| Revision as of 21:32, 21 April 2018 editAxxxion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,218 edits →Incorrect attribution to: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:03, 21 April 2018 edit undoז62 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,072 edits →Incorrect attribution toNext edit → | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
| RT in your recent edit: RT′s interview was a follow-up: the original report aired on 18 April was broadcast by ]. You can see refs , if you wish to correct and add sources. Apparently, though, there seems to be a rule being introduced that you can only cite Russian media sources through Western ones, otherwise they get dismissed as "fringe" such as by ]. Makes me smile as a matter of fact: if one wishes, anything can be dismissed as "fringe", especially such resources as Misplaced Pages, let alone the topic of the article in question; but to dismiss as "fringe" what a major state-run global broadcaster of a country that currently controls the site in question says, imho, betrays a desperate effort to suppress one′s fear and appears to be a psychiatric case.] (]) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | RT in your recent edit: RT′s interview was a follow-up: the original report aired on 18 April was broadcast by ]. You can see refs , if you wish to correct and add sources. Apparently, though, there seems to be a rule being introduced that you can only cite Russian media sources through Western ones, otherwise they get dismissed as "fringe" such as by ]. Makes me smile as a matter of fact: if one wishes, anything can be dismissed as "fringe", especially such resources as Misplaced Pages, let alone the topic of the article in question; but to dismiss as "fringe" what a major state-run global broadcaster of a country that currently controls the site in question says, imho, betrays a desperate effort to suppress one′s fear and appears to be a psychiatric case.] (]) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, I have no idea if ''this'' is corrections possible under the restrictions mentioned above. After all, I've just attempted to the massivelly fooolish blunder who for some reasons unspecified (neither in edit summary nor in the page talk) put the RT propaganda broadcast into the sections. I was not aware that there's any substantial difference betweent the ] and ] channels (if there's any) (and ], among his other numerous failures in the field of proper citation/attribution, to specify ''which''' exactly broadcast channel it was, either. He just stated "Russian state TV". Feel free to correct it yourself. Thank you.-22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:03, 21 April 2018
Welcome!
|
Avia 122 name
Vosa - Wasp was for sure not used. I am sorry I am not able to proof something non existing by a quote. see here Czech Army runs Military Museum in Prague, on its page - Vosa not mentioned http://www.vhu.cz/exhibit/ceskoslovenske-akrobaticke-letouny-avia-ba-122/
Original program from 1936 Olympics...Bucker is referred as Jungmeister, Avia called Ba122, Vosa not mentioned again http://www.modelforum.cz/download/file.php?id=688759
Dedicated page of Czech modelers who explored Technical Museum in Brno archives - Vosa not mentioned http://www.tnmc.cz/walkaround/ba122.php
Plastic kits made by a Czech company - Vosa not mentioned http://rsmodels.cz/cs/modely-letadel/plastikove-modely/1-72/92056/avia-ba-122-rk-17-engine http://www.modelartikl.cz/produkt/11690-avia-ba122-019-92082/?kategorie=92
Jan Kárník (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reaction. I hadn't an opportunity to check any reliable sources so far, but quick online search lead to revelation that the name is sometimes spelt "Osa", which was allegedly combat name used for the type in Royal Bulgarian Air Force service (e.g. this link), and "Vosa" seems to be (originally) some kind of back-translation to Czech. This should be probably dealt with in the article. I'm still not sure how to deal with it in article's lede - as far as the sources in English often use this designation, this ought to be be mentioned somehow, though perhaps not in the current form.-ז62 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Taurobolium and bullfighting
Hi, ז62. I've removed the bullfighting template from the article because, as far as I can tell (based on reliable specialist sources) the taurobolium had nothing to do with fighting bulls. It had the usual characteristics of bull sacrifice in the Graeco-Roman world, which required that a domesticated animal appeared to consent to its own demise. It may be loosely connected to bull-running rituals in 2nd century AD Asia minor but there's no firm link; and the Taurobolium itself had no such elements -- even the "infamous bloodiness" of the Taurobolium rests on the Christian apologist Prudentius, who based his account on anti-pagan hearsay, rather than observation. Regards Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've actually added the template after I've been reverting some experiments in the Bullfighting article and quite accidentally noticed that Taurobolium is included in the {{Bullfighting}} template, but the template itself is not in the Taurobolium article - so I've assumed the template was somewhat omitted in the article - otherwise that all is way beyond my ken. Does it mean that Taurobolium does not belong in the Bullfighting template? regards --ז62 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Mmmm, experiments! Don't you just love them? Back to the matter in hand -- yes (or no), I don't think it belongs under that template. (PS: the parent category of that template appears to be sport; and the Taurobolium was definitely not a sport. That seems to clinch the matter). Best, Haploidavey (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the template. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification and template cleanup. Regards--ז62 (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the template. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, ז62. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry
... for having reverted you, - it was a misclick. At least this time I noticed right away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, such things sometimes happen. And thanks for your explanation.--ז62 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - 1RR restriction
Heads up, this page is under a 1RR restriction. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notification - I'll be more careful in the future.--ז62 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. NeilN 19:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)- Thanks for the notification. I'd certainly spend some time thinking about the general implications. -ז62 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect attribution to
RT in your recent edit: RT′s interview was a follow-up: the original report aired on 18 April was broadcast by Russia-24. You can see refs here, if you wish to correct and add sources. Apparently, though, there seems to be a rule being introduced that you can only cite Russian media sources through Western ones, otherwise they get dismissed as "fringe" such as here by User:Snooganssnoogans. Makes me smile as a matter of fact: if one wishes, anything can be dismissed as "fringe", especially such resources as Misplaced Pages, let alone the topic of the article in question; but to dismiss as "fringe" what a major state-run global broadcaster of a country that currently controls the site in question says, imho, betrays a desperate effort to suppress one′s fear and appears to be a psychiatric case.Axxxion (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I have no idea if this is corrections possible under the restrictions mentioned above. After all, I've just attempted to correct/somewhat wikify the massivelly fooolish blunder committed by user Mhhosien who for some reasons unspecified (neither in edit summary nor in the page talk) put the RT propaganda broadcast into the "Media investigations" sections. I was not aware that there's any substantial difference betweent the Russia-24 and Russia Today channels (if there's any) (and User:Mhhosisen, among his other numerous failures in the field of proper citation/attribution, completely failed to specify which' exactly broadcast channel it was, either. He just stated "Russian state TV". Feel free to correct it yourself. Thank you.-22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)