Jump to content

User talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

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, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Po dolinam i po vzgoriam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voivod (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) 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination

I think I'm done. Most of the links you requested were from one or two AFP which aren't freely available online, but can be obtained through their archive. Some like the Reuters you need a physical copy. I addressed all of your other concerns. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on making Mladen Lorković a good article! GregorB (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you alot Gregor... it was very hard to collect all the infos and shape them into the article. --Wustenfuchs 15:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm very happy the article made GA!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. It seams we are on fire concerning the good articles. :D --Wustenfuchs 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well yes. OTOH since we're already editing the articles anyway, it's good go an extra mile and make them GAs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Ofc. Well, you made majority of those article to become GA. --Wustenfuchs 17:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope they'll become a small minority soon. Keep up the good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Mihajlo Lukić, 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) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: SR Croatia

Hi! Off the top of my head, I cannot say something about the topic that would not be guesswork and general knowledge. I'll have a look for further sources and come back with whatever turns up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would normally try to keep the "economy" section focused on current information - but that clearly does not apply in this case. In Case of SR Croatia, I'd say the entire article in effect represents subsections of a history-related text. Therefore it would appear logical to me to provide an overview of economic history of SRC in the "economy" section as no current information exists. An obvious problem in the existing article structure is presence of a "history" section - and I think that section requires splitting into appropriate new sections - economy, politics, legislation, executive (or a single "government" section instead of the two last ones), etc. The section about history is pointless here because every bit of info on the SRC is history. Of course, info regarding establishment, political continuity from previous governments of Croatia (Croatia-Slavonia), may be best dealt in a "background" section (or similarly named). Information regarding facts that have not changed a lot or not at all as the RoC was established and as Croatia became independent (geography, for instance) - might best be left out save for a brief passage on lack of changes (and information on the process how the borders of SRC were established in 1947 and as the Free Territory of Trieste was abolished for instance). Hope this is of some use.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes. It helped a lot. I'll make new sections, and with time I'll expand them as I get to them. Historical persecutions will be in Persecution section, themes regarding economy will be in economy section etc. No problem. --Wustenfuchs 11:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The article clearly improved just by the restructuring. I would suggest a section on "politics and government" which could provide information on how the legislation was enacted and enforced, details on judicial system, administrative divisions etc. The first post WWII elections could conceivably be included in there but you may also keep them in the "establishment" section too. I would definitely urge you to add information on constitution of Yugoslavia in relation to PR/SR Croatia - especially in terms of 1971 amendments and 1974 constitution which became instrumental later to legal dissolution of Yugoslavia and independence of Croatia (Badinter commission). Speaking of which, I suppose the process of disestablishment of a single-party rule and the 1990 elections should be included here as well, noting establishment of major parties in 1989/1990. Of course, 1971 events (Croatian spring) should be noted. I would suggest summarizing the existing "persecutions" section further as this much material may appear to give undue weight to the topic (which is important but the article should discuss 40-something years of a broad range of subjects) but I would add information regarding suppression/capture etc. of emigrant organizations related to opponents of the Communist regime (both former NDH officials and more recent political opponents). The "religion" article might give information on confiscation of church property and the Stepinac trial (and consequent rift and subsequent thaw with Vatican). Perhaps you could add information on law enforcement (subordinated to Republic's ministry of interior) and defense (while noting role of the Yugoslav People's Army, a word or two on the Territorial Defence and its organization/subordination may be useful, especially regarding its disarmament in the eve of the Croatian War of Independence). I would suggest moving the symbols to a new section as there are a couple of sets of official flags/arms and the anthem. A section on demographics (population size, national composition, literacy etc) might be handy too. The "economy" section might offer information on foreign currency income issue picked up by students in 1971 as a part of their demands and matter of so called prebrojavanje in late 1960s and 1970s. You have selected a tough task, but I'm confident this is all achievable. Good luck!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian-Croatian relations article

Done. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thx alot PRODUCER. --Wustenfuchs 15:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have problem on commons because of copyright violations, so I do not upload pictures there. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

13th SS GA Review

G'day again, I'm done over there, I ended up removing one of the images due to its questionable FUR status. I might replace it if I can find something relevant on Commons, but probably not soon. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A Class ratings for Djurisic article

