Your unblock request
It would appear, from your latest request, that you attempted to mislead administrators by offering an explanation for your problems that you did not believe. You did not state your account was compromised; your statement was "...someone who also has access to my computer read it before I did." Read it? They would also have to remove it. Your statement intimates that your account was compromised while leaving a backdoor for denial later. Why would an editor of your experience do such a thing? I would advise that you remove the latest request and address this issue in more detail. Quickly. Tiderolls 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did it best way I could explain. And the whole sentence was if I did, which means I stated it as possibility. --Wustenfuchs 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have saw the warning, but to late. Like I said I don't remember the yellow tape with "You have a new message". However, it is possible I forgot about the message while editing the article. So because of that I thought it is possible somone was reading Wikipedia for a shorter time, I could be a way for a minite or two, but there was no compromising of my account. The block of 48 hours is fine, but indefinet block has no reason. Nevertheless, no way my account was compromised. That's my point. --Wustenfuchs 22:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand putting off addressing an orange bar while editing, that is a completely reasonable explanation. However, an editor of your experience raising the smokescreen of account compromise is very concerning. I will not deny your request based on your explanation but would advise you to remove your request and submit another that more plainly explains your actions. Regards Tiderolls 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have saw the warning, but to late. Like I said I don't remember the yellow tape with "You have a new message". However, it is possible I forgot about the message while editing the article. So because of that I thought it is possible somone was reading Wikipedia for a shorter time, I could be a way for a minite or two, but there was no compromising of my account. The block of 48 hours is fine, but indefinet block has no reason. Nevertheless, no way my account was compromised. That's my point. --Wustenfuchs 22:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll do so. I'm not native English speaker so it is possible other people misunderstud me. --Wustenfuchs 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- For my part, after denying one unblock request above, and then reading this entire talk page, and Wustenfuch's comment on my own talk page, I can easily assume good faith that the bit about someone else making an edit on this account was a purely hypothetical comment. On that basis, I have no objection to reducing the block duration to the original 48 hours (which should be expired by now). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've reduced it to the original 48 hrs. I have the feeling there was a bit of an overreaction here about the account security thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who has disagreed with Wustenfuchs, this is an excellent call. Complete overreaction. AniMate 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've reduced it to the original 48 hrs. I have the feeling there was a bit of an overreaction here about the account security thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- For my part, after denying one unblock request above, and then reading this entire talk page, and Wustenfuch's comment on my own talk page, I can easily assume good faith that the bit about someone else making an edit on this account was a purely hypothetical comment. On that basis, I have no objection to reducing the block duration to the original 48 hours (which should be expired by now). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thx for the unblock. --Wustenfuchs 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible that one of the administrators erases my User:FuchsWusten account. It was made according to the WP:COMPROMISED, and I don't need it any more. --Wustenfuchs 13:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, accounts can't be erased. I see it's already been blocked, and its user page is marked as that of an alternative account. I'd say, just leave it at that; it does no harm and this way it will lead to the least confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there's no harm in unblocking that one. There are legitimate uses for Wikipedia:Alternative accounts, and in this instance, due to the similarity of naming, it's pretty clear that the other account can't be used to conceal sockpuppetry. If you want it unblocked for a legitimate purpose, let me know, otherwise you may as well tag it with {{doppelganger}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thx for your reply, however, I don't think I'll need it. --Wustenfuchs 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thank you for being a good Wikipedian, I have read the article quickly before, but now, I will read it carefully and get back to you.Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- it's deleted, can I ask you one more thing please, what does Wustenfuchs means?, again thanks for the modern way to discuss issues. Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's German for Fennec fox, also a nick name of Erwin Rommel. --Wustenfuchs 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- it's deleted, can I ask you one more thing please, what does Wustenfuchs means?, again thanks for the modern way to discuss issues. Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I read your invitations on Wikipedia project
I read your invitation on Wikipedia project and I have noticed that one IP has vandalized your speciality. I just warn you of it so you can fix it. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just wonder... don't those people have better things to do... I'll fix this. And thank you for your warning. --Wustenfuchs 22:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Check this *http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807
so don't put hackered reports from reuters,andtry to let it look that rebels are losing,ya they are using planes,but rebels are the one gaining land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't add any ref from Reuters, however, those Reuters' sources in the article are, believe me, reliable and they aren't hacked. However, I'll also like you don't add your fan comments here. Rebels are encircled, and if we consider their readiness and efficency, it's unlikly they will brake the ring, that is, it is likely that majority of them will end up killed or captured. --Wustenfuchs 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I totally disagree this time the regime is facing defeat,because the area around is under rebel control,they Failed to enter in and alot of military obsevers stated that rebels have big chance to win this one (third time (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).
