Jump to content

User talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

RE: Hafez al-Assad

I've read through the article, but stopped... The article is filled by historical inaccuracies, for instance, the Military Committee's seizure of power is portrayed as being supported by the majority of the party, when it really was a violent takeover of the party by ousting the party's elected leadership.. I removed a section since it didn't make sense; there were only 5 members of the Military Committee before the 8th of March Revolution - and they were all Ba'athists, so why did the section i removed state that there were more factions.. There are several instances were you have muddled, or have wrong information... + Amin al-Hafiz was never Syria's strongman; he was a puppet of the Military Committee, who lost power when he tried to seize power from the Military Committee by allying himself with Aflaq, Munif al-Razzaz, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and the rest of the civilian leadership.. You have to read closer, and not read between the lines which you seem to be doing... I don't care what you think of Assad, but for some strange reason, Assad is presented as a good guy throughout the narrative. ... The article is not neutral. --TIAYN (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, but you seem to have misintepretated the information, for there are errors. Many errors. I have full access to the Patrick Seale book, so I can fix that with time, but that might take time since I'm currently in the army (I was drafted this August)... --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Good, than we have a deal. --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've assembled my sources, and begun rewriting the article (albeit on microsoft word).... But before I edit the article, you should nominate the article for copyedit at the Guild of Copyeditors... It needs work in this area, and considering that my grammar is not good enough, you should get someone else to fix it :p --TIAYN (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Good... Another point (which should be easy to add information about), is how Assad got Bashar al-Assad to succeed him... Several of his close associates from the 1960s and 1970s were purged because they viewed Bashar's (or any from Hafez's family) take over was illegitimate and unsocialist.. Some officials were purged, while other resigned in protest, while others resigned later when Bashar ruled (such as Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam)... The rise to power of Bashar led several long-lasting Ba'athist to question Assad's thinking, the Ba'ath Party and their ideology.... The article should also explain how Assad became undisputed leader of Syria - the Arab answer to Kim Il Sung... It was he who chose his successor , no one else outside his family was consulted, with the exception of some close-knit officials in the 1970s who all said establishing a family dynasty would be wrong.... Otherwise, the article is improving. --TIAYN (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE request

You're welcome Blackmane (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo

Hi, user Sopher99 has gone into a full edit war on various pages, but more importantly in the battle of Aleppo page where he reverted an important account of a french doctor admitting that the majority of the rebels there were islamists foreigners. I strongly believe that this should be kept. What do you think? --DanielUmel (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Its from an Unreliable/dubious source and it doesn't even belong in the "continued offensive" section. Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are so desperate you call Reuters an unreliable source? Or Jacques Beres co-founder of Doctor without borders and who has come to treat opposition members wounds? You are reaching. you lost all sense of neutrlaity and are deleting everything you don't like personnally. This is absurd.

The reuters page is very interesting and completely belong in the page, like everything which bring information about the motivations and the identity of the rebels fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/08/us-syria-crisis-jihad-idUSBRE88708W20120908 --DanielUmel (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This belongs on the Criticism section of the Free Syrian Army page. Not on a battle page. Please put the Rueters page there instead. Sopher99 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#Relationship_with_Islamists Sopher99 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but no. It belong in the Aleppo battle page. It is about Aleppo, it is about the proportion of the foreigners in the Aleppo battle, about the ratio rebels fighters/civilians wounded and about the motivation of a lot of fighters in Aleppo. This is important for the page. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't belong in that section. How about the international reaction section of the Aleppo battle page. Make a sperate line called "doctors without borders". Sopher99 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Any new information belong in the continued fighting section... If you want a new section can be created to present the different belligerents... --DanielUmel (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Put it in the Foreign reactions section, under doctors without border. What the doctor said is not about the continued fighting, so it can't go there. Lets stop debated on Wustenfuchsa talkpage too.Sopher99 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Order

G'day, I Rv your change because of my recent experience at FAC, but I'm not sure there is a strict rule other than that Bio always goes first. I won't insist if you want to change it, but I think alphabetical is fair and doesn't favour any Wikiproject over another. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw... no problems. --Wüstenfuchs 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