G'day, My understanding is that each WikiProject is responsible for determining what qualifies as A-Class. WikiProject Biography currently have a freeze on A-Class assessments. The remaining projects have a very basic approach. I have made the proposal at WikiProject Yugoslavia that the comprehensive WikiProject Military History A-Class reviews be accepted by the WikiProject in lieu of a separate process. You might like to comment on my proposal, but in the meantime I am reverting the ratings back to GA for all the other WikiProjects, as I believe it is presumptuous to assume that those other WikiProjects agree with the rating without discussion. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nacional.hr references

Hi! Please consider archiving nacional.hr references using WebCite or another similar service considering uncertainty regarding its future availability online. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Tomobe, I will do that. --Wustenfuchs 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already archived the one at Bosnia-Turkey relations, so you can see there what parameters are required (archivedate, archiveurl, deadurl) to be added in the cite web or another similar template.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Yes, thx. --Wustenfuchs 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing other than that one that needed archiving, this was just for future reference. Thanks for quick response though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

By now everything up to number 520 is done, and some of the remaining 30-odd links to nacional.hr are archived. I plan to archive the rest (20 or so) by the end of the day. Why ask?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to help, that's why. So I'll start from 550. Um... or maybe you want to do this alone... --Wustenfuchs 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Well, there's very few left now, but if you're up to it, I plan to archive all references used by FA or GA articles in the Croatia wiki project (except maybe cite book and cite journal ones) to prevent link rot and their eventual delisting because of that, so if you're up to that, we can divide those between ourselves.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be glad to help. So I archive only references that link to newspapers right? --Wustenfuchs 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Basically, I would like to go for anything that uses {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. I suppose that would mostly consist of newspapers, magazines, government or corporate websites and similar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeup, got it. --Wustenfuchs 19:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I found a few nacional.hr refs using {{cite journal}}, I guess those will have to be on a case-by-case basis: scientific journals tend to be archived elsewhere and available offline as well (libraries), but a magazine might not and I'll do those too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm archiving at the Battle of Vukovar... I just wonder, why are you archiving only Vjesnik and Nacional? I know Vjesnik was shut down, but Nacional? --Wustenfuchs 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nacional also stopped publishing and is likely to suffer the same fate as Vjesnik - hence urgency and I gave priority to Nacional refs. Others need not be rushed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll proceed to those GA I largely contributed to and nominated for review, simply because I'll navigate through those quickly and get those out of the way soon!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll join you when I wake up... to tired now... :) --Wustenfuchs 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbols

This matter was already discussed at a ridiculous length. [1] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well PRODUCER, I feel sorry for Anto as he was right after all. Symbols of WH Canton are really the Croat CoA and Croat flag. However, if you want to implement this discussion to the HB Canton, then I might tell you there are few mistakes in this discussion regarding the 1996 Constitution which is, after all, still in force and there was no any other constitution after that one. So the Canton officialy and de facto still uses this CoA and the flag. And this discussion at the WH Canton was based on third-side oppinion, well, include mine as well. I would be on Anto's side, if I may say so, as he was right. --Wustenfuchs 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"The symbols were invalidated in the same ruling of the Constitutional Court invalidating the name of the canton. They do not represent the two ethnical communities, but only and exclusivly the Croats. From the day of publication of the ruling in the official gazette, the symbols were not official any more, but they have remained in de facto use ever since. The cantonal government deemed the self-ruling of the Contitutional Court unconstitutional and refused to obey it." [2] Both the name and symbols were deemed invalid in the Constitutional Court. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"This claim is supported by the "personal opinion" of one of the judges of the Constitutional Court, published in the same official gazette right after the ruling, stating, basically, that the symbols are not unconstitutional, since the Consitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has no provision regarding the design of symbols. They were, supposedly, adopted by a regular procedure and thus quite valid. The judge understands that some people of the canton can object to the design, but the procedure for the change or invalidation of those symbols should be made by other means and not through the Constitutional Court." - The same web, the same parahraph. --Wustenfuchs 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's one judge's personal opinion. I'm discussing the actual final ruling reached in the Constitutional Court. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would also ignore his personal opinion if it was a journalist or a handyman, but a juge od the State's Constitutional Court stated they aren't unconstitutional "since the Consitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has no provision regarding the design of symbols", which means his personal opinion means something, to be precise, it means that this decision of the BiH Constitutional Court is invaild because of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus the CoA and the flag are quite valid, as stated. --Wustenfuchs 00:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, the final ruling that was actually reached in the Constitutional Court and effective in law is what carries weight here, his statements do not, as they are just that, statements. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, very important to add, the decision was never implemented by the Canton, which means that this decision is out of force. [3]--Wustenfuchs 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's in force, it just isn't obeyed. Rulings in the Constitutional Court aren't a "opt-in" scenario. If the ruling was overturned within the Constitutional Court then you'd have a point.-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

