User talk:Edward321/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ghassanids
Dear Sir, again, you're not being fair with your deletions. I'm not using "Youtube" as a reliable source. The videos from Youtube belong to the News agencies official channels. And still, you're disrespecting the second most respected news agency of the Vatican, The Zenit News agency. You didn't explain why you're discrediting it. Since there are no valid explanation from you about the latter source, I can only understand your actions as a prejudice with the Christian Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.247.72.196 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What about a reliable article from a reliable news agency translated to 4 languages? Wikipedia doesn't mention that more than one source is needed. Zenit is enough to fulfill guidelines 188.247.72.196 (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Youtube used in any capacity is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Again Sir, you've made the new edits without even checking the new presented sources. You've wrongly assumed I was just repeating my edits but every time I was changing the sources. If you check my last edit you'll see that there are 2 news agencies from Jordan. Again, only Zenit would be enough to keep the reliability of the edit. Please, kindly revert your edits and keep only Zenit, if you deem fit, but to simply delete is arbitrary and against Wikipedia rules. 188.247.72.196 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Medupi response
Hi Edward Again I can see you are not a South African and do not understand the context. This power station is the most expensive project in SA history, and the interest amoungst the general population as to where their taxes has gone is overwhelming, hence the details on who has gained in terms of the contracts. Secondly the debate on climate change and dirty electricity is also huge, hence the criticism both positive and negative to this project.
You only mention the comments from the financing part of the discussion, not the environmental, the carbon and water reducing technology that had to be retrofitted to meet some of these criticisms. This power station is in our newspapers daily and the expectation for it to come on line is enormous, I believe you should look at this article again to understand what I was attempting to do and not just blow off every suggestion I have made. Kind regards.
Equality is not impossible, and didn't cause torture
Improper reversion of my edit to remove the absurd, uncited allegations that the search for equality has led to widespread murder and torture under dictatorships. At least have these cited if they are to remain, otherwise let a more neutral comment take its place. Thanks. VelvetCommuter (talk) VelvetCommuter
Sorry hooperag but Mr Edward I would like to talk about you and your theory on esotericism and I have been digging of how this things could become a realty please contact me when possible
Why the removal?
You recently removed a change of mine saying it was linkspam... I'm not sure I understand. It was on the Bible consistency and criticism pages and linked to BibViz which is on-topic, relevant, uses multiple sources of data and provides a novel way of exploring consistency and other issues. In my opinion it's just as useful as the infidels.org link, and even uses data from infidels.org. I don't understand why new links are considered linkspam but the infidels.org one is allowed to stay... 166.248.130.217 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
About quick revert
Hello Edward321, I appreciate your contributions. However, I noticed that you generally quickly revert edits/additions by anonymous users in articles like Aisha, Abu Bakr. Yes, most of such edits are wrong and need to be reverted, but not all, for example, this one. This edit is sourced and valid. It needs to be copy-edited, not reverted. The reverting policy also says this. Hope, you will be more careful. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Note
Hi, Edward321! As you can see, I reverted category spams, overcategorizations etc which Erim Turukku did today. In most cases, he reverted your version of an article and put his instead. I think you should keep an eye on his edits, and if he continue this way consider to report him at ANI. He will be blocked anyway if he continue with edit warring and attempts to push in his versions of articles. Cheers! --Sundostund 20:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see, Edward, today he continue doing exactly the same things as before - category spams, overcategorizations, Turkic/Turkish POV, edit warring, etc... Do what you think is the most appropriate in this case. As you may assume, I have other things to do here than to constantly follow around a category spammer, Turkic/Turkish POV nationalist or whatever he is and to revert his nonsense edits. --Sundostund 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Edward! I'll do that. By the way, according to what Kansas Bear said on Erim Turukku's talk page, it may be possible that Turukku and User:EMr KnG are the same person. If that's the case, would it be a WP:SOCK? As you know, in most cases its illegal to have two accounts on WP. And, edits of both Turukku () and EMr KnG () look really similar... --Sundostund 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- After some looking into how to do it, I just opened an SPI on EMr KnG / Erim Turukku, you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG. If you have something to add, etc feel free to do it. --Sundostund 19:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Edward! I'll do that. By the way, according to what Kansas Bear said on Erim Turukku's talk page, it may be possible that Turukku and User:EMr KnG are the same person. If that's the case, would it be a WP:SOCK? As you know, in most cases its illegal to have two accounts on WP. And, edits of both Turukku () and EMr KnG () look really similar... --Sundostund 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, Can I ask why you have received new changes back? Erim Turukku (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Greensboro Massacre
Hello, Edward 321. Sorry to revert your recent edit at the above referenced article, but I believe that it was wrong for two reasons. First, if you review the definition of Commission, you will see that it is a group with some degree of official authority. The Greensboro "commission" was just a private group trying to cloak themselves in this official robe. I left the word "commission" in the section, because that was the name they gave themselves, but did not Capitalize it, as if it was an official authority. The Starbucks reference is not as obvious, and I can see why you would want to trim it. But it goes to heart of the "private group/private protest" nature of the "commission". It demonstrates a pattern of activity on the part of the organizers that is neither local nor spontaneous. Again, I hate to revert a seasoned editor with good intentions, I probably should have left this message first. Hope to cross paths under better circumstances, in the future. Gulbenk (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Preston Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Crittenden (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) 09:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Preston Brooks
Please stop including BIASED information against Preston Brooks on his wikipedia page. I have included both sides/points of view in the Brooks-Sumner Affair aka The Caning of Sumner.
If you wish to add to that (although I assume you'd be bias there too) edit that page.
I have correctly cited all sources! Preston Brooks never once in congress voted to expand slavery, yet you say he is a huge advocate of slavery. While it is true that he defended states' rights to own slaves he also supported the rights of states to outlaw slavery- this always shined through. Even after some internal struggles, Brooks called for Kansas to be admitted as a free state. One can only assume he would of voted as such if he had not died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CECD:AF90:93:64EC:DB89:6019 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Preston Brooks, again
Hello Edward,
This is the same person that messaged you before. Now I have a username. I have the same problem with you as before. I am getting frustrated because I am added the information in the 2 books I read that were listed as REFERENCES in the page.
Would a fair compromise between us be me adding an addition Southern Views section? I am a non-confrontational person and I do not wish to get in a silly online battle that would embarrass us both.
Can we get to a fair resolution between us, friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivilWarBufftradition (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
James Hanratty
Hello. You reversed my recent edit to this article as being unexplained, and I accept that you made a fair point. I have now provided the explanation on the article's Talk page. To expand a little here, I had myself originally drafted the text saying that no other male DNA had been found (aside from Hanratty's), and that this undermined the argument for "contamination". I made the recent changes for two reasons:
(1) On recently reading the decision of the Court of Appeal in full, I found that I had made a factual error in stating that no other male DNA had been found. This was true for the handkerchief but not true for the panties, where one other male source was found (attributed by the Court to Gregsten). I have corrected the factual statement accordingly.
(2) I had recently been challenged to provide a citation for my statement that a second male source would be expected if the contamination argument was to hold up. While this seems fairly obvious to me, I could not find a statement in so many terms in the Court's decision, or other sources immediately available to me. So for the moment I have dropped the inference that I made before. I still think the statement is common sense. If you can find a source making this statment, please re-insert the statement into the article and provide a citation for it.
Many thanks, Nandt1 Nandt1 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Watch list
Please could you add List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala to your watch list. There is an editor who keeps deleting mention that Hussain ibn Ali's father was 4th Caliph. The editor gives different explanations for the deletion. You may wish to express an opinion on the subject on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)