Your text is good and should be added in a new section at the top of the page. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You've stacked up an impressive amount of reverts at Battle of Aleppo (2012). I'd recommend dialing yourself back a few notches before you find yourself sanctioned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Syrian civil war". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding misleading info to Free Syrian Army

The info you added in this edit is misleading and misrepresents the sources. The sources say that 17 or 27 "people" died in the bombing near the hospital. You changed that to "civilians". The FSA said that the hospital bildings wer' being occupied by the Syrian Army at the time. You left out that key bit of info. You also called it a "terrorist attack", which goes agenst WP:TERRORIST. You then reverted me without giving any reason. If you continue with this behavior I'll be reporting you to the admins. ~Asarlaí 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Very funny this Asarlai. Now suicide bombers and people who detonates bombs in civilians areas are not terrorists according to him. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:TERRORIST, doesn't apply here. Asarlai tell me, what is 9/11 to you? Act of liberation maybe, or act of terrorism. WP:TERRORISM is about organisations and people, if I called the FSA terrorist you could tell me - "stop doing so, it's against WP's policies," but I haven't done that. A car bomb, especially when targeted against civilians (if you wanted to eliminate soldiers here, or there and you are aware of civilan deaths) it's terrorist act. The problem with numbers is next. SANA reported 17 deaths for the first time and many news agencies took that number, however few hours later SANA updated info claiming 27 deaths and 60+ wounded and news (The Daily Star is an example) reported this. The FSA can say "oh, we though the army is there", but people were killed. --Wüstenfuchs 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia never reports attacks as terrorist attacks, even in the case of 911. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Terroists acts are not by definition Carbombs. Carbombs are simply the most reknown. Any act that kills to spread fear is terrorism. Any attacks that kills for military gain is a combative act. Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Leave it out Sopher... Car bomb. WP:TERRORIST is only about organisations or people, I mentioned neither of those. --Wüstenfuchs 20:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST does apply here, even by your own reckoning (the FSA is an organization). The gideline says that such branding is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". I could easily go on to the Syrian Army article and begin branding their bombardment of civilian areas as "terrorist", but I don't, because that's not how we do things on Wikipedia. ~Asarlaí 21:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about "terrorist act", which is different from organisation. --Wüstenfuchs 21:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Vlachs of Croatia GOCE request

Hi, I've been working on your copy edit request for this article. I came across a bit of text that I want to expand but as I don't have the ref that was used, I don't want to add something in that's not in there. At the end of the Late Middle Ages section, it's stated that the Vlachs were traded or gifted. I think it needs clarification whether they werre considered slaves or serfs/thralls. If you have the book available, could you check to see how it could be clarified in the article? Thanks Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the info Blackmane (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Signature

Hi there, Just a note that your Signature should have a link to your user page and talk page at least. At present, your signature appears to be missing those links. Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG. Mdann52 (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My signature links to my talk page. --Wüstenfuchs 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Farouk al-Sharaa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Hafez al-Assad. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit-warring on the page; Bashar inherited the system which Hafez created, and Hafez created a crony-capitalist, corrupt, sectarianist system which curtailed political freedom.... Please don't remove this, because the majority of critics (the majority of Western scholars), do accus Hafez al-Assad of creating the system which Bashar inherited.... Hafez is no Tito, and you shouldn't treat him as such. --TIAYN (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The claim about crony capitalism is not widly accepted which represents a problem. Not any other source mentions this. Also, the lead must be a summary of the whol article, adding claims which aren't represented in the article is not a good thing to do. About crony capitalism - it's like adding minor sources for silly claims in the lead. There was an article, published a month or two ago, claiming that Josip Broz Tito was a homosexual, consider I add this to the JBT's lead. There are no sources disaproving this and yet there are no any other source supporting the claim. Same thing. We must include only those informations that are widly accepted. --Wüstenfuchs 16:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
But this is not a fringe theory...... The Financial Times, The Economist, The Guardian and so on refer to crony capitalism or corrupt capitalism... And criticism does not need to be universally shared - while the majority view the USSR as bad, there are still those who view the USSR as a great state..... For instance, since Hafez al-Assad, the majority of large private enterprises was taken over by either his family or the political elite, was that fair? No. It was cronyism.. --TIAYN (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That may be so, but still this needs to be writen in the article first, and with more details. The economy section is a great thing to do that. Also corruption should not be added as Assad's government made a great effort to fight it. Example, anti-corruption campaign in 1980s. The major problem was his brother Rif'at who sabotaged this effort, but still it's not good to mention corruption and avoid his anti-corruption policy. --Wüstenfuchs 17:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Mention both, and who cares about his anti-corruption policy?? It failed... Was Rifa'at the problem?? What about the elite which monoplised industry and established an oligarchy like that which exists in present-day Russia. .... Mention both, but don't believe that because Assad tried, it makes him a good leader... A good leader has good results, he did not have good results. ...--TIAYN (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Croatia–North Korea relations

