Hi - I saw your addition of one Romanian Haas rocket launch to the launch schedule of 2013 in the 2013 in spaceflight article. Do you have any sources for that first orbital launch attempt happening this year? Because I do follow a bit of the Google Lunar X-Prize competition, and I have extremely great doubts that the Romanians of ARCA can pull up their first orbital launch (and even their lunar lander + rover) by the end of this year. Didn't they just completely re-designed their rocket and abandoning the balloon launching method? Any sources other then the press releases from ARCA that can show that they can actually launch satellites into orbit within the next 2 years (much less 7 months)? Thanks!
The best I can find is this, they've obviously made an agreement with the Bulgarian team to launch in 2013 with a simplified launch vehicle. Their page also shows that they're making an engine test stand and conducting avionics experiments. I assume this launch will not be the one for X-Prize. - ☣TourbillonA ?18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always welcome ! By the way, I plan on trying to push Bulgaria for FA once again, it might need a bit of attention from a larger number of editors in the coming months. - ☣TourbillonA ?14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I'm happy to do what I can when the time comes. Considering I only just found a source that had been misquoted in the text, it may need a check through. It's nice and concise though. CMD (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria's main page
Четейки секцията за България за 3тото царство и установяването на социализма, имам чувството не е осъвременяна от доста време. Имате ли планове да се кокретизира и ако не как да предложа промени? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfikin (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Добре де, може би "осъвременяване" не е точната дума тук ;). Една от първите милсли която ми мина през главата когато четох текста в секцията за края на втората световна, е че липсва информация за техническите мир-война взаимоотношения между българия и ссср. В цялата секция един вид ми се струва че текста е повече с мнения и по-малко факти отколкото е редно. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfikin (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ами целта е статията да се държи възможно най-кратка, особено историческите секции. В противен случай се получават абсурдно дълги статии като Hungary, които не само са трудни за четене, но и за навигация, и за поддръжка. History of Bulgaria е достатъчно изчерпателна, макар информацията там да не е много добре оформена. Освен това в момента с няколко други редактори се опитваме да я направим избрана, следователно спорните моменти и като цяло историята трябва да са сведени до минимум. - ☣TourbillonA ?16:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Аз нямам възражения за целите, за краткоста и за избягване на противоречиви теми. Това са неща аз самият предпочитам. Но не виждам причини да се избягва споменаването на факти. Например това че СССР обявява война на България и след това нейните войски я окупират. Текст с подобно съдържание няма а самото събитие е същественно. Не искам да бъда разбран грешно, аз не искам да изразявам мнение за самото събитието, искам само фактологията да бъде спомената. В тоз контекст, мислите те ли че можете да допълните упоменатото събитие сами или предпочитате да ви предложа текст? Или нещо друго? Nfikin (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Tourbillon! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Tourbillon! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 20:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Looking Backward may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
от оригинала дотолкова, че следва да се говори за нов роман, първия ни български утопичен роман. ("Basically this work differs from the original to such an extent, that we can consider it a new
I did a simple Google search, but I couldn't find anything meaningful. I'll try to find his book in a store tomorrow and see if it doesn't have a bio. - ☣TourbillonA ?15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Google Translate usually gives very poor translations to Bulgarian, you could mail me the text so I can translate and re-send it, if you wish. - ☣TourbillonA ?05:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the machine translation and the english original:
Извинявам се, ако това е трудно да се чете. I използва Google Translate го преведе на български от английски. Оригиналът English също е включена в дъното.
I редактирате English Wikipedia и искам да цитирам една книга, публикувани от компанията, като източник в една от статиите. Книгата е "История на комунизма в България" от Диню Шарланов. Това се оспорва и дискусията почива върху академичната същност на автора. Не сме били в състояние да открият кой университет проф. Диню Шарланов е свързан с и се надявах, че може да сте в състояние да предостави тази информация или насочва ме с някой, който може.
Благодарим ви за отделеното време.
I apologize if this is difficult to read. I used Google Translate to translate it into Bulgarian from English. The original English is also included at the bottom.
I edit the English Wikipedia and want to cite a book published by your company as a source in one of the articles. The book is "The History of Communism in Bulgaria" by Dinyu Sharlanov. This has been disputed and the discussion rests upon the academic nature of the author. We have not been able to discover which university Professor Dinyu Sharlanov is associated with and I was hoping that you might be able to provide that information or direct me to someone who can.
Hello Tourbillon,
I'm contacting you because we need some Bulgarian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on bg.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Bulgarian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cuban Missiles
Hello.
It seems that on Oct. 11 2008 you updated the page on the Cuban armed forces to include a list of its weaponry.
The list included 330-550 Hwasong 5 and 6 ground to ground missiles made in North Korea.
Would you happen to have a source for--Totico1948 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
r that?
