User talk:Wüstenfuchs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Your GA nomination of Ante Pavelić

The article Ante Pavelić you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ante Pavelić 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. I am sorry...Kebeta (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Cyrillic

As I replied you on the talk page already: learn first how to search. To search for phrases, you must include them in quotation marks. Various search engines also have keywords which eliminate false positives, such as "Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic" bing matched against "Croatian Cyrillic" - these are two different things. Most of the hits that your search produces are simply wrong and irrelevant. Finally, due to your history of nationalistically biased editing, you should refrain from unilaterally making such controversial changes in big articles. Even in Croatian sources (and I'm a well-educated Croatian, so I should know), the most common name for the script is bosančica. Forcing the "Croatian Cyrillic" name reeks of certain territorial/cultural pretensions.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

Please take your sources to the talk page rather than WP:edit warring, as you have been at Bosnian Cyrillic . If you continue, you may be WP:blocked for disruption. If you do not receive an adequate hearing on the talk page, you can request help through WP:dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the award - I appreciate it! Farscot (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mladen Lorkovic

I would appreciate it if you could explain your edits in your edit summaries so I don't have to keep the page on my watchlist and monitor it. If the edits are valid then I don't have to rv them. Let's work together. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Đuro Pucar

You should keep the office titles in the infobox, seeing that it's only two offices it will be fine. Only the persons most important offices should be included in the infobox, and if there are very many important ones create a political office section of some kind. See below (from the Alexei Kosygin article):

Use this infobox if there are way to many offices. All offices, and titles should be added to the article. Question, how did you track me down? :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't remember you :p Anyhow, just swing by if you have any questions; I'll help you whenever needed! :) Again, sorry that I didn't remember you :p --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to copyedit those articles. If you are unable, add them here; if placed there a copyeditor will copyedit them. --TIAYN (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To take one example I added the Ante Pavelić at the Guild of Copy Editors request page, and it was copyedited. --TIAYN (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Remember, if it's possible you should create redirects; example, the title of the article is "Hasan Brkić", create a redirect called "Hasan Brkic" without the special C for instance. --TIAYN (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again

I understand that English is not your primary language, so I am going to have a go at correcting the syntax and grammar, again, at the Mladen Lorkovic article. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox

Several times now (example) you have placed a non-free image on this template, even though DashBOT has removed it twice. Per WP:NFCC #9, the use of non-free images outside of actual articles is not permitted. This means templates may not host non-free images. I've once again removed File:Mikulic left.jpg from the template. Please do not restore it. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Search

Wustenfuchs, the way in which the Google test in question is refined and narrowed down is very standard. Wikipedia is required to use the most common name. The fact that thousands of sources use the name "National Liberation War" for the conflict will not be disregarded because you "insist" that I should search for "Yugoslav National Liberation War" and simply "proclaim" the search invalid. The closing admin will simply look at the link, quickly read for himself, and invariably come to the same conclusion. Its just plain obvious that the hits refer almost exclusively to the subject matter.

That said, the way any false hits are handled in these sort of things is that we exclude them from the search, and thus refine the research. For example, I'm sure you know adding "-Something" on Google will exclude "Something" from the search results. It is my "interest" to remove any false hits and refine the search further, since I know it will still be dozens of times more common that any other title, and the research would be even more reliable (we're talking about a more common name by an order of magnitude.)

Therefore, if you really have found some false hits (and are not just assuming that there must be some), please post them on my user talkpage and we can get more accurate numbers. The whole thing will, at the very most, take off a few hundred hits. Though I am fully aware that if you're just opposing for ideological reasons or whatever, that probably won't really matter to you in the first place, so.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Aimone

Perhaps you should read the lengthy and complicated discussion here. "Aimone" is the most common name for this person, without a shadow of a doubt. As you might imagine, the fact that he waited to become "Tomislav II" for two years did not really affect this person's perspective in sources.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

minor edits

Hi again. You again marked an edit that changes article content in a visible and non-trivial manner as minor. Please stop doing that. Yes, a single sentence compared to a lot of sentences is minor, but that is now what the minor edits on Wikipedia are. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Famous Croats