I've got no sympathy for Ivo Josipović's actions towards North Korea, but if you want to attack him for it, use another forum; abusing Wikipedia for it is really silly. Consider yourself lucky I didn't just block you for this gross violation of WP:BLP and WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The article had a boilerplate paragraph that noted that there were basically no actual relations, conflicting with the article title, and then said something inconsequential about Josipović and characterized it as "rather suprising". Come on. The article was conveying no encyclopedic information, but it still somehow managed to convey an angle for criticism of a politician. It would have been annoying enough to have an article about nothing, but an article about a talking point about nothing? Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012, your continued edit warring

You have only just been unblocked, and within 24 hours you are immediately edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo (2012). You need to stop this kind of behaviour, otherwise admins will have to take action in order to protect the Wikipedia project. بروليتاريا (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't made any edit warring. As you may have noticed no 3RR was violated. --Wüstenfuchs 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:EW, which says the 3RR "is not a definition of what edit warring means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". ~Asarlaí 17:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Two reverts aren't edit warring. --Wüstenfuchs 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Asarlaí is correct. It is even possible to be blocked or banned for edit warring without breaking the 3 revert rule, especially coming off of 3 or 4 previous blocks like you have User:Wüstenfuchs. You have even been edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo(2012) talk page for crying out loud (diffs here and here). I wish I could say this was the first time I have seen someone edit war on the talk page of an article, but I have seen it before — from you (here). If you continue down this road, you will end up like your friend User:DanielUmel, who acted in much the same manner as you and who recently paid the price for it. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you noticed that I'm not the one who is edit-warring. I sent a message to Sopher99 who refuses to respond and insted he goes to undo any edit. --Wüstenfuchs 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you noticed it takes two to tango (idiom). بروليتاريا (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't have itention to make any revert... it's the reason why I didn't do it. But I did however did what I can to prevent edit-warring by sending a message. Sopher99 refused to respond and went with reverting, I however, didn't wanted to revert him to avoid edit-warring. --Wüstenfuchs 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppet allegations

Don't bother notifying me (like you should have already) about these claims. Good luck proving any kind of abuse, you'll need it. بروليتاريا (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Sharaa

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Farouk al-Sharaa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I agree with your proposal completely. --Wüstenfuchs 18:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't even have to revert. Just report, with a brief explanation about IP-hopping uncooperative edit-warring removalist of important sourced information. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. And thx one more time. --Wüstenfuchs 19:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Syrian civil war, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediation has begun

Mediation for the Russia-in-infobox dispute has begun: [1]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That took long... :D --Wüstenfuchs 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

KIA commander

If the SOHR report just said commander without giving a name it doesn't necessarily mean it was the same guy. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Syrian civil war map

Sorry for the late response. According to your CNN source, the town of Tal Abyad is still contested. What the rebels captured was the border crossing, but not the whole town. I changed Tal Abyad on the map to blue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'm glad you paid attention to it. Thanks. --Wüstenfuchs 20:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roza Miletić

Hello Wüstenfuchs,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Roza Miletić for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the CSD template that you removed. As my edit summary says, this is mainly on a technicality: the template is specific that you - the page creator - should not remove the thing. Acting in good faith, you'll note that I have tried to copyedit the article. My suspicion is that the CSD will be declined but, really, for someone who has been editing so heavily, some of the issues were pretty basic. For example, could you perhaps take a look at WP:OVERLINK? Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roza Miletić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Home Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)