- Um sorry, but don't you see that battle is going to end soon. They are encircled and low on ammunition. They are in the ring, which means they will get no supplies or reinforcements. Their commander was also killed yesteday. And please, sign your self when leaving posts. --Wustenfuchs 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
REBELS CONTROL the Anadan checkpoint which allows them to get ammunition (third time (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Aleppo (2012). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
About the Kurds
http://www.rudaw.net/english/science/columnists/5063.html Explains they did not want FSA in their neighborhood because that would cause conflict with government forces. Looks like they want neither - but don't want to fight. I think We should just remove the Kurds altogether - considering they didn't fight to take over their neighborhoods, nor do they want eitherside in their territory, but at same time they don't want to fight eitherside. Sopher99 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sopher, please propose this to the talk page. When we solve the problem there it will be fine. Right now, I would gladly discuss this, but it's 4:17 AM here, after few drinks outside I need to sleep now. But I will discuss this when I wake up... --Wustenfuchs 02:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Salahadine
Like I just said on the talk page of the article. I'm gonna wait a few more hours, but its already been 15 hours since the news was claimed on. If nobody else reports it I'm removing it from the article due to undueweight being given to that specific news. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Fighter Pilot
Just as a note, the interviewer makes the remark about the pilot being old, the expert says absolutely nothing about the pilot. Jeancey (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. --Wustenfuchs 18:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hafez al-Assad
Points taken ... I'd intended to integrate the stuff in that PDF with information from Assad's NYT obit. Working on it now ... HangingCurveSwing for the fence 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Free Syrian Army edit war
Your opinion on this issue [1][2] would be appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, but at this point I'm dealing with an un-compromising editor. It would also come a long way for you to reply to his reasoning on removing the sourced paragraph on the killings of the postal workers in the talk section second paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Hello, I'm Jauerback. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mercenary without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hafez al-Assad
You have, for some weird reason, omitted Assad's overthrow of Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and the classical Ba'athists, and you have written (for reasons I cannot understand) that in 1958, there existed a "Assad's Ba'ath Party"... It became Assad's Ba'ath Party in the 1970s, and he became important following the 8th March of Revolution; before that he was a nobody in party politics. --TIAYN (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't know that. I'm using what I can from sources that I added in the article. --Wüstenfuchs 01:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Flag of Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Henri Gouraud
- William Klinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Gorica
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Serbia
I am not contending that all Serb sources are unreliable. What I am, however, contending is that using a Serb source on Kosovo specifically is not kosher. Using the media of a country that denies the very existence of another to describe shady activities in that other should raise a red flag. You think we should use only Georgian media to report on Abkhazia and South Ossetia? That's basically what you're saying. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
3RR
Hello,
It appears that you have violated WP:3RR on Syrian Civil War and have engaged in edit warring. For example, see here, here, here, and here.
This is a warning so you can read up on 3RR and make sure not to repeat it. Further behavior of this kind may lead to sanctions. Saying that you believe the edits you made, all of which reinserted the same reverted material, is a good edit does not apply, as other editors obviously think otherwise. Instead, feel free to discuss on the talk page.
Thank you,
--Activism1234 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The map
You brought up many points in your discussion on my page, I will answer them all.