OK. You've had your fun - listing assorted genocidal killers and unclean Croats for the infobox. The purpose is to produce consensus, not derail discussions. Enough's enough.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Faust

While I fully support your move to Faust Vrančić (the article's original title), you should know that you will likely be reverted very soon, and that the task you've undertaken is a very difficult one. There were two Italian move proposals you should read: the first one that failed is in the articles' talkpage archives (here), the other is on the talkpage itself. In spite of my best efforts the second one was successful thanks to the support of a (rather incompetent and vengeful) admin. See also the March 2011 subsection for the brief version of events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to help you. From tommorow I'll be spending most of my day at the hospital, so, providing the faculty does not fall apart tommorow :), I will only be able to edit from time to time. And now you've also managed to instantly discredit yourself with that Mile Budak and Francetić nonsense. You're not fascist, I know, and you really, really don't need that sort of stuff on Wiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Believe it. The first thing you are going to hear at the RM is that you are a "rabid Croatian nationalist" out to do some "Croatian nationalist POV-pushing". It was what they called me, with my editing record, so what do you think they'll say to a guy that promotes Ustaše ministers for the Croats infobox? But never mind. Good luck. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well its an undiscussed move, what did you expect? However a move like that takes some preparation, some planning. Gathering sources, preliminary discussion, talking to people seeing how they feel, etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina

I think it's a good idea. What do you think about Karadzic and Mladic there? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Petar II Petrović-Njegoš/FAQ, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is my last revert. I hope that it is yours also. Without agreement on talk page, nothing else matters. STOP reverting. Thanks. WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GA John D. Rockefeller

I have placed the article on hold so that you can address several concerns. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do we stand on the GA review? Thanks Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we work together to wrap up the John D. Rockefeller review? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear that you have edited the article for the past 4 or 5 days. Do you want to continue? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If I don't hear from you in 24 hours, I will have to fail the review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We are making progress. Racepacket (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "more sources" tag from the article. There is still one [citation needed] tag that should be addressed, and then I am ready to pass the article. Thank you for your hard work. Racepacket (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia

Why are you edit warring on the infobox to have 9 pictures instead of 12? You plainly don't have consensus. Stop it and get consensus.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I see no reason for 8 people there if they want 12.. Additionally, let's avoid war criminals there as we did on Croats. WHY Dujic for heaven's sake? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're trying to depict the Serbs of Croatia, at least in part, as Chetniks? And, ironically, that concept and goal may actually coincide with those of the Chetnik supporters here on Wiki, who regard them as "good guys" (in spite of a mountain of sources and evidence). Both the Chetniks and the Ustase were organizations with ethnic cleansing as open policy. War criminals from neither of them should not be included. Ironically, instead of giving me a hand in dispelling the myth of Chetniks as "heroes" that is being pushed on Wiki very forcefully, you're actually aiding that point of view by essentially proposing Chetnik promotion. I really do not think that is your intention? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ivica Đikić

The article Ivica Đikić 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. The nominator also raised the following concern:

Unsourced

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. GregorB (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

andric

The croats have ivo andric in their infobox. If he can be there, then what is preventing him from being in the infobox of serbs or bosniaks? (LAz17 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).

Well, sorry if it offended you in any way. Don't invite me to discussions about who should or should not be on the bosniak infobox in the future. (LAz17 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. No such user (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Until you demonstrate that you are aware that the sensitivities of living peoples are of utmost consideration when editing one of the most viewed websites existing, it would be unwise to allow you to continue editing; populating an ethnic related article with the image of a notorious Fascist dictator - and especially when the ethnic orientation is disuputed - is at best disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2011 (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:

Everybody is a bit notorious, no rule says we can't add image of notorious dictators, so I brake no rule. You probably didn't read article Georgians and saw Stalin in their infobox, and Stalin is saint? I heard he was a bad chap. Neutrality is problem of Wikipedia, even their admins don't fallow this rule. How ever Pavelić notorious or not is, no gulit was found on him, ther are no proofs he commanded execution of bad things (like ethnic cleansing). Serbs don't like this chap, but we can apply this on singers, writers, ther are people who dislike Bogdan and his songs, and he is maybe impairing reputation of Bunjevci... Another brake of rule was made when this User:No such user removed sourced information.

