User talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wüstenfuchs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Wüstenfuchs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.
I redirected Crusaders (Ustasha) to Ustaše as you were obviously unaware that this page already existed.
Again, welcome! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Lavoslav Horvat
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Lavoslav Horvat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Gospoda has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
The deletion of content with reliable sources that do not correspond to your political POV by editwar, is considered as vandalism. --Otberg (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Svetozar Boroević. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Infobox picture (Croats)
Hi Wustefuchs! Regarding the image of Croats in the Infobox, I was trying to include two persons from sport and at the same time two women. As two more space were left opened, I have put Tito and Tuđman as they represented Croats for the last 50 years or so. Well, I know that they are both controversial, but they were Croats...Since this is controversial issue, maybe the best thing would be to get some agreement throughout WikiProject Croatia. Consensus about that image (and persons) would bring stability for the future. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WP Croatia todo list
Just dropping by to say: nice job shooting down the items from the WP Croatia article todo list... GregorB (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Talk:Bosniaks in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Croatian Chamber of Economy, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www2.hgk.hr/en/about_cce.asp.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Croatian Chamber of Economy
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Croatian Chamber of Economy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Top Jim (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sources
Hi, regarding sources at Talk:Ante_Starčević#Parents, I hope you now know to cite sources correctly in the future. I hope you can contribute productively in the future, but as said on the talk page, misrepresenting sources is dishonest and there won't be another warning on this. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
minor edit
Please feel free not to mark edits such as this one as minor. :) But at the same time, do provide edit summaries. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovina general election, 2010
I see you are from/itnrest in Balkan politics. I was wondering if you could help clean up and source the bosnia election page?(Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).
- cool no rush. Its a litle messy although it has potential ;)(Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).
- Mainly the result section (although if you speak one of the local languages you could perhaps update the campaign section with more)
- Of the results: the state presidency looks good; state parliaments needs a cleanup/update (im not familiar so i cant really do it myself); entity parliaments looks good; and canton parliaments would need a clean up/review too.(Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).
Re:Chetniks
Wustefuchs, you can rest assured you are barely scratching the surface of a massive problem caused by pro-Chetnik sentiment in Serbia, which seems to be far less reserved than the equivalent pro-Ustaše sentiment around here. In spite of a MASS of published sources, a number of users have been lobbying for the removal of all information pertaining to Draža Mihailović's (very well documented) collaboration with both the Italians, Germans, and fellow Nedić regime Serbs. Not only this, but the Chetniks as a whole, well known and incredibly well documented to have been involved with the Axis on numerous levels since early 1942 on, are being pushed into the Allies(!) of all places (as you can see now).
I on my part have generally done some extensive research on WWII Yugoslavia, and have come upon numerous sources describing in detail in mass-scale collaboration of the Chetnik movement (particularly with the Italians). I have mostly summed-up my findings in a fully-sourced section of the Chetniks article [1], which would be a good place to become more acquainted with the issue. Though the fact that the Chetnik side is held exclusively by a few select Serbian users should be telling enough. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- User direktor, please demonstrate one edit of mine that has to do with any of this complete desinformation that you are saying here to Wustefuchs. Please! Also, can you please make a connection between me and this "massive pro-Chetnik feeling in Serbia"? Also, how is it possible that you have a "MASS of published sources" but you end up using mostly 2 (Tomašević, a Tito-period historian from Split, and Cohen, not even a historian) and hardly even those are capable to demonstrate what you want? Doesn´t sound a "MASS of sources" at all. If so, why is so important to keep Tomašević? If, as you say, there is a MASS of sources... "Incredibly well documented"? Cohen, or Tomašević? Or your German officers reports, that ended up saying quite the oposite of what you wanted... It´s strange, and feels good to see you at least admiting that the collaboration that occured was with Italians mostly, not Germans, as you insistently desinformed for months. Either you didn´t knew this because you lacked information, either you purpously ignored this, which one is? And the link you gave from the Chetnik article is your masterpiece, right? Do you really beleave is NPOV? Please answer to this so I can keep your answer to this for future record. Can I ask you just one small favour direktor? Can you please explain to me your last sentence ("...telling enough")? Sorry, perhaps my level 3 english, but I can´t quite understand it well. Please? P.S.: Wutefuchs, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion at Yugoslav Front
FYI, the idea of renaming/returning the article to Yugoslavia in World War II has been presented as a third option at the the move discussion for Yugoslav Front.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edits rv as POV and unsourced. If you want to add text you must provide a valid source. Better English language grammar and syntax also, but I would be happy to help in the latter regard. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
GA review: Vyacheslav Molotov
Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciated. Are there anymore problems? I've fixed the reference and picture problem, can you pass the article as GA now or are there more problems? --TIAYN (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- There will be no editwars, I promise! :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning you
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Maria Pavelić. Thank you. The anonymous editor who initiated this has also posted here, which I think is a better venue. In my opinion what needs to happen is one of you needs to file a request for comment. It's a good way to get some outside, neutral opinions and should stop the edit-warring. AniMate 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Slow-motion Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in a slow-motion edit war on Maria Pavelić . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
GA Review: Fyodor Kulakov
I'm finished. --TIAYN (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Has the article passed? --TIAYN (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Democratization and revolution in the USSR, 1985-1991, p. 231 by historian Jerry F. Hough. It 's reliable. --TIAYN (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is next to the text... --TIAYN (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of German resistance
The article German resistance you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:German resistance for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)