Talk:Battle of Čegar: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
But if you have some sort of huge problem with listing causalities on the results page then why, instead of referencing it, '''didn't you erase it''' like you did in this article or the Battle of Kosovo? Personally, I think you would have erased it if it suited your beliefs, opinions, etc. and you know it as well as I. Either way, I erased it. |
But if you have some sort of huge problem with listing causalities on the results page then why, instead of referencing it, '''didn't you erase it''' like you did in this article or the Battle of Kosovo? Personally, I think you would have erased it if it suited your beliefs, opinions, etc. and you know it as well as I. Either way, I erased it. |
||
And I assure, I have absolutely no will to enhance or diminish certain ethnic groups. For reasons beyond my knowledge, its you who seems to stalk every Serbian battle page on an (at the very least it seems) hourly basis making |
And I assure, I have absolutely no will to enhance or diminish certain ethnic groups. For reasons beyond my knowledge, its you who seems to stalk every Serbian battle page on an (at the very least it seems) hourly basis making edits. |
||
To conclude, I've decided that I truly don't give a fuck, I won't revert the "results" on this page anymore. There you fucking go. |
To conclude, I've decided that I truly don't give a fuck, I won't revert the "results" on this page anymore. There you fucking go. |
||
Revision as of 21:39, 28 June 2009
 | Military history: Balkan / European / Napoleonic era Stub‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Both armies annihilated"
Is there a reference for this statement? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see what the problem is. The Turks lost 4 times as many people as the Serbs even had on the battlefield, that should at least be mentioned, I mean for fuck's sake, don't you see the double standard here. In the article Battle of Kajmakcalan, you specifically referenced and pointed out the fact that the Serbs had high casualties (which I had absolutely no problem with by the way, even though in the battle of Kosovo article when I pointed out heavy Ottoman casualties you erased on the pretext of being redundant) Its ridiculous, you're allowed pointing out heavy casualties in certain battles but when I do the same (in battles where the casualties are very relevant to the outcome of the battle), you erase it. Blatant double standards.
- Wrong again. I specifically referenced a Serbian victory at the Battle of Kajmakcalan. Casualties should be listed in the appropriate column. Only YOU feel the need to indicate casualties in the Result section of the template. Only YOU have indicated heavy casualties in the Result section of a battle template, not I. I am only interested in facts from reliable, third-party, published sources[1]. Only YOU have some sort of agenda to either enhance or diminish some ethnic groups on wikipedia, as indicated by your edits. Continued statements of "Your blatant dislike for me and obviously, my people.", will be reported to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
But if you have some sort of huge problem with listing causalities on the results page then why, instead of referencing it, didn't you erase it like you did in this article or the Battle of Kosovo? Personally, I think you would have erased it if it suited your beliefs, opinions, etc. and you know it as well as I. Either way, I erased it.
And I assure, I have absolutely no will to enhance or diminish certain ethnic groups. For reasons beyond my knowledge, its you who seems to stalk every Serbian battle page on an (at the very least it seems) hourly basis making edits.
To conclude, I've decided that I truly don't give a fuck, I won't revert the "results" on this page anymore. There you fucking go.