I ask because I am a journalist with the newspaper Miami Herald and have been working on the story of the DPRK ship Chong Chon Gang, detained in Panama and found to be carrying Cuban weapons to Pyongyang.
That reference to the Hwasong missiles in Cuba has popped in a couple of places, not many, and I need to determine the source.
Many thanks for any assistance that you can provide.[reply]
Hi, and sorry for the delay ! My mistake not to have placed a source, I do not remember the name of the website anymore and from what I'm receiving as search results, it might not be available anymore. Right now this report is one of the few online sources mentioning a possible export of Hwasong technology to Cuba. A possible Hwasong-5 export is mentioned here with a third-party source added. Back then I was doing some research on NK missile exports and all that surfaced were unconfirmed reports that Cuba has imported Scud-B technology from North Korea, but nothing more.
I also think it would be useful to know that an arms agreement was signed (scroll to bottom) between the two countries way back in 1991, which included the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Cuba. Could be related to the cargo of Chong Chon Gang. - ☣TourbillonA ?06:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans (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 not necessarily wrong if the area is left in olive green - the Army controls the southern part and the rebels control the northern, so technically the whole area is contested. Recoloured Sheikh Maqsud back to yellow. - ☣TourbillonA ?07:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
collapsible list of ethnicities in info-box on Bulgaria
Hi, I saw that you collapsed the ethnic groups list in the article on Bulgaria. Was this unintended, or do you have a reason to want it collapsed? Greetings Tropcho (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I collapsed it because it creates too much clutter in the infobox. It's better to keep it folded because not all users would be interested to know those figures. Those who are interested can easily collapse it. - ☣TourbillonA ?09:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that if the list is there at all, it's nice to have it expanded, because then there's no need to click and it's just five lines of text. This also seems to be the trend in most of the articles on European countries. I wouldn't start an edit war over that, though ;) Tropcho (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have this previous source (November 2013) stating SAA control over some buildings in Bani Zaid & Northern Ashrafieh. It seems that the situation had evolved, as the latter source talk about most of the area in SAA control...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on Bani Zaid, but not so sure on Ashrafiye (it seems that SAA controls only some parts on the north and south of that neighboorhood).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw Sopher has reverted your edit on Bani Zeid simply based on the part in the source that says much of the district was recaptured, not the whole district. I have proposed a compromise solution, color Bani Zeid red with the western and northern edges of the district that border rebel territory as contested. That way much of the district is red, but not the whole district. EkoGraf (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After finding this source [1] which confirms an earlier Army advance into Bani Zeid a month ago I suggest the following. Color it like you did before Sopher reverted you, the part between red Rasafeh and red Tareq Ziyad, which was colored as contested, you also color red (thus linking up government territory). Leave that part of Rasafeh on the border of Khalidiya olive. And color a thin patch of the northern edge of the government-held part of Rasafeh as contested. Hope you understood me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR today confirmed fighting between the Army and rebels in the Kafr Hamra area on the northwest edge of the city. Source here [2]. I suggest the following. The area just to the north of the Air defense base should go from contested to red, the Army advance arrow should move further up in the direction of Kafr Hamra, and Kafr Hamra should go from rebel-held to contested. Further creedence to this can be found in the fact that it was reported a few weeks ago that there had been fighting between the Army and rebels in the village of Maarat al-Artiq which is a few km to the west of Kafr Hamr. That means the Army had already pushed that far west from the Air Defense Base. EkoGraf (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the southern Sheik Saed district is contested again [3]. It was reported that the fighting was inside the military accommodation building. EkoGraf (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The facility no, but the district is, so it goes contested or at least the general area of the district where the facility should be located. Simple as that. EkoGraf (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source only says an ambush on the facility was the source of the clashes. The facility is not located on the map, as I showed, and rebels hold sheikh saed proper. Sopher99 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The facility is part of the district (per SOHR), the southern part to be more precise. So, the district is contested (at least the souther part/half of it). EkoGraf (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that same report is talking about the ambush, and since we have another source confirming the ambush to be at the military accommodation building, we know its not contested for this map. Sopher99 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check the date of the post Sopher, its from 16 January. The military facility ambush happened on 13 January. This was a totally new ambush on a totally different day in the same district. So, again, contested. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't know which part of sheikh saed it happened in. The rebel controlled north part (on the map) or the part with a regime presence in the south (not on the map). Given the recent ambush on the accommodation area, I would suspect the later Sopher99 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am suggesting to color at least a slim patch of the southern part of the district that IS on the map as contested. Nothing more. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the source says its Dahra-kafak hamra. Thats not the same thing as kafr hamra. Notice how there is a k at the end, combined with dahra. Sopher99 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that Arabic to English translations always differ in some respect. And the only area of Kafak Hamra or Kafr Hamra or something similar in name that exists in Aleppo province is the Kafr Hamra (per wikimapia) district of Aleppo. Also, the official Wikipedia article lists two translations for the name of the town, Kafr Hamrah and Kfar Hamra, its all a matter of translation, which, like I said, is not always accurate. So...nice try Sopher. EkoGraf (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll colour a patch of Sheikh Said as contested, because the government has had a presence there for quite a while now. As for the Kafr Hamra issue - there's no other location with such a name, and the information is in line with pro-government sources reporting clashes in the Maaret al-Artiq area for the past two weeks. - ☣TourbillonA ?08:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Activists in Aleppo city have said that government forces have recaptured the neighbourhood of Karam Al Qasr in the eastern side of Aleppo city, after three days fighting.Al JazeeraHanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map of the area is in the Al Jazeera link. It seems it represents the southeastern part of the Al-Myassar Jazmati district [5]. So I suggest that you color as red the part of that area that is currently marked as contested as well as the part that is the Karam Al Qasr neighbourhood according to the Al Jazeera map and add an advance arrow in that direction. P.S. I would also point out that there is fighting according to SOHR in the Sheikh Lufti district in south Aleppo [6]. Map here [7]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I read anything from that source, it turned out to be false, I think it was about the situation in Base 80 a week or two ago. Could you find a more reliable source ? - ☣TourbillonA ?18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The districts around the mosque district are colored as contested Sopher. The district in which the mosque is located is colored as rebel-held. So, that one needs to be changed to contested. Thank you in advance on the edit Tourbillon. EkoGraf (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I found them. I'll colour the area around Blurah in red, but I'll keep the other one as contested because it's really not such a large area. I've placed an arrow indicating an offensive movement though. - ☣TourbillonA ?09:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I saw where exactly all of those areas are. The area around Blurah and Sheikh Lufti is mostly empty and not residential, so I'll have to colour most of what is now Marjeh in red. If there are any objections, please let me know, I'll recolour it. - ☣TourbillonA ?09:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about the last changes in the Aleppo map, I have some points:
First, the situation of Karam al-Tarab or Kasr al-Tarrab (just where the red arrow above the airport is located). According to sources cited upwards in the previous section, it should be coloured red in the map.
So, due to that two areas being contiguous, the south-eastern part of the Myasar section (including the sector above the Myasar name) should be changed to red. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Aleppo's Justice Palace
This Reuters article shows photos from yesterday showing Aleppo's Justice Palace (south of the Citadel) in SAA hands. So, red colouring needed in the olive-coloured sector surrounding the Citadel.
Another point that I want to discuss with you (and with any other user who wants to join in) in a future post is the situation of the olive-coloured quarters north of the citadel. I havent seen any map in the whole web (from neutral, pro-opposition or pro-government sources) that put that zones as contested, but as SAA controlled. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 18:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The photos for the second district in your above request were gone (I get a "Page not found"), so I didn't change that. Can you find a few sources from both sides about the situation in those quarters ? - ☣TourbillonA ?10:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this Syrian TV clip showing SAA in control of Karam-al-Tarrab. Because all of this, I suggest putting the eastern and southern parts of the Myasar section in red, while putting Maasaraniyah (the sector upwards the Myasar label) either in olive or red. Regards,--HCPUNXKID18:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...the pot yelled to the kettle. I suppose that when the used were pro-jihadi "rebel" sources like the partisan Cedric Labrousse or Qatar State TV (also known as Al-Jazeera) that aint hypocrite, huh? And learn that the images arent partisan, if a journalistic video shows a town in control of a part of the conflict, it doesnt matter its political position, what matter is what it shows. If not, let's remove all content based on Al-Jazeera, Al-Gad, Orient TV and all that stinky Wahabi-oriented channels...--HCPUNXKID18:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of pro-gov. and anti-gov. is allowed to make changes, I understand that you are desperately trying to maintain that illusory map of Aleppo by your POV-pushing, but you aint gonna win. Also, sources dont have expiration date, it doesnt matter sources are from October 2013, unless you have newer sources stating anything different. Do you have them? I guess no...--HCPUNXKID10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ashrafiyeh
