User talk:ז62

Avia 122 name
Vosa - Wasp was for sure not used. I am sorry I am not able to proof something non existing by a quote. see here Czech Army runs Military Museum in Prague, on its page - Vosa not mentioned http://www.vhu.cz/exhibit/ceskoslovenske-akrobaticke-letouny-avia-ba-122/

Original program from 1936 Olympics...Bucker is referred as Jungmeister, Avia called Ba122, Vosa not mentioned again http://www.modelforum.cz/download/file.php?id=688759

Dedicated page of Czech modelers who explored Technical Museum in Brno archives - Vosa not mentioned http://www.tnmc.cz/walkaround/ba122.php

Plastic kits made by a Czech company - Vosa not mentioned http://rsmodels.cz/cs/modely-letadel/plastikove-modely/1-72/92056/avia-ba-122-rk-17-engine http://www.modelartikl.cz/produkt/11690-avia-ba122-019-92082/?kategorie=92

Jan Kárník (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reaction. I hadn't an opportunity to check any reliable sources so far, but quick online search lead to revelation that the name is sometimes spelt "Osa", which was allegedly combat name used for the type in Royal Bulgarian Air Force service (e.g. this link), and "Vosa" seems to be (originally) some kind of back-translation to Czech. This should be probably dealt with in the article. I'm still not sure how to deal with it in article's lede - as far as the sources in English often use this designation, this ought to be be mentioned somehow, though perhaps not in the current form.-ז62 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Taurobolium and bullfighting
Hi, ז62. I've removed the bullfighting template from the article because, as far as I can tell (based on reliable specialist sources) the taurobolium had nothing to do with fighting bulls. It had the usual characteristics of bull sacrifice in the Graeco-Roman world, which required that a domesticated animal appeared to consent to its own demise. It may be loosely connected to bull-running rituals in 2nd century AD Asia minor but there's no firm link; and the Taurobolium itself had no such elements -- even the "infamous bloodiness" of the Taurobolium rests on the Christian apologist Prudentius, who based his account on anti-pagan hearsay, rather than observation. Regards Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I've actually added the template after I've been reverting some experiments in the Bullfighting article and quite accidentally noticed that Taurobolium is included in the Bullfighting template, but the template itself is not in the Taurobolium article - so I've assumed the template was somewhat omitted in the article - otherwise that all is way beyond my ken. Does it mean that Taurobolium  does not belong in the Bullfighting template? regards --ז62 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, experiments! Don't you just love them? Back to the matter in hand -- yes (or no), I don't think it belongs under that template. (PS: the parent category of that template appears to be sport; and the Taurobolium was definitely not a sport. That seems to clinch the matter). Best, Haploidavey (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed it from the template. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification and template cleanup. Regards--ז62 (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry
... for having reverted you, - it was a misclick. At least this time I noticed right away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, such things sometimes happen. And thanks for your explanation.--ז62 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - 1RR restriction
Heads up, this page is under a 1RR restriction. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notification - I'll be more careful in the future.--ז62 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

