User talk:Afrique

Welcome!

Hello, Afrique, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Perspicacite 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002

Your "formatting" was contrary to the WP:YEARS guidelines. Please read the relevant guidelines before adjusting formatting in the future. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan war

Everything you mentioned, except the Soviet withdrawal, wasn't a direct consequence of this war and didn't happen immediately after it. The government collapse wasn't until the second phase and the mujahideen didn't assume power but kept fighting between themselves until 2001. Does that really constitute a victory? --Nicolaert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It constitutes a same victory in, say, the way North Vietnam ultimately prevailed in the Vietnam War. It's not likely or realistic to think that all these things would happen simultaneously. First they defeated the Soviets, who left admitting defeat. Then, with continued pressure, they topped the Soviet-supported government and assumed control of the government. Afrique (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any edits to the Afghanistan War article without first discussing the issue with some of the core group of editors who are well read on the subject. The editing should left to individuals who have thoroughly researched the subject. If you want to learn more about the war, I encourage you to read some of the better written posts on the article's discussion page. Thank you. Kenmore (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an excellent source for understanding what happened in the war. It debunks myths and balances the facts objectively. It also compares the Soviet experience with what's happening in Afghanistant now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/14/nato-afghanistan

Kenmore (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even this source you provides notes the mujahideen victory in the war: "The mujahideen wanted all-out victory, which they eventually got..." You are trying to establish as fact something that is revisionist and untrue. In fact, your thesis is one I have never heard anywhere. And your comment above, even though it contradicts this site's policies, that the articles's "editing should left to individuals who have thoroughly researched the subject" makes sense, so try to keep your hands off it as it relates to your bizarre theory. Afrique (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I have communicated to you and others, here and on the discussion page, is not my thesis. It is the cold, hard truth about what happened in the war. Journalist Jonathan Steele says the exact same thing (in his article) in the following quote:

“The causes and consequences of the Soviet withdrawal and Najibullah's eventual fall have led to some of the phoniest myths of the cold war. Claims that US-provided Stinger missiles forced the Russians to give up and that this humiliation provoked the Soviet Union's collapse are nonsense. Moscow's ally Najibullah fell four months after the USSR died, when the Kremlin's new ruler, Boris Yeltsin, cut fuel supplies to the Afghan army and Abdul Rashid Dostum, the leading Uzbek commander, defected to the mujahideen. Until that moment, they had not captured and held a single city.”

You read this passage yourself. It is not revisionist history. It is simply the truth. All reasonable journalists, historians, political scientists, military experts and others know that this is the truth. I know this because I have been following the subject closely since the 1980s. Kenmore (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Clark doesn't say that the mujihadeen won victory in the war. The "all out victory...which they eventually got" referred to by Clark is talking about the mujihadeen's ascent to power after Najibullah's government collapsed from within. Clark clearly does not mean that the mujihadeen defeated the Soviets, or that they militarily defeated the Afghan communists later. Their "victory", as Clark explains, was a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union and Boris Yeltsin's change in Afghan policy.

Kenmore (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I've noticed that you've added a 1989 article from the Wall Street Journal to a number of articles. How come? It is not directly related to all of them. It is also incredibly biased against SWAPO, with speculation which proved untrue (like the persecution of non-Ovambos) and simple lies, that non-Ovambos were the only ones kept in Lubango. So what is up?--TM 07:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added it because it had the election result percentages. Will also find some other links. Thanks. Afrique (talk)

I think that other articles with far less bias can be used to show the electoral percentages. The article was really out of touch with the reality in Namibia.--TM 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose reference

Six years ago, you inserted a reference to 'Alao 1994', but nothing else. Could you please fill details such as title, publisher, ISBN &c.?

--

200.219.132.76 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. Where is that exactly? Afrique (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Afrique. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]