Need your help here at the talk page here Talk:Battle of Damascus (2012). That Arabic name user is trying to make it look like the battle is still ongoing and it didn't end. I tried to explain to him that that article covers only the rebel's push for control of the city back in July, which failed, and that we already have two separate articles covering the current fighting in and around Damascus (Rif Dimashq offensive and 2011–2012 Damascus clashes). But he is being un-compromising. EkoGraf (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, one other guy seemed to agree with me and he reverted the Arabic dude. Article is good for now. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

He did it again, he reverted the edits by that other editor. Now I really need your help at the talk page please. EkoGraf (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I was speechless there at the end. Yeah, your detective skills helped a lot hehe, thank you. :) Question now is, is someone else going to take over the torch for him on the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lothar seemed to agree with him to an extent, we will see if he will continue the discussion. Also, before he was blocked, he sent out a plea for assistance on the discussion to Sopher, I7laseral and Guest. So we see how they react too. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, thanks for the assist in any case! :) What election anyway? Where are you from? EkoGraf (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Vau, hehe, srecno onda komsija, pozdravi iz Srbije! XD EkoGraf (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Assad

Hi, Wüstenfuchs, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done - please feel free to contact me about any problems arising from the copy-edit. I see you're still working on the article; if you finish within a week let me know and I'll c/e the new text. Otherwise, feel free to return it to the GOCE request page. Note that there's still an outstanding 'citation needed' tag in 'Lebanon', which needs a reference. Good luck with your GA nomination - I think the article deserves it. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sedlar source at Ante Pavelic

G'day Wustenfuchs, Could you have a look at Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Sedlar.2C_Jakov_.282009.29_.28in_Croatian.29._Paveli.C4.87_bez_maske_.5BPaveli.C4.87_Unmasked.5D_.28Documentary.29 and advise if you are able to add the detail Joy has suggested? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Nice job catching that sock-puppet master! That takes some true detective skills. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Wüstenfuchs 16:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Something you might take up

Hi! GregorB and I put forward and idea for reassessment of B/C-Class articles tagged as a part of wiki-project Croatia at WT:CRO. As I started to look at a list of articles rated C in WP:CRO and B elsewhere, I noticed Jure Francetić article lacked a single ref to meet B-Class. I fixed that one, but I also thought to check with you if you might be interested in upgrading the article further? IMO, some background/contextual information should be added to "Legacy", a WP:LEAD compliant lead need be made and a copyedit performed/requested from GOCE and the article just might have a chance at a WP:GAN? Would you consider taking that up?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Dayton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wüstenfuchs. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Stecci

Your tentative link between the Stecci and Tomislav's Croatian kingdom is an anachronism. Please read the following at UNESCO'S web page: Available data suggest that they first appeared in the second half of the 12th century, with the first phase lasting throughout the 13th century. A period of the most intensive production and decoration were the 14th and 15th centuries. In the 16th century their use completely ceased. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5617/). Please stop re-entering data on the Stecci in the context of the first Croat kingdom. The first reliably known stecci dates from the late 12th century (Grdo of Trebinje)(http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5281/). Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is you who insist on adding the misleading information on Stecci, not I? So what is "Nobody mentioned Stećci at all, why do you ad them?" supposed to mean? Also, I can see that you have once more re-introduced the sentence about the Stecci, despite the information I gave you. I am not saying your source on Croat settlements is wrong, but mine isn't either so stop removing it. In fact, my source features a Google books link to John Fine's acclaimed work and is easy to verify for anyone. As for your claim that Croats in the early middle ages inhabited a majority of Bosnia (inhabitet majority of it. Most of Bosnia was under Croatia), it is a very disputed subject with no conclusive evidence to support your claim. The information from De Administrando Imperio clearly describes the Croats as settling Croatia, Dalmatia, and western Bosnia. Please stop removing the source. As well, the size of the first Croatian kingdom is unknown, I have linked the article to a well-sourced discussion about this on the page about King Tomislav. I will once more revert to my version of the article and I hope you will not be disruptive to the easily verifiable sources I provide. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Syria

When quoting sources please don't use "the Army", please write Syrian army. In the same way in the afganistan war and iraq war we say NATO forces or the United States military, or Iraqi army or Afghani army. Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wüstenfuchs. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 22:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Award

Thanks a lot! :D EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hello.

Why?