I think likely the district Ashrafiyeh under control of army. Because that source shows the Syrian flag on the roof of the mosque in the district which, under army control near district the Sheikh Maqsoud. And according to the map of the mosque there are only in few districts that border to the district Sheikh Maqsoud. These are districts Trab al-Hellok, Bostan Pasha and Ashrafiyeh . But most likely that the syrian troops now controls district Ashrafiyeh because that district Trab al-Hellok under the full control of the opposition and in the district Bostan Pasha now is clashes between the Syrian army vs opposition fighters. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just having the flag waving is not enough to list them as government-controlled. Darayya, Barzeh and Moadamiyeh are rebel-controlled but as part of a recent truce they allowed government flags to be waived on public buildings. - ☣TourbillonA ?13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the angle of the lamp and the buildings in the distance, this would be the mosque in question. But still, the area is far too big to call it all under government control, it would be nice if there were a few more sources on this. - ☣TourbillonA ?13:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blue, that's just a shadow. If you look closer, the shadow on the photo does give a darker appearance to the dome. It can't be any other mosque anyway. - ☣TourbillonA ?09:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the north-western Ashrafiyeh district, which is largely under regime control, five people, two of them children, were killed by mortar fire, the Observatory said. Although this source outdate is still worth to consider it as more than there were no reports that the rebels control territory in the area.sourcesourcesourceHanibal911 (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tareeq al-Bab
I think the area north of military base Brigade 80 should be marked under the control of the army. Because regime troops were now one kilometer away from the neighborhood of Tariq al-BabsourceHanibal911 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian troops, backed by paramilitary forces, seized a factory in the Sheikh Said area.source
The southern part of Sheikh Said needs to be marked as red I think while the middle area should be marked as contested. Also, we have a pro-opposition source yesterday [9] reporting advances from Sheikh Najjar village towards the northern Ard al-Hamra district. And a few hours later, the same opposition source [10] as well as a pro-goverment source [11] reported the Army captured the southern Ard al-Hamra and Tel Barakat districts. The southern Ard al-Hamra and Tel Barakat districts are already marked as red so no changes there needed. However, the upper part of the northern Ard Al-Hamra district in the northeastern part of the map should at least be marked as contested if not marked as government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the olive area a bit further up to the north and painted the Ard al-Hamra area to the north in olive until more sources come in on the situation there. Do you have any idea what's going on in Ballura and Sheikh Lufti ? I'll upload the new file once I add all the updates. - ☣TourbillonA ?09:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be marked as well as before because there was no evidence from reliable sources about the occurrence of the rebels advance in these areas. Also, I think the area adjacent to Jabal Badro must be marked under control of the army because it confirms pro opposition source.sourceHanibal911 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Errors on 26 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Good! I also ask you to fix what did editor Amedjay because he edits the map without identifying sources which can confirm all changes which he made. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would direct you to the above Sheikh Saeed section of your talk page where I tried extensevily to explain the new developments, including the existence of two Ard al-Hamra districts (one of which the Army captured and this is already marked as red). EkoGraf (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four days ago pro opposition source confirmed that Syrian troops advanced to the area of Ard al-Hamra which is located near the village Sheikh Najjar.sourceHanibal911 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second district was added on the map Wikimapia ones of the editors of three days ago when the first reports that the Syrian troops captured district Ard Al Hamra. Previously, this district was not on the map Aleppo and on other maps of the city Aleppo not have a second district Ard Al Hamra. It is somehow strange. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the area at the airport is Army-held (already marked as red so no changes there needed) and the area to the north near Sheikh Najjar is at the very least (the upper half) contested. EkoGraf (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives the impession it's entirely under rebel control, so I'm leaving it that way. It does, however, say that Aziza is under Nusra Front control so I'll change that to green. - ☣TourbillonA ?06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source only said that there battling fighters Al Nusar and others associated with Al Qaeda militants but did not mention that the city is under rebel control, correct this error. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says it's under Nusra and Ahrar Ash-Sham control: The town of Azizeh, just outside the Marjeh area in the east, the strategically vital Sheikh Najjar industrial zone, the old city and Aleppo's central prison are all defended by al-Qaeda’s affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as Salafist militants Ahrar al-Sham.... - ☣TourbillonA ?08:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you could part of the area of Ashrafiyeh noted under the control army. Here are sources showing the situation at the beginning of November.sourcesourcesource but this more the new sources which confirmed that Ashrafiyeh under army control. ReutersAl MonitorHanibal911 (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting rages on 30th day of Yabroud battles
March 14, 2014 12:31 AM
The Daily Star
Soldiers loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad stand with members of the media at Al-Sahl town, about 2km (a mile) to Yabroud's north, after the soldiers took control of it from the rebel fighters, in this March 3, 2014 handout photograph distributed by Syria's national news agency SANA. (REUTERS/SANA/Handout via Reuters)
Soldiers loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad stand with members of the media at Al-Sahl town, about 2km (a mile) to Yabroud's north, after the soldiers took control of it from the rebel fighters, in this March 3, 2014 handout photograph distributed by Syria's national news agency SANA. (REUTERS/SANA/Handout via Reuters)
A+ A-
BEIRUT: Fierce clashes raged Thursday near the rebel stronghold of Yabroud as regime forces and its allies fought rebel groups, with anti-regime activists saying the rebels were holding out after one month of a stepped-up offensive in the mountainous Qalamoun region.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that two rebels were killed in the clashes on the outskirts of the town, which was also targeted by a surface-to-surface missile as well as artillery shelling.
