User talk:FutureTrillionaire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Futuretrillionaire)
Jump to: navigation, search

Syrian Civil War in Homs[edit]

Colleague, I have at earlier times noticed and remarked on your sound vision on our article ‘Syrian Civil War’, but this time I’m displeased at your stance on ‘Talk:Siege of Homs’ on 22May2014. Can the fact that some word (‘siege’) is being (vaguely) used in some film review be decisive for the naming of an encyclopedia article? Should it be in the case of Homs 2011–2014? Should any vague use of the word ‘siege’ in relation to Homs decide over the naming of an encyclopedia article? Should any calling a ‘siege’ what obviously is no ‘siege’ decide over the naming of an encyclopedia article so as to reinforce such misunderstanding? How does Wikipedia have to react on editors who say they “oppose” a (motivated) title correction but bring forward no argument for their opposition? (See also my comments on that page: ‘Talk:Siege of Homs’.) --Corriebertus (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Iraqi map[edit]

Oh,i really didn't realize that.Alhanuty (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn’t read[edit]

Colleague, on 12June you wrote in some Discussion section: “TL;DR…”. What was too long? After which standards? What did you not read? Most of all: what does that all contribute to the discussion pursued in that section? --Corriebertus (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

personal attack[edit]

Colleague, on 12June in this Discussion you accused me of making a personal attack. A glance at Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? tells me that ‘personal attack’ is a subjective qualification, having to to with ‘not constructive discussion’, ‘not helping to make a point’, deterring users from working on Wikipedia, etc. Could you please inform me, what you considered to be my personal attack, and why? --Corriebertus (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Your opinion would be appreciated on a discussion an editor has requested (rather at length I would say) here ‘Talk:Syrian Civil War#Problems and errors in our presentation of events April–May2011 in Daraa, Homs, Baniyas’. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the thanks! - opinion needed on new article for just the military operation ......[edit]

Yeah, that was very poorly handled by the closing Administrator. The SECOND more recent Move Request was closed, and from the msg's I'm getting, most of us thought the issue was closed, especially since (disruptive) user Ezzex had tried in a 3rd Section to bring it up again and it had been squashed. That's what happens when a TP is not archived often enough - I certainly was no longer looking for any new RM. Oh, well.

The matter at hand is, we have a technical military operation article (aka Barbarossa, Citadel, Battle of Adrianopolis, etc.) that has been hijacked for a wider article on the never-ending Arab-Jew conflict. Is it feasible to open up a strictly military article on Operation Protective Edge now, move the pertinent technical aspects away from the newly re-titled article, and also allow this article to get into the more detailed military aspects (type of weapons, battle statistics, etc.) - or will some Wiki lawyer try to squash it and/or incorporate the material back into the Gaza Conflict 2014 article? I don't want to go to the effort if the usual reactionaries go hoo-ha over it. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)