213.246.114.240 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why what? --Wüstenfuchs 20:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Why the reversion? Have I missed a mistake..? 213.246.114.240 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh... I reverted you as you erased an important fact, that it was an unrecognised entity... if you write "unrecognised" only, readers won't have the whole picture. Another problem is you made the "brakeup of Yugoslavia" as a starting event, which it wasn't. --Wüstenfuchs 22:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
That's odd, as the breakup of Yugoslavia remains the first event in your version (and it appears to be the first, chronologically). Thanks for pointing out the "Unrecognised" mistake, though. If I restore the previous version but with "Unrecognised state" ("Republic" implies state), will that be okay? 213.246.114.240 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Unrecognised entity rather... Herzeg-Bosnia never proclaimed it self as a state, only entity. --Wüstenfuchs 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but that suggests to me that the article needs renaming ("Croatian Republic...") and only the terms "Herzeg-Bosnia" and "Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia" used within. I've now restored the previous version, but with "Unrecognised entity". Hope that's acceptable. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Ofcourse... But Republic doesn't means it's a country... See for example at the Republika Srpska article. --Wüstenfuchs 02:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for helping me out. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. --Wüstenfuchs 03:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wüstenfuchs. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 15:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come and join the discussion about updating the map. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Jayron32 05:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wüstenfuchs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was about Osman Kulenović article. I haven't broken 3-RR rule and I was returning the sourced info, ie I was reverting vandalism. I don't think this deserves a one week-block. --Wüstenfuchs 05:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, not 3RR, and since it's not your first block for the same offence you should know the difference between vandalism and content disputes. Max Semenik (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Note to reviewing admin: This user was not blocked for violating the Three-revert rule. They were blocked for violating WP:EDITWAR. "Returning sourced info" is not a listed exception to that policy. Also, the length of the block was mitigated by prior blocks for edit wars, most recently a three-day block about a month ago did not stop this user from edit warring this time. --Jayron32 06:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KIA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Croatian-Hungarian relations

Your memory's spot on. I think that issue will qualify for inclusion in the article somehow, probably once the two governments issue statements (presumably soon), otherwise the matter would remain a legal matter with not much to do with relations between the two states. Besides, let's wait a day or two once political consequences are clear so that those could be added as well in the same go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

I just saw [2]. If Peacemaker67 said "This needs consensus on talk, no further reverts pls", and you revert him within a day, what reason do we have to believe you're not just being obstinate? If the two of us didn't have a history of disputes, I would be enacting another block for this kind of behavior. Please, be less impatient. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Falsification of source

Wustenfuchs, a word of caution, do not abuse the sources by downright lying about them. I have searched through the entire book (Kamberovic) for Hrvatska Narodna Zajednica and Safvet Beg Basagic, without finding the slightest mention of any alleged membership by Basagic in the Croat nationalist party. Given your unfortunate background with various bans I would see it inappropriate for you to continue claiming the membership without providing a reliable and actual source for the statement. Until then, I have removed the statement altogether from the article given the source has been abused in such a grave manner. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the rest of the paragraph saying he advocated the unification of Bosnia and Croatia is fine and stays. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Final warning

It appears that, yet again, you are using the ability to revert edits you don't agree with as a means to win a battle of wills with other editors. Over the past few days I see many examples from your editing history of using the revert function in aggressive ways. Please note that this is a behavior issue and not a content issue. You may be entirely correct in what you want Wikipedia articles to say, however you will do significant harm to Wikipedia if your behavior causes you to be blocked again. That is, if you are right, don't harm your ability to see that Wikipedia articles display the correct text by behaving in ways that ensure that your preferred version doesn't get seen. If there is a dispute, use the methods of dispute resolution to establish consensus first, and don't use the revert function to force through what you see as the "right" version of any article which is in dispute. There is no exception to this standard of behavior merely because material has sources. --Jayron32 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: News experience

Hi! No, not really, I don't. From what I saw, the nom looks alright, but I'd like to see more updates to the two articles - more details on the verdict, actual release, return trip and reception, as well as any official (and other really relevant) reactions. I trust support will be offered if there's more than a single sentence about the news.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Box

Thanks for helping out with the diplomatic recognition box, but its seems a bit uneven as the notes area only takes up one part of the column, leaving a weird space near the other two. Is there a way to fix that? Sopher99 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Literally as I wrote this you fixed it, lol. Sopher99 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mladen Markač, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 24 sata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks infobox