Decline reason:

More bad wiki-lawyering is not going to get you unblocked. Neither will blaming others for your problems. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

After being inactive at Wikipedia for a longer period I made a decision to not make similiar edits as I did back ther at artice Bunjevci, that edit of mine was reason I got banned. I was editing wikipedia for 2 and half years, so I done great number of usefould contributions there, so I whant to get back to editing, that is, work on edits that aren't so "touching" to others. I understand I screwed up, but as I said, I done alot before edits on Bunjevci and wrote nice number of usefoul articles.--Wustenfuchs 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked per your agreement to the conditions below, and permission of the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, you have been on Wikipedia since 2008 and this is your first block. The admins might consider giving you another chance. Can you explain what you can do differently in the future to avoid this kind of problem? I suggest that you might consider agreeing to a one-revert-per day restriction (WP:1RR) for six months. EdJohnston (talk)

I have just spent a considerable amount of time studying your editing history, and reading administrators' noticeboard discussions in which you have taken part or which have mentioned you. It is clear that you have an extensive history of editing tendentiously, ignoring consensus, and trying to use Wikipedia to gain coverage of fascistic people. I am close to declining your unblock request, but instead I will simply say that in my opinion you will have to give a very good answer to EdJohnston's question if you wish to be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, look JamesWatson, i did edit fascist people articles, like Ante Pavelić, you can see how article looked like before my edits and after. My edits resulted in improving the quality of article and expansion of the article. Adding images of him at infobox is not big deal, you can see my other edits also, and I must admit, I love WW2 history, and so I'm interested in fascism and nazism and communism. I wrote articles about communists too, even though I don't remember I wrote any article about some fascist? Or maybe I did, I just don't remember. I'm fascist like I'm communist if so. My political oppinion is important to Wikipedia?

Well, EdJohnston, I can be watched what, I can be under control for some period, I had in minde writing few articles (wich have nothing to do with WW2 at all), since I'm collector I had in minde to write few articles considering that (medals, uniforms and such), second I saw recently few articles on wich I'm able to made contribution and to expand them. And I'll make a promise here, I won't contribute on less important things (like images on the infobox), and those less important things are the things wich led me to further unpleasent discussion with other users, so I won't need that. I'll write on more neutral articles.--Wustenfuchs 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is holding up action is the lack of evidence you will behave differently in the future. From your statement above: "Everybody is a bit notorious, no rule says we can't add image of notorious dictators, so I brake no rule." Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you stick to this particular opinion, it's unlikely that any admin will wish to unblock you. Edit-warring to insert the image of a notorious fascist is unlikely to persuade people of your good intentions. If you insist that Ante Pavelić is a good representative of the Bunjevci people, nobody can persuade you otherwise. On the other hand we don't have to unblock you either. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bunjevci infobox is reason why I got banned, soon after I asked for unblock, wich was refused for that sentence and "bad wiki lawyering", if I think same why as two months before then I wouldn't ask for unblock at this moment. Like I said, I'll contribute on more important things then image of infoboxes and I can be under control for 6 months by admins, so you can see I won't damage Wikipedia further. If I do, then you can always give me new block. How can I prove that I won't make further damage, I can only say you have my word I won't but if I do, block me forever, and if you don't bealive me, you don't need to give me unblock. I was just thinking that I can, as expirienced user, make better contribution here, and I think that I wrote nice number of articles wich are useful, only thing because I was banned were conflits over small things, and now I say I won't make so much problems there. I'm nobodies representative here, neither I whant to promote fascism or any ideology.--Wustenfuchs 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a solution: accept a topic ban on subjects/people related to facism (broadly construed) for 6 months. That, or abide my WP:OFFER, and 6 months from now come back and prove you have not evaded a block and have made positive edits to another project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would gladly accept first solution. --Wustenfuchs 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have been asked to comment here. First, if another admin decides to lift the block, under whatever basis, then I have no objection; I trust the sysop is operating to the same remit as me, to do the best for the project as they are capable. That said, I would make a second comment regarding this editor and the offer made to unblock the account. The sanction I imposed was in respect of an ethnic/national article unrelated to fascism, but where a historical fascist leader was added as an example of a notable member of the subject - as although accurate it was insensitive toward that peoples sensibilities. I suggest that any topic ban would need to ensure that fascist (or other notorious association) individuals are not placed in articles where there is the possibility that such examples may offend those who identify with the subject. (That is not to say they cannot be added, just not by this editor for the duration of the topic ban.) However, as said, whatever basis is agreed for an unblock is fine by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I won't contribute on fascist articles, that is articles related to fascism, or nazism and similiar subjects, and like I said earlier I won't contribute on less imporant things, like images on the infoboxes. Such small things give me a ban so, I'll try to be smarter next time.--Wustenfuchs 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I perceive you are agreeing to accept a topic ban from subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed) for six months. You will also not modify the infoboxes of any articles, and you will not alter the lists of notable individuals of any group of people for which we have an article. One example is that you won't be able to edit the article on Ante Pavelić so long as the ban lasts. An admin may choose to enter this ban at WP:RESTRICT to be sure it is remembered. Please confirm you're agreeing to this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Wustenfuchs 20:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who arguably triggered your indefinite block, I would like to offer an olive branch, (though just one, not in fasces). Of course, that does not mean that I like you, but I think that you deserve a second chance. No such user (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I gladly accept. And why would you like me, you won't marry me...--Wustenfuchs 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Goran Hadžić