1 August

Your recent editing history at Battle of Aleppo (2012) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert. I7laseral (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on Battle of Aleppo (2012), immediately after I lifted the protection imposed yesterday. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 3 August 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:

The problem is that user Sopher99 was reverting my edits without any base. He claimed that my sources are unreliable, however, it seams he agreed they are reliable, so they stayed in the article. I needed to revert his edit as they were unjustified. I don't see a reason for blocking me. I also warned him not to make edit warring and to take the problem to the talk page first, but he refused to do so. --Wustenfuchs 18:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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.

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:

I really wasn't aware of the edit warring warrning (that section above). I didn't even get a notification stating I have a new message. If I did, someone who also has access to my computer read it before I did. Also, I promise not to edit this article for this 48 hours, I was working on the Hafez al-Assad article in order to promote it to the GA status. May I get the unblock? --Wustenfuchs 23:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been editing Wikipedia for nearly four years, and have made over 8000 edits. You know perfectly well enough about the policy on edit warring, without being warned about it each time the question arises. In fact, yesterday you yourself mentioned edit warring in an edit summary on the very article in question [4]. It is therefore perfectly clear that you know about edit warring. If that were the whole story then I would simply be leaving the block in place. However, we have a more serious problem. You have told us that someone else has used your account, and prevented you from receiving a message by this edit. As you can read at WP:COMPROMISED, this means that you cannot be unblocked, and I have blocked this account indefinitely to prevent this abuse from continuing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 4 August 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.

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:

Please remove the indefinitely block. It's unnecessary really. I have been editing for 4 years and made over 8000 edits and you block me forever? Come on. If your sister accidentaly clicks certain button you get block forever? I had and I have full control over my account. She wasn't editing insted of me, nodoby does that except me, and I never claimed she edited anything. Anyway I can get approval to continue editing? --Wustenfuchs 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --Wustenfuchs 13:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have stated, in your previous unblock request, that someone else has access to your computer. In this unblock request you mention your sister, which no-one else has done before. If your sister has, or has had access to your account, it cannot be unblocked.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:04, 4 August 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.

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:

I need the unblock from the indefinete block. Nobody edited anything except me. The whole problem was in the yellow tape that notifies you "You have a new messsage". However, I don't remember of that tipe, so I stated it is possible that I forgot about the message while I was editing or someone was reading Wikipedia while I was a way for a shorter period. Nevertheless, I always log in with "remember me" button, that's the reason why it was possible somone was reading Wikipedia while I was away. However, this is only a small possibility. However, it's not possible that somone had broke my password and was removing or writing anything except me. As you can see from edit history this warning is still here and nobody removed it (right above this section). The problem is I saw it to late, as I was busy with Battle of Aleppo (2012) editing, and I made an edit warring there and got 48 hours ban. 48 hours ban is just fine, but indefinete block is unjustified. --Wustenfuchs 23:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The problem is not with the software. You say you didn't see the message at all, yet [5] you removed it. So either someone else used your account or you are not telling the truth. I'm inclined to think that it is the latter but either way we can't unblock you if either is the case. Are you sure you want to stick to that story, or combination of stories? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 5 August 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.

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:

I request the unblock of the indefinite block. I didn't removed any message! It was here and it's here now. I'm talking about this message [6]. Nobody edited anything except me. The message I removed was this one [7] The latter message was removed from the notice board as trolling accusation. You can see it yourself. I always remove toll messages, and the last one was troll. I'm talking about the first warning that was never removed and you may see it here, "1 August" section, writen by User:I7laseral. The laseral's message was writen eralier then the one writen by IP 92.40.253.189. Now, the whole thing started when a misunderstanding occured when one administrator thought I don't have a control over my account any more, but I do. So he gave me an indefinite block, which was previously a 48 hours block. I just ask you give me the 48 hours block insted of the indifinite one. --Wustenfuchs 01:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Reduced the block to the original 48 hours. I concur with Amatulić below about the account security issue being clarified now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 5 August 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.