The anti-regime Qalamoun Media Center said Hezbollah fighters, who are backing up Syrian army troops and paramilitaries, launched a number of Volcano rockets at the town, causing massive destruction.
The Observatory and the media center said a number of surface-to-surface missiles also targeted Yabroud, but no casualties were reported. Most of the town’s 30,000 inhabitants have fled the area.
The Qalamoun activists said four rebel fighters were killed in clashes further south, in the Wadi Barada region, but added that rebel forces had managed to withstand the regime’s “scorched earth” policy of causing massive destruction in the Qalamoun region.
They said that three army officers were among those killed in the Yabroud clashes.
Fighting between regime troops and rebel units raged in the city of Aleppo, and activists from the city said 10 “barrel bombs” dropped by helicopter targeted the province – two in Aleppo and eight on two rural locations. Four civilians were killed in the strikes, they said.
I would like to ask you to turn Azizah back to constested. We have TWO opposition sources stating it is not under rebel control. We got SOHR [13] who says fighting is still going on, and we got ArabChronicle [14] marking it as government-held. So please put it back to at least contested! Thank you in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallak and ard al hamra
Please put both to green. I see no source for hallak being isis or that part of ad hamra being contested.
I have no idea who coloured Halak in black, but I'll switch it to green. I just left it there because I assumed someone had a source for that. Look up my talk page, there are a few sources on a government advance towards Ard al-Hamra. I'm leaving Saif ad-Dawla contested for now, because the intensive clashes there were relatively recent. - ☣TourbillonA ?06:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tourbillion, you need to change the location of Ard Al Hamra on the map. The opposition source per which you put it on the map had TWO Ard Al Hamra's on the map. The other one (which has been reported by all sides to be under Army control) is near the international airport. On Wikimapia, Ard Al hamra is located above Base 80, below Tel Barakat. So, from upwards to downwards its Tal Barakat, Ard Al Hamra, Base 80. You also got this source here [15] which clearly says Ard al-Hamra is a vital district near the Aleppo International Airport that was used as a launching point for the Islamic Front’s militants. The liberation of the district has now created a buffer for the SAA at the Airport; this ensures the safety of flights descending to and from the airport. The district you marked on your map as Ard Al Hamra is in fact the Breij ar-Reeh district. Check Wikimapia. EkoGraf (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we got multiple sources (including pro-opposition ones) that government forces advancing along the edge of the industrial zone also made an advance into that northern area next to Hanano. EkoGraf (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should divide Hanano into three parts from left to right - rebel (green), contested (brown), goverment (red). Because I also have doubts the Army managed to capture the whole of Hanano, but the outter most part of it most likely. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting in Shekh Maqsoud with the Army advancing [16]. I would color that southeastern part of the district as contested (connecting the contested area of Ashrafiyeh with the contested area of Bustan al Qasr, in between that contested area of Sheikh Maqsoud) with an arrow indicating an Army advance. EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more map [18], based on opposition source, per which Ramousah and Jdeydeh are government-held, as well as Ashrafiyeh. So please change Ashrafiyeh to red too please. EkoGraf (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kangso Three Tombs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and Serpent (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.
A user edited Baloura to contested (from government-held) and Sheikh Lufti to rebel-held (from contested) while none of the provided sources indicated Baloura has become contested and we have no source saying rebels took full control of Sheikh Lufti. The user made an assumption that because the rebels attacked Aziza than they must have captured Sheikh Lufti, which is considered Original Research by Wikipedia and is not allowed. So I would kindly urge you to revert the southeastern front situation to back as it was (Baloura red/government held and Sheikh Lufti contested). Also, same goes for Al-Waffa, we have confirmation of fighting around the intelligence building and palace of justice (north of Waffa), but not in Waffa itself. The user used youtube videos as a basis to make Waffa contested. Youtube video can not be used per Wikipedia policy and are forbiden. So that should also go back to red. The area northwest of Waffa should remain contested. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just noticed that Hanano was also marked as contested, despite that no more fighting has been reported there since the rebel attack on the barracks was repelled a few days ago per an opposition source [22]. So that also should go back to red. So in essence, that user's whole edit should be reverted back to Sopher's version. EkoGraf (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, I was gone from the topic for a while now and I see the map has become a mess. So if I understand you correctly: Baloura should be in red, Sheikh Lufti contested, Al-Waffa red, area north of Waffa contested, and Hanano red ? By the way, is there any change in Sheikh Said ? I haven't followed the news that much lately. - ☣TourbillonA ?07:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Homs, ‘capital of the revolution,’ in the hands of regime forces. Syrian forces took full control over the Old City of Homs.The Daily Star Even the pro opposition source of recognizes that the of Homs under army control.Arab Chronicle and also this source confirm that the under the terms of the contract between the government and rebels army gains full control over Al Waer.Al JazeeraHanibal911 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bulgaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
zgf.de/?projectId=95&id=65&language=en|title=Brown bear conservation in Bulgaria|publisher=[[Frankfurt Zoological Society|accessdate=2 May 2014}}</ref> The [[Eurasian lynx]] and the [[Eastern
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (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.
