the information you copied that does not correspond with the information in reliable sources cited, since you do not appear to want to justify its inclusion, so I'll assume it was an error. GPinkerton (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]