Observation

Did 'the person who also has access to your computer' also make this edit, in which you deleted another notification of your edit warring regarding a discussion involving you on the Administrators' noticeboard? If you are going to untruthful, at least be convincing. حرية (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I removed it myself. Some troll make an accusation but it was removed. I always erase troll messages. --Wustenfuchs 13:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you reconcile that with the statement that you were unaware that you had received an edit-warring warning? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, maybe I just didn't payed any attention to the message, I was busy with editing the Battle of Aleppo (2012). We are talking about the message above the block. Maybe I clicked the button to show the new messages and it's possible I forgot about the message. So, ok, maybe I need a 48 hours block but not the indefinet block. I can wait till tommorow, that's just fine. But no one except me doesn't know my password neither my user account is beign used by any other person except me for editing. Anyways, do I need the confrim I own the accaunt? --Wustenfuchs 16:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see only three possibilities:
  • Someone else did in fact use your account, if only for a moment, to remove the message from this page
  • You removed the message without even reading it because you were too busy edit warring
  • You don't want to admit that you deliberately ignored it despite the evidence that you removed it yourself
I'd like to discuss that last possibility as it seems the most likely scenario to me. You keep saying maybe you did deserve the 48 hour block. You do realize that claiming someone else did the thing that it looks like you did is the only reason it was extended to indefifinte, right? Now would be a good time to tell the truth, the whole thruth, and nothing but the truth. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never stated other people removed anything. I just stated I might forgot about the yellow bar that tells you you have a new message, or someone just cklckded it while I was away. Nevertheless, I'm talking about the older message which wasn't removed and was posted here before the one you linked. The other one was a troll accusation and was removed from the noticeboard as troll accusation. I searched in history there, but had hard time finding it. However, nobody removed anything except me, but the second one message (the one you linked) isn't a problem at all. The message I'm talking about is still here (1 August section, right above the block) and was never moved. --Wustenfuchs 02:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The user that made the second warning was about Administrators' noticeboard. And finnaly I found it there - [8] It's titled "User:Wustenfuchs reported by User:92.40.253.189 (Result: )" However, it resulted in: "remvoed", as you may see here. So this message isn't problem at all. --Wustenfuchs 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm going to tell the story short. I got the first warning, the real non-troll warning. I wasn't aware of it, possibly as I was busy with editing Battle of Aleppo. Ok, so next thing that happen I got the message and a saw unsigned message I beign reported to the administrators. So yes, I wanted to see who reported me and why, but I saw the accusation was "removed", as decided by the administrator. So it was fine. I continued to edit battle of aleppo, wehn suddeny I was blocked for 48 hours. The administrator explained you have been blocked as you continued edit warring after I unlocked the article. Then I noticed the first warrning and I said sorry, I wasn't aware of the warrning, may I get the unblock, he said no. Then I said I didn't saw that I got the notification that I got this message, and one of the possibilites was that someone elase saw "You have a new message" and was curious. But nobody edited anything and removed anything except me. The next thing was - you got the indifinite block as somone took over my account. And since that moment I claim nobody took over my account as I always had control over it. --Wustenfuchs 02:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How could you have possibly removed the second warning without seeing the first warning? Wustenfuchs is clearly trying to have one's cake and eat it too. حرية (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know I just didn't. And the point isn't at all did I see or I didn't see the warnig (even though I didn't at first), but it's about some administrator thought someone else removed this certain warning which was alredy solved... why in the world do you think I would start over an discussion about the accusation that ended in my favour? Besides, I think you have smarter things to do then tryng the get me blocked. --Wustenfuchs 16:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Could not care less about you being blocked. But it doesn't seem like you have actually acknowledged doing anything wrong with regards to your explanations. حرية (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, I have 48 hours block, no problems with it. That's it. Nice talking to you though. --Wustenfuchs 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Assad