north korea is a single party state why imply that its only de facto when it is de jure, also see north korea talkpage i started a rfc there Dannis243 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haydaryah district
On the west, the rebels made a push last week to capture the city’s military academy, the major government-held installation in the city’s western quadrant. But attack, however, ended in catastrophe, exposing the rebels to repeated attacks from the air, even at night, that made it impossible to move men and weapons freely. Also government already controls, the industrial zone and the all Haydariyeh district in the city’s northeast. Ledger-EnquirerCharlotte ObserverThe TelegraphSun HeraldVC StarMcClatchly DCIdaho StatesmanMiami Herald Also the same source states that Haidariah is government controlled. The area where fighting is going mentioned in the source on is likely to be that between Hanano and Owaja.here Because reliable source said that government already controls, the industrial zone and the al Haidariah district in the city’s northeast but rebels are battling to keep government forces from taking the area between two zones which the government already controls.sourcesourceHanibal911 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pro opposition source Ara News reports that SAA control part of Kalasseh neighborood, that is shown full green in the map. It must become at least partially red. This info fits with the map that provides a picture quite different from the one from this map. This map also noted that not all the Bustan al Qasr neighborood under control by rebels. But SOHR Also said that clashes took place between the two sides in Bustan al-Qasr.SOHR So you can update the map according to data which I provided to you! Hanibal911 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will be done today, maybe in 3 or 4 hours as I'm just going out. I'll colour Kalasseh in olive because we're not yet sure which parts are under government control. - ☣TourbillonA ?11:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being attacked for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries
I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited to join WikiProject Women writers!
Hello Tourbillon/Archive 2! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!
I have been puzzled by this issue myself. The CPB was yet again part of the Bulgarian Socialist Party-led leftist coalition. However, the coalition's initial list of MPs does not include Aleksandar Paunov, CPB's current leader. Most of the MPs seem to come from BSP, and none of the non-BSP names on that list is a CPB Politburo member. Technically they are represented as part of the leftist coalition, but (most likely) they don't have their own MP.
To further complicate things, BSP - Leftist Bulgaria does not have a clear structure. I cannot find any info whether they have a superior body which coordinates the actions of member parties and movements, or whether they are all subordinated to a BSP governing body thus functioning as mere satellites. Interestingly, the Union of Communists in Bulgaria also joined the coalition and its Central Committee chairman is apparently a member of some kind of Consultative Council of BSP - Leftist Bulgaria. This particular page of their website lists the policies which the UCB will defend as part of the coalition. It would seem there is a kind of multi-party discussion and at least some basic form of coordination taking place inside this parliamentary group. It's a Schrödinger's cat and I don't know what to make of it, but it would be safer to list them as not being in parliament. - ☣TourbillonA ?16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, Bulgarian politics is unnecessarily complex. Well the Communist Party of Bulgaria's own website doesn't say a lot, but it still says its represented in parliament [of course it may be outdated] while claiming it has 20,000 members (which doesn't sound like very much). But back to the point, while the Union of Communists in Bulgaria (UCB) may be a member of the coalition, it didn't nominate members as part of the coalition (they stood in a separate list and got 6,168 of the votes). As far as my knowledge extends Paunov was elected to parliament through the Bulgarian Socialist Party, right? --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Paunov was elected as a BSP MP as the CPB was a member of the Coalition for Bulgaria, now BSP - Leftist Bulgaria. The problem with these MPs is that the Socialists now received a much smaller percentage of votes compared to the other parties, and it is very unlikely to have non-BSP representatives in that small, 39-man group. As I said, almost all of the names of their current group that I know are from the Socialist Party, none from the Communists, Euroroma or the Social Democrats. As for that name, it's not the same person - this is Ivan Valentinov Ivanov, a representative from Shumen oblast. - ☣TourbillonA ?06:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you removed a picture from Bulgaria article
The photo called "monumento al ejército rojo" (red army monument) in this article Bulgaria I don't know what was the reason to remove. I think this photo in this point is right. This monument come from the comunist period in Bulgaria. Any explanation please.
Ok thanks. Sometimes is not easy to see how to be more accurate in Wikipedia. I lived in your country in 2011 and to me was very interesting to see soviet monuments like that. You are from a lovely country.
