User talk:Szekszter: Difference between revisions

Hello, Szekszter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! sats 00:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrik Eliáš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (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) 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you use the article's Talk page? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're actually not aware, but we cannot use wikipedia pages as sources (WP:CIRCULAR). If you wish to retain the 35,000 figure for the VDV, cite some sort of other source that is not wikipedia. Thanks and seasons' greetings !! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Now the other question - that's the Ground Forces page. The VDV is a separate service; do we need any reference to them there? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your force structure additions to the Syrian Army article. Would you please add your source? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I shouldn't really have missed that !! Happy New Year anyway... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insert any mention of the 2nd Armoured Division unless there's verification since the Civil War began that it exists. You will see that I added months ago that Holliday seems to think that there was a reserve armoured division, but that it was the 17th - Bennett in 2001 had the wrong designation. Also you need to insert sources for the 14th and 15th Brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, Hama Governorate clashes (2011–12) needs a major do over. As do most battles/clashes that highlight units involved. I've seen regiments turn into brigades, 4th Armoured appear alongside itself again as 4th mechanized and the independent SP regiments all seem to be attached to the 15th SF Div Szekszter (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a careful look at the source you inserted for the OB. That's the only reliable OB source for divisions. The only inaccuracy that I've seen so far is for the mention of the 2nd Armoured Division - everything else seems right. You'll also see that Holliday has an explanation for this brigade/regiment thing as well, I think. Forget this mis-attribution of the 4th Armd - that's just journalists getting stuff wrong. We know it's the 4th Armd under Maher. The SF regiments remain a puzzle; they get attached to everything and anything. Best to ring up Joseph Holliday and talk to him, I think ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will have to wait 'till next year. Happy New Year! Szekszter (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except here it is 2014!! Happy New Year to you when it arrives - I've removed the 2nd Armd Div mentions in that article, which were without sources and inserted by an anon IP. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Republican Guard (Syria) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mechanized

Shabiha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe this issue was already discussed. The page is reserved for people from the Somali ethnic group, as the hatnote clearly indicates (This article is about the Somali ethnic group. For the general population of the Federal Republic of Somalia, see Demographics of Somalia. For other uses, see Somali (disambiguation).). Ali is also a controversial and disliked figure within the Somali community. There are many other less disliked but also potentially controversial figures who were omitted for this reason; she isn't alone. Have a look at the Syrian people page and see how many such figures you can find. There are none. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is a well known enough Syrian to be noted, please include him/her in the page, even if it's a snake like Assad. the more diverse the representation, the better. regards Szekszter (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assad is ethnically Syrian. The material you added on Christians in Somalia pertains to Bantus, not ethnic Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Somali people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]