User talk:Canucklehead/Archive 3

Stop harassing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.186 (talk • contribs)

My warnings are not "harassment." Your edits to my user page, however, are harassment. Warnings are standard for anyone vandalizing pages on Wikipedia. ProtossPylon 06:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your name color triggered an epileptic seizure75.72.78.186 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's not harassment, I don't know what is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.186 (talk • contribs)

Please stop the name colors, it's causing this dispute, let's just not use the colors, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.186 (talk • contribs)

My signature is not against the signature guidelines. The fact that you can't just ignore them is only giving further evidence that you're deliberately provoking me. ProtossPylon 06:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, but I'm a new user, and I don't feel very welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.186 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. This has been a learning process for me. Sorry if I did not follow the rules. I will research this further and next time I will follow proper procedure. Thank you for your time and your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracleseoul (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey why are you reverting my changes. I'm making it correct and you are reverting it back, so unfair. Mahnoor Baloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs)

You're not providing any reliable source that your changes are correct, and you removed a large amount of content from the article at one point without explaining why. ProtossPylon 04:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello ProtossPylon. Can you explain to me how an article about a minister in the national government of the fourth most populous country in the world "may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject"?--Shirt58 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the article because the creator of the page hadn't left any sort of credible reference that the person was who they say it was. I see you're an admin so if I'm using A7 wrong then now would be the time to let me know. It's quite ambiguous. ProtossPylon 07:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, ProtossPylon. Yeah, I see your point. It would have been good if there had been a reference. But that's not what WP:A7 is for.

For example, if there was a new article with no references at all that said

"Matti Meikäläinen is a guy from Helsinki. He likes hockey and going to see movies."

that would be an obvious A7, as there is no indication of why its subject is important or significant

However, if there was a new article with no references at all that said

"Matti Meikäläinen is a guy from Helsinki. He is the goaltender for the Finland national ice hockey team."

that would not be an A7 candidate: playing for a national sports team is a clear indication of significance or importance.

Do you see the difference? In the case of Muhammad Nuh, just indicating he is of some significance or importance (in this case I'm afraid it really was obvious) means an A7 tag was not right. In the case of Muhammad Nuh, a WP:BLPPROD would have been the second-best thing to do. (The best thing to do would be to Google the bloke, and add referenced content. We are here to build an encyclopedia, after all.)

I do admit I was a bit snippy in my response. Please don't be so quick on the trigger with CSD tags in future; that said, it was unfair of me to expect you to immediately recoginise who the guy was.

Hope this helps. Any questions whatsoever, just let me know.   Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! ProtossPylon 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• original discussion

It is common for a lot of people who want to share and are shot down for one reason or another by the monitors of Wiki.

It seems that telling someone that their post is horrible basically is what the end result of this very blunt form of censorship. Makes me wonder how much on Wiki is true at all. Many teachers are telling students not to use Wiki because of the editing by people who don't know the subject.

You have been fairly decent, but it still seems like a very unwelcome place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)

Okay, what are you not getting? You're posting your own thoughts and speculation into an article, and then you're telling us that we're "censoring" you when we ask you to provide proof and not original research? I've made it very clear to you what the expectations were. And the wording of the section makes it very obvious that is is only stating what people have accused him of, it is not confirming the incidents.

Nobody said that your edits were "horrible." All we ask for is a reliable source for your information. Provide one and then you can add your information into your article. That is, a news article or something that outright explains his medical condition and how it would have prevented him from doing what he was accused of. You can't use one article telling about his condition and another completely different and unrelated page from a medical database to prove it because they don't refer to each other, and thus it is speculation. The reason we filter out unsourced content is how we keep Wikipedia's content reliable. If we allowed anyone to put up their own unproven personal experiences and present them as fact, then nothing would be reliable here.

I cannot censor you because I don't even know who this guy is, and no reason to start a crusade against him. What I'm doing is upholding our policy of verifiability, which you are refusing to understand.