I already voted for deletion - the person in question really has no significance in my opinion. I did a search to see if I can find out more but nothing came out. - ☣TourbillonA ?07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Pokpung-ho.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.04:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tourbillon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Tourbillon. 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 Wikipedia 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.
Thanks for uploading File:BM25 Musudan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulgaria, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phobos and Svet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
There is no response on your FAC page lately, and I see you haven't been here either--I am left to guess that perhaps real life is interfering. I am approximately half-way through your article now, and since most of it is excellent, I have only found two places needing any real attention. I was wondering if you would mind if I went ahead and did some of the rewrite on those for you. It is simple copy-editing and does not affect content. Those things involving content will have to be done by you, but I think this article deserves to succeed, and I would like to help you get it there. If I have your okay, I will finish moving through the article polishing as I go and will only bring the things I can't do to your attention. If you would rather I left your article alone, I perfectly understand--no hard feelings. I just thought it would save you some time and effort. Of course, you are not obligated to do what I suggest, and you keep that control if you say you would rather do it yourself. If you disagree with me on some point, you should also say so. If you have a good reason, I will probably agree. FAC review is a bit of an emotionally debilitating experience. I thought I'd make the offer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes, by all means - feel free to edit! You've probably noticed that I'm mostly active before noon or in the late evenings EET, and yesterday I was working IRL all day so I didn't really have time to address your remarks (though I did read them). So your offer is really appreciated :) This is my third FAC on this article so I'm well aware how frustrating it may be, especially when you're suggested to do some edits in the first FAC, and then exactly the opposite edits in the second. Again, thanks for your review and help! - ☣TourbillonA ?05:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amen brother! That's happened to me a couple of times too. That's why I try to be careful to say when something is a personal preference--someone else is likely to have the opposite preference at some point. But pretty much everyone agrees on specificity and clarity and certain rules of grammar--so we will go with those and try to keep changes to a minimum. Thank you for trusting me. I will do my best for your article. Jenhawk777 07:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Done now! Finish up the last of the things mentioned and I will give my support. Remember that quality prose is one of the requirements for FA while you are grinding your teeth. :-) Your English is astoundingly amazingly good, but all of its grammar rules are difficult even for native speakers. I hope I caught everything! I went through the entire article sentence by sentence--and you will note--I had no comment on almost all of it--because it's good! Jenhawk777 19:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Great, thank you, it's the fine details that I usually miss. :) I'm thinking how to best reword this in order to make it clearer, but all the <ref>s inbetween are making it a pain in the #ss. Will be done in a few minutes! - ☣TourbillonA ?19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FAC
Okay, I checked all your changes and thought they were great. Do you feel good about them? Do you feel that these have genuinely been improvements? That's important for what you can take away from this experience whether the article gets FA or not. At least--that's what I'm consoling myself with. :-) I have been told an FA review can take months and that articles that are broad or conceptual/analytical are unlikely to make it--my nominee is Biblical criticism--it can hardly get more conceptual and broad, so it may not make it. Nothing I can do about that, but I was genuinely pleased to help you down the road with yours. You deserve it. The quality of your work, your perseverance, and the amount of work you've done deserve the recognition. I wish you the best of luck--and hope you make it! Jenhawk777 18:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the recommendations were very useful, I honestly hadn't given much thought on those parts and thought they're clear enough. Either way, it's the third time this article is going through a FAC, so I'm at the point where I just treat the outcome as it is - eventually it will be FA. You've probably noticed that there's a short supply of reviewers. That's the main reason the bulk of FACs don't make it through. It's much easier to review articles with an identical structure or topic (hurricanes, ships, military history) than something broader like Biblical issues, countries or biographies. Don't despair though, if I were you, I'd work a bit more on it after getting a peer review, then re-nominating. I believe you're free to do so as early as two weeks after the previous FAC has closed. I'll do the same with Bulgaria, and if that doesn't work, I'll just go for something else, like Bulgarian cosmonaut program which I'll work on making GA first and then push for FA. Shorter, clearer and without any significant issues to think about other than prose. Anyway, thanks for the review and support - deeply appreciated, and feel free to visit Bulgaria and see most of the things you read about. :) - ☣TourbillonA ?19:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could visit Bulgaria. It sounds beautiful, interesting and amazing! I was really impressed with the description of the geography and bio-diversity--things most people never even think about, whereever they live. I actually did take my article through GA first, got that, and then went to the Fac mentoring where I got a mentor who went through the entire article--and the references--5 times--I learned every mi-nute detail about referencing that it is humanly possible to learn, then I put it through peer review as well--then--I put it up for FA. I did every thing I could think of to give it an edge. It's about as perfect as it's ever going to be I think. I'm really glad you found the comments helpful. I did not know the