Do not disrupt the improved infobox for the Bosniaks article. The new additions Jasmila Zbanic, Muhamed Bosnevi, Ivo Franjo Jukic and Safvet Beg basagic are all valid individuals with relevant references in their respective articles. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luka Mišetić

The article Luka Mišetić has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There needs to be independent, reliable references. (see WP:SOURCES) A person's law office and a general law listing doesn't count. The reference needs to say something substantial about him, not sound bites about his client.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN for Mladen Markač and Ante Gotovina

--SpencerT♦C 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

please use EDIT SUMMARIES when you edit an article

I understand you've already been talked to by an Administrator on this issue. Please don't make escalation of this matter necessary. Thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, I am trying to help in the accuracy of your wiki on Luka Misetic but you keep undo-ing my edits. Just curious, why the insistance on the term "Bosnian Croat" for his family background. They are in fact from Herzegovina. I was trying to clarify that point. Please explain your source for "Bosnian Croat". Thanks. I'm just trying to help. If I'm wrong let me know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirbarsandbulbs (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A crash-course in the development of the modern nations of contemporary Bosnia

1. All three ethnic groups of today's Bosnia predominantly descend from the medieval Bosnians (Bosnjani) which bore no conclusive ethnic identity. Thus they can not be called either modern Bosniaks, Serbs or Croats.

2. During the Ottoman period (especially early on) there were Bosniaks of three religions, and still no conclusive identity (neither Serb, Croat or modern Bosniak). The Bosnian population of this time was merely defined by a regional Bosniak identity.

3. Catholicism in Bosnia lost many adherents to Islam and Orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries, many of who would latter identify with the Bosniak or Serb nation.

4. Those Catholics which did not abandon their religion would predominantly crystallize into Bosnian Croats only during the 19th century. This process was not entirely completed until the early 20th century.

5. By calling the Catholics of early Ottoman Bosnia "Croats" you basically conclude that Bosnian Serbs and Bosniaks are to a large degree descended from Croats (which you might believe) but there is no support to it.

6. Designating any Catholic in Bosnia as "Croat" before the first Austro-Hungarian census in 1879 is an anachronism and severe POV, because only then may one with reasonable certainty say that a predominant part of the Bosnian Catholics considered or would come to consider themselves Croats.

7. The Catholic substratum of early Ottoman Bosnia belongs to all three nations of Bosnia today, just like the Bosnjani.

8. This leaves you with one option, if you wish to include the early demographics of Catholics in Bosnia (commencing from the early 16th century up until the first Austro-Hungarian census) you must make clear that Catholics (and not Croats) are in question. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be agreeable. Also, in general for all articles concerning the three nations in modern Bosnia-Herzegovina, we would need to underline that historically only a regional (Bosniak) understanding of identity existed and that the modern conceptions of nation that we are familiar with in Bosnia today only emerged in the 19th century along religious lines. In this regard, modern-day Bosnian Croats mainly trace their continuity to those who were Catholic by the 19th century, modern-day Bosniaks to those who adopted the Muslim religion during Ottoman rule, and Serbs to those that were Orthodox by the 19th century. Also, conversion to Islam was for the most part unidirectional (meaning that people rarely converted back or to other religions, not least because of the benefits), whereas Catholicism and Orthodoxy experienced bidirectional conversions (both losing and gaining adherents), however it is safe to say Catholicism mostly lost adherents in favor of Islam and Orthodoxy. For now, having two separate tables is fine. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes that is true, using the term Bosniak might be confused with the modern-day nation. In Ottoman Bosnia, the word Bosniak had a similar meaning to the word Bosanac (translated as Bosnian), although the term Bosanac really didn't exist back then. Nevertheless, the meaning of the Ottoman "Bosniak" corresponds to what we would call Bosnian today.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note

... what does Wüstenfuchs mean? if you don't mind sharing. :) Yazan (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate gives it as "Desert Fox". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Wüstenfuchs, already replied on my talk. Apparently "fennec" comes from Arabic... interesting stuff! Yazan (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria flag