 * Thanks for the notification. I'd certainly spend some time thinking about the general implications. -ז62 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution to
RT in your recent edit: RT′s interview was a follow-up: the original report aired on 18 April was broadcast by Russia-24. You can see refs here, if you wish to correct and add sources. Apparently, though, there seems to be a rule being introduced that you can only cite Russian media sources through Western ones, otherwise they get dismissed as "fringe" such as here by User:Snooganssnoogans. Makes me smile as a matter of fact: if one wishes, anything can be dismissed as "fringe", especially such resources as Wikipedia, let alone the topic of the article in question; but to dismiss as "fringe" what a major state-run global broadcaster of a country that currently controls the site in question says, imho, betrays a desperate effort to suppress one′s fear and appears to be a psychiatric case.Axxxion (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no idea if this is a correction possible under the restrictions mentioned above. After all, I've just attempted to correct/somewhat correct/wikify the incredibly foolish blunder committed by the user Mhhosien who for some reasons unspecified (neither in edit summary nor in the page talk) put the RT propaganda broadcast into the "Media investigations" section. I was not even aware that there's any substantial difference between the Russia-24 and Russia Today channels (if there're any) (and User:Mhhosisen, among his other numerous failures in the field of proper citation/attribution, completely failed to specify which exactly broadcast channel it was, either. He just stated "Russian state TV". Feel free to correct this egregious mistake yourself. Thank you. And also find for yourself what the difference is between a fringe source and a fringe country/nation controlling such a source, if you perhaps have any difficulty to distinguish it/and or understand English. I did not get completely your somewhat enigmatic (and unsourced) mentions about a "psychiatric case", but I get that there we've got to have all kind of people, user:Axxxion. Please do not be ashamed to read some details about personnal attacks. Best regards! -ז62 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed reply. Am now topic-banned, which I am actually happy about, as the article is too hot a topic and therefore is a magnet for all sorts of rather opinionated editors (at the moment, apparently of virulently anti-Russ stance): very clear if you look at edit comments that delete this or that (usually any refs to RT, which seems to be a red rag to them) on the basis of it being "BS". I amnot certain I grasped what you meant by saying "the difference is between a fringe source and a fringe country/nation controlling such a source". What I meant is it is churlish and foolish to dismiss as "fringe (theory)" what is aired by a broadcaster owned and controlled by a state that is essentially in charge of the site of this disputed incident, no matter how bizarre and untrue it sounds. It is like deleting the passage about the infamous Powell′s presentation at the UN in 2003 from the Iraq War article on the basis of it being BS: of course it is BS and any sane person knew that right there and then as people do not brandish vials with toxic materials at the UN sessions. Moreover, we now have every reason to believe that Powell himself knew it was BS. So what? Is it fringe stuff? Of course it is not! I think it was a former CIA Director Tenet who said: We do not care about what reality is, we create reality! And Russia vis-a-vis Syria is pretty much in same position now as the US was vis-a-vis Iraq 15 years ago. They are the sheriff there, and people who do such deletions are, imho, in denial of this reality, as they do not like this reality. RT, owned by the Rossiya Segodnya news agency, and Russia-24, owned by the VGTRK behemoth, are two very different things, just like the VOA and CNN, approximately. RT may be a propaganda mouthpiece but it is not an official mouthpiece, whereas the line peddled by Russia-24 is virtually an official position. And precisely this makes it notable and worth referencing directly, not through a vague second-hand mention by a western outlet.Axxxion (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to read my post here too: User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2018/April -- to be more clear about my attitude. I truly do not take any sides in any of these battles, just seek to present what is relevant and notable with authentic sources, therefore watching such editors turn an article into a battlefield of their political allegiances pains me. I have noticed you too tend to be quite harsh on some editors such as the one you have mentioned above.Axxxion (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Axxxion: Thanks for your clarification regarding the corporate structure of Russian media.-ז62 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the source and it just says "Russian state TV". -- M h hossein   talk 12:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This comment by you is deemed as a n example of personal attack. M h hossein  talk 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologise if you feel subjectively offended by something I wrote, and can understand why you feel angry, perhaps even bitter - but some things are just not cool. Please also read this and this. Best regards.--ז62 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Message from one fighter against propaganda to another fighter against propaganda
As I see, you take to heart the possible personal attacks. And, as I understand it, you do not investigate sources of information that you consider unreliable. Well, let me give you some advice. If you are ready to call propaganda any source that contradicts your picture of the world, you must be ready, that yourself will be called a propagandist or uh, a gullible person. For your information, the most important criterion in determining a reliable source is its correlation with reality. Unfortunately, I get the impression that they in the English Wikipedia consider the being of the media in the list of reliable sources as the most important sign of a reliable source. This is not true. How often do you hear news about eastern Aleppo after its "fall" from the mainstream media? Do you know about the victims of shellings by "moderate opposition" among the civilian population in the territory of the government? Do you know that the mainstream media are uncritically reprinting messages from pro-opposition organizations funded by the US and UK governments? Nevertheless, Western media are considered "reliable sources". 2.132.84.191 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the first place, I'd prefer to limit our interaction to the factual discussions about improvement of the Wikipedia content, based upon reliable sources, and confined to the relevant talk pages. Secondly, you should really reconsider calling names anyone who does not conform to your notion of what's right or wrong, and what sources you consider reliable (or not) and why. And finally, you should consider registration, so your multiple IPs would not be mistaken for an attempt at sock puppetry again. -ז62 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I hat it?
Hey, well first of all I saw your user page and it seems you missed this --[] -- with regards to the email about unauthorized attempts to sign into accounts, it seems it happened to a lot of us and it might be worth a read.

Anyhow, this might be awkward to ask, but our conversation itself earlier actually got a bit long, and I suspect the reason the conversation hasn't been closed in awhile is its length. Our convo itself wasn't really about the topic-- do you mind if I put it under a hat? --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for a notification/link - I kind of freaked out first when the attempt to log into my account happened (and in my case it was only once, although I kind of expected there'll be perhaps some more) but I became quite complacent relatively soon, as no further attempts ensued. (Also, the immediate result of the password strengthening was that I usually forgot my changed password in the first attempt to log in, which distracted me further.)
 * As for putting our conversation under a hat, I'd certainly welcome any measure that could possibly lead to sooner closing of the whole RfC, so I'd surely not mind it.--ז62 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for
Your civil comment, and my apologies for misinterpreting! I do find a lot of what you've written on the page reasonable. Sincerely, -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2
I was puzzled that the this German aircraft has a template for the Italian Air Forces classification system. It seems an arcane classification to apply to each aircraft whatever its origin and application. It does not seem proportionate to use similar templates for every country's air force that might fly each type of glider. JMcC (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)