User talk:Black Future

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

Black Future, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Black Future! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is a "social national state"?[edit]

It is basically a "national-socialist state" that does not prosecute Jews or other minorities. I hope this will help you. Sincerely, --Nabak (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I gathered as much but the typical reader has no clue what "social nationalism" is or what a 'social national state' would constitute. I'm unsure how "does not prosecute Jews and minorities" plays into this seeing as the SNA does persecute minorities.--BLACK FUTURE (shout, shout, let it all out) 02:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I am just a regular schmuck, as well... so, talking about the social-national state, people who promise to build it call themselves social-nationalists, and, as all politicians usually do, promise us а new heaven on earth, but we aren't gonna believe them, are we, since there is always a line between an ideology of a given political movement and political practice. Then, social-nationalists say: "Guys, we are different than national-socialists, we are not neo-nazis, we are here for a small man, we put emphasis not on racial issues and the purity of blood, but rather on creating a harmonious society built on one nation, e.g., the Ukrainian nation, and minorities that would not interfere and will obey the new state laws will be OK. Regarding your remark that "SNA does persecute minorities", if you talk about the Ukrainian S.N.A., they indeed were involved in beating immigrants and staging anti-immigration public campaigns, and also demanded to stop the immigration, they are nationalists, for God's sake, but in their programming documents they do not place emphasis on the "prosecution of Jews or other minorities". Let's say, they harass minorities for tactical purposes. Hope this helps. Regards, --Nabak (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
They are white nationalists, their program specifically rants about white Europe and all that stuff. Reading more of their programme now, their middle east policy is to co-operate with Iran "the anti-Zionist state" because they are "related to European civilization culturally and racially". Next point (7, foreign policy) is verbatim: "Ultimate goal of Ukrainian foreign policy is world domination." Also: [1]: "Nation has the right to improve their own health through the implementation of racial legislation" -BLACK FUTURE (shout, shout, let it all out)
  • [2]: "Accordingly, treatment of our national body should start with national race purification"
  • [3] "After establishing the rule of the White race in the territory of the Aryan Confederation, we must conduct a series of measures to restore its political and economic dominance over non-whites in the population."
  • [4] Here is an article from them titled 'the need for ethnic homogeneity' -BLACK FUTURE (shout, shout, let it all out)
Good point! How about sharing your findings in the article? --Nabak (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of Russian volunteer paramilitaries[edit]

You added now an adequate source to support the possibility that the percentage of Russian volunteer paramilitaries may reach 80% ([1]). Then, now it's correct. But there wasn't such a source in the article, and I can't accept such an accusation as "Convenient when sources are blanked, content changed, and when content is re-inserted, "it's not in the sources" is used as an excuse to blank again". Be civil and support your edits with proper sources, please!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flag of the Federal State of Novorossiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle flag. 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) 09:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Eurasian Union[edit]

Hey BlackFuture,

Just wanted to let you know that the flag of the Eurasian Economic Union is the emblem on a white flag. It can be viewed on the commission website here (scroll down to the document's last pages).

Below is the flag with a white background (not transparent) but it doesn't look as good, so initially I put the transparent logo with a rectangle surrounding it, using Wikipedia's grey-white-ish background.

150px

Do you think it would be better to include this one (without the transparent background)? I thought it wasn't necessary because Wikipedia's background was already white.

Cheers, —Mentoroso (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think one using the high quality svg should be made, which isnt that hard (or a png version, whatever). I mean, we have the art, and if a flag exists one could be made...you show the issue with the two current half-solutions (low quality vs. high quality with no white) --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Here, I uploaded a higher quality image: Flag of the Eurasian Union.png Thoughts? —Mentoroso (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 in heavy metal music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vektor. 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) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Vektor[edit]

Hi,

I'm not vandalising anything. Firstly, you should read and understand what vandalism is. You can do that by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism. Secondly, Vimeo, YouTube, etc. are NOT reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. Stop making inappropriate accusations, because they will lead nowhere. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you read the policy, you would see the following: "On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources. / official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed" so yes, repeatedly blanking allowed sources (in this case, a primary source from the record label itself) is vandalism since you are familiar with the policy. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's called content dispute, but definitely not vandalism. You should really read Wikipedia:Vandalism again to understand what is/isn't vandalism. And you completely failed in trying to prove something "However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed" – I somehow don't see any link on Earache Records' website pointing to Vimeo. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? You're going to turn this into a conspiracy where Earache's official youtube and vimeo are NOT official? Come on man, that's just petty. And yes, their Youtube is linked on their official website (and has 70k followers), --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about Vimeo and your source was from Vimeo which can't be found anywhere on Earache's website. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs, both are official. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 21:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pisky. 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) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian casualties in the Donbass[edit]

