User talk:188.113.91.110

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2011[edit]

Hello and welcome! I noticed you made a change to an article, but didn’t provide a source for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you can include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Khmer Republic with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rcsprinter (warn) 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user that reverted it said that he/she/it saw afterwards that the edit was in fact OK. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Czechoslovak Socialist Republic with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeairn (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admitted that you were not sure, and had no reason to say that it was not a sattelite state of Soviet. And surely, it was. It WAS Warsaw Pact member, making it a satelite state of the Soviets. And when you're not sure, you must not write that edits are "vandalism" or things like that! --188.113.91.110 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, 188.113.91.110. You have new messages at Tgeairn's talk page.
Message added 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tgeairn (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding names of countries in List of Socialist countries[edit]

Greetings 188.113.91.110. In answer to your question about the native names I simply felt that they were unnecessary for that particular page, as they can be seen on the main articles themselves. I also think that from a layman's point of view, the article is visually simpler and easier to read without the extra names. Best regards, Mr A (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I must admit you have a point here. Greetings from 188.113.91.110. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of allied military operations of the Vietnam War[edit]

I fully agree with the point you seem to be trying to make about this article. Whose allies are we talking about? In fact, I raised this earlier on the article's Talk page. There was a very unsatisfactory discussion.

Why don't you raise your thoughts on the Talk page too.

And do register. It makes conversation a lot more straightforward. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on the "Mozambican Civil War" article[edit]

Dear IP,

recently you edited the "Mozambican Civil War" article making the following changes:

  1. Changing the number of civilian losses from one million to 900.000
  2. Removing Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Rhodesia as involved partys
  3. Adding Cuba as a war party
  4. Changing the number of FRELIMO forces from 80.000 to 15.800
  5. Changing the number of RENAMO forces from 20.000-25.000 to 10.000-25.000
  6. Adding numbers for ONUMOZ troops and losses

Regarding 1.: You cite no source for this, but left the citation to the old source (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/7035.htm). This source states the number of 1.000.000 civilian losses. So right no the article contradicts the cited source. I will therefore reverse this. However, numbers of losses in the Mozambican civil war are based largely on estimates so there may be contradicting sources on this. If you have a reliable source stating your number, please cite it and introduce it as alternative number.

Regarding 2.: You cite no source for this either. I introduced the information on Zimbabwean and Tanzanian participation based on the following sources: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/mozambique/key-actors.php, http://ccrweb.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/defencedigest/defdigest03.html#1. Both seem trustworthy enough to me. Furthermore there is widespread reference to the presence of Zimbabwean soldiers in scientific literature i.e. in Igreja, Victor 2007: The Monkey's Sworn Oath. Cultures of Engagement for Reconciliation and Healing in the Aftermath of the Civil War in Mozambique.

As for the Rhodesian intervention: This is based on the wikipedia-article about the Rhodesian Bush War which cites the following sources:

"Rhodesia, planning offensive, to call up part-time soldiers". The New York Times. 1 May 1976. Retrieved 19 October 2011.

Lohman, Major Charles M.; MacPherson, Major Robert I. (7 June 1983). "Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat".

Again I see no reason to doubt these sources. If you do, please provide a source for it. Furthermore, your edit contradicts the current text of the article which contains some information on the Rhodesian and a whole section on the Zimbabwean intervention.

I will therefore reverse this too.

Regarding 3.: You cite http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/may/mozambique/frenamo1976.htm. However, I find it hard to believe that there were 150.000 Cuban troops engaged in Mozambique (in the article you wrote 15.000, but the source actually says 150.000). Furthermore the source makes no comment about this apart from the table at the beginning and only offers a very short summary of the Mozambiquan Civil War.

Online and in literature, I could not find any sources for Cuban combat troops actually being in Mozambique.

Online:

This source states only "scant" Cuban support for Mozambique: http://monthlyreview.org/2003/06/01/back-to-the-motherland-cuba-in-africa. This one mentions non-combatant military advisors: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/intro.htm. This one mentions "800 men" without specifying, whether combat troops or advisors: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jul-aug/belfiglio.html.

Literature:

Newitt, Mayln: "A History of Mozambique" London 1995 makes no mention of Cuban troops. Finnegan, William: "A Complicated War. The Harrowing of Mozambique, Berkely and Los Angeles 1992" says the following in an endnote (P. 270):

"Why President Machel avoided "the Angola option" - inviting Cuban troops to defend Mozambique - was the object of much speculation. [...] The several hundred Cuban military advisers working in Mozambique throughout the 1980s stayed clear of combat and concentrated on militia training."

Regarding this I believe the information in your source to be false. I will therefore reverse your edit and remove Cuba as a war party.

Regarding 4.&5.: This seems to be based on the same source. However, taking into account the nonsense it says about Cuban involvement I regard it as unreliable. I will therefore reverse these edits too.

Regarding 6.: No objections. I will, however, provide the source I used for the ONUMOZ article.

Next time please do some more in-depth research, before making significant changes like this and provide sources for your claims. Otherwise others will have to do that work for you and are likely to be not particularly happy about it.

Sincerely,

Max Rapp Rappatoni (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing!

/\ talk← Aviyal →track) /\ 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Sorry for using the word 'vandalism', but its actually content removal, an is non- constructive. Please think about creating an account before proceeding. /\ talk← Aviyal →track) /\ 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI request for North and South Vietnam[edit]

I requested protection for the North and South Vietnam articles at ANI. Kauffner (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on ANI should focus on the issue of whether the pages should be protected or not. Kauffner (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Zeeyanketu. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Human rights in the Soviet Union, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Methadone, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Yintan  13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rammstein. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Richard BB 21:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Hello, I'm Friginator. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Tie Your Mother Down. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

North Korea party ideology[edit]

read this [1].. . It states "The Rules of the Workers' Party of Korea revised at the Fourth WPK Conference stipulate that great Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism is the only guiding idea of the party." .... --TIAYN (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Little Willy (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Sweet (band)|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! :) 188.113.91.110 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BracketBot is not a user! It's a bot that does automatic tasks that would be tedious to do manually. Still, thank you for your infobox addition. Much appreciated.--Launchballer 22:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to A Day at the Races (album), without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.113.91.110&oldid=1146392525"