User talk:23 editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Philip J. Cohen[edit]

G'day 23, I am going to AGF here, on the basis that we seem to be working pretty well together where our interests coincide and have been keeping things balanced on WWI in Yugoslavia articles. I see that (back in May last year) you were involved in some of this utter nonsense on the Philip J. Cohen article, which I have been trying to sort out over the last few days. I have now obtained a copy of Israeli (2013), and the content of the article that is sourced from that book is extremely skewed. Taken as a whole, Israeli, if anything, agrees with Cohen, rather than disagreeing with him. In most cases, if not all, Israeli praises Cohen's work, he really doesn't denigrate it, describing it as (and I'm paraphrasing) as "definitively demonstrating the involvement of Nedic and others in the Orthodox Church as aware and supportive of the German plan to exterminate Jews, and not loathe to lend a hand when asked", for example. I have removed some of the really egregious stuff, which has been cherry-picked from footnotes which have been commented on negatively by Israeli, and do not reflect Israeli's actual conclusions. My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood your edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Visoki Dečani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emin Xhinovci you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci[edit]

The article Emin Xhinovci you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Emin Xhinovci for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emin Xhinovci[edit]

The article Emin Xhinovci you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Emin Xhinovci for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Emin Xhinovci[edit]

Hello,

Your Good Article was nominated for DYK, and has been accepted. Congratulations!

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska[edit]

WikiProject Republika Srpska
Project Icon
Hi, 23 editor, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska! WikiProject Republika Srpska is a WikiProject whose aim is to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Republika Srpska and the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is chiefly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve open questions and disputes, to establish project-wide conventions, and to coordinate work on vandalism clean-up.

WikiProject Republika Srpska currently covers a total of 1,017 articles and 55 other related pages on the English Wikipedia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!


--Anulmanul (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Emin Xhinovci.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Emin Xhinovci.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Emin Xhinovci[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Thank you a lot 23 editor, it means very much to me. :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia rollback[edit]

Hey, I'm inexperienced as how to handle this user: Special:Contributions/77.238.217.48. Recommendations on how to proceed? Stevetauber (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is definitely still banned User:Sevvyan trying to reinsert his edits again. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, request for an admin to lock the page to prevent IPs from editing. 23 editor (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Kidding[edit]

Kidding about that last thanks. OK, point taken. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence infobox[edit]

Why are you constantly removing the sources/refs from the infobox? MoS says nothing about us not placing the refs there, and in fact that would be contrary to WP: Verifiability that requires that everything be properly sourced. Doesn't matter if there are already sources in the main body of the article. Those refs are there to source the paragraphs in question. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(NB:Talk page stalker) - That's incorrect. So long as everything in the infobox is properly cited in the body of the article, there is no need to cite in the infobox. In fact, it just clutters the infobox and is untidy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with PM67; I've contributed to dozens of Good Articles and helped promote one Featured Article and nobody has ever insisted on cluttering the infobox with citations as long as the assertions were properly referenced in the article body. 23 editor (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the first I'm hearing of this. I've been working on hundreds of battle articles from at least five different wars over the last four years and editors always requested the figures be properly sourced in the box. If it cluttered and made it untidy I would perhaps agree, but I'm not seeing that in this particular case. The references are placed with free space left in their respective rows. PS I found the 8,039 RSK dead and 3,600 JNA wounded figure, allegedly per the Mestrovic source, to be incorrect since Mestrovic only cited the JNA dead figure and made no mention of RSK dead and JNA wounded, so I removed those numbers. EkoGraf (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, you can leave the references. Agree regarding Mestrovic. Just a couple points of "disagreement" then: The ARBiH part of the casualties section on the infobox should be changed to Bosnia and Herzegovina, since it was the country that sustained civilian casualties. Cumulative casualty ranges should be avoid (i.e. mingling military losses with civilian losses like we are for both the RSK and CRO). If you don't mind, I'll make the changes myself. 23 editor (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Per your request I removed the cumulative casualty ranges (although they were also cited in the sources) and removed the A from ARBiH (Army of...) to indicate Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH) casualties since we got the civilian figure as well. Didn't even notice the A until you pointed it out just now. EkoGraf (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre[edit]