whatsw with these unexplained/sunsourcd addiitions [1][2][3]Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your topic ban

Wustenfuchs, on 11th July 2011 your indefinite ban was lifted and you agreed to a topic ban for 6 months from subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed). I note you have recently made a number of edits to Crusaders (guerilla), including changing it's name from Crusaders (Ustaša). If you reflect on this I think you will agree that this is in breach of your topic ban. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in discusion page, ther is no sign that this article is part of WP:WikiProject Fascism or similiar. And as I remember categories put it as anti-communist. So, I thought I brake no rule by this, but if I risk my contribution here on Wiki, then I won't edit any more. --Wustenfuchs 17:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It has category Ustaše... didn't see that. Well, I didn't made significant changes, so... and I won't edit this article any more. Is it ok?--Wustenfuchs 17:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs - the topic ban was for subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed). wikt:Broadly wikt:construed in this context means loosely or liberally interpreted. I think you would find it impossible to argue convincingly that an article about a Ustasha post-war splinter group was not related to facism. There is nothing in your topic ban about specific WP categories. The article actually had "ustasa" in the title when you edited it! A lot of your previous problems related to Ustasa and other Balkan fascists and crypto-fascists. I have notified the admin who arranged this topic ban with you for his input.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how you reconcile your action with your statement above "I won't contribute on fascist articles, that is articles related to fascism, or nazism and similiar subjects"? It seems on the face of it improbable that you were unaware of the nature of its subject. (And in the unlikely event that you were unaware of it, what were you doing making such a change to the title of the article without knowing what you were doing?) Can you explain why your apparent failure to stick to your undertaking should not result in the indefinite block being restored? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that related to fascism was that article has wikiproject templates related to fascism or to have fascist catagories. I didn't saw "Ustaše" category, so I thought I'm free to edit the article, and so change name of it. This is only article related to fascim I edited since I got unbanned from Wiki. I made this mistake because I didn't really understand this. Related to fascism for me was to have fascist-related catagories or have those templates in discussion page. I was wrong. And text of article was made unchanged, I added infobox, that's the truth and changed name of it... well, changing name doesn't sound so little but... --Wustenfuchs 21:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I find it odd that you should think that an article doesn't count as related to fascism unless it has a tag saying so. However, as long as it doesn't happen again I suppose we can move on and leave this incident behind. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad if so. --Wustenfuchs 11:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

write edit summaries

When you make edits like this one, do leave an edit summary. To be clear, I think that's a generic, useful edit and don't consider it a violation of your topic ban even if a link destination is related to the topic, I'm just taking the opportunity to promote the use of the fine edit summary field. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I will leave edit summaries in future. --Wustenfuchs 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War review

