User talk:Jeois

I've had an account for quite a while. I prefer editing anonymously.

Thank you for your correct edit on Portal:Current events/2017 December 9. My source had a typo! Wakari07 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- No problem, Wakari07. I think the Dutch source was correct though: 16,000 meters squared is 1.6 hectares. However, I don't have a good understanding of SI area and can't read Nederlands 2601:2C4:C780:2F1:8E0:B501:DBAC:B37 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hln source still says 160.000 square meters. That's 16 hectare, around 40 acres. Depends on the details and the liabilitites, for that you need to compare sources and they would be in the German language. Cheers, this is the hln article through the translator. Wakari07 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC) It's interesting that the current source doesn't mention an area. Wakari07 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However Deutsche Welle say in English has 4 acres, that's 1,6 ha or 16.000 m². And the liabilities... Wakari07 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Omroep Stichting in Dutch say six moistured houselets, fifteen inhabitants who are mostly seniors, mentions no area and only one bidder. Cheers. Wakari07 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wakari07, the reason I searched about this village was because the price seemed unreasonably low for 16 hectares of land, and that's when I read somewhere it is actually 16,000 m². You're right; the HLN source says it's 160,000 sq. meters, but it's unlikely that's the source I read. Since I can't recall and cite my source, I'll defer to your research on the issue. DW seems to concur with the smaller estimate though. Cheers, Jeois (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a fair price for 16 hectares of semi-constructible marshland with utilities, but hey, I'm already settled. Personally, I'd omit the mention of the hamlet's area in the Current events blob because of the liabilities. Wakari07 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the 2 German sources in the article confirm 16.000 square meter, and quite some social obligations (rules and regulations to follow). Wakari07 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources for the Alwine article may likely have been where I got the information. Unfortunately, I can't recall precisely. In any case, I think it's a great deal if it were 16 hectacres with structures, marshy or otherwise, whatever the regulations, but that's besides the point, haha. I only mentioned the price as the impetus of why I looked into it. I have no idea about the real estate market for that region of Brandenburg. I live near the Gulf Coast where there's marshland which is close to being swallowed by the sea and probably still wouldn't be able to find anything like that price, lol. Jeois (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You are currently prohibited from editing about the following topics:

The Russo-Ukrainian war (WP:GS/RUSUKR);

This is because you are not extended-confirmed on the encyclopedia. Carter00000 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand why this sanction was implemented. However, that doesn't change the underlying issue at all. I found that particular previous edit very misleading, as it completely changes the gist of the source article by omission. Whoever first made the blurb/headline had a better representation of the source material, and then it was edited down to make it seem like the Cuban gov't is neutral or supports these foreign enlistment efforts when they claim they are trying to neutralize and dismantle what they call a human trafficking network, which is the exact opposite meaning.

If you're going to deny my edits based on not having status (since I usually only make minor edits for clarity or grammar anonymously), you could at least read the article in question and change the wording to fit better instead of just reverting to a misleading statement. Jeois (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reply and you message relating to the issue.

I have updated the entry to make it clear that the Cuban government opposes these efforts, both in terms of the activity itself and its desire to separate itself from the war in general. Please review the phrasing and let me know if you have any more suggestions. Carter00000 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening. It was clearly a blatant case of inaccuracy to the source material. Your new phrasing is more accurate and eliminates the misinformation by editorial omission. I have no further objections regarding the source or anything else. Your response and edit is appreciated. Jeois (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the latest amendment to the entry was unnecessary since they (Cuban government) claim to also oppose recruiting efforts in Cuba, but since the new source is behind a paywall, I can't verify the proportionality. It's not a big deal since your summary seems reasonable (benefit of the doubt), and it's just an additional detail rather than fundamentally changing the story. Jeois (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]