The accidentally revealed figure was extensively and heatedly discussed on the article's talk page last summer, with a majority of editors being against its inclusion (due to reliability issues). Eventually, everyone seemed to had settled on the claim being elaborated on in the casualties section of the article, outside the infobox. As for the Cargo figure, the source [5] clearly states at the beginning the list includes Russian soldiers and mercenaries (which is one of the anti-Kremlin terms for DPR and LPR fighters who are Russian citizens or at the very least ethnic Russians from eastern Ukraine). The source also clearly states it includes separatist DPR fighters with undetermined citizenship (somewhere from around number 1700), which would mean they are more than likely non-Russians or possibly pro-Russian ethnic Ukrainians from eastern Ukraine (some of the hometowns listed are Ukrainian towns). So, @DagosNavy: was correct in his assertion. In any case, the source/figure includes: both Russian soldiers, Russian separatists and non-Russian separatists (not just Russian nationals/citizens). So basically, the figure refers to most if not all combatant groupings listed on that beligerent's side. Also, remember, the pro-Ukrainian figure also includes a few hundred non-Ukrainian fighters. Due to this we listed only the figure, without saying the nationalities. Here, we have the same situation that the figure does not include only Russians. EkoGraf (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi could you point out where it says "The source also clearly states it includes separatist DPR fighters with undetermined citizenship"? By your language there, that would mean to me as non-Ukrainians. If it's Cargo 200s, this is counting those whose bodies were repatraited back to Russia. If they had undetermined citizenship, they weren't locals; and could possibly be other ex-Soviet nationals who enlisted (ie, Armenians, or whatever). --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


okay I see where you pointed out, "separatists and of uncertain citizenship" - 1700, st petersburg? 1701, Tula; 1717, Rostov; and so on. Is this where the bodies were repatriated to but citizenshup undetermined? I think the wiki should reflect the list split then. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, the pro-Kiev toll also contains a hundred or so non-Ukrainian nationals, but we did not do a breakdown in the infobox, only the overall total. Per that template we should do the same with the pro-Russian beligerent toll. However, I agree the article should reflect the split in the list. As an attempted compromise edit, I will add the breakdown of nationalities in the casualties section (for both beligerents). EkoGraf (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

National Guard of Russia[edit]

Thank you for your input on National Guard of Russia, however, my rewrite of the entire article was absolutely correct as whomever first created this article (and there is no better way to say it) made the entire thing up.

For example: The emblem of the front page of this article can be considered a very cruel joke because whomever created it took the Coat of arms of Russia and superimposed it on the Prussian, German Empire and Nazi Iron Cross (the Ukrainian national guard uses the Iron Cross). Anyone believing that the Russian’s would use a Nazi symbol on anything just doesn’t know correct history. (go to Google images and the only place you’ll find this absurd emblem referenced is on Wikipedia)

Secondly, and as I wrote and substantially referenced in the rewrite of this article, before April 5, 2016, there was no such thing as a National Guard of Russia.

Thirdly, the article as I found it was nothing more than a mishmash of at least 15 current and historical Russian policing and military units having nothing more in common than they were all Russian…e.g. it would be like someone created a United States national guard article describing the history of every local police force, every state police force and every federal police force.

Please restore this article to its original rewrite I did yesterday. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

total soldiers[edit]

The Pacific War infobox figure for the US forces (3,621,383+) was (as it says in its citation) Strength of the US Military in Asia and the Pacific as of war's end. So again, this was a figure of troops involved in that theater of operations at a specific time. We generally put ether the number of troops deployed in the conflict at most (such as Vietnam War 1968), or the number deployed at the end of the conflict (such as Pacific War; since its usually again when they are at their most). I haven't seen any infobox listing the overall number of soldiers involved in the conflict from its start to end (number of veterans). EkoGraf (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Stepan Bandera[edit]

If you replace 100K victims with 60K victims but keep referring to the same source, this is source forging aka vandalism. If you are not happy with these numbers (which are discussed in details) please provide an equally reliable source for new numbers. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Black Future. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Black Future. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)