Sorry, I was unsure whether you were following it. Could you reiterate any points outstanding? I didn't think there were any, but I may have missed some. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I see that you have recently been active in editing in connection with the article Spanish Civil War. While you have not, as far as I can see, edited that article, you have certainly edited on the subject, in connection with the article. I was surprised to see this, in view of your topic ban on "subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)", since many of the significant members of the rebellion, including Franco, are generally regarded as fascists, and words such as "fascist" "fascism" and "antifascist" occur over twenty times in the article, and "Nazi" occurs five times. Your agreement to this restriction is quite clear, as you indicated here, here, and here. Since your indefinite block was lifted only as a consequence of that agreement, and was quite clearly dependent on it, you are clearly in breach of the conditions of your unblock. I did consider first asking you whether there was any reason why you thought that the block should not be reinstated, but you have already been warned about a previous breach of the terms of your unblock, which you defended on grounds which were questionable, to say the least. Thus you have already had your chance to explain why your breaches of the terms should not lead to the reinstatement of the block, have been clearly warned, and have nevertheless continued. It is also notable that you previously used the excuse that you for some reason thought that "subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)" meant "article has wikiproject templates related to fascism or to have fascist catagories" (sic). The article Spanish Civil War has a link to Portal:Fascism, so even if we were to accept your own rather strange criterion you were in breach of the conditions of your unblock. Consequently I am reinstating your indefinite block. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't edit the article. That was deal. I only asked for sourced informations, that is all... It is GA review, we haven't discuss this. --Wustenfuchs 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that "a topic ban from subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)" can be construed as applying only to articles. However, if another administrator thinks that the ban may have been intended to be interpreted in that narrow way then perhaps they may consider an unblock. They might like to consult the previous unblocking administrator (EdJohnston) as to how the unblocking condition was to be understood, if there is any doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But you all can see that I asked only for sourced informations, and I haven't edited the article. GA review is more like talk page. I made not a single edit on the article, and I was neutral in my review. You can contact the adminsitrator who blocked me first time. --Wustenfuchs 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I accept that your posts about this were not particularly controversial, but to me "no editing on subjects related to fascism" means "no editing on subjects related to fascism", not "no editing on subjects related to fascism unless you only do so in certain restricted ways, such as only editing articles not tagged as being about fascism, only editing pages about articles about fascism, not the articles themselves, etc etc". Nevertheless, I will consult EdJohnston, who unblocked you, for a second opinion. You suggest asking LessHeard vanU, who blocked you originally. I don't see that administrator as having any particular relevance to the unblocking conditions, but since you have suggested it I will mention it to them too. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, pardon me, I ment unblocking administrator, sorry. But if you contact him, my blocking admin, it will be fine, but I will look ridiculous couse I whant contatc with him for no reason... --Wustenfuchs 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've removed my message to the blocking admin, but I have contacted the unblocking admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have obligation to remind you that I promised not to "contribute on fascist articles, that is articles related to fascism, or nazism and similiar subjects". So later, you made condition that I won't countribute on fascist-related subjects, wich was synonim for articles to me, as I understood. Please, understand that, take that in consideration. See also my archive 3, so you can see whole text.

When I said subjects there, I ment similiar ideologies as fascism or nazism, that is articles with similiar subjects. --Wustenfuchs 12:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "I won't contribute on fascist articles, that is articles related to fascism, or nazism and similiar subjects". Following that, EdJohnston wrote "I perceive you are agreeing to accept a topic ban from subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed) for six months", and you responded "Agreed". That looks to me as though you were agreeing to the latest version that EdJohnston had proposed, which was not restricted to articles. However, even if that was not your intention, it seems to me that that was the condition that EdJohnston had in mind when he unblocked you. Evidently English is not your native langauge, and perhaps you really did think that "subjects" meant "articles", though I am not sure in that case what you thought "a topic ban on subjects/people related to fascism" meant: "a topic ban on articles/people related to fascism" does not seem to make much sense. It seems to me that you are trying to find loopholes. The first one, taking "subjects or people related to fascism" as meaning "articles related to fascism which have a template for a WikiProject on fascism or a tag for a fascism category" was, frankly, absurd. Arguing about whether you agreed to the ban in the form in which EdJohnston proposed it or in a more restricted form is perhaps not quite so absurd, but it is unconstructive. It seems to me that the unblock was conditional on your not editing on anything related to fascism, but if EdJohnston did not intend it that way then he can and no doubt will unblock you. If that was what EdJohnston meant, but you not what you agreed to, then you never agreed to the conditions under which an unblock was offered, so you should never have been unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood that "subject" means "subject of the article", nothing more. If subject of the article is fascism or nazism, I won't contribute etc. That is what I ment whole time. But what I didn't know is that this refers to GA reviwes or talk pages. Because I think that I can't really promote anything there since I can't edit the article, so I thought it was fine, ok. No tricks there, trust me. --Wustenfuchs 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

