Talk:Heglig

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heglig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216043603/http://www.gnpoc.com/ProjectOverview.asp?glink=GL002&plink=PL010 to http://www.gnpoc.com/ProjectOverview.asp?glink=GL002&plink=PL010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913095104/http://www.ecosonline.org/back/pdf_reports/2007/Oil/ECOS%20factsheetII%20October%202007.pdf to http://www.ecosonline.org/back/pdf_reports/2007/Oil/ECOS%20factsheetII%20October%202007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of Heglig and other things

I see there have been several attempts to by user:Yien Gatluak to change the alternate name of Heglig from Pandthow to Yaah. I feel that a source needs to be provided for such a change.

This is directed towards Yien Gatluak themsleves, please thumb through WP:RS to understand sourcing. Probably too WP:BRD to understand how consensus works here. And I strongly recommend using Wikipedia:Sandbox for testing how the syntax here works as you seem quite inexperienced in that regard.

@Yien Gatluak

DervotNum4 (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of, @DervotNum4, why did you revert my changes when they were to remove Yien Gatluak's really screwed up formatting in the lede? NorthTension (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I reverted you changes as they only reverted Yien Gatluak's formatting errors, not their unexplained cointent changes. It also removed the line "Sudan took it back at the Second Battle of Heglig ten days later." which makes the lede imply that South Sudan still holds Heglig, which they do not. DervotNum4 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Still no response from @Yien Gatluak here nor at ANI. The changes are unsourced and there are a myriad of MOS violations with bold/links/etc. I'd be in favor of taking it all back to the version prior to those edits unless they can justify them. Even if they can, the style issues need to be fixed. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you are using fake names, is very important that indication provided sources are fakes and fabrications.

I'm here to end lies propagation. Yien Gatluak (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you are using fake names, is very important point that indications provided sources are fakes and fabrications.

I'm here to end lies propagation. Yien Gatluak (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yien Gatluak If you edit an article with new information, you absolutely must provide a reliable source to back that up.

The readers of the article need to be able to see an independent source, to check and read up on that fact.

This is how Wikipedia works and it's not a step that you can bypass or skip when editing this encyclopedia. Every claim must have a source that verifies it.

I don't know much about the subject, but if your claim is correct then you should be able to easily find sources that meet the reliable source criteria. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not the question of availing sources. It's the question of who are spreading lies and propagandas. Yien Gatluak (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You must provide sources for your edits on Wikipedia. That's how this website works, are you refusing to do this? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted further edits following a block, if anyone wishes to reinstate them please provide a reliable source to back up the proposed change, thank you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources for Etymology section

I have tagged this section as needing additional sources. There is nothing supporting most of the statements, including seeds for rosaries, food for animals, translations, and other places nearby with same name. I cannot find anything definitive for these. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)