First you mention the Christians of Syrian Kurdistan, and I did show them on the map! They are mostly located in Hasakah City (where I did show their presence) and they are also present in Malikiyah city ( where I also showed their presence) I guess I only forgot to show them in-and-around Qamishli which I will fix in the newest update. But please note that the Christians of Syrian Kurdistan do not form a majority in the cities I mentioned (which is why I put them as red streaks rather than solid red areas).
Second point you brought up was the Yazidis of Syrian Kurdistan. Let me just tell you that Yazidis make-up less than 100k of all of Syria's population (or around 4% of all Syria's 2.3 million Kurds) their number is so insignificant, and their area is so small (right on the western border of Sinjar Mountain) that I simply include them with Sunni Kurds while specifically mentioning in the map key that not all Kurds are Sunni (I mention that some are Yazidi). And If you really wanted me to add all these small sects, then I would have around 15 or so (considering Syria's diverse community). So no worries here, especially considering I included the Yazidi territory with the other Kurdish territories.
Then you started talking about Christians in south of the country, even though I included them in my last update to the map before you removed my map from the Syria article. Anyways, I do include them in eastern Suwaida province. But as for Daraa province I did some research and it turns out that they are almost exclusively located in the city of Khabab in north central Daraa province (which I also had in my last update to the map before you removed it). But other than that the Christians of Daraa have very small presence in other cities in Daraa where the Sunni Arabs are over 90%!
Then you mentioned the Christians in Northwestern coastal area, and I do include them there if you just bother to look at the map!
The next point you made was that I overreached the area inhabited by Druze near the Golan, but the fact is I didn't! They actually do inhabit all that area near mount Hermon! And besides, the new map you gave me does not even show the Golan heights' religious make-up! It simply shows the golan heights as a grey area occupied by Israel, as if no one lives there!
Finally, you said that the Deir Az-Zour area is "full" of Christians. I have no clue who told you that, especially since the map that you provided doesn't even show any Christians in Deir Azzour province, but Christians (specifically Armenians) are only found in few thousands in the city of Deir Az-zour, which I DID show on my map by putting three red streaks over Deir Azzour city.
After all of this, I would like to mention that I did update the image (for the fourth time now!) please take a good look at it before you start removing it from articles. I'm actually surprised that you haven't attacked some of the other ethnoreligious maps of Syria that were previously present on WP which were extremely inaccurate, it seems that you only focus all your criticism on my map for some reason. Anyways, if you have any more points to talk about then please go back to my talk page as I check it frequently. To see the new updated file see File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png. Thanks and good bye. Moester101 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Enver Čolaković
Of course a Croatian publication is going to say he spoke the "Croatian language". Reliable sources and linguists state that he, you, and I speak Serbo-Croatian. See the articles and view the references if you are in doubt or, if you truly believe what you are saying, bring the matter of Croatian being a language there. Also this isn't your first attempt at trying to Croatize an individual on Wikipedia. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, your accusations are baseless. The informations are sourced. You are removing the sourced information because of your own original research while at the same time you are also pushing your own point of view. I won't discuss is Croatian language a language, the disucssion isn't about the Croatian language (we have a separate artcile for it), but it's about Enver Čolaković. Until you add a source claiming he wrote in Serbo-Croatian we have nothing to discuss. By following your own logic you can also add that the official language of Croatia is Serbo-Croatian, that majority of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs sepaks Serb-Croaian and at the same time violate censuses and sources. --Wüstenfuchs 10:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you adding Croatian now? The man himself said he writes in the Bosnian language in order to preserve it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Cause he also wrote in Croatian (Legend about Ali-Pasha; 1944, etc.) --Wüstenfuchs 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- According to whom? He said from his own mouth that he wrote in Bosnian. He'd know better than anyone. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- According to the source (third party). --Wüstenfuchs 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- According to whom? He said from his own mouth that he wrote in Bosnian. He'd know better than anyone. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Cause he also wrote in Croatian (Legend about Ali-Pasha; 1944, etc.) --Wüstenfuchs 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you adding Croatian now? The man himself said he writes in the Bosnian language in order to preserve it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Again the man himself said which language he spoke in. Which source do you think takes precedence? Also why have you swapped Bosnian and Croatian?