From the plain meaning of our discussion, you are expected to stay away from Fascism in all its forms, both on articles and talk pages, for six months. Performing a GA review on the Spanish Civil War, while it is a laudable project, technically violates your restriction. If you confirm that you agree to the ban as I proposed it, I am willing to propose that you be unblocked. This would require you to abstain from GA reviews on articles that mention Fascism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One more time again, agreed, I'm sorry for all this mess I do. After this, you should erase my review and inform Grandiose that I will no longer review that article. --Wustenfuchs 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I've got it. I would have appreciated a note earlier on in this, though, particularly if I had not had this watchlisted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked you. It seems this was all a misunderstanding. I hope you can now get on with editing without further problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, it would be really helpful if you complete the review in the next couple of days, now that it's been open so long. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, I'm looking for a second reviewer, I hope you don't mind. JamesBWatson indicated it was unlikely you would be able to do it. How close to passing it were you? It might interest the second reviewer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's fine. I needed just few references and article would pass as GA. --Wustenfuchs 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

James D. Watson GAN

This is to notify you that I have completed the GA review for an article you nominated. It was not listed as a Good Article this time. For more information, please see the review. Feel free to renominate the article when you believe it meets the GA criteria Jebus989^✰ 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Croatophile

The article Croatophile has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Timbouctou (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just a friendly reminder to use edit summaries wherever it makes sense, particularly for non-minor edits. In your last 50 edits I couldn't count more than 5 edit summaries, excepting reverts and page creations. Edit summaries are part of encyclopedic (team)work, just as article content is. GregorB (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll write them in future. --Wustenfuchs 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, this change on Milan Bandić was executed as 3 minor and 6 non-minor edits, with zero edit summaries in total. A referenced statement critical of the subject ("Some journalists have connected this event to his attempt to buy a city-owned social housing apartment.") was removed from the article in the process. Now, I don't believe that you're deliberately doing it in order to pass contentious changes under the radar, but that is exactly how it might appear to other editors - please take this into consideration. GregorB (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

again with the fascist stuff

Sigh. AFAIR you were given a half-year topic ban for this in the summer. Certainly exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a bunch of right-wing Croatian sources don't count as such in relation to a right-wing Serbian topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not acctualy fascist stuff, since it is anti-fascist uprising, so... --Wustenfuchs 19:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling people Chetniks during WWII is editing related to fascism, so please steer clear to be safe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Milan Bandić

Unfortunately, after manual and automatic checking, it turns out that there are 29 dead links in the references. If not fixed, this alone is going to result in a quickfail at the GAN. There's still a chance to fix it before the review begins, but it looks like a tough one. GregorB (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done this using Checklinks - this is apparently what many reviewers use. The article is tagged with {{dead link}} accordingly. Generally speaking, I think that all Vjesnik links are now dead. GregorB (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavs

Your edits here have been reverted again, but not by me. I am not really qualified to arbitrate on which version is correct but it may help your case if you were to avoid making such a huge reduction. I leave it to you now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think another revert is vandalism, but an edit war certainly. Please be aware two parties are required for it to be an edit war. I don't think the talk page gives any information which satisfies other users about your proposal and besides, you haven't added to it for several weeks. I cannot guarantee that the article will remain as you have left it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I warned the user. I would be glad if I could see any explanation at talk page, but I don't. Such measures might be required. --Wustenfuchs 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On another note - are you able to add to the activity on Greater Yugoslavia? It's up for deletion but you started the Croatian article. I can't find any sources on this subject; it all sounds plausible but without sources, the page will go. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I think is that this article was imagination of this user. Such thing doesn't exist, I just translated the article to Croatian. It needs to be erased. --Wustenfuchs 14:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)