I like some of the changes you've made to the article; while I still think its missing some information, such as the creation of a North Korean-style dynasty and so on... But again, nice work, that article needs a lot of work. I've been planning to expand it for a while, but i'm still not finished with my Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, 8th of March Revolution and 1966 Syrian coup d'état, and I havn't even started with the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution article... But again, great work, and yes; I agree that the pro anti-Assad's users are bending over backward by trying to make this encyclopedia less neutral. --TIAYN (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have in plann to make it GA. But I'm having problems with the block. Yes, it also needs a lot of work, the most important section, the "Presidency" is at the same time the shortest one. I have in plann to make expansion also to make a better lead in the article. First his influence on Syria and later summary of his biography. Well, also, anti-Assad users are real some sort of idealists, thinking they gonna change the world, but really, I think that war in Syria isn't really a Civil War, but rather some sort of an agression made because of the geopolitical intrests of certain countries. --Wustenfuchs 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, people are entitled to their views.. I could have believed it there was something to support, if the regime had an ideology, or something, but the only ideology the regime has is loyalty to the al-Assad family... I could have believed it if it had happened to Cuba, Vietnam or even China, because those regimes have an ideology, they are communist, those regimes have a goal (at least officially), to establish a communist society. But Syria is a half-hearted attempt at a form of modern monarchial feudalism, just like North Korea.. Its not socialist, its not Ba'athist, its not fascist, its just nepotistic...... Again, this is my view, and even if we don't agree politically, I like your edits. The good thing with this is that we'll get a neutral view on Hafez al-Assad and his legacy...
When will you be unblocked?? --TIAYN (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, our political views don't need to be discussed anyway. Well, I hope my 48 hours block will end tommorow. However, I screwd up later while explaining why I need to get the unblock... funny thing... I'm trying to fix it now. :D --Wustenfuchs 16:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Compromised accounts, unfortunately, cannot be unblocked. Your best bet is to create a new account and abandon this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have created the new one, but this one is not compromised. I just said there was possibility that someone was reading Wikipedia as I always use "remember me" buton when loging in. Nobody has acces to my account except me. I need this account back, since I was editing with it for 4 years and made over 100 articles and 8 000 edits. New account would be pointless. --FuchsWusten (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Your unblock request

It would appear, from your latest request, that you attempted to mislead administrators by offering an explanation for your problems that you did not believe. You did not state your account was compromised; your statement was "...someone who also has access to my computer read it before I did." Read it? They would also have to remove it. Your statement intimates that your account was compromised while leaving a backdoor for denial later. Why would an editor of your experience do such a thing? I would advise that you remove the latest request and address this issue in more detail. Quickly. Tiderolls 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did it best way I could explain. And the whole sentence was if I did, which means I stated it as possibility. --Wustenfuchs 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Either you saw the warning or you did not. Tiderolls 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have saw the warning, but to late. Like I said I don't remember the yellow tape with "You have a new message". However, it is possible I forgot about the message while editing the article. So because of that I thought it is possible somone was reading Wikipedia for a shorter time, I could be a way for a minite or two, but there was no compromising of my account. The block of 48 hours is fine, but indefinet block has no reason. Nevertheless, no way my account was compromised. That's my point. --Wustenfuchs 22:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I can understand putting off addressing an orange bar while editing, that is a completely reasonable explanation. However, an editor of your experience raising the smokescreen of account compromise is very concerning. I will not deny your request based on your explanation but would advise you to remove your request and submit another that more plainly explains your actions. Regards Tiderolls 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. I'm not native English speaker so it is possible other people misunderstud me. --Wustenfuchs 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
For my part, after denying one unblock request above, and then reading this entire talk page, and Wustenfuch's comment on my own talk page, I can easily assume good faith that the bit about someone else making an edit on this account was a purely hypothetical comment. On that basis, I have no objection to reducing the block duration to the original 48 hours (which should be expired by now). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I've reduced it to the original 48 hrs. I have the feeling there was a bit of an overreaction here about the account security thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As someone who has disagreed with Wustenfuchs, this is an excellent call. Complete overreaction. AniMate 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the unblock. --Wustenfuchs 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that one of the administrators erases my User:FuchsWusten account. It was made according to the WP:COMPROMISED, and I don't need it any more. --Wustenfuchs 13:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking, accounts can't be erased. I see it's already been blocked, and its user page is marked as that of an alternative account. I'd say, just leave it at that; it does no harm and this way it will lead to the least confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there's no harm in unblocking that one. There are legitimate uses for Wikipedia:Alternative accounts, and in this instance, due to the similarity of naming, it's pretty clear that the other account can't be used to conceal sockpuppetry. If you want it unblocked for a legitimate purpose, let me know, otherwise you may as well tag it with {{doppelganger}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thx for your reply, however, I don't think I'll need it. --Wustenfuchs 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you for being a good Wikipedian, I have read the article quickly before, but now, I will read it carefully and get back to you.Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

it's deleted, can I ask you one more thing please, what does Wustenfuchs means?, again thanks for the modern way to discuss issues. Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's German for Fennec fox, also a nick name of Erwin Rommel. --Wustenfuchs 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I read your invitations on Wikipedia project