- Until 1945 he lived and wrote literature in the cities of Sarajevo and Budapest.
- He wrote a series of essays and reviews, in which he fought for the benefit of Bosniaks.
- He wrote in Bosnian to "preserve the language."
- The books themselves revolve around Bosnia.
Also do not try to pull off sneaky nonsense like this: [3]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Respond to the above. I won't play your ridiculous charades anymore. There is a source where Enver himself says he wrote in the Bosnian language and that clearly takes precedence. I've already given you a list of why Bosnian should be first in the lead. Yet you continue with this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, let me respond you. After 1945 until his death he lived in Zagreb and was member of both Matica hrvatska and the Society of Croatian Writers. He was also a Croatian student. and was involved in the Croatian diplomacy and he also wrote in Croatian. He only mentioned he wrote the Legenda in Bosnian, he didn't mention other books. However, I may assume that he wanted to preserve the Bosnian dialect rather then language, ie Turkish words and all that, but that's not important anyway. The books that he wrote could revolve around Mars, which doesn't mean he is a Martian writer. --Wüstenfuchs 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I gave you plenty of time so I certainly already "let you". He only mentioned "Legend" in an interview about the "Legend"? No way! So I should assume the rest were in Croatian? What nonsense. He said "jezik" not "dijalekt" in that comment so please don't play dumb. He wrote about Bosnia because he evidently, as backed by sources, identified with it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, refrain yourself please. He only mentioned the Legend, and if we would guess that he wrote other books in Bosnian it would be an original research. The source I added is very clear, so please, keep your point of view for yourself and stop removing the sourced information. --Wüstenfuchs 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I gave you plenty of time so I certainly already "let you". He only mentioned "Legend" in an interview about the "Legend"? No way! So I should assume the rest were in Croatian? What nonsense. He said "jezik" not "dijalekt" in that comment so please don't play dumb. He wrote about Bosnia because he evidently, as backed by sources, identified with it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, let me respond you. After 1945 until his death he lived in Zagreb and was member of both Matica hrvatska and the Society of Croatian Writers. He was also a Croatian student. and was involved in the Croatian diplomacy and he also wrote in Croatian. He only mentioned he wrote the Legenda in Bosnian, he didn't mention other books. However, I may assume that he wanted to preserve the Bosnian dialect rather then language, ie Turkish words and all that, but that's not important anyway. The books that he wrote could revolve around Mars, which doesn't mean he is a Martian writer. --Wüstenfuchs 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You wish to use a book on "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia" to establish which language an author wrote in when we have a source were the author answers this himself. It's absurd. I give you a source that says he wrote in another language and then you just keep raising the bar to your own arbitrary rules. The man himself said he wrote in the Bosnian language and yet want to say he wrote in Croatian so that you can claim he's more Croatian. He mentioned Legend specifically because the interview itself was about the Legend. You were the one who just engaged in original research with this "dialect" nonsense when the man specifically said "language". Let me remind you this isn't the first individual that you've attempted to Croatize and after the sneaky edits I linked it's incredibly difficult to assume good faith. Don't expect the matter to just be dropped nor for your stonewalling to be tolerated. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- You don't give me anything. You only gave the source for the Legned, but let me quote your own translation: "I started writing Legend with a specific purpose, to preserve our Bosnian language. Not the language of confessions or nations in Bosnia, but the language of Bosnia. Besides that I wanted to create a historical Bosnian time". Now, I wonder, where does he mention that he wrote all of his books in Bosnian? Probably in other books he didn't wanted to preserve "their Bosnian language", eh? :D --Wüstenfuchs 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- You don't give me anything. Where does Enver himself say that he wrote in Croatian? Plus that's from an interview in 1971, but I suppose you would love to stick to your little theory? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't, the source does. And yes, I know the quote is from the 1971 interview. --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't? So we've established Enver himself never said he wrote in Croatian, but that he did in Bosnian. So why should I assume that him writing in the Bosnian language was limited to "Legend"? Which was his most famous work. "Legend" was, for the third time, specifically mentioned because "Enes Čengić gave an interview with Čolaković about the "Legend"". Which was given in 1971. Again you have no evidence of Enver ever claiming to speak Croatian. What you do have is the irrelevant personal opinion of a random author writing about "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia" and which cannot be of equal weight. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's your personal oppinion. The book deals with biographies. Now, you can think of that interview what you want and you can also assume what ever you whant, but the fact that he didn't refer to any book except the Legend still remains. So, I have a source claiming he wrote in Croatian and you have a source he wrote a one book in Bosnian. --Wüstenfuchs 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Err no. For one even if it was limited to only his most famous work, which evades logic, that is more than he said that he wrote in Croatian, which is none. The bottom line is you have personal opinion of author dealing WWII NDH. I have the personal opinion of the writer himself. They aren't of equal weight. Remember "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- The author is talking about the one book, out of which you made your own conclusion that all of his books were writen in Bosnian. This is original research. On the other side, I have presented the source that states he wrote in Croatian. Nevertheless you have number of sources that state he wrote and translated into Croatian, example Krešimir Nemec's book (Povijest hrvatskog romana: od 1945. do 2000. godine). --Wüstenfuchs 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter which conclusion you make. It doesn't matter if he was referring to one book or his entire career. You have no source that he himself suggested otherwise. The opinions of what others personally believe he wrote in are just that, their personal opinions, and are entirely irrelevant. They are NOT "the best such source for this context". Simple as that. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, neither he stated he didn't wrote in Croatian. Simple as that. This discussion doesn't go anywhere. --Wüstenfuchs 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh boy logical fallacies are fun. He didn't say that he didn't write in Chinese either... You should know the difference between a positive and negative claim. The burden of evidence is on you. You make the claim he wrote in Croatian yet you have no evidence of him saying that he did in ANY capacity while on the other hand it's been established that he said that he wrote in Bosnian (regardless of whether you interpret it to be one book or many). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neither do you have a source he wrote all of his books in Bosnian. Look, this discussion is pointless. The first source says he wrote in Croatian, the other one says he translated Sinko in Croatian, the Hungarain writer. This can't be a logical falacy because there are sources claiming he acctualy wrote in Croatian. The falacy would be if I would claim he wrote in the Sinhala language, but I don't. Both languages must be included. --Wüstenfuchs 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh boy logical fallacies are fun. He didn't say that he didn't write in Chinese either... You should know the difference between a positive and negative claim. The burden of evidence is on you. You make the claim he wrote in Croatian yet you have no evidence of him saying that he did in ANY capacity while on the other hand it's been established that he said that he wrote in Bosnian (regardless of whether you interpret it to be one book or many). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, neither he stated he didn't wrote in Croatian. Simple as that. This discussion doesn't go anywhere. --Wüstenfuchs 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter which conclusion you make. It doesn't matter if he was referring to one book or his entire career. You have no source that he himself suggested otherwise. The opinions of what others personally believe he wrote in are just that, their personal opinions, and are entirely irrelevant. They are NOT "the best such source for this context". Simple as that. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- The author is talking about the one book, out of which you made your own conclusion that all of his books were writen in Bosnian. This is original research. On the other side, I have presented the source that states he wrote in Croatian. Nevertheless you have number of sources that state he wrote and translated into Croatian, example Krešimir Nemec's book (Povijest hrvatskog romana: od 1945. do 2000. godine). --Wüstenfuchs 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Err no. For one even if it was limited to only his most famous work, which evades logic, that is more than he said that he wrote in Croatian, which is none. The bottom line is you have personal opinion of author dealing WWII NDH. I have the personal opinion of the writer himself. They aren't of equal weight. Remember "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's your personal oppinion. The book deals with biographies. Now, you can think of that interview what you want and you can also assume what ever you whant, but the fact that he didn't refer to any book except the Legend still remains. So, I have a source claiming he wrote in Croatian and you have a source he wrote a one book in Bosnian. --Wüstenfuchs 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't? So we've established Enver himself never said he wrote in Croatian, but that he did in Bosnian. So why should I assume that him writing in the Bosnian language was limited to "Legend"? Which was his most famous work. "Legend" was, for the third time, specifically mentioned because "Enes Čengić gave an interview with Čolaković about the "Legend"". Which was given in 1971. Again you have no evidence of Enver ever claiming to speak Croatian. What you do have is the irrelevant personal opinion of a random author writing about "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia" and which cannot be of equal weight. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't, the source does. And yes, I know the quote is from the 1971 interview. --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- You don't give me anything. Where does Enver himself say that he wrote in Croatian? Plus that's from an interview in 1971, but I suppose you would love to stick to your little theory? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't have a source where he says he wrote any of his books in Croatian. It appears it is indeed pointless because half the time you try to squirm your way out and the other half you keep going in circles. First, your reasoning, a logical fallacy actually, was that we are to be believe that he wrote in Croatian because he didn't deny it. This is just as reasonable as believing he wrote in Chinese because he never denied it. Now you bring up the same source which I already told you isn't the best source for the context multiple times. The source from the man himself on the other hand is. You keep bringing it up and up again blindly with the logic that "someone else said something different so both are equally important!!" while presenting it as fact and ignoring whose opinion it is and about what. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, do you have a source of Hitler saying he is responsible for killing Jews? I'm getting tired of this discussion. You know, one might erase the whole article about Čolaković as everything in that article is acctualy fallacy, according to you. He never said he wrote in German and Hungarian, he never said he recieved any awards, he never said he was born in Budapest... --Wüstenfuchs 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Maps of Syrian civil war
I have reverted your removal of this map [4] that is clearly sourced. Please provide for discussion first in the talk page why you think it is not correct before reverting this or even removing the main article link on sectarianism without proper explanation.[5] Gryffindor (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012 (2)
Your addition to Battle of Aleppo (2012) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. diff ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
New page
I started today a new page about the current counter insurgency operations that the Syrian Army is wagging against the rebels in Damascus area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Insurgency_in_Rif_Damashq
However user Sopher99 who apparently is following me in some way has filled a speedy deletion proposal for dubious reason. If you are interested you can give your opinion on the talk page. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Sorry about the accidental rollback *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
A cookie for you!
Sorry about the accidental rollback *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. No problem. --Wüstenfuchs 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RE: Hafez al-Assad
I can help you, but I can't help you before friday, so just wait... Take a look at the Michel Aflaq (which is a GA) and the 8th of March Revolution - they are not great articles, but they are decent enough. --TIAYN (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. I'll check those two articles also. And thanks. --Wüstenfuchs 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dževad Karahasan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
SANA
We need a solution for the SANA problem or the anti-SANA editors won't stop demanding its removal. I propose that we summarise all of the SANA reports in just 2-3 paragraphs. Without the long wording. By summarising just in which areas they conducted the attacks during the continued offensive period, who they eliminated, what they claimed destroyed etc. That way, the government claims still remain but the article won't be 75 percent SANA as the anti-SANA editors have argued. I have proposed the same thing to Daniel. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, as I see it, there are 9 large SANA paragraphs in the continued offensive section. On the 12th, 17th, 18th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th and 29th of August. You got any suggestions on how to proceed? EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that's enough, we cut down on 5,200+ bytes of information. If people still got a problem with it than...I don't know. EkoGraf (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think so to... good work. --Wüstenfuchs 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)