problem was a dearth of reviewers. It makes sense though. I know they told me to go review someone--and Gerda Arendt recommended your article to me personally--so I did, and I'm very glad I did. I really want you to succeed! One thing I did note on mine--every single sentence--and my article is very long--that I thought, "That's good enough", or "It's okay, and I'm tired", or any that I wasn't 'completely' happy with--they homed right in on them. Found every one. So--if you want FA--you have to be happy with every bit, and really know it is all your best--or they will find it!! It's kind of scary! Maybe I'll go do another review instead of another article. It was a real blessing and a joy--but then you were good to work with--maybe the next person won't be! Jenhawk777 20:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Biodiversity and geography are stunning, unfortunately the country itself is in poor shape. I hadn't noticed the article went through a peer review. After a while you may spot some things that previously didn't bother you but actually needed edits - just like what happened with the Bulgaria article! But some time will have to pass. As the article "ages" you begin to spot what's relevant and what is less so; what might be written better and what's well-written but needs further emphasis or a more central spot in the article, or probably an entirely different structure overall. Maybe whoever told you that an FA needs months was right - but it's not the review, it's the build-up until it's ready. Thanks again for your review, and I should thank Gerda for directing you at my FAC entry! Looking forward to further interaction. :) - ☣TourbillonA ?17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are so right--getting ready for FA takes forever--but the review itself can also take months--at least that's what I've been told. I think your observation of seeing different things over time is also true. Occasionally I have gone back and read something and thought "Did I write that?!" and sure enough--there I am! What seems perfectly explained at one point can seem very different down the road! Saying something to Gerda would be lovely of you, but you are certainly not obligated to do so. She is awesome though. You are most genuinely welcome, it was a pleasure, and I am looking forward to more future interaction as well. Jenhawk777 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
you undid my fixes!! Show me where Moesia is identified or explained--using the word Moesia so readers will recognize it--in the previous section please. I missed it. Jenhawk777 19:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I just merged two sentences into this: This enabled the Slavs to enter the Balkan Peninsula as marauders, primarily through an area between the Danube River and the Balkan Mountains known as Moesia.[36]. You had also placed Moesia after became a Roman province which was linking to Thracia. The two are not synonymous, although Moesia was a part of Thracia. Moesia was just the vulnerable Danubian and trans-Danubian border area which barbarians broke through. - ☣TourbillonA ?19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfect solution. I didn't link it--I don't know enough to do that! I just want there to be no mention of things that are not defined. I'm worried someone else will come along and complain--so I complain first! Hah! Jenhawk777 20:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Just in the nick of time! Thank goodness! I know you are getting raked over the coals again, but his comments are good. Remember, it is always an improvement to be more specific and clearer! I'm so glad someone else showed up! I hope it ends in an approve! My article is 22 days old and may be facing its own chopping block soon. Say a prayer to the Wikipedia gods for me!(humor!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah, let's see if it will make it through. If yours doesn't pass, just wait for three weeks or so and give it another try. :) - ☣TourbillonA ?06:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. I've noticed that the articles appearing today have been promoted way back in July. I wanted it to appear for Independence Day (22 September) but it took way longer than that! - ☣TourbillonA ?19:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was 110 years of independence this year, so I've kind of given up this date. But November 1 is an official holiday (Education and Science) so I'm drawing up a nomination for that instead!- ☣TourbillonA ?19:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tourbillon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 Wikipedia 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.
Sorry about that. I've just realised that it's a different article from the one previously cited. I still don't think it should be used though: it only supports part of the text currently in the article, and it's quite outdated: I wouldn't use anything written a century ago about language matters. – Uanfala (talk)15:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It supports most of the statement. Given that Bulgarian has not evolved significantly since then (aside from a minor orthographic reform in 1945), I'd say the reference is still valid, which is why I don't understand why my edit was reverted. If anything, a better solution would be to simply add another reference - particularly on the relation with Macedonian. - ☣TourbillonA ?15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's better not to have a reference, than to have one that only partially supports the text. And I don't think a source is needed here: not everything needs a citation: excluding nationalist objections to the mention of Macedonian, I don't see how anyone would challenge this text: it's common knowledge. As for 1911 EB article: yes, Bulgarian's grammar hasn't changed a great deal since then, but the academic understanding of it has: the grammatical category of evidentiality, probably the single most distinctive feature of Bulgarian, had only just been noticed a few years previously (and of course the article doesn't reflect it). – Uanfala (talk)15:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the statement on evidentiality is not supported by any reference, and I honestly don't think that's common knowledge. I fail to see how two complementing sources would be worse than having no reference whatsoever. - ☣TourbillonA ?16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting...By the way, I've been off Wikipedia for the past month or so - quite a few engagements to take care of. But I'll have some more GAs and DYKs in the coming weeks - feeling creative. - ☣TourbillonA ?12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
