User talk:Terrillja/Archives/04/2011

Ipad

Sure, will do.Next time, if you need confirmation, put {{fact}}, unless you work for Apple :). Yosri (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created a discussion thread Talk:iPad#"Crippled" Bluetooth in infobox. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you add it, the burden is on you to support it and show why it is significant. You may also want to rethink your assertion about who I work for and what my motives are.--Terrillja _talk 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No fly zone casualties

Stating unknown seems as if people are not certain. But media have aired footage from the hospital which shows that at least there were wounded people. We report both rebel and western claims of massacrs and tanks destroyed. We need to report government claims as well so to stay neutral. We already noted that the numbers are a government claim, let people make their own conclusions, that's not our job. Our jos is to writte claims of both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage and keep in mind WP:RS.--Terrillja _talk 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We have no evidence Libyan state tv is unreliable. Our personal oppinions don't count. EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Read the notice above and my comment. Use the talkpage and keep all discussions in one place--Terrillja _talk 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your warning to me that I am edit warring is absolutely not true since I didn't revert three times to the same thing. And I wasn't reverting even the same persons edits. In fact, each time I tried to change the sentances and form so I could find a compromise solution. So please don't send me baseless warnings and show a little more good faith. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to reinsert the same information (especially in a very short time period as you have), especially given the overwhelming consensus on the talkpage not to is edit warring, and it is a blockable offense.--Terrillja _talk 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not inserting the SAME information, every time adding more to the asterix to try and establish midle-ground, however that is very dificult with the POV-pushing. And the majority concensus you are talking about is only you and Swarm. The other editors agree that the government claims should be noted also, however because of their reliability they prefer unknown. So I am making another step here and trying to reach a compromise so please hear me out. Just trying to delete my edit again will not help improve the article. My proposition is to put the number of the dead to be unknown. Ok? But to put into the notes section the figure claimed by the government and also state the reliability of the information is in question. Ok?

If you used the talkpage, as you were told to, you wouldn't be in danger of getting blocked and having no involvement in the discussion at all. And no, the number is unknown. Period. Done. State TV isn't worth anything for reliability. The ICRC or United Nations will release figures in time. No reason to go with shitty figures for now.--Terrillja _talk 07:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no danger of me being blocked and I have been using the talk page. Also, like I said the infobox will say the number is unknown. That is what you asked for and that is what you get. However the 48 number will be in the notes section with the appropriate language stating the possibility the information is unreliable and possibly propaganda. Please, I have been trying to be civil but you have been behaving uncompromising and bordering on POV-pushing. Please show some good faith. There is no law on Wikipedia that the governments even propaganda claim can not be at least mentioned in the notes section. With this my new proposal you will be getting your Unknown statement. EkoGraf (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And shitty and pissing are also offensive words to me. EkoGraf (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it offends you, but if you don't like the language here, visit [conservapedia.com]. They may be more to your liking. There is nothing to compromise on. You are pushing shitty sources, can't format worth a damn and refuse to listen to others. Sorry, but some times you just have to cut your losses and give up the fight. And take some time to read the policies here.--Terrillja _talk 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not refusing to listen to others but trying to find a compromise solution to improve the article, while you been uncompromising from the start and have shown no good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will no longer reply to comments left here by you as you still seem to be unable to grasp the concept of formatting. When you can properly format the comment above and properly apologize for making comments about where I come from, I will respond here.--Terrillja _talk 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Sorry, I missed the notice at the top of your page. Swarm ^X 07:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

odyssey dawn

Next time you're around, could you swing by the talk page? EkoGraf continues their crusade. Regards, Swarm ^X 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I tried to call Ms. Cleo and ask her what the number of casualties was, but she was unavailable. And my magic 8 ball was no help either.--Terrillja _talk 02:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

- It's not for all ongoing disputes but those concerned with inaccurate statements. See the page that it links to: dubious. 75.47.129.131 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an inaccurate statement. How to adress it is under discussion.--Terrillja _talk 03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "See also" item is being questioned as an inappropriate link, not an inaccurate statement. Be careful about interpreting the suggested use for the template. Such an interpretation can be used for flagging anything that is disagreed about, which was not the intent of the template. However, although the template is strictly inappropriate in this case, and in lieu of a better template, it may serve a good purpose in this case of recruiting editors for discussion of the issue on the talk page, which does seem to have a good discussion on the topic. You might want to go there yourself and add your two cents. : ) 75.47.158.68 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)