User talk:Fancyflyboy

You simply don't seem to get Wikipedia's rules. The source you provided doesn't say that Tunisia was involved in the battle. It just said the soldiers gave themselves up to the Tunisian authorities. And they were already promptly back to Libya the next day. Furthermore you are going against majority editor concencuss that was previously established to merge all small-scale battles into one article. Nevermind, another editor already proposed a merger and it will be resolved shortly. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to learning the rules is a personal attack. And you are still ignoring the fact you haven't provided any sources the Tunisians were involved in the battle. And also have still ignored a previous concencuss among editors. EkoGraf (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a democracy, but the majority will of editors certainly trumps your own personal opinion. You would have to provide enough of a reason for the battle to be forked out from the main article for you to override the concensus, which you haven't. The battle would have to been a large set-piece battle to deserve an article of it's own. As it is it's just one paragraph in a larger campaign. Also, I still don't see a source for the Tunisians being involved in the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And I tell you again, you haven't provided enough of a reason to fork out the article and override the majority. EkoGraf (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't call three days outdated. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wazzin was an extension of the Nalut siege since loyalist forces that were at Nalut were forced into a retreat to that border post. And for Nalut the vote stands. And you are just simply trying to wiggle out on a tehnicality (the date of the vote) which is not even a tehnicality to begin with. And I am tired of this, see you after the merge. Ciao! EkoGraf (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First, have no idea what jejune is, second I have no personal stake, simply want to set things straight so Wikipedia would be of the best quality and not have dozens of unnecesary articles on stories that can be told in just two-three sentances in one paragraph of one larger article. And like I said, I'm done. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers is British for bye bye! Although I'm not British myself, hehe. Adios! EkoGraf (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I'm going to kindly request that you cease inserting the following text into the Wazzin battle article:

"Rebels have stated that Gaddafi's men have effectively halted the flow of aid and other supplies from Tunisia into the Nafusa Mountains.<ref>http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/05/may-7th-updates/</ref>"

This is sourced to a Twitter update on a non-professional, pro-rebel site. It's practically the definition of "unreliable source". Please do not put this into the article again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources II

This is completely unreferenced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

Unconfirmed reports that Tunisian police may have been involved in the fighting in an unknown capacity at Ras Ajdir do not make them a belligerent. Unconfirmed reports are, by definition, not verified. Closing down the border does not make Tunisia a belligerent, either. If there is a gang fight going on in the street, and you lock and bolt your door, you have not participated in the fight. Stop inserting Tunisia in the infobox; it's unencyclopaedic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sabha

Not one of the sources you provided talk about an attack on Sabha in the last 10 days or any fighting in Sabha for control of the city for that matter. The only fighting that has been reported in one of the sources is at al-Biraq, a full 50 kilometers north of the city. Overwhelming number of independent media outlets are reporting no fighting at Sabha and the city under firm loyalist control. Only one source reported any fighting in the town [1] and it is from almost a month ago. Since than there have only been reports of skirmishes in the form of guerilla hit-and-run attacks. Nothing as a full-on battle for Sabha. When there is an attack on the city I will be the first to create the article, until than, hold of on it. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the Fezzan Campaign article references the encirclement of Sabha and fighting there before, i simply reused those references. On top of that, the RAF attacks on Sabha are confirmed by the references, as are the helicopter shootdowns, the armoured vehicles in the area and the death of rebel fighters. The references DO back up the material. Feel free to be maintenance on the article or something, but the battle has begun.

The battle begun three days after we had this conversation, so please don't jump the gun in the future. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghat

It was agreed upon on numereous occasions by almost all editors that we will not make articles on simple skirmishes that have or even may have not occurred in the war. Ghat is a prime example. Two of the sources you provided are just youtube videos of rebels walking around (and in arabic at that), the BBC source doesn't make any mention of fighting at Ghat and one source is a pro-loyalist site (thus not neutral). You have not provided any independent refs confirming there was even a real battle or even at least some major skirmish at Ghat. Wikipedia is based on verifibility. All the information that exists on the situation at Ghat (a few sentances) can nicely, and is already, be incorporated into the Fezzan campaign article. Until there is information that a battle for the town occurred please refrain from making an article that is not based on any hard facts. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)