I read your invitation on Wikipedia project and I have noticed that one IP has vandalized your speciality. I just warn you of it so you can fix it. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wonder... don't those people have better things to do... I'll fix this. And thank you for your warning. --Wustenfuchs 22:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Check this *http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807

so don't put hackered reports from reuters,andtry to let it look that rebels are losing,ya they are using planes,but rebels are the one gaining land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add any ref from Reuters, however, those Reuters' sources in the article are, believe me, reliable and they aren't hacked. However, I'll also like you don't add your fan comments here. Rebels are encircled, and if we consider their readiness and efficency, it's unlikly they will brake the ring, that is, it is likely that majority of them will end up killed or captured. --Wustenfuchs 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree this time the regime is facing defeat,because the area around is under rebel control,they Failed to enter in and alot of military obsevers stated that rebels have big chance to win this one (third time (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).

Um sorry, but don't you see that battle is going to end soon. They are encircled and low on ammunition. They are in the ring, which means they will get no supplies or reinforcements. Their commander was also killed yesteday. And please, sign your self when leaving posts. --Wustenfuchs 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

REBELS CONTROL the Anadan checkpoint which allows them to get ammunition (third time (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Aleppo (2012). 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. Mdann52 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

About the Kurds

http://www.rudaw.net/english/science/columnists/5063.html Explains they did not want FSA in their neighborhood because that would cause conflict with government forces. Looks like they want neither - but don't want to fight. I think We should just remove the Kurds altogether - considering they didn't fight to take over their neighborhoods, nor do they want eitherside in their territory, but at same time they don't want to fight eitherside. Sopher99 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, please propose this to the talk page. When we solve the problem there it will be fine. Right now, I would gladly discuss this, but it's 4:17 AM here, after few drinks outside I need to sleep now. But I will discuss this when I wake up... --Wustenfuchs 02:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Salahadine

Like I just said on the talk page of the article. I'm gonna wait a few more hours, but its already been 15 hours since the news was claimed on. If nobody else reports it I'm removing it from the article due to undueweight being given to that specific news. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fighter Pilot

Just as a note, the interviewer makes the remark about the pilot being old, the expert says absolutely nothing about the pilot. Jeancey (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. --Wustenfuchs 18:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I would like to just point out that you did, in fact, violate the 3RR just then. I'm not gonna try and report you or anything, just letting you know so that you are a bit more careful in the future. Jeancey (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Assad

Points taken ... I'd intended to integrate the stuff in that PDF with information from Assad's NYT obit. Working on it now ... HangingCurveSwing for the fence 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army edit war

Your opinion on this issue [9][10] would be appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, but at this point I'm dealing with an un-compromising editor. It would also come a long way for you to reply to his reasoning on removing the sourced paragraph on the killings of the postal workers in the talk section second paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm Jauerback. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mercenary without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Assad

You have, for some weird reason, omitted Assad's overthrow of Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and the classical Ba'athists, and you have written (for reasons I cannot understand) that in 1958, there existed a "Assad's Ba'ath Party"... It became Assad's Ba'ath Party in the 1970s, and he became important following the 8th March of Revolution; before that he was a nobody in party politics. --TIAYN (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that. I'm using what I can from sources that I added in the article. --Wüstenfuchs 01:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Flag of Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Henri Gouraud
William Klinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gorica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Serbia

I am not contending that all Serb sources are unreliable. What I am, however, contending is that using a Serb source on Kosovo specifically is not kosher. Using the media of a country that denies the very existence of another to describe shady activities in that other should raise a red flag. You think we should use only Georgian media to report on Abkhazia and South Ossetia? That's basically what you're saying. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Hello,

It appears that you have violated WP:3RR on Syrian Civil War and have engaged in edit warring. For example, see here, here, here, and here.

This is a warning so you can read up on 3RR and make sure not to repeat it. Further behavior of this kind may lead to sanctions. Saying that you believe the edits you made, all of which reinserted the same reverted material, is a good edit does not apply, as other editors obviously think otherwise. Instead, feel free to discuss on the talk page.