I am not obliged too explain any edits I make on Wikipedia; and the addition of the infobox was too show the capture of the city as there was indeed a small amount of fighting before the massacre.Citadel48 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Citadel48: You are obliged to explain any and all edits on Wikipedia, especially when they're as pointless and redundant as this . Adding infoboxes must be discussed with other editors (see WP:INFOBOXUSE), and as far as this one is concerned, it doesn't contribute in the slightest to the reader's understanding of the event. Just because a takeover happened, doesn't mean it needs to be mapped out with an infobox. Also, stop tagging all your edits as minor when they aren't. 23 editor (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

You are not one too decide whether a edit is "redundant", and it does matter who made the video.

The infobox details the capture, as stated earlier, there was fighting before the massacre.Citadel48 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And you aren't one to decide what is necessary, either. Not every instance of fighting warrants an infobox, and what you're doing is adding clutter—nothing more. Wikipedia articles are built through consensus, not reckless editing. Per WP:RS, Youtube cannot be cited as a source. Videos can be, but you clearly aren't citing the videos, are you? I suggest you read through WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:RS before making any wholesale changes. If you aren't familiar, Bijeljina massacre is GA and by adding sources contrary to WP:RS and cluttering the article you are considerably degrading its quality. 23 editor (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am citing the video, that's why I placed sources there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand you're citing the video, but you can't use Youtube as a medium, as you have here . You've been warned about this before , and obviously don't get it. 23 editor (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems too me you care a lot more about the perceived quality of the article than the factual integrity. The infobox does not degrade the article; and the sources provided are legitimate and have been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion clearly isn't going anywhere. If you are having difficulty understanding WP rules or policy, go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and consult with the fine folks there, who would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have. 23 editor (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree the discussion is not constructive. You are trying to selectively challenge trivial aspects of the editing process. The fundamental issue is that I and many others who live outside of Bosnia and Serbia and who have no Bosnian or Serbian heritage find documentaries, especially made by the likes of CNN and BBC, a relatively credible source of information. I am citing the documentaries. Coming up with the Youtube argument is disingenuous, you can think and should think of Youtube as a library where copyrighted material is stored and available for public use. FYI the policy states that: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page."Citadel48 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:YOUTUBE carefully enough. What you've omitted is "...copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." What's preventing you from going to https://books.google.com/ and fishing up a few sources there? 23 editor (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to see the trees but miss the forest. I love it how you enjoy lecturing others. But have you ever heard of the fair use doctrine? Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner. To put it bluntly, you have to admit that a claim that Youtube would post a CNN video in a way that infringes US copyrights, or that I would do so by providing a link to that video, is pretty absurd. There are too many controls that would prevent this from happening. Nothing is preventing me from going to the other sources you are suggesting - but it is my choice, remember. I happen to believe that videos are more powerful than words, and CNN and BBC are more credible for the average user than a publication by an unknown and, potentially biased pseudo historian type. Citadel48 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I really have no time for this. If you have any questions, go to Wikipedia:Teahouse. If that isn't your cup of tea, don't complain when people revert your edits and label them non-constructive. Don't post on my talk page again. 23 editor (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

fair compromise
Thank you, editor interested in military history and its people, for quality articles such as 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian), Jadovno concentration camp, Šajkača, Emin Xhinovci and The Holocaust in Albania, performed in collaboration with people and projects, for suggesting fair compromise, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it. 23 editor (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Voćin massacre[edit]

The text whicb is in dispute is not properly or reliably sourced. I would recommend you cool your heels as I must warn you that you will be in violation of 3RR (read) and subject to a block if you continue reverting the text in question. Seek consensus on the talk page and find reliable sources for your claims. Quis separabit? 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Per WP:WHYCITE: "[P]articularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." -- so I just added sources to your lede. An unhappy compromise. Quis separabit? 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)