The "decree" is not the issue here. The foreign policy author is stating that the true symbolism of the flag is the revolts against French rule. You are so obsessed with shoe-horning your own POV narrative of "modern day Syrian opposition = French colonialists" into the article that you can't see past it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivić Pašalić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Šuica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wüstenfuchs. You have new messages at Beyond My Ken's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Luka Misetic

I thought I told you once before not to do Copy and paste page moves. Tell an admin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ivo Jukic in the Bosniaks infobox

Wustenfuchs, if you disagree with Jukic being part of the infobox may I then suggest you only remove his photo instead of disrupting the other additions. I shall now explain why Jukic should be considered a proper member of the infobox. A frequent misconception about the "modern" Bosniak nation is that Islam in some way is an exclusive part of it. This is wrong, while Islam is surely a typical and common trait, being Muslim is no prerequisite for Bosniak ethnicity, that is to say "Bosniaks" are not an ethnoreligious group. It is true, however, that Muslim Bosnians make up the overwhelming part of those that adhere to the Bosniak nation, which is basically the belief that Bosnians are a group of separate ethnic origin. Promoting the opinion that only Muslim Bosnians can be or consider themselves to be Bosniaks (or Bosnians in an ethnic sense so to say) is POV since such a narrow definition simply does not exist. The ideas, thoughts and ideology of Jukic's "Bosniak nation" are in continuity with the "modern" Bosniaks because these do not state anything principally different (i.e. the existence of an ethnic Bosnian nation). The thought that only Muslim Bosnians can be "modern Bosniaks" is chauvinistic and at most the opinion of individual scholars, but by no means an agreed consensus. To summarize, the Bosniaks article should convey the understanding that Muslim Bosnians are historically the main, but not exclusive, proponents of a Bosniak nation, since also a number of Christian Bosnians have expressed their support to such a common nation. In this regard, Jukic is inarguably a Bosniak, but not a Muslim. In layman's terms, the definition of Bosniaks is those that consider themselves to be part of such a common nation, predominantly, but not exclusively, Muslim Bosnians. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you got my point. The bottom line is that ethnic groups and/or nations are changing continuously and never remain the same, take for example the infobox on the Croats page. There is no way to absolutely tell that, for example, King Tomislav (who lived in the 10th century) had the same understanding or idea of what it means to be Croat as Blanka Vlasic does in the 21st century. On the contrary, I am pretty sure the notion of "Croathood" has changed drastically over a thousand years (as in any nation/ethnic group). Does this mean we should remove King Tomislav from the infobox because he is not Croat in an identical way to Blanka Vlasic? Of course not, because there is something called continuity, i.e. the certainty that the Croats in Blanka Vlasic's time are the direct successors of the Croats in King Tomislav's time without interruption or divergence of the ethnic group. In the Bosnians' case (Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs), there is a definite gap between medieval and Ottoman Bosnia to the point that no one in Bosnia may claim cultural, social or governmental continuity with the medieval Bosnians, apart from on a genetic basis. More specifically, the ethnogenesis of the modern-day Bosniaks begins with the acceptance of Islam among the Bosnians, and these early Muslim Bosnians (Bosniaks) are certainly in cultural and social continuity with the modern Bosniaks, as evident by the fact that more or less all Muslim Bosnians are gathered around the Bosniak nation today, even though the early Bosniaks did not necessarily have an identical understanding of what it means to be Bosniak (as I have said this is not a requirement and subject to change over time in all ethnic groups). As for Ivo Franjo Jukic, who was Catholic rather than Muslim, and most likely never could anticipate what forms a modern Bosniak nation would assume, he is nevertheless in idealogical and terminological continuity with the basic principles of the modern Bosniak nation (i.e. the existence of a distinctive and separate Bosniak nation, regardless of religion), and may thus be considered part of the same ethnic group. If you still object to Ivo Franjo Jukic I will leave him to the side, as I do agree that his role is somewhat complicated by his faith and the fact that the modern-day Bosniak nation is almost exclusively Muslim. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ivo Andric in the Croat infobox

Since we're at the subject anyways I have been meaning to ask you if it is reasonable to include Andric into the Croats infobox given his firm self-identification as Serb? That is after all the reason we have refrained from adding Selimovic to the Bosniaks infobox. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive_6&oldid=1139343539"