Thank you,

--Activism1234 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The map

You brought up many points in your discussion on my page, I will answer them all.
First you mention the Christians of Syrian Kurdistan, and I did show them on the map! They are mostly located in Hasakah City (where I did show their presence) and they are also present in Malikiyah city ( where I also showed their presence) I guess I only forgot to show them in-and-around Qamishli which I will fix in the newest update. But please note that the Christians of Syrian Kurdistan do not form a majority in the cities I mentioned (which is why I put them as red streaks rather than solid red areas).
Second point you brought up was the Yazidis of Syrian Kurdistan. Let me just tell you that Yazidis make-up less than 100k of all of Syria's population (or around 4% of all Syria's 2.3 million Kurds) their number is so insignificant, and their area is so small (right on the western border of Sinjar Mountain) that I simply include them with Sunni Kurds while specifically mentioning in the map key that not all Kurds are Sunni (I mention that some are Yazidi). And If you really wanted me to add all these small sects, then I would have around 15 or so (considering Syria's diverse community). So no worries here, especially considering I included the Yazidi territory with the other Kurdish territories.
Then you started talking about Christians in south of the country, even though I included them in my last update to the map before you removed my map from the Syria article. Anyways, I do include them in eastern Suwaida province. But as for Daraa province I did some research and it turns out that they are almost exclusively located in the city of Khabab in north central Daraa province (which I also had in my last update to the map before you removed it). But other than that the Christians of Daraa have very small presence in other cities in Daraa where the Sunni Arabs are over 90%!
Then you mentioned the Christians in Northwestern coastal area, and I do include them there if you just bother to look at the map!
The next point you made was that I overreached the area inhabited by Druze near the Golan, but the fact is I didn't! They actually do inhabit all that area near mount Hermon! And besides, the new map you gave me does not even show the Golan heights' religious make-up! It simply shows the golan heights as a grey area occupied by Israel, as if no one lives there!
Finally, you said that the Deir Az-Zour area is "full" of Christians. I have no clue who told you that, especially since the map that you provided doesn't even show any Christians in Deir Azzour province, but Christians (specifically Armenians) are only found in few thousands in the city of Deir Az-zour, which I DID show on my map by putting three red streaks over Deir Azzour city.
After all of this, I would like to mention that I did update the image (for the fourth time now!) please take a good look at it before you start removing it from articles. I'm actually surprised that you haven't attacked some of the other ethnoreligious maps of Syria that were previously present on WP which were extremely inaccurate, it seems that you only focus all your criticism on my map for some reason. Anyways, if you have any more points to talk about then please go back to my talk page as I check it frequently. To see the new updated file see File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png. Thanks and good bye. Moester101 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Enver Čolaković

Transfered to Enver Čolaković discussion per WP:TPG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps of Syrian civil war

I have reverted your removal of this map [11] that is clearly sourced. Please provide for discussion first in the talk page why you think it is not correct before reverting this or even removing the main article link on sectarianism without proper explanation.[12] Gryffindor (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 (2)

Your addition to Battle of Aleppo (2012) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. diff ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New page

I started today a new page about the current counter insurgency operations that the Syrian Army is wagging against the rebels in Damascus area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Insurgency_in_Rif_Damashq

However user Sopher99 who apparently is following me in some way has filled a speedy deletion proposal for dubious reason. If you are interested you can give your opinion on the talk page. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental rollback *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the accidental rollback *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. No problem. --Wüstenfuchs 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wüstenfuchs. You have new messages at WP:DRN.
Message added 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Hafez al-Assad

I can help you, but I can't help you before friday, so just wait... Take a look at the Michel Aflaq (which is a GA) and the 8th of March Revolution - they are not great articles, but they are decent enough. --TIAYN (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'll check those two articles also. And thanks. --Wüstenfuchs 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dževad Karahasan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern literature (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) 11:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SANA

We need a solution for the SANA problem or the anti-SANA editors won't stop demanding its removal. I propose that we summarise all of the SANA reports in just 2-3 paragraphs. Without the long wording. By summarising just in which areas they conducted the attacks during the continued offensive period, who they eliminated, what they claimed destroyed etc. That way, the government claims still remain but the article won't be 75 percent SANA as the anti-SANA editors have argued. I have proposed the same thing to Daniel. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, as I see it, there are 9 large SANA paragraphs in the continued offensive section. On the 12th, 17th, 18th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th and 29th of August. You got any suggestions on how to proceed? EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's enough, we cut down on 5,200+ bytes of information. If people still got a problem with it than...I don't know. EkoGraf (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think so to... good work. --Wüstenfuchs 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You too. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regionalism and Bosniak nationalism (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) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive_5&oldid=1139343511"