Lastly, why are you taking this out on me, and me only? I've told you to start a discussion on Talk:Muktananda instead. I've repeated myself several times; if you aren't going to make an effort to understand what I'm telling you and instead resort to whining about "censorship" then there's nothing more I can tell you.

If you make any further posts here on my talk page, I'm going to remove them. ProtossPylon 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

...for keeping an eye on my talk page!--ukexpat (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, in the two months before the lines in the Battle of the Bulge were restructured, German losses in troops and equipment were far lower proportionally than in the French campaign. And the Allies made no progress. Equals strategic German victory, like it or not. Either find your own source to contradict this overwhelmingly basic statistical info, or leave Wikipedia alone. And 250 planes from Operation Bodenplatte, wrecking all but one of the targeted Allied airfields, was not the "final blow" of an already weak Luftwaffe. The planes lost on the Western Front during these two months, again, were proportionally much lower than in the French campaign. The Americans could not manage any more German losses because they were on their heels. Get statistics of your own to contradict this disgustingly obvious info. That would be like saying Japan won the war after the nuclear bombs hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem: the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You haven't provided a source backing up that the Germans actually won the battle through a "strategic victory." The article is already full of sources that contradict what you're adding into the article, so you're going to have to find the sources proving what you're claiming - not me. Mine are already there. What you are doing is called original research and can't be proven without a third party to confirm it, which is why we don't allow unreferenced information - especially when it's in clear contradiction of the rest of the article, like your additions.

Also this information is not "disgustingly obvious." Not everyone may have researched World War II as extensively as you have. This does not count as common knowledge and therefore is not exempt from needing a reference. ProtossPylon 06:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is making the claim in the first place? Why are you contradicting me? If you can find the numbers in any book that differ from this simple fact: German losses in these two months were proportionally much lower than in the French campaign, than you can keep the article the way it was. I do not have a source that simply divides the two months and the rest of the French campaign, but it can be easily inferred. Most people who aren't blogging yahoos (I don't know if you are on not) would tend to agree. This article is completely unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk • contribs)

You are the one making the claim, and you are the one contradicting the article. It's the job of the editor inserting the information to provide the source. Other editors shouldn't have to prove your comments for you. Even if their numbers are proportionally lower, though, why are you claiming that the Germans won a "strategic victory" when it was very clearly the Allies who won the battle?

Please read our original research policy and our verifiability policy. These are the cornerstones of Wikipedia's content. If we allowed everyone to get away with adding dubious information then nothing would be reliable and everyone could just insert false information wherever they wanted. ProtossPylon 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If it took the Allies two months to get back to their original positions at the start of the battle and German losses were proportionally lower, how is this NOT a strategic victory? At least state the opposing argument in your article. And don't act like anyone respects Wikpedia editors' contributions, because the articles are usually a biased mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk • contribs)

Once again: we're talking about direct victories here. Not the aftermath, but who objectively claimed victory after the battle. Your information about the Germans' lower losses after the fight is fine if you have a source for it, but it doesn't rewrite what was happening during the duration of the battle. And for biased articles, we have NPOV, talk pages, and dispute resolution for that. ProtossPylon 06:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK for now, at least consider getting rid of the hogwash about the "last German reserves" being lost during these two months (I would add equipment, personally) when the Allies hoped to at least triple these losses and reach the Siegfried Line in this period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read Toland's The Last 100 Days, you will see that even during that period of the war, the Germans had a million Indians alone still fighting for them, and very well equipped. This would be an inappropriate citation, but certainly disproves the last reserves bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You can say the last of the FRESH reserves were lost on the EASTERN FRONT during these two months. And you should state what percentage 300 or so planes lost in the two months are of the Luftwaffe's total force before claiming their loss SHATTERED the already decimated Luftwaffe. If not for the Russian front (as usual), the Germans would have been extremely happy with these losses to have no advances for two months on the Western Front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.184.57 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I reverted that, but must have missed it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)