Talk:Timeline of Strasbourg
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Thank you and initial comment
editThis is a very interesting piece of work. The editor who set it up has put in a lot of work. He/she admits that it is incomplete, so this is not a criticism, but I notice the return of Alsace to France after WW1 is not as yet mentioned. LynwoodF (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Suggested sources for history of Strasbourg during WW1? M2545 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not an expert on Strasbourg, although I have a special affection for the city. I lived there over 50 years ago, when the Alsatian dialect was very widely used in the city itself. Fascinating for a student of linguistics, as I was then. LynwoodF (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Chérif Chekatt was not a random "man", but a djihadist who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, this is common knowledge, established by reliable sources (such as the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN and many others). To systematically remove that vital information, as Alivebills has done, serves no other purpose than to cloud the truth, blur the facts, and conceal reality. Why? Alivebills will tell us. --Edelseider (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
EdJohnston, Alivebills has his chance to speak now or forever hold his peace. If he hasn't answered by tomorrow, the information is going back into the article. --Edelseider (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Edelseider: Before editing again, you should find out if the talk page supports you. If not, any admin may perceive you are continuing the edit war. The same goes for the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good, EdJohnston. And what if he hasn't reacted in three days? In a week? How long is he allowed to take the article hostage? Surely, there must be both a rule and a limit. --Edelseider (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no rule and no limit. But if you open an WP:RFC, let it run, and get it closed by an uninvolved person, then you have established consensus even if the other guy stays completely away. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good, EdJohnston. And what if he hasn't reacted in three days? In a week? How long is he allowed to take the article hostage? Surely, there must be both a rule and a limit. --Edelseider (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment
editShall the mention that the perpetrator of the 2018 Strasbourg attack, Chérif Chekatt, had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46660217) be restored? As of now, he is simply qualified as a "man". --Edelseider (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you holding two identical RfCs simultaneously (here, and Talk:History of Strasbourg#Request for comment)? That is against WP:MULTI and a number of other guidelines that I could mention. Hold one, advertise it on the other talk page, and treat its outcome as binding on both articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because there has been the same edit war here and there with the same user, Alivebills, about the same subject and the same formulation. --Edelseider (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Clearly relevant, and reliably sourced (BBC). Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Done, see also the other talk page, linked above. --Edelseider (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
