User talk:Schluppo
Feel free to discuss my edits here.
updates for map
[edit]Syrian army retake Army Storage Base near Mahin.sourceSOHR Anti-SAA sources: Step News AgencyAksalserAlkhaleej Onlin Also SAA retake Jabal Mahin near town Mahin.source 46.200.240.93 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also need remove green semi-circle near the town Al Eis because the rebels failed assault at the strategic towns of Khan Touman and Al-Eiss and they remained on the same positions on which they were before the launching this large-scale.source 46.200.240.93 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Removed the semi-circle near al-Eis. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank's! 46.200.240.93 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Removed the semi-circle near al-Eis. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- town of Kafr Shams in Daraa contested between SAA and FSA.source 37.52.29.233 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hm, I am not sure that this source is explicit enough. It states that SAA destroys a HQ in Kafr Shamis, which sounds more like shelling from outside the village, and not so much like fighting inside it. Then the article says that the town is "contested", but the way I understand it, they use the word in the sense that SAA and rebels both want to control the town, not in the sense that there is currently ongoing fighting inside the town. I think, if it was really contested, the article would mention actual fighting inside the town. So I would wait for more confirmation from reliable sources before changing Kafr Shamis to contested (it already has a green semi-circle to the east which to me seems to be enough for now). Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- SOHR said that the SAA captured the Al Maran hill.SOHR 37.52.29.233 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I cannot read arabic, so I cannot verify the source. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- SOHR said that the SAA captured the Al Maran hill.SOHR 37.52.29.233 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hm, I am not sure that this source is explicit enough. It states that SAA destroys a HQ in Kafr Shamis, which sounds more like shelling from outside the village, and not so much like fighting inside it. Then the article says that the town is "contested", but the way I understand it, they use the word in the sense that SAA and rebels both want to control the town, not in the sense that there is currently ongoing fighting inside the town. I think, if it was really contested, the article would mention actual fighting inside the town. So I would wait for more confirmation from reliable sources before changing Kafr Shamis to contested (it already has a green semi-circle to the east which to me seems to be enough for now). Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Birnah
[edit]Source just said that the aim of the third phase is the capture rebel-held: Burnah, ICARDA Farms, Khan Touman, Al-Zorba, and Al-Qarassi.source But source also said that the Hezbollah and SAA control the 80 percent of village Burnah.source FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- But the second article stating that Burnah is 80% SAA controlled was published 14 hours ago, while the first article, claiming that Burnah is rebel-held was published 12 hours ago. Both articles are from al-Masdar, so I guess, the newest source wins? Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- PS, see: [1] vs. [2]. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, see [3]. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Source said that the purpose of the third 3th phase it is full control Barneh and some other villages but also source said that SAA captured of 70-80 percent of the village Barneh.sourcesource and not said that rebels retake village. So you not correct understand the meaning of the report. FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- a) source is an old source from yesterday. b) The newest al-Masdar article (i.e. [4]) on the matter states the following: "[SAA ..] kicked-off their 3rd phase of this southern Aleppo offensive, launching several attacks on the Islamist-held villages of Burnah, ICARDA Farms, Khan Touman, Al-Zorba, and Al-Qarassi." How can I misunderstand this? It is clearly saying "Islamist-held villages of Burnah, ICARDA Farms [..]". It does not state "20% islamist-held Burnah". But it is not that important to me, so I can self-revert and we can keep Birnah contested until a reliable source offers a clear statement about control of the village. Schluppo (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Source said that the purpose of the third 3th phase it is full control Barneh and some other villages but also source said that SAA captured of 70-80 percent of the village Barneh.sourcesource and not said that rebels retake village. So you not correct understand the meaning of the report. FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, see [3]. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- PS, see: [1] vs. [2]. Cheers, Schluppo (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK! Because for now we need the more clear data about status of this village because some reports publish conflicting data. So we will wait more data. FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Case numbers
[edit]Hi, could you clarify where you got the figures for "recoveries" in your recent edits to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Germany medical cases chart from? I can't find them on the RKI site (and the big step from yesterday's to today's data certainly looks odd.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- This number has been announced at today's press conference of RKI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUxBikdLrHo&t=8m4s, in german language); for some german sources, also see e.g. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/coronavirus-deutschland-rki-103.html, https://www.bz-berlin.de/deutschland/schon-mehr-als-2800-nach-corona-infektion-wieder-gesund, https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-robert-koch-institut-fordert-konsequente-umsetzung-der-schutzmassnahmen-a-762be8f7-28c1-4996-86f9-2ab316f4ce51 or https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/coronavirus-news-deutschland-1.4828033. This has also been mentioned in some (possible unreliable) english language sources: http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_the_Wire/2020-03/23/content_75850047.htm, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germanys-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-to-111-/1776126. The textual source at https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Fallzahlen.html however does not seem to mention "recoveries". The sharp increase in the number of "recoveries" is due to the fact that RKI has usually not reported on these numbers, until today. Best, Schluppo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Trouble is, if RKI isn't actually publishing these figures regularly, there may not really be much of a point in including this one datapoint in the chart, right? There are (presumably regularly updated) recovery figures in the Berliner Morgenpost site here [5], but those are evidently from a different count again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- As of now, the template includes recovery numbers, also for previous days. But these numbers have not been changing very much in the past, so I assume the source for previous numbers on recoveries may have been RKI as well (they reported recovery numbers in 5 occasions or so). Anyway, I am not sure that the we should require that the numbers change every day; if RKI releases numbers on recoveries only once a week or so, these numbers still provide a reliable and official (even though lagging) lower bound. Actually, I would opt for still including these numbers. Best, Schluppo (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)